By Lucy Rana and B. Michael Shriney
The strength of a trade mark lies in the owner’s exclusive right to control the mark. Yet that right is not a right to control the goods forever. Indian law draws a deliberate line: once the proprietor has sold genuine goods, or consented to their sale, it cannot ordinarily rely on trade mark rights to prevent the resale of those goods, whether in a physical market or online. The practical difficulty is telling the lawful resale of genuine goods apart from the unlawful use of a brand, and three decisions, read together, map that line for brand owners across India: the order of the High Court of Madras at Chennai in the MRF dispute, the Delhi Commercial Court’s decision in TTK v. Hiveloop on e-commerce resale, and the Delhi High Court’s decision in Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung on international exhaustion.
The exhaustion principle: Section 30(3)
Section 30(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides that where goods bearing a registered mark are lawfully acquired, dealing in those goods, including their sale, is not an infringement by reason only that the goods were put on the market under the mark by the proprietor or with its consent. In plain terms, once the proprietor has released genuine goods into the market, a lawful purchaser may resell them under the same mark without infringing. The rationale is straightforward: the mark has already done its job of identifying origin, the proprietor has had the benefit of the first sale, and a free market in genuine goods serves consumers.
Resale on e-commerce platforms: TTK v. Hiveloop
That the online mode makes no difference was confirmed in TTK Registered Ltd. v. Hiveloop Technology Private Ltd., decided by the Commercial Court at Tis Hazari, Delhi in December 2021. TTK, the maker of the TTK Prestige range of kitchen appliances, with its registered office at Hosur in Tamil Nadu and its corporate office in Bangalore, Karnataka, sought to prevent its genuine products from being listed and resold on a business-to-business e-commerce platform operated by Hiveloop, the company behind Udaan, without its consent. The Court held that once the proprietor itself releases genuine goods into the chain of commerce and title passes to a buyer, those are lawfully acquired goods for the purposes of Section 30(3), and the further sale of such genuine goods, including on an e-commerce platform, is protected by exhaustion. A trade mark owner cannot, ordinarily use trade mark rights to prevent the resale of genuinely acquired goods on an online marketplace.
International exhaustion: Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung
How far exhaustion reaches across borders was settled by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. A Division Bench held, in October 2012, that India follows the principle of international exhaustion: the reference to goods being put on “the market” in Section 30(3) is not confined to the Indian market, so rights are generally exhausted once genuine goods are placed on the market anywhere in the world with the proprietor’s consent. The case concerned the import and resale in India of genuine Samsung printers, products of the Korean electronics multinational, sourced from abroad, and the Court’s conclusion is the foundation of the parallel-import position in India. The Court was equally clear that the right under Section 30(3) is subject to the exception in Section 30(4).
The limits of exhaustion: Section 30(4)
Exhaustion is not absolute. Section 30(4) allows the proprietor to oppose further dealings in the goods where there are legitimate reasons, especially where the condition of the goods has been changed or impaired after they were put on the market. This is the safeguard against genuine goods being altered, refurbished, repackaged or degraded and then sold under the original mark to the detriment of the brand and of consumers. Importantly, Section 30(4) does not itself create an infringement; it removes the shield of exhaustion, after which the conduct must still independently amount to infringement.
The MRF dispute: a former dealer, and what the injunction did and did not cover
Against that framework, the order of the High Court of Madras at Chennai in MRF Limited v. M/s Conveyo Belt Centre, passed by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy on 29 April 2026, is a useful recent illustration. MRF, the well-known Indian tyre and rubber company with its registered office at Greams Road, Chennai, in Tamil Nadu, sued two Delhi-based traders, M/s Conveyo Belt Centre and another, before the High Court of Madras, for infringement, copyright and passing off. MRF’s case was that the dealership of the first defendant had been terminated in 2016 and that MRF had itself stopped manufacturing and selling the conveyor belts in question in 2019, and that, despite a cease-and-desist notice, pre-suit mediation and a written undertaking not to use the mark, the first defendant was continuing to put up stalls at exhibitions displaying MRF’s trade marks.
Finding a prima facie case, the Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using MRF’s marks in relation to their business until the next date of hearing. Crucially, it added that the order would not stand in the way of the defendants selling the remaining stock of conveyor belts bearing MRF’s mark, provided such goods are genuine. That carve-out is the heart of the matter. The injunction was aimed at the continued use of the MRF brand by a former dealer that was allegedly holding itself out, through signage and exhibition stalls, as if it were still connected with MRF, which is capable of amounting to infringement and passing off. It was not aimed at the mere resale of genuine goods the dealer had lawfully acquired, which the exhaustion principle protects.
Three situations, three different answers
Read together, these decisions show that three superficially similar activities are treated very differently under Indian trade mark law.
- Reselling genuine goods: A lawful purchaser may resell genuine goods under the original mark, in a shop or on an e-commerce platform, and whether the goods were first sold in India or abroad. The proprietor’s trade mark rights are exhausted in relation to those goods, as TTK v. Hiveloop and Kapil Wadhwa confirm.
- Trading on the brand after the relationship ends: Continuing to use the brand’s marks, signage or “authorised dealer” style after the relationship has ended is a different act altogether. It misrepresents a connection that no longer exists, and it can be restrained as infringement and passing off, as the High Court of Madras did in the MRF matter, regardless of exhaustion.
- Altered, impaired or counterfeit goods: Selling goods whose condition has been changed or impaired, or selling counterfeits, falls outside exhaustion. The proprietor can object under Section 30(4), and counterfeiting is infringement in any event.
Exhaustion, in short, protects the resale of genuine goods, not the independent use of the brand. A former dealer may sell down its genuine stock, but it may not keep trading as though it still belonged to the network.
Why this matters
The practical significance runs in both directions, for brand owners in India, whether an Indian company such as MRF or TTK or a multinational operating in India such as Samsung, and for the dealers and resellers who handle their goods. For brand owners, these decisions are a reminder that control over genuine goods is limited by exhaustion, so enforcement is best targeted at the real mischief: continued use of the marks after termination, holding out as an authorised dealer, and dealing in altered or counterfeit goods, rather than at the lawful resale of genuine stock, in shops or online. Clear termination, prompt cease-and-desist steps and documented undertakings strengthen that position. For dealers, distributors and resellers across north and south India, the lesson is that the right to sell genuine goods does not carry with it a right to use the brand. When a dealership ends, signage, marketing and any suggestion of an ongoing connection must end with it, even if genuine stock remains to be sold.
Frequently Asked Questions
Resale of Genuine Goods
Generally yes. Under the doctrine of exhaustion in Section 30(3), once genuine goods have been lawfully put on the market by the proprietor or with its consent, their resale under the same mark does not infringe, provided the goods are not altered or impaired.
Yes. The Commercial Court at Tis Hazari, Delhi held in TTK v. Hiveloop that a trade mark owner cannot prevent the resale of its genuine goods on an e-commerce platform once those goods are lawfully acquired; the online mode does not change the exhaustion position.
Yes. The High Court of Delhi held in Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics that India follows international exhaustion, so rights are generally exhausted once genuine goods are put on the market anywhere in the world with the proprietor’s consent, subject to the legitimate-reasons exception in Section 30(4).
It can seek to restrain the continued use of its marks as infringement and passing off, as the High Court of Madras did in the MRF matter, while the former dealer remains free to sell genuine remaining stock. Prompt cease-and-desist steps and written undertakings help establish the position.
Where there are legitimate reasons under Section 30(4), in particular where the condition of the goods has been changed or impaired, for example by refurbishment, repackaging or degradation that misleads consumers. Counterfeit goods never attract the exhaustion defence and remain actionable as trade mark infringement.
Generally no. Even if the dealer continues to possess genuine stock, it cannot represent itself as being associated with, authorised by, or affiliated with the brand owner once the dealership relationship has ended. Such conduct may amount to trade mark infringement or passing off.
Selling genuine goods concerns the resale of lawfully acquired products and may be protected by the exhaustion doctrine. Passing off occurs when a trader misrepresents a connection with the brand owner, leading consumers to believe that it is an authorised dealer, distributor, or affiliate.
No. The doctrine applies irrespective of the sales channel. Genuine goods may generally be resold through brick-and-mortar stores, e-commerce platforms, or other lawful channels, subject to the limitations in Section 30(4).
The trade mark proprietor may object if there are legitimate reasons under Section 30(4), particularly where the condition of the goods has been changed, impaired, or represented in a manner that may harm the reputation of the mark.
No. A claim of authorisation after termination may mislead consumers and expose the reseller to actions for trade mark infringement and passing off, even if the goods being sold are genuine.
The resale of genuine goods and the misuse of a brand are easy to confuse and important to keep separate. Exhaustion gives a lawful purchaser room to sell on what it has bought, in India or from abroad, in a shop or online; it gives no one licence to trade under a brand it no longer represents. The MRF order of the High Court of Madras at Chennai holds that line and read with TTK v. Hiveloop and Kapil Wadhwa it marks out both the limits of a brand owner’s control and the limits of a reseller’s freedom in India.
For more information on Trademark Searches, Trademark clearance, Trademark watch, Trademark filing, Trademark registration, Trademark Opposition, Trademark Rectification, Trademark Infringement, Trademark Passing Off, Exhaustion of Trademark Rights, Resale of Genuine Goods, Resale of Genuine Goods on E-Commerce Platforms, Parallel Imports and Grey Market Goods, International Exhaustion, Section 30(3) and 30(4) Defences, Post-Termination and Ex-Dealer Misuse of Marks, Counterfeiting and Anti-Counterfeiting, Trademark Litigation, Trademark Licensing, Trademark Assignment, Brand Protection etc. in India write to us at info@ssrana.com.