Passing Off Notes

2162 Words9 Pages
PASSING OFF – a common law Definition: Perry v Truefitt: Lord Langdale: a man is not to sell his own goods under the pretence that they are goods of another man; he cannot be permitted to practice such a deception, nor to use the means which contribute to the end. He cannot therefore to use names, marks, letters or other indicia by which may induces others to believe, the goods are manufacture by another. Erven Warninch v Townend: Lord Diplock: 5 characteristics: 1) misrepresentation 2) made by a trader in the course of trade 3) to prospective customers of his or ultimate consumer of goods or services supplied by him 4) which may injure the business or goodwill of another 5) cause actual damage to a business or…show more content…
There is still goodwill in Willy, because if England win the world cup again, they might use again. Still associate with consumers. Maslyukov v Diageo: claimant still sells his own whisky to independent bottlers. Justice Arnold allowed the injunction, because there was no intention to abandon the associated goodwill. FOREIGN Evidence of business activity Sheraton v Sheraton Motels: Booking were made frequently from the UK, thru office in London and travel agencies. The defendant has goodwill which would be exposed to risk from confusion between their businesses in different parts of the world. No business activity, but customer Bernadin v Pavillion properties: There is few customer from and advertisement in UK, but there is no trading in UK. Thus, it has no goodwill. (1967) Pete Waterman v CBS UK ltd: a counter claim of passing off were executed by the defendant, the defendant was able to sough injunction based on the fact that, he has significant number of customers from UK to New York, thus establish goodwill. (1993) Anheuser-Busch Inc v budejovicky Budvar: selling beer in US army base doesn’t constitute to trading in UK. Athelete’s Foot v Cobra Sports: Plaintiff plan to grant franchise to UK, but negotiation failed. Defendant registered and advertised the name in magazines. Plaintiff failed because there was no damage that could suffer in UK, because of no customer. Mere
Open Document