MURRAY AND LANMAN’S FLORIDA WATER.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1135, 1 February 1884, Page 3

MURRAY AND LANMAN’S FLORIDA WATER.

Important Trades Mark Case. KEMP V. DALTON BROS. This was a suit heard in Equity yesterday, before his Honor Mr Justice Faucett, instituted by George Kemp, Wil'iara Kemp, Edward Kemp, and Adolph Halgarbn, who carry on business in New York, under the tinn of Lamnan and Kemp, to restrain the defendants. Thomas Dalton and James Dalton (who comprise the firm of' Dalton Bros., of Sydney and Orange) from importing or soiling any perfume not manufactured by plaintiffs, called Florida water, in bottles or cases to which were affixed any labels identical with or only colourable differing from the plaintiffs’ trade mark ; and further asking that the defendants might be decreed to deliver up all labels identical with or only oolourably differing from plaintiffs’ trade mark; and that an account might be taken of profits made by the defendants by the sale of any such perfume. This matter came on upon a motion for injunction to restrain the defendants in terms of the prayer of the statement of claim until the hearing of the suit. Mr Darley, Q C., and Mr Knox, instructed by Messrs Bradley and Son, appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr Edmonds, instructed by Mr T. B. Freehill, appeared for the defendants. It appeared from the affidavits tiled in support of the plaintiffs’ motion, that the plaintiffs’ predecessor in the manufacture of this perfume invented the trade mark in question so far back as the year 184’2, and that the block from which such trade marks were printed had been in their possession, and that they used the trade mark in all parts of the world ever since; that the plaintiff in the year 1873 registered this trade mark according to the provisions of the Trades Mai k Act of 1 5 65 ; and that such registration remained still in force. It further appeared that the defendants had been for some time Florida water in bottles to which was affixed a label in almost exact imitation of the plaintiffs’ registered trade mark. This having come to the knowledge of the plaintiffs their solicitor sent, a clerk to, Orange, who bought several bottles of this perfume with the counterfeit labelj and ascertained that the defendants had been doing a large trade in the business. Bottles of the genuine and counterfeit scent were produced in court, and were found so exactly alike, as to cause some, confusion at the bar, ns to which was which. Upon the bottles purchased from the defendants appeared the name “ Bustamente Z. Ramon, New York,” as if the perfume complained of had been manufactured by a firm of that name in New York. It appeared by the affidavits that there is no such lirra at New York, or at any rate, that the New York directory is innocent thereof. Tne defendants appeared to consent to a decree being made now in the t»rras of the prayer of the statement of claim ; and merely desired to point out to the court that the articles were sold by them in the ordinary course of business ; and the profits on sales only amounted to LI 7s 6d. during the last two years. His Honor granted a perpetual injunction. The Sydney Daily Telegraph, December 20, 1883.