The court considered whether a mere reputation, wihout customers, was sufficient to base a claim for passing off.
Held: The plaintiff’s advertising campaign in respect of a proposed new newspaper called ‘Belgravia’ with a view to imminent publication did not give him any right to enjoin the defendant from publishing a newspaper with the same name.
Turner LJ acknowledged the inconvenience to a plaintiff who had not even used the mark being able to restrain someone else from doing so, but said that the plaintiff had ‘neither given, nor come under any obligation to give, anything to the world; so that there is a total want of consideration for the right which he claims’.
Cairns LJ explained that the plaintiff had no ‘right of property’ for which he could claim protection, as ‘there has been no sale, or offering for sale, of the articles to which the name is to be attached’.
Judges:
Turner LJ, Cairns LJ
Citations:
(1867) 2 Ch App 307, (1867) 36 LJ Ch 433
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Starbucks (HK) Ltd and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked whether, as the appellants contended, a claimant who is seeking to maintain an action in passing off need only establish a reputation among a significant section of the public within the jurisdiction, or whether, as the courts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.566008
