top of page

The Second-Life Dilemma: Trademarks, Refurbished Goods, and Legal Pitfalls

  • Writer: Sonal Madan
    Sonal Madan
  • Aug 7
  • 17 min read

Introduction


The resale and refurbishment of branded goods has evolved into a significant commercial sector worth billions of dollars globally, driven by economic imperatives, environmental sustainability concerns, and the circular economy movement. This market encompasses everything from refurbished electronics and automotive parts to luxury fashion items and industrial equipment. However, the intersection between trademark law and the refurbished goods market presents complex challenges that have become increasingly prominent as courts worldwide grapple with balancing trademark owners' legitimate interests in brand protection against the legitimate commercial activities of resellers and the broader public interest in sustainable commerce[1].


First-Sale Doctrine: Fundamentals


The first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion doctrine, serves as the cornerstone principle governing the resale of goods under trademark law[2]. Under this doctrine, once a trademark owner or authorized distributor places goods bearing a registered trademark in the market through legitimate sale, the trademark owner's exclusive rights to control the distribution and resale of those specific goods are exhausted. This principle ensures a free movement of genuine goods in secondary markets and prevents trademark owners from exercising perpetual control over lawfully acquired products.


The doctrine operates on the fundamental premise that the trademark owner has already received appropriate compensation for the use of the trademark through the initial authorized sale, and continued control over the resale would constitute an unjustifiable restraint on trade, inhibiting free movement of goods in the secondary market. As articulated by the European Court of Justice and courts worldwide, the exhaustion doctrine "liberates products from the yoke of IP rights and facilitates their free circulation on the market as soon as the right-holder was able to reap an appropriate remuneration".[3]


The Material Differences Exception


It is worth noting at this point that, the material differences exception represents one of the most significant limitations to the scope of protection afforded by the first sale doctrine, ensuring a fair balance between the rights of the trademark owners as well as consumers and other stakeholders involved. Courts have consistently held that the first sale doctrine does not protect resellers when the goods being sold are materially different from those originally sold by the trademark owner[4]. This exception is grounded in consumer protection principles, recognizing that consumers have legitimate expectations about the quality and characteristics of goods bearing familiar trademarks.


The threshold for establishing “material differences” is deliberately set low, encompassing any difference that consumers would likely consider relevant when making purchasing decisions. Importantly, “material differences” need not be physical in nature; variations in warranty coverage, service support, or other non-physical attributes also constitute material differences, sufficient to support trademark infringement claims.


The material differences doctrine serves multiple policy objectives: protecting consumers from purchasing goods that differ from their reasonable expectations, preserving trademark owners' goodwill and reputation, and maintaining the integrity of trademark as a source identifier[5]. However, the doctrine's broad application has raised concerns about its potential to unduly restrict legitimate refurbishment activities and impede the development of secondary markets for used goods[6].


Quality Control Exception


Further, the quality control exception provides trademark owners with an additional avenue for challenging the sale of refurbished goods. This exception applies when unauthorized resellers fail to comply with the trademark owner's established quality control standards and procedures. To invoke this exception successfully, trademark owners must demonstrate three elements: first, that they maintain legitimate, substantial, and non-pretextual quality control standards; second, that they consistently apply these standards in their own operations; and third, that the unauthorized seller's failure to adhere to these standards creates a likelihood of consumer confusion and harm to the trademark's value[7].


The quality control exception recognizes that trademark owners have legitimate interests in maintaining consistent quality standards across all products bearing their marks, regardless of whether those products are sold through authorized or unauthorized channels[8]. This exception has proven particularly valuable for manufacturers dealing with complex products that require specialized handling, storage, or maintenance procedures, which unauthorized resellers may not follow.


However, the quality control exception has been criticized for potentially enabling trademark owners to create pretextual barriers to legitimate secondary market activities. Courts have therefore required that quality control standards be genuinely related to product quality and consumer protection, rather than merely serving as mechanisms to prevent competition or control distribution[9].


International Comparative Analysis


Landmark Cases and Judicial Development:


United States: Exhaustion and Material Differences


In the US, the Lanham Act governs trademark law, and the “first sale” or exhaustion doctrine allows resellers to use a trademark for genuine goods already placed in commerce. However, refurbished goods complicate this principle when alterations create “material differences” that mislead consumers, or sellers of refurbished goods fail to maintain a thorough quality control .

Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders (1947)[10]


This U.S. Supreme Court case set a foundational precedent. Champion sued a refurbisher (Sanders) for selling repaired spark plugs under its trademark. The Court's analysis balanced the trademark owner's interest in preventing consumer deception against the legitimate commercial activity of refurbishing genuine goods.


The Supreme Court held that Sanders could continue using the Champion trademark on reconditioned spark plugs, provided that adequate disclosure was made to consumers about the refurbished nature of the goods. The Court emphasized that “full disclosure gives the manufacturer all the protection to which he is entitled”[11] and that inferiority in refurbished goods is immaterial, so long as the article is clearly and distinctively sold as repaired or reconditioned, rather than as new".


The Champion decision established several key principles that continue to guide courts today:

  1. The mere fact of refurbishment does not automatically constitute trademark infringement;

  2. Adequate disclosure can cure potential consumer confusion; and

  3. Consumers have reasonable expectations that refurbished goods may be inferior to new products.


However, the decision also recognized limits to permissible refurbishment, noting that extensive reconstruction might render the continued use of the original trademark inappropriate.


The Champion framework has been refined and applied in numerous subsequent cases, including Nitro Leisure Products LLC v. Acushnet Co.[12], where the Federal Circuit applied ‘Champion’ principles to refurbished golf balls, emphasizing that consumers understand that refurbished products "will show signs of wear and tear and will not measure up to or perform at the same level as if new". These decisions collectively establish that refurbishment activities fall within a spectrum of permissible trademark use, with the boundaries determined by the extent of modification and the adequacy of disclosure to consumers.

Furthermore, in the case of Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Surgical Technologies, Inc. (2002, Ninth Circuit)[13], a  California district court applied Champion’s principles to medical endoscopes. The refurbisher’s modifications were deemed materially different, as they affected performance and safety, leading to a finding of infringement. The case reinforced that refurbishers must disclose alterations to avoid liability.


The US courts seem to prioritize consumer protection, allowing refurbishment under strict conditions. Trademark owners have a strong case when refurbishers fail to disclose changes or when modifications compromise quality. However, the “material differences” test requires case-by-case analysis, making outcomes less predictable.


European Union: Balancing Brand Control and Free Competition


In the European Union, trademark law is harmonized under the EU Trademark Regulation (2017/1001) and Directive (2015/2436). The exhaustion doctrine applies within the European Economic Area (EEA), but refurbishment raises issues when goods are altered or repackaged. EU courts emphasize the trademark owner’s right to control brand reputation while fostering market competition.


BMW v. Deenik (1999)[14]


The European Court of Justice's decision in BMW v. Deenik offers crucial insights into the application of exhaustion principles in the context of refurbishment. The case involved Mr. Deenik, an independent garage owner who specialized in repairing BMW vehicles and selling second-hand BMW cars, but was not part of BMW's authorized dealer network. BMW challenged Deenik's use of the BMW trademark in his advertising, arguing that such use constituted trademark infringement.


The ECJ established important principles governing the use of trademarks by independent service providers. The Court held that using a trademark to indicate that one provides repair and maintenance services for goods bearing that trademark is permissible, provided that such use does not create the impression of a commercial connection with the trademark proprietor. The decision emphasized that determining whether advertising creates an impression of commercial connection is a question of fact to be assessed by national courts based on specific circumstances.


The BMW decision has significant implications for the refurbishment industry, as it establishes that independent operators can legitimately use trademarks to describe their services and the nature of goods they handle, subject to appropriate disclaimers and avoiding misleading implications about commercial relationships. This principle extends beyond mere repair services to encompass broader refurbishment activities, provided that operators maintain clear distinctions between their services and those of the original trademark owner.


Portakabin Ltd v. Primakabin BV (2010)[15]


The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) addressed refurbished portable buildings sold under the “Portakabin” trademark. The CJEU ruled that resale was permissible under the doctrine of exhaustion, but the refurbisher’s use of the mark in advertising could infringe if it suggested an ongoing commercial connection with Portakabin. Clear disclaimers were required to avoid confusion.


India: A Shifting Stance Toward Sustainability


India’s trademark law, governed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, protects registered marks against unauthorized use that causes confusion or dilutes brand reputation. Historically, Indian courts have generally favored trademark owners in cases involving the sale of refurbished goods, viewing unauthorized use as a form of infringement. However, recent rulings suggest a softening stance, reflecting the country’s push for sustainability.

Seagate Technology LLC v. Daichi International[16]


The Delhi High Court's decision in Seagate Technology LLC v. Daichi International represents a watershed moment in Indian trademark jurisprudence regarding refurbished goods. The case involved refurbishment and resale of hard disk drives (HDDs) that had reached end-of-life status due to warranty expiration but remained functional. The refurbishers' practice of removing original Seagate and Western Digital branding, refurbishing the drives, and reselling them under different brand names raised complex questions about the limits of trademark exhaustion.


The Delhi High Court's analysis focused on the interplay between Sections 30(3) and 30(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which codify the doctrine of exhaustion and its limitations. The Court held that while the exhaustion doctrine generally permits the resale of genuine goods, trademark owners retain the right to oppose further dealings when the condition of goods has been changed or impaired after being put on the market. Critically, the Court found that the removal of original trademarks (effacement) constituted impairment sufficient to justify the trademark owner's opposition[17].


However, the Seagate decision also established a framework for permissible refurbishment activities, allowing defendants to sell refurbished HDDs subject to specific disclosure requirements. These requirements include clear identification of the original manufacturer through word marks (but not device marks), explicit statements that products are "Used and Refurbished," and clear disclaimers about warranty coverage. This balanced approach recognizes both the legitimate interests of trademark owners and the commercial reality of refurbishment activities.


The Seagate decision has been particularly significant for its detailed analysis of what constitutes "impairment" under Section 30(4) of the Indian Trade Marks Act. The Court's finding that effacement of trademarks constitutes impairment even without other physical changes to the goods represents an expansion of trademark owners' rights to control refurbished goods markets.


Western Digital Technologies v. Hansraj Dugar (2025)


In this pivotal Delhi High Court case, Western Digital Technologies, Inc., sued Hansraj Dugar, proprietor of M/s Supreme Enterprise, for importing and selling refurbished hard drives bearing its trademarks "WESTERN DIGITAL" and "WD." Dugar argued the drives were genuine, sourced lawfully from overseas OEMs, repaired with compatible parts, and sold with disclaimers indicating their refurbished status. The court ruled that refurbishment did not inherently infringe upon the product's original design, provided that consumers were not misled about the product’s origin or quality. This marked a departure from stricter precedents, emphasizing clear labeling and transparency[18].


The Court's analysis centered on Sections 30(3) and 30(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, balancing exhaustion principles with trademark protections. It held that importing genuine second-hand goods is permissible under the principle of international exhaustion, provided that no misrepresentation occurs. Crucially, the court outlined specific conditions for lawful resale: (1) no effacement of original trademarks, preserving brand identity; (2) prominent labeling as "Used and Refurbished" on packaging and promotional materials; (3) explicit disclaimers stating the absence of manufacturer warranties; (4) accurate descriptions of product condition and features; and (5) clear identification of the original manufacturer via word marks, avoiding misleading logos. These requirements, drawn from precedents like Seagate Technology v. Daichi International(2024) and Xerox Corporation v. Shailesh Patel (2006), ensure consumer clarity while enabling secondary markets.


TRIPS Flexibility & Developing-Nation Perspectives


The TRIPS Agreement's Article 6 provides member countries with significant flexibility in establishing their exhaustion regimes, explicitly stating that "nothing in this Agreement shall be used to address the issue of the exhaustion of intellectual property rights"[19]. This flexibility has enabled different jurisdictions to develop varying approaches to refurbished goods, ranging from the more restrictive U.S. approach, which emphasizes material differences, to the more permissive approaches adopted in some developing countries.

The Doha Declaration's clarification that TRIPS provisions "leave each Member free to establish its own regime for such exhaustion without challenge, subject to the MFN (Most-favoured-nation) and national treatment provisions" has been significant for developing countries seeking to establish robust markets for refurbished goods. This flexibility has enabled countries like India to develop frameworks that strike a balance between trademark protection and the practical needs of refurbishment industries.


However, the lack of international harmonization creates challenges for businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions, as refurbishment activities that are permissible in one country may constitute trademark infringement in another. This fragmentation is particularly problematic for global refurbishment operations and international trade in refurbished goods.


Divergent Approaches to Material Differences


Different jurisdictions have developed varying approaches to the “material differences” analysis, reflecting different balances between trademark owner rights and secondary market activities. U.S. courts generally apply a relatively low threshold for finding material differences, while European courts have shown more willingness to permit refurbishment activities that might be challenged in American courts[20].


The European Union’s approach tends to be more permissive of refurbishment activities that maintain clear disclosure and avoid misleading consumers about commercial relationships. The CJEU's emphasis on preventing right holders from setting aside the effects of exhaustion has created a framework that generally favors secondary market activities over broad trademark owner control.


The CJEU's focus on preventing trademark owners from nullifying the effects of exhaustion has established a framework that largely prioritizes secondary market activities over extensive control by the trademark owner.


In contrast, some developing countries have adopted more flexible approaches that prioritize domestic refurbishment industries and consumer access to affordable goods. India's substantial refurbished goods market, expected to reach $10 billion in smartphones alone by 2026, reflects policy approaches that seek to balance trademark protection with economic development objectives[21].


Regional Variations in Quality Control Standards


The application of quality control exceptions varies significantly across jurisdictions, with some courts requiring extensive evidence of genuine quality control programs while others accept more minimal compliance efforts. These variations create particular challenges for multinational trademark owners seeking to maintain consistent global approaches to refurbished goods markets.


European courts have generally required that quality control standards be genuinely related to consumer protection rather than serving merely as mechanisms to control distribution. This approach reflects the EU's broader competition law framework and internal market objectives, which prioritize free movement of goods over potentially restrictive trademark applications.


U.S. courts have shown more deference to trademark owners' quality control assertions, particularly where owners can demonstrate systematic quality management programs and evidence of non-compliance by unauthorized resellers. However, recent decisions have emphasized that quality control standards must be legitimate and substantial rather than pretextual.[22]


Digital Era Complications


The proliferation of software-enabled products and digital services has introduced new complexities to trademark infringement analysis in the context of refurbishment. Modern refurbished goods often involve not just physical reconditioning but also software updates, data wiping, and digital authentication procedures that may implicate additional intellectual property rights[23]. The intersection between trademark law and software copyright protection creates particular challenges for refurbishers who must navigate multiple layers of intellectual property protection.


Apple's approach to device refurbishment exemplifies these challenges. The company's Self-Service Repair program provides authorized parts and tools for consumer repairs while maintaining strict control over software authenticity and security features[24]. Independent refurbishers face significant challenges in ensuring that refurbished Apple products maintain full functionality without violating copyright protections on embedded software or circumventing technological protection measures.


The right-to-repair movement has brought additional attention to the intersection between trademark law and digital product refurbishment. Advocates argue that manufacturers use trademark law, along with copyright and other intellectual property rights, to create artificial barriers to independent repair and refurbishment activities[25]. This discussion reflects broader questions about the appropriate balance between intellectual property protection and consumer rights in the digital economy.


Post-Sale Confusion Doctrine


The post-sale confusion doctrine has emerged as a significant concern for refurbishers, particularly in markets involving luxury goods or products where brand association conveys social status. This doctrine recognizes that trademark infringement can occur even when the immediate purchaser is not confused about the product's origin if subsequent observers might be confused about the nature or origin of the goods.


In the context of refurbishment, post-sale confusion typically arises when refurbished goods closely resemble new products, potentially leading observers to mistakenly assume that the goods are new or come with the same warranties and quality assurances as new products. This concern is particularly valid for luxury fashion items, high-end electronics, and other products where brand perception significantly influences consumer behavior and social signaling[26].


The application of post-sale confusion doctrine to refurbished goods remains inconsistent across jurisdictions, with some courts emphasizing the importance of clear labeling and disclosure at the point of sale. In contrast, others focus on whether the refurbished product itself bears sufficient indications of its refurbished status to prevent later confusion. This inconsistency creates compliance challenges for refurbishers operating across multiple jurisdictions.


Sustainability and Circular Economy Considerations


The growing emphasis on environmental sustainability and circular economy principles has created new pressures on trademark law to accommodate refurbishment and reuse activities. Sustainability advocates argue that restrictive applications of trademark law impede legitimate efforts to extend product lifecycles and reduce electronic waste[27]. This perspective gains particular force in the context of the European Union's Green Deal and similar sustainability initiatives that explicitly encourage circular economy practices.


The tension between trademark protection and sustainability goals is exemplified in fashion upcycling cases, where designers transform second-hand luxury goods into new products. Legal scholars worldwide have proposed various approaches to accommodate such activities, including stricter tests for "use as a trademark" that could immunize sustainable reuse practices and strengthened defenses for referential use. However, these proposals remain largely theoretical, and practical legal frameworks for balancing trademark protection with sustainability goals remain underdeveloped.


Industry-Specific Applications and Challenges

Electronics and Technology Sector


The electronics refurbishment sector presents unique challenges due to rapid technological evolution, complex supply chains, and the intersection of multiple intellectual property rights. Major technology companies have developed sophisticated approaches to managing refurbished goods markets, ranging from Apple's controlled Self-Service Repair program to more open approaches adopted by some Android device manufacturers.


The sector's challenges include managing software authenticity, maintaining security protections, and ensuring compatibility with evolving technological standards. Refurbishers must navigate not only trademark law but also copyright protections for embedded software, patent rights for hardware components, and trade secret protections for manufacturing processes.


Industry consolidation has led to the emergence of large-scale refurbishment operations that can invest in compliance systems and quality control programs. At the same time, smaller operators face increasing challenges in meeting legal requirements across multiple jurisdictions[28]. This trend has implications for market competition and consumer choice in refurbished goods markets.


Automotive Sector


The automotive aftermarket represents one of the oldest and most established sectors for refurbished and remanufactured goods, with well-developed legal frameworks and industry standards. However, the transition to electric vehicles and the increasing integration of software in automotive systems are creating new trademark law challenges similar to those in the electronics sector.


The sector has generally achieved a more stable balance between trademark protection and aftermarket activities, partly due to well-established consumer expectations and regulatory frameworks that explicitly recognize the legitimacy of aftermarket parts and services. However, manufacturers' increasing use of software controls and proprietary diagnostic systems is creating new barriers to independent refurbishment and repair activities.


Luxury Goods and Fashion


The luxury goods sector presents particular challenges for refurbished goods markets due to the central role of brand prestige in consumer purchasing decisions and the potential for post-sale confusion. High-end fashion brands have been particularly aggressive in challenging refurbishment and upcycling activities that they view as threatening to brand exclusivity and consumer perception[29].


The emergence of sustainable fashion initiatives and luxury goods authentication services has led to the creation of new business models that aim to strike a balance between sustainability objectives and trademark protection concerns. However, legal frameworks for accommodating fashion upcycling and sustainable reuse remain underdeveloped, creating uncertainty for entrepreneurs and environmental advocates[30].


Strategic Considerations for Trademark Owners


Trademark owners must develop coherent strategies for managing refurbished goods markets that balance brand protection objectives with practical commercial realities. Overly aggressive enforcement strategies risk antitrust challenges and negative publicity, while inadequate protection efforts may lead to brand dilution and consumer confusion.

Developing genuine quality control programs provides trademark owners with stronger legal positions for challenging problematic refurbishment activities while potentially creating opportunities for legitimate partnerships with refurbishers. However, quality control programs must be carefully designed to avoid creating pretextual barriers to legitimate competition.


Trademark owners should also consider the broader business implications of their approach to refurbished goods markets, including potential impacts on customer loyalty, environmental reputation, and relationships with regulators increasingly focused on sustainability and circular economy objectives.


Future Directions and Recommendations


Legislative and Regulatory Evolution

The continued growth of refurbished goods markets and increasing emphasis on sustainability suggest that legislative and regulatory frameworks will need to evolve to provide clearer guidance on permissible refurbishment activities. This evolution is likely to involve both updates to trademark statutes and the development of sector-specific regulations addressing the needs of particular industries.


Right-to-repair legislation represents a significant trend that is likely to impact the application of trademark law to refurbished goods. As more jurisdictions adopt laws requiring manufacturers to provide repair information and parts access, trademark owners will need to adapt their strategies for managing secondary markets while complying with new regulatory requirements.


The European Union's sustainability initiatives and circular economy policies are likely to influence legal development beyond Europe, as multinational companies adapt their global practices to meet the most stringent requirements they face. This regulatory convergence may lead to more harmonized international approaches to balancing trademark protection with sustainability objectives.


Technological Solutions and Innovation


Emerging technologies offer potential solutions to some of the challenges in balancing trademark protection with legitimate refurbishment activities. Blockchain-based authentication systems could provide mechanisms for tracking genuine goods through refurbishment processes while maintaining transparency about their history and characteristics.


Digital labeling and smart packaging technologies could address disclosure requirements more effectively than traditional labeling approaches, potentially providing dynamic information about product status, warranty coverage, and refurbishment history. These technologies could help address post-sale confusion concerns while providing consumers with complete information about refurbished goods.


Artificial intelligence and machine learning applications could assist in quality control and authentication processes, potentially reducing the costs and complexity of compliance with quality standards while providing trademark owners with better tools for monitoring refurbished goods markets.


Certification Programs as Alternatives:


Certification programs, such as Apple’s Independent Repair Provider (IRP) and various automotive OEM certifications, represent proactive alternatives for brands seeking cost-effective control over secondary markets. By licensing third-party refurbishers or repairers under brand standards, these programs generate revenue streams through certification fees and the sale of authorized parts. A key benefit is the reduction of litigation related to intellectual property and unauthorized sales, since certified partners are estimated to handle a significant share of secondary market volume. Moreover, organizations often realize a positive return on investment, with some documentation. This comes from extended product lifecycles, enhanced brand loyalty, and improved sustainability credentials. However, there are notable drawbacks, including substantial upfront investments in fees, equipment, and training, as well as the risk of program dilution if standards are not adequately enforced.


Policy Recommendations


Policymakers should consider developing clearer frameworks that strike a balance between trademark protection and sustainability and circular economy objectives. This could include safe harbor provisions for refurbishment activities that meet specified disclosure and quality requirements, as well as guidance on when quality control standards constitute legitimate business requirements versus pretextual barriers to competition.


International harmonization efforts could reduce compliance costs and legal uncertainty for businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions. Such efforts might focus on developing common principles for evaluating material differences, standardizing disclosure requirements, and creating mutual recognition agreements for quality control programs.

Enhanced cooperation between trademark offices, consumer protection agencies, and environmental regulators could help develop more coherent approaches to refurbished goods markets that serve multiple policy objectives simultaneously. This cooperation could include joint guidance documents, coordinated enforcement efforts, and shared research on consumer behavior and market impacts.


Conclusion:


The refurbished goods market poses dynamic challenges for trademark law, requiring brand owners to balance robust IP protection with the realities of secondary markets and sustainability goals. Global jurisprudence is evolving to accommodate legitimate refurbishment while enforcing strict disclosure and quality standards to prevent consumer confusion. Key issues—such as material differences, post-sale confusion, and the pressures of a circular economy—persist, but courts are increasingly receptive to practices that align with environmental objectives. Brand owners must prioritize proactive monitoring and licensing, while refurbishers need transparent labeling and legal compliance to thrive. As sustainability fuels market growth, the adaptation of trademark law will remain a critical focus for practitioners navigating this complex landscape.


References:


[3] Simon Geiregat: GRUR International, 73(4), 2024, 287-298

 

[10] Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders, 331 U.S. 125 (1947) 

[12] Nitro Leisure Products, L.L.C. v. Acushnet Co., 341 F.3d 1356 (Fed.Cir. 2003)

[13] Karl Storz Endoscopy-America v. Surgical Tech., 285 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2002)

[15] Portakabin Ltd v. Primakabin BV, Case C-558/08 (CJEU 2010).

[16]  SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC V. DAICHI INTERNATIONAL  CS(COMM) 67/2024

Search By Tags
bottom of page