NAME OF A COMPANY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20263, 24 May 1929, Page 15

NAME OF A COMPANY.

jTHE MORRIS MOTORS' ACTION.

[COURT GRANTS INJUNCTION.

STRONG COMMENT BY JUDGE.

"PLAIN CASE OF PIRACY."

"A more deliberate case of appropriating a name and; tho reputaion that goes with it than the present one it is difficult to imagine. That the appropriation was wilful cannot for a moment be doubted." Mr Justice Herdman thus gummed "P bis judgment in the Supreme Court yesterday in tho case in which Morris Motors (1926), Limited, of England (Mr. McVeagh). sought'an injunction against Morris Motcrs Limited, of Auckland, Charles Eustace Gray and Robert Clarence Eeid (Mr. Northcroft).

The defendant company camo into existence in March, 1928, taking over the business which Gray had carried on under the style of "The British Motor Company," and the plaintiff company asked for an injunction restraining it from adopting the name of "Morris." "All the excuses that defendants offer for their conduct in my opinion fail," said His Honor, "and as 1 have been enable to discover that the authority of tho Panliard case has been questioned, I shall follow it in this case. Judgment v,-ill therefore be for tho plaintiff in terms of the prayer contained in the statement of claim, with costs as per scale as in an action to recover £SOO, disbursements to bo settled by the registrar." Company's Reputation. His Honor said that tho plaintiff company was one of tho largest manufacturers of motor-cars and motor vehicles in Great Britain. Its output was sent far afield, and its reputation was well established throughout the British Empire. Since its incorporation in June, 1926, it had been carrying on tho business formerly conducted by Morris Motors, Limited. Tho vehicles manufactured by the company and sold in New Zealand yero known as "Morris," "Morris Oxford" and "Morris Cowley" cars. The had no agent in New Zealand, nor had it a registered office, and it had no dealings with the defendants. There could be no doubt that there existed in New Zealand a substantial and steady demand for, the plaintiff's vehicles, and that this demand for the company's product was due to the reputation that the company possessed for turning out a serviceable and reliable machino. Tho defendant company bore precisely the same name as the plaintiff company, excepting that the figures 1926 were omitted. The capital of Gray s new company was stated to be £SOOO, Gray owning 2999 shares and the other defendant, a law clerk, one share.' Since this concern was launched st had made it its business to purchase second hand Moiris cars in England and to sell those cars to customers in New Zealand, but by its memorandum of association the objects of the company were not; limited to the purchase and sale of second-hand cars. It might manufacture, import and sell any kind of car. Thus it came about that, two companies with names substantially identical were marketing Morris cars in NewZealand Object in Usa of Name. "1 have not the least doubt that Gray's object in adopting with calculated precision the name of the British company was to lead the public of New Zealand Ui believe that his concern was in fact the British company itself or a branch of that company," continued His Honor. •"He gives as his reason for adopting the name that it was descriptive of the goods that he intended to sell, but if he had pleased he might have christened his company without arousing suspicion or injurir.g anyone by styling it 'Gray's, Limited,' or by adopting any other name wihch could not be confused with the plaintiff company's name. "Friendly negotiations between the parties having failed. Gray proceeded to carry war into the enemy's camp and this he did by appropriating the English company's name. He advertised his business extensively. No one could read these advertisements without being impressed by their ingenuity, and without being compelled to believe that they are deliberately designed to confuse the public mind and to capture the plaintiff's trade. "The plaintiff company alleges that defendants have conspired together to deceive the public of New Zealand into the belief that their company is a branch of the English company, or that it is its agent, and in making that allegation I think that it has ample justification. Diverting Business from Company.

"I have no doubt whatever that anyone reading the advertisements annexed to Gray's affidavit would afc once come to the conclusion that the British company owned the defendant company's business, or that it was in some way closely associated with it. A plainer case of piracy it is difficult to imagine. I can think of no reason which justifies the defendants' action except a desire to appropriate for their own gain the plaintiff company's reputation. The fact that they deal' in sr:econd-hand cars is no justification for their conduct. They trade in the plaintiff company's name and they sell the plaintiff company's cars, claiming that they are better than the product issued Dew from the plaintiff company's factory. "The conduct of the defendants can, I think, best be described by paraphrasing slightly the words of Warrington J. recorded in Lloyds and Dawson Brothers v. Lloyds, Southampton, Limited: ' I have no doubt that this is an attempt and, I might say, an impudent attempt, to obtain by the use of this name some benefit from the reputation attaching in the motoring world to the use of the name 'Morris Motors, Limited'. "The reason why the Court interferes in cases of this kind ; s that the use of plaintiff's name is calculated to deceive the public and so to divert business from the plaintiff to the defendant." '