Joseph Rodgers and Sons Ltd v W N Rodgers and Co: 1924

The court discussed the ‘own-name’ defence in an action for passing off or trade mark infringement: ‘To the proposition of law that no man is entitled to carry on his business in such a way as to represent that it is the business of another, or is in any way connected with the business of another, there is an exception, that a man is entitled to carry on his business in his own name so long as he does not do anything more than that to cause confusion with the business of another, and so long as he does it honestly. To the proposition of law that no man is entitled so to describe his goods as to represent that the goods are the goods of another, there is no exception.’


Romer J


(1924) RPC 277


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAsprey and Garrard Ltd v WRA (Guns) Ltd and Another CA 11-Oct-2001
The Asprey family had been in business for many years. Their business was incorporated, and later sold to the claimants. A member of the Asprey family sought to carry on new businesses through limited companies using the family name. Upon request, . .
Dicta ApprovedParker-Knoll v Knoll International HL 1962
A company which used its own name to brand goods in circumstances likely to cause confusion to the public had no defence to a passing off claim. Although the plaintiff need not show an intention to deceive, the Court will more readily find that a . .
CitedReed Executive Plc, Reed Solutions Plc v Reed Business Information Ltd, Reed Elsevier (Uk) Ltd, Totaljobs Com Ltd CA 3-Mar-2004
The claimant alleged trade mark infringement by the respondents by the use of a mark in a pop-up advert.
Held: The own-name defence to trade mark infringement is limited. Some confusion may be allowed if overall the competition was not unfair . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.183225