Deceptive similarity in brand names rejected where essential word marks differed and no purchaser confusion was likely.

Use of a common device element did not, by itself, disentitle the respondent to small scale industry exemption where the essential word marks on the cement bags were clearly different. The bags and logos showed bold and prominent use of distinct words, "BBC" and "Hira", and the overall impression was not likely to confuse purchasers. The similarity in a semi-circle and diamond design was held insufficient to make the brand names deceptive or deceptively similar. The claim to exemption therefore could not be denied on the ground of brand name or trade name use.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was disentitled to small scale industry exemption on the ground that its cement bags bore a brand name or trade name deceptively similar to that of another manufacturer.

Analysis: The bags and logos used by the two concerns were compared. The distinguishing features were the bold and prominent use of different words, namely, "BBC" in one case and "Hira" in the other. Though the common device of a semi-circle with a diamond was present, the overall impression was not such as to create confusion in the mind of a purchaser. The mere presence of some common design element did not make the marks deceptive when the essential word marks were clearly different. On that basis, the cited decisions on brand name use and deceptive similarity did not assist the Revenue.

Conclusion: The respondent was not using a deceptively similar brand name or trade name, and the claim to exemption could not be denied on that ground.

---