4, JUDGMENT No. Slafo1. CATCHWORDS Trade Practices - use of names - registration of business name - acquisition of shelf company and change of corporate name —- proposed motel development - conduct beyond mere registration - chosen names similar to names used to describe a nearby resort complex (including a casino and an hotel) such names having acquired a considerable reputation - misleading and deceptive conduct in trade and commerce - injunctions. Trade Practices Act 1974 Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltdv. Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd (1977-78) 140 C.L.R. 216 Tillmanns Butcheries v. A.M.I.E.U. (1979) 27 A.L.R. 367 Taco Co. of Australia Inc. & Anor v. Taco Bell Pty Ltd & Ors (1982) 42 A.L.R. 177 No. W.A. G54 of 1985 BURSWOOD MANAGEMENT LIMITED and WEST AUSTRALIAN TRUSTEES LIMITED v. BURSWOOD CASINO VIEW MOTEL/HOTEL PTY LTD, FRANCESCO BEMPASCUITO and AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FORSTER, J. PERTH 9 OCTOBER 1987 RECTTD 26.0CT 1987 FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA PRINCIPA: REGlerRY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. WA G54 of 1985 wee evr rvw GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: BURSWOOD MANAGEMENT LIMITED and WEST AUSTRALIAN TRUSTEES LIMITED Applicants - and - BURSWOOD CASINO VIEW MOTEL/HOTEL PTY LTD First Respondent - and - FRANCESCO BEMPASCUITO Second Respondent - and - AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Third Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CORAM: Forster J.: At Burswood Island in Perth there is a complex which consists of a casino which opened on 30 December 1985, an hotel which is expected to be opened very shortly, a sports centre which was expected to be in operation at the end of August 1987 and a convention/cabaret centre which is expected to be completed in October 1987. There will also be a golf course. 2. Burswood Property Trust ("the Trust") was established in February 1985 for the purpose of holding the casino licence and developing the Burswood Island Resort Complex. The Trust holds an estate in fee simple in the land at Burswood, the site of the complex, and owns all the assets of the complex. The second applicant West Australian Trustees Limited ("the Trustee") 15 the trustee of the Trust and the first applicant, Burswood Management Limited ("BML") 1s the manager of the Trust, responsible for its day to day operations. Another company, Genting (Western Australia) Pty Ltd ("Genting") 1s responsible for part of the Management of the complex pursuant to the operation management agreement dated 20 February 1985. Genting supervises and directs the management and operation of the complex in accordance with overall plans laid down by BML and the Trustee. It provides some senior staff of the complex and all other staff are employed by BML. The intention is that the aspects of the complex other than the casino will, as they become operational, be managed in the same way. So far as the hotel is concerned there is in existence a conditional contract pursuant to which, subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions, the Trust will sell the hotel to certain Japanese companies. If the conditions are fulfilled the sale will be completed when the hotel is opened for business which event is expected very soon, possibly even before this judgment is delivered. The Japanese intend to operate the hotel under the name "Burswood Island Hotel". BML has been advertising and promoting the hotel under the name "Burswood Hotel" and if the sale to the Japanese falls through intends that the hotel will ailaallceeeneehaemnancenemniemmnmnemneememendl caalitntcndeaiadontentimeneanimmenamenem 20, enitenieiided nao mnaneinetientmmetemenateeedean eminent eee 3. continue to operate under that name in the future, The second respondent ("Bempascuito") and one Shortland who was not called as a witness, became aware that one Pavlinovich owned a block oi land on the Great Eastern Highway at Rivervale, zoned for use asa site for a motel. This land is approximately one and a half kilometres from the Burswood Island Complex. As a result of becoming aware of the existence of this land a contract was eventually entered into between Pavlinovich and a company Mid-Point Pty Ltd ("Midpoint") on behalf of which Bempascuito and Shortland signed a form of offer and acceptance on 5 February 1985 to purchase the land at Rivervale for 1.25 million dollars. At the time Bempascuito and Shortland appear not to have been directors of Mid-Point but nothing turns on this except perhaps Bempascuito's credit as he asserted that he was a director, even in the face of a form notifying a change of directors lodged with the Securities and Exchange Commission signed by Bempascuito which recorded that he became a director on 1 April 1985. The deposit of $380,000 called for by the contract was never paid. Bempascuito said in evidence that shares in a company Lake Pinjar Pty Ltd and two units in a block known as "Blue Bay" at Mandurah were transferred to Pavlinovich and that the net value of the company and the two units neatly made a total of $380,000. Bempascuito said that he signed transfers of the company shares and that transfers of the units were also executed. One of these units belonged to A.F.B. Nominees Pty Ltd, Bempascuito's family trust company and tne other apparently belonged to one D'Alessio. I doubt that the transfers of the shares or of the units were ever executed but if 4. they were Pavlinovich whom I believed, said that he had made it quite clear to Bempascuito that he would not accept the transfers of the shares or of the units, except perhaps as a part of the total price if the sale went through. I found Bempascuito's account of this transaction impossible to believe. However this may be it was Bempascuito's intention and presumably Shortland's also, that a large building be built on the land by the company Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel Pty Ltd. Knowing as did many if not most people in Perth that there were going to be developed a casino anda hotel on the Burswood Island site, Bempascuito procured on 4 February 1985 the registration of the business name "Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel". On 29 March 1985 Bempascuito and Shortland became directors of a shelf company Esjay Pty Ltd and on the same day the name of that company was changed to Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel Pty Ltd. The name was changed again on 23 February 1987 to Burswood Casino View Motel/Hotel Pty Ltd which is the first respondent's present name. In February 1985 Bempascuito sought from G.A. Cooper and Associates Pty Ltd, a valuer, a feasibility study and valuation of a motel development on the Rivervale site. Knyvett, an architectural draftsman, prepared some plans and on 23 April 1985 Mr G.A. Cooper who gave evidence, produced a feasibility study with respect to a 266 room motel to be erected onthe site. Application for approval of the project was made to the Belmont City Council and also to the Metropolitan Region Planning Authority. A promotional brochure with respect to the proposed 5. motel development was prepared by Bempascuito and Shortland in May 1985. On 31 May and 2 June 1985 the first respondent caused to be placed in newspapers circulating in Western Australia advertisements which stated that there were a limited number of strata title motel units available "in this 266 room motel/hotel complex" for $69,000 "yours now on 20% dep. balance on completion October 1986". The then name of the first respondent 1s in more prominent type than most of the rest of the advertisement. A telephone number is also inserted. In the week following the publication of these advertisements Bempascuito§ says that approximately 50 telephone calls were received enquiring about the units advertised. I return to this matter later. The first respondent also made application for the insertion of an entry under its then name in the white pages of the 1986 Perth telephone directory. The applicants became aware of this application to Telecom. These proceedings were commenced on 4 June 1985 claiming an injunction against the first and second respondents restraining them from using in trade or commerce or in carrying on their business the names "Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel Pty Ltd", "Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel", "Burswood Casino", "Burswood Hotel", "Burswood Motel" or any other combination of such names or any name or names deceptively similar. The application also Claimed damages against the first and second respondents pursuant to s.82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and damages for passing off. The statement of claim makes it clear that the claim for damages under the Trade Practices Act is on the footing that the 6. first respondent has committed breaches of 35.52, 53 and 53A of the Trade Practices Act. Interlocutory relief vas sought against the first and second respondents restraining the use of names and various other things and against the third respondent from publishing 1n the 1986 edition of the white pages or the yellow pages of the Perth telephone directory or in any future edition, various names. On 13th Toohey J of this Court as he then was, made an order in the following terms "1. Upon the Applicants giving to the Court separate undertakings in the terms filed herein: (1) The First and Second Respondents by themselves, their servants and agents be restrained until the trial of the application from:- (a) using the names 'Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel Pty. Ltd.', 'Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel', 'Burswood Casino Motel', 'Burswood Casino Hotel' or 'Burswood Casino'; (b) holding themselves out i1n any way whatsoever as having a sponsorship or affiliation with or the approval of the Applicants in carrying on their business or being in any way connected with the Burswood Casino; (c) using the names 'Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel Pty. Ltd.', 'Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel', 'Burswood Casino Motel', 'Burswood Casino Hotel' or 'Burswood Casino' in offering any goods or services for sale; (d) offering for sale any interest in land under the names 'Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel Pty. Ltd.', 'Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel', 'Burswood Casino Motel', 'Burswood Casino Hotel' or 'Burswood Casino'; 7. (e) from entering in the 1986 Telephone Directory the names 'Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel Pty. Ltd.', 'Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel', 'Burswood Casino Motel', 'Burswood Casino Hotel' or 'Burswood Casino'. (2) The Third Respondent by itself, its servants or agents be restrained until the trial of the application from publishing in its 1986 Telephone Directory, at the instance of the First and Second Respondents, the names 'Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel Pty. Ltd.', 'Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel', 'Burswood Casino Motel', 'Burswood Casino Hotel' or 'Burswood Casino''." After this order was made the respondents did little further about the project to build a motel at Rivervale. It was said that publicity concerning the interlocutory proceedings before Toohey J. made it difficult to interest financial backers for the scheme. The contract for the purchase of the land from Pavlinovich by Mid-Point was eventually rescinded. Neither Mid-Point, the first respondent, the second respondent nor Shortland appear to have taken any further steps. At the time of the hearing before me, Bempascuito had no assets and was working as a car salesman after a period receiving social security benefits. He 1s said also to be subject to a Part X agreement under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 although this 1s uncertain. Shortland entered into a composition with his creditors under Part X also. According to Bempascuito the first respondent now has no assets at all. Bempascuito said in cross-examination that the first respondent may have a prospect of constructing and running a motel on the Rivervale land. He said "there may be backers" "ee 8. but was no more specific than that. It was suggested to him, but indignantly denied, that he caused the first respondent to Maintain its defence of these proceedings and continued his own defence in the hope of selling the name of the first respondent or extracting some money from the applicants in consideration of the first respondent giving up its use of the name. At the beginning of the hearing the applicants abandoned their claim with respect to the alleged passing off and their claim for damages and the hearing continued on the footing that injunctions preventing the use of certain names were sought and also a mandatory injunction directing the respondent to change its name. I should mention that early in the hearing counsel for the respondents made an open offer in court to settle the proceedings upon the basis that the first respondent's name be changed to "Burswood Island View Motel/Hotel Pty Ltd", that the first and second respondents be enjoined from using the name "Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel" and that all parties bear their own costs. This offer was not accepted by counsel for the applicants and the hearing proceeded. The case is largely about the use of names whether the question of a breach of ss.52 or 53 or 53A of the Trade Practices Act is being considered. It is necessary therefore to deal with some particularity with the use of names by each party. First it should be observed that Burswood Island is a name given to the area of land bounded on three sides by the Swan river. No party invented the name. It should also be observed that the casino complex is situated on Burswood Island and the respondents' 9. proposed development was to be situated in the suburb of Rivervale and was some one anda half kilometres distant in a straight line from the casino. It was known that the Burswood Island area had been chosen by the Western Australian Government as the site for the casino complex as long ago as early April 1984. Thereafter the casino was frequently referred to as the "Burswood Island Casino". The intention of the interests now represented by the applicants to build a casino and, in all probability two hotels, an exhibition centre, a convention centre and a golf course was publicised in newspapers in November and December 1984. In January 1985 Bempascuito applied for registration of the business name "Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel" as a matter of urgency. The name was registered on 4 February 1985. In an affidavit of 11 June 1985, sworn for the purposes of the proceedings before Toohey J., Bempascuito swore as follows - "10. I deny that the first respondent adopted the corporate name calculating thereby to acquire the benefit of the applicants' established reputation in connection with the casino development and with a view to increasing its trading and commercial activities in the motel/hotel industry". In Bempascuito's evidence before me the following passage occurs: "And you expected, I suggest, that by using a name that contained the words: Burswood, Casino and Hotel, you would increase the trading and commercial activities of the motel hotel?~--Yes. You adopted the name: Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel with a view to increasing the trading and commercial activities of the company in the motel hotel industry, did you not?---Yes." 10. When faced with paragraph 10 of his affidavit reproduced above Bempascuito was unable to answer whether his evidence was completely false or mistaken. I found Bempascuito a most unsatisfactory witness, some of whose evidence was so improbable as to be plainly untrue. He impressed me aS a man Who i185 prepared to say anything 1f he perceived that it might help his cause with a total disregard for truth. In this instance I think that he inadvertently told the truth upon an important issue and it 1s my belief that the words "Burswood" which 1s geographically inaccurate, '"Casino"" which could have nothing properly to do with a motel operation at Rivervale and "Hotel" which 18 inappropriate in connection with a proposed building with 266 motel units were all deliberately chosen in order to help the project at Rivervale by attracting interest in it from investors and later from clients seeking accommodation by creating an apparent association with the Burswood casino and hotel. Bempascuito almost admitted as much in cross-examination when he conceded that the association with the casino project would help his project. The use of the names "Burswood", "Casino", and "Hotel" appears to have been fundamental to the project of the respondents since after they were enjoined against using them the whole motel project came to a halt. On 18 February 1985 BML on behalf of the Trust applied for registration of nine business names in connection with the resort and its various components. Five of the nine applications were successful but the applications with respect to "Burswood Casino" and "Burswood Hotel" were rejected because of similarity to the business name then owned by Bempascuito. 11. Eventually an appeal to the Attorney-General for Western Australia was successful towards the end of April 1985 and the names "Burswood Casino" and "Burswood Hotel" were registered in the name of BML. In February 1985 as I have said Bempascuito sought from G.A. Cooper and Associates Pty Ltd a feasibility study for a motel development for Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel Pty Ltd. On 26 April 1985 a prospectus was issued offering 100,000,000 units in the Burswood Property Trust for public subscription. Approximately 240,000 copies of this prospectus were distributed one way or another in Western Australia and throughout Australia. In this prospectus the operation as a whole is referred to as the "Burswood Island Resort" or the "Burswood Island Resort Complex" or the "Burswood Resort". When the individual elements of the complex are being mentioned the phrases "Burswood Hotel" and "Burswood Casino" are almost invariably used. During the building of the casino during 1985 it received much publicity in the press andon the radio and television. As before, when the whole complex was referred to, it was called the "Burswood Island Resort Complex" or the "Burswood Island Resort" and when the casino component alone was mentioned it was most often referred to as the "Burswood Casino". After the casino was completed in December 1985 and the hotel building began the same sort of thing generally occurred. The complex as a whole was referred to in publicity as the "Burswood 12. Island Resort", "Burswood Resort" or the "Burswood Island Resort Complex". When it was necessary to refer to the hote!? component it was most often referred to as the "Burswood Hotel". The voluminous documentary evidence and the oral evidence satisfies me that in the advertisements and other publicity and in common speech and in articles in the press' the casino was most often described as the "Burswood Casino" or just the "Casino" and the hotel was most often referred toas the "Burswood Hotel". The complex as a whole was referred to by a slightly different name or names. Many objects have the words "Burswood Casino" on them. There are signs in the casino on gaming tables and on gambling chips. The words also appear on the front of the building housing the casino. In addition there will be in the hotel upon opening a_ supply of items such as soaps, bottle openers, shampoo, shoe care kits and shower caps and the like. All of these items are stamped with the name "Burswood Hotel", and whether the hotel 1s sold or not, there will be from six months to nine months supply of these items available and it is anticipated that they will be used until at the earliest they are all gone. I find myself quite unable to accept the evidence of Harber who described himself as "an avid casino watcher" who said that he and his father and his father-in-law monitored and taped as many radio and television news broadcasts as possible and also talk-back shows for the purpose of finding out what was going on with respect to the casino. He said that the casino was invariably referred to as the Burswood Island casino on radio and 13. television and went on to say that he had never read of it being referred to in any other way. When faced by the croys-examiner with a number of examples or references to the "Burswood Casino" in the press I found his performance in the witness box destructive of his personal credit and I can place no reliance on hin. Bempascuito himself conceded in cross-examination that the casino is widely known as the "Burswood Casino" but he denied that the hotel was widely known as the "Burswood Hotel". The evidence satisfies me that from the time that building began upon the site wide publicity in all available ways was given to the casino and the hotel. The applicants acquired a considerable reputation in the names "Burswood Casino" and "Burswood Hotel". The only two further uses of relevant names by the respondents were in the advertisements in the press on 3l May 1985 and 1 June 1985 to which I have referred earlier and the application for insertion in the white pages of the telephone directory. One Johnston, a solicitor, telephoned the number mentioned in both advertisements and the female who answered the telephone said "Burswood Casino Motel" and shortly afterwards passed him on to Bempascuito who had a discussion with him. It is probably safe to assume that most of the fifty or so callers who responded to the advertisements was spoken to in similar words. Miss Banks, at the time a receptionist/secretary employed by BML who manned the switchboard at the casino, gave evidence which I believed that shortly after the advertisements appeared she received about 20 telephone calls from people who 14. were making enquiries about the motel units advertised. These people had quite evidently read the advertisements or cone of them and believed that the proposed development and the Burswood casino complex had some connection. This belief was based no doubt on the name used in the advertisement. Such people ignored the telephone number given in the advertisement and telephoned the casino. The use of the name in the application for a listing in the directory is probably not very important in itself because the attempted listing was nipped in the bud by his Honour's order of 13 June 1985. There is of course a further action of the respondents with respect to the name of the first respondent and that 1s the change of name by inserting the word "View" in February 1987. I mention in passing that on 16 April 1985 the Corporate Affairs Commission told the solicitors for the applicant that the first respondent had been directed to change its name from Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel Pty Ltd. The first respondent took a long time to respond to this direction and this new name is in any event misleading with respect to the added word "view". The evidence is that the casino cannot be viewed from ground level at the proposed motel site. Opinions varied as to whether it could be seen from the second floor or the eighth floor. What then is the legal position? In the first place it is not only the person deceived or misled nor only the person who has suffered loss as a result of 15. the respondents' misleading or deceptive conduct who may make application with respect to a breach of ss.52, 53 or 53A of the Trade Practices Act and obtain injunctive relief to restrain conduct that 1s a breach of any part of Part V of the Trade Practices Act. "This remedy may be applied for by anyone, including a person who does not fear being deceived or misled" (Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v. Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd (1977-78) 140 C.L.R. 216 at 234 per Murphy Je). This confirms the status of the applicants to sue. Section 80(4) of the Trade Practices Act is as follows "(4) The power of the Court to grant an injunction restraining a person from engaging in conduct may be exercised - (a) whether or not it appears to the Court that the person intends to engage again, or to continue to engage, in conduct of that kind; (b) whether or not the person has previously engaged in conduct of that kind; and (c) whether or not there is an imminent danger of substantial damage to any person if the first-mentioned person engages in conduct of that kind." In the present case although the misleading and deceptive conduct of the first and second respondents was not very extensive and notwithstanding that the first respondent appears to be dormant and the second respondent impecunious, the second respondent has said that the first respondent may yet go ahead with the motel project so there is clearly power to enjoin the first and second respondents against engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct. 16. Were the first and second respondents guilty of engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct? I consider it unlikely that the mere registration of the name Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel Pty Ltd constituted misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce. However the first respondent did more than this. It used this name in a number of ways with the intention of creating an impression that it had a connection of some sort with the Burswood Island Complex. First it caused to be inserted the advertisements 1n the newspapers and caused its receptionist to answer the telephone as she did when Johnston rang. Second it sought a feasibility study from G.A. Cooper & Associates Pty Ltd. It also caused a promotional brochure to be prepared by Bempascuito and Shortland although this was never finally published beyond the proof stage. It also applied to have its then name inserted in the 1986 telephone directory. This conduct small in scale although it was, was intended to mislead and that it would do so was a "real not remote chance or possibility" (Tillmanns Butcheries v. A.M.I.E.U. (1979) 27 A.L.R. 367 at 380 per Deane J.) Taco Co. of Australia Inc. & Anor. v. Taco Bell Pty Ltd & Ors. (1982) 42 A.L.R. 177 contains at pages 202-203 per Deane and Fitzgerald JJ. a very useful statement of some of the relevant principles : "First, it is necessary to identify the relevant section (or sections) of the public (which may be the public at large) by reference to whom the question of whether conduct is, or is likely to be, misleading or deceptive falls to be tested (Weitmann v. Katies Ltd (1977) 29 F.L.R. 336, per 17. Franki J. at 339-40, cited with approval by Bowen C.J. and Franki J. in Brock v. Terrace Times Pty Ltd (1982) 40 A.L.R. 97 at 99; £19821 A.T.P.R. 40-267 at 43,412). Second, once the relevant section of the public is established, the matter is to be considered by reference to all who come within it, 'including the astute and the gullible, the intelligent and the not so intelligent, the well educated as well as the poorly educated, men and women of various ages pursuing a variety of vocations': Puxu_ Pty Ltd v. Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd (1980) 31 A.L.R. 73, per Lockhart J. at 93: see also World Series Cricket v. Parish, Supra, per Brennan J. (16 A.L.R. at 203). Thirdly, evidence that some person has in fact formed an erroneous conclusion is admissible and May be persuasive but is not essential. Such evidence does not itself conclusively establish that conduct is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive. The court must determine that question for itself. The test 1s objective (see, generally, Annand & Thompson Pty Ltd v. Trade Practices Commission (1979) 25 A.L.R. 91, per Franki J. at 102; Sterling v. Trade Practices Commission (1981) 35 A.L.R. 59, per Franki Jd. (with whom Northrop J. agreed) at 66 and per Keely J. at 69; Smnoid v. Handley (1981) 38 A.L.R. 383, per the court (Bowen C.J., Northrop and Morling JJ); and Brock v. Terrace Times, supra, per Bowen C.d. and Franki J.)." In the case at hand the relevant sections of the public are the investing public at the outset, those who are looking for a suitable enterprise into which to invest surplus funds. Had the motel project been completed and operated under its then name or indeed its name as altered in 1987 the relevant section of the public would have been those who travel by motor car to Perth and want accommodation in close proximity to the city. There was evidence from Miss Banks that some people at least were misled and deceived by the use by the first respondent of a name deceptively similar to the Burswood Hotel in the Burswood Island Resort. 18. It seems to me that the conduct of the first respondent was misleading and deceptive and thus a breach of s,.52 1n two different ways. In the first place its use in trade or commerce of a name containing the words "Burswood", "Casino", and "Hotel" did in fact mislead and deceive some persons into thinking that the first respondent was linked in some way with the Burswood Island Complex and viewed objectively the conduct was likely 'to be misleading or deceptive. In the second place in connection with the possible sale or grant of an interest in land the first respondent represented by implication that it had an affiliation it did not have which may also be a breach of s.53A of the Trade Practices Act. In my opinion since the first respondent has been guilty of at least a breach of s.52 of the Trade Practices Act and possibly also a breach of s.53A, the applicants are entitled to an injunction in somewhat similar terms to that granted by Toohey J. I am also asked to grant a mandatory injunction compelling the first respondent to change its name. As I have said I do not think that the mere adoption of a name without more is conduct in trade or commerce and Ido not think that I should make the mandatory order sought. As to the question of costs I consider that the applicants are entitled to an order for their costs of action to be paid by the first and second respondents. The offer to settle the action made on the second day of the trial was not unreasonably refused by the applicants and so far as I know the first respondent has not yet had its name changed. Even if it 19. had, the proposed change of name was, in my view, inadequate. So far as concerns the second respondent I am satisfied that he was a "person concerned" in the breaches of Part V of the Trade Practices Act by the first respondent. So far as concerns the sale of the hotel part of the complex to the Japanese companies, it 1s proposed that the purchasers will operate the hotel under the name Burswood Island Hotel. Even if this happens it seems to me that the first respondent should still be enjoined from using the words "Burswood" and "Hotel". The addition of the word "Island" to the name under which the hotel business will be carried on seems to me not to affect the position. There will be an order with injunction against the respondents and an order that they pay the applicants' costs of action to be taxed. I will hear counsel as to the precise terms of the injunction. I am not asked, and do not make, an order either in favour of or against the third respondent. I certify that this and the \% preceding pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Mr Justice Forster. associate WA. hae! Kurd Dated: 9 Ocheter Te R. 20. Counsel for the applicants Solicitors for the applicants Counsel for the respondents Solicitors for the respondents Dates of hearing oo Mr S. Archer with Mr P. Blackburn Robinson Cox Mr B.F. Stokes B.F. Stokes & Associates 10, 1l, 13, 18, 21 August,