Brand name use can defeat small scale exemption and justify denial of full pre-deposit waiver

Use of another concern's brand name can defeat small scale exemption even if the mark is unregistered, and registration is not decisive for Notification No. 8/2000. On the material before it, the Tribunal took a prima facie view that the mark "rollin" was a brand name owned by one group concern and used by the applicant for clearance of goods, which indicated ineligibility for exemption. It also found that the appellant had not shown sufficient hardship to justify complete waiver of pre-deposit. Total waiver was therefore refused, while conditional relief was granted by requiring a deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs and staying recovery for the balance pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant had made out a case for complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in the appeal arising from denial of small scale exemption on the ground of use of another concern's brand name.

Analysis: The Tribunal recorded a prima facie view that the mark "rollin" qualified as a brand name, and that registration was not relevant for the purpose of the exemption under Notification No. 8/2000. On the material before it, the Tribunal also found that the brand name was owned by one group concern and had been used by the applicant for clearance of the goods, which made the applicant ineligible for exemption. On the question of hardship, the Tribunal noted the appellant's business connections and concluded that full waiver was not justified.

Conclusion: The request for total waiver was rejected, but conditional relief was granted by directing deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs and waiving the balance pre-deposit with stay of recovery pending disposal of the appeal.

---