The Delhi High Court recently issued a series of directives regarding the sale of used and refurbished hard disk drives (HDDs) [Seagate Technology LLC v Daichi International + connected matters].
Justice Anish Dayal specified that the packaging of refurbished products should prominently display the name of the original manufacturer, such as “Seagate” or “WD”, without misleading consumers into thinking they are purchasing the original product.
“The defendants should refrain from using the plaintiffs’ logos to avoid deceiving consumers,” the Court stated.
Additionally, the Court mandated that a clear statement must be provided indicating that the product does not come with a manufacturer’s warranty or service.
Among other directives issued by the Court:
Justice Dayal emphasized that entities selling refurbished HDDs must comply with these directives in their promotional materials, websites, e-commerce listings, brochures, and manuals.
The Court issued these directives while adjudicating a group of suits brought by Seagate Technology LLC and Western Digital Technologies Inc against several entities selling refurbished HDDs.
The defendant companies included Daichi International, Consistent Infosystems Pvt Ltd, Geonix International Pvt Ltd, and Cubicor Information Systems Pvt Ltd.
Seagate and Western Digital contended that HDDs they manufactured become unusable over time but still retain functionality. These end-of-life HDDs are refurbished by various entities globally and sold to consumers.
It was argued that these refurbished HDDs, imported to India by various importers, have their ‘Seagate’ or ‘Western Digital’ marks removed by refurbishers who then repackage and sell them under their own brand names with extended warranties.
Seagate and Western Digital claimed that this practice violated Sections 30(3) and 30(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as the removal of their brand names amounted to impairment.
However, the High Court ruled that Seagate and Western Digital failed to demonstrate any rule, regulation, or policy prohibiting the import of discarded HDDs/equipment into India.
Justice Dayal stated that if refurbishers fully disclose that they have altered or removed original marks on the HDDs and the product sold no longer resembles the original, consumers are adequately informed about their purchase.
Consequently, the Court disposed of the interim relief application filed by Seagate and Western Digital.
Advocates Ranjan Narula, Shivangi Kohli, and Aishani Singh represented Seagate Technology, while advocates Pravin Anand, Saif Khan, Shobhit Aggarwal, Prajjwal Kushwaha, and Meghana Kudligi appeared for Western Digital Technologies.
Advocate Hemant Singh acted as amicus curiae, assisted by advocates Mamta Rani Jha, Manish Kumar Mishra, Anubhav Chhabra, Saloni Kasliwal, and Rahul Choudhary.
Advocates Rashi Bansal, Saurabh Lal, Kriti Garg, and Tesu Gupta represented Daichi International, and Consistent Infosystem was represented by advocates Dushyant K Mahant and Vimlesh Kumar.
