!
Brushe 24/2
Replay 202
शज
Heyd's List
21st February 1919
KING'S BENCH DIVISION.
COMMERCIAL COURT. Wednesday, Feb. 19, 1919.
MERCHANTS' BUSINESS-QUESTION OF TRADE MARKS.
ARNHOLD AND OTHERS. GOETZ AND ANOTHER.
Before Mr. Justice BRAY.
In this case Mr. D. M. Kerly, K.C., and Mr. Stuart Bevan were for the plaintifs (instructed by Messrs. Coward, Hawksley, Son & Chance): the defendants were not represented. for certain declaration against
It was an action Mr. KERLY aid that the plaintiffs were Harry
edemits Edward Arnhold and Charles Herbert Arubold and Arahold Bros. & Co., Ltd., & compnay incorporated
the Hrug Kong under
Companies 1915, at Shanghai, and the defendants were Ernst Ordinances, 1911. Goets and Mas Ni-Massen, of 75, Unter den Linden, Berlin. both of whom were alien enernies. The plaintiff xnnlied for a declaration that the partner- ship formarle existing between and carried on by the plaintiffs and the defendants under articles of partnershin dated Nov. 12, 1912, was dissolved by the war with Germany; declaration that upon the true construction of the articles of partnership, and inj sig eveals that had happened, and partzoularly the dissolution of the partnership, the plaintiffs were on Sept. 12, 1917 (immediately before the execution → sa agreement of that dats made between the plaintifs and the plaintif entitled to the goodwill and trade marks of and company), absolutely belonging to the ousinos formerly carried on by the
of Arnhold. Karberg & the plaintifs, Harry Edward Arahoid and Charles Co., and afterwards by Herbert
Arnhold; and a declaration that under by virsge of the said agreement, dated Sept. the goodwill-and trade marks became sad were in 12, 1917, equity the property of the company and ought to be ssigned by the plaintifa, Harry Edward Arnhold and
Charley Herbert Arnhold, to the plaintiff 0000pany.
be
He. Justice BRAT: You say these marks ought to
signed by one plaintiff to anothers
KELT: Yes. The defendants may conceiv- soly dispute that, and claim some interest in the goodwill and trade marks, which I shall ask your
Amhold, firm,
Lordship to negative. Mr. Kerk, Karberzaid
that there was an old that belonged to the father of Harry Edward Arn- * Co., hold and Charles Herbert Arnhold, who became naturalised here many were born in this country.
His two Bons Large business in the East, in Chins, Hong Kong, and
The firm bed a
a ver! elsewhere, and the goodwill belonged to the father, who entered
into when the father died the goodwill belonged to the partnership ith
his two sons, and on. In November, 1912. there was an agreement of BAShip by which the two defendante, Goetz and terms that the goodwill still below The partnerabit Niclamen, were taken into the par
partnership on the
Deft
24/2/19
for record
B.AD?
24/2/19 yes
1.3
of dissolution to the Arnholds.
in the event
was to continue for four years from Jan. 1, 1912, but by reason of the war, it was se between the plaintiffs and the defendants dissolved. will had been throughout the exclusive property of The good, E. and G. H. Arnhold, the plaintiffs, and this at Aug. 4, 1916, included the whole of the trade marks of the business
After red into bai 4 1914, the
E.
plaintiff. H. F. and C. H. Arphold
now in partnership ander the style of H. E. Arabold, and later of Aruhold
o business at Sha, ros, & Co., Ltd., and carried
including we
and used the good will, trade marke in question. B
artement of Sept. 12, 1917. H. E. and C. H. Arnold to Arabold Reos, &Co., Ltd., the goodwill formerly carried on by H. E. and C. H. Arnhold, together with the trade marks.
Mr. Justice Bar: The partnership agreement of November 1913, would vazion of time in December,
expired by the 1975P Cor: You, but it supired by reason of the outbreak of the war. Mr. Kerly said that after the war dilloulting arose in the East, and the authorities in Hong Kong were not quite clear as to what the position was. They did not appreciate that the goodwill belonged to the two Arnholds, the partner- ship having been determined, and steps were taken in Hong Long to treat the firm as an alien enemy firm, and proceedings were taken under local statutes with view to winding the firm up Arakold soon satisfied the British authorities koma, here that they were natural-born citizens and there had been no difficulty of any sort. Part of the property of the firm consisted of a series of As the Court was probably ongen, Hüglish goods in the Far East were sold
·lenih, merka which were of great value. Some
REC
со
13751
[RECT
296
MAR 19
of them were registered here, and they were also Independently registered at Hong Kong. Since the dissolution the two Arabolds had bean solely an citled to the goodwill, which included the trade marks, and they had been informed, as the result of communications with the Colonial Office, that it was required thes + enoured to the effect that they were so entitled
declaration of the Court should be the goodwill and the trade marks, and it
ke, purpose of securing that declaration *** for plaintiff's were now before the Opurt. The writs had bann serred by the direction of the Court, and be the understood that there was letters had been received from the derman to the Do appearance; but affect that they preserved their rights. The would ask the Court to
for, that the dofondant.” “he declarations
rights were subject to those ise
Plaintifs asked would see that their plained that the plaintiff company. Arnhold Bros. declaratione. Counsel & Co., Ltd., to whom in September, 1917, the good- will was assigned by the two Arnholds, was a pom- pany registered in Shanghai under the local law there.
CHALLER
HERNET ARHOLD, one of plaintiffs, gave evidence that he was formerly member of the firm of Arnhold, Karberg & Co., and be produced the partnership articles of November, 1914. This was signed by witness and bis brother and the two defendanta. The witzem further de posed to the agreement of September, 1917, with the plaintiff company, Arnhold Bros. & Co., Ltd., by which the goodwill was sssigned.
Mr. Emly submitted that the trade marks could not be separated from the goodwill. He had anthority for that proposition. added) were German subjects
The defendants (he
Mr. Justice BEAT granted the declarations sakad for, but said he would make no order as to costs.