Research question:

1. Whether India recognizes the principle of parallel import.
2. How does parallel import affect the IP owners right
    

Objectives:

• To understand the concept of parallel import and the rights of the IP owner
• To study the position of parallel import in India

Statement of problem:
Legal issues arising out of parallel import and to study to whether the rights of the IP owner extinguishes after the sale of the commodity. And what are the buyers right in consonance with the commodity.

Review of Literature

• Referring to Journal of the Indian Law Institute which gives an insight as to whether Indian law allows parallel import and also what is parallel import and its significance which is by Raman Mittal.
• Referring to India: Parallel Imports and International Exhaustion 21 May 2018 Article by Shrabani Rout Singh & Associates which gives knowledge as to what is parallel import
• Referring to WIPO which gives the definition of patent. A patent is an exclusive right conceded for a creation, which is an item or a procedure that gives, when all is said in done, another method for accomplishing something, or offers another specialized answer for an issue
• In the research paper of Exhausting Patent Rights in India: Parallel Imports and TRIPS Compliance Shamnad Basheer Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre, UK and Mrinalini Kochupillai the doctrine of exhaustion also knowledge on what is international, national, regional exhaustion is given and how parallel import affects the IP owners’ rights is given and also all about the TRIPS regime is mentioned.
• Referring to Indian Kanoon for the judgement in the case of Philip Morris Products S.A & Anr vs Sameer & Ors in which it clearly mentioned that India recognizes the standard of international exhaustion. But In any case, it was on the shipper to demonstrate that the merchandise had been legally obtained.
• Also as research paper on Trademark Parallel Imports: Delhi HC on the Marlboro Trademark by Aparajita Lathin Spicy IP was referred as to gain more knowledge on this case of Philips Morris product ( Malbroro Trademark)
• Referring to Indian Kanoon for the judgement in the case of Samsung Electronics Company Limited & Anr. . (Plaintiffs) Vs. Kapil Wadhwa & Ors is was stated that that India pursues an international exhaustion system for trademarked products according and it would not be encroachment on the trademark but the shipper has to show that he is legally acquired the product.
• Also research paper given in Khurana&Khurana Advocates And Attorneys was referred to know about the Samsung case. Its research paper gives knowledge how parallel import affects copyright, trademark or patent owners and their rights.
• Research Handbook on Intellectual Property Exhaustion and Parallel Import this book gives an insight as to which countries allow parallel import and to what extent.

Introduction
IP laws award various select rights to the proprietor, for example, a privilege to recreate, right to circulate, right to offer, right to convey the work to people in general, and so forth the distribution right is one of the most significant business right of an IP proprietor. It additionally gives an IP proprietor choice to choose if a work is to be sold, leased, loaned or parted with unreservedly.

Valuing of an item and assurance with regards to the region wherein the work will be dispersed likewise rely on the privilege of appropriation. The regulation of exhaustion attempts to limits the benefit of scattering. The statute of exhaustion basically suggests that once the items which have segment of IP are sold in publicize, rights to additionally selling of such product do debilitate with the primary arrangement.

This suggests once the owner of trademark, patent or copyright sells a particular article bearing such ensured development he stops to have any further rights over the subsequent arrangement or apportionment of that article and the buyer of any such article ends up being permitted to exchange it. Exactly when such buyer imports it for further selling the equal, such practice is called parallel import. So parallel import implies trade in goods without the real approval from the owner of the underlying IP in them. [1]

The articulation parallel importation insinuates items made and sold authentically, and subsequently traded. Parallel imports are genuine items that are really acquired from the rights holder and thusly sold at lower costs through unapproved trade channels the comparable or a substitute market.

As parallel importation is essentially an exchange practice, it is coordinated under both IP law and rivalry law. In the trademark law setting, parallel importation basically impacts the benefits of a maker or trader, as trademarks help dealers to win generosity in the market and to verify their business reputation.

As territorial rights, trademarks in like manner show the wellspring of the trademarked things or organizations. A contention, along these lines, emerges when parallel importation brings about a distortion of the source, notoriety or nature of the trademarked merchandise. Parallel imports are likewise alluded to as 'grey market' products in light of the fact that despite the fact that the merchandise might be real, they are sold through unapproved exchange channels.

Parallel Imports essentially comprise import of Non-Counterfeit or Genuine Goods starting with one nation then onto the next without the authorization of the IP proprietor. The items are in fact lawful, however are unapproved on the grounds that they are imported without the consent of the Proprietor. Items therefore, imported are frequently named as Grey Products (and not black, inferable from the way that they are authentic).

The fundamental beneficiary of parallel imports is the possible customers who have the benefit of acquiring certified items gave by another licensee at a lower cost than the first protected innovation holder.[2]

What is patent
A patent is a sort of ensured advancement that gives its owner the legitimate right to stay away from others from making, using, selling and acquiring a creation for a compelled time of years, as a byproduct of dispersing an engaging open disclosure of the improvement. In numerous countries patent rights fall under precedent-based law and the patent holder needs to sue someone infringing the patent in order to execute their benefits.

A patent is an exclusive right conceded for a creation, which is an item or a procedure that gives, when all is said in done, another method for accomplishing something, or offers another specialized answer for an issue. To get a patent, specialized data about the development must be uncovered to the general population in a patent application[3]

Under the World Trade Organization's (WTO) TRIPS Agreement, licenses ought to be accessible in WTO part states for any creation, in all fields of innovation, if they are new, include an imaginative advance, and are fit for industrial application. Nevertheless, there are minor departure from what is patentable topic from nation to nation, likewise among WTO part states. TRIPS likewise gives that the term of assurance accessible ought to be at least twenty years.

A patent doesn't give a benefit to make or use or sell a creation. Or maybe, a patent gives, from a legal position, the benefit to ban others from making, using, offering, offering accessible to be bought, or acquiring the secured development for the term of the patent, which is commonly 20 years from the date application was documented dependent upon the portion of help costs.

From a money related and reasonable perspective nevertheless, a patent is better and might be all the more totally saw as giving upon its proprietor a benefit to endeavor to maintain a strategic distance from by avowing the patent in court, for some permitted licenses wind up being invalid once their proprietors attempt to state them in court. Like some other property right, it may be sold, approved, sold, distributed or moved, left behind, or fundamentally gave up.

Parallel Import
A patent is a heap of absolute rights conceded to an innovator whose creation fulfills definite essentials, for example, curiosity, non-conspicuousness and utility. Such restrictive rights incorporate the privilege to make, use, sell and import the licensed products into such nation.

The doctrine of exhaustion forces certain cutoff points on the patentees' restrictive rights. As per this convention, a licensed thing's underlying approved deal ends every patent right to that thing.

In a manner of speaking, she can't control the resale or re-transport of the particular great that had quite recently been sold once. Were it not for such depletion of rights, a purchaser of a shielded article might be prevented from selling the said article or in any occasion, using it, since such arrangement or use entangles the select benefits of the patentee
Take an example, a buyer of an authorized garments washer is permitted to do what she wishes with the machine: this fuses the chance to use the said machine, trade it, etc., unafraid of being sued for patent infringement.

The technique for thinking principal the theory of 'exhaustion' and the guideline of first deal is that the patentee has recently been compensated through the primary arrangement and should not be allowed to profit more than once on a comparable not too bad by controlling its use, resale or transport. Regardless, the show of Exhaustion is included by the going with components

1. Exhaustion kicks in just if the 'principal bargain' is made by or with the endorsement of the patentee.
2. Exhaustion in association with a particular secured article doesn't influence any of the specific benefits of the patentee in regards to its other authorized articles. In a manner of speaking, a buyer of an authorized article doesn't get any rights, (for example, the benefit to manufacture or use) over such other authorized articles
   Lawful 'parallel imports' are all things considered a pro perfection of the show of exhaustion and derive the accompanying:
   
   1. A fare of a licensed fair from country X (For instance, Bangladesh)
   2. Import of such authorized great into country Y (For instance, India).

A parallel shipper fundamentally participates in esteem trade and attempts the worth complexity between the conveying country (Bangladesh) and the acquiring country (India). A couple of countries thus desire such imports to ensure lower assessed authorized product for their citizens.

The cross-fringe clearance of things that are verified by IP rights is known as parallel bringing in. The alternative to parallel import guaranteed things is directed by the course of action of internal exhaustion regulating the related IP rights.

The things are increased abroad by the shipper and a while later traded locally outside the standard maker spread channels. The advantage of such activity is the maltreatment of the worth opening between the maker's thing and the parallel imported thing. Thusly the trader fights authentically with the maker of the thing. [4]

The Patents Act 1970 includes an arrangement for parallel imports and Section 107A (b) peruses as follows:
Section 107A: Certain acts not to be considered as infringement for the purposes of this act:
(b) Importation of patented products by any person from a person who is duly authorized under the law to produce and sell or distribute the product shall not be considered as an infringement of patent rights.

Segment 107A(b) of the Patent Act, as updated by the Patent (Amendment) Act 2005, appears to empower local association to import conventional meds delivered in underprivileged countries (eg, Bangladesh), where pharmaceutical licenses are not basically, if the neighborhood law in that country affirms the gathering of those medications

Rights of the IP owner
Individuals frequently state that the world isn't just "Black and white" yet there are numerous different shades which offer troublesome conversation starter. Parallel import, which is otherwise called "grey area" is one of them. Parallel imports are commodities created really under assurance of a trademark, patent, or copyright, set in one market, and afterward brought into another market without the endorsement of the Intellectual Property Right holder.

Parallel dealers for the most part purchase things in a solitary country at a worth that is more affordable than the expense at which they are sold in a consequent country. They by then import the things into the ensuing country. The things are then sold at a worth which is commonly some place near the standard worth found in the country of admission and the country of import. Parallel acquiring is coordinated contrastingly in different purview; there is no consistency guardians in law overseeing parallel imports
between countries. Neither the Berne Convention nor the Paris Convention unequivocally disallows parallel importation.

Doctrine Exhaustion
After an item secured by an IP right, for example, by a patent right, has been sold by the IP right proprietor or by others with the assent of the proprietor, the IP right is said to be depleted. It can never again be practiced by the owner. This constraint is additionally alluded to as the exhaustion doctrine or first sale convention.

This is an idea in intellectual property law whereby a proprietor will lose or weaken certain rights after the essential usage of the theme which is the subject of protected innovation rights. Exhaustion of IP rights alludes how much IP owners can control the dispersion of their things. A company sets distinctive cost for its items for various nations according to the prerequisites.

Parallel Imports come about when there is a Currency and Tax Difference between two countries as communicated above, encouraging people to import things from one country and closeout it in the other country to get advantage (For example: an individual acquiring iphones from USA at lower cost and selling those iphones in India consequent to breaking the codes or selling magazine arrivals of one country into other at increasingly huge cost).

By and by when we oversee Parallel Imports, the possibility of 'Rule of Exhaustion' comes into thought. It says that once the verified items are offered to a customer or buyer, the IP Rights related with the equal gets exhausted. It is generally called 'Weariness Doctrine' or 'First Sale Doctrine'. In India, parallel importation is unpredictably connected to the doctrine of exhaustion of rights under the Trademarks Act, 1999 [5]

There are different manner of exhaustion which are:
Doctrine of International exhaustion works on the doubt that the whole world is one market or one country and thusly items once sold in any bit of such market or country fills in as depletion of privileges of the patent owner over such product.

Doctrine of Regional exhaustion applies when items bearing a trademark are first sold by or with the consent of the owner in any country, which is a bit of a specific region, by then the owner can't turn away resulting arrangement in his own special country or in whatever other country which is similarly a bit of that specific zone.

The European Union has grasped provincial weariness Doctrine of National exhaustion specify that once a thing has been sold in the local exhibit by or with the assent of the proprietor, for which he has gotten a thought, he at that point stops to have command over any ensuing clearance of the equivalent in the local market, as in he can neither avoid[6] consequent closeout of the said item nor would he be able to guarantee any benefit emerging from a resulting deal nor would he be able to sue for encroachment. The justification behind this rule is that the proprietor has just determined a benefit emerging out of the primary deal; henceforth, he can't continue inferring benefit out of a deal that was not made by him.

Thusly of thinking parallel importations can hurt exploration ability of the endeavors, since this kind of limit needs an appropriate misuse of the patent and this utilization can be hurt by parallel importations from countries where the worth' thing is lower.

Parallel import: India
As of now referenced, the Indian Patents Act unequivocally recognizes the standard of International exhaustion. The principal statutory arrangement on parallel imports was presented by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002.This segment gave that the “Importation of the patented products by any person who is duly authorized by the patentee to sell or distribute the product, shall not be considered as an infringement of patent rights”.

At any rate the above plan was viewed as prohibitive in scope.
Attributable to a similar Section 107(A) (b) was corrected by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 to give that there would be no encroachment if there has been an “importation of patented products by any person from person who is duly authorised under the law to produce and sell or distribute the product”

Case Laws
Xerox Corporation v. Puneet Suri
For this situation the offended party had the trademark "Xerox" and ensured that the respondent's show of acquiring and selling recycled Xerox machines included trademark infringement. The respondents fought that their shows were verified under Section 30(3), which saw the rule of international exhaustion. justice Sanjay Kishen Kaul of the Delhi High Court agreed with the respondents, holding that the "import of [second hand] Xerox machines that have proper documentation" is sensible under the Trademarks Act, gave that "there is no change or incapacitation in the machine [7]

Samsung Electronics Company Limited & Anr. . (Plaintiffs) Vs. Kapil Wadhwa & Ors
Plaintiff no. 1 is an organization fused under the laws of Korea and plaintiff no. 2 is an organization under the Indian organizations' demonstration, plaintiff likewise educated about their business in India which has been started since 1995 when the plaintiff No. 2 was shaped.

It has an enrolled trademark "SAMSUNG" under which it conveys business around the world. In March 2011, plaintiff got data from advertise sources that litigants were disseminating, retailing and selling grey market printers of the plaintiff in the market and not the ones provided by the plaintiff No. 2
Plaintiff favoured an IA No.7774/2011 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC which came in the mood for hearing on 11.05.2011 and afterward on 03.06.2011.

The court requested "The Defendants, their accomplices, and all others representing and for their sake are abstained from bringing in, sending out conveying, selling, offering available to be purchased, publicizing, legitimately or in a roundabout way managing in grey market ink cartridges/toners, or some other goods of the plaintiff under the imprint SAMSUNG adding up to encroachment of plaintiff enlisted trademarks."

Defendants documented
composed articulation and an application which is IA No.10124/2011 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC looking for excursion of interim order passed on June 3, 2011 Hearing the parties on 8.7.2011, the court was satisfied to pass a request in part changing the request dated 3.6.2011 went in the neighbourhood magistrate application and the products were discharged to the defendant with hardly any bearings.

Contentions raised by the defendants was that "It is a settled law that the import, deal or resale of authentic printers by the respondents doesn't add up to encroachment, dilution and passing off. The plaintiff can't force limitation marked down or resale of authentic items starting from the plaintiff. The present demonstrations of the defendant are passable under Section 30 of the Act of 1999."

The defendant went into appeal and claim was partially allowed. Denounced judgment and solicitation dated February 17, 2012 is set aside insofar the appellants have been controlled from getting printers, ink cartridges/toners bearing the trade mark Samsung/SAMSUNG and selling the equal in India. The guidance for Plaintiffs (Respondents) submitted under the vigilant gaze of the Court, that a typical customer, who is outfitted with the certifications and after arrangements organization by the Defendant (Appellant) may outline a horrendous impression of consequence of Plaintiffs (Respondents), which can provoke mischief of reputation of Plaintiffs (Respondents).

The Division Bench while setting aside the solicitation for the Learned Single Judge composed the Appellants/Defendants to observably appear in their showrooms that the things sold by them have been imported from abroad and that the Respondents (Plaintiffs) don't give any ensure qua the product nor give any after help and that the assurance and after arrangements organization is given by the appellants by and by.

Thinking about these contention, the court initially settled that India pursues an international exhaustion system for trademarked products according to Kapil Wadwa v Samsung (2012), deciphering S. 29 and S. 30(3) & (4) of the Act. In this manner, when merchandise have been legally obtained for example acquired as per the laws of the nation of procurement, the closeout of such products in India would not encroach the enrolled trademark in India. Notwithstanding, it was on the shipper to demonstrate that the merchandise had been legitimately procured [8]

Philip Morris Products S.A & Anr vs Sameer & Ors on 10 March, 2014
In an current choice of the Delhi High Court, while maintaining the international exhaustion standard, lays the weight of demonstrating that the underlying acquisition of the trademarked good was lawful on the shipper:
"The merchant/respondent needs to demonstrate that the condemned products, bearing a specific trademark, were set in any market worldwide by the enlisted owner of the said trademark or with its assent and from that point, the litigant legitimately gained them in this manner."

The suit was initially recorded by Philip Morris Products S.A. (offended party) who is the enrolled owner of the trademark MARLBORO in India under class 34. The plaintiff have been selling cigarette packs bearing the said trademark universally since 1957. They entered India in 2003 and direction altruism and notoriety.

In May 2010 the offended parties discovered that the respondents were selling, loading and appropriating fake cigarettes under the name Marlboro as well as grey market variants of the plaintiff's item. An ex parte interval directive was requested against the litigants and two nearby chiefs were selected to visit the premises of the respondents to hold onto the encroaching merchandise. Significantly in the wake of giving brings the litigants didn't appear, so the court continued to inspect the offended parties conflicts and examination report, ex parte.
Likewise, they contended that however the cigarettes were fit available to be purchased in India, they abused a few bundling and administrative laws of India.

For instance, the bundling contains "Cigarettes harm your physical wellness" with no pictorial delineation, MRP, cause/shipper subtleties, language and so on didn't carefully comply with Indian marking and bundling norms.

It was likewise contended that such imports "making enormous misfortune the national exchequer by wrongfully bringing in the grey market variants and by sidestepping the real deals duty and customs obligations on the equivalent. They present that such encroaching exercises are ordinarily known to be connected with fear based oppression and mafia."

Thinking about these contention, the court initially settled that India pursues an international exhaustion system for trademarked merchandise according to Kapil Wadwa v Samsung (2012), translating S. 29 and S. 30(3) & (4) of the Act. In this way, when products have been legally bought for example obtained as per the laws of the nation of procurement, the closeout of such merchandise in India would not encroach the enrolled trademark in India. In any case, it was on the shipper to demonstrate that the merchandise had been legally obtained.

Since no defence had been raised by the litigants, there was no material to demonstrate that the respondent's had gained the merchandise legally. The court alluded to proclamations made before the nearby officials where the litigants dubiously surrendered that the cigarette bundles controlled by them originated from obscure providers or were endowments from a companion or given by outside vacationer. Along these lines, the litigants were not able demonstrate that the decried cigarettes were legally procured.

Considering these conditions the court didn't analyse the protests with respect to bundling and so on and held that the closeout of the reprimanded cigarettes by the respondents adds up to encroachment. The court for all time refrained respondents from utilizing the trademark Marlboro for cigarettes sold by them and granted ostensible harms[9]

TRIPS Regime
TRIPS gives significant adaptability to member states to decide the degree and degree of exhaustion. Article 28 of TRIPS commands that each patentee will have the selective right to make, use, offer available to be purchased, sell, or import the protected item or procedure in question.

Be that as it may, commentary (6) to Article 28 includes a little proviso to the selective right to import, by explaining that:
“This right [i.e. the right of importation], like all other rights conferred under this Agreement in respect of the use, sale, importation or other distribution of goods, is subject to the provisions of Article 6.”

Article 6 thus expresses that “nothing in this Agreement shall be used to address the issue of the exhaustion of intellectual property rights.” The significance of Article 6 is clarified by Article 5(d) of the Doha Declaration which expresses that “the effect of the provisions in the TRIPS Agreement that:
are relevant to the exhaustion of intellectual property rights is to leave each member free to establish its own regime for such exhaustion without challenge ...”
It is along these lines, clear that TRIPS grants Member States to restrain the elite right to import ensured by Article 28 to the degree that such constraint relates here and there to the idea of exhaustion member states are given freedom to select their own exhaustion regime [10]

Parallel import in different countries

• Australia: it allows the parallel import of specific items with the exception of books, autos, anyway programming CD's and music CD's can be imported.
• USA: Parallel import is lawful in USA. It was made lawful by setting up a legitimate point of reference. “In the case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., the US Supreme Court held that the first-sale doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad, thus permitting importation and resale of many product categories.”
• Hong Kong: Parallel importation is legitimate or allowed in Hong Kong under the trademark and copyright before the change came in July 6 of 2007
• Japan: “Japan‘s intellectual property rights law prohibits audio-visual articles marketed for export from being sold domestically, and such sale of “re-imported” CDs are illegal.” [11]
• Singapore: in Singapore copyright and trademarked product can be parallel imported. It also permits patented goods to be parallel import
• New Zealand: patented goods are not parallel import in New Zealand. [12]

Conclusion and Suggestion
From what can be appreciated, the principal bother of Parallel Import is that it propels Free Trade and supports contention, other than empowering Trademarked or Genuine product to be available at different costs, empowering the purchasers to have a decision to buy affirmed items at a more affordable expense.

What can similarly be fathomed is that if Parallel Imports are disposed of, the makers will have their own one of a kind business syndications, provoking product being open at progressively noteworthy costs. Furthermore purchasers must note that Parallel Imports may ensure lower evaluated things yet they may not get the quality, organization or satisfaction which they had as a principle.

Need while buying the particular thing, in like manner another entrenched truth being that Parallel Imports prompts a gigantic loss of income to the Trademark Holder in light of the import of grey items.

The Government positively here must intervene in this issue so as to keep up a concordance between the interests of the Consumers and patent Holders, with the objective that no one is at a higher risk.

Parallel import should not be considered as illegal as once the product is sold by the IP owner its rights in that commodity gets exhausted as defined by the doctrine of exhaustion. Once the product is sold by the IP owner its rights are exhausted and hence it cannot control the re-sale of the product or what is being done with the product later on. Its then the purchaser’s right to do freely what it wants with the product.

End-Notes:

1. WHETHER INDIAN LAW ALLOWS PARALLEL IMPORTS OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS: AN INVESTIGATION Raman Mittal Journal of the Indian Law Institute Vol. 55, No. 4 (October-December 2013), pp. 504-521 https://www.jstor.org/stable/43953653?seq=1
2. India: Parallel Imports And International Exhaustion 21 May 2018 Article by Shrabani Rout Singh & Associates http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/703104/international+trade+investment/Parallel+Imports+And+International+Exhaustion
3. WIPO https://www.wipo.int/patents/en/
4. Exhausting Patent Rights in India: Parallel Imports and TRIPS Compliance Shamnad Basheer Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre, UK and Mrinalini Kochupillai Received 15 July 2008 http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/56BF7AA8-6A64-4630-AF64-5EC5BE9F4E6E.pdf
5. India: Parallel Imports And International Exhaustion 21 May 2018 Article by Shrabani Rout Singh & Associates http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/703104/international+trade+investment/Parallel+Imports+And+International+Exhaustion
6. India: Parallel Imports And International Exhaustion 21 May 2018 Article by Shrabani Rout Singh & Associates http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/703104/international+trade+investment/Parallel+Imports+And+International+Exhaustion
7. Exhausting Patent Rights in India: Parallel Imports and TRIPS Compliance Shamnad Basheer Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre, UK and Mrinalini Kochupillai Received 15 July 2008 http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/56BF7AA8-6A64-4630-AF64-5EC5BE9F4E6E.pdf
8. KHURANA&KHURANA ADVOCATES AND ATTORNEYS | 17TH JULY, 2015
   https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/2015/07/17/parallel-imports/
9. Spicy IP : Trademark Parallel Imports: Delhi HC on the Marlboro Trademark by Aparajita Lath March 12, 2014
   https://spicyip.com/2014/03/trademark-parallel-imports-delhi-hc-on-the-marlboro-trademark-case.html
10. Research Handbook on Intellectual Property Exhaustion and Parallel Import https://books.google.co.in/books?id=YXdmDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA104&dq=parallel+import&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiNi5PnltHmAhVGyjgGHUvjCdYQ6AEIOjAC#v=onepage&q=parallel%20import&f=false
11. KHURANA&KHURANA ADVOCATES AND ATTORNEYS | 17TH JULY, 2015
    https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/2015/07/17/parallel-imports/
12. Research Handbook on Intellectual Property Exhaustion and Parallel Import https://books.google.co.in/books?id=YXdmDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA104&dq=parallel+import&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiNi5PnltHmAhVGyjgGHUvjCdYQ6AEIOjAC#v=onepage&q=parallel%20import&f=false

Written By: Riyaa Singh