FIGHT IN HIGH COURT FOR " LEYLAND" NAME f N
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
an action, Leyland Motors, Ltd., 1 versus Leyland Coachworks, Ltd., the plaintiff last week applied to Mr. Justice Wynn-Parry for an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from using the name " Leyland," or one similar to that of the plaintiff, in the conduct of the coachwork business.
For the applicant, Mr. G. R. Upjohn, K.C., said that after carrying on the business for 40 years, the word " Leyland " had become a household word in motor circles. A large part of the company's business was concerned with the building of complete bodies for transport purposes and complete vehicles.
The defendant company was registered on April 26 last and was in no way connected with Leyland Motors, Ltd., which maintained that the defendant's business as coachbailder was of a nature similar to that of the plaintiff.
Having regard to the goodwill of the plaintiff in the name "Leyland,' it was inevitable that its use by the defendant would, in the circumstances, lead to confusion, and it would be thought that the defendant Company was a subsidiary of the plaintiff.
Mr. Lionel EdWards, for defendant , company, said it was formed by a group of motor agents to secure their own repairs to vehicles. The business was confined to this work. The name had been selected because the works of Leyland Coachworks, Ltd., was just off the Leyland Road at Cuerden.
After hearing legal argument, the parties agreed to the judge's suggestion that the defendant should give an undertaking, until the trial of the action, not to accept work except through the group of motor agents who formed the company and not to advertise for work. His lordship made no order on the motion and gave directions for a speedy trial of the action.