RIGHT TO BUSINESS NAME

Taranaki Daily News, 28 April 1931, Page 6

RIGHT TO BUSINESS NAME

RESTAURANT COMPANY’S CLAIM. ARGUMENT AT WELLINGTON. By Teliffrsph.—Prose Afcfcoriation. Wellington, Littlt Night. On the ground that considerable inconvenience and confusion hud been caused by the similarity of names ’the Majestic Restaurant, Ltd.,, restaurant proprietors carrying on business at 35 Willis Street, applied in the Supreme Court to-day for an injunction restraining Wellington Tea Rooms, Ltd., proprietors of a restaurant in the Majestic Theatre building, from usiim the word “Majestic” in connection with its business. The plaintiff company claimed that when it acquired - the business at 35 Willis Street in 1927 no other business 6f a similar name or nqtute was in existence in the street. The defendant company commenced business in the Majestic Theatre building about the middle of 1929 and its conduct had been calculated to deceive the public into thinking its business was that of the plaintiff. It was pleaded on behalf of the defendant company that the plaintiff had no exclusive right to the use of the word “Majestic.” Public notice of defendant’s intention to commence business was given in December, 1928, and it was claimed the plaintiff company lost any right there might have been by its ’ acquiescence and unreasonable delay in bringing the proceedings. After hearing legal argument His Honour said he Wag satisfied no proper inquiries had been made by the defendant company before adopting, the name and inconyenience and confusion had resulted. In the particular circumstances he would pot grant an injunction but damages. Plaintiffs had made an attempt at settlement and in pursuance of their offer he awarded £lOO damages and £2l costs.