Office Cleaning Services, Ltd, v Westminster Window and General Cleaners, Ltd

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
JudgeLord Wright,Lord Porter,Lord Simonds
Judgment Date21 January 1946
Judgment citation (vLex)[1946] UKHL J0121-2
Date21 January 1946
CourtHouse of Lords
Office Cleaning Services, Limited
and
Westminster Window and General Cleaners, Limited

[1946] UKHL J0121-2

Lord Wright

Lord Porter

Lord Simonds

Lord Goddard

House of Lords

After hearing Counsel for the Appellants, as well on Monday the 26th, as on Tuesday the 27th, and Wednesday the 28th, days of November last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Office Cleaning Services, Limited, of 11-13 Brownlow Street, Holborn, W.C.I, in the County of London, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 28th of July 1944, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of Westminster Window and General Cleaners, Limited, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and Counsel appearing for the Respondents but not being called upon; and due consideration being had this day of what was offered for the said Appellants;

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 28th day of July 1944, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondents the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Lord Wright

My Lords,

1

In my judgment this appeal should be dismissed. I agree so completely with the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds that I need not say anything further. I merely add a few words of quotation from the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered by Luxmoore L.J., who dealing with the use of descriptive words in a trade name concisely states and applies the rule thus:

"In the absence of any fraudulent intention … a small differentiation is sufficient to defeat a Plaintiff's claim. In the present case the most distinctive word used by the Plaintiffs in their title is 'services.' The Defendants have used in their title the word 'Association,' which bears no resemblance in appearance or sense to the word 'services.' In our judgment in all the circumstances of this case this difference is sufficient to distinguish the Defendants' business from that of the Plaintiffs."

2

I agree with that succinct statement.

Lord Porter

My Lords,

3

I also find myself in complete agreement with the speech to be made by my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds, which I have had an opportunity of reading, and would dismiss this appeal.

Lord Simonds

My Lords,

4

The question in this case is one of fact. The principles of law applicable to it are well settled and clear. I say that at the outset because the argument presented to your Lordships appeared to me to be largely based upon a misunderstanding of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. In my opinion that Court applied the right principles of law and correctly appreciated the facts.

5

The Appellants were incorporated on the 10th October, 1930, to carry on the business of undertaking the daily cleaning of offices under a period contract with the occupants of such offices. It appears that they were first in the field in this class of business and that they were successful in it. At all times they carried it on in association with the business of another company, which had been incorporated in the year 1900 as the New Century Window and General Cleaning Company Limited and had substantially confined itself to window cleaning though it had occasionally undertaken the general cleaning of offices.

6

The Appellants employ in their business some 1,500 persons and have some 1,000 customers on their books. They have advertised in trade papers and the "Buff Book" (afterwards "The Classified Telephone Directory, Business and Professional") and in abbreviated advertisements appearing in the personal columns of such daily newspapers as "The Times," the "Daily Telegraph," and the "Evening Standard," but they largely rely for their business upon personal recommendations from customer to customer.

7

The Respondents are a company formed in January, 1931, to take over the business of the London and Westminster Window Cleaning Association Limited which in turn had been formed in the year 1922 to take over a then existing business carried on under that style without the word "Limited." From 1922 to 1932 the Respondents and their predecessors had done occasional work of office cleaning but from the latter date they commenced a regular business of office cleaning under the style of "Westminster Office Cleaning Association." They too appear to have built up a substantial business. They did not advertise to any great extent. Before May, 1942, the style of the business always appeared in advertisements as "Westminster Office Cleaning Association." In that month for the first time they inserted in the personal columns of the "Daily Telegraph" and the "Evening Standard" advertisements in the following form:

"Office Cleaning Association can supply registered cleaners and materials for daily cleaning of offices, factories. Phone for free estimate Whi. 5765."

8

Your Lordships will observe that the word "Westminster" has been dropped and the address of the business does not appear.

9

To this form of advertisement the Appellants took exception. Correspondence ensued between the solicitors to the parties in which, curiously enough, the omission of the word "Westminster," which is, as I understand it, the gravamen of the Respondents' offence, was not mentioned and on the 11th February, 1943, the Appellants issued their writ in which they claimed an injunction restraining the Respondents from using in connection with their business as contractors for the cleaning of offices the trading style "Office Cleaning Association" or any other style so closely resembling the name of the Appellants as to be calculated to lead to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
110 cases
  • Premier Luggage and Bags Ltd v Premier Company (UK) Ltd and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 26 March 2002
    ...is not enough – see the observations of Lord Simonds in Office Cleaning Services Ltd v Westminster Window and General Cleaners Ltd (1946) 63 RPC 39, at page 43: "So in Turton v Turton ( 42 Ch.D. 128) the possibilities of blunders by the public was held not to disentitle the defendant from t......
  • Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd (t/a Colmans of Norwich) v Borden Inc. and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 8 February 1990
    ...clothing" (Cellular Clothing Co. v. Maxton and Murray (1899) 16 R.P.C. 397) or, "Office Cleaning" (Office Cleaning Services Ltd. v. Westminster Window and General Cleaners Ltd. (1946) 63 R.P.C. 39) or the use of descriptive expressions or slogans in general use such as "Chicago Pizza" (My ......
  • Associated Newspapers Ltd and Another v Express Newspapers
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 11 June 2003
    ...words The Mail or in "mail". He draws my attention to the well known judgment of Lord Simmonds in Office Cleaning v. Westminster Window (1946) 63 RPC 39 and says that both the claimant and the defendant have merely adopted the common word "mail" which is a non-distinctive term indicative of......
  • The London Taxi Corporation Ltd trading as the London Taxi Company v Frazer-Nash Research Ltd and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 20 January 2016
    ...of, the court will readily infer that deception resulted: see Office Cleaning Services Ltd v Westminster Window & General Cleaners Ltd (1946) 63 RPC 39 at 42 (Lord 290 The relevant date is the date when the Defendants started the acts complained of. In the present case I consider that this ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Something To Wine About
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 19 July 2022
    ...the HO considered the descriptiveness of both marks, applying Office Cleaning Services Ltd v Westminster Window & General Cleaners Ltd ([1946] 63 RPC 39), where it was held that comparatively small differences in words would be sufficient to avert confusion where a mark consists wholly or p......
  • Infringement And Descriptive Words
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 25 November 2013
    ...(Ch) Phones 4u Ltd v Phone4u.co.uk Internet Ltd [2007] RPC 5 Office Cleaning Service Ltd v Westminster Window and General Cleaners Ltd [1946] 63 RPC 39 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your spe......
1 books & journal articles
  • Intellectual Property Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2000, December 2000
    • 1 December 2000
    ...or services. This rule was enunciated by the House of Lords in Office Cleaning Services Ltd v Westminster Window & General Cleaners Ltd(1946) 63 RPC 39 where both parties carried on the business of office cleaners and where it was held that the defendants” mark “Westminster Office Cleaning ......

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