Removers in Injunction Case
Page 42
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IN the Chancery Division on Tuesday, 1 Mr. Justice Vaisey allowed an application by White's Removals and Transport, Ltd., Great Lister Street, Birmingham, against George Ernest White, of Coventry Road, Birmingham, for an injunction restraining defendant from carrying on the business of a furniture remover under any name or style in which the word " removals," or any derivative of the word "remove," was used in association with the word " White " or "Whites." The injunction was limited to an area within 10 miles of Birmingham Town Hall.
Mr. W. J. C. Tonge, for the plaintiffs, said it was a "passing-off" action relating to the form of trade name under which the defendant carried on a furniture removal business in Birmingham. Plaintiffs were not seeking to restrain the defendant from carrying on business under the name White," but to prevent .him using the words "-White and "removers" in association with each other as a trade name The plaintiff company was incorporated in 1930 and was formed by Mr, J. F. White, who had carried on business under his own name as a furniture remover in Birmingham for about 50 years. The plaintiffs' case was that the word "removals," in association with the name "White," had been used and known in Birmingham for a long time..
They had 17 vans on which appeared the words, "Whites, the removal people." The defendant had only one vehicle and up to 1948 he never used the word " removals" as part of his trade name. In that year difficulties began when defendant changed -his name to "White's G. E. (Removals and Transport) Co." In 1953; the defendant surrendered his licence, and since then he had been sub-contracting his work.
His Lordship: " Defendant says he is very anxious to prevent -confusion."
Defendant, who appeared in person and conducted his own defence, alleged that the plaintiffs were -trying to put him out of business, and had in fact succeeded.
Giving judgment, his Lordship said it was a most unfortunate case. If defendant was sincere in his desire to avoid confusion, he should have been the last person to want to use the word " White " or "Removals." Plaintiffs were clearly entitled to the relief sought.
This could not really harm defendant, for there was no objection to advertising his name, followed by his business, so long as the words were not part of the title under which he traded.