Debranding and selling refurbished goods under a new trademark does not constitute infringement or reverse passing off.

The Appellants (Western Digital and Seagate) manufacture Hard Disk Drives (HDDs) sold to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs)

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 Appellants' trademarks/software, load new software, assign new serial/model numbers, and sell them under their own brands with their own warranties

The Appellants sued for permanent injunction, alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and "reverse passing off"

A learned Single Judge permitted the Respondents to sell the refurbished HDDs subject to strict packaging disclosures and the use of the Appellants' word marks (not logos) to identify the original manufacturer

The Appellants appealed the refusal of a total injunction.

Whether the act of de-branding and re-branding refurbished goods constitutes "reverse passing off" or is actionable under Indian Law

Whether the Respondents’ activities amount to trademark infringement under Section 29, read with the limitations/exceptions in Sections 30(3) and 30(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

The Court primarily applied Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which defines infringement as the unauthorized "use" of a registered mark in the course of trade

It interpreted Section 30(3), which incorporates the principle of "International Exhaustion," stating that further dealings in lawfully acquired goods do not constitute infringement

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

The court relied on *Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Co.* to affirm that "market" refers to the international market

*Satyam Infoway Ltd v. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd* to define the ingredients of passing off as misrepresentation of one's own goods as those of the plaintiff

The Court found no infringement under Section 29 because the Respondents efface the Appellants' marks before sale; thus, they do not "use" the registered marks in trade

It held that Section 30(3) is a limit on the effect of registration, not a source of fresh infringement claims

The Respondents "lawfully acquired" the goods since there was no evidence of contractual or statutory bars on OEMs reselling end-of-life HDDs

Regarding Section 30(4), the Court applied the principle of *noscitur a sociis*, ruling that "changed" must be read alongside "impaired"; since refurbishing made discarded goods functional without harming the Appellants' reputation (as warranties had expired), no "legitimate reasons" existed to oppose the trade

Finally, the Court rejected "reverse passing off," noting that Section 27(2) only protects against passing off one's goods *as* another's, and the Appellants failed to prove consumers could identify the unbranded HDDs as theirs at the "initial interest" stage

It held that "reverse passing off" is not an actionable tort in Indian trademark jurisprudence

However, to ensure a party is not worse off for having appealed, the Court maintained the Single Judge's mandatory disclosure directions (requiring packaging to state the product is "used and refurbished" and lacks an original manufacturer's warranty)

In the specific case of *Hansraj Dugar* (importer), the Court allowed the release of seized goods subject to their sale as scrap with all marks removed