2001 (1) TMI 397 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on brand name dispute regarding 'ACMEVAC' vacuum pumps

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal filed by the appellant regarding the brand name 'ACMEVAC' on vacuum pumps. The Tribunal held that ... Entitlement to benefit of Notification 175/86 - ownership of trade name/brand - use of logo or trade mark as evidence of ownership - commonality of ownership between related companies - burden of proof to establish exclusive proprietary right in a brandEntitlement to benefit of Notification 175/86 - ownership of trade name/brand - use of logo or trade mark as evidence of ownership - commonality of ownership between related companies - burden of proof to establish exclusive proprietary right in a brand - Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification 175/86 for goods manufactured and cleared between October, 1987 and December, 1991, despite use of the brand name 'ACMEVAC' by M/s. Acmevac Sales Pvt. Ltd. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the contemporaneous use of the name and logo by the appellant and by Acmevac Sales Pvt. Ltd., including earlier evidence of the appellant's use of the word 'ACMEVAC' (advertisement in 1981) and differing styles of the mark before a change of logo around 1988. It noted the relationship between the two companies and overlapping shareholding (the manufacturing company wholly owned by certain persons, the sales company having 50% shareholding by the same group), and that the appellant's entire production was sold to the sales company. On this material, the Tribunal found no sufficient evidence to conclude that the sales company exclusively owned the logo or that the appellant was disqualified from claiming the notification benefit merely because the sales company used the logo. The Tribunal accepted that permissive or common use of a brand/logo between related entities, together with evidence of prior use by the manufacturer and the ownership links, precludes a finding that the manufacturer lacked title to use the brand for the period in question. Applying these considerations, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not disqualified and was entitled to the benefit of the notification for the goods cleared in the stated period.The appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and the appellant held entitled to the benefit of Notification 175/86 for the goods manufactured and cleared between October, 1987 and December, 1991.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that on the evidence of prior use, common ownership and permissive use of the logo between related companies, the appellant was not disqualified from claiming the benefit of Notification 175/86 for goods cleared between October, 1987 and December, 1991, and set aside the Collector's order. The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal filed by the appellant regarding the brand name 'ACMEVAC' on vacuum pumps. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification 175/86 for goods manufactured between October 1987 and December 1991, as there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the appellant did not use the brand name prior to the establishment of Acmevac Sales Pvt. Ltd. The impugned order was set aside.