The plaintiffs, manufactureres of ‘Iron-Ox Tablets’ complained that defendants were selling ‘Iron Oxide Tablets’. The defendants had been unable to obtain the plaintiffs goods for sale and therefore sourced and resold tablets containing Iron oxide, which was useless medecinally, but with other useful substances. The plaintiff’s tablets contained no iron oxide. Others provided similarly named tablets, but some had been successfully restrained by the plaintiffs.
Held: The defendants had not intended to satisfy a popular demand, but rather to supercede the plaintiff’s trade, and this was not legitimate trading, having been chosen to cause confusion. The defendants were to be restrained from selling their product in this way.
Citations:
[1907] 24 RPC 425
Cited by:
Cited – Spalding (A G ) and Brothers v A W Gamage Ltd HL 1915
The House considered the requirements for the tort of passing off. The judge has the sole responsibility for deciding whether anybody has been misled. He will hear evidence, but must not surrender his assessment to others.
Lord Parker said: . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.239044
