Leather Cloth Co Ltd v American Leather Cloth Co Ltd: HL 1 Feb 1865

Where an individual works in a partnership the goodwill generated by his acts will in the normal course vest in the partnership.
Lord Kingsdown said: ‘Nobody doubts that a trader may be guilty of such misrepresentations with regard to his goods, as to amount to a fraud upon the public, and to disentitle him on that ground, as against a rival trader, to the relief in a court of equity which he might otherwise claim. What would constitute a misrepresentation of this description, may in particular cases be a reasonable subject of doubt, and it was in the present case the ground of the difference between the two judgments under consideration. The general rule seems to be that the mis-statement of any material fact calculated to deceive the public, will be sufficient for this purpose.’

Judges:

Lord Kingsdown

Citations:

(1865) 11 HL Cas 523, [1865] EngR 199, (1865) 11 HLC 523, (1865) 11 ER 1435

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoThe Leather Cloth Company v The American Leather Cloth Company 7-Jul-1863
Although a trade mark is not property as such, when a business is bona fide assigned, the right to exclusive use of the trade mark will pass with it. . .
Appeal fromThe Leather Cloth Company, Limited, v The American Leather Cloth Company, Limited 5-Dec-1863
The jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery in the protection given to trade marks rests upon property, and the Court interferes by injunction, because that is the only mode by which property of this description can be effectually protected.

Cited by:

CitedCadbury-Schweppes Pty Ltd And Others v Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd PC 13-Oct-1980
(New South Wales) The plaintiff had launched and advertised a soft drink. A year later, the defendant launched a similar product using similar names, styles and advertising, but then registered trade marks. The plaintiff sought damages, and for the . .
CitedInter Lotto (UK) Limited v Camelot Group Plc ChD 6-Jun-2003
The claimant asserted that the defendant had infringed its goodwill in the name ‘Hot Picks’ the defendant argued that it was licensed to use the mark by the person who applied for its registration as a trade mark, and that the claim in passing off . .
CitedBhayani and Another v Taylor Bracewell Llp IPEC 22-Dec-2016
Distinction between reputation and goodwill
The claimant had practised independently as an employment solicitor. For a period, she was a partner with the defendant firm practising under the name ‘Bhayani Bracewell’. Having departed the firm, she now objected to the continued use of her name, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Torts – Other

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.182304