Brand name vs house mark distinction preserves small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 223/87

Small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 223/87 was not denied merely because the containers bore the word "Glidden", where that word denoted technical collaboration and functioned only as a house mark rather than as a brand name or trade name identifying the goods in the market. The analysis distinguishes a trade mark from a house mark and notes that the trade mark "Spred" was permitted to be used by M/s U.K. Paint Industries and was registered in its name, with registration relating back under Section 23 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. On that basis, the use of "Glidden" did not attract the brand-name restriction and the SSI exemption remained available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were disentitled to small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 223/87 because the goods bore the brand name or trade name of another person, and whether the word used to denote technical collaboration was only a house mark.

Analysis: Clause 7 of Notification No. 223/87 denies exemption only where the specified goods are affixed with the brand name or trade name of another person who is not eligible for the exemption. The trade mark "Spred" had been permitted to be used by M/s U.K. Paint Industries and was registered in its name, with the registration relating back to the date of application under Section 23 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The word "Glidden" appearing on the containers was held to denote only technical collaboration and not to function as a brand name or trade name for identifying the goods in the market. Applying the distinction between a trade mark and a house mark, the use of "Glidden" did not amount to use of another person's brand name so as to deny SSI exemption.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to the SSI exemption and the demand and penalties could not stand.

---