<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (8) TMI 734 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365262</link>
    <description>Use of the appellant&#039;s name and a lighted lamp on homeopathic medicines was treated as a brand name because the label, read with the symbol, indicated a trade connection between the goods and the person using the mark. Explanation 2 to Notification No. 12/2012-CE defines brand name broadly to cover a name or mark used so as to identify a connection in the course of trade. The medicines were sold under generic names, but the additional name and symbol on the label showed proprietary association with the manufacturer. The facts were distinguished from cases involving a house mark and a separate brand for different products, and complete exemption was denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2019 11:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=530664" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 734 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365262</link>
      <description>Use of the appellant&#039;s name and a lighted lamp on homeopathic medicines was treated as a brand name because the label, read with the symbol, indicated a trade connection between the goods and the person using the mark. Explanation 2 to Notification No. 12/2012-CE defines brand name broadly to cover a name or mark used so as to identify a connection in the course of trade. The medicines were sold under generic names, but the additional name and symbol on the label showed proprietary association with the manufacturer. The facts were distinguished from cases involving a house mark and a separate brand for different products, and complete exemption was denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365262</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>