Removal of branding constituting trademark infringement
<p>A common brand of commercial refrigerators used in stores in my country all have the following sticker on them (emphasis mine):</p>
<blockquote>
<h2>Trademark Infringement</h2>
<p>The [Brand Name] trademark on this product is infringed if the owner, for
the time being, does any of the following:</p>
<ul>
<li>Applies the trade mark to the product after its state, condition, get-up or packaging has been altered in any manner</li>
<li>Alters, <strong>removes</strong> (including part removal) or obliterates (including part obliteration) the trade mark on the product</li>
<li>Applies any other trade mark to the product</li>
<li>Adds to the product any written material that is likely to damage the reputation of the trade mark</li>
</ul>
<p>Notice of the above contractual obligations passes to:</p>
<ul>
<li>Successors or assignees of the buyer</li>
<li>Future owners of the product</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>So they're claiming that removing their branding form one of their products would constitute  trademark infringement. Is there any legal basis for this claim (or any of the others)? How could buying one of their units and removing all of their branding from it infringe their trademark?</p>

<h2>It’s mostly crap</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0fb17a61-84c4-4b47-b2c9-f8794eca695a" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Trademarks</a> in <a href="/questions/tagged/new-zealand" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;new-zealand&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;new-zealand&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-new-zealand-tooltip-container">new-zealand</a> do what they do everywhere else: prevent other people from using your trademark to identify their goods or services.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Applies the trade mark to the product after its state, condition, get-up or packaging has been altered in any manner</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It’s still their product so using their trademark to identify it is legal. Even if the change is substantial - consider the Intel Inside trademark for chips inside computers.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Alters, removes (including part removal) or obliterates (including part obliteration) the trade mark on the product</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Nope - your fridge, do what you like with it.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Applies any other trade mark to the product</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This one depends. If you do it in such a way that it could confuse a reasonable person that the fridge is the product of the other trademark, that’s a violation. But if you stick AC/DC stickers to your fridge, it isn’t.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Adds to the product any written material that is likely to damage the reputation of the trade mark.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Like writing “sux” or “produces crap fridges” after their brand name? Nope, that’s just freedom of speech - or criminal damage if you don’t own the fridge.</p>
<p>Now, any or all of these obligations could be made terms of the contract when you buy the product but breaching them would be a contract law matter, not a trademark law matter. In any event, terms on a sticker inside a box are not part of the contract unless it can be proved that you were made aware of and agreed to them.</p>
<p>Even if you agreed, it would only apply to successors, assignees, or future owners if <em>they</em> agreed. As written, you have no obligation to ask them to agree when the fridge moves on.</p>

trademark new-zealand