Back
Ownership of Dandi Salt Trademark Is Factual Dispute, Can't Be Quashed Under Section 482 CrPC:
Justice Ashok Kumar Jain of the has dismissed a petition seeking to quash a criminal case over the 'Dandi Salt' trademark, ruling that copyright registration is not a prerequisite for criminal infringement proceedings and that ownership claims involve disputed facts requiring trial.
The court was hearing a miscellaneous petition under filed by Mumbai businessman Sanjay Bhatt, who sought to quash FIR No. 229/2012 registered at . The FIR alleged offences under , , and .
The Dispute Over Dandi Salt
The case originated on , when complainant Rakesh, representing , lodged a report alleging unauthorized sale of 'Dandi Salt' with an imitation trademark, infringing the company's copyright and trademark rights. Bhatt was arrested on , during the investigation and subsequently filed the quashing petition in .
Bhatt argued that the complainant did not possess any registered trademark or copyright over 'Dandi Salt' or 'Dandi Namak' and that the dispute was purely civil in nature. He relied on earlier orders—a order dated , expunging registration on technical grounds, and an order dated , directing early hearing of pending petitions—to assert that the complainant lacked to initiate criminal proceedings.
Petitioner's Arguments
, appearing for Bhatt, submitted that the FIR was based on false and fabricated facts to settle personal scores. He argued that several civil and copyright cases between the parties had been decided against the complainant, and that the issue of trademark rights was when the FIR was registered. Citing the landmark judgment in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992), he contended that the allegations fell within categories warranting quashing, particularly grounds 3, 5, and 7—where allegations do not constitute an offence, are inherently improbable, or proceedings are maliciously instituted.
Respondent's Counter
The Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant, , opposed the petition. They submitted that intellectual property rights are based on usage, not merely registration, and that the ownership dispute involved questions of fact requiring evidence. They relied on Anukul Singh vs. State of U.P. (2025) and HMT Watches vs. M.A. Abida (2015) to argue that disputed facts cannot be decided in a Section 482 petition. They also pointed out that the police investigation had concluded and a chargesheet had been drawn against Bhatt, though it had not been filed due to an interim order.
Court's Legal Analysis
Justice Jain examined the legal framework governing copyright and trademark protection. He observed that
"registration of copyright is not mandatory, rather it is voluntary,"
and that protection arises automatically upon creation of an original work. Registration provides
evidence but is not a precondition for enforcement.
The court noted that the earlier orders relied upon by Bhatt did not conclusively determine the rights of the parties. The order was passed on technical grounds, and the IPAB order only directed early hearing. No final adjudication was placed on record. Therefore, the material was insufficient to conclude that the complainant had no to file the criminal case.
On the applicability of the Bhajan Lal categories, the court held that grounds 3, 5, and 7 were not satisfied. The police report indicated that after investigation, a chargesheet had been drawn against Bhatt, establishing involvement. The dispute over ownership of 'Dandi Salt' and 'Dandi Namak' was a factual issue that could not be resolved at the quashing stage.
Key Observations
The court made several significant observations:
"It is not mandatory that a party must possess registration under the Copyright Act to claim any right on said title. Therefore, this is not a case relating to a civil nature, rather dispute regarding infringement is actionable both under civil law and criminal law."
"The issue with regard to ownership of Dandi Salt and Dandi Namak is a factual dispute... The Copyright Act and the Trademark Act provides for penal provisions and criminal action."
"Having considered the totality of material placed on record and also discussion made herein above, the grounds as mentioned under 3, 5 and 7 in case of Bhajan Lal (supra) are not satisfied in relation to present petitioner."
Decision and Implications
The court dismissed the miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC, along with all pending applications. The interim order that had restrained the filing of the chargesheet against Bhatt was vacated. This means the investigation can proceed, and the chargesheet, already drawn, may now be filed before the jurisdictional magistrate.
The ruling reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings for copyright or trademark infringement can be initiated even without registration, provided the complainant can establish ownership through evidence. It also clarifies that disputed questions of fact, particularly in intellectual property cases, cannot be short-circuited through quashing petitions—they must be determined at trial. This decision is likely to impact similar cases where accused parties seek to defeat infringement claims by pointing to the absence of formal registration.
