1998 (11) TMI 298

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er brand name T-Series . Accordingly, the Asstt. Collector in the adjudication order dated 26-9-1989 denied them the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 as the brand name T-Series belonged to M/s. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. who were not eligible to avail the benefit of the said notification. However, on appeal, the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order set aside the adjudication order holding that the trade mark need not necessarily be in respect of all goods unless the registration has been so acquired that it is quite possible and permissible to have the same brand name for the different classes of goods owned by different persons. The Collector (Appeals) had relied upon the decision in the case of Nestle s Products Ltd. v. Milk .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ne is affixing the brand name of another person. In the present matter the respondents are using the brand name of another person on payment of Rs. 25,000/-. 3. Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the Collector (Appeals) had come to the conclusion that the brand name did not belong to another person relying on the decision in the case of M/s. Nestle s Products Ltd. (supra) in which it was held that the use of the brand name in respect of condensed milk registered in the name of Nestle Products Ltd. by another manufacturer, namely Milkmade Corporation, in respect of biscuits and toffee cannot be treated as an infringement of Section 29 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. He f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wder, laundry soap, toilet soap etc. on payment of Rs. 25,000/-. They have thus become the owner of the brand name themselves and affixing the brand name belonging to them is not covered by the mischief of paragraph 7 of the Notification No. 175/86. Further, the learned Advocate has rightly relied upon the decision in the case of Taj Serpent Eggs (supra) in which it was held, relying upon the earlier decision in Taj Fire Works Industries v. C.C.E., reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 180, that if the brand name is used on different products, that fact does not disentitle the manufacturer to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. In view of these facts we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and reject .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X