Collitt v Borsalino Guiseppe E Fratello Societa Anonima [1913] HCA 34

344 HIGH COURT i (1913,

H.C. or A. the word "common" is used with it by way of emphasis and to —

1913. es, é y Sxixner Pphorical notion, and it seems to me to be beyond question that it

Tun Kine, Wdicates just such a woman as is described in the quotation I — — have read. That is substantially what the learned Judge told the _ peel: jury, and I therefore think that he was quite right, and that — leave to appeal should be refused,

Gavan Durry J. I concur, Powers J. I concur.

Ricu J. I also concur. " Special leave to appeal refused.

Solicitors, Gavan Duffy & King for D. P. Claverie, Armidale. BL

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.}

COLLITT AND ANOTHER . . . . APPELLANTS; DEFENDANTS, ; :

AND

BORSALINO GUISEPPE E FRATELLO H.C or A. SOCIETA ANONIMA 1913. PLAINTIFFS, ——

MELBOURNE, ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

May 13; we June 20, 23, VICTORIA.

24, 27.

} RESPONDENTS. 3

Trade Mark—Passing of —Name of person applied to goods—Secondary meaning.

ton A.C.J., 24 bi se 'The name of a person may acquire a secondary meaning as denoting goods

ae made by a certain manufacturer, so as to prevent another person applyin

16 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

that name without explanation or qualification to similar goods not made by that manufacturer.

Held, on the evidence, that the proper name '"Borsalino," which was part of the name of the plaintiff company, had acquired a meaning denoting that goods to which it was applied were manufactured by that company, and that the plaintiff company was therefore entitled to have the defendants restrained from applying the word " Borsalino" without explanation or qualification to goods manufactured by another company, whose title also included that proper name.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Hodges J.) affirmed.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria.

An action was brought in the Supreme Court by Borsalino Guiseppe e Fratello Societa Anonima, a company duly incor- porated according to the law of Italy, against Thomas Morton Collitt and Herbert Bayford Collitt, retail hatters carrying on business in Melbourne, claiming, inter. alia, an injunction restraining the defendants from passing off or attempting to pass off hats marked " G. B. Borsalino fu Lazzaro & Co." as hats of the plaintiffs' manufacture and/or without clearly distinguish- ing the same from the plaintiffs' hats.