Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


McCain International v Country Fair Foods

[1981] RPC 69

Case summary last updated at 02/02/2020 20:04 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case McCain International v Country Fair Foods

C introduced new product into UK: chips that could be cooked in oven. Sold product under name ‘McCain Oven Chips’. Year later D introduced their own version of product which they sold as ‘Birds Eye Oven Chips’. C alleged passing off. D alleged “Oven Chips” was descriptive and therefore C could not have monopoly over it. Held:
·        See notes.
·        Name has no secondary meaning where it simply informs customers what the nature of the product is.
·        Thus:
i)         “McCain” indicated the source of the product
ii)       “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”
Ø  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”

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Intellectual Property Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious academic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Intellectual Property Law Notes

Intellectual Property Law Notes >>