Interesting T related story: http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2017/03/10/time-and-place-edwin-browns-plagiari sed-hybrid-fordholden/
The interesting thing in this is that Tarrant Motors, official Ford agents in Melbourne, Victoria, also built their own bodies. These, of course, were sold as Fords. However, when they wanted a car of superior quality coachwork, Holdens built those cars for them. If you put a Tarrant special next to that Palm, the cars would appear the same.
I have a 1924 Tarrant special with Holden body. By 1924 there were differences in the way the windscreens were fitted.
Allan from down under.
Do you reckon Brown actually fooled anyone by trying to "palm" (ha ha) off his cars as something different than a Holden-bodied Model T Ford ? Grinding off all the Ford imprints would have been a daunting task . . . they're everywhere !!
Rich, not all were Holden bodies. The Spark came with a squared off radiator like a Rolls and Hayes wire wheels. I don't know who built those. It certainly would have fooled many who were not automobile enthusiasts, unless they had previously driven a Ford. Altogether more convincing than some of the more modern badge engineered marques.
Allan from down under.
From the Melbourne newspaper 'The Argus' 30th May 1917. (page 13)
Litigation on the introduction of the
Ford motor-car of United States manufac-
ture into this market which has hitherto
been served by Ford cars of Canadian manu
facture, came before Mr Justice Hodges,
in the Practice Court yesterday. Action
was brought by the Ford Motor Company
of Canada Ltd against Edwin W. Brown,
of Swanston street, motor-cycle importer,
seeking an injunction to restrain the de-
fendant from infringing plaintiff company's
trade-mark, and from passing off goods not
of the plaintiff company's manufacture, or
as of the goods of the plaintiff company, and
damages. The matter came before the
Court on a summons for directions, but in
the course of argument it was agreed that
judgment on the question of an injunction
should be accepted, and that the other
claims would not be pressed.
Mr. Starke (instructed by Messrs Read
and Read) appeared for the plaintiff com-
pany and Mr. Mann (instructed by Messrs.
F. B. Waters and Son) for the defendant.
It was stated in argument that the Can-
dian company had registered a trade mark
including the name Ford, and that Brown
had imported a Ford car of United States
manufacture bearing the same marks. After
negotiations it was arranged that in this
car the trade mark should be erased. Six
other cars were now being held by the Cus-
toms. After argument the parties reached,
agreement in the form of injuction to be
granted if an order was made but a ques-
tion was raised as to the cars held back by
the Customs department, Mr. Starke claim-
ing that as the brands infringed a trade-
mark they might he held, and Mr. Mann
saying, that they should he handed over to
allow Brown to remove the marks and then
trade with them. Mr Justice Hodges said
that he did not think they should be kept
by the Customs in the circumstances of the
case but should be handed over. In giving
judgment, Mr. Justice Hodges said that the
plaintiff company was entitled to an injunc-
tion and made an order in the terms of
the writ for an injunction. He further
said that, so far as the Court was con-
cerned he could see no reason why the im-
pounded cars should not be now handed
over to Brown.