SSI exemption and house mark use: a common monogram identifying the manufacturer did not amount to another's brand name.

SSI exemption cannot be denied merely because a common monogram is used on packing material if the mark operates only as a house mark identifying the manufacturer and not as a brand name identifying the goods. The record showed that the same symbol was used across the group as a common identifying device, while the respondent did not manufacture the same goods as other group units. On that basis, the monogram '(S)' was treated as a house mark, not another person's brand name, and the denial of SSI exemption was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent-assessee was entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption notifications when the monogram '(S)' appeared on the packing material used for its goods.

Analysis: The exemption was denied by Revenue on the footing that the monogram identified the Sanghi Group and therefore amounted to a brand name or trade name of another person. The record showed, however, that the same symbol was used across the group as a common identifying device and that the respondent was not manufacturing the same goods as the other units of the group. A house mark identifies the manufacturer, whereas a product mark identifies the product itself. On that distinction, the monogram used here functioned only as a house mark and not as a brand name of the goods. The view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) was consistent with the governing principle that a common house mark does not by itself disqualify an assessee from SSI exemption.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to the SSI exemption and the denial of benefit was not sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A common mark used merely as a house mark to identify the manufacturer, and not as a product mark or brand name identifying the goods, does not amount to use of the brand name of another person so as to deny SSI exemption.

---