WINEAPP LIMITED v BENEDICT JOHNSON

WINEAPP LIMITED v BENEDICT JOHNSON

The Hearing Officer correctly applied the law of passing off, properly evaluated the evidence, and was entitled to find that the Appellant had only small goodwill and that the marks were sufficiently distinct to avoid misrepresentation; no error of principle or clear wrongness was established.

Parties
Appellant/opponent: Wineapp Limited; Respondent/applicant: Benedict Johnson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Trade Mark Opposition, Goodwill, Misrepresentation, Damage
Intellectual Property Tort Passing Off Trade Mark Opposition Goodwill Misrepresentation Damage

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wineapp Limited

Appellant/opponent

Benedict Johnson

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in finding insufficient goodwill to support passing off
  2. 2 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in finding no misrepresentation or likelihood of deception
  3. 3 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in comparing the marks and assessing distinctiveness

Ratio Decidendi

The Hearing Officer correctly applied the law of passing off, properly evaluated the evidence, and was entitled to find that the Appellant had only small goodwill and that the marks were sufficiently distinct to avoid misrepresentation; no error of principle or clear wrongness was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Hearing Officer’s decision stands
  • Application to register the Respondent’s mark permitted to proceed