Topps Company Incorporated v Tom Hannah (Agencies) Ltd & Ors [1999] ScotCS 285 (1 December 1999)

Topps Company Incorporated v Tom Hannah (Agencies) Ltd & Ors [1999] ScotCS 285 (1 December 1999)

The pursuers have established a prima facie case of passing off, as their product is distinctive and unique in the market, and the defenders' product is sufficiently similar to create a risk of confusion or erroneous belief as to source. The balance of convenience favours maintaining the interim interdict to preserve the status quo and protect the pursuers' established market position, as any loss to either party is speculative and all parties are substantial companies able to pay damages if required.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 285
Parties
Pursuer: The Topps Company Inc.; First Defender: Tom Hannah (Agencies) Limited; Defender: Other Defenders (including Second Defenders, Spanish manufacturer)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Interim Interdict Recall Motion
Outcome
Motion for recall of interim interdict refused; interim interdict to stand.
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Interim Interdict, Trade Mark Infringement, Goodwill, Balance of Convenience
Intellectual Property Commercial Law Passing Off Interim Interdict Trade Mark Infringement Goodwill Balance of Convenience

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Topps Company Inc.

Pursuer

Tom Hannah (Agencies) Limited

First Defender

Other Defenders (including Second Defenders, Spanish manufacturer)

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Interim Interdict Recall Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers have established a prima facie case of passing off against the defenders for the sale of a similar confectionery product
  2. 2 Whether the balance of convenience favours maintaining the interim interdict against the defenders

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers have established a prima facie case of passing off, as their product is distinctive and unique in the market, and the defenders' product is sufficiently similar to create a risk of confusion or erroneous belief as to source. The balance of convenience favours maintaining the interim interdict to preserve the status quo and protect the pursuers' established market position, as any loss to either party is speculative and all parties are substantial companies able to pay damages if required.

Court Disposition

Motion for recall of interim interdict refused; interim interdict to stand.

Orders

  • Interim interdict remains in force in original terms.