"PL SUPREME" Trademark ownership vests in the manufacturer and not the importers or distributors

Calcutta High Court Denies Interim Relief to Importer in Trademark Dispute with Chinese Manufacturer The Court rules in favor of Chinese manufacturers over trademark ownership, citing first use and ongoing financial irregularities by the Indian importer.

Kolkata, December 5, 2025 - In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, dismissed interim relief applications by Indian importers Parul Ruparelia and another party in a trademark infringement and passing off suit against Chinese manufacturers Camme Wang and another party. The Court ruled that the ownership of the "PL SUPREME" trademark primarily vested with the Chinese manufacturer, who demonstrated prior use and registration of the mark in China and other markets since 2014, as opposed to the petitioners' claim of usage since 2013.

The dispute arose when the Indian importers, who had been importing and selling torches under the "PL SUPREME" brand, claimed ownership over the trademark based on a registration obtained in 2019, asserting usage since 2016. However, the respondents countered by establishing that they had been using and registered the mark in China as early as 2014, with the name "PL SUPREME" deriving from their company name, Polar Lights.

The Court underscored the principle that trademark ownership typically belongs to the manufacturer who affixes the mark to the product, and importers can only claim ownership by demonstrating independent reputation or customer association with the mark. In this case, the Court found the petitioners' arguments unconvincing, noting the lack of evidence of independent reputation or goodwill associated with the mark in India.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted significant financial irregularities on the part of the petitioners, including allegations of under-invoicing and tax evasion. The judgment directed the Chief Commissioner of Customs and the Director General Revenue Intelligence to investigate these financial discrepancies further.

Given the findings, the Court vacated all interim reliefs previously granted to the petitioners, dismissed their applications, and discharged the Special Officer/Receiver, ordering the return of all goods to the respondents. The judgment reiterated the legal principle that parties seeking equity must come with clean hands, emphasizing the petitioners' conduct in suppressing material facts and acting in bad faith.

Bottom Line:

Trademark ownership primarily vests in the manufacturer who affixes the mark on the product. Importers or distributors cannot claim ownership or goodwill in the trademark unless they displace this presumption by demonstrating independent reputation or customer identification with the importer.

Statutory provisions: Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 30(3)

Parul Ruparelia v. Camme Wang, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2818473