International exhaustion under trademark law permits parallel imports of genuine goods, while deceptive meta-tagging may still be restrained.

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 supports international exhaustion for genuine goods lawfully acquired abroad, because section 30 limits the effect of registration and section 30(3) is not confined to a domestic market. As a result, parallel imports of genuine goods are not per se excluded from protection under section 30(3). Further dealings may still be opposed under section 30(4) only where legitimate reasons are proved, such as change or impairment of the goods; differences in features, warranties, after-sales arrangements or pricing were insufficient on the facts. Meta-tagging of a competitor's website was treated as unjustified and capable of supporting injunctive relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Trade Marks Act, 1999 embodies the principle of international exhaustion or national exhaustion in relation to parallel imports of genuine goods. (ii) Whether the registered proprietor can oppose further dealings under section 30(4) on the facts and whether meta-tagging of the respondents' website was permissible.

Issue (i): Whether the Trade Marks Act, 1999 embodies the principle of international exhaustion or national exhaustion in relation to parallel imports of genuine goods.

Analysis: Section 29 treats import and export of goods under a registered mark as acts of use in the course of trade, so unauthorised importation can amount to infringement. However, section 30 limits the effect of registration and must be read as an exception to section 29. The expression "the market" in section 30(3) is not confined by the text to the domestic market, and the Statement of Objects and Reasons expressly refers to marketing of goods in "any geographical area" once lawfully acquired. The statutory scheme, read with the object of the provision and the context of parallel imports, supports exhaustion of rights beyond a purely domestic market.

Conclusion: The Act embodies the principle of international exhaustion, so genuine goods lawfully acquired abroad and imported for resale in India are not per se excluded from the protection of section 30(3).

Issue (ii): Whether the registered proprietor can oppose further dealings under section 30(4) on the facts and whether meta-tagging of the respondents' website was permissible.

Analysis: Section 30(4) permits opposition only where there exist legitimate reasons, including change or impairment of condition of the goods. On the facts, mere differences in features, warranties, after-sales arrangements, or pricing were not enough to establish legitimate reasons to bar resale, though suitable disclosures could address consumer confusion. By contrast, the appellants' meta-tagging of the respondents' website was not justified as fair use and was capable of supporting injunction.

Conclusion: The injunction against import and sale was set aside, but the restraint on meta-tagging was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part by recognising international exhaustion under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, while preserving injunctive relief against deceptive website meta-tagging and leaving scope for protective disclosure directions in the market.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, lawful first sale does not exhaust trademark rights only within India; section 30(3) supports international exhaustion, and section 30(4) permits opposition only on proved legitimate reasons affecting further dealings.

---