M/S Dandi Salt Pvt. Limited v. M/S Indo Brine Industries Limited

C.RULE 1/2023 & REVIEW PET. 39/2023

M/S Dandi Salt Pvt. Limited filed a review petition challenging an earlier dismissal by the Copyright Board on grounds of being time-barred. The core dispute involved objections raised by the petitioner against M/S Indo Brine Industries Limited's attempt to register copyright for the artistic work 'INDOBRINE DANDI SALT/DANDI NAMAK'. Although the initial appeal was dismissed due to procedural delays, the High Court considered the parties' claims and subsequent settlement. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Copyright Office for fresh consideration.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.RULE 1/2023 & REVIEW PET. 39/2023
Judge(s)
Prathiba M. Singh

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in M/S Dandi Salt Pvt. Limited vs M/S Indo Brine Industries Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(COMM) 127/2024 I.A. 3138/2024

Havells India LimitedvsB R Engineering Works & Anr.

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Havells India Limited against B R Engineering Works & Anr. The court found a prima facie case for infringement based on the deceptive similarity between the plaintiff's well-known trademark 'STANDARD' and the defendant's mark 'STANDANGER', along with the adoption of similar trade dress elements. This crucial interim relief prevents the defendants from continuing to use the infringing marks while the main suit proceeds, reinforcing the protection afforded to established brands in the electrical goods sector.

patent(T)CMA(PT)/84 /2023

Oracle International CorporationvsController Of Patents

Oracle International Corporation filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order regarding the patentability of its application (3566/CHENP/2006). The appeal argued that the subject matter was eligible for patent protection and not excluded as a business method or computer program per se. However, the appellant subsequently withdrew the appeal.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 60/2024, I.A. 10526/2024-Stay, I.A. 10527/2024-Summoning of record, I.A. 10528/2024-Exp

M/S Rspl Health Private LimitedvsBhagwati Gram Udyog Mandal & Anr

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by M/S Rspl Health Private Limited, confirming a prior compromise reached with Respondent No. 1 in TM-84/2021. As part of this settlement, the respondent undertook to cancel their registered trademark 'SAKSHI XPERIA' and withdraw all related applications for marks containing 'XPERT' or 'XPERIA'. Consequently, the court disposed of all pending applications, upholding the terms of the compromise.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 61/2024

Phillip Morris Produts S AvsDeputy Controller Of Patents And Design

Phillip Morris Produts S A filed an appeal challenging the order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, which rejected their Patent Application No. 202117030336. The court issued notice and directed the matter to be listed before a specific Bench.

patentIPR SUIT (L) NO.16825 OF 2025

Reliance Industries Ltd.vsRivpe Technology Pvt. Ltd.

The Bombay High Court ordered the continuation of litigation between Reliance Industries Ltd. and Rivpe Technology Pvt. Ltd., but only on a conditional basis. The parties had reached a settlement understanding requiring the defendant to cease using the trademark RIO or similar marks in relation to specific businesses by December 29, 2025. The court agreed to keep the suit in abeyance until January 5, 2026, allowing time for compliance with these terms. If the defendant complies, the plaintiff will withdraw the suit; otherwise, they remain free to pursue legal action.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call