Small-scale exemption and brand name use: dominant product marks preserved relief despite a marketing firm's logo on the packages.

Notification No. 175/86-C.E. denied small-scale exemption only where specified goods bore the brand name or trade name of another person, meaning a mark used to indicate a trade connection. On the packages of the patent or proprietary medicines, the assessee's own product names were the dominant identifying marks, and the presence of the marketing firm's logo and name did not by itself create the disqualifying brand association. Applying the distinction between a house mark and a product mark, the exemption remained available because the goods were not branded in the sense contemplated by the notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. when the packages of its patent or proprietary medicines bore the assessee's own product names and logos as well as the logo and name of the marketing firm.

Analysis: Paragraph 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. denies exemption where specified goods bear the brand name or trade name of another person, and Explanation VIII treats a brand name or trade name as any name or mark used to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the goods and a person. The dominant marks on the packages were the product names Apitas, Ventol and Paltrim, which functioned as the relevant brand names or trade names for the medicines. Applying the distinction between a house mark and a product mark, the relevant enquiry was whether the brand name used on the goods created the trade connection contemplated by the notification. Since the assessee's own brand names were prominently displayed and the presence of the marketing firm's logo did not by itself control the exemption, the cited decisions involving only a trader's mark were distinguishable.

Conclusion: The exemption was available and the presence of the marketing firm's logo and name did not disqualify the assessee from Notification No. 175/86-C.E.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the assessee obtained consequential relief, as the goods were not hit by the disqualification in the exemption notification merely because the marketing firm's logo and name also appeared on the packages.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purposes of the small-scale exemption, the decisive factor is whether the specified goods bear the brand name or trade name relevant to the goods in a manner indicating trade connection; the mere coexistence of another logo or name on the package does not attract the bar where the assessee's own product mark remains the dominant identifying mark.

---