TWO “NATIONAL” COMPANIES

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 176, 13 April 1923, Page 9

TWO “NATIONAL” COMPANIES

ALLEGED CONFUSION

FIRST REGISTERED SEEKS INJUNCTION

Whether a partial similarity in the names of two companies could bo held to be sufficient to mislead customers to an extent justifying the issue by the Court of a writ of injunction, restraining the later registered company fi cm the use of a name approved by the Registrar of Companies, was the point the Court of Appeal was asked to decide yesterday. On the Bench were: Their Honours Mr. Justice Hosking, Mr. -Justice Salmond, Mr. Justice Herdman, and Mr. Justice Reed. The parties were the National Timber Company Ltd., of Ngongotaha, the appellants, and the National Hardware, Timber, and Machinery Co,, of Christchurch, the respondents. Both parties transacted business and had offices in Auckland and elsewhere. The case was one on appeal from a decision of His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), who had refused to grant the injunction. The claim of the appellants (plaintiffs in the Court below) was that their company was registered on November 29, 1920, and had since been carrying on business in Auckland and elsewhere. The defendant company was incorporated on April 26, 1921. The plaintiff company had never consented to the registration of the defendant company, the name of which (it was alleged) so nearly resembled their own as to be calculated to deceive, and it was also alleged that various customers of the plaintiff company, and members of the general public had been deceived by the similarity of name. The plaintiffs asked for an Injunction from the carrying on of business m New Zealand by tho defendant company under its present name, or any name so nearly resembling the name of the plaintiff company as to lead to the belief that the defendant company was carrying on the business before and now being carried on by tho plaintiff company, or that the defendant company’s business was a branch of, or in any way connected with, the plaintiff company’s business. Plaintiffs asked for an injunction restraining the- defendant company from remaining registered under the Companies Act, 1908, under the present name or any other name likely to lead to such misconceptions, and also for an order that the defendant company, pay the costs of the proceedings and of the order. The defendant company denied that their name so nearly resembled the name of' the plaintiffs as to be calculated to deceive. When their articles were presented to the Registrar of Companies, he refused to register, them on the ground of the resemblance to the name of the plaintiff company, and in consequence of the objection the name was altered by transposing the words “timber” and “hardware” to their present positions, when tho registrar approved of the name, and registration was completed, in the name of “Tho National Hardware, Timber, and Machinery Co., Ltd.” In the judgment appealed from, the Chief Justice said: “The Court must assume that people who purchase timber have normal capacity, normal intelligence. Can it be said that one su gifted could be so confused as to believe these two names were one and the same company?” His Honour he'd that other instances where mistakes had arisen would not justify an injunction.

Mr. O. T. J. Alpers appeared on be half of the appellants and Mr. AV. J. Hunter for the respondents. After hearing legal argument the Court reserved its decision.