Irvine v Talksport Ltd
A celebrity can sue in passing off where a business falsely suggests that he has endorsed its product, if he has a significant reputation and the endorsement is likely to be believed.
Facts
Eddie Irvine was a well known Formula One racing driver. Talksport, a radio station, produced a promotional brochure, sent to advertisers, which included a photograph of Mr Irvine that had been altered to show him holding a radio with the word Talk Radio on it, suggesting that he endorsed the station. He had not agreed to endorse it. He sued for passing off.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of passing off, and increased the damages to £25,000, the fee that Mr Irvine would have charged for an endorsement. Jonathan Parker LJ said that, to succeed in a claim for false endorsement, the claimant must show that at the time of the acts complained of he had a significant reputation or goodwill, and that the actions of the defendant gave rise to a false message which would be understood by a not insignificant section of his market that his goods have been endorsed, recommended or are approved of by the claimant. Mr Irvine had such a reputation, and the brochure conveyed a false message of endorsement.
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
- Harrods Ltd v Harrodian School Ltd [1996] RPC 697
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.
