TRADE MARKS.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20094, 25 November 1930, Page 9

TRADE MARKS.

ENGLISH FIRM SEEKS INJUNCTION. INFRINGEMENT ALLEGED. HEARING BEGUN IK SUPREME COURT. A company which has been in tho business of manufacturing agricultural implements, in England, since 1789, instigated proceedings ia the Supreme Court yesterday against a Christchurch firm, alleging infringement of trade marks on ploughs and parts of ploughs. The easo is expected to Occupy some days. The plaintiff was Ransom®, Sims ar.d Jefferios, Ltd., of Ipswich, England, engineers, and the defendant was P. and D. Duncan, Ltd., of Cnristchurch. His Honour, Mr Justice Adams, was on the Bench, Mr J. C. Peacock, of Wellington, appeared for the plaintiff, and ISr J. H. Upham, with hira Mr E. W. "Whito. for tho defendant. yhe Claisn. Tia statement of claim sot out that tho plaintiff was the registered proprietor in New Zealand of the trade marks "R.N.F.," ''Ransome," and "Ransome's Patent" tor ploughs aAd parts of ploughs in class 7, which were registered on Juna 15th, ISS9. Tho registration was still in operation. The plaintiff had extensively used the trade marks o£l ploughs and head shares afad other j>arts of ploughs sold in New Zealand since 18S9, and these had acquired a wide reputation as "R.N.F.," "Ransome,' or "Ransoms's Patent'.'* The defendant had infringed the plaintiff's marks by manufacturing and selling shares for ploughs bearing the mark "R.N.F." and by advertising that it manufactured and sold "R.N.F." heads and "R.N.F." shares for ploughs. The plaintiff had applied to the defendant company to desist; but it had refused to do so. The defendant had made considerable profits by selling goods not being the plaintiff's under the trade mark. Plaintiff claimed an injunction to rostrain the defendant from infringing tho trade marks and in particular from applying the mark "R.N.F.' to any ploughs or parts of ploughs manufactured by it, or to any ploughs or partß, and from in any manner passing off any ploughs or parts, not of the plaintiff's manufacture, as the plaintiff's goods, and from selling or advertising or exposing for sale any such ploughs or parts, also from doing any act to induce the belief that tlie goods wore the plaintiff's. The claim was also tor an order -or delivery up to the-plaintiff, on oath, of all ploughs or parts which were in the possession, or power, or under the control of the defendant, and offended Against any injunction granted; damages on account of profits; such further relief as was deemed f»t; and costs.

Statement of Defence. The defence was a general denial of tlie allegations. It set out, further, that the plaintiff company or its predecessors. for upward of a century had manufactured ploughs aftd shares -which afc first were made under the letters patent held in England about 1803; the same classes oj? both the ploughs and shareß were largely imported into Canterbury and were there known as Kansomes" and "Bansome's Patent. At the time of the settlement of Canterbury and for many years afterwards 110 ploughs or cast iron share* were made in New Zealand, ana all wore imported England and Scotland and were those of the plaintiff and of another large manufacturer. The pattern of the head of the piougn , and of the socket of the share must j correspond, and a customer must . specify, by a pattern mark, the .hare . required or the standard pattern of j head which the share was to nt. In j 1863 Reid and Gray commenced manu- j facturing in Oamaru, and m the same year the defendant company commenced in Christchnrch; but as no chilled cast-iron shares were then produced in New Zealand the ISew Zealand manufacturers made their ploughs with a bead that would fit the standard pattern of socket of one or the the makes of chilled cast-iron shares imported from Scotland or England, Rpid and Gray keeping principally to The "Gray" or "Scotch head" pattern, but making their ploughs for the Christchurch and Ashburton trl^ 3 with an "R.N.F." head, and the defendant company making ploughs with the English standard pattern of head of "Ransome s R.N.S. or "Homsby's C." The chilled cast-iron shares made by the plaintiff company and sold in New Zealand at the time wero marked "Ransome s Patent Chilled Share." , About ISB2 the plaintiff company a New Zealand agents, Booth, Macdonald and Co. (owing to the locally-manufac-tured colonial type of plough pushing the imported colonial type of plough for which they were agents, out of the , s?^« c rroh c ,ut«rsrxs«,« : issj & 'WW3; •£Sr?&*SS?yL f ■ '£ tvpo of plough but for the ploughs of tilt type manufactured b? the defendant company and other local c 0 panies with the "R.N.F." standara pat?ern head. The plaintiff company, with knowledge of the pany s action, d«-» to sell its shares for use on the colonial-manufactured pioughs, accoiomaim defendant company s quiesced in compla int until 19%5° n The defendant company had or sok! its plough or torts etJept as of its own manufacture, it commenced making ■V > •_ iocg .j, advertised and sold thosf of its ploughs having the standard rxitterns of heads as "made to take either Hornsbys C or Rnnsomes R.N.F shares." That was only way of i ulicating the rfanractw or_ pattern ot "he head of ploughs inanmactured by Tt was nor. until 180 l that the defendant company produced chilled cast-iron shares, and it then cast them as "P and D. Duncan RJs F " or P. and D Duncan C. It" listed them on its catalogues and gold them as "shares, cast-iron, P. and I> D with a headnote. "when orrb.rins' shares please state whether for R N.F. cr C head." In 1889 the letters" "R.N.F.," when applied to the head of a. plough, constituted a pattorn mark of a head of any size or make, and merely indicated that a head would fit a share with a corresponding standard pattern socket, and vico versa.

The defendant company, so far from attempting to .psas off its goods as

P' aiuti .S, had at all times of its nf i c * a * m that the articles the imn ure wert superior to and wticle of liko standard wbi<-I? ti- " D > • ® le years during nrT rv-.m f P' ainfc iff company bad made or ? ihl ? la A nb 0f tha continuous user f/„rll^ v rn mark R.N.F., th« d&- • C , ompariy ila <J built up a buii;c C 1 '*• w 'ould largely disarrange allowed. ° f the dis "

-\u company's shares being damped with the word "patent," and ne letters patent for such sharo having expiree ni 18X7, such trade mark J a alld deceptive, and the j i company was therefore disentitled to tbe protection of the Court, i. io Qorenaant company proved leave movo to reotify the trade marks - striking out tha mark , . j • being improperly repisf ' j letters being known by the a i bv farmers to signify only tnat tho share had a socket of a particular pattern, and would fit any plough having a head of the R.N.F. pattern, and was nob taken by anyone to represent that such «. share had neon made by any particular maker. Nearly Two Centuries OldMr Peacock said that the plair.titf company was the oldest concern in the business in England. It was started almost two centuries ago. As far back as 1803 Mr Robert Uansowo, the originator of the tinn, patented a method of making a share which revolutionised ploughing. Previously the shares were constantly becoming bjunt. The invention had the effect of making the share very hard and verv unlikely to wear oi®t. The top portion, being of a softer metal, wore away, with the result that there was always a sharp e<!ce.

Tho patent expired in ISI7, and the method of making chillod cast shares had been adopted by all makers. Different varieties of ploughs were mado by the firm, and a registered trade mark was applied. The mark in question was registered in ISB9. In 1804 the company introduced a plough known as the "R.N." series, the "II." for "Rausome," and "N." i'or "Newcastle." Therewere additional marks—"R-N.D.," "R.N.E.," "R.N.F.," and "R.N.G.," indicating sizes. The iirst three ploughs; all took the "R.N.F." share. The fourth share wa* marked "R.N.G." Ic 1808 the defendant company aaj the firm of Reid and Gray commenced to make ploughs in Mew Zealand, according to the defendant company. It v/as not until ISiMS that the plaintiff received any intimation that there was likely to be an infringement by the defendant company, whoso catalogue indicated itIt seemed that the larger tho demand for a firm's goods the less protection it had for its trade marks. There was no objection to the defendant company using the mark in Lhe proper way. But if the defendant company had built up its trade on the plaintiff company's reputation then the sooner it was stopped the better. There had been no change in the methods used by tho plaintiff company since IS7S. A case in 18S2 strengthened it in its right to carry on. If the plaintiff company succeeded .iu the action the special defence would go by the boar it. An Old Bualucifc. Alfred Percival Keightlev, representative of the plaintiff company iu Ne-.v Zealand and Australia, said that tho company's predecessors had been in business since 1789. His company had done business with New Zealand ever sinco the country had been opened up, and its sales in New Zealand of plough shares totalled 8000 or 9000 dozen annually. Witness described sending a warnirig to P. and D. Duncan regarding the marking on the shares. He also sent an agent to P. and D. Duncan for three Ransome R.N.F. shares- At the end of 192S he received a circular from tho defendant company and a reference in it to this company's trade mark caußet! him to take further action. He again sent an agent to the defendant compaay to purchase two "R.N.F." shares, and two "P. and D. D. R.N.F." shares, were sent. They were not manufactured by his company, yet they bore its trade mark. Witness then put the matter in the hands of his firm's solicitors, and tfie present action was the result.

To Mr Upham, witness said that at the present time his company had ploughs which boro tho letters "R.iV.FI" A pattern mark, he said, could be taken to indicate a shape. At this stage the Court adjourned xiAtil 10.15 this morning.