9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Commissioner for de novo examination. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of patent Ayurvedic medicines. The department noticed that the appellants were using the trade name 'Unjha' and the trade logo depicting picture of 'Hathi' (elephant) in relation to the goods manufactured by them and were availing of exemption as a SSI under Notfn. No. 1/93, dt. 28-2-1993. During the course of enquiry the authorities found that the brand name 'Hathi' belonged to M/s. Unjha Pharmacy. Statement of Shri Prabodh V. Shah, Partner of M/s. UAP was recorded wherein he stated that M/s. UAP had come into existence in 1981 and prior to that he alongwith other partners having firm in the name of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve. 4. Arguing the case for the appellants, Shri V. Laxmikumaran, ld. Advocate submits that the appellants were using a logo of 'Hathi' inscribing as 'UAP'. He submits that this logo was not identical as to the logo used by M/s. Unjha Pharmacy which was elephant with the letters 'UP'. He submits that these two logo or marks were not indentical; that there was a firm in the name of Unjha Pharmacy which existed for long time; that Unjha Pharmacy was using the logo 'Hathi'; that this firm was dissolved in 1981; that there was no evidence to show that the elephant was the registered trademark and since it was not a registered trademark it could be used by anybody else. Ld. Counsel submits that it was house mark and was not a trademark ina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es not represent the brand name but represents only the house mark. He submits that the proviso to Notfn. No. 1/93 talks of brand name and not of house mark. He submits that the brand name elephant 'UAP' is the house mark and not the brand name and hence the allegation of use of brand name of somebody else who is not eligible to the benefit of Notfn. No. 1/93 is not proved and, therefore the appellants will be eligible to the benefit of Notfn. No. 1/93. 6. Shri M.D. Singh, ld. DR reading from the relevant provisions of Notfn. No. 1/93 submits that it has been defined that the brand name or trade name shall mean whether registered or not, that is to say a name or mark which is a symbol, monogram, label, signature, or invented word or w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an occasion to examine as to what a brand name is. After quoting from the Narayan's Book on Trade Mark held that the product mark and house mark are different inasmuch as the house mark indicated the firm or the person manufacturing goods whereas the brand name indicated the product by which it was sold or identified. Ld. Counsel submits that the elephant was only a house mark. Nobody purchases the goods in the name of Hathi. The goods were being sold by their name as Somkalpa, Sundari, Sanjivani, Kafeshwari, etc. Thus, we find that the elephant logo no doubt indicated that the goods were manufactured by particular firm/person but did not relate to the brand name as the goods were not sold by Hathi logo. In this view of the matter also, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
