1999/162 - Veka v Picot [1999] UR 162 (30 September 1999)

1999/162 - Veka v Picot [1999] UR 162 (30 September 1999)

The plaintiff's profiles had a protectable reputation in Jersey associated with the names 'Veka' and 'Vekaplast'. The defendants' continued use of these names after ceasing business with the plaintiff was likely to cause confusion and amounted to passing off. Any implied licence to use the names ended with the commercial relationship. The orders restraining the defendants' use of the names were justified.

Citation
[1999] UR 162
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Veka AG; First Defendant/appellant: TA Picot (CI) Ltd; Second Defendant/appellant: Vekaplast Windows (CI) Ltd; Third Defendant/appellant: Vekaplast Windows (Export) Ltd; Fourth Defendant/appellant: Terence Alan Picot
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
30 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From Royal Court Orders in a Passing Off Action
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Trade Names, Goodwill, Deceptive Practices, Implied Licence
Intellectual Property Commercial Law Passing Off Trade Names Goodwill Deceptive Practices Implied Licence

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Veka AG

Plaintiff/respondent

TA Picot (CI) Ltd

First Defendant/appellant

Vekaplast Windows (CI) Ltd

Second Defendant/appellant

Vekaplast Windows (Export) Ltd

Third Defendant/appellant

Terence Alan Picot

Fourth Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From Royal Court Orders in a Passing Off Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's goods had a protectable reputation in Jersey associated with the names 'Veka' and 'Vekaplast'
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' use of the names was likely to deceive or cause confusion
  3. 3 Whether the defendants had any right or licence to continue using the names after the commercial relationship ended

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's profiles had a protectable reputation in Jersey associated with the names 'Veka' and 'Vekaplast'. The defendants' continued use of these names after ceasing business with the plaintiff was likely to cause confusion and amounted to passing off. Any implied licence to use the names ended with the commercial relationship. The orders restraining the defendants' use of the names were justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • First Defendant to remove the names 'Veka Windows' and 'Vekaplast Windows' from the business names registry within 8 weeks
  • Second Defendant prohibited from using 'Vekaplast' in advertising, brochures, and promotional material in Jersey