India allows parallel imports
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

India allows parallel imports

Case of the Year: Samsung Electronics v Kapil Wadhwa

samsung.jpg

The result

International exhaustion of trade marks applies in India

The impact

Trade mark law cannot be used to prevent unauthorised import of genuine goods

India has been wrestling with parallel imports for the past two years, with the courts and Customs giving conflicting interpretations of the Trademarks Act. The most recent case before the Delhi High Court provides much-needed clarity for brand owners, but unless it gets overturned on appeal, it will not be the answer they were hoping for.

The Delhi High Court Divisional Bench's ruling in Samsung Electronics v Kapil Wadhwa in October held that the principle of international exhaustion of trade marks applies, and that legitimate goods acquired in a different jurisdiction may be sold in India without violating the brand owner's trade mark. This interpretation of the Trademarks Act overturns the Delhi High Court's earlier single-judge ruling prohibiting parallel imports.

In this case, Kapil Wadhwa was the director of an authorised dealer of Samsung products. However, the Korean electronics company discovered that the retailer was also selling genuine Samsung printers imported from and intended for another market.

While the court found the resale of the imported printers constituted use of Samsung's mark under the Trademark Act, this did not mean that the use was prohibited. Furthermore, it held that India follows the principle of international exhaustion, that once a first sale had been made in any country, the commercial exploitation of the mark had been exhausted. The court also found that Section 30 of the Act allows for the sale of imported products without the consent of the mark holder.

The appellants are now legally allowed to import Samsung printers and supplies intended for different markets and offer them for sale in India. However, it must also clearly indicate that the goods are imported and that Samsung will not provide any warranty or services for the product.

Ranjan Narula of Ranjan Narula & Associates said that there are serious policy implications with the holding. He noted that allowing for parallel imports may open India up as a market for goods dumping, which may disadvantage Indian manufacturers in the long run.

The ruling may also have health and safety concerns. Viswanathan Seshan, head of IP at Philips India, said that high-tech companies such as Philips often sell products that have different specifications due to differing regulations in various markets. Because of this, an imported version may not work properly and may even put the user at risk.

Samsung raised some of these concerns, but the court held that such policy issues should be decided by the legislature and based its ruling on its reading of the law. Narula said that while he hopes the legislature will take up this issue, he has not seen any indication that change will be forthcoming.

While the ruling may not be what rights holders are hoping for, the case may still be appealed to the Supreme Court, though there is no indication at the time of writing whether Samsung will do so. Until then, brand owners will have one less weapon in their arsenal against grey market goods.

Case details

Samsung Electronics v Kapil Wadhwa

Subject matter: Parallel imports

Court: Delhi High Court

Brand owner: Samsung

Defendant: Kapil Wadhwa

Case number: FAO(OS) 93/2012

For brand owner: Anand and Anand

For defendant: Fidus Law Chambers


This case was selected as one of Managing IP’s Cases of the Year for 2012.

To see the rest, click on one of the cases below.

The 10 cases of the year

A fillip for the EU pharmaceutical sector

Relief for trade mark owners in red sole saga

Australian TV streaming service held to be illegal

Smartphone war hits front page in the US

Liberalising the EU’s software market

India allows parallel imports

Victory for fair dealing in Canada

Lacoste loses its trade mark in China

Google prevails in Android attack

EU test case clarifies class headings

Ten you might have missed

Canada: Ambiguous claims can invalidate patents

Russia: Certainty on parallel imports

Italy: TV formats win copyright for the first time

First FRAND cases litigated worldwide

Monsanto loses in Brazil

Data exclusivity backed by Mexican courts

China: A shift over OEM manufacturing

Authors in the US able to reclaim joint copyrights

Germany: Knitted trainers a sign of the future

India: Financial Times loses trade mark

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A 36-member team from Zhong Lun Law Firm, including six partners, will join the newly formed East IP Group
The Delhi High Court sided with Ericsson against Indian smartphone maker Lava, bringing the companies' nine-year dispute to a close
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Tennessee has passed the ELVIS Act, a law that fights against AI models that mimic the voice and likeness of music artists
Rob Stien, chief communications and public policy officer at InterDigital, says the EU has forgotten innovators while trying to solve an issue that doesn’t exist
As Australia’s Qantm IP leans towards being acquired by a private equity company, sources discuss what it could mean for IP firms
Law firms that are conscious of their role in society are more likely to win work, according to a survey of over 23,000 in-house professionals
Nghiem Xuan Bac Pham, managing partner of Vision & Associates, discusses opportunities created by the US-China rift as well as profitability issues facing IP practices
Douglas Leite and two of his colleagues were intrigued by Bhering Advogados’s mission to grow its patent litigation practice
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
Gift this article