On 16 May 2025 the Delhi High Court reaffirmed and further developed Indian jurisprudence on international trademark exhaustion, parallel imports and the resale of secondhand goods bearing registered marks in Western Digital Technologies & Anr v Hansraj Dugar. The court held that anyone in India has the right to import and sell such goods, provided that there is full and clear disclosure to consumers that they are secondhand and not covered by the original manufacturer’s warranty. Accordingly, the court vacated an ex-parte interim injunction granted in 2019 and permitted the conditional release of the defendant’s imported goods, which had been seized by Customs.\n\nThe plaintiff, Western Digital Technologies, is one of the largest computer hard disk drive (HDD) manufacturers in the world. Its trademark WESTERN DIGITAL is registered in India and has been used in the country since 1997. It was also recorded with Indian Customs under the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules 2007, with a view to preventing infringing goods from entering the country. The defendant, under its proprietorship M/s Supreme Enterprise, imported large quantities of HDDs bearing the plaintiff’s trademarks. On 9 September 2019, the plaintiffs received a customs alert about this, and upon inspection found that the products – originally sold to OEMs in Hong Kong and South Korea in 2011 – were used and some were non-functional. The plaintiff subsequently filed a suit for trademark infringement, passing off and other reliefs and successfully obtained an interim injunction shortly afterwards.\n\nThe court analysed the issues under Sections 29 (trademark infringement) and 30 (limits on effect of a registered trademark) of the Trademarks Act 1999, particularly the infringement defence in relation to secondhand sales under Section 30(3) and its exception in Section 30(4) in the context of material impairment of the relevant goods. It also looked at two significant precedents.\n\nIn Kapil Wadhwa v Samsung Electronics (2012), the Delhi High Court division bench held that India follows the principle of international exhaustion and Samsung’s concerns were irrelevant so long as the goods were not altered or impaired. To safeguard against consumer deception, it mandated that resellers prominently disclose that imported Samsung printers carried no manufacturer warranty or service. In Seagate Technology v Daichi International (2024), this decision was extended to refurbished goods, clarifying that no law bars the import of used HDDs, and that selling secondhand or refurbished drives does not infringe trademarks if full disclosure prevents confusion about origin, warranty or condition. The court recognised that refurbished goods serve price-sensitive customers, which are a crucial market segment. After the first sale and warranty expiry, the manufacturer bears no ongoing responsibility for the condition, repair or service of those items unless required by specific laws or regulations governing disposal or recycling – the ‘umbilical cord’ is cut under the exhaustion principle, and the goods are free to circulate without ongoing manufacturer control. However, Section 30(4) limits this freedom if goods are changed or impaired in ways that could harm the brand’s reputation, such as shoddy refurbishment that misrepresents quality. Full and clear disclosure is therefore critical to protect consumers from deception and brand owners from reputational damage while allowing for a legitimate secondhand goods market. Accordingly, the court held that refurbished HDDs may only be sold if: the packaging clearly names the original manufacturer without misleading logos; they prominently state 'used and refurbished'; they include disclaimers on any original manufacturer’s warranty; they clearly identify any refurbisher warranty with contact details; and they provide accurate, non-misleading descriptions.\n\nTurning to the case at hand, the court found that the HDDs were genuine and there was no contractual bar on overseas OEMs with regard to their resale or refurbishment. It further noted that the goods had not entered the Indian market; they remained in the custody of Customs, so no misrepresentation or consumer confusion had occurred. It ruled in favour of the defendant but imposed future compliance with the disclosure norms laid down in Xerox Corporation v Shailesh Patel for resale of unmodified secondhand goods and Seagate Technology v Daichi International regarding resale after refurbishment.\n\nThis ruling underscores India’s recognition of the international exhaustion principle, which has been consistently upheld by the courts. Under this principle, the import and resale of genuine products – including refurbished, used or end-of-life items – is permissible, so long as the goods are authentic and not counterfeit, and there is no misrepresentation regarding warranty, condition or serviceability. By aligning its reasoning with earlier precedents, the court has created a robust framework for balancing trademark enforcement and market accessibility, especially in the context of circular economy models and sustainable reuse of electronic goods.

Delhi High Court develops jurisprudence on international trademark exhaustion and parallel imports in vacating interim injunction

The Delhi High Court vacated an interim injunction in the case of Western Digital Technologies & Anr v Hansraj Dugar, allowing the release of imported secondhand HDDs bearing the plaintiff's trademarks. The court clarified that secondhand goods can be sold in India if they are genuine, not counterfeit, and clearly disclose their used status, warranty, and condition to prevent consumer deception.