TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1573
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Manish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Anubhav Chhabra, Ms. Saloni Kasliwal and Mr. Rahul Choudhary, Advocates for Amicus. Ms. Rashi Bansal, Mr. Saurabh Lal, Ms. Kriti Garg and Ms. Tesu Gupta, Advocates, Mr. Dushyant K. Mahant and Mr. Vimlesh Kumar, Advocates for D-1, Mr. Hemant Singh, Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, Mr. Manish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Anubhav Chhabra, Ms. Saloni Kasliwal and Mr. Rahul Choudhary, Advocates for Amicus, Mr. Dushyant K. Mahant and Mr. Vimlesh Kumar, Advocates for D-1. JUDGMENT ANISH DAYAL, J. I.A. 1790/2024 (application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) & I.A. 7986/2024 (application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC) in CS(COMM) 67/2024; I.A. 2803/2024 (application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) in CS(COMM) 114/2024; I.A. 4404/2024 (application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) & I.A. 7392/2024 (application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC) in CS(COMM) 168/2024; I.A. 5124/2024 (application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) in CS(COMM) 191/2024; I.A. 5160/2024 (application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) in CS(COMM) 192/2024 1. These suits have been filed by Seagate Technology LLC ("Seagate") and Western Digital Technologies Inc. ("WD") against the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ches of the Intellectual Property Division of this Court and were subsequently clubbed together to be heard by this Bench. Two sets of orders were passed by the Coordinate Benches initially: (i) in some matters, ad interim injunction was passed restraining the defendants from selling or dealing with the refurbished HDDs; and (ii) in others, while the dealing was allowed, it had to be done with a disclaimer on the product packaging in a legible and discernible manner, to the effect that the goods in question were "used and refurbished goods". While the initial set of matters were being heard, couple of other proceedings were filed, in which injunctions had not been passed and they were kept for determination along with these connected matters viz. CS(COMM) 335/2024 filed by Seagate against Cubicor which was an importer of these HDDs. 9. Tabular representation of various suits and the relevant applications which are being considered by this judgment are as under: CS(COMM) 67/2024 Seagate Technology LLC Daichi International I.A. No. 1790/2024 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC): By Order dated 24.01.2024 an ex parte ad interim injunction was granted. I.A. 7986/2024 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Submissions by the parties 12. Submissions by counsel for parties, for ease of appreciation and analysis, may be classified under different, distinct heads. For this purpose, a diagrammatic representation of the chain of transactions in question, is presented as under: Manufacture and End of Life: 13. It is an admitted position that these refurbished HDDs sold by the defendants were originally manufactured by either Seagate or WD. Plaintiffs (Seagate and WD) submitted that they had sold their products to OEMs, and these products became end-of-life when the warranty expired. A product becoming end-of-life had nothing to do with the state and functionality of the device. It was submitted that end-of-life signified that the product could be used for a prescribed time period and ought not to be used thereafter. 14. Plaintiffs' counsel also stated that their products had unique features, in that the silver plates on the HDDs were differently shaped as also the color of the Printed Circuit Board ("PCB") was distinct and, therefore, it was easy for a person in the industry to identify the manufacturer of the HDDs, even if the manufacturer's label was not present on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e condition that the waste generated during the repair and refurbishment is treated as per domestic laws, and the imported item is re-exported back as per Customs Notification. He seems to suggest that this would amount to a requirement that the refurbished goods had to be re-exported back. Furthermore, Mr. Narula submits that customs law had to be read in conjunction with intellectual property law, in that, if importation was not permitted under intellectual property jurisprudence in respect of trademarks, the customs law itself would have to be interpreted in that light. 17. Mr. Narula, Counsel for Seagate, further argued that the identity of the manufacturer i.e. the plaintiffs could not be completely obliterated, considering that the design of the HDDs included certain distinctive features like silver plates and PCBs and each of these manufacturers, namely, Seagate, WD and Toshiba used different shapes for the silver plate and different colors of PCBs, thereby giving a clear indication, to a technically aware user, that the said product was manufactured by either of these companies. 18. However, counsel for the defendants contend that this policy may not necessarily apply....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....intiff, thereafter the same can be sold; 4. The Defendant No.1 shall clearly indicate on its invoices, website etc. that the plaintiff will not provide warranty support for the hard disks and after sales support will be offered by only the Defendants or through its authorized agents; 5. Both parties agree to bear their respective cost; 6. The present suit may be disposed off in view of the above terms." 22. He, therefore, stated that due to the fact that Seagate itself had entered into a full settlement with an importer, they cannot canvass that they were not aware that their HDDs were being imported and refurbished in India. Having allowed the importer to do so, in terms which form part of a decree before a court of law, they were precluded and estopped from maintaining the suit against either importers or refurbishers. He pressed hard on the point that Seagate ought to have disclosed this as part of their pleadings. 23. Mr. Narula, Counsel for Seagate, did not deny the factum of settlement but stated that the estoppel, if any, against Seagate can only be inter se parties and cannot serve as res judicata, particularly when the settlement is under O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the original manufacturer, for any reason whatsoever. 29. Mr. Ranjan Narula, Counsel for Seagate, pointed out that these HDDs were either used for laptops, desktops or for surveillance cameras (CCTVs), the dominant sale being for surveillance cameras. He submits that the very act of de-branding the HDDs amounted to changing the "condition of the goods" or "impairment" after they had been "put on the market". This permitted the plaintiffs, who were the registered proprietors of the trademarks, to oppose these dealings in consonance with Section 30(4) of the Trade Marks Act. Aside from this, it was also submitted that the defendants would not get any insulation under Section 30(3), considering that these goods were not "lawfully acquired" before sale in the market or before dealing with them. 30. Further, Mr. Narula, Counsel for Seagate, submits that the defendants were misrepresenting that the refurbished HDDs were brand new, manufactured/imported by them, unused, and under their trademark, and this amounted to passing off old and used HDDs of the plaintiffs as new and unused, and reverse passing off of the plaintiffs' HDDs as the defendants. 31. Mr. Anand submitted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l products. Therefore, as regards refurbished HDDs, the likelihood of confusion has to be seen under a different regime and not as per the traditional test for likelihood of confusion. This argument was made in context of the different silver plates, used by manufacturers, which would result in an identification/confusion by an intelligent and technically qualified user. 35. Mr. Dushyant Mahant, Counsel for Consistent, contended that there was no functional impairment which the defendants were causing to the product. On the contrary, the plaintiffs had no use of the product since according to them it was 'end-of-life' and they had "washed their hands of the HDDs". The original warranty supplied by the manufacturer was exhausted. In any event, it was the defendants who were giving a fresh life to the products by repairing/refurbishing them and providing a warranty of two years with a call- back facility, as well as servicing facility. The defendants would check the drives and if they were defective, they were returned to the supplier, and if the HDDs worked, software was erased and they were reformatted. 36. As per him, only 5% of the refurbished HDDs sold by them, had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....njunction, and that the balance of convenience was also not in favor of the plaintiffs, and no irreversible damage would be caused to the plaintiffs if the injunction as prayed for is not granted. 42. As regards plaintiffs being unable to establish a prima facie case, she contended that plaintiffs sell their product to OEMs, without any specific term for resale in their contracts. Plaintiffs failed to advert to any action that had been taken against such OEMs for violations of terms of contract. Furthermore, Ms. Bansal submitted that no communication with the OEMs has been referred to by plaintiffs in this regard. 43. As regards balance of convenience, she stated that it was clear that refurbishment was not illegal and that refurbishment makes an otherwise end- of-life product reusable. She submitted that a refurbished product presents the consumer with a choice. 44. As regards irreversible loss, she pleaded that any injunction would completely shut the business of the defendants, whereas if the plaintiffs would succeed, they could always be compensated in damages. Regards application of Section 30(4) of the Trade Marks Act, she stated that it was not applicable since the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uct is with the plaintiffs' registered mark which was not the case here. Submissions by Amicus Curiae 48. Ld. Amicus, in his first set of submissions, highlighted three major legal issues: first, is there an infringement at all on the facts of the case under Section 29; second issue is of the application of the principle of exhaustion; and third, that even if there was lawful acquisition and exhaustion, could the plaintiff have a right to challenge dealing in goods under Section 30(4) of the Trade Marks Act. 49. On the first issue, he stated that dealing was with goods which had been de-branded. De-branding could occur in two situations, first, where the brand was not visible at all like in the case of Seagate HDDs, and the other where it would be visible when it is activated as in the case of WD HDDs. According to him, Section 29(1) pre-supposes that there must be use of the mark 'in the course of trade'. As long as there was a trade happening under the registered trademark of the plaintiffs there would be an infringement. But when the brand has been removed, and there is nothing on the product which identifies as the source of the brand owner, whether there c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave an approved quality of life. There should be sufficient disclosure and disclaimer to inform the consumers, in no uncertain terms, that the goods are not approved by the brand owner, there is no quality expected of the product as declared by the brand owner. If any such representation was lacking, it would create confusion and misrepresentation, and would fall within the realm of passing off. Sufficient declaration and disclosure would ensure that there is no damage to the brand in terms of the primary two functions of source and quality. 55. Ld. Amicus later submitted that removal of the brand cannot ipso facto give immunity to the defendants, as it could amount to infringement. He referred to Champion Spark (supra) wherein it was observed that "cases may be imagined" where the recondition and repair would be extensive; if refurbishment involves a compete breaking down of the product it would be a completely new product, but a simple removal of the brand as in the European Chamber Case of Portakabin Ltd., Portakabin BV vs. Primakabin BV, Case C-558/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:416, was considered a legitimate reason to injunct them. 56. As regards Section 30(3) of the Trade Marks A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd used, and such disclaimers should also be prominently displayed on the websites, listings, products, promotional material etc. It was stated that no evidence on re-engineering was placed by the defendants and they were merely de-branding the products and selling them as repackaged. Moreover, it was pointed out that on e-commerce sites like Amazon, refurbished products were being listed along with the same manufacturer and that India had become a dumping ground for imported discarded products. The 'dumping ground' contention was not supported by Mr. Anand, Counsel for WD. 61. Mr. Dushyant Mahant, Counsel for Consistent, stated that they had no difficulty in disclosing the name of the manufacturer, if that be the decision arrived at. Relevant Judicial Precedents 62. Counsel for parties primarily relied upon three decisions to buttress their arguments. The overarching decision relied upon by counsel for parties is Kapil Wadhwa (supra). In Kapil Wadhwa (supra), the respondents, Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., manufactured and traded in electronic goods such as color televisions, home appliances, washing machines, microwaves,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned Single Judge has himself recognized that the law of trade marks recognizes the principle of international exhaustion of rights to control further trade of the goods put on the market under the trade mark. The task of the learned Single Judge thus was to resolve the impasse in the Indian Law, and thus the presumption/assumption in paragraph 68(c) could not be the point to resolve the textual context in which the learned Single Judge has discussed in paragraph 68(d). .... 68. With reference to sub-section 4 of Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 it would be relevant to note that further dealing in the goods placed in the market under a trade mark can be opposed where legitimate reasons exist to oppose further dealing and in particular where the condition of the goods has been changed or impaired. With respect to physical condition being changed or impaired, even in the absence of a statutory provision, the registered proprietor of a trade mark would have the right to oppose further dealing in those goods inasmuch as they would be the same goods improperly so called, or to put it differently, if a physical condition of goods is changed, it would no longer be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ional market i.e. that the legislation in India adopts the Principle of International Exhaustion of Rights. 72. That leaves the last submission of the respondents, that in view of Section 30(4) they are entitled to oppose further dealings by importers of their printers to India. 73. It is not the case of the respondents that the appellants are changing the condition of the goods or impairing the goods which are put in the foreign market by respondent No. 1 or its subsidiary companies abroad. What is pleaded is that the physical features of the printers sold abroad are different from the features of the printers sold in India. But this is irrelevant as long as the goods placed in the international market are not impaired or condition changed. It is pleaded that the respondents have no control pertaining to the sale, distribution and after sales services of its goods which are imported by the appellants and sold in India Now, the Principle of International Exhaustion of Rights itself takes away the right of the respondents to control the further sale and further distribution of the goods. With respect to after sales services, since the respondents do not warranty an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovide after sales service for the goods." (emphasis added) 65. Ld. Amicus adverted to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Champion Spark Plug (supra) on the issue of sale of a refurbished product. The petitioner in this case was the manufacturer of spark plugs which it sold under the mark "Champion". Respondents collected the used plugs, repaired and reconditioned them, and resold them whilst retaining the word "Champion" on the repaired and reconditioned plug. Consequently, the petitioner sued the respondent for infringement of trademark and unfair competition. The District Court found that respondents had infringed the petitioner's "Champion" trademark, and enjoined them from selling or offering for sale any of the petitioner's plugs which had been repaired or reconditioned unless a) the trademark and type and style of marks were removed; b) the plugs were repainted with a durable grey, brown, orange, or green paint; c) the word "repaired" was stamped into the plug in letters of such size and depth as to retain in a white paint to display distinctly each letter of the word; d) the cartons in which the plugs were packed carried a legend indicating that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....joined from selling a car whose valves had been reground and whose piston rings had been replaced unless he removed the name Ford or Chevrolet. Prestonettes, Inc., v. Coty, 264 U.S. 359, 44 S. Ct. 350, 68 L.Ed. 731, was a case where toilet powders had as one of their ingredients a powder covered by a trade mark and where perfumes which were trade marked were rebottled and sold in smaller bottles. The Court sustained a decree denying an injunction where the prescribed labels told the truth. Mr. Justice Holmes stated, 'A trade- mark only gives the right to prohibit the use of it so far as to protect the owner's good will against the sale of another's product as his.* * *When the mark is used in a way that does not deceive the public we see no such sanctity in the word as to prevent its being used to tell the truth. It is not taboo.' 264 U.S. at page 368, 44 S.Ct. at page 351, 68 L.Ed. 731. 7. Cases may be imagined where the reconditioning or repair would be so extensive or so basic that it would be a misnomer to call the article by its original name, even though the words 'used' or 'repaired' were added. Cf. Ingersoll v. Doyle, D.C., 247 F. 62....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;s mark was "relatively strong," it found that the other factors supported entering judgment in favor of Vortic and Custer on Hamilton's federal trademark claim. Relying on the disclosures that it discussed in its Champion analysis, the District Court properly concluded that the "similarity of the marks" factor did not support a finding of confusion given the context in which the mark appeared on The Lancaster. See Hamilton Int'l Ltd., 486 F. Supp. 3d at 666; Star Indus. Corp., 412 F.3d at 386 (holding that the similarity of products factor is not to be analyzed in isolation, but instead includes a consideration of "the context in which" the trademark is found (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Estee Lauder Inc., 108 F.3d at 1511 (finding that although the defendant used the plaintiff's trademark on similar products, this factor did not weigh toward confusion because "each product [was] labelled to show which company is its source"). Nor do we find any error in the District Court's analysis of the "proximity of the products" factor. Hamilton argues that it competes in the same marketplace as Vortic, i.e., the watch market, and the District ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iety's current concepts of `fairness' . . . . " 2 J. Mccarthy, supra, § 25.1. See also, e. g., LL White Metal Casting Corp. v. Joseph, 387 F. Supp. 1349, 1356 (E.D.N.Y. 1975),("The purpose of [section 43(a)] was to create a new federal cause of action for false representation of goods in commerce in order to protect persons engaged in commerce from, among other things, unfair competition, fraud and deception which had theretofore only been protected by the common law. While this section is broad enough to cover situations involving the common law `palming off' of the defendants' products by the use of the plaintiffs' photographs, it is also comprehensive enough to include other forms of misrepresentation and unfair competition not involving `palming off.'") (citations omitted). The district court's ruling was entirely consistent with the vast majority of section 43(a) cases, however, to the extent that it indicated that a section 43(a) claim may be based on economic practices or conduct "economically equivalent" to palming off. Such practices would include "reverse passing off," which occurs when a person removes or obliterates the original tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bilical cord of the manufacturer with the HDDs, would arguably sever at that stage of equipment integration. Importation and Sale 74. Notably, despite queries by the Court, counsel for the plaintiffs were not able to produce any rule, regulation or policy which prohibited import of discarded HDDs/equipment into India. While allusions were made to the fact this would be an undesirable importation, no document was adverted to in order to substantiate that indeed this importation would be illegal, or that these discarded HDDs are arriving in India through illegal channels, or that there is a policy which prohibits, restricts or discourages such imports. 75. Mr. Ranjan Narula, Counsel, adverted to one single document as part of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023 published by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in March 2023, which would not be determinative of a prohibition. 76. No restrictive or prohibitive import policy or circular had been presented by the Ld. Amicus which could lead to a conclusion that the importation of these end-of-life HDDs in any manner whatsoever was prohibited in India. 77. On the material available before the Court, it cannot be concluded that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... However, quite to the contrary, the Government has encouraged the "Right to Repair" in order to address the needs of individuals from different economic strata of society. Refurbishment also finds resonance in the policy of the Government of India. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs ("MCA") has set up a committee recently to come up with a "Right to Repair" framework. It is stated on the site of the MCA as under: "The framework is significant as it will give consumers a chance to repair their products at an optimal cost instead of buying new products altogether. The important sectors for the initial focus of the framework are farming equipment, mobile phones & tablets, consumer durables, automobiles & automobile equipment. Under this framework, it would be mandatory for manufacturers to share their product details with customers so that they can either repair them by self or by third parties, rather than only depending on original manufacturers. The framework also aims to help harmonize the trade between the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), third- party buyers and sellers - thus also creating new jobs. It will help reduce the vast mountain of elect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de by reason only of- (a) the registered trade mark having been assigned by the registered proprietor to some other person, after the acquisition of those goods; or (b) the goods having been put on the market under the registered trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent. (4) Sub-section (3) shall not apply where there exists legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose further dealings in the goods in particular, where the condition of the goods, has been changed or impaired after they have been put on the market." 85. Section 30 provisions are essentially prescribing a limitation on the rights of a registered trademark proprietor. Section 30(3) is premised on three conditions: first, that the goods in question bear a registered trademark; second, that these goods are lawfully acquired by a person; and third, sale of these goods in the market or otherwise dealing those goods by that person. If these three conditions are satisfied then the trademark will not be deemed to be infringed in two prescribed situations: first, if the registered trademark is assigned by the registered proprietor to some other person, after the acquisition by a person....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce under Section 30(3). Selling the goods without the registered trademarks, does not satisfy the pre-condition of Section 30(3) and, therefore, even if exhaustion applies, the defendants cannot get benefit of it under this provision. 89. This aspect also appeals to this Court considering that it resonates and is aligned with Section 30(4). Section 30(4) is an exception to Section 30(3), and excludes its applicability in a situation where the condition of the goods has been changed or impaired, after they are put in the market. Essentially, it entails that the goods have entered into the market along with the registered mark but since its condition has been changed or impaired, which would include the removal of the original trademarks, Section 30(3) could not apply. This interpretation of the third pre-condition of Section 30(3) and the express provision under Section 30(4), excepting out goods which are changed or impaired, settles into a sensible and logical construct. 90. This interpretation is also informed by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kapil Wadhwa (supra). Without adverting to the facts of this case, which is extracted in detail in para 62-64 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in para 65-67 above. The US Supreme Court insisted on "a full disclosure" which would give the manufacturer all protection required under law. Firstly, it stated that reconditioning, restoration of goods with registered marks was not extensive, and was a mere restoration of their original condition being sold as second-hand goods. Secondly, it stated that inferiority is expected in most second-hand articles and it was immaterial as the article is distinctively and clearly sold as repaired/reconditioned, rather than as new. Thirdly, there is a cost factor involved as the customer is able to get a functional product as a refurbished second-hand for lesser price. 95. Even though in Champion Spark Plug (supra), the issue was not of removal of the trademarks on the original goods but of merely reselling them in a refurbished condition, the US Supreme Court was categorical that selling second-hand goods legitimately would involve the inclusion of the mark. Notably, the District Court in Champion Spark Plug (supra), directed that the trademarks be removed, which condition had been set aside by Circuit Court of Appeals; the US Supreme Court chose to affirm the Circuit Court of Appeals o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a meaningful contribution to ecology and sustainable development. On the other hand, such sales might amount to trade mark infringement, if the products offered on the secondary market are no longer identical with those originally released into commerce. 101. It was stated by the author that "removing the trade mark from refurbished products before reselling them may not provide a safe solution either". A reference was made to the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU)" to the decisions in Portakabin (supra) and Mitsubishi v Duma, Case C-129/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:594. 102. The author referred to Article 9 of the European Union Trade Mark Regulations ("EUTMR") and in particular the "double identity clause" under Article 9(2)(a). In order to find for infringement, the author states "it needs to be assessed whether the allegedly infringing conduct jeopardizes or risks jeopardizing in particular the essential function of guaranteeing origin, or other protected functions, such as the quality, advertisement, investment or communication functions". 103. In discussing a case, being Viking Gas v Kosan, Case C-46/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:485, which involved refilling of branded conta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he product, the question remains whether this means that the products must be taken off the market entirely, or whether they may still circulate, if only under certain conditions. Under economic aspects (as well as for reasons of sustainability and preservation of resources), the latter alternative presents the preferable solution. In that light it could be asked whether it is advisable for resellers in unclear situations to remove the mark from the product. However, that option might be foreclosed for legal reasons. The issue has been addressed by the CJEU in Portakabin and in Mitsubishi. In Portakabin the defendant sold mobile buildings, originally put on the market by Portakabin, after removing the mark affixed to them and replacing it with its own trade mark 'Primakabin'. In Mitsubishi the defendants removed the trade mark from Mitsubishi's fork lift trucks, replacing it with their own mark, in the course of customs warehouse procedures preceding importation of the products into the EEA. In Portakabin the CJEU found that using the mark 'Portakabin' in advertisements for the products now sold under the trade mark 'Primakabin'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he message conveyed by the mark actually displayed. ......... In the cases considered here this means that account must be taken of the fact that removal of the mark and its replacement by another is not motivated by the wish to pass off a product originally marketed under a different mark as one's own. Rather, it is motivated by a desire to keep a product which is still fit for its purpose 'alive', even though it no longer conforms to the original condition under which it was first marketed. It should be clear that even beyond the misgivings articulated above, removal of the mark in this situation cannot result in jeopardising the origin function if, due to changes affecting the substance, the product in its actual shape no longer originates from the trade mark proprietor, but rather from the person transforming it. Likewise, regarding the additional trade mark functions, the fact that removing the mark interferes with the trade mark holder's commercial strategies cannot be considered as detrimental if and because the proprietor would not want to be associated with the products in their actual condition." (emphasis added) 106. The author the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....different price point on the third, and the goal of society as a whole to preserve resources and reduce waste. It is this balancing of interests, which imbues the opinion of this Court, and prompts the Court to pass directions as under. Conclusion 111. Refurbished, secondhand, pre-owned goods exist in most countries of the world since it caters to a different market, that of a lesser paying customer. Originally manufactured goods, with their mint new warranty, are obviously sold at the maximum retail price and will be bought by people who require them and are ready to pay for them, which is the market of the manufacturer/ authorized distributor/ wholesaler/ retailer. Once the sale has happened and the warranty period attached to the goods is exhausted, none of these entities i.e. manufacturer/ OEM/ wholesaler/ distributor/ retailer in the chain would be liable for any repair or servicing. Of course, if the retailer for purposes of promoting its sale, decides to give an additional warranty over and above the manufacturer's warranty or the OEM's warranty, that will only be a sales incentive. 112. Post exhaustion of warranty, none of these entities i.e. manufacture/OE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowing directions for sale of refurbished goods by the defendants. The defendants will be permitted to sell the refurbished HDDs, provided they comply with the following: (i) Packaging to identify the source of the product: Packaging in which the refurbished product is sold, will clearly indicate that the HDD is manufactured by the concerned plaintiffs (Seagate or WD as the case may be). This may be displayed in a manner not to deceive the customer that the sale itself is of the original Seagate or WD i.e. it should be clear, but not dominating the packaging. (ii) Reference to the original manufacturer is to be made through their word mark and not the device mark: Reference to the plaintiffs should be through their word marks as in "Seagate" or "WD", as the case may be. Defendant shall not use plaintiffs' logos, in order to not cause any deception to the consumer. (iii) Packaging must specify that there is no original manufacturer's warranty: A clear statement must be made to the effect that there is no manufacturers' warranty or service by (Seagate or WD, as the case may be) on this product. (iv) Packaging must specify that the prod....