In this Case, Defendant pleaded that repairing machines of Trademark Y shall not be regarded as acts of sale, which missed the shot. It is disputable both in legal practice and theoretical circles on whether recessive reverse passing off on trademark constitutes infringement. The reason is that the Trademark Law fails to provide specific provisions concerning the limitation on the trademark rights, which incures difficulty of legal professionals to make definite anticipation judgment on such acts. Protestors mainly held the theory of the exhaustion of trademark rights to defend the trademark proprietor from continuously use of trademark exclusive rights after the commodity is sold. In our opinion, generally speaking, after the commodity is legally sold or transferred, the trademark proprietor is not entitled to prohibit others from reselling such commodity in the market or making use of the same directly. However, before the commodity reaches the end-user, the trademark proprietor shall enjoy relevant rights on the trademark attached to the commodity. In this Case, Defendant, Company B, wasn''t the end-user, and the commercial transaction wasn''t finished. Sale of the machines without any mark after removal of the original registered trademark constituted recessive reverse passing off on trademark. I.e., the theory of the exhaustion of trademark rights shall only be applied between the trademark proprietor and the end-user so as to better protect interests of the former.

　　In the event that such opinion has ground, the ubiquitous domestic sales of commodity originally produced for exports whose trademarks are cut all comply with the constitutive requirements of the above-said recessive reverse passing off on trademark. There''s no definite criterion recently on who is right or wrong. The key is the value orientation of the legislators for the future.

　　In one word, due to the continually optimization of our country''s protection system on the intellectual property rights, technology involved in the passing off escalates accordingly. For example, other''s commodity is assembled into the infringer''s own product ("component") after the registered trademark is removed. The infringer''s own trademark is symbolized on the final commodity after assembling and then the final commodity is sold. Whether such acts constitute trademark infringement? I agree to the judgment of this Case which explains and clarifies recessive reverse passing off on trademark. I hope relevant issues may be further clarified during the future revision of the Trademark Law.