Perry v Truefitt: CA 8 Dec 1842

The court considered the nature of the tort of passing off. ‘I think that the principle on which both the courts of law and of equity proceed, in granting relief and protection in cases of this sort, is very well understood. A man is not to sell his own goods under the pretence that they are the goods of another man; he cannot be permitted to practice such a deception, nor to use the means which contribute to that end. He cannot therefore be allowed to use names, marks, letters, or other indicia, by which he may induce purchasers to believe, that the goods which he is selling are the manufacture of another person. I own it does not seem to me that a man can acquire property in a name or mark; but whether he has or not a property in the name or mark, I have no doubt that another person has not the right to use that name or mark for the purposes of deception, and in order to attract to himself the course of trade, or that custom, which without the improper act, would have flowed to the person who first used, or was alone in the habit of using the particular name or mark.’
Lord Langdale MR
(1842) 49 ER 749, (1842) 6 Beav 66, [1842] EngR 1167, (1842) 6 Beav 66, (1842) 49 ER 749
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedInter Lotto (UK) Limited v Camelot Group Plc ChD 6-Jun-2003
The claimant asserted that the defendant had infringed its goodwill in the name ‘Hot Picks’ the defendant argued that it was licensed to use the mark by the person who applied for its registration as a trade mark, and that the claim in passing off . .
CitedErven Warnink Besloten Vennootschap v J Townend and Sons (Hull) Limited (‘Advocaat’) HL 1979
The trademark was the name of a spirit-based product called ADVOCAAT. The product had gained a reputation and goodwill for that name in the English market and the defendants were seeking to take advantage of that name by misrepresenting that their . .
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 . .
See AlsoPerry v Truefitt 5-Jul-1844
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.183303