Brand name exemption depends on commercial connection, not mere shared use of a common mark like Minimax.

Small scale industry exemption under the notification could not be denied merely because the assessee used the mark "Minimax". The governing test was whether the goods bore a brand name or trade name of another person, meaning a mark that indicated a commercial connection with that person. Mere common use of a mark was insufficient unless it had acquired the character of another party's brand or trade name. On the facts, both concerns were run by family members, both had used the mark for years, the mark was unregistered, and no material showed exclusive ownership or a reputation identifying the other concern alone. The exemption was therefore available and denial of benefit was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was disentitled to small scale industry exemption on the ground that it used the mark "Minimax", alleged to be the brand name or trade name of another person.

Analysis: The exemption notification denied benefit only where specified goods bore a brand name or trade name of another person, and the defining explanation required the name or mark to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the goods and some person using that name or mark. The governing principle is that mere use of a common mark is not enough unless it is shown that the mark has acquired the character of a brand name or trade name associated with another person, or is used so as to indicate such commercial connection. On the facts, both concerns belonged to family members, both had used the mark for years, the mark had not been registered, and no material showed exclusive ownership by the other concern or that the mark had acquired reputation identifying that concern alone.

Conclusion: The assessee did not violate the notification condition, and the exemption could not be denied; the appeal failed.

---