The Bentley vs Bentley case

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

Current page

92

Current page

93

Current page

94

Current page

95

Current page

96

Current page

97

Current page

98

Current page

99

Current page

100

Current page

101

Current page

102

Current page

103

Current page

104

Current page

105

Current page

106

Current page

107

Current page

108

Current page

109

Current page

110

Current page

111

Current page

112

Current page

113

Current page

114

Current page

115

Current page

116

Current page

117

Current page

118

Current page

119

Current page

120

Current page

121

Current page

122

Current page

123

Current page

124

Current page

125

Current page

126

Current page

127

Current page

128

Current page

129

Current page

130

Current page

131

Current page

132

Current page

133

Current page

134

Current page

135

Current page

136

Current page

137

Current page

138

Current page

139

Current page

140

Current page

141

Current page

142

Current page

143

Current page

144

Current page

145

Current page

146

Current page

147

Current page

148

Very different from the case of Lord de Clifford, which I related recently, was that of Bentley Motors (1931) Ltd vs Lagonda Ltd and W Bentley, heard in front of Mr Justice Roxburgh in late 1946. It arose after Lagonda had advertisements in The Illustrated London Nets, The Tader, The Sphere Illustrated, and The Motor in 1944. The advertisement which offended Bentley Motors had the words: “The products of Lagonda and the designs of W O Bentley have always been fine fast cars… a proud possession… It is worth reflection that they have not always been large cars…”. The word ‘Lagonda’ was displayed in large bold letters above that of ‘Bentley’.

Bentley Motors were objecting to Lagonda using W O’s name on the new twin-cam 21/2-litre Lagondas, the old Bentley company having been absorbed by Rolls-Royce in 1931. W O Bentley counter-claimed for an injunction to stop the new Bentley company from interfering with the use of his name by Lagonda Ltd.

A Mr Phillips, who had been the Exhibition Manager of the SMM&T, said he had organised the Olympia Motor Show from 1919 to 1936 and the later Earls Court Exhibition, and handled trademark declarations. He knew the old Bentley company had gone into liquidation and in 1931 ‘Bentley’ meant to him the name of a motor car; he did not know that Mr Bentley was the designer.

The judge said he thought the name ‘Bentley’ had originally been derived from the defendant Bentley and his brother, and was first used on motor cars in or about the year 1921. These cars and those in production up to 1931 had been designed under the superintendence of W O Bentley.

Mr Bentley had an agreement that if he left Rolls-Royce within 10 years of March 31, 1932 (he left on April 30, 1935) he had certain rights about the use of his name. “I admit I cannot follow the legal implications which appear to have overridden these,” the learned judge said. Of the Lagonda advertisements he said that their “language appears sufficiently innocent, although not inserted in good faith, as Mr Bentley did not see the content before they were published.

“The words which catch the eye,” stated Mr Roxburgh, “are `Lagonda’ above and ‘Bentley’ below. It cannot have given Mr Bentley much satisfaction to have associated himself with the defence; the explanation, no doubt, is that he is apparently employed by the defendant company”.

Defence counsel argued the mala fide advertisements were authorised by W O’s ’32 agreement. The judge said he never understood that argument and, as counsel abandoned it at an early stage of the case, he need not pursue it further. He found the general law governing trademarks was intended and he disposed of the defence; so there was not to be a Lagonda-Bentley. The 21/2-litre Lagonda was designed by C W Sewell, with S Ivernee, who were part of W O Bentley’s team.

The plaintiffs’ counsel had an easy ride. W O’s difficulty was that on joining Rolls-Royce in 1931 he signed an agreement that R-R had the right to use his name as a trademark for 10 years. They then contended that after W O had joined Lagonda as their technical director, he accepted a financial settlement allowing R-R the use of his name forever. This angered Alan Good, Lagonda chairman, who brought the case against R-R. It cost some £10,000 in legal fees, which Lagonda could ill-afford.

In such matters, legal luminaries consult past cases and I liked reference to one relating in footwear; in which the name Oomphies’ was in contention. The judge held that it was acceptable, it not being a geographical name, so far as he knew or evidence showed, and, he hoped, not being a surname.

You may also like

Related products