William Grant & Sons Ltd & Ors v Glen Catrine Bonded Warehouse Ltd & Ors [2001] ScotCS 116 (16 May 2001)

William Grant & Sons Ltd & Ors v Glen Catrine Bonded Warehouse Ltd & Ors [2001] ScotCS 116 (16 May 2001)

The court held that the pursuers had not acquiesced in the defenders' passing off because there was no evidence that the defenders acted in reliance on any consent or silence by the pursuers; mere delay or inaction, without such reliance, does not bar the remedy of interdict. The interdict granted was not too wide, as it was necessary to protect the pursuers' goodwill and prevent confusion, and did not contravene EC law as it was justified to prevent passing off. The Lord Ordinary was correct in granting interdict against passing off of products but not of business.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 116
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: William Grant & Sons Limited and Others; Defenders and Reclaimers: Glen Catrine Bonded Warehouse Limited and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Opinion of the Inner House, Court of Session
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Acquiescence, Personal Bar (estoppel), Interdict (injunction), Trade Marks, Goodwill, Export Restrictions, European Community Law
Intellectual Property Commercial Law Civil Procedure Passing Off Acquiescence Personal Bar (estoppel) Interdict (injunction) Trade Marks +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Grant & Sons Limited and Others

Pursuers and Respondents

Glen Catrine Bonded Warehouse Limited and Others

Defenders and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Opinion of the Inner House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' right to interdict was barred by acquiescence due to delay in raising proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the remedy of interdict should be refused due to delay even if not barred by acquiescence
  3. 3 Whether the interdict granted was too wide in scope, particularly regarding exports to countries with different laws

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the pursuers had not acquiesced in the defenders' passing off because there was no evidence that the defenders acted in reliance on any consent or silence by the pursuers; mere delay or inaction, without such reliance, does not bar the remedy of interdict. The interdict granted was not too wide, as it was necessary to protect the pursuers' goodwill and prevent confusion, and did not contravene EC law as it was justified to prevent passing off. The Lord Ordinary was correct in granting interdict against passing off of products but not of business.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal refused.

Orders

  • Interdict granted against defenders from passing off gin, vodka, or other alcoholic beverages as the pursuers' products under the name 'Grant's' or similar names.
  • Defenders ordered to deliver up to the pursuers within 14 days all infringing bottles, labels, caps, cases, cartons, and similar items held in Scotland.