Small scale exemption sustained where the brand name was found different and distinct, defeating the claim of deceptive similarity.

Use of a brand name does not disqualify a small scale unit from exemption unless the mark is shown to be identical or deceptively similar to another's mark. On the specimen brand name produced by the respondents, the Tribunal found the two marks to be different and distinct, and held that the alleged resemblance was insufficient to deny the exemption. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was found free from infirmity, and the Revenue's challenge failed. The respondents were therefore entitled to the benefit of the small scale exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were disentitled to the benefit of the small scale exemption on the ground that the goods were cleared under a brand name allegedly identical or deceptively similar to another mark.

Analysis: The Tribunal found, on the basis of the specimen brand name produced by the respondents, that the two marks were different and distinct. The alleged resemblance was not sufficient to deny the exemption, and no infirmity was found in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Conclusion: The respondents were entitled to the benefit of the small scale exemption, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---