9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86, the petitioner marketed its products both under the registered trade mark and without inscription of the registered trade mark on the packages. There is no dispute that the petitioner sold some of its products during the assessment years 1983-84 to 1985-86 without inscription of the registered trade mark on the packages. The Commercial Tax Officer levied tax on the sale of products without inscription of the registered trade mark at 10 per cent relying upon entry No. 103 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the TNGST Act"). The said entry as it stood then provided that when the goods were sold under any brand name registered under the Trade Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have relied upon section 76(1) of the Trade Marks Act to hold that the trade mark was applicable not only when the mark was available on the package with which the goods were sold, but it has relevance to the places, encloses or annexes, in which goods were sold or exposed for sale and it has relation to the goods using a trade mark or trade description in any sign, advertisement, invoice, catalogue, business letter, business paper, price list or Reported in [2003] 131 STC 271 (TNTST). other commercial document, etc. The Special Tribunal was of the view that the commodity sold was identified by the consumers that it was sold by the dealer having a particular brand name. The Special Tribunal also found that the invoices produced contained th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iance on section 76 of the Trade Marks Act, nothing was brought to the attention of this Court to the effect that if the proprietor of a trade mark sells the goods without the brand name or trade mark in the same place where goods with brand name are sold, it would be deemed that he sold the goods with the brand name. We hold that the mere fact that the petitioner has sold the goods without brand name in the same bunk or same premises where other goods with brand name were sold, it cannot be held that the petitioner has infringed his own trade mark. The mere fact that the goods were sold in the same place where other goods with brand name were sold or the invoices bore the name of the petitioner or the trade mark of the petitioner are not m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no machinery provided by the Government of Tamil Nadu to resolve the disputes that may arise between the Government of Tamil Nadu and the State Government undertakings in the matter of levy of sales tax. The question whether sale would attract 5 per cent or 10 per cent of tax on the sale of the products without brand name might be material for other non-governmental organisations and in so far as the State Government undertakings are concerned, even if the levy is upheld at the higher percentage, the result would be that there will be a transfer of money by book entries. We are of the view that in the case of disputes arising between the State Government and its undertakings, at least in the matter relating to levy of sales tax or oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
