In the ultimate analysis the broad question in the case is whether the correct conclusion upon the evidence is that the appellant passed off its own goods as the goods of the respondent. And since the only basis for the complaint that it did so is that the words "Pierre Smirnoff" appeared on the labels of the appellant, we are obliged to inquire whether, in the circumstances, the name "Smirnoff", in April 1954, had come, in New South Wales, to mean the respondent's product. If it had we should think the contention would be well open that the use by the appellant of the name "Pierre Smirnoff" would have been likely to induce the belief that its product was that of the respondent. But in our view the evidence in the case fails to establish the necessary reputation in New South Wales for the respondent. As we have pointed out the use of the expression "Formula of Peter Smirnoff", in relation to the liqueur products of the respondent and its predecessors, during the years from 1943 to 1953 is of little, if any, significance in the case. Such evidence, as there is, of the trade during this period tends to indicate that it was neither substantial nor widespread and that the use made of the name "Peter Smirnoff" was not calculated to identify the product of the respondent and its predecessors exclusively with that name. As far as the use of the name "Smirnoff's" in relation to the respondent's trade in vodka itself is concerned the period from March 1953 to April 1954 is comparatively brief. Moreover, although 10,000 bottles were said to have been sold in 1953, by far the bulk of the sales was made in and about Sydney. The balance was sold to hotels and a few wine and spirit merchants in a handful of country centres. In all, between 140 and 150 members of the trade made purchases in 1953 but this was not, in our view, a significant section of the trade. Again, of those who made purchases in that year more than half had not previously made purchases from the respondent of its liqueurs made according to the formula of "Peter Smirnoff". Of those who purchased vodka in 1953 more than one-third did not make any purchases in 1954 so that we are left to speculate as to how much "Smirnoff's Famous Vodka" reached the consuming public in 1953. The detailed trading figures which were tendered in evidence also throw some light on the business done in 1953 and 1954 by those hotels and wine and spirit merchants whose employees were called as witnesses at the hearing. The hotel which Llewellyn managed purchased a mere 24 bottles in 1953 and, in 1954, 145 bottles. The hotel at which Lange was employed bought 117 bottles in 1953, 111 in 1954, and none thereafter till 1957. The hotel where Poland officiated was one of the larger customers in 1953; it bought 228 bottles during that year and 144 in 1954. The Metropolitan Hotel at Maitland where Wright worked bought 42 bottles in 1953, 66 in 1954, 24 in 1955 and 12 in 1956. The figures for the wine and spirit merchants who were called to give evidence were Doyle, 162 bottles in 1953 and 159 in 1954; Swailes, 160 in 1953 and 130 in 1954; and Scala, 210 in 1953. To our minds the evidence of these witnesses was quite inadequate to establish the necessary reputation for the respondent particularly when it is borne in mind that the Australian Brewing and Wine Journal, to which reference has previously been made, circulated in, or at least in some sections of, the trade. Finally, there is the evidence that "Smirnoff" vodka had long enjoyed an extensive reputation overseas and that the potential market for the respondent's product in 1953 was provided by a class of persons to whom that reputation was said to be already well known. We do not wish to suggest that because "Smirnoff" vodka enjoyed a wide overseas reputation it was not possible for the respondents product to become identified exclusively with that name in New South Wales. Cases such as Roberts Numbering Machine Co. v. Davis [1] and Sturtevant Engineering Co., Ltd. v. Sturtevant Mill Company of U.S.A. Ltd. [2] are, of course, classic authorities to the contrary. But these were somewhat special cases and in each it appeared that there had been such a long and exclusive use of the name in question by the local trader in England that its use there by any other person was likely to induce the belief that his business was that of the local trader (cf. Dental Manufacturing Company, Limited v. C. De Trey & Co. [3] and Imperial Tobacco Company of India, Limited v. Bonnan [4] ). The reason why we have referred to the long-established European reputation of "Smirnoff" vodka is because it is reasonable to infer from the evidence that vodka under that name was already well known to many of those whose immigration into this country provided the primary market for the respondent's product. That being so, it is highly probable that vodka sold as "Smirnoff" or "Smirnoff's Vodka" enjoyed some reputation in this market quite independently of the respondent's product. Taking this circumstance into consideration with the other matters to which we have referred we find ourselves forced to the conclusion that the respondent failed to make out a case for the relief which it sought. Accordingly, the appeal should be upheld on this ground and, that being so, we find it unnecessary to consider the other defences which were raised by the appellant.