This article needs additional citations for verification. (November 2024) |
Frank Reddaway Ltd. v. George Banham, [1896] A.C. 199 is a landmark decision of the UK House of Lords on the tort of passing off. The Court held that purely descriptive product names such as "camel hair belting" can acquire secondary meaning, and consequently, is protected from passing off.[citation needed]
Frank Reddaway made machine belting which he sold under the name "Camel Hair Belting" for many years. George Banham was a former employee of Reddaway who left to start his own business manufacturing machine belting which he also later called "Camel Hair Belting".[1]
Legal proceedings
editReddaway sued Banham for passing off. He argued that there was a large portion of the public who recognized the name "Camel Hair Belting" as his product. He was also able to demonstrate that there were people who were getting the products confused.[citation needed] The case went to a jury trial in Manchester in 1894.[1]
The Court of Appeal in 1895 held that the name was merely descriptive and so could not be protected.
The House of Lords overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal in 1896. Lord Herschell held that the words had acquired a secondary meaning through its broad notoriety, and that the public clearly associated the name "Camel Hair Belting" with the exact product produced by Reddaway. Lord Herschell stated:
- I cannot help saying that, if the defendants are entitled to lead purchasers to believe that they are getting the plaintiffs' manufacture when they are not, and thus to cheat the plaintiffs of some of their legitimate trade, I should regret to find that the law was powerless to enforce the most elementary principles of commercial morality.'
See also
editReferences
edit- ^ a b "Reddaway v Banham [1896] AC 199 | Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law". www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk. University of Cambridge. Retrieved 16 November 2024.
This case law article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |