Head Note of the Case
In a significant Division Bench ruling on trademark infringement and passing off involving commercial induction cookers, the High Court of Delhi set aside a Single Judge’s order that had vacated an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the use of the mark “STELLA”/“STELLADEXIN”. The Court held that Section 34 (prior continuous user defence) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was wrongly invoked because the foreign principal (SIC) failed to prove continuous prior use in India of the mark prior to the appellant’s registration and use. Mere sporadic invoices (some proforma and some not even mentioning the mark) were insufficient. The Court further ruled that Section 30(3) (international exhaustion) was inapplicable because the only registered proprietor in India is the appellant; the Chinese registration held by the foreign supplier does not qualify as a “registered trade mark” under the Act. The ex-parte injunction was revived and the interim applications were remanded for de-novo consideration by the Single Judge. The judgment clarifies the strict requirements of prior continuous user under Section 34 and the territorial nature of Indian trademark registration for exhaustion principles.
1. Introduction
This is an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC against the order dated 1 July 2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit concerning the mark STELLADEXIN / STELLA 德昕 used on commercial induction cookers (Class 11). The Division Bench (Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla) delivered a detailed judgment on 23 March 2026, allowing the appeal, setting aside the Single Judge’s order, reviving the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted on 27 August 2024, and remanding the interim applications for fresh consideration. The ruling turns on the correct interpretation and application of Sections 34 and 30(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and underscores the territorial nature of Indian trademark rights.
2. Factual Background
Parties:
Appellant: M/s Products and Ideas India Pvt. Ltd. (exclusive Indian agent).
Respondent 5 (SIC): Stella Industrial Co. Ltd. (Chinese manufacturer, owner of “STELLA 德昕” in China).
Respondent 2: Cambro-Nilkamal Pvt. Ltd. (joint venture with Nilkamal Ltd., importer/reseller of SIC products).
Exclusive Agency Agreement (EAA): Executed on 1 April 2017 between SIC and the appellant. The appellant was appointed exclusive agent for distribution, sale and promotion of STELLA-branded commercial induction cookers in India. The appellant was expressly authorised to decide designs and logos for the Indian market. The EAA was periodically renewed; the appellant claims it subsisted till 31 March 2027 (SIC claims termination on 13 November 2024).
Appellant’s Rights:
Using the composite mark STELLADEXIN (STELLA 德昕) since 2017.
Obtained Indian word-mark registration for STELLADEXIN effective 5 February 2022 in Classes 7, 9 and 11 (with alleged permission from SIC evidenced by a letter dated 21 June 2024).
Copyright registration dated 12 July 2024 for the “STELLA 德昕” logo.
Respondents’ Acts: In June 2024 the appellant discovered that Respondent 2 was selling identical induction cookers bearing the mark “STELLA” on its website. The appellant alleged infringement under Section 29(2)(b) and passing off.
Sales & Reputation: Appellant’s turnover reached ₹16.27 crores in FY 2022-23, evidencing substantial goodwill.
3. Procedural Background
Suit filed by the appellant seeking permanent injunction, damages, etc.
27 August 2024: Learned Single Judge granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from using “STELLA” or any deceptively similar mark.
Respondents filed applications under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC; appellant filed applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC.
1 July 2025: Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s applications and allowed Respondent 2’s application, vacating the injunction solely on the basis of Sections 34 and 30(3) of the Trade Marks Act.
17 July 2025: Division Bench noted only three issues arise and heard the matter at length.
23 March 2026: Division Bench pronounced the judgment allowing the appeal.
4. Core Dispute
Whether the appellant (registered proprietor in India) was entitled to interim protection against the use of “STELLA”/“STELLADEXIN” by Respondent 2 (importer/reseller of goods manufactured by the foreign principal SIC), or whether Sections 34 (prior continuous user) and 30(3) (international exhaustion) completely barred any relief.
5. Arguments Raised by Both Parties
Appellant’s Arguments :
The EAA expressly authorised the appellant to decide designs/logos and to register marks in India.
Valid Indian registration of STELLADEXIN + copyright in the logo.
Respondents’ use of “STELLA” is identical/similar and covers identical goods → clear infringement under Section 29(2)(b).
No prior continuous user by SIC in India that satisfies Section 34.
Section 30(3) inapplicable because SIC has no Indian registration; only the appellant is the registered proprietor in India.
Respondent 2’s Arguments :
EAA only permitted use, not registration.
The permission letter dated 21 June 2024 is forged/misspelt (“STELLADIXEN”) and not properly signed.
SIC is the prior user in India since 2013 via Mittal International → Section 34 defence.
Respondent 2 is merely an authorised importer/reseller of genuine SIC goods → no infringement.
SIC (Respondent 5)’s Arguments :
STELLADEXIN is merely an English transliteration of its Chinese mark.
Prior user in India since 2013 through Mittal International (invoices produced).
EAA terminated on 13 November 2024; Respondent 2 is now the authorised importer.
International exhaustion under Section 30(3) applies.
6. Judgement with Complete Citations and Their Context Referred in Reasoning of the Judges + Final Decision
Division Bench
Issue 1 – Section 34
The Single Judge held SIC was prior continuous user since 2013 on the basis of four invoices. The Division Bench held this finding unsustainable even at the prima-facie stage.
Key Reasoning & Citations:
Section 34 requires prior continuous user in India antedating both the plaintiff’s registration and use (not mere prior adoption in China).
Only four invoices (2012–2016) were produced:
Two invoices (25 Dec 2012 & 23 Sep 2015) do not mention “STELLA” or “STELLADEXIN” at all.
Two are proforma invoices → not proof of concluded sales.
Karn Vir Mehta v. Collector of Customs (1997 SCC OnLine Ker 238) (para 35): Proforma invoices are merely tentative offers; they do not prove actual sale unless corroborated.
Even if accepted, the invoices do not establish continuous user before the appellant’s 2017 use and 2022 registration.
User in China (since 2002) is irrelevant for Section 34 in India (para 31).
Wander India Ltd v. Antox (India) P. Ltd (1990 Supp (1) SCC 727) and Pernod Ricard v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701) cited for the limited scope of appellate interference in interim injunction orders — yet the Single Judge’s finding was unsustainable even within that limited scope.
Issue 2 – No infringement against Respondent 2
The Single Judge held that if SIC is not an infringer, Respondent 2 (as re-seller) cannot be. The Division Bench rejected this as a non-sequitur. Import itself constitutes “use” under Section 29(6)(c).
Issue 3 – Section 30(3) & International Exhaustion
Single Judge relied on Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (2012 SCC OnLine Del 5172) and Seagate Technology LLC v. Daichi International (2024 SCC OnLine Del 3767) to hold any authorised importer can sell genuine goods.
Division Bench’s Ruling:
Section 30(3) applies only when goods bearing a registered trade mark (defined under Sections 2(w) & 2(t) as Indian registration) are lawfully acquired and put on the market by the proprietor or with his consent.
SIC has no Indian registration; the only registered proprietor in India is the appellant.
Respondent 2 did not import with the appellant’s consent.
Western Digital Technologies Inc. v. Geonix International (P) Ltd. (2026 SCC OnLine Del 901) (recent decision of the same Bench) was referred to explain the scope of Section 30(3), but held completely inapplicable on facts.
The Single Judge’s sweeping observation that “any person in India has the right to legally import goods… bearing the trademarks of any entity” was held incorrect in law (para 48).
Final Decision of the Court (paras 51–58):
Impugned order dated 1 July 2025 quashed and set aside.
Ex-parte ad-interim injunction dated 27 August 2024 revived and continues till de-novo decision by the Single Judge.
IA 37339/2024, IA 49076/2024 & IA 41504/2024 remanded for fresh consideration, uninfluenced by the impugned order.
Parties directed to appear before the Single Judge on 2 April 2026.
Appeal allowed with no order as to costs.
7. Point of Law Settled in the Case
Section 34 defence requires strict proof of continuous prior use in India (not abroad) antedating the plaintiff’s registration and use. Sporadic or proforma invoices without clear mention of the mark are insufficient.
Section 30(3) international exhaustion applies only to goods bearing an Indian registered trade mark put on the market by the Indian registered proprietor or with his consent. A foreign registration does not qualify as a “registered trade mark” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Import of goods bearing an Indian-registered mark without the consent of the Indian registered proprietor constitutes “use” under Section 29(6)(c) and can amount to infringement, irrespective of the goods being “genuine” from the foreign manufacturer.
Case Title: M/s Products and Ideas India Pvt. Ltd. v. Nilkamal Limited & 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 & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Suggested YouTube Explainer Video Titles
Delhi HC Revives Injunction in STELLADEXIN Trademark Battle – Section 34 & 30(3) Explained
Why Foreign Trademark Registration CANNOT Save Indian Importers – Landmark Delhi HC Ruling
STELLA vs STELLADEXIN: How Delhi HC Crushed the “Prior User” Defence in 2026
Section 34 Trade Marks Act Demystified – Proforma Invoices Rejected by High Court
International Exhaustion Myth Busted: Delhi HC Clarifies Section 30(3) Limits
Exclusive Agent Wins Round 1: Full Breakdown of Products & Ideas vs Nilkamal Judgment
Trademark Infringement 2026: What Every Importer Must Know After This Delhi HC Order
