DISTINCTIVE COLOURS

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 124, 30 May 1927, Page 10

DISTINCTIVE COLOURS

CAB COMPANIES' DISPUTE

An injunction seeking to restrain some taxi proprietors from painting their cabs in a particular destinctive way was brought in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Alpers.; The plaintiff was -Bbek and White Cabs, Limited, and there were four defendants—Bernard M'Eneany, James Lancelot Hagan, Fred William Neale and Edward SandfonL* "...■■. The plaintiff get out that since Ist April, 1925, his company; had carried on the business of a passenger taxi cab service in and around Wellington. The pattern and design of the plaintiff's cabs was unique, and distinctive, and when the company began operations their cabs were the only .cabs so painted. . It was alleged that the defendants, about November, 1926, with intent to appropriate the plaintiff's business and reputation, commenced to use taxi cabs so constructed, painted and arranged as to imitate the plaintiff's taxis. It was further alleged that the defendants' cabs were likely to deceive the public into thinking that they belonged to the plaintiff: The defendants had. disregarded: complaints made by tKc plaintiff," and[consequently ! the plaintiff claimed an injunction restraining the defendants from using taxi cabs so constructed or painted as to resemble the Black and White cabs. The defendant M< Eneany denied'that the cabs wore uniform in pattern and design, but said that the cabs were of two distinct types, which, although having features in common, differed substantially in pattern, design, and'general make-up. It was contended, that the two types were evolved by an American company as suitable for.taxi work, and he denied that any persons had been deceived. Further, the defendant said that he had not at any ' time imitated any of the features ,which had been stated to have been used exclusively by the plaintiff. He did not admit that the exclusive use of- features of the plaintiff's taxi cabs had" been so extensive and prolonged' as to confer on the plaintiff a distinctive or exclusive right to them. This action, he said, had been brought by the plaintiff company in an endeavour to obtain | a monopoly of black arid white as colours in the painting of motor-cars carrying passengers for hire throughout New Zealand. . . , Sandford and Neale denied that their' cabs could not be distinguished from Black and White cab*. The defendants' cabs.were painted, blue/ and white. Hagan also-denied that his cab could be mistaken for a cab belonging to the plaintiffs. ■ Mr. G. Watson appeared for the plaintiff. Mr.H. F. Johnston appeared for Sandford ana Neal; and Mr. B, Kennedy, Mr. <J. Scott, and Mr* W. Heine for M'Eneany and Hagan. Before Mr. Watson commenced to deal with the affidavits Mr, Johnston raised the question that there was no evidence of intention to deceive, which he said was essential before the plaintiff could succeed. He contended that the defendants were entitled to judgment. ■ . . ■ ".' . " v . ■ V,' , : . His Honour held over, the point. (Proceeding.) . . ,