BOTTLES AND BEER

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12404, 25 March 1926, Page 12

BOTTLES AND BEER

TRADEMARK RIGHTS . INJUNCTIONS AND DAMAGES ALLOWED. Brewers and bottlers of beer are Rpeexally interested in a case which came before His Honour Mr Justice Alpers in the Supreme Court yesterday, the point at issue being the alleged use of bottles bearing a trademark for the sale of beer made by others than the proprietors of the trademark. There were twq actions, one brought by E. T. Taylor and Co., Ltd., and the other by the New Zealand Breweries, Ltd., the defendant in both cases being Mark Herbert t’Anson, brewer, of Pc tone. Mr P. B. Cooke appeared on behalf of New Zealand Breweries, Ltd., and Mr W. Perry for E. T. Taylor and Co.. Ltd. Mr A. B. Sievwright appeared for the defendant in both cases. Th-e action was brought, said Mr Cooke, for the purpose of drawing public attention to the rights of New Zealand Breweries, Ltd., in regard to the glass bottle trademark and for the purpose of establishing the company’s ownership of the bottles continued after delivery of them to the purveyors of the liquors contained in them. The marks were blown in the bottle, said Mr P. B. Cooke, and contained the words. “This bottle is the property of Now Zealand Breweries. Ltd.,” and the fact was stated that the bottles were not sold with the beer and must be returned to the brewers. Wellington agents were appointed for receiving and storing them, and bottlers of ale were circularised of the warning. Tt was discovered that the defendant was placing liquor not of the plaintiffs’ manufacture and selling it in these bottles, but the defendant did not return the bottles. An injunction was sought, an account of profits made from sales in the bottles, and delivery of all bottles in the defendant’s possession. In some cases the labels of other liquor* were placed over the blown trademark, but often both marks were visible.

The defendant, said Mr Sievwright, used to take all kinds of bottles collected by anybody, clean them. and put his own liquor in them and his own label on them. He did return Rome bottles to Hildreth, but later found that others were using the companies’ bottles for other liquids save those of the original fillers, and he formed the erroneous opinion that he could do the same. The defendant now agreed to consent to the order of the court sought. ' Tho second case, explained Mr Perry, was in respect to a Beehive mark, and words blown in the bottle stating the name of the company. The facts were very similar to those in the preceding, case. %

INJUNCTION GRANTED

Counsel for tbo defendant consented to an injunction perpetually restraining him from use of the bottles, and an order on these terms was made. The court also restrained defendant from passing off goods not of the plaintiffs’ manufacture and from filling bottles bearing plaintiffs’ trademark, he to deliver all bottles with the trademarks. full or otherwise, the defendant to pav £2O damages to each of the plaintiffs, and costs of the action.