CLOTHING BRANDS

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10612, 10 June 1920, Page 7

CLOTHING BRANDS

ALLEGED SIMILARITY LEADS TO LITIGATION IN SUPREME COURT. The alleged similarity of certain clothing brands was tho point in dispute in a trade-mark case heard in banco a.t the Supreme Court yesterday by His Honour tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). The plaintiffs. Messrs 1. and R. Alorlev, London, sought an injunction against Messrs Mucky, Logan, and Caldaeil, Ltd., Wellington, to restrain them from selling goods branded with a trade-nnuk belonging to the Mercury Mills ot Cana, da tho iieal defendants, who axjpealcd also against the refusal of tho registrar to register the brand in New Zealand. Sir John Findlay, K.C., with luui AU A. W. Blair, appeared on bewail of vne plaintiffs, and Mr A. 11. John-stono (Auckland) for the Mercury ALUs Com--1 Tho plaintiffs, a wholesale firm of hosiers aud warehousemen, doing business in England and New Zealand, being the proprietors of a trade-mark registered in New Zealand, consisting “t a winged wheel—a wheel with largo wings projecting from each end of the hub —and the words “Plying nheel claimed that the Mercury Mills brand a small hehnoted head, with a largo wing on one side and an arm on tue othor—so closely resembles their own aa to bo calculated to deceive by inducing people to buy goods beariug the Mercury Mills Brand, in the belief that they were buying goods manufactured by the plaintiffs. Tho flying wheel brand had been used by tho plaintiffs tor a considerable number of years pert, and had come to bo identified with the business of and distinctive of 'tho goods manufactured by tho plaintiffs; and the defendants, it was stated, were selling similar goods stamped with the alleged similar brand complained of. , . , ~ , For tho defence it was denied ’-hat there was such similarity in the brand os was likely to deceive, and in npi>*y)ns for registration of the Mercury Mills brand in New Zealand (which appl l cation was approved by tho plaintiffs), the defendants poin'ced out, that tho Mercury Mills «brand was registered in February, 1913, in Canada, where the plaintiffs trade mark, was also registered and their goods wero sold. The defendants u«dca that tho Mercury trade mark was first adapted, and had since been exclusively used, by the company for tho purpose of distinguishing tho goods manufactured by it from the goods of other persons, and was generally recognised as being distinctive of the goods of the company-. Counsel argued the legal aspect* of Dio case at considerable longfch; and His Honour reserved judgment.