“HIS MASTER’S VOICE” RECORDS

Evening Star, Issue 18318, 4 July 1923, Page 3

“HIS MASTER’S VOICE” RECORDS

TDADE MARK SIMILARITIES,

AN APPEAL CASE

[Psa United Paiss Association.]

WELLINGTON, July 3,

The Full Bench of the Supreme Court heard argument this afternoon in the case of AlacLaurin (Collector of Customs, appellant) against William Bernard M’llvenoy, an appeal from tho decision of Mr Page, S.AL, at Wellington. This was an application by appellant for an order ut condemnation of certain goods pursuant to section 269 of the Customs Act, ly!3. The Gramophone Company, Limited, is the registered holder in New Zealand of a well-known design used in connection with the gramophone records known as “ Hia Master's Voice” records. Decently the Gramophone Company had reason to believe Inal some goods of rival traders, the Victor Talking Machine Company, of America, which used a trade mark similar to that of the Gramophone Company, were being imported into New Zealand, and the Collector of Customs seized a Victor Company’s record bought by respondent in America and brought into New Zealand, not tor the purposes of sale but to add to liis collection. The magistrate, before whom the application came, refused the application tor an. order of condemnation, and from this decision the appeal was brought before the Full Court. Air Trenderviilo appeared for the appellant, Air M'Grath lor respondeat, and Mr Alyers, K.C., and with him Mr O’Leary, for the Gramophone Company. Air Myers, for tho Gramophone Company, contended that under the Customs Act, 1913, the record came within the description of forfeitable goods, in that a false trade description had been applied to it, and that under the Patents, Hesigns, and Trade Murks Act it was prohibited from being imported into New Zealand. Air ATGrath, for tho respondent, contended that as the record had thereon a statement that it was made in America, the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1908, had been complied with, and tho record was entitled to come into New Zealand. It was necessary, he said, for the success of tho appellant’s case that it should be shown that respondent falsely applied the trade mark or that ho had applied a false trade description. This, he said, had not been shown. Decision was reserved.