USE OF NAME.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 180, 1 August 1935, Page 9

USE OF NAME.

LAUNDRY DISPUTE. TRI-CLEANING PROCESS. JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS. A judgment of considerable importance to dry cleaners was delivered by Mr. Justice Fair in the Supreme Court this morning in the case brought by the X.Z. Towel Supply and Laundry, Ltd. (Messrs. Leary and Wheaton), against the X.Z. Tri-Cleaning Company, Ltd., and Cyril Arthur Johnson and Eileen Dorothy Margaret Johnson (Mr. North). The plaintiffs sought an injunction restraining the defendants carrying on business using the title "tri-deaning." In the course of his judgment his Honor stated that for some ten years past a synthetic solvent known as tridilorethylene Lad been used by various person's and firms in Xew Zealand who carry on business as dry cleaners. There was no evidence that any of the businesses other than the plaintiff company had used it except for what is described as "spotting." The solvent had been known to members of the trade who had used it, and to the wholesalers who supply it, by the trade name "Tri." In 1931 the plaintiff company installed a plant to carry out the whole process of dry cleaning by means of this solvent. In August, 1933, at the suggestion of its advertising agent, the company adopted the practice oE describing the process by the name of '"tri-clcan-ing," and embarked on an extensive advertising campaign with the object of bringing before the public the process under the name of "tri-cleaning ,, and showing the advantages claimed for it. The evidence established that a considerable section of the public came to know the process by that name and to associate the word of tho procesß with tho business of the plaintiff.

Another Company. His Honor continued that there was in Auckland another company carrying on the business of laundrymen and dry cleaners, known as the New Zealand Dry Cleaning Company, Limited, and on July 30, 1934, that* company caused the defendant company to bo incorporated with a capital of £30. Evidence was given to show that the company was formed in order to prevent any other company forming with the name "New Zealand Tri-Cleaning Company," which was so close to the name "New Zealand Dry Cleaning Company, in the opinion of the latter company, as to prove deceptive. His Honor said that the plaintiff had first to establish that the defendants or one of them intended to earnon business, that the mere inclusion of the word "tri-cleaning" in the name of the defendant company, uncommunieated to the members of the public who are customers of the plaintiff company, could not injure its business. On a review of the evidence lie hold that a finding was not warranted that the defendant company had ever up to the present time any intention of carrying on the business of dry cleaning. He held that, even if it had been shown that <he defendant company had some such intention, there was no proof that it intended to carry on business in such a way as to be likely to cause injury to the plaintiff, and that was the basis of an action such as the present. ITe held that if the defendants did decide to carry on business in the future, they might well do so without infringing the plaintiff's rights, and that there was no evidence to show that the defendant company, by incorporating in its name the word "tri-cleaning," or by any other act, intended to deceive the public into thinking that it was associated with the plaintiff company. A " Descriptive " Word. The judge proceeded that it was .also claimed that the use of the word "tricleaning" itself by any other firm than the plaintiff company would cause confusion and would be prohibited by the Court. He said that that was a broad question which might affect not only the defendant company, but also the New Zealand Dry Cleaning Company, Limited, and perhaps many other dry cleaning firms throughout New Zealand. It was <t claim by the plaintiff company to a monopoly iu the use of the word "tricleaning," on the ground that it was the first firm in New Zealand to make that name known to the public. In view of hie previous finding it was unnecessary to decide the point, and, quoting a lending English case, he pointed out the difficulties that were in the way of the plaintiff establishing such a monopoly, and held that as far as the question of fact was concerned the word was intended to be descriptive, and did describe the nature of the process.

Judgment was given for the defendants with costs as on a claim of £500, witnesses' expenses and disbursements to be fixed by the registrar, and a certificate was granted for three extra days at £15 15/ per day.