Calcutta High Court Denies Interim Relief To Indian Importer In 'PL SUPREME' Trademark Row With Chinese Manufacturer
Ayushi Shukla
6 Dec 2025 5:28 PM IST
The Calcutta High Court has refused an interim injunction to Kolkata-based torch importer Parul Ruparelia and an associated entity in their trademark infringement and passing-off suit over the mark “PL SUPREME” against the Chinese manufacturers of the torch.
It held that Chinese manufacturer Camme Wang and its associated entity are the prior adopters and owners of the mark.
Delivering judgment on December 5, 2025, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that the Chinese manufacturer's superior right to the trademark disentitled the Kolkata importer from any interim protection. The court accepted the manufacturer's account of how the mark originated as more credible and noted that the Indian importer had failed to establish independent goodwill in the mark.
The Kolkata business had argued that it had been importing torches and spare parts from the Chinese entity since 2006, that it coined the mark “SUPREME” in 2006 and “PL SUPREME” in 2013, and that its 2019 registration entitled it to interim relief for infringement and passing off.
The Chinese manufacturer disputed this, asserting that it created “PL SUPREME” in China in 2009, registered it there in 2014, and has exported goods bearing the mark to several countries, including India, since 2010. It submitted invoices and export documents to show continuous use and explained that 'PL' was derived from “Polar Lights,” the English translation of its name “BEI-JI-GUANG,” while “SUPREME” denoted quality.
It also said the Kolkata importers had purchased goods with the “PL SUPREME” mark even before 2013, their claimed adoption date, and still owed more than Rs. 7 crore for earlier consignments.
The Kolkata-based business had argued that it had been importing torches and spare parts from the Chinese manufacturer since 2006 and that it coined the mark “SUPREME” in 2006 and “PL SUPREME” in 2013. Relying on its 2019 registration for “PL SUPREME,” it sought interim relief on grounds of trademark infringement and passing off.
The court found Kolkata importers' explanation of how they conceived the marks “unconvincing and questionable." It noted that documents showed that they had been purchasing goods carrying the “PL SUPREME” mark from the Chinese company well before 2013, their claimed date of use in India.
Relying on earlier precedents, the court reiterated that trademark ownership ordinarily vests in the manufacturer who affixes the mark to goods. Since the Kolkata importer merely imported and resold the goods and had not shown that consumers associated the mark with them, the court concluded that the Chinese manufacturer had established a “superior right,” foreclosing interim relief.
The court noted that the Kolkata importers had suppressed the fact that the consignments earlier restrained by court were their own orders, creating a misleading impression of wrongdoing by Chinese manufacturer. Finding this conduct to be in bad-faith, the court held that the balance of convenience was against granting interim relief and emphasized that a party seeking equitable relief must come with clean hands.
Accordingly, the court refused to grant any interim injunction, vacated all previous interim orders and directed the Special Officer/Receiver to return all seized goods to the Chinese manufacturer.
Case Title: Parul Ruparelia and Anr v. Camme Wang and Anr
Case Number: IA NO GA-COM/1/2025 In IP-COM/11/2025
For the Petitioners: Senior Advocates Mr. Ranjan Bachawat and Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharyya with Advocates Mr. Sourojit Dasgupta, Mr. Victor Dutta, Mr. Dhruv Chadha.
For the Respondents: Senior Advocate Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury with Advocates Mr. Ishaan Saha, Mr. Abbas Ibrahim Khan, Ms. Meena Shabnam.