Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessees were disentitled to small-scale exemption on the ground that the trifid logo affixed on the goods was the brand name or trade name of another person.
Analysis: The exemption notification denied benefit only where the manufacturer affixed the specified goods with a brand name or trade name of another person. The evidence did not establish that the trifid logo belonged to or was proprietary to Remi Udyog or any other person. The registered brand name of the manufacturers was distinct, and the other mark was shown to be a common design which had been expressly disowned as proprietary by the alleged owner. A trade mark for this purpose must indicate a connection in the course of trade with some person, and where no such ownership or connection is proved, the mere use of the symbol does not attract the exclusion from exemption. The reasoning is reinforced by the principle that a mark not owned by any person, or expressly disowned by the alleged owner, does not become a disqualifying brand name or trade name.
Conclusion: The assessees remained eligible for the small-scale exemption and the demand of duty and penalties was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Exemption is denied only when the goods bear a brand name or trade name belonging to another person and used to indicate a trade connection; a common or disowned symbol not shown to be owned by any person does not disqualify the manufacturer.