Family brand name use did not bar SSI exemption where "Club Roopkala" was treated as a common family mark.

Use of the family mark "Roopkala" by different members of the same family did not amount to use of another person's brand name for denying SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE. The appellant's use of "Club Roopkala" was treated as part of the common family brand arrangement, and not as adoption of an unrelated third party's mark. On the stated factual matrix and cited authorities, the denial of small-scale industry exemption was unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to the exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the use of the brand name "Roopkala" by different members of the same family, including the appellant's use of "Club Roopkala", disqualified the appellant from SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003.

Analysis: The brand name was found to belong to the family and to be used by different family members without objection. The appellant used the mark "Club Roopkala", which was not treated as use of another person's brand name merely because another family member used "Roopkala". The factual matrix and the cited decisions supported the view that a common family brand used by different members does not amount to use of the brand name of another person for denying SSI exemption.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003, and the denial of exemption was unsustainable.

---