RESTAURANTS’ NAME

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 180, 28 April 1931, Page 10

RESTAURANTS’ NAME

Injunction Applied For DAMAGES AWARDED There are two tearooms under different ownership in Willis Street using the name “Majestic,” one in the Majestic Theatre building and the other on the opposite side of the street in the direction of Customhouse Quay. This fact was the subject of an application to ME Justice MacGregor in. the Supreme Court yesterday for an injunction to restrain the company in the Majestic Theatre building from using the name “Majestic.” , , ' . Claiming that considerable inconvenience and confusion had been caused by the similarity of names, Majestic Restaurant Ltd., carrying on business at 35 Willis Street, WeUington, applied for an injunction restraining AVe lington Tearoom Ltd., proprietors of the restaurant in the Majestic Theatre building, from using the word Majestic in connection witli its business. . Mr AVillis appeared for the plaintitt and Mr. Spratt for the respondent. Plaintiff’s claim was that when the business at 35 AVillis Street was acquired in November, 1927, there was no business of a similar nature and name in the. street. The respondent company commenced business m the Majestic Theatre building about the middle or 1929 and its conduct had been calculated’ to deceive the public into thinking that its business was that of the plaintif The respondent company pleaded that the plaintiff’s had no exclusive right to the use of the word “Majestic.” Notice of the defendant companys’ intention to commence business was given in December. 1928, and it was claimed that, the plaintiff company had lost any right there might have been by.its acquiescence and unreasonable delay in bringing proceedings. Legal argument proceeded at some lensth. . His Honour said he was satisfied that no proper inquiries had been made by the defendant company before adopting the name, and that inconvenience and confusion had actually resulted. Prima facie the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction. There was a suggestion of acquiescence, but no proof of that in the affidavits, and the alleged delay was not sufficient to bar plaintiff’s legal rights. In ordinary circumstances he would Have granted an injunction, although not in such wide terms as claimed. In the particular circumstances he did not think he would grant an injunction, but damages. Plaintiff’s solicitor fairly and properly made, an attempt at settlement by letter, and in pursuance of that offer he awarded £lOO damages, with 20 guineas costs and disbursements.