TRADE MARK CASE

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 126, 25 November 1930, Page 7

TRADE MARK CASE

10CALLY-MADE PLOUGHS'

INFRINGEMENT ALLEGED

(By Telegraph.) (Special to "The Evening Post.") CHRISTCIIUECII, 24th Nov. A. compauy whose business oi" mam facturiug agricultural implements i .England dates back to 1759 instigate, proceedings in the Supreme Court tc day against a Christchurcli firm, alleg , ing infringement of trade marks c . ploughs and parts of ploughs. The eas is expected to occupy several days. The plaintiff is Bansome, Simes, ani Jcfferies, Limited, Ipswich,l England and defendant P. and D. Duncan, Limil cd, Christchurch. Mr. J. C. Peacoel (Wellington) appeared for plaintiff, an Messrs. J. H. Upham and E. W. Whit ' for defendant. An injunction was sought to restraii defendant from infringing . plaintiff' . trade marks, and in particular fro) applying the mark "R.N.F." to an; ploughs or parts manufactured by dc fendant. Tho defendant company asked tha the Trade Mark Begister ;be reetifici by striking 'out 'the mark "K.N.F." a being improperly registered, in that i was recognised as being only a patten . of a head, and not denoting that sucl . a share was made by a particular firm INFRINGEMENT ALLEGED. According to the statement of claiu . plaintiff was the registered propricto in New Zealand of the trade mark '•K.N.P.," "Bansome," and "Ransome1, Patent" for ploughs and parts o ploughs iv class 7, which were register ed in June, 1889. Defendant com ■ pany, it was alleged, had infringed thi plaintiff's marks by manufacturing anc .selling snares for ploughs bearing thi mark "8.N.F.," and by advertisinj along those lines. The defence set out that at tho timi jif the settlement of Canterbury anc for many years afterwards no plough ' or cast-iron shares were made in Ne^ Zealand, all being imported from Eng land and Scotland. In. 1863 Eeid ant Gray, Ltd., commenced manufacturing in Oamaru, and in tho aamc_ year th< " defendant company started in Christ ' church, but as no chilled cast sharei were then produced in New Zealand ' and the local manufacturers made theii ploughs with a head to which woulc fit the standard pattern of shares froir England and Scotland, Eeid and Graj kept principally to the "Gray" oi "Scotch head" pattern, but made theu ■ ploughs, for the Christchurch and Ash> burton districts with an "8.N.F." head. • The defendant company made its ' ploughs with the English standard pattern of head of "Eansome's EJST.F." oi "Hornsby's C." The defendant com- • pany had never advertised or sold its plough, or parts except as1 of its own manufacture, but'when it commenced • making ploughs in 1868 it sold them ■with a head "made to either Hornsby's C. or Eansome's EJSTJE1. shares." ffhat •was the only way of indicating the pattern of the head. In 1881 the_ defendant company manufactured chilled cast shares as "P. and D. Duncan; K.N.F.," or "P. and D. Duncan. O." In 1889 the letters "R.'N.'F." when applied to the head of a plough constitnte4 a pattern mart of a head. PENALTY TOR INFRINGEMENT. STr. peaeocfe stated that a West Australian firm had had its stock .conflsi eated because of infringements of the ■trade mark. ■ - ' Alfred Percival Keightley, -Austral;. Lan and New Zealand agent tot '.th* plaintiff company, said that the com: pany commented bnnness m 1789. Wit« ness said his company's business in. New Zealand inploogh shares totalled 8000 or 9000 aozen annually...He described sending a warning to P. anS D. Duncan regarding the marking on the The case was adjourned till to-mor-»ow.