The "tort of passing off" is akin to a protector against deceit in the
commercial sector. Consider a scenario in which a business attempts to pass for
another, leading to client misunderstanding. This legal idea intervenes to put
an end to these deceptive games. It all comes down to safeguarding a business's
excellent name and ensuring that confusing names or symbols aren't used by other
parties. Thus, when we delve into the realm of passing off, we'll discover the
guidelines that maintain companies' integrity and fairness in the marketplace.
The "tort of passing off" is fundamentally about protecting the reputation and
goodwill of a corporation or commercial enterprise. Preserving the integrity of
the market by preventing unfair commercial practices is its main goal. In doing
so, this legal idea protects consumers' interests while simultaneously providing
corporations with protection against dishonest practices.
The justification is
obvious: customers should have transparency and clarity when making decisions.
Therefore, the law intervenes to make sure that companies don't engage in
deceptive tactics, prohibiting any kind of deception that can mistakenly lead or
hurt customers. Essentially, passing off becomes essential to preserving an
honest and reliable business climate that benefits companies as well as the
people they serve.
The difference between Tort of Passing off and Intellectual Property Rights is
clear. The former seeks to prevent the misuse of established commercial goodwill
by a third party while the other seeks to protect parents, trademarks and deals
with their infringement.
The house of lords in a case of AG Spalding and brothers v. AW carnage had laid
down 5 essentials of tort of passing off:
Onus of Proof:
- There has to be a mis-representation.
- Mis-representation is made by a trader during or in the course of business.
- The representation is made to the consumer or potential consumers or ultimate consumers of goods or services supplied by him.
- The misrepresentation is calculated to injure the business or goodwill of another trader.
- The mis-representation causes actual damage to his business or commercial goodwill or will probably do so in due course.
It is the plaintiff's responsibility to provide evidence in support of their
claims when they bring a tortious action, particularly when it comes to passing
off. In order to prevail in this court of law, the plaintiff needs to provide
strong proof on three important points. First and foremost, they need to
demonstrate and establish their commercial goodwill or the unique commercial
representation linked to their products or services. This means demonstrating
the stellar reputation and distinctive brand they have established in the
Second, the plaintiff needs to provide strong evidence that the defendant misled
the public into thinking that the goods or services the defendant was offering
were actually provided by the plaintiff. When a plaintiff brings a tortious
action, especially one involving passing off, it is their duty to present
evidence to bolster their claims. This component focuses on presenting examples
of how the defendant's conduct have led to misunderstandings or made it
difficult to distinguish between the two organizations.
Finally, the plaintiff must demonstrate a clear connection between the
harm�actual or potential�suffered and the defendant's deception. This entails
offering verifiable proof of the harm done or establishing a reasonable chance
that the dishonest actions may cause harm in the future. Essentially, the
plaintiff must carefully demonstrate each of these interrelated components in
order to establish a strong case if they are to successfully pursue a claim for
the tort of passing off.
Difference between Infringement of intellectual property rights and action for
tort of passing off:
IPR may be infringed without any misrepresentation being made whereas for the
thought of passing off misrepresentation is the essence of the action.
For claiming IPR protection when has to be registered under different
intellectual property laws or fulfil the prerequisites of infringement actions
as given under provision but in case of passing of only proof of established
Goodwill or reputation is enough.
Imitation as to design is actionable under intellectual property laws but for a
tortious action of passing of the act should be such as to cause actual loss or
Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd and others v. Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd
- J. Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd. v. Erven Warnink B.V.
A significant ruling by the House of Lords expanded the tort of passing off
in the Advocaat case. Townend, according to Warnink, was passing off a
liquor that looked identical as "Advocaat." Under the direction of Lord
Diplock, the court developed standards for extended passing off, approving
claims that went beyond conventional geographic markers.
Among the five requirements is deceiving potential clients about products or
services in the course of business with the intention of hurting the
business of another dealer and causing real injury. By extending the
protection of passing off beyond geographic designations, this ruling
expanded the reach of passing off laws.
The plaintiff was granted an injunction by the court to restrict the
defendant for the following reasons:
Because the injunction was descriptive, the Court of Appeal lifted it. Later,
the Privilege Council recognized the trial court's decision because it was
unique and earned goodwill.
- In England, the term "advocaat" refers to a particular and identifiable type of
- Plaintiff has gained respect and credibility for the goods.
- There is no true association between the defendant's product and the brand
- Customers are tricked into purchasing the defendant's product under the false
impression that it is one made by the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff has suffered harm from the misrepresentation and will continue to
suffer harm from it.
- Passing off aims to preserve distinctiveness, whereas the word advocate is
descriptive rather than distinctive.
- Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v. Borden Inc
The classic House of Lords ruling on passing off is the Jif Lemon case. The
plaintiff, Reckitt, sold lemon juice under the brand name "Jif Lemon" in a
unique lemon-shaped container. A comparable product was produced by rival Borden
in a somewhat bigger lemon-shaped jar. The court used the three-part passing-off
test and supported Reckitt's claim. Lord Oliver emphasized three elements:
proving real or probable harm resulting from the false belief; establishing
goodwill; and proving the defendant's deception likely to confuse the public.
The ruling upheld how crucial it is to safeguard a product's uniqueness in the
In this instance, the claimants used a massive and incredibly successful radio
and television advertising campaign to launch a new canned lemon drink called
"Solo." The defendants debuted a comparable product, "Pub Squash," the next year
and ran radio and television commercials with strikingly similar content,
including slogans. The court was willing to concede that this kind of behavior
might be considered passing off.
The court was unable to determine if there had been a specific misrepresentation
that would have led the public to believe that the products belonged to the
claimants, which is why the case itself failed. There was no chance that the
general public would be misled into believing that the two goods were