Reddaway and Others v Banham and Others
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 26 March 1896 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1896] UKHL J0326-3 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 26 March 1896 |
[1896] UKHL J0326-3
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel, as well on Tuesday the 18th as Thursday the 20th, Friday the 21st, and Monday the 24th days of February last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Frank Reddaway, and F. Reddaway and Co., Limited, of Pendleton, in the County of Lancaster, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 18th of December 1894, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her 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 Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of George Banham, and George Banham and Company, Limited, lodged in answer to the said Appeal: and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 18th of December 1894, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby reversed; and it is Declared that Judgment ought to be entered for the Plaintiffs in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice (Appellants here), for an Injunction restraining the Defendants and each of them (Respondents here) from using the words "Camel Hair" as descriptive of, or in connection with, belting manufactured by them, or either of them, or belting (not being of the Plaintiffs' manufacture) sold or offered for sale by them, or either of them, without clearly distinguishing such belting from the belting of the Plaintiffs: And it is further Ordered and Adjudged, That with this Declaration the Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Collins, of the 20th of July 1894, be, and the same is hereby, in all other respects restored: And it is Ordered, That the Respondents do...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Cellular Clothing Company, Ltd, v Maxton and Murray
- Yomeishu Seizo Company Ltd & 2 Ors v Sinma Medical Products (M) Sdn Bhd
- Letchumanan Chettiar Alagappan (as Executor to SL Alameloo Achi (Deceased)) and Another v Secure Plantation Sdn Bhd
-
An Post v Irish Permanent Plc
...LTD 1994 FSR 438 VON HAYTER MOTOR UNDERWRITING AGENCIES LTD V RBHS AGENCIES LTD & ANOR 1977 FSR 285 REDDAWAY & ANOR V BANHAM & ANOR 1896 AC 199 BOLLINGER & ORS V COSTA BRAVA WINE CO LTD 1961 RPC 116 TAITTINGER & ORS V ALLBEV LTD & ORS 1994 4 AER 5 FINANCE ACT 1929 TREATY OF ROME ART 92 TREA......
-
The Fundamentals Of A Civil Asset Recovery Action - Part 1
...and then it is modest and retiring; it would be honesty itself if it could only afford it." Per Lord MacNaughten in Reddaway v. Banham [1896] A.C. 199 at Selecting the Place of Judgment. In constructing a model to recover concealed assets that have been fragmented, camouflaged and moved to ......
-
Popular Names Index to UK Cases and EU Legislation and Cases
...Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997 on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex (OJ 1998 L14/6) Camel-Hair Belting Case Reddaway v Banham [1896] AC 199 Cann Case Abbey National Building Society v Cann [1991] 1 AC 56 Cannibalism Case R v Dudley and Stephens (188......
-
The Intersection between Registered and Unregistered Trade Marks
...71 See Wadlow, above n 43, 753–6 and the cases cited therein. 72 Ibid 756. Cf Scotch Whisky [2007] FCA 1649, [60]–[62] (Sundberg J). 73 [1896] AC 199. 74 See Wadlow, above n 43, 756. 75 But note, in the context of European law, the discussion that has occurred over the prohibition of marks ......
-
PARALLEL IMPORTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SINGAPORE
...Custom Built Ltd[1989] R.P.C. 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.......
-
Creation of a Trade Mark in South African Law: a View with some Unconventional Elements
...siness or product , identifying su ch rather than any ot her” (737F-H) See the locus cla ssicus on seconda ry meaning, Red daway v Banham [1896] AC 199 See also New Media Publishing (Pty) Ltd v Eating Out Web Ser vices CC 2005 5 SA 388 (C) (the E ating Out case) 404F-G; Bress Design s (Pty)......