2002 (10) TMI 800 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for Small Scale Exemption under Notification No. 1/93 based on the use of a brand name/logo of a foreign collaborator.
2. Interpretation of whether the logo used is identical or deceptively similar to the foreign collaborator's logo.
3. Validity of the certificate disowning the logo issued by the foreign company.
4. Allegation of the Indian company using a deceptively similar logo to that of the foreign company.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case was the eligibility of M/s. Ultraseal (I) Ltd. for the Small Scale Exemption under Notification No. 1/93 due to the use of a brand name/logo of a foreign collaborator. The Commissioner's order favored the appellants, stating that the logo used was not identical to that of the foreign collaborator and that the benefit of the exemption could not be denied based on the use of a deceptively similar trademark. This decision was supported by judgments from the Madras High Court and the Calcutta High Court, emphasizing the distinction between identical and deceptively similar trademarks.

2. The appellate contention was that the Commissioner erred in granting the benefit of the notification based on the registration of the foreign country's brand-name/logo in the Indian company's name. The Tribunal examined the logos of both the foreign and Indian companies and found that the Indian company's logo was distinct. The learned Counsel highlighted a certificate from the foreign company disowning the logo used by the Indian manufacturer, confirming that the Indian company had the exclusive right to use the logo. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that the use of a deceptively similar logo was not prohibited under the notification.

3. The validity of the certificate disowning the logo issued by the foreign company was crucial in establishing the Indian company's right to the logo. The certificate explicitly stated that the logo used by the Indian company belonged to them and that the foreign company had no objection to its use during their collaboration. This certificate played a significant role in refuting the revenue's allegation that the logo belonged to the foreign company, thereby supporting the Indian company's claim to the logo.

4. Lastly, the Tribunal addressed the allegation that the Indian company's logo was deceptively similar to that of the foreign company. By citing the Madras High Court's ruling that the use of a deceptively similar logo was permissible under the notification, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. The decision affirmed that there was no error in the Commissioner's order, and the appeal by the Revenue was rejected, upholding the Indian company's entitlement to the exemption notification.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal arguments, interpretations of trademark use, and the significance of the certificate disowning the logo in determining the eligibility for the Small Scale Exemption under Notification No. 1/93 in the context of this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI.