Brand name exemption depends on first use and enforceable ownership, so the logo dispute was remanded for fresh determination.

Exemption under the notification was not dependent on the user owning the brand name or logo. The decisive enquiry was the first use of the monogram/logo "Cyclo" and whether any legally enforceable ownership right existed in trade and mercantile practice. As the record showed use of the logo by more than one concern at different times and that enquiry had not been properly concluded, the matter was remanded for de novo determination after hearing the appellants. The appellants succeeded to that extent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to the exemption notification benefit in respect of goods cleared under the monogram/logo "Cyclo", and whether the matter required remand for determination of first use and legal ownership of the logo.

Analysis: The exemption notification did not contain any condition that the brand name or logo must be owned by the user in order to claim the benefit. The factual record showed that the logo had been used at different times by more than one concern, including the appellants and earlier users. On those facts, the decisive enquiry was who first used the logo and whether any legally enforceable ownership right could be established in trade and mercantile practice. Since that factual and legal enquiry had not been properly concluded, fresh determination was necessary after hearing the appellants and considering the applicable legal position.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the original authority for de novo decision on the question of first use and legal ownership of the logo, and the appellants succeeded to that extent.

---