Harrods Ltd v Harrodian School: CA 3 Apr 1996

No passing off was to be found to have been shown without the public believing that the plaintiff was responsible for the defendant’s services or goods. It was not enough to show only that the defendant was somehow ‘behind’ the defendant. Millet LJ said: ‘Passing off is a wrongful invasion of property vested in the plaintiff; but the property which is protected by an action for passing off is not the plaintiff’s proprietary right in the name or get up which the defendant has misappropriated but the goodwill and reputation of his business which is likely to be harmed by the defendant’s misrepresentation.’
Millet LJ
Times 03-Apr-1996, [1996] RPC 697, [1996] EWCA Civ 1315
England and Wales
CitedLego System Aktieselskab v Lego M Lemelstrich Ltd ChD 1983
An association was claimed between irrigation equipment supplied by the defendant and plastic toy bricks made by the plaintiff.
Held: When looking for the likelihood of confusion in a passing off action between parties whose activities lie in . .

Cited by:
CitedAssociated Newspapers Limited, Daily Mail and General Trust Plc v Express Newspapers (an Unlimited Company, Incorrectly Sued As Express Newspapers Limited) ChD 11-Jun-2003
The claimants sought to prevent the respondents from starting an evening newspaper entitled ‘THE MAIL’ as an infringement of their registered mark, and as passing off. In turn the defendant challenged the validity of the mark.
Held: The word . .
CitedChocosuisse, Kraft Jacobs Suchard (Schweiz) Ag, Chocoladefabriken Lindt and Sprungli (Schweiz) Ag v Cadbury Limited PatC 29-Oct-1997
The plaintiffs brought actions in passing off against the defendant company in respect of their chocolate products. They objected to the use of the terms ‘Swiss Chocolate’ applied to chocolates not made in Switzerland.
Held: The claimant had . .
CitedBoehringer Ingelheim Ltd and others v Vetplus Ltd CA 20-Jun-2007
The claimants appealed refusal of an order restricting comparative advertising materials for the defendant’s competing veterinary medicine. The claimant said that the rule against prior restraint applicable to defamation and other tort proceedings . .
CitedHarrods Limited v Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd and Harrods (South America) Ltd ChD 15-Jan-1997
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 April 2021; Ref: scu.81262