THE TRADE MARK CASE.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20095, 26 November 1930, Page 8

THE TRADE MARK CASE.

ACTION IN SUPREME COURT. INFRINGEMENT OF BRAND ALLEGED 'Again yesterday the Supreme Court was engaged in hearing evidence m the ease in which a big English firm of agricultural implement manufacturers is proceeding against a C'hristchurcii firm, alleging .infringement of trade marks on ploughs and parts of ploughs. Indications aro that the case will continue all this week. The plaintiff is Ransome, Sims and Jeffcries, Ltd., of Ipswich, England, engineers, and the defendant is P. and D. Duncan, Ltd., of C'hristchurcii. His Honour, Mr Justice Adams, is oil the Bench, Mr J. C. Peacock, of Wellington, is appearing for the plaintiff, and Mr «J. H. Unham, with him Mr E. W. White, for the defendant. The plaintiff company's predecessors commenced business in 17S'J. It is claimed that the defendant company has infringed plaintiff's trade marks by manufacturing and selling shares for ploughs bearing the mark 'R.N.F.''. and by advertising that it manufactures and sells "R.N.F." heads and "R.N,F." shares for ploughs. l'lainti 11 claims an injunction to restrain flu- defendant from infringing the ttadc marks, also an order for delivery up to the plaintiff of all ploughs or parta in the possession of the defendant, stall further relief as is deemed fit, and the costs of the action. The case was commenced on Monday. Evidence Continued. Continuing his evidence from the previous day, Alfred I'crcival Ketglitiey, New Zealand and Australian representative of the plaintiff company, to Mr L'phani said that he lr.nl no idea whether the 3-wheel lever plough had been invented in alxnit the 'seventies. lie would not agree that that .type of plough, subject to improvements. was in universal use to-day. The English plough was bolted together and the colonial typo was welded. The final letter distinguished the size, and the plough known as the "Bantam,"' and described as a garden [.lough, was not a toy by :iny means, ft was -suitable for use m an area ul from 10 to i."O a (res. Referring to a price list issued by Ins linn's agents, liooth, MacdonaUl, and C'<»., witnes.-, said that it distinguished between Kansome's imported ' shares and local makes. It was not ins dutv to call on the foundries in the Dominion. The only plough-makers lie called upon were Keid and Gray ami Uooth, Macdonaid, and Co. His object in visiting New Zealand was to secure information for hid company. Question of Registration. lie called on I*. and D. Duncan. Ltd., in 19-0, regarding the alleged infringement of the plaintiff company's trudo mark. According to a letter written by witness tlie.v. appeared to be quite ignorant of any dffciieo. They raised the question of registration and stated that thev Itiid used the mark for "J~> \enr.s. In llrjl bis principals v, rote to liini that t hey bad examined a share-sent to them by him. It v.-as marked "R.N.I - '.," \\ as of Australian manufacture, ;ind mis sold in New Zealand. It w.is not at that time that lie told P. and I). Duncan, Ltd., not to line the mark. To identify a share as manufactured by I'ansome's he would require In see the, two trade marks. The marks uero Ransome's patent, anil a semicircle. If the senii-cirele w;is 'tlier'.; aioite he would recognise the share as mi'* of Ransome's make, unless it was a piece or "piracy." 11l 19'_'t he was not aware that P. and D. Duncan made plough shares, because they ordered Ransome's. Further, he did not know that the firm was the largest of implement-makers in the Dominion. To Mr Peacock witness said tliaf. the reason why his firm was exporting chiellv tractor-draw n ploughs was that the chief demand to-day was for trac-tor-drawn implements. Purchases from Defendant,. "Robert Gcdfre.v Wilkin, employed by liooth, Macdonaid and Co., Ltd., as a mechanic, said that early in 19'2S Keightlev asked him to purchase three "R.N.F.'' shares from P. and IJ. Duncan, Ltd. He was given genuine Kansome's. Lnt-T he was asked to secure two "R N'.F." .V 2's from P. and D. Duncan, Ltd. He was given two shares tnarkqd" "P and D. D. ; I'.N.F., o'J." Under his instructions, the shares » ere later branded with the date of purchase, in red.' To Mr Uphnm, Keightley did not say what the shares were required for. On the second occasion witness was instructed to take what he was given and to ask no questions. George Thompson Mulcock, farmer, said that he had. used ploughs to a considerable extent P and D. Duncan's and Reid and Gray's principally. tie had practically always used Ran some's "R.N.F." shares. That mark conveyed the impression that the share was manufactured by Ransome. In ]£BG he used P. and D. 'Duncan's shares. They were branded "P. and D.D.,'' , with tlie number. If he ordered an "R.N.I<." share he would expected to get a Ransome share. If he received a share branded "P. and • D.D.," "R.N.F.,"' he would gather either that a .patent right liatl been infringed or that P. and I*. Duncan had made an arrangement with Ransome. George Henry Judd, farmer, said that he had used P. and D. Duncan shares. Thev were marked "P. and D.D." with u number. Brands on Imported Shares. Charles Stephenson, in charge of the buying' department of Paterson and llarr, Ltd.. Dunedin, lor over thirty jears, said that his company bought Kansome's plough shares. The principal trade mark was "R.N.F." When a purchaser asked for "R.N.F." shares he was given Ransome's. 110 had seen a share made by an Australian firm marked "R.N.F." Ho would distinguish Ransome's imported shares bv the fact that they bore the words, ' Ransome's Patent," in a semi-circle. Erie Hamilton Orr, of Ashburton, said that when ordering shares customers gave the brand and number. When asked to supply "R.N.F." shares he sent- Ransome's. He had never seen an imported Ransome share without "Ransome's Patent" in the semi-circle.. George Cooper, .of the Invcrcargill branch of Booth, Macdonaid and Co,, and at one time employed by P. and D. Ihincan, Ltd., said that "Ransome's Patent," in a semi-circle, was the only mark that appeared on the imported shares. The trade found" it necessary to distinguish . betft'eßn.'the imported "R.N.F.." shares and the locally-made "R.N T JP." shares. . . ~ J George Henry Andrews, manager of this Timaru ' branch'- of > John • Edmond

Ltd., said that he was acquainted with Kuusom<;'s marks—"lt.N.F.'' and "Kansome's Patent," in a semi-circle. When asked to supply "R.N.F." shares, followed by a number, his f lrm sent Ransome's shares. To Mr White, witness said that Australian shares, which his firm had ??i> N Pff. me ■ yoars ag0 > wcrc branded Court . dio „r„ed