JUDGE RESERVES DECISION.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20099, 1 December 1930, Page 6

JUDGE RESERVES DECISION.

THE TRADE MARK CASE. LONG HEARING CONCLUDED. After a Supreme Court; hearing lasting five-and-a-haff days the "Trade Mark Case" was concluded, as far as evidence and legal argument were concerned, on Saturday morning. Judgment was reserved. The plaintiff company was Ransome, Sims, and Jefferies, Ltd., of Ipswich, England, engineers, and the defendant company -was P. and D. Duncan, Ltd., of Christchurch. His Honour Mr Justice Adams was on the Bench, Mr J. C. Peacock, of Wellington, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr J. H. Upham, with him Mr E. \V. White, for the defendant. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant company had infringed the plaintiff's trade 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." bends and "R.N.F." shares for ploughs. Plaintiff claimed an injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing the trade marks, also an order for delivery up to the plaintiff of all ploughs or parts in possession of the defendant, such further relief as was deemed fit, and the costs of the action. Confusion was increased by the fact that P. and D. Duncan, Ltd., only used the initials of the firm's name, said Mr Peacock, on Saturday, continuing his address. People near Christchurch had probably heard of the firm, and would recognise that the initials "P. and D.D." were the initials of the company. It was stated, however, that the ploughs and shares were sent all over New Zealand. A very large number of people must have been using them to fit ploughs with an "R.N.F." head, who had never heard the name of Duncan and who would not recognise the initials "P. and D.D." The farmers were the people who used the ploughs and if they were unwary there was a chance that thoy would get Duncan's goods when they really desired Bansome's. If a share marked "P. and D.D., R.N.F., 52" was received by a customer in response to an. order for an "R.N.F." share, he might conclude that it was a genuine Ransome share. That was if he did not know the name Duncan. On the other hand, if he knew the name Duncan he might assume that the share was made by Ransome for P. and D. ■Duncan. Counsel cited many cases dealing with trade marks and submitted that tho mark "R.N.F." had its origin in the production of a series of ploughs. Ever sinee it had been applied to the plaintiff's ploughs and shareß. It had always been used by the plaintiff company and was understood by the public to indicate that such shares were of the plaintiff's manufacture. Counsel for the defence had said that the registration was improperly made, but in the earlier case of Ransome versus Graham there was a motion by the defendant to expugn the mark and the motion failed. Tho mark was registered in 1878 in England under the Act of 1875. There was nothing in that Act making provision for the registration of old marks such as there was in tho Act of 1905.