"Fact pattern" is just law lingo for the particular kind of factual situation you describe.
When the facts in a particular situation are out of the norm, it's hard to give a quick off the cuff assessment of how the law might play out for someone in that situation. Unless an attorney just handled a similar case, s/he'll usually have to hit the books to see if any courts have dealt with similar situations, which can be a lot of work and is beyond the scope of our general discussions here.
That being said, and without advising or offering a legal opinion here, it seems to me there's no reason why a retailer of used goods couldn't have a trademark which indicated his/her business as the (secondary) source of the used products. A business that inspects and tests used goods for a certain level of quality should be able to have a mark that sets their used goods apart from other used goods. If another business began to use a similar mark in a way which was likely to lead to consumer confusion, I should think there would be a basis to claim infringement.
Now, whether or not the original manufacturers would have any grounds to complain about a sticker indicating the used-market seller being affixed along side their own marks, that's another matter.