About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Finance Intangible Assets Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

TT006-j

Back

No. 403 of 1937

This case concerned an allegation of passing off by the defendant of the claimant’s trademark “Florsheim”. Florsheim, a registered trademark in the United States of America (USA), started trading in Trinidad and Tobago in 1931 but went into liquidation in 1935.

By April 1934, the defendant applied for and obtained registration for the Florsheim trademark. The claimant attempted to sell their shoes with a local company, but the company refused the sale citing the registration of a trademark with the same name.

In coming to its decision, the court relied on the case of Reddaway v Banham [1896] A.C 199 and its articulation of the principle of passing off: “…the mere proof by the plaintiff that the defendant was using a name, word, or device which he had adopted to distinguish his goods would not entitle him to any relief. He could only obtain it by proving further that the defendant was using it under such circumstances or in such manner as to put off his goods as the goods of the plaintiff.”

While the defense pleaded that the claimant could have registered the mark under the Ordinance, the court was of the view that it was not necessary for the claimant to register. The question was raised as to whether the claimant abandoned their right to the claim due to the liquidation and there being no sales for a period of time. However, the court held that liquidation did not cause the claimant to abandon the trade name and design in Trinidad and Tobago with regards to the shoes, and no evidence shows that they had any intention to do so.

The claimant requested an order that the Registrar General rectify the register and remedy the alleged fraud of the defendant by expunging the entry. On the question of fraud, the court was very clear that there was “fraud, deception and dishonesty of the defendant” (para 22), as they knew the reputation the shoes had on the market and their actions were mean to exploit the company’s trade names and design. The court further held that the defendant registered the mark with full knowledge that it was ‘calculated to deceive’ within the meaning of s. 41 of the Ordinance. As such, the mark was not legally registrable under the Ordinance.

The court accepted the defendant’s argument that it had no statutory power to grant such an order, but as a court of equity, it was of the view that it cannot allow a statute to be an instrument of fraud and therefore ordered the defendant to be removed the entry from the Register of Trade Marks.

The court made the following order:

Declaration that the registration of the trademark by the defendant was calculated to deceive, is fraudulent and should be set aside

Defendant to cancel the registration of the trademark

Defendant, servants, and agents be perpetually restrained from selling or offering for sale or advertising for sale the trade name of “Florsheim”

Defendant to deliver all footwear, boxes, wrappers, advertisements etc., bearing the name “Florsheim” to the claimant’s agents.

Inquiry into the profits made by the defendants, with the defendants to pay such profits to the claimant

Cases referred to: Reddaway v Banham [1896] A.C. 199, Angus v Angus, 25 E.R. 800, McCormic v Grogan, 4 E & I Appeals 82, McAndrew v Bassett O1864), 10 L.T. 442 (H.L.), Orr-Ewing & Co. v Johnson & Co., 13 Ch. D. 434 (C.A) and 7 App. Cas. 219 (H.L.)