SIMILARITY OF NAMES

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 108, 8 May 1923, Page 10

SIMILARITY OF NAMES

AN INJUNCTION GRANTED.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was given yesterday afternoon m tha case of the National Timber Company, Ltd., against the National Hardware Timber and Machinery Co., Ltd. iiie former company appealed against a decision of the Lower Court refusing to grant an injunction restraining the respondent company from continuing in New Zealand under its present name so nearly resembling the name of the plaintiff company, and restraining the company from remaining so registered under the Companies Act, 1908., The Court upheld the appeal and ordered the issue of a write of injunction within two months of the date of the judgment. The judgment of Mr. Justice Keed, which was accepted by Mr. Justice Hosking and Mr. Justice Herdman, said that the old company—the appellant— was registered as the National Timber Company, Ltd., and the new company— the respondents—was registered as the National Hardware Timber and Machinery Co., Ltd. The former company was registered in Auckland, and the latter in Christchnrch,' but both did business in timber in Auckland.' That timber was not a negligible part of the business of the respondent company might be inferred from two facts : (1) No attempt was made to pTove that it was so; (2) when that company first applied for registration it desired to do so in the name of the National Timber, Hardware, and Machinery Co., Ltd., placing timber in the forefront of its activities. Timber had been removed to second place only on the refusal of the Registrar to register the name unless "timber" was _ so displaced from its prominent position. His Honour stated that it was almost inevitable that the company would not be known by its long name, but by some abbreviation of it, and said that it was practically a certainty that persons dealing in timber and associating the company with the, supply of timber would speak and think of it as the National Timber Company, the identical name of the appellant company. After referring further to the various points raised, both of fact and law, his Honour expressed the opinion that the appeal should be allowed. At the hearing Mr. 0. T. J. Alpers appeared for the appellants, and Mr; W. J. Hunter for, the respondents.