PARALLEL IMPORTS
been changed or impaired aſt er they have been put on the market.”
T is indicates that the sale of goods by a person (other than the proprietor of a registered trademark) in the market does not amount to infringement, if the goods have already been put on the market under the registered trademark by its proprietor or with the proprietor’s consent. Hence, it is generally inferred from Section 30(3) that parallel importation does not amount to trademark infringement. However, this should be considered in light of subsection 4 of Section 30. T is provides an opportunity to the trademark proprietor to oppose further dealings in its goods, for example, if the condition of the goods have been changed or impaired.
In 2006, in Bose Corporation v. Mehta, the High Court of Delhi stopped a retailer selling parallel- imported Bose audio systems in India without any authorisation from Bose Corporation. T e retailer made false representations to customers that the grey-market goods included a Bose product warranty, which in eff ect was not available in India. Also in 2006, the High Court of Delhi issued an ex-parte order in General Electric Company v. Mr. Altamas Khan, restraining
traders from dealing in General Electric (GE) dehumidifi ers without authorisation. T e defendant was found to be trading as GE Dehumidifi ers and to be misrepresenting itself as a GE dealer. T e imported products at issue were not supposed to be sold in India and the accompanying warranties were useless, since GE did not sell dehumidifi ers in India. T e judge delivered the judgment on December 12, 2008 and passed a decree of recovery for Rp1 million against the defendant.
T e judge said that even though GE was not itself selling dehumidifi ers in India, customers were likely to think the products were sold with the company’s authorisation, and would be likely to expect the warranty and aſt er-sales service to be valid. If it were not, customers would probably blame GE, the court found.
Another case before the Delhi High Court saw Xerox Corporation attempt to restrain importers, resellers and photocopying shops from unlawfully importing second-hand offi ce equipment such as photocopiers under the ‘Xerox’ brand, which were then refurbished in India and sold directly to photocopying shops or to resellers. T e plaintiff s alleged that the importers
were breaking the law. Xerox said that each of the machines had inbuilt soſt ware for operating the hardware. When the machines were turned on, the fl ash screen displayed a distinctive ‘X’ logo for which the plaintiff s claimed copyright.
T e importers claimed that they were entitled to import second-hand machines with the brand name Xerox, and to sell them to resellers and directly to photocopying shops. T ey argued that the equipment was legally and validly imported, and sold without any alterations. T ey highlighted that the goods were genuine and originated from the plaintiff company, albeit second-hand. T ey also made it clear that the goods were second-hand when selling them. T e photocopying shops contended that they purchased the machines knowing them to be second-hand.
However, during the suit and in the course of arguments, the parties agreed to settle the disputes in the following manner:
1. T e defendants, who are importers and resellers, shall affi x the following disclosure on each of the second-hand Xerox machines imported/sold by them: (i) Second-hand and
SUBSCRIBE TO THE WORLD IP REVIEW BI-MONTHLY...
...and receive our Annual Review and Life Sciences IP Review at no extra charge.
An annual subscription costs £195 / $355 / €255.
To start your subscription immediately, email
subscriptions@worldipreview.com or call +44 208 290 4943.
30 World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2010
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112