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 different fields must depend mainly on the scope of the ‘field of recognition’ of the name in question, and not merely on the disparity between their fields of activity.
Falconer J
[1983] FSR155
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – D Jacobson and Sons Ltd v Globe Gb Ltd Globe Europe Sas Chd 25-Jan-2008
The claimant alleged infringement by the defendants of its ‘Gola’ trade mark designs. The defendant said the registration was invalid because the stripes on the shoes were not distincive being seen as part of the design of the shoe rather than as an . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – William Grant and Sons Ltd v Glen Catrine Bonded Warehouse Ltd OHCS 11-May-1999
The test for passing off is objective, and not dependant upon the intention of the defendant. Is it reasonably foreseeable that confusion would arise? A close similarity of the market also affected the issue. . .
Cited – Gleneagles Hotels Limited v Quillco 100 Limited Toni Antoniou SCS 1-Apr-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.263965
