The plaintiff sought an injunction and damages for infringement by the defendant of his trade mark.
Held: The infringement was innocent. The plaintiff was entitled to an injunction, but for damages only after the defendant had become aware of the trade mark.
A trader is liable to account for his profits on inherently deceptive goods disposed of by him to middlemen
Lord Chancellor Lord Westbury
[1863] 1 De G J and Sm 185, [1863] 7 LT 768, [1860] 9 Jur NS 479, [1860] 11 WR 328, [1860] 46 ER 72, [1863] EngR 108
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – British Telecommunications Plc; Virgin Enterprises Ltd; J Sainsbury Plc; Marks and Spencer Plc and Ladbroke Group Plc v One In a Million Ltd and others CA 23-Jul-1998
Registration of a distinctive Internet domain name using registered trade marks and company names could be an infringement of a registered Trade Mark, and also passing off. It was proper to grant quia timet injunctions where necessary to stop . .
Cited – Ford v Foster ChD 11-Jun-1872
. .
Followed – Lever v Goodwin CA 1887
In trade mark and patent cases the plaintiff was entitled, if he succeeded in getting an injunction, to take either of two forms of relief: he might claim from the defendant either the damage he had sustained from the defendant’s wrongful act or the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.239041