esßessssEsssiasseiiiiii®!*]®; TRADEMARK CASE IN SUPREME COURT

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19236, 25 November 1930, Page 7

esßessssEsssiasseiiiiii®!*]®; TRADEMARK CASE IN SUPREME COURT

ENGLISH ENGINEERS SUE LOCAL MANUFACTURERS The hearing of the Supreme Court action in which Ransome, Simes and Jefferies, Ltd., engineers, of Ipswich, England, claimed against P. and D. Duncan, Ltd., of Christchurch, an injunction to prevent them from infringing plaintiff’s trademarks, was continued before Mr Justice Adams this morning. The plaintiff also claimed an order for delivery up to the plaintiff company on oath of all those ploughs Of parts of ploughs in the possession of the defendants which offended against any injunction granted. Damages on account of profits and such further relief as was deemed fit, with costs, was asked for. _ A specimen of a plough such as that concerned in the dispute was an unusual exhibit on the floor of the court. Mr Peacock, of Wellington, represented the plaintiffs. Mr Upham, and with him Mr White, appeared for defendants. Alfred Percival Keightley, Australian and New Zealand agent for the plaintiff company, continued his evidence. In reply to Mr Upham witness said that the plough produced by defendant in court resembled in outline one of the plaintiff company's ploughs, but there were essential differences. The tractor plough was. largely exported to New Zealand by the plaintiff firm. Single-furrow, horse-drawn ploughs had been sent to New Zealand in the last few years. The plaintiff company had named its ploughs, such as the “ Bantam,” and had also distinguished types by letters, such as “ D.D.” The letters so used were not a trademark, but to distinguish the size and weight of the plough. There were types of shares which the plaintiffs did not export to New Zealand. “ Then is there any harm in another firm selling them?” asked Mr Upham. “ Not if they don’t use our trademark,” replied witness. “ They are not adopting a different head from you?” counsel asked. Witness: No. They made their plough to suit our shares. Our own agents think it necessary to distinguish beween Ransome’s imported shares and local makes of shares. Robert Godfrey Wilkie, mechanic in the employ of Booth, Macdonald and Co.. Ltd., said that he remembered being asked by Mr Keightley to purchase three R.N.F. 52 shares. _ He got three genuine Ransomes. Again at Mr Keightley’s instigation he went to P. and D. Duncan’s and asked for R.N.F. 52 shares. He was given shares marked P. and D.D., R.N.F., made by P. and D. Duncan. Those were obtained on March 16, 1929.