Taittinger SA v Allbev Ltd (Elderflower Champagne)
Selling a non alcoholic drink called Elderflower Champagne was passing off, because it would erode the distinctiveness of the name champagne, even though no one would confuse the drinks.
Facts
Allbev sold a non alcoholic drink made from elderflowers, called Elderflower Champagne, in bottles resembling champagne bottles, at a low price. The champagne producers sued for passing off. The trial judge accepted that there was a misrepresentation, but held that there was no real likelihood of serious damage to the champagne producers.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal granted an injunction. Peter Gibson LJ said that, although few people would think that Elderflower Champagne was genuine champagne, some would think that it was connected with champagne, and that allowing it to be sold under that name would erode the exclusivity and distinctiveness of the name champagne, which would cause damage to the goodwill of the champagne producers. Sir Thomas Bingham MR said that the damage was the gradual debasement, dilution or erosion of the name's distinctiveness.
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.
