Copyrighted house mark treatment excluded royalty from intellectual property service taxation

A house mark used to identify a group manufacturer or distributor, while products carry separate trademarks, may be treated as a copyrighted artistic work rather than a trademark. On that basis, royalty received for permitting use of the logo was held outside the taxable scope of intellectual property service because copyright is excluded from the statutory definition. The reasoning followed the distinction between a house mark and a product mark and relied on the registered copyright status of the logo. The service tax demand and connected penalties were therefore unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief as permitted by law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the "ttk" logo used by the group companies was a copyrighted artistic work or a trademark; (ii) Whether the service tax demand on royalty received for permitting use of the logo under intellectual property service was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the "ttk" logo used by the group companies was a copyrighted artistic work or a trademark.

Analysis: The logo was found to function as a house mark used to identify the manufacturer or distributor generally, while the products carried their own separate trademarks. The registered copyright certificate for the logo as artistic work was relied upon, and the statutory definition of intellectual property service excludes copyright. The distinction between a house mark and a product mark was treated as material to determine whether the logo could be regarded as a trademark for service tax purposes.

Conclusion: The "ttk" logo was treated as a copyrighted artistic work and not as a trademark for the purpose of the demand.

Issue (ii): Whether the service tax demand on royalty received for permitting use of the logo under intellectual property service was sustainable.

Analysis: The levy under intellectual property service applies to temporary transfer of, or permission to use, an intellectual property right, but the statutory definition excludes copyright. Since the logo was treated as a copyrighted artistic work, the royalty received for its use did not fall within the taxable service. The earlier decision in the appellant's own case for a prior period was followed, and the demand could not be sustained on the reasoning adopted by the department.

Conclusion: The service tax demand and the connected penalties were held to be unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential benefits, if any, in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a logo is registered and used as a copyrighted artistic work and operates as a house mark rather than a trademark, royalty for permitting its use does not constitute taxable intellectual property service because copyright is excluded from the charging definition.

---