Mond Staffordshire Refining Company Limited v Harlem [1929] HCA 6

Mond Staffordshire Refining Company Limited v Harlem [1929] HCA 6

By majority (Knox C.J., Gavan Duffy and Starke JJ.), the words 'Monsol' and 'Mulsol' are not so similar as to cause ordinary purchasers to confuse goods so marked, owing to the prevalence of 'sol' endings in the class, the difference in the initial syllables, and the differences in the goods themselves; therefore, there is no infringement or likelihood of deception.

Parties
Plaintiff; Appellant: The Mond Staffordshire Refining Company Limited; Defendants; Respondents: Ellis Harlem and Isaac Cyril Harlem trading as 'Mulsol' Laboratories
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 1929
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Passing Off, Likelihood of Deception
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Passing Off Likelihood of Deception

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Mond Staffordshire Refining Company Limited

Plaintiff; Appellant

Ellis Harlem and Isaac Cyril Harlem trading as 'Mulsol' Laboratories

Defendants; Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of 'Mulsol' by defendants infringed the registered trade mark 'Monsol' held by the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the names 'Monsol' and 'Mulsol' are so similar as to be likely to cause deception or confusion among purchasers.

Ratio Decidendi

By majority (Knox C.J., Gavan Duffy and Starke JJ.), the words 'Monsol' and 'Mulsol' are not so similar as to cause ordinary purchasers to confuse goods so marked, owing to the prevalence of 'sol' endings in the class, the difference in the initial syllables, and the differences in the goods themselves; therefore, there is no infringement or likelihood of deception.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.