Perry v Truefitt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 December 1842 |
| Date | 09 December 1842 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 49 E.R. 749
ROLLS COURT
See The Leather Cloth Company v. The American Leather Cloth Company, 1865, 11 H. L. C. 523; 11 E. R. 1433 (with note); Morgan v. M'Adam, 1866, 36 L. J. Ch. 229; Ford v. Foster, 1872, L. R. 7 Ch. 625; Singer Manufacturing Company v. Wilson, 1876, 2 Ch. D. 461; Johnston v. Orr-Ewing, 1882, 7 App. Cas. 229; Reddaway v. Banham [1896], A. C. 209. As to Gout v. Aleploglu, 6 Beav. 69, n. See In re Rotherham's Trade Mark, 1879-80, 11 Ch. D. 253; 14 Ch. D. 587.
[66] perry v. truefitt. Dec. 8, 9, 1842. [See The Leather Cloth Company v. The, American Leather Cloth Company, 1865, 11 H. L. C. 523 ; 11 E. R. 1435 (with note); Morgan v. M'Adam, 1866, 36 L. J. Ch. 229 ; Ford v. Foster, 1872, L. R. 7 Ch. 625; Singer Manufacturing Company v. Wilson, 1876, 2 Ch. D. 461; Johnston v. Orr-Ewing, 1882, 7 App. Cas. 229; Beddaway v. Banham [1896], A. C. 209. As to Gout v. Aleploglu, 6 Beav. 69, n. See In re Rotherham's Trade Mark, 1879-80, 11 Ch. D. 253; 14 Ch. D. 587.] The ground on which the Court protects trade marks is, that it will not permit a party to sell his own goods as the goods of another; a party will not, therefore, be allowed to use names, marks, letters, or other indicue by which he may pass off his own goods to purchasers aa the manufacture of another person. If a Plaintiff coming for an injunction in such a case appears to have been guilty of misrepresentations to the public the Court will not interfere in the first instance. This was a motion for a special injunction to restrain the Defendant from selling a greasy composition for the hair, under the name of " Medicated Mexican Balm," or under similar designations. It appeared that, in 1836, a Mr. Leathart invented a grease or mixture for the hair, the secret and recipe for making which he sold to the Plaintiff, a hairdresser and perfumer residing in Burlington Arcade. [67] The Plaintiff gave to the composition in question, the name of "Medicated 750 PERRY V. TRUEFITT 6 BEAV. 88.. Mexican Balm," and sold it as "Perry's Medicated Mexican Balm." It having, acquired an extensive sale and repute, the Defendant Truefitt (a rival hairdresser and perfumer living in the same place), had lately commenced selling a greasy composition, somewhat similar to that of the Plaintiff, in bottles, and with labels closely resembling those used by him. He designated and sold it as " Truefitt's Medicated Mexican Balm." The Plaintiff thereupon filed this bill, alleging that the name or designation of Medicated Mexican Balm had become of great value to him as a trade mark : that its adoption by the Defendant was apt to deceive persons desirous of purchasing the Plaintiffs composition, and was very injurious to him The bill prayed an account of the profits made by the Defendant, and for an injunction. Though Mr. Leathart was the inventor, yet the Plaintiff, according to his own statement, used a printed shew card, in which he represented the article in question in the following terms:-"By special appointment-medicated mexican balm, for restoring, nourishing, strengthening, and beautifying the hair, Perry, 12 and 13 Burlington Arcade, London. It is a highly concentrated extract from vegetable balsamic productions, of that interesting but little known country, Mexico, and possesses mild astringent properties, which give tone to weak and impoverished haiiv and impart a glossy appearance to the naturally dull and harsh. Where there is a tendency to fall off, the Mexican Balm exerts its astringent qualities, and gradually, but infallibly, braces the pores of the cuticle, and arrests the deterioration of that most beautiful ornament of the [68] human frame, a fine head of hair. This admirable composition is made from an original recipe of (lie learned J, F. Vmi Blumenbach, and recently presented to the proprietor by a very near relation of that illustrious physiologist." The application was supported and resisted by affidavits, in one of which, filed ou the part of the Plaintiff, it was stated, that the Defendant's mixture being submitted to chemical analysis, was found to be "composed of lard and olive oil, perfumed with essential oils ;" but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd (t/a Colmans of Norwich) v Borden Inc. and Others
...law applicable to passing off action 49The basic underlying principle of such an action was stated in 1842 by Lord Langdale M.R. in Perry v. Truefitt (1842) 6 Beav. 66, 73 to be: "A man is not to sell his own goods under the pretence that they are the goods of another man…" Accordingly, a ......
-
Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd (t/a Colmans of Norwich) v Borden Inc. and Others
...law applicable to passing off action 49The basic underlying principle of such an action was stated in 1842 by Lord Langdale M.R. in Perry v. Truefitt (1842) 6 Beav. 66, 73 to be: "A man is not to sell his own goods under the pretence that they are the goods of another man…" Accordingly, a ......
-
Inter Lotto (UK) Ltd v Camelot Group Plc
...by 1842 the term "passing off" was in use and the principles of the cause of action were defined by Lord Langdale MR in Perry v Truefitt (1842) 49 ER 749 in terms which are familiar to the modern practitioner: "I think that the principle on which both the courts of law and of equity proceed......
-
General Electric Company v The General Electric Company Ltd
... ... How 8 Sim. 447 ) or as to their origin, as in Perry v. Trufitt ( Beav. 66 ) were the commonest reasons for the refusal of the Court of Chancery to grant injunctions. The addition of the words "or ... ...
-
PARALLEL IMPORTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SINGAPORE
...455 at p.466 per Ralph Gibson L.J. 79 See Reddaway (Frank) & Co. Ltd. v. George Banham & Co. Ltd.[1896] A.C. 199; Perry v. Truefitt(1842) 49 E.R. 749 and see also Spalding (A.G.) & Bros. v. A.W. Gamage Ltd.(1915) 32 R.P.C. 273. 80 See in particular Henderson v. Radio Corpn. Pty. Ltd.[1981] ......