Delhi High Court Restores Temporary Injunction Protecting STELLADEXIN Trademark Used For Induction Cookers

In a judgment pronounced on March 23, 2026, a division bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that the single bench incorrectly applied the principles of international exhaustion and prior user to vacate the original injunction order.

The court observed that since the appellant is the sole registered proprietor in India, the sale of competing products by Nilkamal Limited and its joint venture without consent constitutes prima facie infringement. The Bench reiterated that the protection of a valid Indian registration cannot be bypassed by an unauthorized importer simply because the goods are sourced from a foreign entity holding rights in another country.

The appeal, filed by Products and Ideas India Pvt. Ltd. against an order dated July 1, 2025, sought to challenge the dismissal of its applications for an interim injunction and the vacation of a previously granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction.

As the registered proprietor of the word mark “STELLADEXIN” for commercial induction cookers, the appellant initiated the suit claiming that Nilkamal Limited and its joint venture were guilty of trademark infringement and passing off by selling similar products under the mark “STELLA”.

The appellant was aggrieved by the single judge's decision to deny protection based on the legal defenses of prior user and international exhaustion, which the appellant argued were inapplicable as it held a valid Indian registration while the respondents did not.

Ultimately, the appellant wanted the High Court to set aside the impugned judgment and revive the restraining order to prevent the respondents from capitalizing on its hard-earned reputation.

Conversely, Nilkamal Limited, its joint venture Cambro-Nilkamal, and SIC argued that they were protected by the defenses of prior user and international exhaustion. The respondents contended that SIC had been the global adopter of the “STELLA” mark since 2002 and had been selling in India through another distributor since 2013, well before the appellant's registration.

Counsel for the respondents argued that under Section 30(3) of the Act, any person has the legal right to import and sell original branded goods acquired from the trademark owner abroad.

Regarding international exhaustion, the Bench held that Section 30(3) only applies when goods are put on the market by the registered proprietor in India or with their consent. The Judge noted that since SIC holds no registration in India and the appellant did not consent to the imports, the defendants' actions remained infringing.

“Section 30(3) states that if goods bearing a registered trademark are lawfully acquired by a person, the sale of the goods in the market or otherwise dealing in those goods by that person would not be infringing if the goods have been put in the market by the proprietor of the registered trademark or with his consent. SIC does not have any registration, in India, of any trade mark. The only registered proprietor of the mark is the appellant. Respondent 2 was not importing the goods, bearing the appellant's registered trademark, with the consent of the appellant. As such, Section 30(3) would not apply,” the court explained.

The bench stated that the words “registered trade mark” cannot include registration outside India, as Section 2(w) defines “registered trade mark” as meaning “a trade mark which is actually on the register and remaining in force” and “register” is defined, in Section 2(t), as meaning “the Register of Trade Marks referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 6”.

“A trade mark which is registered in India alone is, therefore, a “registered trade mark” for the purposes of the Act and, therefore, for the purposes of Section 30(3) thereof as well,” it remarked.

The Court accordingly allowed the appeal, quashing the order that had vacated the original injunction.

The bench held that the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted in August 2024 is now revived and remains in force until a fresh decision is taken on the merits.

The bench concluded by remanding the applications back to the single judge for a fresh hearing on April 2, 2026.

For Products and Ideas India: Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak with Advocates Aditya Kumar Yadav, Vijay Kasana, Chirag Verma, Vaibhav Sharma, Vaibhav Chaudhary, Gaurav Chaudhary, Alok Yadav, and Neha Verma

For Respondents: Senior Advocates Jayant Mehta and Krishnan Venugopal; Advocates Rohit Kumar Singh, Sajid Mohammad, Hitesh Mutha, P.R. Mala, Paras Sharma, Shubhanginee Singh, Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Rahul Chitnis, Ankur Kashyap, Devansh Shekhar, Umang Motiyani, Nandini Kaushik, and Labeeb Faaeq