Parul Ruparella and another (appellants/plaintiffs) filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off against Camme Wang and another (respondents, Chinese entities) in respect of their registered Indian trademark “PL SUPREME” for torch lights and components. The appellants alleged that the respondents, who previously manufactured and supplied goods to them under purchase orders, started infringing the mark by using it independently. An ex parte interim injunction was initially granted, but vacated after contested hearing by the Single Judge on 5 December 2025, who dismissed the interim applications (GA-COM/1/2025 and GA-COM/3/2025 for injunction and receiver).
The Division Bench upheld the vacation, finding that the respondents prima facie established continuous uninterrupted prior use in India through a properly verified supplementary affidavit dated 10 November 2025 containing supporting documents (which the appellants did not substantively deny), despite defects in the principal affidavit-in-opposition. The court held that allegations of fabrication/interpolation were not apparent at the prima facie stage and could be tested at trial, that sales to the appellants did not negate independent prior use, and that the appellants failed to make out a strong prima facie case, with balance of convenience and irreparable injury not favouring injunction. Directions regarding alleged under-invoicing/tax evasion were kept in abeyance till final hearing. The appeal was dismissed with observations being prima facie only.
Points of Law Settled
In a suit for infringement based on a registered trademark, the plaintiff is ordinarily entitled to interim injunction unless the defendant prima facie establishes continuous uninterrupted prior use in India; however, where the defendant discloses sufficient materials (especially through a properly verified supplementary affidavit incorporating prior annexures) to show such prior use, and allegations of fabrication are not glaringly apparent, injunction can be refused at the interim stage (Para 17–20).
Defective verification of the principal affidavit-in-opposition (lacking proper segregation of statements true to knowledge) renders it unreliable, but a subsequent supplementary affidavit that is properly affirmed and jurat-containing, and which independently supports prior use, can be relied upon at the prima facie stage (Para 16–18).
At the interim injunction stage in trademark matters, the court need not conclusively determine issues of fabrication, interpolation or volume/extent of prior use, which are better left for trial; the focus remains on whether a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury favour the plaintiff (Para 19, 22).
Prior use claimed through sales exclusively to the plaintiff (without agency documents) does not necessarily negate independent continuous prior use if other materials prima facie support it (Para 8, 20).
Observations and findings at the interim stage (including on prior use) are prima facie only and do not bind the parties at final trial (Para 27).
Case Title: Parul Ruparella Vs. Camme Wang :04.02.2026:APO-IPD/1/2026 : 2026:CHC:37-DB Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak & Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
Disclaimer: 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
#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor
