## Facts

- Champion Spark Plug Co. manufactured and sold spark plugs under the registered trademark “Champion.”
- Sanders and related parties collected used Champion spark plugs, repaired and reconditioned them, and resold them without removing the “Champion” mark.
- Respondents packaged reconditioned plugs in cartons bearing “Champion” and type/style identifiers, along with phrases indicating renewal or a “Perfect Process,” but did not print respondents’ name or address on the cartons.
- Respondents stamped each plug with the word “Renewed” in small lettering that could be difficult to read.
- Respondents supplied customers with Champion’s recommendation charts for plug uses.
- Champion sued alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition based on consumer confusion and appropriation of Champion’s goodwill.

## Issues

1. Whether the repair and resale of used Champion spark plugs bearing the “Champion” mark, as conducted, constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition.
2. Whether equitable relief required removal of the trademark and/or an accounting of profits, or whether prominent disclosure that the goods were used/repaired and reconditioned by respondents was sufficient.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment.
- The Court held that equity was satisfied by requiring that each plug be plainly and durably stamped “repaired” or “used,” and that containers and printed matter clearly disclose the plugs are used and reconditioned by respondents, including respondents’ name and address.
- The Court held that infringement under the Trade-Mark Act of 1905 did not automatically require an accounting when an injunction adequately addressed the equities.
- The Court held that the additional finding of unfair competition did not require more stringent controls or an accounting under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Resale of lawfully acquired goods originating with the trademark owner may be permissible even when the trademark remains, so long as the reseller makes clear the goods are used or repaired and identifies the party responsible for the reconditioning.
- When repaired or reconditioned goods remain essentially the same article in origin, continued use of the original trademark may be allowed if effective disclosures prevent consumer deception.
- In trademark cases, remedies are equitable; a court may limit relief to disclosure-oriented injunctive measures rather than ordering removal of marks or awarding profits when those measures sufficiently protect the public and the trademark owner’s goodwill.
- An accounting of profits is not mandatory upon a finding of trademark infringement if an injunction adequately resolves the equitable concerns.

## Conclusion

The Court allowed the continued presence of the “Champion” trademark on reconditioned spark plugs because the products were genuine in origin, and required clear, durable marking and packaging disclosures identifying the goods as used or repaired and identifying the refurbisher; it also approved denying an accounting where tailored injunctive relief was sufficient.


Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders, 331 U.S. 125 (1947)