The plaintiff carried on the business of a high class gentlemen’s outfitter. The defendant was accused of using the plaintiff’s trading name without having had any prior association with the name. The defendant’s get up had similarities to that used by the plaintiff, but was restrictied in use to toiletries. The plaintiff sought an injunction.
Held: An injunction was refused. In this particular case the court did not need to make a formal assessment of the likelhood of deception in order to make its decision on the balance of convenience. The defendant’s continued activites would no doubt restrict any attempt by the plaintiff to move into the toiletries market, but the damage would be uncertain. On the oter hand an injunction would cause The court will assume damage where the goodwill associated with the product is being used and eroded by the actions of the defendant.
Judges:
Aldous J
Citations:
[1992] FSR 501
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Intellectual Property, Damages
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.440728
