CONCERNING A TRADE MARK

NZ Truth, Issue 579, 22 July 1916, Page 6

CONCERNING A TRADE MARK

■■+ The Use of the Word "Ajax" Man and Woman Arrested Mr. Wilford Promises a Unique Btory At the Magistrate's Court, Wellington, on Wednesday, a young man and young woman, named m the charge as James Joseph Eccles and Audrey Le Vere. were charged with that they did falsely apply to certain goods, to wit, a fire-extinguisher, the trade name -Ajax." The two accused (who were represented by Mr. T. M. Wilford) had boon arrested m Maaterton. The "Ajax" Company, whose trademark has been allegedly used, was represented by Mr. A. W. Blair, the bench being occupied by Mr. W. Q. Riddoll. S.M. The charge set down was that the two accused had , SOLD FIRE-EXTINGUISHERS, and Crookston, m tho Canterbury district, was mentioned as the specific place m which a sale had taken place. Mr. Wilford. on bohalf of the two accused, said that Eccles had been m the Post Oflflco service at a salary of £2GO

| per annum before he had commenced ,'■ the sale of the extinguishers. He had j gone to Mr. Alpers. a lawyer, of Christj chiux'b. for an opinion as to whether i tho trade mark "AJax" was exclusive or not, and he had received on opinion to the effect that it was not He had also received a similar opinion from Mr. Hughes, of the firm of patent agents, of Wellington. It was on the strength of these that he had sold tho goods. The lady, he contended, had not sold 1 any articles for five months, and ho did not know why she had been thrown Into gaol. The offence — If any — had not Ixeen committed by the woman, i Mr. Wllford also asked that tho i names m the charge oe altered so aa • to raako It clear that they wore man i and wife. Tho lady was Mra. Eccles. , Sho was In ill-health and was under the i car© of tho chemist* at tho time. Why sho had been thrown into gaol ho could not understand. Tho name of i Mr. Eccles waa as good as that of anyone m the court. He had plonty of details to give and thero waa a UNIQUE STORY IN IT, but that would be told later. The woman had been thrown Into gaol for no , reason at all. Mr. Blair contended that Mr. Wllford ' had merely spoken aa froti his clients' instructions, and it wiw possible that ho, believing them to bo true, had conceived his clients to be Innocent Ho was Incorrecr m his statements about tho trade murk. Mr. Wllford asked that tho two be liberated on their own recognisances. They hud no money and could bo found at a moment's notice. His Worship adjourned the case for one week, ami allowed ball In iho mmi of £20 oach. the whole of which was subsequently shifted on to the Hhoulder« of the rurtlo uccuhim! so «ji t o allow the lady to be liberated. All goods (except the exUn(cui«ln?i.s) wi?r« ordered to Iw returned to tlx- accused.