Trademark exhaustion and refurbished goods: resale is permitted only with full disclosure to avoid confusion and misrepresentation.

Resale of lawfully acquired refurbished HDDs is treated as permissible under trademark exhaustion, but removal of the original mark and refurbishment can still trigger proprietor objections where the goods are altered or confusion may arise. The document states that lawful resale depends on full, prominent and truthful disclosure that the goods are used or refurbished, sold under the refurbisher's own warranty and service, and not presented as original manufacturer-endorsed products. It also extends this disclosure obligation to packaging, promotional material, websites, e-commerce listings, brochures and manuals to protect goodwill and preserve the source and quality functions of the mark.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether import, refurbishment and resale of end-of-life HDDs after de-branding infringed the registered trade marks or fell within the statutory limits on trademark rights; (ii) Whether, if resale was permitted, the defendants were required to make specific disclosures and packaging declarations to avoid confusion and protect the plaintiffs' goodwill.

Issue (i): Whether import, refurbishment and resale of end-of-life HDDs after de-branding infringed the registered trade marks or fell within the statutory limits on trademark rights.

Analysis: The goods were originally manufactured by the plaintiffs, had been sold into the market, and were being dealt with after the original warranty had expired. The Court found no material to show that import of such end-of-life HDDs was prohibited by any rule, policy or regulation, and no illegal channel or customs complaint was shown. The defendants also produced invoices and GST records for the onward sale to refurbishers, which supported lawful acquisition. On the construction of Section 30, the Court accepted that the principle of exhaustion applied, but held that a reseller could not take the benefit of Section 30(3) where the goods were sold after de-branding and without the original mark, because Section 30(4) would preserve the proprietor's right to object where the condition of the goods had been changed or impaired and where legitimate reasons existed to oppose further dealing. The Court treated removal of the original mark, coupled with refurbishment and rebranding, as a situation requiring balancing of exhaustion, impairment, and the source function of the mark.

Conclusion: The challenge to refurbishment and resale failed as a blanket prohibition, but de-branding alone did not place the defendants outside trademark scrutiny; the plaintiffs' objections succeeded only to the limited extent that further dealing had to avoid confusion and impairment through proper disclosure.

Issue (ii): Whether, if resale was permitted, the defendants were required to make specific disclosures and packaging declarations to avoid confusion and protect the plaintiffs' goodwill.

Analysis: The Court held that full disclosure was the controlling safeguard. It relied on the settled approach that second-hand or refurbished goods may be sold if consumers are clearly informed that the goods are used, refurbished and supported only by the refurbisher's own warranty and service. The Court emphasized that disclosure must be prominent and truthful, and that the original manufacturer's word mark may be referenced without using logos in a misleading manner. It also required accurate description of the product's features, and extended the same disclosure obligation to packaging, promotional literature, websites, e-commerce listings, brochures and manuals. This was treated as necessary to preserve the manufacturer's goodwill, prevent consumer confusion, and ensure that the refurbished market remained legitimate without suggesting original manufacturer endorsement.

Conclusion: The defendants were permitted to sell refurbished HDDs only subject to strict disclosure and packaging directions.

Final Conclusion: The applications were disposed of by allowing the sale of refurbished HDDs subject to mandatory disclosure norms, thereby protecting both the refurbished goods market and the plaintiffs' trademark interests against confusion and misrepresentation.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Trade Marks Act, resale of lawfully acquired refurbished goods is permissible under the principle of exhaustion, but where the original mark is removed or the goods are altered, the proprietor may object unless the reseller makes full, prominent and truthful disclosure that prevents consumer confusion and preserves the source and quality functions of the mark.

---