Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935052

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-238139

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 2

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XI Seiten, Seiten 570-1100

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part IV. The federations and the union // Chapter II. The commonwealth of Australia

Collection:: Economics Books

CHAP. 11] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 841 factured by the workers or associations of workers by whom they were registered, and the Act penalized the use of marks in the case of goods not produced by the workers or associations. The aim of the enactment was, of course, to extend the influ- ence of trade unions by allowing the immediate identification of goods as produced under union conditions, and several brewery companies of New South Wales questioned the validity of part vii. There were several minor points at issue, (1) whether the companies were substantially injured by the mere existence of the law, (2) whether the Attorney- General for New South Wales had a right to intervene on behalf of the public of the state, and (3) whether an injunction was the proper remedy ; but all these points were settled in favour of the plaintiff, though Isaacs and Higgins JJ. dis- sented on heads (1) and (3), and Higgins also on head (2).! The decision of the Court was against the validity of the part of the Act attacked. They held (Griffith C.J., Barton and O’Connor JJ.) that the power of the Commonwealth to legislate as to trade-marks did not extend to permit the creation of what was not a trade-mark at all in the sense of that word as understood in 1900, the date of the enactment of the Constitution. As O’Connor J.2 pointed out, a workers’ trade-ark was deficient in both of the essential character- istics of a trade-mark as ordinarily understood, a trade or business connexion between the proprietor of the trade-mark and the goods in question, and distinctiveness in the sense of deing used to distinguish the particular goods to which it is applied from other goods of a like character belonging to other people. As this part of the Act did not fall within the powers of the Parliament to legislate as to trade-marks, it could only be supported if it fell under some other head of the powers of the Commonwealth. But though its pro- visions might be in part justified under the power given by 3. 51 (i) of the Constitution to legislate regarding trade and commerce with other countries and between the states, nevertheless the substantive aim of the part of the Act concerned was to regulate the internal trade of a state, and Cf. Harrison Moore, pp. 395-7. 6 C. L. R. 469, at p. 540.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation