1996 (8) TMI 204

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hich is in appeal before us, that the benefit is not available as the respondents are hit by the bar contained in Para 7 of the Notification relating to use of brand name or trade name of another manufacturer who is not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 175/86. 2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of detergent powder and cakes falling under Chapter 34. These goods are manufactured with the brand name `Skylark' and `Super star'. Originally, the trade mark in respect of detergent powder in class 3 was registered by one Shri Shantilal P. Jain and Subodh S. Shah of Calcutta who had assigned the said mark "Skylark" in favour of M/s. CMC (India) Pvt. Ltd. as per deed of assignment dated 2-5-1986. Subsequently, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted in [1992 (62) E.L.T. 447]. In Para 9 of the order, the Tribunal has held that it is the ownership of the brand name which determines whether the manufacturer becomes eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. In that case, the specified goods were gas stoves under the brand name of Hotline and the Tribunal had held that since the trade mark `Hotline' was duly transferred by assignment deed and the same was duly registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, there cannot be any dispute about the ownership of the branded goods and no justification for denial of the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86. The Tribunal also referred to the relevant provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 viz....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stem Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1955 (80) E.L.T. 445. In this case, the brand name `Shyam' belonging to another person in respect of a different product was affixed by the appellants in respect of EPABX and telephone equipment and Push button diallers dealing with telephone sets while the brand name owners were using the same brand name for different products namely Satellite antenna and other antenna systems. It is in this background that the Tribunal, following the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Bell Products Company v. Union of India reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 404 concluded that, even if the appellants were suing the trade mark Shyam which was owned and registered by M/s. Shyam Antenna Electronics Pvt. Ltd. in respect of t....