9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (9) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Trial Judge allowed the writ application and quashed the show-cause notice dated 3-3-1992 and also the letter dated 9-3-1992 issued pursuant to the said show-cause notice. 2.The respondents (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) are the manufacturers of mechanical power transmission equipments including `Vulkan' Diaphragm Couplings (Flexible) (hereinafter referred to as the said product). The writ petitioner is the registered proprietor of the trade mark `Vulkan' duly registered under the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and possesses Registration Certificate No. 357127 dated 4-1-1980 issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks. 3.The case of the writ petitioner before the Trial Court was that it had the exclusive right and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also not entitled to any exemption under the said Notification dated 1-3-1986 as amended. The learned Trial Judge found as a fact that there was no dispute that the writ petitioner had availed of the benefits of the said Notification dated 1-3-1986 as amended, from time to time by virtue of the fact that the writ petitioner was a small scale industrial unit and it was allowed the benefit of the exemption extended by that Notification. The learned Trial Judge also found that the writ petitioner had used a brand name of its own, of which it was the registered owner under the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and the writ petitioner was the owner of a registered trade mark `Vulkan' by virtue of the provisions of the Trade & Merchandise M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts before us that since M/s. Vulkan Kupplings of Germany are not entitled to small scale industries benefits by virtue of being a foreign company, hence benefit of the said Notification dated 1-3-1986 as amended could not available to M/s. ESBI Transmission Private Ltd., the concern of the writ petitioner, as the writ petitioner was manufacturing and selling the goods of another concern. It is, therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the said notice to show cause was rightly issued and in terms of Paragraph 7 of the said Notification the writ petitioner is not entitled to any exemption. 6.Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner (the respondents before us) has reiterated the contentions made before the Tria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emption contained in this notification shall not apply to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption under this notification." Therefore, under Paragraph 7 of the said Notification, the exemption contained in the notification shall not apply to the specified goods where the manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption pursuant to the said Notification. 9.As stated above, it is not in dispute that the writ petitioner has been using that brand name of its own, of which the writ petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
