TRADE NAME DISPUTE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22198, 27 August 1935, Page 13

TRADE NAME DISPUTE

AN INJUNCTION SOUGHT SIMILARITY OF TITLES AMERICAN COMPANY'S CLAIM Legal action seeking to establish the exclusive rights of a hardware manufacturing company in its trade name was taken before Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court yesterday. The plaintiff company, the Stanley Works, which was incorporated in the United States in 1852 (Mr. ,A. H. Johnstone, K.C., and Mr. R. L. A. Crcsswell, of Wellington), sought an injunction against Stanley Ironworks, Limited, of Stanley Street, Auckland (Dr. McElroy), to restrain it from carrying on business under that title or any title so nearly resembling the plaintiff's title as to lead to the belief that the defendant's business was connected with the plaintiff's. The plaintiff company claimed to be one of the largest manufacturers of wrought steel hardware and tools in the world, with a capital of 15,000.000 ! dollars. Its goods were always identii fied by the name "Stanley" and in a j lesser degree by the term "S.W.", both of which marks had been registered in New Zealand. It carried on business throughout the world, and had been operating in New Zealand for over 50 I years Allegation by Plalntift it was stated the defendant company was incorporated in June,, 1931, with a capital of £6OO, as engineers, boileri makers, steel workers, eto., and had begun to manufacture garage sets and i hinges, which were also made by the , plaintiff company. The latter alleged that the defendant's name was calculated to deceive,* but that the defendant company had refused to alter it. The defence admitted most of the facts alleged, and stated that it had started to make garage sets in 1934, but its predecessor had been making hinges for 34 years. Mr. Johnstone said that since 1910 the profits of the plaintiff company in New Zealand had ranged from 10,500 to 81,000 dollars, but in 1931-33 they fell to 8400, 4000 and 1152 dollars respectively. in 1934 the profits increased again to 10,000 dollars. The defendant's business had been formerly that of a blacksmith, but after its incorporation in 1931 its possible scojkj was very much enlarged and its character changed. Counsel said the defendant company began a manufacturing business, and in 1932 employed manufacturers' agents to distribute its goods. It was now competing with the plaintiff throughout New Zealand. Contentions by Defence Witnesses were not called, but much evidence was submitted on affidavit. Dr. McElroy submitted that the businesses of the two companies were not competitive except in the most trifling degree. In the type of hinges produced by the defendant company it was competing solely with British manufacturers. If anyone had a right to this name in New Zealand it was the defendant and not the plaintiff company. The reputation of the plaintiff company in New Zealand had been made in respect of the tools it manufactured. The defendant had a concurrent right to the use of the name, for in the only class of goods the defendant company dealt in the plaintiff company had no reputation to protect. There was no likelihood of deception and no probability of any injury to the plaintiff company. Argument for thp defence will be j continued to-day.