Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the respondents were disentitled to exemption under Notification No. 140/83 because the product was earlier associated with a foreign company and bore a reference to its formulation.
Analysis: The relevant test under the notification was who owned the brand name at the time exemption was claimed. The respondents had acquired the trade mark by deed of assignment, the mark stood registered in their name, and the Trade Marks Registry confirmed them as sole proprietor. A reference on the cartons to the product being a formulation of the foreign company did not amount to use of that company's brand name. The fact that another unit may have used the same mark could not defeat the lawful owner's entitlement to the exemption.
Conclusion: The respondents were entitled to the benefit of the exemption and were not hit by the bar against use of another person's brand name.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed because the respondents were treated as the owners of the brand name for the relevant period and the impugned exemption was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of an exemption barring use of another person's brand name, the decisive factor is ownership of the trade mark at the time of clearance, and an assignment duly registered in the claimant's name brings the goods outside that bar.