BEER BOTTLES

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 71, 24 March 1926, Page 10

BEER BOTTLES

NOT SOLD WITH TH El R CONTENTS

DECISION IMPORTANT TO , BREWERS. A case of some importance to brewers and bottlers of beer was heard before his Honour Mr. Justice Alpers in the Supreme Court this morning, the point at issue being; the alleged use of bot ties bearing a trade mark for the saJe of beer made by others than the proprietors of the trade mark. There were two. actions, one brought by E. T. Taylor and Co., Ltd., and;the other by the New Zealand Breweries, Ltd., the defendant in both cases being Mark Herbert I 'Anaon; brewer, of Petohe. Mr. P. B. Cooke appeared on behalf of New Zealand Breweries, Ltd., and Mr. W. Perry for E. T. Taylor and Co., Ltd. Mr. A. B. Sievwright appeared for the defendant in both cases. • The action was brought, said Mr. Cooke, for the purpose of drawing public attention to the rights of the, New Zealand Breweries, Ltd., in regard to the glass bottle trademark and for the purpose of establishing-the company's ownership of the bottles continued after delivery of them to-the purveyors of the liquors contained, in them. The marks were blown in the-, bottle, said Mr. P. B. Cooke, and contained the words, "This bottle is the property of New Zealand Breweries, Ltd.," and the fact was stated that the bottles were not sold with the beer and must be returned to the brewers. Wellington agents were appointed : for receiving and storing them, and bottlers of ale were circularised of the warning. It was discovered that the defendant was placing liquor not of the plaintiffs' manufacture* and selling it in these bottles, but the defendant did not return the bottles. An injunction was sought, an account of profits.made from sales in the bottles, and delivery of all bottles in the defendant's possession. In some cases the labels of other liquors were placed over the blown trade mark, but often both marks were visible. The defendant, said Mr. Sievwright, used to take all kinds of bottles collected by anybody, clean them, and put his own liquor in them and his own label on them. He did return some bottles to Hildreth, but later found that others were using the companies' bottles for other liquids save those of the original fillers, and he formed the: erroneous opinion that he could do the same. The defendant now agreed to consent to the order of the Court sought. . . The second case .was in respect to a Beehive mark, and words blown in the bottle stating the name of the company, otherwise the facts were very similar, the same, warning statements having been made.. , Counsel for the defendant consented to an injunction perpetually restraining him from use of the.bottles, and an order on these terms was made, the Court also restraining defendant from passing off goods not of the plaintiffs manufacture and from filling bottles with plaintiffs' trademark, he to deliver all bottles with the trademarks, full or otherwise,- the defendant to pay £20 damages, to each .of the.plaintiffs, and costs of the action.