HAIR CREAM SALES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23839, 14 December 1940, Page 8

HAIR CREAM SALES

FALSE LABELS USED SALES TO TOBACCONISTS FINES IMPOSED ON TWO MEN Four charges arising from the sale of bottles of hair cream bearing false labels were preferred against each of two men, Leslie Wilford Lawson and Eric Harold Ponton (Mr. Buisson), before Mr. J. Morling, S.M., in the Police Court yesterday. The prosecution was brought by James Frederick Curtis on behalf of the New Zealand agents of a firm of English hair cream manufacturers, and was conducted by Mr. Elliot. Defendants pleaded guilty to falsely applying a trademark to toilet cream so nearly resembling the real one that it, was calculated to deceive; applying words calculated to make persons believe the cream was the manufacture or merchandise of others; and two charges of selling goods to which false words were applied. The prosecution was brought under the Patents, Designs [ and Trademarks Act. | Mr. Elliot, said that in July, 1939, i both defendants, with Ponton's wife, | commenced a busine<s known "Margaret Mirkinyro Toilet Preparations." After a month, as the business was apparently not paying. Lawson suggested to Ponton that money could be made by selling hair cream under the name of a well-known English preparation. Defendants had 5000 copies of the genuine label printed and placed on bottles of a local hair cream, and Lawson then sold six gross of bottles to tobacconists and others. He had no difficulty with the sales, as the price was lower than that of the real cream. While 1 ,awson was on territorial service, Ponton sold anotheV six gross, and, since his discharge last November. Lawson had admitted selling a further four and a-half gross. The offences, Mr. Elliot concluded, were both deliberate and serious. Counsel said Lawson was badly in debt at the time, and his wife was ill. Ponton had taken part to help his friend, and was about £'2o out of pocket over the transactions. The magistrate said that, although a. heavy fine should bo imposed, the business conducted by the defendants had failed. Each was fined £5 on one charge, and convicted and discharged on the others. Defendants were also ordered each to pay £1 lis 6d soliictor's fee. "