MURRAY AND LANMANA'S FLORIDA WATER.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1589, 22 January 1884, Page 2

MURRAY AND LANMANA'S FLORIDA WATER.

PiPQPAN?M!p r MARK CASE.

KEMP V, DAI/TOX BROS,

This was a suit heard'in equity yesterday,,.before his Honor. Mr Justice

Faucett, instituted by George Kemp, ! William Kemp, Edward Kemp, and A( %h stt)s|tp;;, jyjjo canyon business iirlqcv the (Inn of £ a P n % and'|einp, ; to'restrain the defcnfjanti? flignjas JTjaltonj and James 'Dalt6n'-;(w.h.Q; : ;cpmprJse th/'firm of Dalton Bros,, of 'Sydney and Orange) from importing or selling any perfume not manufactured by plaintiffo, colled Elorada'Water, in bottles or cases to wjiioji sfeVe' affixed any labels' identital with'ty* only colorobly differing from tk plaintiffs' tra ! de riiark/; 'arid'further asking .thaj; the 'defendants' 1 might be calAvith or only eolorably differing from plaintijts l frailo l'nark.j and, that an apflQuni; migkt be foken of profits made by the .defendants by tho sale of any such perfume, This matter canio on upon a motion of injunction to restrain

the defendants in terms of the prayer of the statement of claim until the hearing of tho hearing of the suit, Mr Darley, Q.C., and'Mr Knox, instructed by Messrs Bradley and Son, appeared for the plaintiffs; : Mr Edmunds, instructed by Mp:T,.||, Jjteehil], appeared for the jMendank ;it apprised from the affidavits filedin support of tho plaintiffs' motiqn, tl)fit t]|o plaintiffs l predecessor in the manufacture pf thte perfume invented the trade mark in question so farback as the year 1842, and that the block from which suoh trade marks I were printed had been in their possession, and that they used the trade mark in all parts of the world ever gince ] that the plaintiff in tho year j§73 i'pj§.terei| t|is frade niark according to tlfe provisions of ''The Trades Mark Act, 18,65 j l ' and that snch registration still rcnuuned in force, It

pfclier. appeared tl)at tlje defendants

had boen'fot' soma iirae wiling Florida Water in bottles to which was affixed a label in almost exact imitation of the plaintiffs' registered trade mark. This having come to tho knowledge of the plaintiffs, their solicitor sen 1 ; a clerk to Orange, who bought several bottles of

this perfume \yjth jihe counterfeit label, and ascertained that the defendants had been doing a large trade in the business.. Bottles of the genuine and countefeit scent were produced in court, and were found so exactly alike, as to cause some confusion at the bar, as to which was which. Upon the bottles which was purchased from the defendants appeared the name, «£ustamente Z. Ramon, New York," as'if the perfume complained of had been manufactured by a firm of that name in NewZork.l

It appeared by the affidavits that there is no such firm at New "York, or at any rate that the New York directory is innocent thereof, The defendants appeared to consent to a decree being made now in the term of the prayer of the statement of claim j and merely .desired to point out to the court that the articles were sold by thorn in the ordinary course of business; and the profits on sales anly amounted to £1 7s Gd during the last two years. His Honor granted a perpetual in-, junction.—Sydney Daily Telegraph.