9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not have any right to sell the goods. The assignment merely for the purpose of production of goods cannot be treated as sale of brand name in any manner. Thus, it is obvious that the appellants are not the owners of the brand name, but they have merely acquired the right to produce goods under the brand name without any rights to sell the goods under the said brand name - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/888/06-MUM - A/86033/17/EB - Dated:- 23-2-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) None for appellant Shri. V.K.Shastri, Asst. Comm. (AR) for respondent ORDER Per Raju 1. The appellants, M/s.Double Cola Mfg. Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd., are engaged in manufacture of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... WHEREAS the assignor has agreed to assign the said trade mark to the assignee for manufacture of mineral water at the Nasik Plant of the assignee. 3.1 It has been argued that the impugned order wrongly assails the said deed on the ground that no period has been specified. It has been argued that the fact that no period has been specified means it is a one time payment. It has been argued in the appeal memorandum that the Commissioner has wrongly held that the said deed of the assignment is only a ploy to overcome the duty liability. It has been argued that the appellant and Indian Beverages Ltd. are not closely related companies but are independent and separate companies. It was also argued that in the classification list filed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cture and sell the mineral water under the trade mark, what has been assigned by the assignor is only the right to manufacture the mineral water at the Nasik plant of the assignee. It is apparent that the said deed does not assign to right to sell the product under the said brand name. The trade mark has no value whatsoever, if one does not have any right to sell the goods. The assignment merely for the purpose of production of goods cannot be treated as sale of brand name in any manner. Thus, it is obvious that the appellants are not the owners of the brand name, but they have merely acquired the right to produce goods under the brand name without any rights to sell the goods under the said brand name. 6. In view of the above, the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
