Legitimacy and Transparency of Trademark Rights in Second Hand Goods Market

Introduction

The relationship between intellectual property rights and the secondary market for products has always posed a great problem to Courts across the globe. The main issue pertains is related to resale of branded product and their qualification as to trademark infringement. Secondly, to what extent transparency and honest disclosure can serve as a shield for resellers when they are dealing with products of unauthorised nature. While the Delhi High Court has examined the issues related to basic parameters of trademark exhaustion and protection of consumer in the landmark case of Western Digital technologies Inc. & Anrs. V. Hansraj Dugar wherein the decision laid down the basic principles for resale of second-hand branded products when refurbished electronics and second-hand luxury products contribute to the major market segment.

The case does exemplify a paradigm having broader implications on variety of commercial sectors as global technology brand attempts to limit the importation and sale of its used storage devices via an independent reseller who honestly shows the secondary nature and unauthorised status of products. The reasoning of the court emphasises consumer transparency rules over broad proprietorial rights which offers significant insights into the doctrine of exhaustion of rights, a wide scope for honest concurrent use, and requirements of evidence to prove likelihood of confusion with respect to genuine goods.

Factual and Commercial Aspect

Western Digital Technologies Inc., considered as a leading global company in the business of data storage solutions had created a paramount goodwill in Indian market for printed hard disk drives solid state drives and various other storage devices. The company indeed had various registered trademarks in India and was running through channels of distribution, adhering to strict quality control measures on its products with their trademarks. The defendant, Hansraj Dugar was operating a business which imported and sold used storage devices of Western Digital. The business model of Dugar was primarily based on the purchase of second hand Western Digital items from international markets and then resale them in India. While Western Digital had started proceedings to obtain injunctive relief based on the grounds that importation and sale of its branded products without any authorisation amount to infringement of trademark under Trademarks Act of 1999. The argument of the company was that unauthorised dealings even for the genuine products would lead to customer confusion about the origin quality and warranty status of products.

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

The defendant then argued that products were though Western Digital products and not counterfeit, but the Full disclosure of the nature of the products negated any corresponding risk of misrepresentation to the consumers. He further argued that the first sale of the goods indeed exhausted the trademark rights of the company which allowed the later purchaser to further resell the goods without any restrictions. Additionally, the honest disclosure about the second-hand nature and unauthorised status of the merchandise at issue differentiated the case from infringement scenario which involves counterfeit or deceptive trade practices.

The Doctrine of Exhaustion Balancing Rights with Free Movement

The Court reasoned over Doctrine of Exhaustion which is also known as “first sale doctrine” in some countries. This doctrine explains that when the owner of a trademark or a licensed party puts good bearing a trademark in circulation, leads to exhaustion of trademark rights over those specific goods. The subsequent owners are then free to resell these products without violating the trademark and by adhering to certain limitations. The theoretical foundation of this doctrine is founded on various considerations. First of all, it is used to prevent the trademark owner from exercising any perpetual control over authentic products after initial marketing of such products.

Secondly, it acknowledges that the ultimate object of trademarks, which is an indication of source and quality at the point of the initial sale, is achieved as soon as the products are delivered into the market through legitimate channels. Thirdly, it encourages the development of secondary markets, which are crucial for economic activities such as price competition and allocation of resources.

The Indian jurisprudence has implicitly accepted this doctrine through a series of judgments. In the case of Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court held that in the sale of genuine products, the rights of the trademark owner in respect of those specific products may be restricted, particularly if the subsequent transactions are made in good faith.

The Court also looked at the principle of international exhaustion. The dispute arose from the parallel importation of genuine Western Digital products into India without the consent of the trademark proprietor.

They mentioned Section 30(3) and 30(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and said that Indian law recognises the principle of international exhaustion. It suggested that once genuine goods bearing a registered trademark are lawfully sold anywhere by the trademark owner or with their consent, the trademark rights in respect of those goods are exhausted, even if they are later imported into India.

Rejecting the argument that only national exhaustion applies, the Court said that the statutory framework does not restrict exhaustion to sales occurring within India. Instead, the expression “lawfully acquired” under Section 30(3) is explanatory to include goods sold abroad with the consent of the trademark proprietor. Furthermore, parallel imports of genuine goods cannot be prohibited merely on the ground that they were first sold outside India.

However, the Court further noted that this principle is not absolute. Under Section 30(4), the trademark owner may still oppose further transactions in the goods if there exist legitimate reasons, such as material alteration, impairment of quality, or damage to the reputation of the trademark. Hence, while international exhaustion bridges free movement of goods and keeps the market from being monopolised, it continues to preserve safeguards against consumer deception and brand dilution.

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Western Digital Technologies Inc. v. Hansraj Dugar, has applied these principles with a great deal of subtlety. The court further recognised that product products in question were in fact authentic western digital products and were not copies. The question here, therefore, was not about the authenticity of products, but about the manner of resale by unauthorised party and whether it was considered as an infringement.

Transparency and Honest Concurrent Use: The essence of Legitimacy

The reasoning of the court was based largely upon the degree of transparency shown by the defendant in dealings of commercial nature. Therefore, transparency being considered as a mitigating circumstance and even as a defense to claims of infringement is pragmatic way of dealing with trademark infringement in secondary market

The court carried out an exhaustive analysis of the evidence related to the way in which the defendant offered the products to consumers. The results show that in all the marketing and packaging of the products, the defendant made the following disclosures: (a) the nature of the products as "second-hand" or "refurbished," and (b) disclaimers stating independent importation without the approval of western digital; open disclosure of the fact that the warranties of the manufacturers did not apply, coupled with explanations of the testing and refurbishing processes used by the reseller.

The Court held that such a regime of comprehensive disclosure negated the possibility of consumer confusion. The principle that appears from this analysis is in line with the existing jurisprudence in the case of Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, where the Supreme Court held that the test of confusion has to be made from the point of view of the ordinary consumer of average intelligence. Inasmuch as the reasonable consumer is directly informed that the products are second-hand and unauthorised, the Court held that there is no reasonable basis for confusion regarding source, affiliation, or standards of quality.

As explained by Professor Ilanah Simon Fhima in her discussion of trademark use and exhaustion, the key question in these cases is what the reseller’s use of the trademark gives rise to: a false impression of commercial affiliation or endorsement. Where the impression of such confusion is eliminated by comprehensive disclosure, the rationale for trademark intervention becomes much less significant. The approach taken by the judgment is reflective of this understanding.

Likelihood of Confusion: Reality of Market and Evidentiary Standards

One of the most crucial aspects of any passing off action is the establishment of a likelihood of confusion. The manner in which the Delhi High Court has dealt with the issue of likelihood of confusion in the case of Western Digital is incredibly significant.

The Court held that Western Digital had failed to show substantial evidence of actual consumer confusion. Although the defendant’s conduct continued for a prolonged period, the plaintiff did not provide customer complaints, market research, or other objective evidence of consumer confusion. This evidentiary weakness was considered conclusive against the claim of the said plaintiff. The Court held that speculation about confusion, without substantiating market proof, is not sufficient to justify the impairment of legitimate business activity.

This line of reasoning is in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., in the sense that the court indicated that the appearance of confusion must be assessed in the context of practical realities such as the nature of the trademarks, the nature of the goods, their target consumers, and the basis of their acquisition.

Regarding the secondary market, several factors that could reduce liability became apparent to the court. There is sophistication on the part of the buyer, as they are cautious about buying computer storage devices; there is price differentiation between new and used products, which indicates the nature of products; the trade has different channels than Western Digital's authorised ones; and marketing is used that emphasises the customer's freedom and independence.

The quantitative research of Professor Barton Beebe on likelihood of confusion factors demonstrates that courts exaggerate theoretical possibilities of confusion while undervaluing market evidence.

The demands of Delhi High Court for empirical data signifies a systematic approach. It helps in preventing claims of proprietary rights from strangulating secondary markets.

Trademark Rights Vis-a-vis Market Access: Way forward via Policy

The decision presents some basic questions which are important to contemporary discussion of intellectual property. 3 of the most important significant are as follows

Promotion of Sustainable Commerce:

the secondary market of electronics is a key role player in terms of economy and environment. Refurbished electronics does reduce the amount of waste and exceeds the life span of the product by making technology more accessible to budget friendly rate to the consumers. As Professor Jeremy de Beer discusses in his work on IP and sustainable development that overly restrictive IP enforcement may pose as an obstacle to obtain sustainability goals by blocking circular economy approaches. Thereby the courts recognition of transparent resale does amount to legitimate commerce which strengthens evolving economic paradigms.

Choice of Consumer and Economic access:

Such restrain on resale of used goods would negate valuable options for consumers and reduction in affordable access to branded products. Professor Stacey Dogan has asserted that the main essence of trademark remedies is for welfare of consumers that is to assist people while they make well informed decisions of purchase.  This argument to implement trademarks would be a weak point when consumers well informed about the origin of the goods and where they come from through proper transparency parameters.

Prevention of Trademark Overreach:

The rights of a trademark are to be based on achieving specific policy objectives and are not intended to cover overreaching powers over commercial uses of subject matters having shield of protection. By denial of Western Digital’s claim, the Court succeeds in avoiding improper and unfair expansion of territory specific rights of a trademark to segment the market. This approach parallels with Professor Rebecca Tushmet’s observation who cautions that limits of trademark should not move away from consumer protection to overreach territory of authentic items.

Disclosure: Standard of Legitimate Resell

The emphasis of Delhi High Court on transparency also poses a question as to what and which disclosure standards should apply while reselling of second-hand branded goods and the judgement points out few key elements as follows:

Prominence and Unambiguity:  A disclosure should catch the attention of a consumer while they make purchase decisions. add Western Digital, the highlighted through product names, descriptions, and packaging that the products they offered were second hand which let them to winning the case.

Comprehensive:  The disclosure should include every circumstance which can affect expectations of a consumer. This extent to the condition under which product has been used, limitations of any warranties and evaluation or refurbishing done by reseller.

Uniformity across Channels:  Merchants operate in various markets at the same time which includes physical locations and electronic market. Therefore, the statement should be uniform in all the markets so that no consumer is deceived. And the decision has not set-forth any guidelines for such markets, but it can be noted that the reasoning for businesses which are working in secondary markets businesses which are running in secondary markets

Conclusion

The decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Western Digital Technologies Inc. & Anrs v. Hansraj Dugar is a significant milestone in the evolving litigation on the scope of the said trademarks on the secondary market. In this case, the Court struck the right balanced between the right to promote or advertise one’s goods and the right to protect trademarks. It was held that truthful advertising of genuine goods is not infringement if the disclaimer is clear enough not to mislead the consumers.

The opinion of the court places a premium on the ground reality of the markets which is based on objective indicia of confusion and gives preference to consumer protection over amorphous ownership claims. Thereby the opinion sets a mature, balanced, and reasonable trademark standard. trademark law primarily protects consumer over the confusion as to the origin and quality of a product. Therefore, it should not extend to be a law which regulate transaction of genuine goods beyond what those purposes demand. In an ever-evolving commercial sector prevailing in India where in secondary markets of electronics automobiles luxury products and other such segments are gaining prominence this judgement is of paramount nature. It protects fair and open business practices while making clear that transparency and disclosure or bare minimum obligations to be adhered to. it also warns trademark holders against seeking broad enforcement steps which may confuse legitimate businesses or suppress fair competition.

While global patterns of trade favour circular economy and aims for sustainability which fuels the expansion of used and refurbished items, the principles discussed in this judgment has never been so paramount. As Delhi High Court stated that trademark laws protects brands from deceit but not from competition, it is to be noted that if honest resellers sell honest goods while disclosing the truth and not deceiving the consumers or the purchasers, then they are running an honest business which trademark laws cannot possibly prevent.

Author: Medhavi Capoor, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

Notes

1. Western Digital Technologies Inc. & Anrs v. Hansraj Dugar, CS(COMM) 586/2019 (Delhi High Court).

2. Trade Marks Act 1999 (India).

3. Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd (2013) 1 SCC 458.

4. Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta AIR 1963 SC 449.

5. Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd (2001) 5 SCC 73.

6. Ilanah Simon Fhima, 'The Court of Justice's Protection of the Advertising Function of Trade Marks: An (Almost) Sceptical Appraisal' (2013) 44 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 325.

7. Barton Beebe, 'An Empirical Study of the Multifactor Tests for Trademark Infringement' (2006) 94 California Law Review 1581.

8. Jeremy de Beer, 'Evidence-Based Intellectual Property Policymaking: An Integrated Review of Methods and Conclusions' (2016) 27 Journal of World Intellectual Property 155.

9. Stacey L Dogan, 'Bullying and Opportunism in Trademark and Right of Publicity Law' (2016) 96 Boston University Law Review 1293.

10. Rebecca Tushnet, 'Running the Gamut from A to B: Federal Trademark and False Advertising Law' (2009) 159 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1305.