Grant & Sons Ltd & Ors v Glen Catrine Bonded Warehouse Ltd & Ors [1999] ScotCS 195 (18 August 1999)
The interdict sought does not offend Article 29 EC Treaty as it applies equally to domestic and export trade, is objectively justified to prevent passing off and consumer confusion, and is proportionate. Even if Article 29 were engaged, Article 30 would justify the order as necessary to protect commercial property and prevent unfair competition. The defenders' late reliance on the 'European point' was procedurally unfair and unsupported by pleadings or evidence. The order is to be restricted to prevent passing off by use of the name 'Grant's' or colourably similar names on products, and the defenders are to deliver up infringing materials. Expenses are awarded on a party and party basis...
- Citation
- [1999] ScotCS 195
- Parties
- Pursuers: William Grant & Sons Limited and Others; Defenders: Glen Catrine Bonded Warehouse Limited and Others
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 18 August 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil (passing Off / Intellectual Property) / Post Proof, by Order Hearing on Form of Order and Expenses
- Outcome
- Interdict granted in restricted form; defenders ordered to deliver up infringing materials; expenses awarded on party and party basis with additional fee and certification of skilled witnesses.
- Legal Topics
- Passing Off, Interdict (injunction), Trademark/brand Protection, Export Restrictions, Community Law (articles 28 30 EC Treaty), Remedies, Expenses (costs)
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
William Grant & Sons Limited and Others
Pursuers
Glen Catrine Bonded Warehouse Limited and Others
Defenders
Procedural Posture
Civil (passing Off / Intellectual Property) / Post Proof, by Order Hearing on Form of Order and Expenses
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the interdict (injunction) sought against the defenders' use of the name 'Grant's' offends Articles 28, 29, and 30 of the EC Treaty (Treaty of Amsterdam) as an unlawful export restriction;
- 2 Whether the order should be restricted to Scotland or extend to other EU Member States;
- 3 Appropriate form of interdict to prevent passing off;
Ratio Decidendi
The interdict sought does not offend Article 29 EC Treaty as it applies equally to domestic and export trade, is objectively justified to prevent passing off and consumer confusion, and is proportionate. Even if Article 29 were engaged, Article 30 would justify the order as necessary to protect commercial property and prevent unfair competition. The defenders' late reliance on the 'European point' was procedurally unfair and unsupported by pleadings or evidence. The order is to be restricted to prevent passing off by use of the name 'Grant's' or colourably similar names on products, and the defenders are to deliver up infringing materials. Expenses are awarded on a party and party basis...
Court Disposition
Interdict granted in restricted form; defenders ordered to deliver up infringing materials; expenses awarded on party and party basis with additional fee and certification of skilled witnesses.
Orders
- Interdicts defenders from passing off or enabling others to pass off as and for the pursuers' products any gin, vodka or other alcoholic beverage not of the pursuers' blending or merchandise, particularly from labelling, packaging, marketing, exporting, wholesaling or retailing such products under the name 'Grant's'...
- Ordains defenders to deliver up to pursuers within 14 days all bottles, labels, caps, cases, cartons and similar items in Scotland bearing the name 'Grant's' or colourably similar names.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment