SSI exemption and shared brand ownership: use of a jointly owned brand name did not defeat notification benefit.

SSI exemption under Notification SRO 8/1999 was not denied merely because ice cream was sold under the brand name "Summer Treat". The decisive factual finding was that the brand name was jointly owned by the unit and another person, and the product was marketed under that shared brand in exclusive territories. On that basis, the unit was treated as a co-owner of the brand name, so the condition barring use of another person's brand name was not attracted. The exemption was therefore available, and no interference was called for.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to exemption under Notification SRO 8/1999 despite the use of the brand name "Summer Treat".

Analysis: The respondent was an SSI unit engaged in manufacture and marketing of ice cream. Exemption was denied on the premise that the product was marketed under a brand name owned by another person. The finding recorded by the appellate authorities was that the brand name was jointly owned by the respondent and another person, and that the product was marketed under that brand name in exclusive territories. On that factual finding, the respondent was treated as a co-owner of the brand name, leaving no basis to deny the exemption.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to the exemption under Notification SRO 8/1999, and interference was not warranted.

---