SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Cal) 282

High Court Of Calcutta
Prabir Kumar Majumdar, Vidya Nand
COLLR.OF C.EX. - Appellant
Versus
ESBI TRANSMISSION PRIVATE LIMITED - Respondent
Appeal 460  Of  1994
Decided On : 09/01/1994

Advocates Appeared:
M.C.GHOSH, N.C.ROY CHAUDHARY, PARTHA BASU, PRANATOSH MUKHERJI, SAMARESH CHAKRABARTY

The owner of a registered trade mark has an exclusive right to use the trade mark in relation to the goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered.

Headnote:

TRADE AND MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1958 - SECTION 28 - CENTRAL EXCISE NOTIFICATION NO. 175/86-C. E. , DATED 1-3-1986 - PARAGRAPH 7 - CENTRAL EXCISE - EXEMPTION - SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL UNIT - TRADE MARK - REGISTERED OWNER - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE - NOTIFICATION EXEMPTION NOT APPLICABLE TO GOODS WITH BRAND NAME OR TRADE NAME OF ANOTHER PERSON NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION - WRIT PETITIONER USING OWN REGISTERED TRADE MARK - ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioner, a small scale industrial unit, was granted an exemption from central excise duty under Notification No. 175/86-C. E. , dated 1-3-1986 as amended. The writ petitioner was the registered owner of the trade mark 'vulkan' under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The writ petitioner was issued a show-cause notice alleging that it was using the trade mark of another person, M/s. Vulkan Kupplings of Germany, and was therefore not entitled to the exemption. The writ petitioner challenged the show-cause notice in the High Court.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the writ petitioner was entitled to the exemption under the Notification as it was using its own registered trade mark. The Court held that Paragraph 7 of the Notification, which provides that the exemption shall not apply to goods with a brand name or trade name of another person who is not eligible for the exemption, did not apply to the writ petitioner as it was using its own trade mark.

Issues: Whether the writ petitioner was entitled to the exemption under the Notification as it was using its own registered trade mark.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the writ petitioner was entitled to the exemption under the Notification as it was using its own registered trade mark. The Court held that Paragraph 7 of the Notification, which provides that the exemption shall not apply to goods with a brand name or trade name of another person who is not eligible for the exemption, did not apply to the writ petitioner as it was using its own trade mark.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Judgment and Order dated 14-5-1992 passed by the learned Trial Judge.

PRABIR KUMAR MAJUMDAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from Judgment and Order dated 14-5-1992 passed by the learned Trial Judge on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, made by the respondents challenging the show-cause notice dated 3-3-1992 as also the letter dated 9-3-1992 issued pursuant to the said show-cause notice which have been impugned in the writ proceedings. The learned 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 and 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 authority to use the said registered trade mark 'vulkan' in relation to manufacture, sale and supply or distribution of the said product and its spares all over the country. The writ petitioner was a small scale industrial unit and as such was entitled to certain exemption of central excise duty by virtue of a Notification No. 175/86-C. E. , dated 1-3-1986 as amended. The further case of the writ petitioner before the Trial Court was that the writ petitioner was granted necessary Central Excise Licence, bearing No. L-4/24/chapter-8483/r-6/call-1/86 dated 8-8-1986.

( 4 ) SOMETIME in February 1992 various search and seizure proceedings were carried out by the Officials of the Central Excise Department at the writ petitioner's factory sites at Taratala Road and Beliaghata Road. Ultimately on 3-3-1992 a notice to show cause was issued to the writ petitioner from the office of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The main charge in the said notice to show cause was that the writ petitioner's establishment, M/s. ESBI Transmission Private Ltd. , had established themselves as designers and manufacturers in India for producing 'vulkan' Diaphragm Couplings (Flexible) with their own designs and rights for supplying the said couplings in this country and as the said concern of the writ petitioner carried on manufacturing of the specified goods with a brand name or a trade name of another person who was not eligible for the grant of exemption under the Notification, the writ petitioner was 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 and 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 and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, in particular Section 28 thereof. As such the writ petitioner had acquired an exclusive right to the use of the trade mark in relation to the goods in respect of which the trade mark was registered. Accordingly, as held by the learned Trial Judge, the writ petitioner was entitled to obtain relief against any person in respect of infringement of the trade mark in the manner provided by the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and, therefore, no other person apart from the writ petitioner was entitled to use that trade mark. It was further found by the learned Tria






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top