Advocaat: Difference between revisions

Advocaat (view source)

Revision as of 10:06, 20 August 2022

No change in size , 20 August 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,853

edits

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 In any case, if you are like me you will have just executed a double take, for if common sense and logic drove the market, surely Mr Townend’s fate would be the kind [[survivor bias]] fails to take account, and the legal world would remain somewhat muddled about the limits of a [[passing off]] action.
-But no: seemingly the people of East Riding acquired a taste for Townend’s sludge. This came to the attention of a Mr. Warnink, of Holland, who owned the [[Advoccat]] trademark. Mr Warnink took to the courts, eventually finding Lord Diplock in the Court of Appeal. There was no trademark infringement as such, but it was ''close''. Mr Warnink this brought his action for the hitherto obscure common law [[tort]] of “[[passing off]]”.
+But no: seemingly the people of East Riding acquired a taste for Townend’s sludge. This came to the attention of a Mr. Warnink, of Holland, who owned the [[Advocaat]] trademark. Mr Warnink took to the courts, eventually finding Lord Diplock in the Court of Appeal. There was no trademark infringement as such, but it was ''close''. Mr Warnink this brought his action for the hitherto obscure common law [[tort]] of “[[passing off]]”.
 In finding for the Dutchman, the court established five criteria for a claim of “extended” passing off. There must be (1) a misrepresentation, made (2) by a trader in the course of trade, (3) to prospective consumers of his goods or services, which is both (4) ''[[calculated]]''<ref>i.e., ''likely''.</ref> to injure the business or goodwill of another merchant, and (5) in fact actually does so.