SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3135, 13 July 1917, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

— , TRADE MARK CASE . RESERVED JUDGMENT In the Supremo Court yesterday, the Chief Justice tSir Eobcrt Stout) delivered reserved judgment in tho casu oC Lever Bros., appellants, and Johu Welsh M'Gill, respondent. Johu Welsh M'Gill, grocer, cf Rprcydon, applied to tho JJepislrar of Trado Marks to vogistor tho trado mark "Healo" in connection with ocrtain ointments. I'lio application was opposed by Liver Bros, on the ground3thiit tho word "Jtoalo" was not an invented word as required by tho Statute, furthermore, tint the word contained a, reference to the quality of tho goods, which was also contrary to tho Statute. It waa t'urthor contended that "Healo" was ;i, colourable iwitntion of uppollantn' trado murk "JJealattii," used l>y appellants iu oonuootion with certain ointnienta and pomadcß. Tl'o .Dosistrar decided in favour of M'dill, ni'd Lever Bios, appealed ugaiust the decision of (.to, Kcgistrar on tho grounds stated above. ' His Honour reversed tho dccisioU ot tho Registrar, and upheld tho appeal ou tho flret and second grounds, but disagreed with tho third contention that it wna a colonrablo imitation of appellants' trado mark.

At tlio hearing Mr. G. 0. G. Watson appeared for . nppellauts, and llr. K. 1". o'Lea.ry lor respondent. CLAIM FOE DAMAGES. The Chief Justice (Sir liobert Stout) delivered reserved judgmont in tho oase of Georgo Cam well, a waterside worker, who. claimed £501 daniiigea from tho Blackball Ooal OomDany. . ! On Friday, October 6, 1916, plsintiu , was employed cUachargraE coal from ono o£ the steamers of the defendant corppany. Plaintiff was working en a trclly-way ro- j coivins baskets of ccal, a ail tvoilying than towards the railway tniok. Ho waa otrnok by a. banket, and thrown on to tho deck, receiving eevore injuries Plaintiff attributed tho accident to tho inexperience of a. man named Chatlea Oharlowood. employed by defendants to have charge of tho "bull-roDo." Ho altornati/cly contenci-r-d that tho accident was due to tbo negligence. o£ OharlovioocL and claimed damages tor injuries received 'through, the negligence of a fellow-servant. Tho company admitted liability under the Workers' Oompenoation Aot, and had made payments in accordance with, thij previsions | of that Act. Tho case was tried on .Tuno 1 by the Chief Juetico (Sir Robert Stout) and a jury of twelve, ud<l tbo issues placed before tho jury and tho antvers were:--1. Waa the GRid Oharlcß Okarlewood guilty of negligence, in niam'g'ing tho "bull-ropo"?—Aumvcr: Wo aro of opinion that Oharle.wood niUjiidged the c'ietaucc. and alloivod Mio basket to ovcrswins tho trolly lino. • I. Waa the I'lKinMß guilt? of r.cplicenoc in not doing bis work properly?—Aedwci , : No. J. What damages, if n.nr, is plaintiff entitled to recovor?—Answer: £400. Counsel for the ' defendant company moved for judgment for defendant on the ground thai, on tlio finding of tho jury.no negligenoo hart been attributed to Obarlowood, or, in tho .'ilternativo, lie moved for a new trial on tho ground that tho verdict, if tho answer to tho iiriit issue involved tho finding of negligence against Oharlowood, waa agaluet UlO' weight of ovideneo. His Honour held that tho answer <o' thn first issue did not amount to a finding of negligonno againet Obarlewood, and accordingly gavo judgment for tho defendant company. Counsel for plaintiff then moved for judgmont under tho Wbrkoru' Compensation Aot in accordance with Section 46 of that Act, and tho matter wag adjonrnod by agreement to enable tho parties to urrivo at a Bcttloraent.