Passing Off Counterfeit Goods
Passing off is a common law tort used to enforce unregistered trademark rights. It protects the goodwill and reputation of a trader from misrepresentation by another party, which leads to damage or potential damage. Passing off arises where one party misleads the public into believing that their goods or services are those of another, usually by using a similar mark, trade name, packaging, or overall getup.
Key Elements of Passing Off:
Goodwill or Reputation: The plaintiff must prove that their goods or services have acquired goodwill or reputation in the market.
Misrepresentation: The defendant must have made a misrepresentation to the public (whether intentional or not) leading to confusion.
Damage: The plaintiff must demonstrate that they suffered or are likely to suffer damage due to the misrepresentation.
When counterfeit goods are involved, passing off becomes a vital legal weapon since counterfeiters often produce goods imitating the brand to deceive consumers and unfairly benefit from the established goodwill.
Important Case Laws on Passing Off of Counterfeit Goods
1. Erven Warnink BV v. J. Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd. (The Advocaat Case) [1979] AC 731 (HL)
Facts: Erven Warnink produced a liqueur called "Advocaat." Townend started selling a similar product with the same name, causing confusion.
Issue: Whether Townend’s use constituted passing off.
Held: The House of Lords expanded the traditional passing off to include “extended passing off” which protects not only trademarks but also the product's reputation itself. This case broadened the scope to protect a product's goodwill beyond just a trademark.
Significance: Established that goodwill and misrepresentation extend beyond registered marks, protecting the product’s nature and reputation.
2. Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v. Borden Inc. (The Jif Lemon Case) [1990] 1 WLR 491
Facts: Reckitt marketed lemon juice in a distinctive lemon-shaped plastic container. Borden used a similar container.
Issue: Whether Borden’s packaging constituted passing off.
Held: The court ruled that the shape and packaging of the product were distinctive enough to represent goodwill and Borden's act was passing off.
Significance: Shows that passing off extends to packaging and getup, not just names or marks.
3. Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v. Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 375 (High Court of Australia)
Facts: Pub Squash sold a soft drink named “Pub Clear,” in a packaging and style closely resembling Cadbury’s “Pub Squash.”
Issue: Passing off by confusing similarity.
Held: The court held that Pub Squash had misrepresented its product leading to likely confusion.
Significance: Reinforces the protection of product identity and the prevention of misrepresentation in packaging.
4. Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. Ramdass Jhaveri (1965 AIR SC 845) (India)
Facts: Godfrey Phillips claimed that Ramdass Jhaveri was selling cigarettes with packaging deceptively similar to their brand.
Issue: Whether the similarity in packaging amounted to passing off.
Held: The Supreme Court of India held in favor of Godfrey Phillips, affirming the protection against passing off even in absence of trademark registration.
Significance: Important Indian case establishing passing off for counterfeit goods and protecting the goodwill of established brands.
5. Daimler AG v. Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. (Great Britain) Ltd. [1916] 2 AC 307 (HL)
Facts: Continental Tyre used the mark "Mercedes" on its tires, which was a registered trademark of Daimler.
Issue: Whether use of "Mercedes" without authorization amounted to passing off and trademark infringement.
Held: The court found that using "Mercedes" without authorization was passing off and infringement.
Significance: Early important case on passing off and counterfeit goods.
6. C.K. Modi v. M/s. K.R. Entertainers and Ors. AIR 1998 Delhi 338
Facts: Plaintiff alleged that the defendants were selling counterfeit goods imitating his brand and packaging.
Issue: Passing off and relief against counterfeit goods.
Held: The Delhi High Court granted injunctions against defendants, highlighting the importance of preventing misrepresentation through counterfeit goods.
Significance: Indian case reiterating the courts’ stance against counterfeit goods and passing off.
7. Tata Sons Ltd. v. Manoj Dodia & Ors. AIR 2015 Bom 13
Facts: Tata Sons sued for passing off and counterfeit goods when unauthorized parties used the Tata logo and name.
Issue: Whether defendants’ use amounted to passing off.
Held: Bombay High Court upheld Tata Sons’ rights and injunction was granted.
Significance: Shows application of passing off against counterfeiters exploiting brand reputation.
Summary
Passing off protects the goodwill attached to a brand or product against misrepresentation leading to confusion among consumers. This principle is especially critical in the fight against counterfeit goods, which imitate genuine products to deceive consumers and unfairly exploit the brand’s reputation.
The goodwill attached to a product or brand must be shown.
Misrepresentation must lead to confusion among consumers.
Damage or potential damage to the plaintiff’s business must be established.
Counterfeit goods commonly violate all these elements, making passing off a powerful tool to prevent unfair competition and protect consumer interests.
RELATED Blog
0 comments