Niblett Ltd v Confectioners' Materials Co Ltd
A seller who sells goods that infringe a third party's trade mark is in breach of the implied condition that he has the right to sell them.
Facts
Niblett bought 3,000 tins of condensed milk from an American company. When the tins arrived in England, they had labels with the brand name Nissly. Nestlé, which owned the trade mark Nestlé, claimed that the labels infringed its trade mark, and the customs authorities detained the tins. Niblett had to remove the labels and sell the tins without them, at a lower price. Niblett sued the sellers for damages.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the sellers were in breach of the implied condition that they had the right to sell the goods. Scrutton LJ said that a seller who sells goods which can be stopped by a third party because they infringe a trade mark has no right to sell them, because the buyer could be prevented by legal process from selling them. The sellers were also in breach of the implied warranty of quiet possession, and the goods were not of merchantable quality, because they could not be sold in their labelled form.
Related cases on implied terms: title, description, quality and fitness
- Arcos Ltd v EA Ronaasen & Son [1933] AC 470
- Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] AC 441
- Aswan Engineering Establishment Co v Lupdine Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 1
- Beale v Taylor [1967] 1 WLR 1193
- Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] AC 85
- Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd [1939] 1 All ER 685
- Harlingdon & Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd [1991] 1 QB 564
- Henry Kendall & Sons v William Lillico & Sons Ltd [1969] 2 AC 31
Studying commercial 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.
