INJUNCTION GRANTED

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 2648, 17 May 1923, Page 2

INJUNCTION GRANTED

A TRADE NAME CASE. An action was heard at the Supreme Court yesterday before His Honour Sir John Salmond, in which B. J. Just (Mr McGregor) sued for an injunction against' M. B. and E. J. Just (Mr Ongley) to prevent them from using the name of ‘‘Just’s.” Plaintiff, in his statement of claim, said that he was a nurseryman carrying on business in Palmerston North, under the name of B. H. Just, and had done so for 15 years or more. The defendants had recently in 1922 or thereabouts —commenced business as nurserymen, plant dealers and fruiterers, at Main Street, Palmerston North, under the general name or style of Just's, and the use of the name Just's caused confusion and mistake as to the identity of the two businesses. In order 1 to do avoid this confusion plaintiff had requested defendants to abstain from the use of the name, or to prefix their Christian names, or initials, but they had refused to do so.

In the defence, it was set forth that the defendants admitted that E. J. Just commenced business in 1922, but alleged that the defendant M. B. Juatj had been in business at Palmerston: North for 25 years as a landscape gardener 1 and nurseryman, and that during the summer months far the past 15 years, he had conducted a confectionery and fruit business iir Palmerston North. The defendants admitted pXintiff’s request in regard to the use of their initials or Christian names.

Plaintiff gave details of his business dealings. On a number of occasions customers had come to him for goods advertised by defendants. He had trouble with a firm of fruit suppliers in Auckland through its mistaking his firm for the defendants’, and also with others through the same cause. Max Bernard Just said the shop

belonged to his wife, and he assisted her with it' occasionally. He had a small nursery. Emma Jane Just said she carried on business as a fruiterer and confectioner. Previously she had had a shop under the name of E. J. Just and there had then been irore confusion than since they had used the name of Just's.

“This is a regrettable piece of litigation, which should have been avoidable,’’ said His Honour in giving judgment. "The defendants cannot justify the use of the general name Just's. A- man is entitled to use his own name, but not part of his name, when another man of the same surname is carrying on business in IJ're same town.” There were no grounds for damages, but the injunction would be granted to be issued at the expiration of fourteen days. Costs would be against the defendants on the lowest scale.