Trade mark quality
An end consumer is deceived if he buys a good presuming it to have been originated from a certain source where actually it is not. The trade mark reflects the source of origin of good manufactured by a certain trader. The basic purpose of a trade mark is to ensure the following  :
It identifies the product and its origin:
It guarantees its quality:
It advertises the product:
And, finally it creates an image or aura of the product in the minds of the prospective consumer of such good:
Thus, for example, the mark coca cola on the soft drink bottle indicates that those bottles are manufactured by coca cola and the consumers can trust it with certain quality and associate it with other coca cola products.
Trademarks come into existence when the mark is used i.e. when the mark is put on a product  . Thus, an infringement of trade mark may occur when a person uses the mark of another person without his authorisation. Registration of trademark comes with a package of rights. The most important of which is – the monopoly right, the trademark can be put to use either exclusively by the owner or by his authorised licensee with his consent  . Thus, if any person other than the owner of the trademark puts the mark on his product, the trademark owner can prohibit him from doing so.
This monopolistic right of the owner is restricted by the principle of territoriality. The trademark law exists in every county. These rights are governed by statutory law of the country. These laws are further regulated by the international conventions  especially, in case of intellectual property, by the Paris convention (article 2), the Berne convention (article 5) and the principal of national treatment. In conversational terms, this principal of territoriality means that owner of the trademark will have to register his mark in all the counties he intend to use the mark, even if the mark is same. So, for example, where the owner of the trademark has registered his mark in two countries X and Y, the good produce in both these countries are genuine, however in light of the principle of territoriality, the owner of the trademark can prevent the imports of these genuine product from X country to Y country, as the product manufactured are by two different undertakings, i.e. coca cola (India) can prevent imports from coca cola (United Kingdom). To counter this situation the principle of exhaustion is applies.
PRINCIPLE OF EXHAUTION
Exhaustion means if the marked goods are once placed on the market by the owner of the trademark or by any other person with his consent, the owner cannot prevent subsequent sales of the goods in the same market, as the ‘exclusive right’ is exhausted after the first sale of the goods and cannot be exercised twice in respect of the same goods. Doctrine of exhaustion is a defence in the hands of the parallel importer.
The way in which a country coexists with other countries can have a profound effect on the way it operates the doctrine of exhaustion  . Under the international regime three forms of exhaustion have been recognized. These are:-
National Exhaustion - where the owner exhausts his right only if the marked goods are sold for the first time domestically.
Regional Exhaustion - where the rights are exhausted only if the first sale occurs within his own country or any country within a region.
International Exhaustion - where rights are exhausted irrespective of the place where the marked goods are first put for sale.
This means that, “if the good are sold for the first time in the domestic market or within the territory of the country in which the trademark is registered, the owner of the trademark loses his right over the goods and cannot prevent subsequent sales of the same in the domestic market within the country. However, if the goods are sold for the first time in a different country beyond the jurisdiction of the nation in which the trademark is registered, then the owner can invoke his trademark right to prevent the importation of such goods into the domestic market". India has adopted this form of exhaustion under the section 30 of the Trademarks Act, 1999.
Regional Exhaustion means: “If the goods bearing a trademark are put on sale in any country within the specific region by the owner or with is consent, the owner cannot stop subsequent sale of that product in his own country or in any country within the region. But if the goods are put on sale in a country outside the region, the owner can prevent anyone who imports the goods into that region and subsequent all them  ". The EU has adopted regional exhaustion where by ‘sale in one country is equal to it being an act of sale in any other country within the region.
Global exhaustion operates on the premise that if goods bearing a trademark are once sold in a specific country by the owner or with his consent, he cannot stop subsequent sale of those goods either in his own country or in any other country. This doctrine works on the assumption that the whole world is one market or one country and thus goods once sold in any part of such market or country operates as exhaustion of rights of the trademark owner over such goods.
Increasing international trade is vital to the prolongation of globalization. Without international trade, nations would be limited to the goods and services produced within their own national borders. Intellectual property and international trade have a close relationship and parallel import is a problem which arises out of international trade. Markets around the world are swamped with ‘parallel imported’ goods.
Parallel import means: “A product bought in one country and imported in to another by the importer, often to take advantage of the price difference between states; such product also known as grey market goods. Parallel importation usually takes place outside suppliers - authorized official networks"  . In simple words, parallel import takes place where the price of a product is cheaper in one country, than the price in another country. To take the advantage of this price difference, the importer imports the marked goods from the country where the price of the goods are cheaper and sells it the importing country at a rate, cheaper than the same goods which are already places in the market, without the authorization of the trademark owner. This act is usually done outside the normal distribution channel.
Parallel importation is an act, where by unauthorized person imports the marked good which are cheaper in one country and sells them in another country, to make profit as of the price difference.
Parallel Importation – for / against? The owner of the trademark good would undoubtedly be against parallel importation as he can earn more revenue, not having grey marketed goods placed in the domestic market. On the other hand, the end consumer would favour it as they can enjoy wide variety of good at a much cheaper price. To resolve this dual interest, there are two types of regulatory mechanism which are recognized. They are
Contractual – As long as the contract is not, against competition law, too monopolistic and restrictive, the owner of the trademark may compel any restrictions on his licensees from selling the marked goods in particular area  .
Legal – Many countries, in interest of the consumer, by their jurisdiction ensure that the goods which are imported, out of the normal distribution channel, are clearly marked as gray marketed good, so that the basic purpose of the trade mark is not questioned. This form of importation is executive through custom notification, where the goods bear a clear distinction as gray marketed good, ensuring the basic function of the trademark i.e. the source of origin.
Exhaustion of rights and Lnternational Law
Marketing of products abroad will not involve exhaustion. Under Article 4 and 6(3) of Paris Convention; principle of territoriality is applied for Trade Marks. Further the question of exhaustion and Parallel Imports was also left open by TRIPs agreement. Article 6 particularly mentions that “for the purposes of dispute settlement under this agreement, subject to the provisions of Article 3 and 4 above nothing in this agreement shall be used to address the issue of the exhaustion of Intellectual Property Rights" which makes clear that this does not affect the issue of Exhaustion  . The effect of the provisions in the TRIPs agreement that are relevant to the exhaustion of Intellectual Property Rights is to leave each member free to establish its own regime for such exhaustion without challenge, subject to the MFN and National Treatment provisions of Article 3 & 4.
International law thus leaves the question of exhaustion and Parallel imports up to each country. Hence the practice of Parallel Imports is legally allowed within the European Union, as well as in India (after the adoption of Trademarks Act 1999), but the United States feels that Article 6 of TRIPs is restricted to the dispute resolution process only.
A Swot Analysis of Different Parallel Import Legislation
The European Economic Area (European union)
The EEA law of the principle of exhaustion is being developing for last twenty five years. The EEA has adopted regional exhaustion where by an act of sale in one country is equivalent to it being an act of sale in any country within the region. EEA follows the rule of free movement of goods within the EEA. The fundamental principle of the free movement of goods reflects the European Unions’ goal of achieving a single market  . Prior to the Harmonization directive (89/104/EU), Article 28 and 30 of the Rome Treaty laid down the rules for the free movement of goods, which is as follows:
Article 28 lay down: “.... qualitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member State. However this provision shall not preclude prohibition or restriction on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on the grounds of..... the protection of industrial and commercial property.
Article 30 lays down: “... such restrictions or prohibitions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the trade between Member states  ".
In simple words, any intellectual property right which confine the trade between the member states shall only be defensible if this is to safeguard the essential function for the intellectual property right concerned. These provisions of the treaty, in light of judicial precedents by ECJ, were codified under Article 7 of Directive 2008/95/EU (Earlier, Trademark Directive 89/104/EU).
Article 7  states:
The trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit its use in relation to goods which have been put on the market in the Community under that trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent.
Paragraph 1 shall not apply where there exist legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose further commercialization of the goods, especially where the condition of the goods is changed or impaired after they have been put on the market.
The EU law on parallel import or rule of exhaustion is categorised into two:
First sale is outside the EEA
First sale within the EEA
First sale is outside EEA
Article 7 of the Trademark Directive as well as Section 12 of the Trademark act 1994 was uncertain about the international exhaustion. There were no provisions relating to international exhaustion. Article 7 only dealt with the situation where the goods where placed within the EEA. In other word it only concentrates on the community market (European context). Due to this ignorance on the question of international exhaustion, there was a huge confusion between the countries. And the countries were free to adopt the rule of international exhaustion. Some countries adopted the international exhaustion were as some adopted the regional exhaustion only. Prior to the Trademark Directive, the question of whether on international exhaustion was totally a matter for the internal law of the member state, as seen in the case EMI Records Ltd vs. CBS United Kingdom Ltd.  But in 1984, after the Explanatory Memorandum for the Directive, published as a part of the proposal  to amend the CTMR, it became clear that EEA did not adopt international exhaustion.
An important case on international exhaustion was the ‘Silhouette case’.In Silhouette International Schmied GmbH & Co v Hartlauer HGmbH, the issue involved was:
(1) Is Article 7(1) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) to be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark entitles its proprietor to prohibit a third party from using the mark for goods which have been put on the market under that mark in a State which is not a Contracting State? On which the court held that “under Art.7 exhaustion of rights occurred only when the product had been put on the market within the EEA. H's argument went against both the wording of Art.7 and the purpose of the Directive, which was to safeguard the functioning of the internal market. Article 5 to Art.7 had to be construed as providing a complete harmonisation of substantive rules governing the rights conferred by trademarks, and divergence in national rules applying to exhaustion of rights would inevitably hinder the free movement of goods and services,"
(2) May the proprietor of the trade mark on the basis of Article 7(1) of the Trade Marks Directive alone seek an order that the third party cease using the trade mark for goods which have been put on the market under that mark in a State which is not a Contracting State?. Court held that Art.7 (1) did not, per se, give a proprietor the right to restrain third parties from using his mark for products placed on the market outside the EEA. However, Member States were required, in implementing Art.5 of the Directive, to ensure that a proprietor could obtain an order to restrain third parties from infringing his rights, and domestic law was to be interpreted by national courts so far as possible to achieve the purpose of the Directive 
After this decision, it was clear that the member states could not include their own domestic international exhaustion rules, and it is well settle that the goods places outside the EEA can be prevented from being imported within EEA by the owner of the trademark, but it can only be prevented if the good are placed within the EEA without the consent of the trademark owner. Now, the next important question arose from it was on the term “consent" in Para (1) of article 7.
The first attempt by the parallel importer to construct this term in their favour was in the case of Sebago Inc vs. GB Unic SA  , where the issue involved was that the proprietor of the trademark had consented a batch of shoes to be put into the market the defendants argued the proprietor consent to identical goods to be placed onto the market was deemed. The ECJ rejected this issue and held “even though Article 7 of the Directive was silent on this issue, it was necessary for the importer to demonstrate a trademark proprietor’s consent to the particular batch in question. The principle of consent therefore only applies to the individual goods themselves and not to the class of goods to which they belong".
Implied consent/ unequivocal consent
The owner of the trade mark does not automatically get the right to prevent the importation of the good to EEA, which are placed outside the EEA; he can do so if the good are imported without his consent. The consent of the proprietor can be implied. In 1999, ECJ disagreed with Laddie J’s analysis in Zina Davidoff SA vs. G Imports Ltd  said that, this consent of the owner of the trademark can be implied but this consent is to be drawn by the facts and circumstances preceding the placing of the goods within market, the consent must be positive and unequivocal. This means that, the necessary consent cannot be inferred from the fact that the owner of the trademark had not expressly prohibited the exporting of the goods to and their further marketing in the EEA. However, the trademark proprietor’s consent to further marketing need not be express, but if the parallel importer provides evidence of an unequivocal intention on the part of trademark owner that he would be comfortable for the goods to be taken to the EEA for further marketing then proprietor does not have the right to stop the imports, as it will then be considered that the goods are places in the market with the consent of the trademark owner. So, the owner of the trademark has to impose sufficient restriction on to the distributor outside EEA so that the good are not imported within the EEA.
Although after the decision on Davidoff case it was concrete that the consent of the trademark owner can be implied, but until 2007 there was no case in which implied consent could be established, it was considered very difficult to mount a successfully case of implied consent. In 2007 the English Court for the first time, establish an unequivocal consent in Mastercigars vs. Hunters & Frankau  . “The appellant purchased Cuban cigars from the retail outlet in Cuba an imported them into United Kingdom, the retail outlet was permitted by the trade mark owner to sell up to twenty five (USD) worth of cigars to an individual per transaction, and to provide document for export through Customs. The appellant’s consignment was seized by United Kingdom Customs at the instigation of the exclusive UK distributor. On appeal, it was held that the trade mark proprietor had consented to the goods being put on the market in the EEA. Consent could be implied, and ‘unequivocal’ did not mean that the defendant had to prove implied consent. The proprietor’s permit to the retail outlet to sell cigar for export indicated unequivocally his consent to the use of the trade marks on the purchasers’ home markets, and also, the export quantity which was allowed to an individual to buy was much higher for self consumption"  .
So in light of the above said cases it is clear that “registered trade mark shall confer on the proprietor exclusive rights therein. The proprietor shall be entitled to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using the in the course of trade" 
First sale is within EEA
Under the Trademark Act 1938, The United Kingdom and other common law countries for the first time introduced the law on doctrine of exhaustion. At that time the proprietor of the trademark could prevent the importation of parallel imports by filing an action of infringement or passing off. As the European community developed, a doctrine of exhaustion of rights began to take shape under the principle of free movement of goods  .
After a period and the decision of the ECJ  , it was finally established that trademark right will rest with proprietor unless the goods which are placed in the community market by the trademark proprietor or with is consent. Article 7 of the Directive deals with this specific provision i.e. the doctrine of exhaustion of right within the EEA. So it is evident from this fact that the European Economic Area exercises regional exhaustion.
After the adoption of Article 7 of the directive, a number of cases commencing article 7 have come before the ECJ. These cases were mainly relating to the terminology of article, especially relation to the term “consent" in Para (1) and the term “legitimate reason" in Para (2) of article (7).
As explained above, it is well settle rule the “the trademark proprietor right are not exhausted when the good are place in the market without his consent. The owner has to consent all the goods which are imported with the EEA. The consent cannot be considered as deemed in case for identical goods, of those the owner has consented. The importer has to show the proprietors consent on all the goods which are imported, it cannot be presume that the proprietor had give his consent to the category of the goods imported  . Although, the Trademark proprietor’s consent can be implied in some situations, but it is to be drawn by the facts and circumstances preceding the placing of the goods within market. 
A large amount of cases concerning doctrine of exhaustion of rights within EEA are raised from the importation of pharmaceutical products. The problem arises where the parallel importer has to repackage or make adjustments to the marked goods, before they are put into the market, so that they are acceptable to the targeted consumers. This situation is based on the rule of necessity, where the goods have to be altered, to ensure that the goods enjoy the same competitive advantage. The parallel importer might have to change the language on the product or change the standard size or quantity of the marked goods due to the national laws of the importing country or even has to affix a different trademark, where the trademark owner uses different trademark in different countries within EEA. At this stage the trademark proprietor has the right to prevent the parallel importer from importing marked goods as it will be considered as a “legitimate reason" with the preview of Para (2) of Article 7.
The legitimate reasons may be categorised into two:
Affixing a different Trademark or Repackaging/Relabeling/Rebranding
Advertising parallel imports
Affixing a Different Trademark
A problem arises where the trademark owner uses different trade marks for the same product in different territories within the EEA, this prohibits the parallel importer from affixing trade mark that trademark owner uses for the importing country. This situation is called artificial partitioning of the market, where the trademark owner uses different trademarks within the EEA to partition the EEA into separate territorial markets. This is contrary to the goal of achieving a single market. However this problem could not be resolved by just giving parallel importer an unqualified right to affix a different trade mark as it will undermine the legal and economic significance of the trade mark. To tackle this situation ECJ in Bristol-Myers Squibb  gave a set of three conditions which the parallel importer has to satisfy before putting the goods into the market. These conditions are as follows  :
Use of trademark rights to prevent imports would contribute to artificial partitioning of markets between the Member states,
The repackaging did not adversely affect the original condition of the product, and
The parallel importer complied with certain obligation as to labelling and provision of sample:
Condition (A) - Artificial partitioning of markets between the Member states.
A case where the issue of artificial partitioning and relabeling  was involved was the loendersloot case  , where the loendersloot, removed the word “pure" and the name of the importer from the whiskey bottle and relabelled it and imprinted his own name as a parallel importer, the ECJ agreed with the defendant and held that it was necessary to remove the word “pure" and importers name from the whiskey bottle to be marketed in a particular member states, as without so it was impossible to import (due to national restrictions) and then Bellantine’s right on its trade mark right would contribute to the artificial partitioning of the markets  .
Condition (B) adversely affecting the original condition of the goods
If the owner of the trademark show that the condition of the goods have changed or impaired before putting into the market then the rule of exhaustion will not apply and he will rest with all the right to prevent such import.
One of the first case on the “change or impairment" was involve was the Levis case  , where the German court held that the bleaching and then dying the jeans in to a different colour was regarded as modifying the jeans and this act would adversely affect the Levis brands and the doctrine of exhaustion cannot be applied here. According to the ECJ in BMS case  , in case of a situation where the goods have been changed or impaired this will be the matter for the national courts to assess on cases by case basis. And the ECJ has laid down some guidance for the national courts.
Condition (C) - labelling and provision of sample
Under this condition the parallel importer has to comply with certain condition concerning the labelling and has to provide an advance notice and a sample to the trademark proprietor. The parallel importer has to indicate on the external packaging as to who repackaged the goods and also if the parallel importer had added an extra product in the package then he has to indicate that product added in the package is not associated with the trademark owner. In Sony Computer Entertainment Inc vs. Tesco stores Ltd,  Lloyd J held that “parallel importer did not have to say explicitly that it had repackaged the product with an additional article, but he was not sure that it had done enough by the notice on the packaging to dispel the impression that Sony was responsible for it".
The requirement of an advance notice to be given by the parallel importer to the owner of the trademark is a prerequisite to all the conditions of the BMS. It is to ensure that the proposed repackaging actually does affect physical or mental condition of the goods, to give an opportunity to object to their sale. This requirement does not only apply on pharmaceutical products but to other product too (whiskey bottle)  .
So in light of above cases it is clear that the parallel importer has to stick to all the guidelines which are laid down by ECJ in BMS vs. Paranova  for repackaging or relabeling or rebranding to prevent there good from being detained. The trademark owner has the right to prevent the parallel importer from importing marked goods, and placing it within EEA, only when the importer does not comply will all the BMS conditions.
Advertising parallel imports
Under article 7 of the directive, it is possible that the owner of the trade mark can prevent the parallel importer on the basis of repackaging of good, but the owner of the trademark may also prevent the parallel importer on advertising of the good. An important case on this situation was Perfumes Christian Dior SA vs. Evora BV. ECJ held that once the goods are place in the market the owner’s rights are exhausted and the reseller may advertise the goods to spread awareness to the targeted consumers. But when applying the BMS condition the ECJ held that the owner of the trademark can prevent the parallel importer from advertising the products if the advertisement adversely affects the reputation of the trademark (damage the reputation)
Although it is not clear that from the decision of the Perfumes Christian Dior SA vs. Evora BV, that does this principle apply only to luxury goods only. But ECJ had cleared that the principles which have been developed in the court’s case law relating to trademark shall apply to all the forms of the intellectual property right.
India has always been lenient on the law relating to parallel import. This is because, prior to the Trademark Act 1999, the law on the trademarks was governed by the Trademarks and Merchandise Act of 1958, in which, there was no provisions related to parallel imports. In other words, Indian trademark law was never tested by examining a trademark infringement claim against parallel imports. The Trademarks and Merchandise Act of 1958 was amended and repealed by a new Trademarks Act, 1999 (1999 Act), which came into effect in 2003. The Trademarks Act, 1999 for the first time the concept of exhaustion was introduced under section 30 sub sections (3)  . Although the Trademark act 1999 does not expressly use the term “parallel imports" but Section 29 and Section 30 prohibit the practice of parallel imports. Section 29 deals with the ‘Infringement of trademark’ and section 30 deals with the ‘Limits of effect of registered trade mark’. The relevant segments of these sections are as follows:
Section 29(1) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or having permission, uses in the course of trade, a mark that is identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered and in such a manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade mark. 
Section 29 (6), For the purposes of this section, a person uses a registered trade mark, if, in particular, he –
Affixes it to goods or packaging;
Imports or exports goods under the mark; or  .
So, while reading Section 29(1) and section 29(6)(c) together it becomes clear that if any person, other than the trademark owner, imports the goods, without the owner’s consent, then this act will be considered to be use of trademark in course of trade and will constitute infringement of exclusive right of the trademark owner
Section 30 of the trademark act 1999 states the act which will not be considered as infringement, which includes the provisions relating to the doctrine of exhaustion. Section 30(2)(c)(i) states that, to avoid the trademark proprietor from claiming infringement on the imported goods, the parallel importer has to show the consent of the trademark proprietor. This consent may be expressed or implied.
Section 30(3)(b) :- Where the marked goods are lawfully acquired by a parallel importer, the sale of the goods in the market or subsequent dealing in those goods by importer will not amount to infringement, where those goods have been put on to the market by the proprietor or with his consent,
After the amendment in 2003, the new Trademark Act, 1999 included, sub section (4) in section 30. This sub section is identical to article 7 (2) of the European Trademark Directive. Section 30 (4) is an exception to section 30 (3). Section 30 (4) states that the trademark proprietor can prevent the parallel importer from further dealing of marked good, only where there exist legitimate reason to do so. In particular where the condition of the goods has been changed or impaired after they have been put on the market.
One of the first cases touching the question of exhaustion of rights in context to parallel importation, provided under section 30(3)(b) was Bose Corporation vs. S. Mehta  where the court observed the plaintiff’s company offered warranty on their music system, this warranty was available only on the display of the original proof of purchase from the authorised Bose dealer (India), defendant was importing these music systems and offering limited warranty, which was not applicable in India. After looking into all the arguments place by both the sides the Delhi High Court issued an interim injunction against the retailer defendants from selling the Bose Corporation's digital audio music systems in the Indian market without authorization.
Another case exploring section 30 (3)(b) was General Electric vs. Altamas Khan  , where GE brought a trademark infringement claim against an unauthorized retailer of a GE dehumidifier, which was a parallel import. At that time, GE did not sell any dehumidifiers in the Indian market, which was noted by the court. The court not only granted an interim injunction but also appointed the court commissioner to seize all GE dehumidifiers from the defendant's premises  .
After the new Trademark Act, 1999 coming into force in 2003, there has been no case on which on the section 30 sub section 4 until August 2006 when Samsung filed a multiple trademark infringement suits against retailers and parallel importer importing Samsung ink cartridges and toners. This was the first time when the Delhi high court gave its judgment on trademarks and parallel imports.
Samsung Electronics Company Ltd & others vs. G Choudhary & others 
Fact of the case / issues involved
In this case plaintiffs, were the legal owner of the mark “Samsung", filed a case against the retailers and parallel importers (defendants) importing ink cartridges and toners from China. The defendants were selling these toners and cartridges under the trademark “Samsung", these toners and cartridges were manufactured by the plaintiff itself but in China. The plaintiff claimed "change or impairment" in the condition of goods on two grounds that, although the products were genuine, the imported goods were not conform for Indian packaging and labelling law as the description was in Chinese, and the products did not carry after sale services and warranty benefits.
The Delhi High Court took a month and multiple hearings to examine the statute and case law from jurisdictions such as the US and the EU, and held that a cause of action for trademark infringement may be available to the proprietor against an importer where there is legitimate reason, in this case the genuine goods have been materially altered without proprietor’s consent after placing them in the market. Further, the court held that there was a prima facie case for injunction since it was certain that the goods and evidence to substantiate the complaints would be removed if an injunction was not granted. Accordingly, the defendants were restrained from importing, exporting, distributing, selling, directly or indirectly dealing in grey market ink cartridges or toners of the plaintiff bearing the mark ‘SAMSUNG’.
In light of the above said cases, it is clear that the parallel importation is allowed in India. Section 30(3) for the trademarks Act, 1999 provides that where the parallel import which are legally purchased and the trademark owner had already put them in to the market, the parallel importation is allowed (doctrine on exhaustion). Section 11(2) (n) of the Customs Act, 1962 restricts or prohibits import and export of goods infringing trademarks. And section 30(4) states that the trademark owner may prevent the importation by the parallel importer bearing his trademark, where there is a “legitimate reason" to do so.
Indian trademark law and TRIPS
In observance if the TRIPS obligation, in the article 51 to 60, the government of India has issued Notification 49/2007, Customs dated May 8 2007, under the above Section 11(2)(n) of the Customs Act 1962, prohibiting import of goods infringing the IP rights of the right holders under the Trade Marks Act 1999. Articles 51 to 60 of TRIPs deal with border measures relating trade mark infringement, India has issued the Notification and has framed rules to impose the bar in respect of trade mark infringement conforming to the practice prevailing in other countries. In this regard, the trade mark owner or its representative is required to give notice in writing to the Commissioner of Customs, requesting suspension of clearance of goods suspected to be infringing an IP right. However, grant of registration of such notice is allowed by Customs subject to the execution of a bond, along with surety or an authorized representative. Once such a notice is registered, clearance of the impugned imported goods is suspended. If the infringement is proved, the goods are treated as prohibited goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of Customs Act 1962.
European union / European Economic Area
EU has adopted the rule of regional exhaustion. This rule is also known as Community-wide exhaustion, whereby the member states allow parallel importation of marked goods which have been already put in the community market, by the trademark owner. This rule is given under Article 7 of the Directive. This rule is based on the fundamental “principle of free movement of good" which reflects the European Union’s goal to achieve a single market (Fortress Europe).
The Trademark owner can prevent the parallel importer from importing marked goods which are placed outside the EEA, as the EEA, after the Explanatory Memorandum for the Directive, published as a part of the proposal to amend the CTMR, did not adopt international exhaustion. No Member could continue to adopt international exhaustion, because it would create a barrier against the EEA’s goal to achieve single market. At this point it would but appropriate to cote the statement given by the Jacob LJ in Mastercigars v. Hunters & Frankau (2007) where he stated “The public would be surprised to know (and perhaps somewhat resentful of the fact) that the law of the [European Union] is such that if genuine goods are available outside Europe much cheaper than they are here, traders cannot buy them and import them for sale here, unless the trade mark owner has consented. Even though the trade mark tells the truth, its use can be prevented without that consent. The policy behind this rule has been called “Fortress Europe". So the consent of the trademark owner is a prerequisite for the parallel importer to gain, if he intends to import the marked goods from outside the EEA. Although this consent can be implied by the actions of the trademark owner, so it is advisable to the owner to have a contractual agreement with their distributors outside EEA, limiting the boundaries of the distribution.
The EEA has adopted the rule of fortress Europe (community-wide exhaustion) but the trademark owner can prevent the parallel importer from importing the marked goods which are placed within the EEA market, if the goods have been altered or impaired before they are placed on to market. Further, the trademark owner can also prevent the parallel importation within the EEA if there is a legitimate reason to do so. What constitutes ‘legitimate reason’ depends upon the facts and circumstances, of the case, preceding the placing of the goods within market. And finally, the trademark owner may have contractual agreement with distributers with the EEA, but it as to go though the guidelines given under Article 81 and 82 of the directive. In other words any agreement between the owner and the distributer having restriction on the further sale of the marked goods has to pass the test under these sections. After looking at all the above statutory provisions, judicial precedent and procedural rules, it clear that the EEA law on the parallel imports and the rule on exhaustion is well settled.
India has always been lenient on the restricting imports. After, The Trademarks Act, 1999 enforced in the year 2003, India finally included the rule relating to the doctrine of exhaustion of rights. Since then, there are not many cases touching this topic. Whatever small amount of cases that came under this was decided ex parte. The provisions which are there under Trademark Act, 1999 are more favourable to parallel imports.
Although after the Act, 1999 more importance is given on the fact that the parallel imported goods should expressly tell the “source of origin", which is the basic function of the trademark. In my view, Indian Trademark Law is on the same line as of European law. Section 30(3) states that, the parallel imports which are legally purchased, with the consent of the trademark owner, and put them in to the market, the parallel importation is allowed. Section 30(4) is corresponding to Article 7 of the European Harmonisation Directive dealing with prevention of parallel imports by the trademark owner on the ground of “legitimate reasons". But Indian law is not developed, as there have not been many cases which have come in front of the judiciary. The courts do not have much judicial precedents on to rely. Where, Indian judiciary faces any case relation to this topic it runs to see the law set in the European Union and the United States. India follows national exhaustion which can be seen after the amendment, in the year 2007, on Customs Act and Trademark Act, to comply with the TRIPS agreement.
India seems to be next in line to standardize parallel imports. Though, looking at the statutory provisions, it can be said that trademark owners’ rights are protected under the Trademarks Act and the Customs Act, in this regard, but due to lack of awareness of these law and their interpretation, Indian law is unclear.