McCain International v Country Fair Foods [1981] RPC 69
Judgement for the case McCain International v Country Fair Foods
Table Of Contents
Claimant introduced new product into UK: chips that could be cooked in oven. Sold product under name ‘McCain Oven Chips’.
Year later Defendant introduced their own version of product which they sold as ‘Birds Eye Oven Chips’.
Claimant alleged passing off. Defendant alleged “Oven Chips” was descriptive and therefore Claimant could not have monopoly over it.
Held
Name has no secondary meaning where it simply informs customers what the nature of the product is.
-
Thus:
“McCain” indicated the source of the product
“Oven Chips” merely indicated the nature of the product
-
I.e. important factor in case seemed to be that McCain had put their own brand name in front of phrase “oven chips”
Thus was inferred that they knew term “oven chips” was descriptive, and that they felt the need to distinguish themselves
Case might have been decided differently if McCain had simply sold product as “Oven Chips”
For Further Study on McCain International v Country Fair Foods
IP law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. Th...
My notes cover all the main cases in intellectual property law. They a...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Intellectual Property Law | Trade Mark Case Law Notes (68 pages) |
| Intellectual Property Law | Trade Marks Notes (30 pages) |
My notes cover all the main cases in intellectual property law. They a...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.