Williamson v. Meikle [1909] ScotLR 915 (08 July 1909)

Williamson v. Meikle [1909] ScotLR 915 (08 July 1909)

The pursuer failed to prove that the similarity of the names was calculated to mislead customers or divert business. Evidence of misdirected correspondence did not establish likelihood of deception or business diversion. There was no wrongful intention by the defender, and no sufficient evidence of confusion or deception.

Citation
[1909] ScotLR 915
Parties
Pursuer (respondent): Ernest Henry Williamson (Kelvindale Chemical Company); Defender (appellant): James Meikle (Kelvinside Chemical Company)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 July 1909
Procedural Posture
Civil (interdict) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House, First Division
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Trade Names, Deceptive Similarity, Interdict, Goodwill
Commercial Law Intellectual Property Passing Off Trade Names Deceptive Similarity Interdict Goodwill

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

Ernest Henry Williamson (Kelvindale Chemical Company)

Pursuer (respondent)

James Meikle (Kelvinside Chemical Company)

Defender (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil (interdict) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of the name 'Kelvinside Chemical Company' by the defender is so similar to 'Kelvindale Chemical Company' as to mislead customers or divert business from the pursuer.
  2. 2 Whether evidence of confusion or likelihood of deception is sufficient to grant interdict.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove that the similarity of the names was calculated to mislead customers or divert business. Evidence of misdirected correspondence did not establish likelihood of deception or business diversion. There was no wrongful intention by the defender, and no sufficient evidence of confusion or deception.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Interlocutors of the Sheriff and Sheriff-Substitute recalled.
  • Found that the pursuer had not proved the defender's use of the name was calculated to mislead or divert business.