Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(i) It was found in the course of investigations that Bisleri and 'Bisleri Club Soda' are two different brand names, registered separately. 'Bisleri' was registered under number 260716, 272893 and 272894 and owned by Bisleri India (P) Ltd., a subsidiary company of Parle Exports Ltd.. 'Bisleri Club Soda' was registered under number 399020 and owned by Parle Exports Ltd.

(ii) The trade marks pertaining to 'Bisleri' were assigned to Acqua Minerale, a family concern of Shri Ramesh Chauhan by a deed of assignment dated 17 November 1987. 'Bisleri Club Soda' was not assigned to anybody till July 1993, when Parle Exports corrected the deed of assignment for 'Bisleri' saying that by omission they had not transferred the brand name 'Bisleri Club Soda' to Acqua Minerale.

(v) The trade name 'Bisleri Club Soda' was owned by Parle Exports Ltd., which was a unit not eligible for SSI exemption for the period under consideration. The ineligibility of Parle Exports Ltd for the SSI exemption is not in dispute, except for the period 1992-93 when they did avail it, and for which period also they have been issued a notice proposing to deny it.

(vi) Even after July 93 (i.e., after transfer of the brand name to an SSI unit Acqua Minerale), Parle Exports remained the effective owner of the brand name. Thus the brand strategy, promotion of the brand name, market research, advertising, monitoring of production and sales etc. of Club Soda remained with Parle Exports. This is discussed in para 3 (c) (i) to (vii) of the show cause notice and para 17.4, 17.5, and 20 to 32 of the Statement of Facts to the notice. The notification 175/86 disallows the exemption to units who use the brand name, whether registered or not, of ineligible others. This may be read as, whether or not registered in the name of the ineligible others. In other words, the criterion is whether the effective owner of the brand name is eligible on ineligible for the exemption.

(vii) The concept of "who is calling the shots" as formulated in Calcutta Chromotype is applicable here by analogy. It is Parle Exports who is calling the shots in connection with Bisleri Club Soda, as discussed above. Hence, even for the period after July 1993 Parle Exports remained the effective owner of the brand name Bisleri Club Soda, and as Parle Exports were not eligible for exemption under notifn 175/86, the users of the brand name were also not eligible for their clearances of these branded goods.

Citra The brand name owner here is Limca Flavours and Fragrances, a small-scale unit which is holding company of Parle Exports Ltd. On the basis of the brand name Citra being owned by a small-scale unit, the users M/s Brindavan Beverages were permitted to avail the exemption under 175/86 for clearances of Citra.

However investigations showed that (1) Limca Flavours and Fragrances were the owners in name only and promotion of the brand name as well as quality of the branded product were the concerns of Parle Exports, who were thus the effective owners of the brand name. Parle Exports, as discussed above in the context of Soda, were not eligible for the exemption, and therefore Brindavan Beverages were also not eligible for exemption on clearances of Citra. (para 19 to 32 of Statement of Facts to the show cause notice).