Parul Ruparelia and Anr (Indian importers) filed a suit for infringement and passing off of the trademark “PL SUPREME” (registered by them in India in 2019 with user claimed since 2016) against Camme Wang and Anr (Chinese manufacturers), alleging that they had coined and used the mark since 2013. The petitioners obtained ex-parte injunctions restraining import of goods bearing the mark. The respondents contested, claiming they were the original manufacturers who adopted “PL SUPREME” (derived from Polar Lights) in China as early as 2009, registered it there in 2014, and had been continuously exporting the marked goods to India through the petitioners and others since 2010. The court found overwhelming documentary evidence (invoices, BIS certificate, Chinese registration) establishing the respondents as prior adopters, manufacturers and brand owners, while the petitioners were mere importers/distributors with no independent goodwill. The court further held that the petitioners suppressed material facts about pre-suit orders and outstanding dues exceeding ₹7 crores, indulged in under-invoicing and came to court with unclean hands. Consequently, the interim injunctions were vacated, applications dismissed and seized goods ordered to be returned to the respondents.
Principles of Law Reaffirmed / Applied:
Ownership and goodwill in a trademark ordinarily vest in the manufacturer who first affixes the mark on the goods; an importer/distributor cannot claim proprietorship merely by reselling the goods (Paras 9, 10, 15, 16 citing Imperial Tobacco Co. v. Bonnan (1924) AC 755; Double Coin Holdings Ltd. v. Trans Tyres (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2011 SCC OnLine Del 1842 & 2012 SCC OnLine Del 596; Sunny Sales v. Binod Khanna 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 18505).
Prior use, even by a foreign manufacturer, prevails over subsequent Indian registration if supported by evidence (Para 8 citing N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool (1996) 5 SCC 714; Milmet Oftho v. Allergan (2004) 12 SCC 624).
Section 30(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 only provides a defence to infringement and does not confer any positive right on an importer to claim ownership (Paras 10, 46–47 citing Samsung Electronics v. Kapil Wadhwa 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1004).
Suppression of material facts, unclean hands and lack of balance of convenience disentitle a plaintiff to interim relief (Paras 17–19, 20 citing Barbara Taylor Bradford v. Sahara Media (2004) 1 CHN 448).
Case Title: Parul Ruparelia and Anr. Vs. Camme Wang and Anr.
Order Date: 05.12.2025
Case Number: IP-COM/11/2025 with IA GA-COM/1/2025 & GA-COM/3/2025
Neutral Citation: Not yet available
Court: High Court at Calcutta (Original Side – Intellectual Property Rights Division)
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
