This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Notes Intellectual Property Law Notes

Passing Off Notes

Updated Passing Off Notes

Intellectual Property Law Notes

Intellectual Property Law

Approximately 1014 pages

IP law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB Intellectual Property law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).

These were the best IP Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highes...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Intellectual Property Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

PASSING OFF

Passing Off

  • Involves one person passing off his goods for that of another.

  • Passing off can be deliberate or accidental.

  • Three elements required to show passing off.

  • the ‘classic trinity’

  • Reckitt and Coleman v Borden [1990]

  • ‘Classic trinity’ is:

  1. Goodwill or reputation attached to goods and services of C

  2. Misrepresentation by D to public

  • Such as is likely to lead public to believe goods or service of D are in fact those of C; and

  1. Damage suffered by C due to this belief

  1. GOODWILL OR REPUTATION

  • Passing off protects C’s goodwill.

  • Goodwill is the “benefit and advantage of a good name, reputation and connection of a business”

  • i.e. any value that is added to business by these factors

  • Lord Macnaghten in IRC v Muller & Co’s Margarine [1901]

  1. Goodwill v Reputation

  • Is distinction between goodwill and reputation

  1. Passing off will always protect C’s goodwill.

  2. However will not always protect C’s reputation

  • Harrods v Harrodian School [1996]

  • Two examples of where passing off will not protect ‘mere reputation’:

  1. If public only associate C’s reputation with a limited field of commercial activity.

  • i.e. even if C is well known, no damage to goodwill if public would not mistakenly believe that C was engaged in the type of business in question

    • Harrods Ltd v Harrodian Schools [1996]

    • Contrast Lego Systems v Lemelstrich [1983]

  1. Mere reputation insufficient if C has no goodwill in the UK (see below)

  1. ‘Trader’

  • Goodwill must attach to a business.

  • No need for C to be actively engaged in making profit.

  • Suffices that there is some commercial value in C’s reputation

  • Thus has been held that ‘trader’ includes non-profit organisations such as:

  1. Charities

  • British Legion v British Legion Club [1931]

  1. Professional institutions

  • e.g. the Law Society

  • Law Society of England and Wales v Society of Lawyers [1996]

  1. Location of Goodwill

  • C’s goodwill must exist in the UK.

  1. Foreign Goodwill

  • C has goodwill in UK if he has customers from the UK.

  • Even if C’s business is situated in another country

  • Pete Waterman v CBS United Kingdom [1993]

  • NO NEED for C to provide his services in the UK

  • i.e. they can be provided from a foreign country to UK customers who are in that country

  • Pete Waterman v CBS United Kingdom [1993]

  • Thus For C to have goodwill in the UK, no need for C to either:

  1. Carry on a business in the UK

  2. Or even provide any products or services within the UK itself

  • this can be done for UK customers who have travelled abroad (services)

  • or for UK customers who have ordered things from abroad (products)

‘Customers’

  • ‘Customers’ includes people to whom services are provided for free

  • Plentyoffish Media v Plenty More LLP [2011]

  • If UK internet users merely visit a foreign website, does not make them customers of that website

  • to be customers, must be case that they actually obtain some service or product provided by operator of website

  • Insufficient that their visits generate advertising revenue for C

  • Plentyoffish Media v Plenty more LLP [2011]

  • Services

  • old case suggested provider of services abroad only has UK goodwill where direct bookings for those services are made from the UK

  • e.g. via phone/internet

  • Sheraton [1964]

  • however later case has suggested no need for direct bookings from UK

  • Hotel Cipriani [2010]

Restrictions

  • Two recent cases in which UK courts declined to further broaden the test for UK goodwill.

  1. Mere fact that C has a large reputation in England does not suffice

  • to have goodwill C must always have customers amongst general UK public

  • Hotel Cipriani v Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) [2010]

  1. Mere ‘trade connection’ to UK does not suffice

  • fact that C’s business is connected to UK market does not mean C has goodwill there

  • Pete Waterman v CBS United Kingdom [1993]

  • Plentyoffish Media v Plenty more LLP [2011]

  1. Local Goodwill

  • Goodwill may be local rather than national.

  • Associated Newspapers v Express Newspapers [2003]

  • Thus possible for courts to grant injunction preventing D operating only in a limited geographical area.

  1. Timing of Goodwill

  • Is no infringement if at the time of alleged passing off C had not managed to generate any more than negligible goodwill.

  1. Establishing Goodwill

  • Length of time C has run business is irrelevant to whether C has goodwill; i.e.:

  • if C has gathered enough goodwill, does not matter that business is inchoate.

  • if C has not gathered enough goodwill, does not matter that business is long-established.

  • Thus pre-launch advertising may allow C to acquire sufficient goodwill.

  • even if C’s business itself has not yet opened.

  • My Kinda Bones v Dr Pepper Store Ltd [1984]

  1. Date of Assessment

  • level of goodwill assessed from date when infringing activities started.

  • thus even if C enjoys large goodwill at date of bringing action, might not be passing off.

  • e.g. if D’s infringement started at a time both when C had no goodwill, and D had already acquired goodwill in the mark

  1. End of Goodwill

  • If C’s business closes, normally case that C’s goodwill dissipates.

  • However may survive without use if it gives an advantage to C’s future business plans.

  1. If C has plans to reopen closed business to which the goodwill attached

    • Ad-Lib Club v Granville [1967]

  2. If D is confident of extracting commercial value from the residual goodwill

    • Jules Rimet Cup v Football Association [2007]

  • Even if C has no plans to re-use goodwill for future business, may still have right to stop D using name

  • this may be case even if hardly any members of public still know of C

  • Sutherland v V2 Music [2002]

  1. Distinguishing Criteria

  • Passing off protects goodwill attached to C’s product/service by association to mark or get-up

  • And NOT the content of mark or get-up itself (i.e. this is what trademark law is for)

  • Thus to be protected, mark/get-up must acquire some secondary meaning in eyes of public

  • i.e. public must associate that mark/get-up ...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Intellectual Property Law Notes.

More Intellectual Property Law Samples