D was a bank incorporated in Switzerland, formed out of a former Pakistani bank of the same name. Subsequent to this incorporation, Pakistani bank was nationalised. However C, as a nationalised bank, continued trading extensively with D. Only 7 years after nationalisation did C bring claim for passing off against D. Held:
· For acquiescence, failure of C to sue D must have encouraged D to believe that the wrong was being assented to
· Here, is hard to think of what more C could have done to give such encouragement than continue trading with D.
· Thus defence of acquiescence applies.
