SUPREME COURT Evidence Completed In Action For Injunction

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27533, 15 December 1954, Page 7

SUPREME COURT Evidence Completed In Action For Injunction

mderice called by both parties in Haim tor an injunction being heard 1 the SuP reme Court before the Chief trfire (Sir Harold Barrowclough) was Srluded yesterday. The New ZeaFarmers’ Co-operative Associa”7 of Canterbury. Ltd., is seeking to S-ain Farmers Car Sales, Ltd., from that name in connexion with m business. mt C S. Thomas, with him Mr R. p Thompson, is appearing for the jaintiff association, and Mr B. J. for the defendant firm. The which began on Monday JJsnoon. occupied the whole day yeswday • . ,

jjrthur Smith, assistant registrar of JJpanies at Christchurch, said a firm Sed Farmers Car Sales, Ltd., had tn incorporated on September 18, S with a capital of £3OOO. The iXholders were Herbert Ormond '"hn Solomon, of Christchurch, motor iler <2850 shares), and Kevin Shews, of Christchurch, clerk (150 Jares). The registered office of the ajfflpanv was the second floor of the Guardian Assurance Building, 81 Hereijnl street. Farmers Motor Garage, jtj was incorporated on May 31, 1954. rjth a capital of £lOOO. The names jf the shareholders —each of whom 500 shares—were the same as A(»e of Farmers Car Sales, and the ijpjtered office was at the same adJjg. The New* Zealand Farmers Co--erative Association of Canterbin-y. th was incorporated on September iflMl. bitances of alleged confusion arista- from the similarity between the Ljjjes was given by Mrs Margaret tffftwr Marshall. James Oliphant McJohn Reginald Gardner (ac--yjntant in the Farmers Co-op. motor Joan Mary Sheridan (secreto the manager of the division), McClelland. Frederick John McAuley. William Grey, and John Robert Kaye Fordyce (salesmen for the fizmers Co-op ).

Case for Defence jfr Drake, opening his case, said that fte Fanners’ Co-op. had not pro- • feed evidence that customers who tCQ M have gone to them had been induced to go to Farmers’ Car Sales. On use contrary the advertisements of Fanners’ Car Sales. Ltd., had, according to the evidence, brought prospecjre customers to the motor division rf the Farmers’ Co-op. Mr Drake submitted that the two ■ fetas were carrying on two different Bof business; his client dealt in second-hand cars whereas the ase and resale of second-hand cars comprised not more than 20 per cot of the business of the motor deoartment of the New Zealand FarmBj’ Co-op. Ai he understood it, said his Honour, the plaintiff was more concerned to • jafeguard its good repute built up ever a period of many years, rather ±an to complain of any loss of busiThe “trifling annoyance” of people ringing the wrong telephone number s and of letters being received by the ; wrong firm was not sufficient ground for an injunction to Be granted, Mr Drake claimed. His evidence would show that no injurious competition from the activities of Farmers’ Car Sales had been suffered by the plaintiff. Some of the legal precedents mentioned by Mr Drake showed, he said, that injurious competition must be proved before an injunction could be granted. One English case concerned two firms known as “Office Cleaning Services, Ltd-” and “Office Cleaning Association." The difference between these names was held to be sufficient for an injunction to be refused.

As to the first slogan used by Farmers’ Car Sales—“ Better known for better cars”—said Mr Drake, evidence would be given that this slogan was inaired by a slogan, “Better known for used by a North

?g a u n ar a f nS “Y h e n “ d also to give advertise tV t fa c ?° St^? 1 r “ rs to That explained ♦£! «i Said Mr Dr ake. rantee is your safe«n« n * “^9 ur tiff has not shown that th«» plainXS.S name, “Farmers’ Co-SperaHve” B Ca? ed£ at he e som^ adins in Dun&s ity bet " ee " ‘™tX d S °e?s th oi he . d J fendant company. He cotTOborated much of Solomon’s evidence th^ft^noo'n 35

CLAIM FOR £12,772 CONTINUED

The cross-examination of Nigel Eccles Hewitt, senior lecture? in mechanical engineering at Canterbury University College, occupied the whole ot yesterday’s sitting of the Supreme Court before Mr Justice hv hearing of an action •? . Ol ? lhl L ‘me Company, Ltd., pf? ™ t ,'V’ d ‘; ews and Beaven, Ltd., for Js damages was continued. i„„ jm’SJn i n Llme Company is claim- £ 10.772 2s as special damages as the value of the difference between the production of a lime-crushing machine which Andrews and Beaven Ltd. is alleged to have said would KH dUC t?°T- ?.° to 25 to ns an hour, and substantially lower tonnages of lime actually produced by the 1116 company is also seeking £2OOO general damages which it says is the amount required to alter the machine to comply with the alleged warranty. n M £r E A S J . Bow j c and With him Mr i ■ Godfrey is appearing for the plaintiff company and Mr W. R. Lascelles and Mr A. Hearn represent Andrews and Beaven, Ltd.