A and F Pears Limited v Pearson Soap Company Limited [1925] HCA 52

340 HIGH COURT l

H.C. or A Court of Queensland or a Judge thereof upon the new trial buts as aforesaid. Remit the cause to the Supreme Court of Barp Queensland.

Maczirmis.

Solicitors for the appellants, Tully & Wilson. Solicitors for the respondents, MacDonell & Harris, Cairns, by

Mri Maenish & Macrossan.

Cate tid Fell Foll BL. 'Malibu Boats Malibu Boats

aay 495 We oe pe Vv West Incv Cor Caimese (B00 31 IPR sa 180,

ines

Ine ¥ Sima at co

eon Fifer

eet

International v

Komesara

a 9) 46 TPR.

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.}

A. & F. PEARS LIMITED 7 - . . APPELLANT; OPPONENT,

AND

APPLICANT,

H.C. or A, Trade Mark—Registration—Likelihood of deception—Onus of proof—Disoretion of Registrar—Trade Marks Act 1905-1922 (No. 20 of 1905—No, 25 of 1922), secs.

1925. 16, 24, 25, 44, 114. Roe An application was made by a company named the Pearson Soap Co. Ltd. ee 23, 245 for registration of the words " Pearsonia" and " Pearsonette" as a trade lec. 18.

mark in respect of detergents and cleansers. The applicant was the registered ; : proprietor of-a trade mark " Pearson's" in respect of sand-soap. 'The applica-

'Rich and tion was opposed by A. & F. Pears Ltd., a company which manufactured the

ee well-known Pears' Soap, and which was the registered proprietor of many trade marks in connection with soap which included the word "Pears." 'The application was granted subject to a condition that the marks should be applied respectively to pumice powder and pumice paste put up in containers on which the name and address of the applicant company appeared in visible proximity

; THE PEARSON SOAP COMPANY LIMITED . za

to the mark,

Held, by Isaacs, Higgins and Rich JJ. (Knox 0.J. and Starke J. dissenting) that on the evidence the applicant had not discharged the onus of showing that the marks were not likely to deceive, and, therefore, that it was not entitled to registration of the mark either with or without the condition.