Small-scale exemption survives where a secondary mark does not create trade connection with another manufacturer's brand.

Small-scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was not denied where plywood products carried the appellants' prominent own brand name and logo, while the word "MERINO" appeared only in a small, secondary manner. Paragraph 7 and Explanation VIII apply only if the goods bear another person's brand name or trade name in a way that indicates a trade connection. On the markings compared, the use of "MERINO" did not create the impression that the goods were those of another manufacturer or establish the requisite connection in the course of trade. The appellants therefore remained entitled to the exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether affixation of the word "MERINO" in a less prominent manner on plywood products bearing the appellants' own brand name "PELICAN" disentitled them to the small-scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. by attracting paragraph 7 and Explanation VIII.

Analysis: The exemption under paragraph 7 applies only where the specified goods bear the brand name or trade name of another person in a manner indicating a connection in the course of trade. Explanation VIII requires that the mark used on the goods must operate as a brand name or trade name so as to suggest such trade connection. On comparison of the markings, the appellants' own brand name "PELICAN" and logo were prominently displayed, while the word "MERINO" appeared only in a small and secondary manner. The markings were not shown to create the impression that the goods were those of the other manufacturer, and the use of the word "MERINO" did not establish the requisite trade connection.

Conclusion: The appellants were not hit by paragraph 7 read with Explanation VIII and remained entitled to the small-scale exemption.

---