EMBOSSED BOTTLES.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 9, Issue 573, 8 October 1920, Page 3

EMBOSSED BOTTLES.

COVERING LABELS. MUST NOT BE USED CASE AT PUKEKOHE.

An aerated bottie manufacturer, Albert Sears, was charged at the Pukekohe Magistrate's Court yesterday with having sold aerated water to which a false trade description had been applied. He was also charged with using bottles impressed with the trade mark of another company for aerated waters of his own manufacture.

Mr. J. R. Reed, K.C., for the informants stated that he was appearing on behalf of the Aerated Manufacturers' Association, at whose instigation the information was laid. He stated that a practise had been made by small manufacturers of using other firms bottles. The firms for whom he appeared did not sell the bottles to purchasers, but only the contents thereof, the bottles themselves being only hired to them. The purpose of the information was to bring before the public and the manufacturers of aerated water that these bottles could not be used by linns other than those whose names were embossed thereon. The fact of defendant having placed a label of his own on the bottle did not alter the offence. In support of this counsel quoted several cases from other countries. He wanted to warn small manufacturers that they were committing a criminal offence by using these bottles. He would not press for a heavy fine. Mr. Haddow, for defendant, stated that he would plead guilty. He, however, would place the defendant's position before His Worship. Mr. Sears had been getting his bottles from a dealer in Auckland. He had told these merchants that he would not take any embossed bottles. He had been told that he could legally use the bottles, providing that he pasted his own labels over the imprint. He would admit a technical breach, but would point out that his client had acted quite fairly throughout.

His Worship said there was no need for the Court to remark further on the case. The law, he said, apparently looked at the matter seriously, as heavy penalties were provided. He would not, however, impose a heavy fine. Accused would be fined £5, and costs 7s.