A company which originally made and sold a food mixer in the United Kingdom called a ‘Turmix’, under licence from the Swiss developer, continued after revocation of the licence to make and sell a similar mixer under a different name, ‘Magimix’.
Held: The mark in dispute was not distinctive of the foreign licensor and the attempt to prevent its use by the UK licensee after the termination of the licence failed. The House approved the statement of Jenkins LJ at the Court of Appeal that it was ‘of course essential to the success of any claim in respect of passing-off based on the use of a given mark or get-up that the plaintiff should be able to show that the disputed mark or get-up has become by user in this country distinctive of the plaintiff’s goods’, and dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal.
[1959] RPC 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – T Oertli AG v EJ Bowman (London) Ltd CA 1957
The Swiss plaintiff had sold 50 machines in England and exhibited them at one exhibition. They claimed in passing off.
Held: Such evidence fell ‘far short’ of proof that the word ‘Turmix’ had become distinctive in England of machines of the . .
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.
Updated: 23 August 2021; Ref: scu.566004 br>