Neutrogena Corporation v Golden Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date1996
CourtChancery Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
231 cases
  • Marks and Spencer Plc v Interflora Inc. (A Company Incorporated Under the laws of the State of Michigan, USA) and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 20 November 2012 be answered is a different one. This can, I think, be illustrated by two of the cases upon which Mr Silverleaf relied: Neutrogena Corporation v Golden Ltd [1996] RPC 473 and Chocosuisse Union des Fabricants Suisse de Chocolat v Cadbury Ltd [1998] RPC 27 In Neutrogena the claimant had su......
  • Merck KGaA v Xtalic Corporation
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 2019
  • Roger Maier and Another v Asos Plc and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 19 September 2013
    ...The level of confusion or deception needed to establish a case of passing off was considered by Jacob J (as he then was) in Neutrogena Corporation v Golden Limited [1996] RPC 473. Jacob J accepted the evidence of the defendant's witness in that case that although he had known of the Neutro......
  • Group Lotus Plc and Another v 1Malaysia Racing Team SDN BHD and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 27 May 2011
    ...of the split of the goodwill as being correct. 201 This is essentially a "jury question" as shown by Jacob J (as he then was) in Neutrogena v Golden [1996] RPC 473 at 202 In the Court of Appeal the legal test on deception or confusion was set out namely whether on the balance of probabilit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Are Fashion Designers Better Protected in Continental Europe than in the United Kingdom? A Comparative Analysis of the Recent Case Law in France, Italy and the United Kingdom
    • United States
    • Wiley The Journal of World Intellectual Property No. 13-3, May 2010
    • 1 May 2010
    ...RPC 5 (CA). See also Torremans (2008,pp. 459–60).197 See, for example, Harrods v R Harrod (1923) 41 RPC 74.198 See Neutrogena v Golden [1996] RPC 473 and Bently and Sherman (2009, pp. 757–8).A substantial part does not mean a majority but it must be more than de minimis.199 See Lego Systems......
  • Intellectual Property Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2010, December 2010
    • 1 December 2010
    ...with the standard already established under the law of passing off, as stated by Jacob J in Neutrogena Corporation v Golden Ltd [1996] RPC 473 at 481-482 which the court cited with approval: It is, of course, the effect on the goodwill of Neutrogena which matters…. There is passing off even......
  • The Consumer as the Empirical Measure of Trade Mark Law
    • United Kingdom
    • Wiley The Modern Law Review No. 80-1, January 2017
    • 1 January 2017
    ...lack ofempirical foundation for proferred expert evidence).53 (2015) 228 FCR 189 at [316]–[326].54 n 7 above; Neutrogena Corp vGolden Ltd [1996] RPC 473, 485–486 (Neutrogena); SterlingPharmaceuticals Pty Ltd vJohnson & Johnson Australia Pty Ltd (1990) 96 ALR 277; CadburySchweppes Pty Ltd vD......
  • A critique of legal measures of brand confusion
    • United Kingdom
    • Emerald Journal of Product & Brand Management No. 11-6, November 2002
    • 1 November 2002
    ...``Puffin'' (United Biscuits, UK Ltd v. Asda Stores Ltd [1987] RPC513; the Neutrogena/Nuetralia dispute (Neutrogena Corp.v.Golden Ltd[1996] RPC 473, the actual incidence of legal claims alleging ``confusion'' isdifficult to gauge because the majority of these disputes are settled prior totri......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT