Debranding and refurbishing end-of-life goods does not constitute trademark infringement or reverse passing off.

The Appellants (Western Digital and Seagate) manufacture Hard Disk Drives (HDDs) sold to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) for integration into computers.

Once these HDDs reach "end-of-life" (warranty expiry), they are extracted from discarded equipment abroad and imported into India.

The Respondents (refurbishers) purchase these HDDs, erase the original software, remove the Appellants' registered trademarks, and affix their own brand names, new serial numbers, and model numbers before selling them in the market.

The Appellants filed suits for permanent injunction alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and "reverse passing off" (misrepresenting another’s goods as one’s own).

A Single Judge permitted the Respondents to sell the refurbished HDDs subject to strict packaging disclosures.

The Appellants appealed, seeking a total injunction.

The Court primarily interpreted Sections 29, 30(3), and 30(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Section 29 defines infringement as the unauthorized "use" of a registered mark in trade.

Section 30(3) codifies the principle of International Exhaustion, providing that dealing in "lawfully acquired" goods bearing a mark is not infringement if the proprietor put them on the global market.

Section 30(4) acts as an exception to exhaustion where "legitimate reasons" exist, such as when the condition of goods is "changed or impaired".

The Court applied the noscitur a sociis principle to interpret "changed" as being of the same negative character as "impaired".

Regarding passing off, it relied on Section 27(2) and the "Trinity Test" (goodwill, misrepresentation, damage) from *Satyam Infoway Ltd v. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd*.

It further followed *Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Co.* regarding the "market" being international.

The Court held that Section 29 is the sole code for infringement; since Respondents efface the Appellants' marks before sale, they do not "use" the mark in trade, thus no infringement occurs under Section 29.

Section 30(3) is a defense, not a source of infringement; however, even if it applied, the acquisition was "lawful" because no contractual or statutory ban on OEMs reselling end-of-life HDDs was proven.

The Court rejected the Section 30(4) "impairment" argument, holding that making non-functional goods functional is not a negative "change" and that the "umbilical cord" between manufacturer and product is severed once the warranty expires.

"reverse passing off," the Court ruled it is not an actionable tort under the Trade Marks Act, which only recognizes passing off one's own goods as another's.

Furthermore, even if actionable, there was no evidence of "initial interest confusion" because consumers could not identify the bare HDDs as the Appellants' products at the point of sale.

"reverse passing off" is foreign to Indian trademark jurisprudence.

refurbishment of end-of-life goods after de-branding does not violate Section 29.

the principle of international exhaustion applies as the goods were lawfully acquired.

While disagreeing with the Single Judge's finding that the Respondents weren't entitled to the Section 30(3) defense, the Division Bench maintained the Single Judge's mandatory disclosure directions (regarding packaging and warranty) to ensure the Appellants were not "worse off" for having appealed.