House mark versus brand name: manufacturer identification alone did not make the medicine patent or proprietary.

A medicine marked "PD-TOL 800" was examined to determine whether it was a patent or proprietary medicine liable to excise duty under Tariff Item 14E. The mark "TOL 800" was treated as the pharmacopoeial entry, while "PD" was only the manufacturer's identifier. Applying the distinction between a house mark, which identifies the manufacturer, and a product mark or brand name, which identifies the product, a mere manufacturer's mark was held insufficient to make the medicine patent or proprietary. The Department's appeals therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product marked "PD-TOL 800" was a patent or proprietary medicine falling under Tariff Item 14E and liable to excise duty.

Analysis: The duty demand was founded on the packing mark "PD-TOL 800". It was found that "TOL 800" was only the pharmacopoeial entry, while "PD" merely denoted the manufacturer's name. Following the Supreme Court's distinction between a house mark, which identifies the manufacturer, and a product mark or brand name, which identifies the product, a mere manufacturer's identification does not make the medicine patent or proprietary.

Conclusion: The product was not liable to be treated as a patent or proprietary medicine under Tariff Item 14E, and the Department's appeals failed.

---