Harrods Ltd v Harrodian School Ltd
The use of a similar name by a business in a different field is passing off only if the public would think that the claimant was responsible for the defendant's business, which was not the case for a school.
Facts
Harrods, the department store, had previously owned a sports club, the Harrodian Club, for its staff, which it sold. The buyers used the premises to set up a private preparatory school, called the Harrodian School. Harrods sued for passing off, arguing that the public would think that the school was connected with Harrods.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held, by a majority, that there was no passing off. Millett LJ said that the misrepresentation must be such as to lead the public to believe that the claimant is responsible for the defendant's goods or services, or that there is a connection between them of a kind that would make the claimant answerable for their quality. It is not enough that the public would be reminded of the claimant, or would think that the claimant had sponsored or approved the defendant. The public would not think that Harrods was responsible for running a school, because it was not the kind of business that Harrods would run.
Related cases on passing off
- AG Spalding & Bros v AW Gamage Ltd (1915) 32 RPC 273
- British Telecommunications plc v One in a Million Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 903
- Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd [1981] 1 WLR 193
- Chocosuisse Union des Fabricants Suisses de Chocolat v Cadbury Ltd [1999] RPC 826
- Diageo North America Inc v Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd (Vodkat) [2010] EWCA Civ 920, [2011] 1 All ER 242
- Erven Warnink BV v J Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd (Advocaat) [1979] AC 731
- Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (Rihanna) [2015] EWCA Civ 3, [2015] 1 WLR 3291
- Hodgkinson & Corby Ltd v Wards Mobility Services Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 1564
Studying intellectual property law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
