
Passing off
Doctrine in Tort. 19 cases, with the principle each one established. By lanbuk.com.
- A G Spalding & Bros v A W Gamage Ltd
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1915
Principle established: Passing off protects the property in the business or goodwill likely to be injured by misrepresentation (Lord Parker).
- British Vacuum Cleaner Co Ltd v New Vacuum Cleaner Co Ltd
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1907
Principle established: The words 'vacuum cleaner' were descriptive and not protected.
- Erven Warnink BV v J Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1979
Principle established: Lord Diplock's five elements: misrepresentation, by a trader in the course of trade, to customers, calculated to injure goodwill, causing or likely to cause damage.
- Granada Group Ltd v Ford Motor Co Ltd
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1973
Principle established: The claimants could not stop a car being called 'Granada' as there was no connection or proved confusion.
- Harrods Ltd v R Harrod Ltd
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1923
Principle established: A misrepresentation to the claimant's customers can be passing off.
- Hendriks v Montagu
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1881
Principle established: Using a name confusingly similar to the claimant's ('Universal' and 'Universe') can be passing off (James LJ).
- Johnston v Orr-Ewing
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1882
Principle established: The court considers the experience and literacy of likely buyers when deciding whether confusion is likely.
- Leather Cloth Co v American Leather Cloth Co
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1863
Principle established: One man has no right to put off his goods for sale as the goods of a rival trader (Lord Kingsdown).
- Lord Byron v Johnston
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1816
Principle established: Selling goods with a false statement that they were made by the claimant is passing off.
- Madame Tussaud & Sons Ltd v Louis Tussaud Ltd
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1890
Principle established: Even one's own name cannot be used in a way that passes off one's business as another's.
- Niger Chemists Ltd v Nigeria Chemists
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1961
Principle established: Similar names in the same trade and place create a grave risk of confusion.
- Powell v Birmingham Vinegar Brewery Co
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1896
Principle established: A trade name that the public links to one maker's goods is protected.
- Raggett v Findlater
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1873
Principle established: Purely descriptive words like 'stout' are not protected.
- Re Woodward's Trade Mark
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1915
Principle established: 'Gripe water' was held descriptive.
- Reddaway v Banham
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1896
Principle established: A descriptive name that has come to mean the claimant's goods is protected, but the burden is heavy.
- T. Choithram & Sons v P. Choithram & Sons, 1964-66 ALR S.L. 253
Sierra Leone — African Law Reports · 1964-66
Principle established: In an action for trademark or trade name infringement, a plaintiff need not establish a fraudulent motive provided actual or probable injury to goodwill is proved.
- T. Choithram and Sons Limited v. P. Choithram and Sons & Another (CC 364 of 1964) [1965] SLSC 3 (30 July 1965)
Sierra Leone — Supreme Court · 1965
Principle established: Proof of fraudulent intent is unnecessary in an action for infringement of a trade name or mark, provided actual or probable injury to goodwill is established.
- United Kingdom Tobacco Co Ltd v Carreras Ltd
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1931
Principle established: Imitating the get-up of goods can be passing off if it is likely to confuse.
- Wright v Elder Dempster Lines Ltd, 1950-56 ALR S.L. 364
Sierra Leone — African Law Reports · 1950-56
Principle established: A trade mark that closely resembles another in its visual and phonetic features so as to be calculated to deceive or cause confusion should not be admitted to registration.
