Delhi HC rules Indian trademark law follows an International exhaustion regime Saikrishna Rajagopal Shwetasree Majumder and Pravin Anand appear

In a landmark judgment, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has held that Indian trademark law follows an “international exhaustion” regime. The Bench comprising of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Siddharth Mridul has partially allowed the appeal filed by Kapil Wadhwa and others (Appellants) against the judgment of Single Judge Justice Manmohan Singh in Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Kapil Wadhwa & Ors..In a landmark judgment, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has held that Indian trademark law follows an “international exhaustion” regime. The Bench comprising of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Siddharth Mridul has partially allowed the appeal filed by Kapil Wadhwa and others (Appellants) against the judgment of Single Judge Justice Manmohan Singh in Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Kapil Wadhwa & Ors..The Single Judge had held that the Appellants were guilty of trademark infringement and had ruled that trademark law prohibits the sale of imported genuine products without the authorization of the registered proprietor in India..Partially allowing the appeal, the Division Bench set aside the judgment dated February 17, 2012 insofar as the Appellants had been restrained from importing printers, ink cartridges/toners bearing the trade mark Samsung/SAMSUNG and selling the same in India. However, the Appellants would continue to remain injuncted from meta-tagging their website to that of Samsung..By way of background, Samsung Electronics Co. and its Indian subsidiary Samsung India had initially filed a suit claiming that the Appellants were selling genuine and unaltered Samsung printers imported directly from foreign markets into India without due authorization. The Single Judge had held that the Appellants were guilty of trademark violation. It was against this judgment, the Appellants had filed an appeal..Samsung was reprsented by Pravin Anand of Anand & Anand while the Kapil Wadhwa and others were represented Saikrishna Rajagopal on instructions from Shwetasree Majumdar of Fidus Law Chambers..The Court observed that an “erroneous approach” had led the Single judge to conclude that unless goods are imported into India by the consent of the registered proprietor of a trade mark “the act of importation is not permitted” as per sub Section 3 of Section 30 (of the Trademarks Act), which provision provides for “acquisition by consent for the purposes of import”..The Court also recognized the the principle of international exhaustion under the Trademarks Act, 1999 and observed that the same was clear from the fact that the term ‘in any geographical area’, in the Statement of Objects and Reasons to the Trade Mark Bill 1999 “clearly envisaged that the legislative intent was to recognize the principle of international exhaustion of rights to control further sale of goods once they were put on the market by the registered proprietor of the trade mark”..Shwetasree Majumder, Founder of Fidus Law Chambers, Counsel for the Appellants said, “We were of the firm belief consistently through this litigation that we were correctly interpreting the trademark law of the land and this judgment is a vindication of that belief. Ultimately, a court is not the forum to decide policy. If the policy enshrined in the Trademarks Act is international exhaustion then we have to respect that policy decision.”.This judgment is sure to have far reaching consequences on the pricing of goods available in the market.