9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .C.D. Solution U.S.P. (ii) Dextrose injection I.P. (iii) Mannital injection B.P. (iv) Sodium Chloride injection I.P. (v) Sodium Chloride and Dextrose injection IP & USP (vi) Lactate injections I.P., B.P. & U.S.P. The Collector in his order-in-original held that the words `RL' used on the labels of the above preparations gave an impression as brand name of the respondent and as not a registered mark. He stated that the words `RL' clearly denote the connection between the manufacturer and the product in the course of the trade and the letter `RL' cannot be construed as trade mark given by the petitioner. He also held that the demand is barred by limitation. It is against that order the present appeal is filed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. Therefore, it would attract levy only if its container or packing carried any distinctive marks so as to establish the relation between the medicine and the manufacturer. But the identification of a medicine should not be equated with the produce mark. Identification is compulsory under the Drug Rules. Technically, it is known as `house mark'. In Narayan's Book on Trade Marks and Passing-Off, the distinction between `house mark' and product mark' (brand name) is brought out thus, `Rs. 677. House mark and product mark (or brand name). In the pharmaceutical business a distinction is made between a house mark and a product mark. The former is used on all the products of the manufacturer. It is usually ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paration made by the manufacturer. The connection between the medicine and the manufacturer contemplated under the Explanation should be such as to indicate that the manufacturer has a proprietary interest in the medicine". This was approved by Division Bench of the same High Court in Union of India v. Indo-French Pharmaceutical Company - 1983 (12) E.L.T. 725 (Mad.). Reliance was placed on "Ramsey Pharma Private Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise, Allahabad & Ors. - 1983 (12) E.L.T. 78 (All.) for the Revenue and it was claimed that this decision was followed by the Tribunal and since it was based on correct interpretation of Explanation I the appellant was not entitled to any relief. It would be seen that in the decision rendered by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
