The claimant sought to prevent the respondent from marketing its VODKAT drinks range under that name unless it contained minimum levels of vodka. It said that the name was misleading: ‘This was . . a case of . . extended passing-off where protection is sought in respect of the goodwill generated by a particular product rather than by relying on the mark of the particular trader who produces it. This form of protection has been granted in the past in respect of champagne, sherry, advocaat and whisky and, outside the world of alcoholic drinks, for Swiss chocolate. The issue in this case was whether vodka as a product qualified for similar protection at the suit of Diageo as a major producer and distributor.’
Judges:
Rix, Patten, Peter Smith LJJ
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Civ 920, [2012] Bus LR 401, [2011] 1 All ER 242, [2011] RPC 2, [2010] ETMR 57
Links:
Statutes:
Council Regulation No. 110/2008/EC
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Diageo North America, Inc and Another v Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd and Others ChD 19-Jan-2010
The parties disputed the right to use various terms to describe and sell their alcoholic drinks, arguing for passing off. Diageo sought an unqualified injunction restraining ICB from advertising, offering for sale or selling or supplying any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, European, Intellectual Property
Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421202
