{"id":5821,"date":"2025-07-05T10:39:18","date_gmt":"2025-07-05T10:39:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=5821"},"modified":"2025-07-05T10:39:28","modified_gmt":"2025-07-05T10:39:28","slug":"prior-user-rights-and-parallel-imports","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/prior-user-rights-and-parallel-imports\/","title":{"rendered":"Prior User Rights and Parallel Imports"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Ms_Products_and_Ideas_India_Pvt_Ltd_v_Nilkamal_Limited_and_Ors\"><\/span>M\/s Products and Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Nilkamal Limited and Ors.<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Overview\"><\/span>Case Overview<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The case of <strong>M\/s Products and Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Nilkamal Limited and Ors.<\/strong> before the High Court of Delhi engages with the fundamental principle that the sale of genuine goods by an authorized reseller or importer does not amount to trademark infringement. This principle is anchored in the doctrine of international exhaustion, which permits parallel imports and resale of genuine products sourced from the trademark owner. At the heart of this dispute lies the tension between the rights of a registered proprietor claiming exclusivity over a mark and the legitimate right of others to trade in genuine goods sourced from the same original manufacturer.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_83 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/prior-user-rights-and-parallel-imports\/#Ms_Products_and_Ideas_India_Pvt_Ltd_v_Nilkamal_Limited_and_Ors\" >M\/s Products and Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Nilkamal Limited and Ors.<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/prior-user-rights-and-parallel-imports\/#Case_Overview\" >Case Overview<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/prior-user-rights-and-parallel-imports\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/prior-user-rights-and-parallel-imports\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/prior-user-rights-and-parallel-imports\/#Legal_Issue\" >Legal Issue<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/prior-user-rights-and-parallel-imports\/#Discussion_on_Judgments\" >Discussion on Judgments<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/prior-user-rights-and-parallel-imports\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Judge\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/prior-user-rights-and-parallel-imports\/#Final_Decision\" >Final Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/prior-user-rights-and-parallel-imports\/#Law_Settled_in_This_Case\" >Law Settled in This Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/prior-user-rights-and-parallel-imports\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The plaintiff, M\/s Products and Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in selling commercial induction cooktops in India under the mark \u2018STELLADEXIN.\u2019 The mark was originally adopted by Stella Industrial Co. Ltd., a Chinese company (defendant no. 5), which has been manufacturing electromagnetic household appliances since 1983. The plaintiff claimed to have obtained registrations for the \u2018STELLADEXIN\u2019 mark in classes 7, 9 and 11 in India with the consent of defendant no. 5.<\/p>\n<p>Initially, the plaintiff and defendant no. 5 entered into an Exclusive Agency Agreement in 2017, subsequently renewed, under which the plaintiff became the exclusive agent for distributing induction cookers under the brand \u2018STELLA\u2019 in India. The plaintiff asserted that it has built substantial goodwill in the mark \u2018STELLADEXIN\u2019 in India, with an annual turnover exceeding Rs. 16.27 crores for the year 2022\u20132023.<\/p>\n<p>In June 2024, the plaintiff discovered that the defendants, including Nilkamal Limited (defendant no. 1) and Cambro-Nilkamal Pvt. Ltd. (defendant no. 2), were selling induction cooktops under the mark \u2018STELLA,\u2019 which it alleged was deceptively similar to its registered mark and amounted to infringement. Defendant no. 5, however, asserted it had prior rights in the marks \u2018STELLA,\u2019 \u2018DEXIN,\u2019 and \u2018STELLADEXIN,\u2019 and had been selling goods in India since at least 2013 through various distributors, including M\/s Mittal International. The plaintiff, according to defendant no. 5, was merely one of the resellers.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them from selling products under the mark \u2018STELLA\u2019 or any mark deceptively similar to \u2018STELLADEXIN.\u2019 On 27 August 2024, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining defendants from using the impugned marks and appointed a Local Commissioner to seize goods bearing these marks.<\/p>\n<p>Defendant no. 5 later moved an application and was impleaded as a party to the proceedings. Defendant no. 2 also sought vacation of the injunction. After detailed hearings concluding on 13 May 2025, the judgment was reserved and ultimately pronounced on 1 July 2025.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Issue\"><\/span>Legal Issue<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The central issue before the Court was whether the sale of original products bearing the mark \u2018STELLA\u2019 by defendants, who sourced them directly from defendant no. 5, the prior adopter and manufacturer, amounted to trademark infringement against the plaintiff\u2019s registered mark \u2018STELLADEXIN.\u2019<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discussion_on_Judgments\"><\/span>Discussion on Judgments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court examined the scope of Section 30(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which recognizes the principle of international exhaustion, allowing the import and sale of genuine trademarked goods without infringing the trademark. Reliance was placed on the Division Bench decision in <em>Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.<\/em>, 2012:DHC:6136:DB, where it was held that the import and sale of genuine goods sourced from the trademark owner abroad does not amount to infringement under Indian law.<\/p>\n<p>The Court also referred to <em>Seagate Technology LLC v. Daichi International<\/em>, 2024:DHC:4193, which applied the same principle, confirming that sale of genuine products by an authorized importer or reseller falls outside the ambit of infringement.<\/p>\n<p>The defendants argued that defendant no. 5 had prior user rights in the marks \u2018STELLA,\u2019 \u2018DEXIN,\u2019 and \u2018STELLADEXIN,\u2019 with documented sales in India since 2013, well before the plaintiff\u2019s first claimed use or trademark registration. They contended that both the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 were merely resellers importing goods from the original manufacturer, defendant no. 5. Defendant no. 5 further argued that its sales were supported by invoices and documents, demonstrating continuous and prior use.<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that it had secured trademark registrations in India with defendant no. 5\u2019s consent and that the defendants\u2019 use of \u2018STELLA\u2019 was deceptively similar to its registered mark, thereby constituting infringement.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Judge\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court examined the documentary evidence and concluded that defendant no. 5 was indeed the prior adopter and user of the marks since at least 2013, predating the plaintiff\u2019s use and trademark registrations. The Court noted that the plaintiff\u2019s own first agreement with defendant no. 5 was in 2017 and the earliest invoice produced by the plaintiff was also from 2017. Thus, the prior user defence under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, was available to defendant no. 5.<\/p>\n<p>The Court observed that the plaintiff was only one of several resellers authorized to sell defendant no. 5\u2019s products in India. Similarly, defendant no. 2 had documented authorization from defendant no. 5 to import and sell these products. Since the goods being sold by defendant no. 2 and others were genuine and originated from the trademark owner itself, this sale did not constitute infringement.<\/p>\n<p>The Court underscored the settled law that the import and sale of genuine goods by an authorized reseller or importer falls under the principle of international exhaustion recognized in Section 30(3). Consequently, the use of the marks \u2018STELLA,\u2019 \u2018STELLADEXIN,\u2019 and related marks by defendants did not amount to unauthorized use. The balance of convenience favored the defendants, as an injunction would effectively grant the plaintiff an unjustified monopoly over marks to which it had no exclusive right against the original manufacturer.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court vacated the ex parte interim injunction granted earlier, holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case for restraint. The defendants were permitted to sell goods under the marks \u2018STELLA,\u2019 \u2018STELLADEXIN,\u2019 and related marks in India, being genuine products originating from defendant no. 5, the prior user and manufacturer.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled_in_This_Case\"><\/span>Law Settled in This Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The judgment reaffirmed that the sale of original goods in India by an authorized reseller or importer, when the goods are sourced from the genuine trademark owner or prior adopter, does not amount to infringement. The principle of international exhaustion under Section 30(3) protects such import and resale, and mere trademark registration in India by a reseller cannot override the rights of the original manufacturer and other authorized distributors.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Case Title:<\/strong> M\/s Products and Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Nilkamal Limited and Ors.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Date of Order:<\/strong> 1 July 2025<\/li>\n<li><strong>Case Number:<\/strong> CS(COMM) 715\/2024<\/li>\n<li><strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2025:DHC:5052<\/li>\n<li><strong>Name of Court:<\/strong> High Court of Delhi at New Delhi<\/li>\n<li><strong>Name of Judge:<\/strong> Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&gt; <b>Disclaimer:\u00a0<\/b>The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n<p><b>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/b>, IP Adjutor &#8211; Patent and Trademark Attorney<br \/>\nEmail: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>M\/s Products and Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Nilkamal Limited and Ors. Case Overview The case of M\/s Products and Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Nilkamal Limited and Ors. before the High Court of Delhi engages with the fundamental principle that the sale of genuine goods by an authorized reseller or importer does not amount<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-5821","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5821","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5821"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5821\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5821"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5821"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5821"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}