82,910
edits
Advocaat: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{a|people|}}Not a lawyer, even in Holland, unless she has got so far through the booze cabinet that all is left is egg brandy. Advocaat is a dun-coloured dutch liqueur ma...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
But no: seemingly the people of East Riding acquired a taste Townend’s sludge, and this came to the attention of Warnink who owned the [[Advoccat]] trademark. He took to the courts and eventually found Lord Diplock in the Court of Appeal, who, in finding for the Dutchman, 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. | But no: seemingly the people of East Riding acquired a taste Townend’s sludge, and this came to the attention of Warnink who owned the [[Advoccat]] trademark. He took to the courts and eventually found Lord Diplock in the Court of Appeal, who, in finding for the Dutchman, 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. | ||
This has subsequently been simplified a bit, but not in amusing circumstances, so if you want to know more about that, you’ll have to | This has subsequently been simplified a bit, but not in amusing circumstances, so if you want to know more about that, you’ll have to Google it. {{cite|Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd|Borden|1990|1AllER|893}} | ||
{{ref}} | |||