SSI exemption and brand name use: Tribunal accepted that the same mark may belong to different persons for different goods.

SSI exemption could not be denied merely because the appellant used the brand name 'Goldmedal' on switchgear and fuses. The Tribunal noted that an earlier order in the appellant's own case had accepted use of the brand name, and applied the principle that a trade mark or brand name need not be confined to all goods and may lawfully belong to different persons for different classes of goods. On that basis, the denial of SSI benefit was not sustainable and the exemption was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to SSI exemption despite using the brand name 'Goldmedal', in view of the alleged assignment of the brand name and the applicability of the settled principle that the same brand name may be used for different classes of goods owned by different persons.

Analysis: The appellant's entitlement turned on whether the brand name 'Goldmedal' could be treated as validly assigned and whether its use on switchgear and fuses disentitled the appellant from SSI exemption. The Tribunal noted that an earlier order in the appellant's own case had accepted the appellant's entitlement to use the brand name. Relying on the principle recognised by the Supreme Court that a trade mark or brand name need not necessarily be confined to all goods and that the same brand name may lawfully belong to different persons for different classes of goods, the Tribunal found no basis to sustain the denial of exemption.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to SSI exemption and the denial of the benefit was set aside.

---