Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

‘Solavoid' appeal allowed

(N.Z.P. A.-Reuter —Copyright) LONDON. A New Zealand company today won its appeal to the Privy Council against a New Zealand Court of Appeal ruling that its trade mark “Solavoid” could not be used. The company. Hannaford and Burton, Ltd. of Auckland, maintained that itsj sunglasses were unlikely to be confused on the New Zealand market with sunglasses sold under the trade mark “Polaroid". In 1970, the American Polaroid Corporation asked the Registrar of Trade Marks in New Zealand to remove the mark “Solavoid.” The Supreme Court declined the application, but in November, 1974, the Court of Appeal allowed the Polaroid Corporation’s appeal against the decision. The Privy Council allowed Hannaford and Burton’s appeal and ordered that its “Solavoid” mark be restored. The Polaroid Corporation was directed to pay costs of both appeal hearings.

Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, giving the Privy Council’s judgment, said that Polaroid sunglasses had been advertised extensively in New Zealand and elsewhere throughout the world, and had acquired a wide and valuable reputation with the general public. They had already done so by the time the Auckland firm’s “Solavoid” sunglasses came on'

the market in September, 1968. | Before allowing Hannaford! and Burton's application for' registration, the Trade Marks Registrar had taken into account the Polaroid] mark, but considered the ap-1 plication was not likely to; deceive or cause confusion. Lord Fraser said. i

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19760408.2.190

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34123, 8 April 1976, Page 22

Word Count
229

‘Solavoid' appeal allowed Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34123, 8 April 1976, Page 22

‘Solavoid' appeal allowed Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34123, 8 April 1976, Page 22