“R.N.F.” TRADE MARK CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 26 January 1931, Page 2

“R.N.F.” TRADE MARK CASE

DEFENCE UPHELD

JUDGMENT FOR P. AND D

DUNCAN, LTD

CHRISTCHURCH, January 24

Judgment in the long-contested “R.N.F.” trademark ease was delivered yesterday morning in the Supreme Court hy Mr Justice Adams. Every point was decided in favour of the defendant company, Messrs P. and D. Duncan, Ltdr., for whom Messrs Upham and White appeared. Mr Peacock appeared for tlie plaint ills, Messrs Ransoine, Sims and Jefferies, Ltd. Costs were allowed ior defendants as on a claim for £IOOO. Plaintiff claimed that the use of the trademarks!' ‘R.N.F.’, ‘Ransomes,’ and ‘Ransomes Patent’ on plough shares manufactured by Messrs P. and D. Duncan had infringed plaintiff’s rights to the trademark, for which they had built tip n wide reputation. Plaintiffs prayed for an injunction to stop the defendant company from vising the marks, and for an order for delivery to it of all ploughs or parts of ploughs in the defendant’s possession or control, and for damages or on account of profits.

The defendant, while admitting that the plaintiff’s marks were registered in Now Zealand in Juno, 1889, said that it had never used the plaintiff’s marks qr any of them na trademarks.

THE JUDGEMENT. In his judgment, Mr Justice Adams stated: “The defendant and its predecessors have been engaged in the manufacture of ploughs in New Zealand since the year 18G8. The demand for ploughs manufactured hy them and hy other manufacturers in New Zealand increased rapidly, and the defendant has built up a large business in Canterbury and throughout New Zealand. In the earlier years the defendant’s predecessors imported the defendant’s shares, and used them in construction of its ploughs, and of necessity adopted the same pattern for the head of the plough as that adopted by the plaintiffs in the manufacture of the ploughs they sent to this country because the head must fit into the socket of the share, and no other pattern of head would have fitted the plaintiff’s shares which the defendant was using. These imported shares bore the plaintiff’s mark. Having learned the process of making shares with a surface of chilled steel according to the expired patent of 1803, the defendant’s predecessors commenced the manufacture of these shares, and adopted tile same pattern of share as that which they had been using for many years, and nlso adopted the letters R.N.F,, which were on the share,

‘‘Tlie defendant company Imtl continued this practice to the present time, Two other manufacturers qt ploughs in New Zealand, . Reid and Gray, Lt., and Bootli,>lacdonald and Co.,' Ltd., did the same thing. From 1883 to 1915 the words P. and D. Duncan were also stamped on the shares, and thereafter the letters p, and D. D. The letters R .N.F. were helow the trade name. The plaintiff’s counsel had admitted that the letters R.N.F. had never been used by them ns a trademark, and it was therefore found that the defendant had never used, and never intended to use, the letters R.N.F. as a I indcnt-i rk. hut had always used them on ;t, Imres as pattern mark only. NO INTENT SHOWN.

“It is not, and on tiie evidence could not be, pretended that the defendant has deliberately used the letters K.N.F. for the purpose of capturing the plaintiff’s trade, but it is submitted that the effect of its action has been to induce buyers of the defendant’s plough shares to believe that its shaies on which the letters appear are made by the plaintiff. Considering the evidence, I say that to my apprehension no person, of ordinary faculties applying his mind to the question and having ordinary eyesight would be deceived. This applies also to the shares marked ‘P. and D. Duncan,’ manufactured by the defendants in the early days and up to 1915.” •Judgment was entered for defendant with costs as on a claim for £IOOO.