Grant Of Interim Injunction Would Create Monopoly: Delhi High Court Vacates Interim Injunction In Trademark Infringement Case Against Nilkamal
The Delhi High Court ordered that the defendants will be permitted to sell goods under the marks 'STELLA/STELLA' and 'STELLADEXIN' in India.
Justice Amit Bansal, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court vacated the interim injunction against Nilkamal Limited in a trademark infringement case, stating that the grant of the same will create a monopoly in favour of the Plaintiff.
The Court ordered that the defendants will be permitted to sell goods under the marks 'STELLA/STELLA' and 'STELLADEXIN' in India. “Keeping in view the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction,” the Bench held.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Bansal held, “The balance of convenience is also in favour of the defendants as grant of an interim injunction would prevent the defendants from using the Stella Marks, which have been used by the defendant no. 5 in India since 2013. On the other hand, grant of interim injunction would create the monopoly in favour of the plaintiff who only imports the goods bearing the Stella Marks from the defendant no.5.”
Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak appeared for the Plaintiff, while Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam represented the Defendants.
Brief Facts
The Plaintiff argued that the use of the mark ‘STELLA’ by the defendants was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark and amounted to infringement.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court pointed out, “At this stage, it would be useful to appreciate the legal position with respect to import and resale of goods bearing the trademark of the registered proprietor. The principle of international exhaustion is duly recognized under Section 30(3) of the Trade Marks Act. Any person in India has the right to legally import goods from abroad bearing the trademarks of an entity and sell the same in India. Such sale of original goods by an authorized reseller/importer would not amount to trademark infringement.”
The Bench stated that “The position that emerges from the aforesaid narration is that the defendant no. 5 has been selling goods in India under the Stella Marks much before the plaintiff’s use of the impugned mark in India or its trademark registrations in India.”
“It is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no. 2 is using the impugned mark in its own right. Like the plaintiff, the defendant no. 2 is also importing goods from the defendant no. 5, through the authorized distributors of defendant no. 5 and selling the same in India. The goods sold by the defendant no. 2 are genuine and original products of the defendant no. 5, imported and resold with full authorization from the defendant no. 5,” the Bench explained.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “In light of the discussion above, the interim injunction order passed by this Court on 27th August, 2024 stands vacated and it is ordered that the defendants shall be permitted to sell goods under the marks ‘STELLA/ ’, ‘STELLADEXIN’ and in India.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Application.
Cause Title: M/S Products and Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Nilkamal Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5052)
Appearance:
Plaintiff: Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak; Advocates Aditya Yadav, Vijay Kasana, Luv Virmani, Lakshay Kaushik, Chirag Verma, Gaurav Chaudhary and Vishal Chaudhary
Defendants: Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam; Advocates Rohit Kumar Singh, Sajid Mohammad, P.R. Mala, Mitesh Mutha, Rajlakshmi Singh, Vidushi Srivastava, Rambha Singh, Sanjeev Kr. Singh, Rahul Chitnis, Devansh Shekhar and Jitendra Pandey