Skip to main content

The Law of Passing Off – Goodwill Beyond Goods

Abstract

Claimants in England have no specific right to object to third party use of their personal identities. Where the fact scenarios appear to fit, claimants have brought actions under the law of passing off. The House of Lords once declared the English law of passing off as the “most protean” among unfair trading wrongs for traders who suffer a resulting loss of business or goodwill. Until the recent cases of Irvine v. Talksport and Fenty v. Arcadia Group Brands Limited, such claimants have not been successful. Has the law been rendered more protean with the recent extensions to cover, in these two cases respectively, false endorsement claims and false merchandising claims? This work takes a bifurcated view of the concept of goodwill to show that throughout the development of the English law of passing off, claimants are concerned with the protection not only of their trade at hand, and with distinguishing it from that of rival traders. Above all, claimants are concerned with the protection of their control over the aspect of their goodwill which garners their trade going forward. By increasingly taking a contextual approach in appreciating the public understanding of branding practices and applying it within the doctrinal framework of the law to address the claimants’ fundamental concerns, the courts are treating the law of passing off with coherence and yet with relevance to contemporary commercial and social practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Diplock LJ, Erven Warnink Besloten Vennootschap v. J Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd, [1979] AC 731 (HL), p. 740.

  2. 2.

    Perry v. Truefitt, (1842) 5 Beav 66, 49 ER 749 (Ch); Oliver LJ, Reckitt and Colman Products Limited v. Borden Inc, [1990] 1 WLR 491 (HL), p. 499. For simplicity, ‘goods’ hereafter includes services, unless the context indicates or implies otherwise.

  3. 3.

    Irvine v. Talksport, [2002] 1 WLR 2355 (Ch), pp. 2361–2363, paras. 18–21.

  4. 4.

    Ibid, p. 2366, para 34; Fenty v. Arcadia Group Brands Limited, [2015] 1 WLR 3291 (CA), p. 3300, para. 33; Starbucks (HK) Ltd v. British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc, [2015] 1 WLR 2628 (SC), p. 2635, para. 21.

  5. 5.

    See text to infra notes 156–157.

  6. 6.

    See for example Walsh (2013), de Landa Barajas (2009), Vaver (2006), Klink (2003).

  7. 7.

    Supra note 3; affirmed on merit [2003] 2 All ER 881 (CA). See also text to infra notes 108–117.

  8. 8.

    [2014] IP & T 827 (Ch); affirmed [2015] 1 WLR 3291 (CA). See also text to infra notes 140–152.

  9. 9.

    Laddie J, Irvine (Ch), supra note 3, p. 2368, para 39; see also Fenty (CA), ibid, p. 3303, para 38.

  10. 10.

    See for example Starbucks (HK) Ltd (SC), supra note 4, p. 2633, para 15.

  11. 11.

    Reckitt and Colman Products Limited, supra note 2, p. 406.

  12. 12.

    Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Muller & Co’s Margarine Ltd, [1901] AC 217, p. 224, also cited in Breyer Group Plc v. Department of Energy and Climate Change, [2015] 1 WLR 4559 (CA), pp. 4576–4577, para. 44. See also text at infra notes 66–75.

  13. 13.

    Trade Marks Act 1994, Sec. 2(2). See for example Arsenal v. Reed, [2001] RPC 46 (Ch) where claims were filed under both the law of passing off and Trade Marks Act 1994; the claim for passing off failed, while the claim for trade mark infringement was referred to the ECJ. On the passing off claim, see text at infra notes 132–138. See also Ni Shuilleabhain (2003).

  14. 14.

    Trade Marks Act 1994, preamble; Council Directive No 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988; now Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 (‘TMD’). See also infra note 22.

  15. 15.

    Trade Marks Act 1994, Sec. 2.

  16. 16.

    Starbucks (HK) Ltd (SC), supra note 4, p. 2635 para. 21; Irvine (Ch), supra note 3, p. 2366, paras. 32–34. See also infra note 41.

  17. 17.

    Trade Marks Act 1994, Sec. 10(1) in relation to TMD, Art. 5(1)(a).

  18. 18.

    Trade Marks Act 1994, Sec. 10(3) in relation to TMD, Art. 5(2).

  19. 19.

    Trade Marks Act 1994, Sec. 10(2) in relation to TMD, Art. 5(1)(b).

  20. 20.

    See for example regarding double identity: C-206/01 Arsenal Football Club Plc v. Reed, [2003] Ch 454 (CJEU), p. 460, para. 27; C-323/09 Interflora Inc v. Marks & Spencer Plc, [2012] Bus LR 1440 (CJEU), pp. 1146–1147, para. 20, p. 1148, paras. 27, 28; Senftleben (2014); regarding dilution C-487/07 L’Oréal v. Bellure [2010] Bus LR 303 (CJEU), p. 314, para. 30; C-408/01 Adidas Salomon AG v. Fitnessworld Trading Ltd, [2004] Ch 120 (CJEU), p. 123, para. 12; see also Kur (2014), Dinwoodie (2014).

  21. 21.

    See for example Arsenal Football Club Plc (CJEU), ibid, pp. 466–468, paras. 48–51; C-323/09 Interflora Inc v. Marks & Spencer Plc, supra, note 20, pp. 1449–1454, paras. 34–66, C-487/07 L’Oréal (CJEU), ibid, p. 322, paras. 58, 60.

  22. 22.

    Blythe (2015), Kur (2014), Senftleben (2014), Dupont (2013), Cornthwaite (2012), Chronopoulos (2011), Yap (2009). See also Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Recast), p. L336/3, preamble paras. 16, 18–20; Senftleben et al. (2015).

  23. 23.

    Raz (2009). He is not the only author to have advanced some of the ideas here; see most notably Hart (2012), Dworkin (1998). Earlier edition or printing of these works (among others) is referred to in Raz (2009), for example respective note 5 at p. 19 and note 14 at p. 34 therein. See also Balganesh and Parchomovsky (2015), Brudner (2013), MacCormick (2005).

  24. 24.

    See for example Wolter et al (2016), Breazeale and Fournier (2012, p. 404), Edvardsson et al (2011).

  25. 25.

    Raz (2009, pp. 136–137) (footnote omitted).

  26. 26.

    Ibid, pp. 7, 110, 137–142.

  27. 27.

    Ibid, p. 152.

  28. 28.

    Ibid, p. 112.

  29. 29.

    Ibid, p. 106.

  30. 30.

    Ibid, p. 342.

  31. 31.

    Ibid, pp. 178–181, 192–193, 342, 346–348.

  32. 32.

    Ibid, pp. 99–115.

  33. 33.

    Schwarzkopf (2010, pp. 165–166).

  34. 34.

    Ibid, pp. 173–176 (references omitted). See also Davis and Maniatis (2010), p. 124.

  35. 35.

    Corporate Design Foundation (2006–2007).

  36. 36.

    See for example issued to McDonald’s International Property Company, Ltd Trade Mark UK00001285808 for Class 43 for restaurant services http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00001285808 accessed 28 March 2016; Trade Mark UK00001115186 for Class 16 which includes printed matter; paper and cardboard products, and Class 28 for games (other than ordinary playing cards), toys, and playthings http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00001115186 accessed 28 March 2016; Trade Mark UK00001044476 for Class 30 which includes coffee, tea, sandwiches, and seasonings http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00001044476 accessed 28 March 2016; Trade Mark UK00001026605 for Class 29 for hamburgers, cheeseburgers, French fried potatoes, milk, milkshakes, and cooked chicken http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00001026605 accessed 28 March 2016.

  37. 37.

    Schmitt (2012).

  38. 38.

    Light and Kiddon (2009), p. 137.

  39. 39.

    Supra note 28.

  40. 40.

    Douglas and Isherwood (1979), p. 81. See also Bourdieu (1991), pp. 220, 223–224.

  41. 41.

    Inland Revenue Commissioners, supra note 12, p. 224 “[goodwill] is the one thing which distinguishes an old-established business from a new business at its first start. … goodwill is worth nothing unless it has power of attraction sufficient to bring customers home to the source from which it emanates.” See also, for example Irvine (Ch), supra note 3, pp. 2369–2370, para. 46.

  42. 42.

    See also Vaver (2006).

  43. 43.

    Hale (2013).

  44. 44.

    Rome, 4 XI 1950.

  45. 45.

    Arts. 7, 17, and 11, respectively. See also Griffiths (2015), Geiger (2009).

  46. 46.

    Starbucks (HK) Ltd v. British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc, [2014] IP & T 128 (CA), p. 147, para. 103, affirmed (SC) supra note 4.

  47. 47.

    Perry, supra note 2, pp. 73, 752.

  48. 48.

    Hall v. Barrows, (1863) 4 De Gex, Jones & Smith 150, 46 ER 873 (Ch); Edelsten v. Edelsten, (1863) 1 De Gex Jones & Smith 185, 46 ER 72 (QB).

  49. 49.

    Perry, supra note 2, pp. 73, 752.

  50. 50.

    (1848) 11 Beav 112, 50 ER 759 (Ch).

  51. 51.

    Ibid, pp. 119, 762.

  52. 52.

    For example Hogg v. Maxwell, (1866–67) LR 2 Ch App 307, p. 310; Springhead Spinning Company v. Riley, (1868) LR 6 Eq 551; Dixon v. Holden, (1868–69) LR 7 Eq 488; Walter v. Ashton, [1902] 2 Ch 282.

  53. 53.

    Seldon LJ in obiter, Re Rivière’s Trade-mark (1884) 26 ChD 48 (CA), p. 53.

  54. 54.

    See Sherman and Bently (1999), pp. 166–172.

  55. 55.

    Bently (2008), pp. 16–27. See also Trade Marks Registration Act, 1875, Sec. 3.

  56. 56.

    Hall, supra note 48, pp. 156, 876.

  57. 57.

    Ibid, 159, 877; see also The Leather Cloth Company v. The American Leather Cloth Company, Limited, (1863) 4 De Gex, Jones & Smith 137, 46 ER 868 (Ch).

  58. 58.

    Hall, supra note 48, pp. 159, 877; later Singer v. Loog, (1882) LR 8 (HL), pp. 13, 39. See also Irvine (Ch), supra note 3, p. 2361, para. 18.

  59. 59.

    Webster v. Webster, (1791) 2 Swans 492, 36 ER 949 (Ch).

  60. 60.

    Hall, supra note 48, pp. 158–159, 877; The Leather Cloth Company (Ch), supra note 57, pp. 142, 144, 870–871.

  61. 61.

    Edelsten, supra note 48, p. 201; Hall, supra note 48, pp. 876–877, 157–159; The Leather Cloth Company (Ch), supra note 57, affirmed (1865) XI HL 523, 11 ER 1435 (Lord Westbury); M’Andrew v. Bassett, (1864) 4 De Gex, Jones & Smith 380, 46 ER 965 (Ch); Wotherspoon v. Currie, (1871–72) LR 5 (HL) 508, p. 522.

  62. 62.

    The Leather Cloth Company (HL), ibid, pp. 533–534, 1440.

  63. 63.

    See for example Wedderburn v. Wedderburn (No. 4), (1856) 22 Beav 84, 52 ER 1039 (Ch); Churton v. Douglas, (1859) VC Johnson 174, 70 ER 385 (Ch); Lord Cranworth, The Leather Cloth Company (HL), ibid, p. 533, 1440; Wadlow (2011), pp. 23–24, paras. 1–037, pp. 32–33, 1–048, Bone (2006), pp. 569–570, McKenna (2006–2007), p. 1886.

  64. 64.

    See supra note 55.

  65. 65.

    (1915) 32 RPC 273 (HL) 284–285.

  66. 66.

    Inland Revenue Commissioners, supra note 12.

  67. 67.

    Ibid; Wedderburn, supra note 63.

  68. 68.

    First Protocol to the ECHR art 1 (Paris, 20 III 1952); Sermet (1998); Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000/C 364/01) art 17; DaimlerChrysler AB v. Javid Alavi, [2001] RPC 42, p. 813 (Ch), pp. 847–848, paras. 107–109; Boehringer Ingelheim Limited v. Vetplus Limited, [2007] Bus LR 1456 (CA), p. 4165, para. 37.

  69. 69.

    R (Nicholds) v. Security Industry Authority, [2006] EWHC 1792 [2007] WLR 2067 (Admin), pp. 2085–2086, paras. 71–73.

  70. 70.

    C-154/04 and C-155/04 R (On the Application of Alliance for Natural Health and Another) v. Secretary of State for Health, [2005] 2 CMLR 61, 1490 (ECJ (Grand Chamber)), p. 1535, para. 128; C-210/03 Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match UK v. Secretary of State for Health, [2004] ECR I-11893 (ECJ (Grand Chamber)), para. 78.

  71. 71.

    Anheuser-Busch Inc v. Portugal 73049/01, [2007] ETMR 24, 23 BHRC 307 (ECtHR (Grand Chamber)) in respect of a trade mark application; R (Countryside Alliance and others) v. Attorney General [2007] UKHL 52; [2008] 1 AC 719 (HL), p. 747, para. 21, the issue was not considered at ECtHR in 16072/06 Friend v. UK, 27809/08 Countryside Alliance v. UK, (2010) 50 EHRR SE6 61 (ECtHR), p. 78, para. 55; R (Guildhall College Ltd) v. Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills, [2014] EWCA Civ 986 WL 3387837 (CA), p. 14, paras. 70, 72; R (Malik) v. Waltham Forest NHS Primary Care Trust, [2007] EWCA Civ 265,1 WLR 2092 (CA), Auld LJ – pp. 2097–2101, paras. 21–29, p. 2013, para. 40, p. 2015, para. 45, Rix LJ – pp. 2107–2114, paras. 54–75, affirmed 23780/08 Malik v. UK, [2012] ECtHR 438.

  72. 72.

    R (Nicholds), supra note 69, p. 2086, para. 73.

  73. 73.

    Bhasin (2012).

  74. 74.

    Inland Revenue Commissioners, supra note 12, also cited in Breyer Group Plc v. Department of Energy and Climate Change, supra note 12, p. 4576–4577, para. 44.

  75. 75.

    R (Malik)(CA), supra note 71, p. 2116, para. 86, cf Anheuser-Busch Inc, supra note 71, Caflisch and Cabral Baretto JJ dissent – p. 331, para. 3: that clientele and reputation are rights and interests protected by law in respect of the legitimate expectation created by the filing of a trade mark application. See also Breyer Group Plc, supra note 12, p. 4576, para. 43.

  76. 76.

    The Leather Cloth Company (HL), supra note 61, pp. 533–534, 1440; see also text to supra note 62.

  77. 77.

    AG Spalding, supra note 65.

  78. 78.

    Erven Warnink Besloten Vennootschap, supra note 1; Dawnay Day & Co Ltd v. Cantor Fitzgerald International, [2000] RPC 669 (CA): Fage UK Limited v. Chobani UK Limited, [2014] FSR 29 (CA).

  79. 79.

    See also Schwarzkopf (2010), pp. 183–188, Davis and Maniatis (2010), pp. 121, 124–125.

  80. 80.

    Lury (2007), pp. 10, 18, referencing (Appadurai 1986).

  81. 81.

    See also Radin (1981–1982), pp. 986–988, 1007–1013.

  82. 82.

    See supra note 36; for example with Hasbro http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/content/dam/McDonaldsUK/Promotions/Happy%20Meal/Hasbro%20Family%20Games/Hasbro-Keeko-Colouring-Sheet.pdf. Accessed 28 March 2016.

  83. 83.

    See http://www.rmhc.org.uk/. Accessed 28 March 2016.

  84. 84.

    [1947] 2 All ER 845 (Ch).

  85. 85.

    Ibid, p. 851.

  86. 86.

    Annabel’s (Berkeley Square) Limited v. G Schock, [1972] FSR 261 (CA), p. 269 – not a merchandising case.

  87. 87.

    Wombles Limited v. Wombles Skips Limited, [1975] FSR 488 (Ch), pp. 490–491.

  88. 88.

    Tavener Rutledge Limited v. Trexapalm Limited, [1975] FSR 479 (Ch), p. 485.

  89. 89.

    Lyngstad v. Anabas Products Ltd, [1977] FSR 62 (Ch), p. 67.

  90. 90.

    Ibid, p. 68.

  91. 91.

    Annabel’s (Berkeley Square) Limited, supra note 86.

  92. 92.

    Mirage Studios v. Counter-Feat Clothing Co Ltd, [1991] FSR 145 (Ch), p. 148.

  93. 93.

    Ibid, p. 150.

  94. 94.

    Ibid, p. 155.

  95. 95.

    Ibid, p. 157.

  96. 96.

    Harrods Limited v. Harrodian School Limited, [1996] RPC 697 (CA), p. 712.

  97. 97.

    For example Society of Accountants and Auditors v. Goodway and London Association of Accountants, Limited, [1907] 1 Ch 489; The Law Society of England and Wales v. Society of Lawyers, [1996] FSR 739 (Ch).

  98. 98.

    For example The Law Society of England and Wales v. Griffiths, [1995] RPC 16 (Ch) in respect of an Accident Helpline service.

  99. 99.

    The British Diabetic Association v. The Diabetic Society, [1996] FSR 1 (Ch), pp. 10–11; Artistic Upholstery Ltd v. Art Forma (Furniture Ltd), [2000] FSR 311 (Ch), p. 325, para. 48.

  100. 100.

    For example Society of Accountants and Auditors, supra note 97, p. 502; British Medical Association v. Marsh, (1931) 48 RPC 565 (Ch); National Guild of Removers & Storers Ltd v. Silveria, [2010] EWPCC 015; cf The Law Society of England and Wales, supra note 97, p. 752. See also Whitehead and Kempner (2011).

  101. 101.

    British Legion v. British Legion Club (Street) Ld, (1931) 48 RPC 555 (Ch).

  102. 102.

    Artistic Upholstery Ltd, supra note 99, p. 324, para. 45.

  103. 103.

    For example The Law Society of England and Wales, supra note 98.

  104. 104.

    British Medical Association, supra note 100; Scanlan (2003).

  105. 105.

    British Legion, supra note 101; The Law Society of England and Wales, supra note 97.

  106. 106.

    The Law Society of England and Wales, supra note 98, p. 22.

  107. 107.

    Society of Accountants and Auditors, supra note 97; British Medical Association, supra note 100; The British Diabetic Association, supra note 99; cf The Society of Architects v. Kendrick, (1910) 25 TLR 433 (Ch).

  108. 108.

    Irvine (Ch), supra note 3, p. 2362, para. 21.

  109. 109.

    Irvine (CA), supra note 7, p. 631, para. 55.

  110. 110.

    Ibid, para. 76.

  111. 111.

    Ibid, para. 49.

  112. 112.

    Ibid, para. 72.

  113. 113.

    Irvine (Ch), supra note 3, pp. 2366–2368, paras. 35–38.

  114. 114.

    Irvine (Ch), supra note 3, p. 73, para. 73; Irvine (CA), supra note 7, p. 898, paras. 81, 82.

  115. 115.

    Irvine (CA), supra note 7, pp. 903–904, paras. 111–116. Note p. 883, para. 8: Injunctive relief was not sought in this case because the distribution of the disputed advertisement had already ceased.

  116. 116.

    For example, Douglas v. Hello! Ltd [2001] QB 967 as cited in Irvine (Ch), supra note 3, p. 2379, para. 77; Campbell v. Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd, [2002] IP & T 612 (QB).

  117. 117.

    Irvine (Ch), ibid, p. 2379, para. 77.

  118. 118.

    See text to supra notes 66–75.

  119. 119.

    Friend, supra note 71, p. 73, para. 41; see 40660/08, 60641/08 Von Hannover v. Germany (No 2), [2012] EMLR 16, 332 (ECtHR (Grand Chamber)), pp. 368–369, paras. 108–113 for the criteria of balancing ECHR Arts. 8 and 10; see also Campbell v. MGN Ltd, [2004] 2 AC 457 (HL), p. 473, para. 51.

  120. 120.

    Prosser (1960), pp. 398–401; Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 428 (1970) contains a declaration on mass communication on media and human rights [C 2] also cited in Mosley v. UK, Application No. 48009/08, [2012] EMLR 1 (ECtHR), p. 18, para. 56.

  121. 121.

    Irvine (CA), supra note 7, p. 892, paras. 59–60.

  122. 122.

    Irvine (Ch), supra note 3, p. 2376, paras. 67–68, pp. 2377–2378, paras. 72–73.

  123. 123.

    Irvine (Ch), supra note 3, p. 2378, para. 74.

  124. 124.

    Spence (1996), pp. 497–498, Black (2011), pp. 113–115.

  125. 125.

    Burrell and Gangjee (2010), p. 566.

  126. 126.

    R v. Advertising Standards Authority Ltd, [2001] EMLR 22 581 (Admin Court), pp. 595–596, para. 28; Miss World Ltd v. Channel Four Television Corp, [2007] ETMR 66 1044 (Pat), p. 1054, para. 39; Mosley, supra note120, p. 31, para. 114; L’Oréal SA v. Bellure NV, [2010] RPC 23, p. 687 (CA), pp. 692–696, paras. 9–20; Fhima (2013), pp. 303–304.

  127. 127.

    Raz (2001b), Free expression and personal identification, pp. 153–160.

  128. 128.

    Ewing v. Buttercup Margarine Company, Limited, [1917] 2 Ch 1, p. 13; Clock Ltd v. Clockhouse Hotel Ltd, (1936) 53 RPC 269, p. 275; Unitex Limited v. Union Texturing Company Limited, [1972] FSR 489 (Ch) – though no injurious association was found on the facts at the motion for interlocutory injunction, affirmed [1973] FSR 181 (CA); Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd v. Alfred McAlpine Plc, [2004] EWHC 630, RPC 711 (Ch), p. 722, paras. 19–20.

  129. 129.

    Burge v. Haycock, [2001] EWCA Civ 900 [2002] RPC 28 (CA).

  130. 130.

    Unilever PLC v. Griffin, [2010] EWHC 899, FSR 33 (Ch); [2010] FSR 33; see also Wadlow (2010).

  131. 131.

    Cf Kean v. McGivan, [1982] FSR 119 (CA).

  132. 132.

    [2001] RPC 46 p. 922 (Ch).

  133. 133.

    Ibid, p. 930, para. 23.

  134. 134.

    Ibid, p. 931, para. 24.

  135. 135.

    Ibid, pp. 931–932, para. 26, pp. 933–934, para. 32.

  136. 136.

    Ibid, pp. 935–936, paras. 36–43.

  137. 137.

    Arsenal Football Club Plc v. Reed, [2003] 3 All ER 865 (CA), p. 883–884, paras. 70–71.

  138. 138.

    See for example, Wadlow (2006).

  139. 139.

    O’Byrne and Allgrove (2007).

  140. 140.

    Fenty (Ch), supra note 8, p. 836, para. 33.

  141. 141.

    Ibid, respectively p. 839, para. 46, p. 837, para. 38, and p. 837, para. 41.

  142. 142.

    Ibid, pp. 842–843, para. 63; Fenty (CA), supra note 8, pp. 3297–3298, para. 19, p. 3308, para. 52.

  143. 143.

    Fenty (Ch), supra note 8, p. 841, para. 55; Fenty (CA), supra note 8, p. 3296, para. 16, p. 3308, para. 52.

  144. 144.

    Fenty (Ch), supra note 8, p. 841, para. 56; Fenty (CA), supra note 8, pp. 3296–3299, paras. 17, 19, pp. 3307–3308, para. 51.

  145. 145.

    Fenty (CA), supra note 8, p. 3293, para. 2, p. 3298, paras. 20–21.

  146. 146.

    Fenty (Ch), supra note 8, p. 843, para. 69; Fenty (CA), supra note 8, pp. 3298–3299, paras. 20–22, pp. 3310–3311, para. 61.

  147. 147.

    Fenty (Ch), supra note 8, p. 843, para. 69.

  148. 148.

    Fenty (CA), supra note 8, pp. 3304–3307, paras. 42–47.

  149. 149.

    Harrods Limited, supra note 96, as cited in Fenty (CA), supra note 8, p. 3305, para. 45.

  150. 150.

    Fenty (CA), supra note 8, p. 3305, para. 45.

  151. 151.

    Fenty (Ch), supra note 8, p. 844, para. 74.

  152. 152.

    Fenty (Ch), supra note 8, p. 844, para. 74.

  153. 153.

    Sutherland v. V2 Music, [2002] IP & T 904 (Ch), pp. 911–912, para. 21.

  154. 154.

    See text to supra notes 82–83.

  155. 155.

    See text to supra note 38.

  156. 156.

    See text to supra note 28.

  157. 157.

    For example, with final consumers: F Hoffman-La Roche & Company AG v. DDSA Pharmaceuticals Limited, [1969] FSR 410 (CA); with suppliers: R&J Pullman Ld v. Pullman, (1919) 36 RPC 240 (Ch); Chelsea Man Menswear Limited v. Chelsea Girl Limited, [1987] RPC 189 (CA) pp. 205–206; and with sponsoring advertisers: Tamworth Herald Company Ltd v. Thomson Free Newspapers Ltd, [1991] FSR 337 (Ch); Management Publications Limited v. Blenheim Exhibitions Group Plc, [1991] FSR 550 (CA); Morgan-Grampian Plc v. Training Personnel Limited, [1992] FSR 267 (Ch); cf Plentyoffish Media Inc, [2012] RPC 5 (Ch) in the context of free website services supported by paid sponsors.

  158. 158.

    Irvine (Ch), supra note 3, p. 2360, para. 13.

  159. 159.

    Carty (2012), Wadlow (2011), pp. 2–7, paras. 1–001 – 1–009, 1–013, Carty (2010), pp. 28–37.

  160. 160.

    Irvine (Ch), supra note 3, p. 2361, para. 14.

  161. 161.

    See text to supra notes 50–53.

  162. 162.

    See text to supra notes 84–85.

  163. 163.

    Hayward (2013), Reiss (2011), pp. 189–190; see also Fhima (2013), pp. 296–297, 312, 319, Raz (2001a, b), Rights and individual well-being, p. 49.

  164. 164.

    See also Patel v. Allos Therapeutics Inc, [2008] ETMR 75 (Ch) for the need to balance between property right and the freedom of expression.

  165. 165.

    See text to supra notes 116–123.

  166. 166.

    See text to supra notes 124–131.

  167. 167.

    See text to supra notes 89–96.

References

  1. Appadurai A (1986) The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Balganesh S, Parchomovsky (2015) Structure and value in the common law. U Penn LR 163:1242–1310

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bently L (2008) The making of modern trade mark law: the construction of the legal concept of trade mark (1860–1880). In: Davis J et al (eds) Trade marks and brands. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Bhasin A (2012) Future income versus goodwill under A1P1—a distinction without a difference? JR 17(3):226–235

    Google Scholar 

  5. Black G (2011) Publicity rights and image—exploitation and legal control. Hart publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  6. Blythe A (2015) In search of Mr Average: attempting to identify the average consumer and his role within trade mark law. EIPR 37(11):709–715

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bone RG (2006) Hunting goodwill: a history of the concept of goodwill in trademark law. Boston U LR 86:547–622

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bourdieu P (1991) Identity and representation. In: Thomson JB (ed), G Raymond and M Adamson (tr) Languages and symbolic power. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA, pp. 220–228

  9. Breazeale M, Fournier S (2012) Musings and meditations: where do we go from here? In: Fournier S et al (eds) Consumer-brand relationships: theory and practice. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 395–412

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brudner A (2013) The unity of the common law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Burrell R, Gangjee D (2010) Trade marks and freedom of expression—a call for caution. IIC 41(5):544–569

    Google Scholar 

  12. Carty H (2010) An analysis of the economic torts. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Carty H (2012) Passing off: frameworks of liability debated. IPQ 2:106–122

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chronopoulos A (2011) Determining the scope of trademark rights by recourse to value judgements related to the effectiveness of competition—the demise of the trademark-use requirement and the functional analysis of trademark law. IIC 42(5):536–570

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cornthwaite J (2012) Say it with flowers: the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Interflora v. Marks & Spencer. EIPR 34(2):127–132

    Google Scholar 

  16. Corporate Design Foundation (2006–2007) Burnishing the golden arches. @Issue 12(1):8–15. http://studio-hinrichs.com/atissue/atissue_12.1.pdf. Accessed 28 March 2016

  17. Davis J, Maniatis S (2010) Trademarks, brands, and competition. In: da Silva Lopes T, Duguid P (eds) Trademarks, brands, and competitiveness. Routledge International Studies in Business History, Abingdon, pp 119–137

  18. De Landa Barajas A (2009) Personality rights in the US and the UK—is Vanna too much? Is Irvine not enough? Ent LR 20(7):253–258

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dinwoodie GB (2014) Dilution as unfair competition: European echoes. In: Dreyfuss R, Ginsburg J (eds) Intellectual property at the edge: the contested contours of IP. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 81–102

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Douglas M, Isherwood B (1979) The world of goods. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dupont J-B (2013) Uncharted territories of trade mark use. IPQ 2:139–165

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dworkin R (1998) Law’s empire. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  23. Edvardsson B et al (2011) Expanding understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: a social construction approach. J Acad Mark Sci 39(2):327–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fhima IS (2013) Trade marks and free speech. IIC 44(3):293–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Geiger C (2009) Intellectual property shall be protected!? Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: a mysterious provision with an unclear scope. EIPR 31(3):113–117

    Google Scholar 

  26. Griffiths J (2015) On the back of a cigarette packet: standardised packaging legislation and the tobacco industry’s fundamental right to (intellectual) property. IPQ 4:343–369

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hale B (2013) The protection of human rights in the United Kingdom. Oxford U Comparative L Forum 1. http://ouclf.iuscomp.org/articles/hale.shtml. Accessed 28 March 2016

  28. Hart HLA (2012) The concept of law. Clarendon Law Series, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Hayward T (2013) Human rights vs property rights. JWI Working Paper No. 2013/04. http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/129911/Tim_Hayward_JWI_Working_Paper_Human_rights_vs_property_rights.pdf. Accessed 28 March 2016

  30. Klink J (2003) 50 years of publicity rights in the United States and the never ending hassle with intellectual property and personality rights in Europe. IPQ 4:363–387

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kur A (2014) Trade marks function, don’t they? CJEU jurisprudence and unfair competition principles. IIC 45(4):434–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Light L, Kiddon J (2009) Six rules for brand revitalization—learn how companies like McDonald’s can re-energize their brands. Person Education, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lury C (2007) Consumer culture, reprint. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  34. MacCormick N (2005) Rhetoric and the rule of law—a theory of legal reasoning. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. McKenna MP (2006–2007) The normative foundations of trademark law. Notre Dame LR 82:1839–1916

  36. Ni Shuilleabhain M (2003) Common-law protection of trade marks—the continuing relevance of passing off. IIC 34(7):722–750

    Google Scholar 

  37. O’Byrne P, Allgrove B (2007) Post-sale confusion. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 2(5):315–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Prosser WL (1960) Privacy. Calif LR 48:383–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Radin MJ (1981–1982) Property and personhood. Stanford LR 34:957–1015

  40. Raz J (2001a) Rights and individual well-being. In Raz J (ed) Ethics in the public domain, revised edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 43–59

  41. Raz J (2001b) Free expression and personal identification. In: Raz J (ed) Ethics in the public domain, revised edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 146–169

  42. Raz J (2009) Between authority and interpretation—on the theory of law and practical reason. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. Reiss JW (2011) Commercializing human rights: trademarks in Europe after Anheuser-Busch v Portugal. JWIP 14(2):176–201

    Google Scholar 

  44. Scanlan G (2003) Personality, endorsement and everything: the modern law of passing off and the myth of the personality right. EIPR 25(12):563–569

    Google Scholar 

  45. Schmitt B (2012) The consumer psychology of brands. J Consumer Psychol 22:7–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Schwarzkopf S (2010) Turning trademarks into brands—how advertising agencies practiced and conceptualized branding, 1890–1930. In: da Silva Lopes T, Duguid P (eds) Trademarks, brands, and competitiveness. Routledge International Studies in Business History, Abingdon, pp 165–193

  47. Senftleben M (2014) Function theory and international exhaustion: why it is wise to confine the double identity rule in EU trade mark law to cases affecting the origin function. EIPR 36(8):518–524

    Google Scholar 

  48. Senftleben M et al (2015) The recommendation on measures to safeguard freedom of expression and undistorted competition: guiding principles for the further development of EU trade mark law. EIPR 37(6):337–343

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sermet L (1998) The European Convention on Human Rights and Property Rights. Council of Europe Publishing. http://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/DG2/HRFILES/DG2-EN-HRFILES-11(1998).pdf. Accessed 28 March 2016

  50. Sherman and Bently (1999) The making of modern intellectual property law—the British experience, 1760–1911. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  51. Spence M (1996) Passing off and the misappropriation of valuable intangibles. LQR 112:472–498

    Google Scholar 

  52. Vaver D (2006) Advertising using an individual’s image: a comparative note. LQR 122:362–369

    Google Scholar 

  53. Wadlow C (2006) One more outing for Arsenal: a case of dilution or one for restitution? JIPLP 1:143–147

    Google Scholar 

  54. Wadlow C (2010) The Marmite election. JIPLP 6(12):868–879

    Google Scholar 

  55. Wadlow C (2011) The law of passing-off: unfair competition by misrepresentation, 4th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  56. Walsh C (2013) Are personality rights finally on the UK agenda? EIPR 35(5):253–260

    Google Scholar 

  57. Whitehead B, Kempner R (2011) Can you recover money when there are no lost sales and no profits? JIPLP 6(4):216–217

    Google Scholar 

  58. Wolter JS et al (2016) Symbolic drivers of consumer-brand identification and disidentification. J Bus Res 69(2):785–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Yap PJ (2009) Essential function of a trade mark: from BMW to O2. EIPR 31(2):81–87

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper has benefitted enormously from the gracious and generous comments from (in alphabetical order) Theodoros Chiotis, Christopher Floyd, Dev Gangjee, Tamas Gyorfi, Louis Harms, the IIC editors and reviewers, Colin Mackie, David Vaver, and Sharon Wong who have reviewed early drafts of this work, and members of the audience with whom I have discussed a part of this paper at an Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre (OIPRC) seminar chaired and organised by Emily Hudson. It has also benefitted enormously from the discussions at the Oxford Trade Mark Scholars Roundtable 2015 at the OIPRC organised by Graeme Dinwoodie and Dev Gangjee. All infelicities remain mine alone. I am very grateful for the Carnegie research grant which has facilitated part of the research in this work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine W. Ng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ng, C.W. The Law of Passing Off – Goodwill Beyond Goods. IIC 47, 817–842 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-016-0510-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Passing off
  • Goodwill
  • Personality right
  • Branding
  • Instrumental value
  • Intrinsic value