Brand name exemption cannot be denied where the same mark is used for different goods by another person.

Exemption under Notification No. 1/93 could not be denied merely because the same brand name was used by another person for different goods. A trade mark may be validly used by different persons in respect of distinct goods, and Section 8 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 recognises such separate registration within a class. Since the brand name affixed to the appellants' goods was not another person's brand name in relation to those goods, the exemption remained available and the denial was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 could be denied on the ground that the goods bore a brand name which also belonged to another person for different goods.

Analysis: Section 8 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 recognises that the same trade mark may be registered by different persons in respect of different goods within a class. On that principle, a trade mark may validly be used by different persons for distinct goods, even where the goods are capable of being used together. The brand name fixed on the appellants' goods was therefore not a brand name of another person in relation to those goods. The exemption could not be denied merely because the same mark was used by another person for different products.

Conclusion: The denial of exemption under Notification No. 1/93 was unsustainable and the benefit was available to the appellants.

---