Trade mark legend on cement sacks did not defeat notification benefit where it was only a holding-company description.

Cement sacks bearing the legend "A subsidiary of Grasim Industries Ltd." were treated as not using another person's brand name or trade mark where the appellant's own trade mark remained on the packaging and the legend merely described the holding company. Reading Notification No. 5/98 with its explanation, in line with the corresponding explanation under Notification No. 175/86-CE and prior Tribunal decisions, the absence of any monogram, alpha character, or other trade mark indication of another person meant the notification benefit was not lost. The demand and penalty were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cement sacks bearing the legend "A SUBSIDIARY OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD." amounted to use of another person's brand name or trade mark so as to deny the benefit of Notification No. 5/98.

Analysis: The packaging showed the appellant's own trade mark, and the disputed legend was only a description of the holding company. The condition in Notification No. 5/98, read with its explanation, was treated as pari materia with the corresponding explanation under Notification No. 175/86-CE. Applying earlier Tribunal decisions, the presence of such a legend, without any monogram, alpha character, or other trade mark indication of another person, did not amount to use of a brand name or trade mark within the meaning of the notification.

Conclusion: The legend did not disqualify the appellant from the notification benefit, and the demand and penalty were set aside.

---