Harrods v Harrodian School, 1996 RPC 697
Citation:Harrods v Harrodian School, 1996 RPC 697
Rule of thumb:Can you claim passing off against an organisation with a similar trade-mark in a different economic sector? As a general rule no – businesses are allowed to look at successful trade-marking in other sectors & copy them as a general rule - you have to prove special circumstances to make this argument.
Judgment:
Where 2 brand names are in very different sectors and only set off the loosest of connections to a small number of people then this will not allow a successful action, even if the organisation raising the claim is fairly large, ‘To date the law has not sought to protect the value of the brand name as such, but value of the goodwill which it generates; and it insists on proof of confusion to justify its intervention. But the erosion of the distinctiveness of a brand name which occurs by reason of its degeneration into common use as a generic term is not necessarily dependent on confusion at all... I have an intellectual difficulty in accepting the concept that the law insists upon the presence of both confusion and damage and yet recognises as sufficient a head of damage which does not depend upon confusion... There is no danger of “Harrods” becoming a generic term for a retail emporium in the luxury class, and if such a danger existed the use of a different name in connection with an institution of a different kind would not advance the process...’, Millett LJ at 716
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.