Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:17:19.253Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protection of foreign business names and marks under the tort of passing off

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Allison Coleman
Allison Coleman*
Affiliation:
University College of Wales, Aberystwyth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Trade marks, business names and get-up, like products, can be important commercial assets, carefully chosen for the appropriate image and impact, projected by advertising and capitalised through goodwill. As such, they represent a significant investment for which businesses expect adequate legal protection. In these days of worldwide travel, communications and media exposure the reputation acquired by a name or mark may transcend national boundaries and even precede commercial activities in a particular country. The temptation to cash-in on the reputation of another business through imitation of a name, mark or get-up has never been greater and piracy has reached epidemic proportions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 1986 , pp. 70 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See also S. Lane, Passing Off and The Foreign Plaintiff [1984] 10 EIPR 279; and for a comparative account, M. Blakeney, ‘The Geographical Extent of a Protectible Business Reputation’ (1985) IIPJ 163.

2. Reddaway v Banham [1896] AC 199 at 209, 210; Erven Warnink v Townend [1979] 2 All ER 927 at 931.

3. (1857) 3 K & J 423.

4. (1857) 3 K & J 428.

5. Ibid at 430.

6. [1901] 2 Ch 513.

7. Ibid at 516, 517.

8. Ibid at 516.

9. [1967] RPC 581.

10. Ibid at 588.

11. [1901] AC 217.

12. Ibid at 223, 224.

13. Ibid at 235.

14. [1957] RPC 388 at 397.

15. [1967] RPC 581 at 584.

16. [1980] RPC 343.

17. [1979] 2 All ER 927.

18. Ibid, 943 at 944.

19. Ibid, 932 at 933.

20. [1976] FSR 256.

21. [1984] FSR 413.

22. Ibid at 148–479.

23. Ibid at 463.

24. Ibid at 463–465.

25. Ibid at 470.

26. Ibid

27. Ibid at 476.

28. [1976] FSR 545.

99. See Russell LJ, in Annabeli's (Berkley Square) Ltd v Schock [1972] RPC 838 at 844.

30. [1979] FSR 571.

31. [1978] 2 All ER 55.

32. Ibid at 59, 60.

33. See for example Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Pub Squash Pty Ltd [1981] 1 All ER 213.

34. This point is still open to debate even after BBC v Tulbot [1981] FSR 228 and My Kinda Bones Ltd v Dr Pepper's Stove Co Ltd [1984] FSR 289.

35. Ad-Lib Club v Granville [1972] RPC 673.