Strict construction of exemption notification bars relief where goods bear another person's brand name, even through part of the mark.

Exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. is to be construed strictly, and Clause 4 read with Explanation IX denies relief where specified goods bear a brand name or trade name of another person. The explanation is broad enough to cover not only a fully reproduced mark but also any name, mark, symbol, label, signature, or writing used to indicate a trade connection, so use of part of another person's mark can disqualify the goods. The Tribunal erred in adding a requirement that the brand name must relate to the same goods for which the mark was registered, and trade mark infringement precedents do not govern entitlement under the notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether scented supari bearing the words "ARR" and the photograph of the founder of the group was disentitled to exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. on the ground that it bore the brand name or trade name of another person.

Analysis: The exemption notification had to be construed strictly on its own wording. Clause 4 read with Explanation IX denied exemption where the specified goods bore a brand name or trade name of another person, and the explanation covered not only a fully reproduced mark but also any name, mark, symbol, label, signature, or writing used so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade. The Tribunal erred in importing a requirement that the brand name must relate to the same goods for which the mark was registered. The Board circulars relied upon were inapplicable because the respondents were not owners of the trade mark and the goods bore a mark belonging to another person. Trade mark infringement precedents did not govern entitlement to exemption under the notification.

Conclusion: The goods were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. because they bore the brand name or trade name of another person, including by use of part of that mark.

---