Summary
Products and Ideas India Pvt. Ltd., the Indian exclusive agent of Chinese appliance manufacturer Stella Industrial Co. Ltd., held registered trademark rights in STELLADEXIN for commercial induction cookers. When Cambro-Nilkamal Pvt. Ltd., a rival authorised by the manufacturer, began importing and selling STELLA-branded cookers in India, Products and Ideas filed for infringement. A Single Judge vacated the interim injunction, accepting the manufacturer's prior user defence under Section 34 and the international exhaustion defence under Section 30(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Delhi High Court Division Bench reversed that order, holding that four invoices could not prove continuous prior use in India, that Section 30(3) applies only to marks registered in India, and that importing goods bearing another's Indian-registered mark is independently infringing under Section 29(6)(c). The ruling draws clear lines around three defences that importers and distributors frequently invoke.
What happens when a foreign manufacturer hands its Indian agent the right to register a trademark, and then quietly authorizes a competitor to sell the same goods in India under the same brand? The answer to this lies in the present case as decided by the Delhi High Court.
Background of the case
Products and Ideas India Pvt. Ltd. (“PI Pvt. Ltd.”) signed an Exclusive Agency Agreement (“EAA”) with Stella Industrial Co. Ltd. (“SIC / SIC Ltd.”), a Taiwanese-Chinese maker of commercial induction cookers, in April 2017. The EAA made PI Pvt. Ltd, SIC Ltd’s sole agent in India for distributing, selling and promoting STELLA-branded cookers, and gave it the authority to decide how those cookers would be branded for the Indian market.
PI Pvt. Ltd. sold the cookers under the mark STELLADEXIN, an English version of SIC’s Chinese mark, and registered the word mark under Section 23 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“the Act”) in Classes 7, 9 and 11 with effect from February 2022. It also held a copyright registration for the STELLADEXIN logo from July 2024. By 2022-2023, annual sales under the mark had reached ₹16.27 crores.
In June 2024, PI Pvt. Ltd. found that Nilkamal Limited (“Nilkamal”) and its joint venture Cambro-Nilkamal Pvt. Ltd. (“Cambro-Nilkamal”) were selling induction cookers under the STELLA mark on their website. PI Pvt. Ltd. sued for trademark infringement under Section 29(2)(b) of the Act and obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction from a Single Judge in August 2024. SIC, appearing as Respondent 5, fought back. It claimed to have sold branded goods in India through M/s Mittal International since 2013, years before PI Pvt. Ltd.’s first recorded sale in 2017 and well before its 2022 registration. SIC Ltd. also announced that it had terminated the EAA in November 2024. In July 2025, the Single Judge sided with SIC and Cambro-Nilkamal, vacating the injunction on the basis of prior continuous user under Section 34 and international exhaustion under Section 30(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by this decision, PI Pvt. Ltd. filed the present appeal.
Issues Before the Court
-
-
- Whether the Single Judge correctly applied Section 34 of the Act, which protects a party who has continuously used a mark in India before the registered proprietor’s use and registration
- Whether SIC’s protection under Section 34, if valid, would automatically protect Cambro-Nilkamal as its authorised reseller
- Whether the principle of international exhaustion under Section 30(3) of the Act barred Products & Ideas’ infringement claim against Cambro-Nilkamal
-
PI Pvt. Ltd.’s Arguments
-
-
- SIC’s prior use claim rested on only four invoices from 2012 to 2016: two did not mention the STELLA or STELLADEXIN mark at all, and two were proforma invoices that do not prove any completed sale.
- Section 34 requires continuous prior use in India, not occasional or scattered transactions. SIC’s evidence fell far short.
- SIC’s use of the mark in China was irrelevant to an infringement claim in India. Foreign use only becomes relevant in passing off cases where spillover of reputation into India is specifically argued, and no such argument was made here.
- Section 30(3) protects resale of goods placed on the market by the Indian registered proprietor or with the registered proprietor’s consent. SIC held no Indian trademark registration. PI Pvt. Ltd. was the only registered proprietor in India, and it had not consented to Cambro-Nilkamal’s imports.
- Under Section 29(6)(c), importing goods bearing another’s registered trademark is itself an act of infringement, making Cambro-Nilkamal liable independently of SIC.
-
Cambro-Nilkamal and SIC’s Arguments
-
-
- SIC had used the STELLADEXIN mark in China since 2002 and sold goods under it in India since 2013 through Mittal International, predating PI Pvt. Ltd.’s first sale in 2017 and its registration in 2022. This entitled SIC to the prior user defence under Section 34.
- Because SIC’s sales were not infringing, Cambro-Nilkamal, as SIC’s authorised reseller selling genuine goods, could not infringe either.
- The Division Bench’s own ruling in Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (2012 SCC OnLine Del 5172) confirmed that international exhaustion is recognised under Section 30(3) and that an authorised reseller selling genuine goods does not infringe.
- Cambro-Nilkamal had lawfully bought goods from SIC, the registered owner of STELLADEXIN in China, and Section 30(3) protected those sales.
-
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Four Invoices do not make Continuous Use
The court noted that the defence under Section 34 is not triggered by isolated sales. It requires continuous use of the mark in India, predating both the plaintiff’s registration and the plaintiff’s first use. Continuous means exactly that – an unbroken record of commercial activity, not a handful of transactions spread over several years.
SIC produced four invoices from 2012 to 2016. Two of them made no mention of STELLA or STELLADEXIN and were therefore irrelevant to proving use of those marks. The other two were proforma invoices. Following Karn Vir Mehta v. Collector of Customs (1997 SCC OnLine Ker 238), the court confirmed that a proforma invoice is only a tentative offer of sale and does not prove that goods actually changed hands. Taken together, the four invoices could not demonstrate the continuous, unbroken use that Section 34 demands.
The court also made an important territorial point. SIC’s use of the mark in China counted for nothing in an Indian infringement action. Foreign use is only relevant in passing off cases where the plaintiff argues that the mark’s overseas reputation has spilled into India. PI Pvt. Ltd. made no such argument. Applying the appellate review standard from 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), the Division Bench held that the Section 34 finding could not stand.
Each Infringer’s Liability stands on its Own
The Single Judge had taken a shortcut: if SIC was not an infringer, neither was Cambro-Nilkamal. The Division Bench rejected this approach for two reasons.
First, the Section 34 finding that protected SIC had already fallen away. Second, and more fundamentally, a reseller’s liability is not inherited from its supplier. Section 29(6)(c) makes clear that importing goods into India under another’s registered trademark is itself an act of use, and therefore an act of infringement. Cambro-Nilkamal’s own act of importation was enough to attract liability, regardless of what SIC had or had not done.
“Registered Trade Mark” means Registered in India
The international exhaustion argument under Section 30(3) also failed, and the reason is straightforward. Section 30(3) protects a person who deals in goods that the proprietor of a registered trade mark has lawfully placed on the market. But what does “registered trade mark” mean in this context?
The Act answers its own question. Section 2(w) defines “registered trade mark” as a mark on the Indian register and remaining in force. Section 2(t) defines “register” as the Indian Register of Trade Marks maintained under Section 6. A mark registered in China, or anywhere else outside India, simply does not qualify. The court had examined Section 30(3) in similar detail in Western Digital Technologies Inc. v. Geonix International (P) Ltd. (2026 SCC OnLine Del 901) and reached the same conclusion.
Applied to the facts: SIC had no Indian trademark registration. PI Pvt. Ltd. was the only registered proprietor in India. Cambro-Nilkamal was not importing with PI Pvt. Ltd.s’ consent. Section 30(3) had no application whatsoever.
The Single Judge’s view, that any person may freely import goods bearing any entity’s trademark into India, was expressly rejected as wrong in law. The right to import under a registered mark belongs to the Indian registered proprietor alone, or to anyone that proprietor specifically authorises.
Findings
In view of the observations and the arguments presented by both the parties, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench) held that:
-
-
- The prior user defence under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act was not made out. SIC’s four invoices failed to prove continuous use of STELLA or STELLADEXIN in India, with two invoices not mentioning the marks at all and two being proforma invoices that do not evidence completed sales.
- Use of a mark outside India is irrelevant to a trademark infringement claim in India; it is only material in passing off cases where trans-border reputation spilling into India is specifically argued.
- Cambro-Nilkamal’s liability could not be treated as derived from SIC’s non-infringement; importing goods bearing another’s Indian-registered trademark is independently an act of infringement under Section 29(6)(c) of the Act.
- The international exhaustion defence under Section 30(3) was inapplicable. The provision applies only to marks registered in India under Sections 2(t) and 2(w) of the Act; SIC’s Chinese registration did not qualify, and Cambro-Nilkamal was not importing with the consent of PI Pvt. Ltd., the sole Indian registered proprietor.
- The Single Judge’s order dated 1 July 2025 was set aside. Interlocutory applications were remanded for fresh consideration by the Single Judge.
- The ex parte ad interim injunction dated 27 August 2024, vacated by the impugned order, stood revived and remained in force pending the fresh decision.
- No order as to costs.
-
Case Citation: M/S Products and Ideas India Pvt. Ltd. v. Nilkamal Limited and Ors., FAO(OS) (COMM) 111/2025, High Court of Delhi (Division Bench), decided on 23 March 2026. Available on https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32418255/
Authored by Gaurav Mishra, IP Attorney, BananaIP Counsels