The plaintiffs manufactured sewing machines, and had trade marked their name. The defendant imported machines which they sold as using the Singer system. The retailers they sold to were not led to think that the machines had been manufactured by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs nevertheless sought an injunction.
Held: Even where a party is not himself passing-off, an injunction might be granted when fraudulent use was intended, or when the name was inherently deceptive, and the name readily and easily lent itself to such a fraud. ‘It was contended, that the acts of the defendant enabled his wholesale customers to shew these documents to their own retail customers, for the purpose of passing off the goods bought from the defendant as the plaintiffs’ manufacture. The answer is, that, unless the documents were fabricated with a view to such a fraudulent use of them, or unless they were in themselves of such a nature as to suggest, or readily and easily lend themselves to, such a fraud, (which in my opinion they were not), the supposed consequence is too remote, speculative, and improbable to be imputed to the defendant, or to be a ground for the interference of a court of justice with the course of the defendant’s business. There is no evidence that, in point of fact, any such use was ever made of them. The ‘directions for use’ spoke unmistakably of ‘Frister and Rossmann’s shuttle sewing machine;’ and no one, however careless, could read, in that document, the words ‘on Singer’s improved system’ without seeing and understanding their context.’
Judges:
Lord Selborne LC
Citations:
(1882) 8 App Cas l5
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Singer Manufacturing Co v Loog CA 1880
The defendant wholesalers imported sewing machines from Germany which they sold using documents which referred to the machines as using the Singer system. The word Singer was a trade mark of the plaintiffs. The retailers were told that the machines . .
Cited by:
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: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.239048