Introduction
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has overturned a single judge’s decision and revived an interim injunction in a hotly contested dispute over the “STELLADEXIN” and “STELLA” marks used on commercial induction cookers. The case highlights how Indian trademark law protects a registered owner in India even when the foreign manufacturer claims rights abroad. For ordinary readers, this simply means that if you register a brand name in India first and build its reputation here, no one can import similar-looking products without your permission – even if the original Chinese maker allows it. The judgment clarifies two important defences often misused in such cases and sends a clear message: foreign rights do not automatically override Indian registrations.
Factual Background
Parties And Agreement
- Products and Ideas India Private Limited (Appellant)
- Stella Industrial Co. Ltd. (Chinese Company)
Products and Ideas India Private Limited, the appellant, entered into an Exclusive Agency Agreement with Stella Industrial Co. Ltd. (a Chinese company) in April 2017. Under this agreement the Chinese firm allowed the Indian company to decide designs and logos for selling induction cookers in India.
Trademark And Business Growth
- Mark used: “STELLADEXIN” (English version of the Chinese “STELLA ”)
- Usage began: 2017
- Trademark registered: February 2022
- Copyright registration: July 2024
- Sales: ₹16.27 crores (2022–23)
The Indian company started selling these cookers under the mark “STELLADEXIN” (which is the English version of the Chinese “STELLA ”) from 2017 onwards. With explicit permission from the Chinese company, the Indian firm registered the word mark “STELLADEXIN” in India in February 2022 in classes covering induction cookers. It also registered the logo under copyright law in July 2024. Over the years the appellant built substantial goodwill, with sales reaching ₹16.27 crores in 2022-23 alone.
Dispute Arises
- Respondent: Cambro-Nilkamal Private Limited
- Brand used: “STELLA”
- Source: Imported from same Chinese company
- Discovery: June 2024
Meanwhile, Cambro-Nilkamal Private Limited (Respondent 2), part of a joint venture with Nilkamal Limited, began selling induction cookers branded simply “STELLA” on its website. These cookers were imported directly from the same Chinese company. The appellant discovered this in June 2024 and filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off, claiming that “STELLA” was confusingly similar to its registered “STELLADEXIN” mark.
Procedural Background
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 27 August 2024 | Ex-parte interim injunction granted by single judge |
| 1 July 2025 | Injunction vacated by single judge |
| Post-July 2025 | Appeal filed before Division Bench |
The suit was filed in the Delhi High Court. On 27 August 2024 a single judge granted an ex-parte interim injunction stopping Respondent 2 from using the “STELLA” mark. Later, Respondent 2 applied to vacate that injunction, and the appellant sought its continuation. On 1 July 2025 the single judge dismissed the appellant’s applications and allowed Respondent 2’s application, vacating the injunction entirely. The single judge relied mainly on two provisions of the Trade Marks Act: Section 34 (prior user defence) and Section 30(3) (international exhaustion of rights). Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Division Bench.
Reasoning
Issue 1: Prior User Defence (Section 34)
- Chinese company produced four invoices
- Two invoices did not mention the mark
- Two were only proforma (tentative) invoices
The Division Bench identified three core questions. First, was the single judge correct in saying the Chinese company had prior rights under Section 34? The court examined the four old invoices the Chinese company had produced to prove sales in India since 2013 through another distributor. Two invoices did not mention the mark at all, and the other two were only proforma (tentative) invoices that do not prove actual sales. The court noted that mere sales without showing continuous use of the exact mark “STELLA” or “STELLADEXIN” in India do not qualify for the prior-user defence. Use in China was irrelevant because Indian trademark law protects reputation built inside India.
Issue 2: Import As Trademark Use
- Importing goods = “use” under trademark law
- Foreign supplier identity is irrelevant
Second, even if the Chinese company had some defence, that defence could not automatically protect Respondent 2. Importing goods bearing a mark registered in India by someone else amounts to “use” of the trademark under the law, regardless of who the foreign supplier is.
Issue 3: International Exhaustion (Section 30(3))
- Applies only if Indian registered owner consents
- Chinese company had no Indian registration
- No consent from appellant
Third, the single judge had applied the principle of international exhaustion under Section 30(3). The Division Bench explained this principle in simple terms: once a trademark owner puts genuine goods in the market anywhere in the world, the owner cannot stop their resale in India – but only if the Indian registered owner gave consent. Here the Chinese company had no registration in India; only the appellant was the registered owner. The appellant had never consented to Respondent 2 importing and selling the goods. Therefore Section 30(3) simply did not apply. The court politely pointed out that the single judge’s observation – “any person in India can import goods bearing any foreign trademark” – was not correct in law.
Judgements with Complete Citation and Their Context Discussed
The Division Bench carefully considered several important precedents while explaining why the single judge’s approach was incorrect.
- Wander India Ltd v. Antox (India) P. Ltd (1990 Supp (1) SCC 727)
- Pernod Ricard v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701)
These cases were referred to remind that appellate courts should not lightly interfere with interim orders, yet must correct clear legal errors that affect the rights of parties. These cases guided the limited scope of review but ultimately supported reversal because the single judge’s findings lacked factual basis.
Proforma Invoices – Legal Position
On the issue of proforma invoices, the Bench relied on the Kerala High Court’s clear ruling in Karn Vir Mehta v. Collector of Customs (1997 SCC OnLine Ker 238), where it was held that a proforma invoice is merely a tentative price quote and cannot prove an actual sale unless supported by further evidence. This helped the court discard the Chinese company’s invoices as insufficient proof of continuous prior use.
| Aspect | Legal Position |
|---|---|
| Nature of Proforma Invoice | Tentative price quotation |
| Evidentiary Value | Not proof of sale |
| Requirement | Needs supporting evidence |
International Exhaustion – Context Clarified
The single judge had heavily relied on the Division Bench’s earlier decision in Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and its follow-up in Seagate Technology LLC v. Daichi International (2024 SCC OnLine Del 3767) to apply international exhaustion.
The present Bench explained the context of those cases: they dealt with genuine products put on the market by the actual Indian registered owner or with its consent. Here the situation was different – the Indian registered owner (the appellant) had never consented.
The Bench also drew support from its own recent judgment in Western Digital Technologies Inc. v. Geonix International (P) Ltd. (2026 SCC OnLine Del 901), where it had already clarified that Section 30(3) protects only the rights of the Indian registered proprietor and does not extend to foreign registrations.
Final Decision of Court
The Division Bench quashed the single judge’s order dated 1 July 2025 in its entirety.
- Remanded the interim injunction applications back to the single judge for fresh decision
- Directed that the earlier ex-parte injunction granted on 27 August 2024 would immediately revive
- Ordered that the injunction shall remain in force until a fresh reasoned order is passed
- Directed parties to appear on 2 April 2026
- Ordered expeditious disposal without adjournments
- Appeal allowed with no order as to costs
Point of Law Settled in the Case
This judgment settles two crucial principles in simple, practical terms.
1. Prior-User Defence (Section 34 Trade Marks Act)
- Requires clear and continuous proof of actual use in India
- Use must be of the exact mark
- Must predate the plaintiff’s registration or use
- Tentative invoices are insufficient
- Sales without mark mention are inadequate
2. International Exhaustion Doctrine (Section 30(3))
- Applies only when goods are placed in the market by the Indian registered proprietor
- Or with explicit consent of the Indian proprietor
- Foreign manufacturer’s permission is irrelevant
- Foreign registration does not override Indian registration
In everyday language, if you register a brand in India and the foreign supplier later allows someone else to import similar goods, that importer can still be stopped by an Indian court.
Case Details
| Case Title | Products And Ideas India Pvt Ltd Vs Nilkamal Limited and Ors |
| Date of Order | 23 March 2026 |
| Case Number | FAO(OS) (COMM) 111/2025 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:DHC:2385-DB |
| Name of Court | High Court of Delhi |
| Name of Hon’ble Judges | Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla |
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
