$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 23 January 2026 Pronounced on: 23 March 2026 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 111/2025, CM APPL. 41897/2025 & CM APPL. 41898/2025 M/S PRODUCTS AND IDEAS INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Appellant Through: 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.

versus NILKAMAL LIMITED AND ORS .....Respondents Through: 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 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA % JUDGMENT

23.03.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

A. The lis

1. This appeal assails order dated 1 July 2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby IA 37339/2024 and IA 49076/2024, preferred by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, “CPC” hereinafter, have been dismissed, and IA 41504/2024, filed by Respondent 2 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC, has been allowed. Resultantly, the prayer of the appellant for interim injunction, pending disposal of the suit, has been rejected and the existing ad interim injunction granted vide order dated 27 August

2024 has been vacated.

2. We have heard Mr. J Sai Deepak, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Jayant Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 and Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 5, at length. Learned Counsel have also filed written submissions. B. Facts I. Submissions of appellant before learned Single Judge

3. An Exclusive Agency Agreement, “EAA” hereinafter was executed between Stella Industrial Co. Ltd³ and the appellant Products & Ideas on 1 April

2017. SIC was the holder of the “STELLA ”, Transliterates into English as “STELLADEXIN” trade mark, registered in China. The EAA appointed the appellant as SIC’s exclusive agent for distribution, sale and promotion of STELLA branded commercial induction cookers, Referred to, in the EAA, as “inductions” in India. The appellant was given the authority to decide the designs and logos under which the induction cookers would be sold in India. According to the appellant, the EAA was periodically renewed, with the last renewal being till 31 March 2027, though SIC asserts that the EAA was terminated on 13 November 2024.

4. In exercise of the authority granted by the EAA, the appellant was selling induction cookers, under the STELLADEXIN mark, since

2017.

5. Purportedly under permission granted by SIC, the appellant obtained registrations of the word mark STELLADEXIN with effect from 5 February 2022, under Section 23 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, “the Act” hereinafter in Classes 7, 9 and 11, Of the NICE classification of trade marks. Commercial induction cookers fall under Class 11, and are specifically covered by the registration. In the suit, from which this appeal emanates, the appellant relied on the following communication, as evidence of the permission granted by SIC to the appellant to obtain registrations for the STELLADEXIN mark:

The appellant further submitted that, from conversations which had taken place between the appellant and SIC on the WeChat platform, it was clear that SIC was always aware of the registrations obtained by the appellant for the word mark STELLADEXIN.

6. The appellant also holds a registration dated 12 July 2024,

under the Copyright Act, 1957, for the logo .

7. The appellant claims that the STELLADEXIN mark, as used by the appellant for induction cookers had, over a process of time, amassed considerable goodwill and reputation, as is apparent from the appellant’s sales turnover for the period 2015-2016 to 2022-2023,