Brand name exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. not denied where "marketed and serviced by" wording was only descriptive.

The presence of the words "marketed and serviced by Rallis India Limited" on a fan nameplate did not amount to use of another person's brand name or trade name under Explanation VIII to Notification No. 175/86-C.E. That explanation covers only marks, labels, words or symbols used to indicate a trade connection with another person. The wording here described marketing and servicing arrangements only; it did not function as a brand name and did not show that the goods bore another person's brand. As the admitted brand name on the fans was "Delite," belonging to the appellants, the condition for denying the exemption was not met.

---

---

Issues: Whether the presence of the words "marketed and serviced by Rallis India Limited" on the nameplate of the fans amounted to use of another person's brand name or trade name so as to deny the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E.

Analysis: Explanation VIII to Notification No. 175/86-C.E. treats as a brand name or trade name only such symbol, monogram, label, signature, invented word or writing as is used in relation to specified goods to indicate a connection in the course of trade with another person. The writing in question merely indicated that marketing and servicing was done by Rallis India Limited. It did not function as a brand name or trade name, nor did it show that the goods bore the brand of another person. The admitted brand name on the fans was "Delite", and that brand belonged to the appellants. Since the goods were not using the brand name or trade name of another person, the condition for denying the exemption was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The denial of benefit under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unsustainable and the appellants were entitled to the exemption.

---