Lists (None yet)

Login to create lists

Tagged (None yet)

Add Tags

Comments (None yet)

Add New Comment

No corrections yet


' '??; ? ^ ? ; ,^Name in. Dispute.

.V?S3n-NBY, Aug. 30^-The PuH Court ?f'the High Court, consisting of Mr. Jus tce Isaacs, Mr. Justice Higgina, Mr. Jus tice Powers, Mr. Justice Rich, and Mr.

Ju&tice- -^tarte, by a majority judg ment to-day upbeld a decision, of Mr. Jus lioe Harvey, . of Sydney, in an action, in which :James Stedman Henderson Sweats ILtdv, sought to restrain: the Puritan Cho colate X3oy; from passing off its own sweets as; 'those-. of thie plaintiff company. The case, was argued in. tbe HiffU Court at Sydney, and reserved -judgment '-was de livered to-day. ,' Mr. Jjistice Isaacs said thart; Hender son'e rSweets, I/td., originally set up two claims— -infringement of trade mart and 'passing 'off.' , The first was; abandoned in the Supreme Court, -and had 'not since been beard 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 fit :~cwafectionexy the word ' ''Miinties.' If tbey had not the right they could not ©occeed either at law or at .equity. If .they, had the legal right of the word m .?the . connection ' they would still fail in tie suit,- as It wasHframed.' If a Court should ^sanction.' the.- private^ ^^.appropria- tion ct.a.' word.. with an indefinitely extending .area1,, of .- protection around it ilre. moment' that someone -chose to vep.a&al trade ? appellation an- adjective as-a; noun, -people mig'ht -expect'.qtiite; a crop vofri-similar- xeserratidnsy ? ' -H6 :. en^ tertained . no doabt ' that . the .appellants Were entitled to succeed. .?'..'. '. '; 'Mr. 'Justice-. Powers -coacorred-' .'that fh& appeal should 'be allowed.' . --' ?'?_ , Mr. Justice Higgms-eaid the plain-! US 'company began to sell sw-eets flav oured -with mint under the name of fatui ties' about September, 1922. .?; The', de- fendant company began /to use the word 'Mentos' for the same 'kind of sweet in lAuguat, .1926. The excuse given was that .the word. 'Menta'. meant pepper mint. The plural of 'Mentaj' .he -said, was 'M'eritiaa.' In anycasethe defend ant company did not even use the- word 'Mentias.' ? Mr. Justice iHiggins was '-of tbe opinion that, the appeal should be dis missed, -with costs-. v - ' r ?'?' :'' '?'?'?''-'.'? i.-' Mr. Justice Bicb. and Mr. Justice Starke