I think it's the interpretation of "counterfeit" that's in question
I remember first hearing about this case after he won the original case (leading to these final rounds of appeals) and while the issue was allegedly about having Apple logos on the products, with the exception of some genuine second-hand components, the remainder were apparently refurbished screens (certainly some had replaced glass, but it's not clear what other repairs) and that the Apple logos had been covered up with ink to prevent any claim that they were to be misrepresented.
Even though Henry won his original case - that was despite the court acknowledging that the ink could easily have been removed - something Henry says he's not interested in (and that nobody would see them anyway) - they clearly also agreed that the logos being present (albeit covered) were not de facto indicators of intent to defraud (customers) or to infringe trademarks (Apple's). One can only surmise that Apple have convinced the higher courts otherwise.
There's a Vice article about his earlier win here that alludes to some of the details:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3yadk/apple-sued-an-independent-iphone-repair-shop-owner-and-lost
Biting the hand that feeds IT
