Claimant was manufacturer of Penguin bars.
Defendant intended to sell a range called ‘Puffin’ bars, deliberately designed to be as similar as possible to Penguins without incurring liability for passing off.
Evidence showed that although customers did not mistake Puffin bars for Penguin bars, many assumed that the two were made by the same manufacturer (although they also did not know who this manufacturer was – McVities).
On facts, was passing off by Defendant.
IP law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. Th...
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 StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Intellectual Property Law | Passing Off Notes (18 pages) |
Intellectual Property Law | Passing Off Cases (10 pages) |
Intellectual Property Law | Trade Mark Case Law Notes (68 pages) |