The Delhi High Court has set aside a Single Judge’s order refusing interim injunction in a trademark dispute concerning the mark “STELLADEXIN”, holding that the findings on prior use, infringement, and international exhaustion were legally unsustainable.
A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla allowed the appeal filed by M/s Products and Ideas India Pvt. Ltd., challenging the order dated July 1, 2025, which had vacated an earlier ad interim injunction and rejected the appellant’s plea for interim relief.
The dispute arose from an exclusive agency agreement between the appellant and Stella Industrial Co. Ltd. (SIC), under which the appellant was marketing induction cookers in India under the mark “STELLADEXIN”. The appellant, claiming trademark registrations and goodwill in the mark, alleged infringement and passing off by Nilkamal Limited and its joint venture entity, which were selling similar products under the mark “STELLA”.
The Single Judge had denied interim relief by invoking Sections 34 and 30(3) of the Trade Marks Act, holding that SIC was a prior user of the mark and that the respondents, as authorised resellers, could not be held liable for infringement.
However, the Division Bench disagreed, finding that there was no credible evidence of prior continuous use of the mark by SIC in India. It noted that reliance on a few invoices, including proforma invoices, was insufficient to establish prior use, much less continuous prior use as required under Section 34. The Court emphasised that user outside India is irrelevant for determining infringement in India unless trans-border reputation is specifically pleaded.
The Bench further held that even if SIC were not liable for infringement, that would not automatically exonerate the respondents. Import and sale of goods bearing a registered trademark without consent of the registered proprietor constitutes “use” under the Act and may independently amount to infringement.
On the issue of international exhaustion, the Court clarified that Section 30(3) applies only where goods bearing a registered trademark are lawfully acquired and sold with the consent of the registered proprietor in India. Since the appellant was the registered proprietor in India and had not consented to the import or sale by the respondents, the principle of international exhaustion was held to be inapplicable.
Finding the reasoning of the Single Judge flawed on all three counts, the Division Bench set aside the impugned order and remanded the interim applications for fresh consideration. It directed that the applications be decided afresh, uninfluenced by the earlier findings, and requested expeditious disposal.
Importantly, the Court restored the earlier ex parte ad interim injunction granted on August 27, 2024, which will continue to operate until the Single Judge decides the applications afresh. The parties have been directed to appear before the Single Judge on April 2, 2026.
The appeal was accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Aditya Kumar Yadav, Mr. Vijay Kasana, Mr. Chirag Verma, Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Mr. Vaibhav Chaudhary, Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, Mr. Alok Yadav, Ms. Neha Verma, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Mr. Sajid Mohammad, Mr. Hitesh Mutha, Ms. P.R. Mala, Mr. Paras Sharma, Ms. Shubhanginee Singh, Advs. for R-2
Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Mr. Devansh Shekhar, Ms. Umang Motiyani, Ms. Nandini Kaushik and Mr. Labeeb Faaeq, Advs. for R-5
