Trade mark use on goods can deny small-scale exemption where the mark indicates trade connection, even without exact visual replication.

Goods bearing the mark "MARUTI" were treated as bearing another person's brand name because the mark indicated a trade connection with that person within Explanation VIII to Notification No. 175/86-CE. The Court held that the absence of the Devanagari form used by the registered proprietor did not change the essential character of the mark. As a result, the small scale industry exemption was not available for such goods, and the denial of exemption was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods bearing the mark "MARUTI" along with "COX" were liable to be treated as goods bearing another person's brand name or trade name so as to deny the benefit of Notification No.175/86-CE.

Analysis: Explanation VIII to Notification No.175/86-CE treats a brand name or trade name as a name or mark used to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the specified goods and some person using that name or mark. The presence of the word "MARUTI" on the goods was sufficient to create such a connection, and the omission of the Devanagari form used by Maruti Udyog Ltd. did not alter the character of the mark. The earlier grant of exemption was therefore not sustainable.

Conclusion: The benefit of the small scale industry exemption was not available in respect of the goods bearing the mark "MARUTI", and the finding was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the denial of exemption under Notification No.175/86-CE was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A mark used on goods will constitute another person's brand name or trade name if it indicates a connection in the course of trade, even where the mark is not an exact visual replica of the registered form used by that person.

---