Housemark versus brand name: composite manufacturer mark did not defeat small scale industry exemption.

A composite mark made up of the manufacturer's own name did not amount to use of another person's brand name or trade name for purposes of denying small scale industry exemption. The mark "ANAND ZENNER" was treated as the respondents' housemark because it indicated a connection between the goods and their manufacturer, not with the foreign collaborator. As the goods were not cleared under another person's brand or trade name, the exemption could not be denied and the Revenue's objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the marking "ANAND ZENNER" on the water meters amounted to use of the brand name or trade name of another person so as to deny small scale industry exemption.

Analysis: The words "Anand" and "Zenner" formed part of the respondents' own name and were displayed together as a composite mark. The marking was found to indicate a connection between the product and its manufacturer, not between the product and the German collaborator. On that reasoning, the mark was treated as the respondents' housemark rather than the brand name or trade name of another person. As the goods were not cleared under another person's brand name, the exemption could not be denied.

Conclusion: The marking did not disentitle the respondents to the small scale industry exemption and the Revenue's objection failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A composite mark comprising the manufacturer's own name or housemark does not become another person's brand name or trade name merely because one element resembles a foreign collaborator's name; exemption is unavailable only where the goods are cleared under another person's brand or trade name.

---