MUSIC FIRM’S NAME

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 234, 22 December 1927, Page 1

MUSIC FIRM’S NAME

CHANGE DESIRED “OBVIATING CONFUSION” Contending that the name was too cumbersome for advertising purposes, and that the proposed name was more attractive, Messrs. Lewis R. Eady and Son, Ltd., yesterday applied to the Supreme Court for permision to change the title of the firm to “Lewis Eady, Ltd.” The application was heard before Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. R. McVeagh and Mr. E. H. Northcroft appearing for the applicant company. It was opposed by Kenneth Eady, Ltd. (Mr. Sellar), and Arthur Eady, Ltd. (Mr. A. H. Johnstone and Mr. Hanna), both also music-dealers in Queen Street. Mr. McVeagh said it was the custom of the public to abbreviate the name of the applicant firm to “Eady’s.” It was desired to emphasise the Christian name “Lewis” so as to distinguish the firm from other firms in which the name “Eady’ was prominent. It was considered that the change asked for would lead to the use of the correct name, and thereby obviate confusion.

It had been agreed by all parties, said Mr. McVeagh, that the public was getting into the habit of speaking of “booking at Eady’s,” meaning Lewis R. Eady and Son, Ltd. They considered the shortening of the name would sharpen the distinction between the three organisations, and lessen the confusion. Mr. Johnston submitted that Arthur Eady’s business had always been known to the public as “Eady’s,” the court also having previously found that Arthur Eady had gained the exclusive right to the use of that term. He contended that the real reason for the applicants desiring to shorten the name was to make it “commercially more attractive,” and that meant that commerce would be attracted from his client.

Mr. Sellar said he opposed the application on the grounds that the changed name would more nearly resemble that of his client’s firm, and would be more likely to confuse.

His Honor said he would give his decision in writing.