Lists (None yet)

Login to create lists


Show 2 comments
  • Anonymous 2 Jul 2015 at 13:29
    There is text missing from the end. Can't add a new line to fix it :-(.
  • Anonymous 2 Jul 2015 at 13:32
    "The appeal was dismissed, with costs.”
    - Should be added. O:-) ♥

Add New Comment

9 corrections, most recently by GJReid-B.Sc.M.Mgmt. - Show corrections


          Name in Dispute.

SYDNEY, Aug. 30.—The Full Court of the High Court, consisting of Mr. Jus- tice Isaacs, Mr. Justice Higgins, Mr. Jus- tice Powers, Mr. Justice Rich, and Mr.

Justice Starke, by a majority judge- ment to-day upheld a decision, of Mr. Jus- tice Harvey, of Sydney, in an action in   which James Stedman Henderson Sweets, Ltd., sought to restrain the Puritan Cho- colate Co. from passing off its own sweets as those of the plaintiff company. The case was argued in the High Court at Sydney, and reserved judgment was de- livered to-day.   Mr. Justice Isaacs said that Hender- son's Sweets, Ltd., originally set up two claims—infringement of trade mark and   "passing off." The first was abandoned   in the Supreme Court, and had not since been heard of. In the opinion of Mr. Justice Isaacs appellants were entitled to succeed. The respondents' real case was that they had a right to monopolise for confectionery the word "Minties"   If they had not the right they could not succeed either at law or at equity. If they had the legal right of the word in the connection they would still fail     in the suit, as it was framed. If a Court should sanction the private appropria- tion of a word with an indefinitely extending area of protection around   it the moment that someone chose to use as a trade appellation an adjective as a noun, people might expect quite a crop of similar reservations. He en-     tertained no doubt that the appelants       were entitled to succeed.       Mr. Justice Powers concurred that the appeal should be allowed.         Mr. Justice Higgins said the plain- tiff company began to sell sweets flav- oured with mint under the name of "Min- ties" about September, 1922. The de-   fendant company began to use the word "Mentes" for the same kind of sweet in August, 1926. The excuse given was that the word "Menta" meant pepper- mint. The plural of "Menta," he said, was "Mentas." In any case the defend- ant company did not even use the word "Mentias" Mr. Justice Higgins was of   the opinion that the appeal should be dis- missed with costs.                 Mr. Justice Rich and Mr. Justice Starke concurred. The appeal was dismissed, with costs.