Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : In re Aditya Birla Retail Limited (AAR Maharashtra)
Appeal Number : No.GST-ARA-13/2017/B-16
Date of Judgement/Order : 23/03/2018
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

In re Aditya Birla Retail Limited (AAR Maharashtra)

Also Read AAAR Ruling- Use of words Choice / Value / Superior on packing amounts to branding: AAAR

Name Aditya Birla is a benchmark in itself and is associated with a certain trust and quality. Now, we see the definition of ‘brand name’ includes a name or a mark. This concept of ‘mark’ stems from the Trade Marks Act, 1999 where we have the following definition –

(m) “mark” includes a device, brand. heading. label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter, numeral, shape of goods, packaging or combination of colours or any combination thereof:

It can be seen that a ‘mark’ includes a ‘name’. Further, it also includes a combination of colours. In the present case, we see that the packaging for both the Streams would be using a combination of colours from the logo of the Aditya Birla Group. And we see that the name Aditya Birla also appears on the package. The name “Aditya Birla” is more than suffiecnt to establish an identity with the goods. The Hon. Supreme Court decision in CCE v. Grasim Industries Ltd. [CCE v. Grasim industries Ltd., (2005) 4 SCC 194] has observed that the words `any writing’ in the definition of ‘brand name’ are wide enough to include the name of a company. Besides the goods under both the Streams would be available in the More Stores. It was confirmed during the hearing that these goods are not available in any other stores except the More Stores. It has been argued that along with these products, the More Stores also have products of other manufacturers, too. We find that this fact in fact helps to distinctly identify those products as being the More products which aren’t available elsewhere. On this issue of availability of the products of the applicant only at the More Stores, it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in CCE v. Australian Foods India (P) Ltd., (2013) 12 5CC 468: (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 701: 2013 SCC OnLine SC 58 at page 474.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031