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

TT030-j

Back

CV 2018-02001

The claimant manufactured and sold a ghee product named “Cow Brand Pure Butterfat Ghee” in Trinidad and Tobago, using its registered mark for butterfat ghee, Trade Mark No. B 10668 ‘COW BRAND & DEVICE’. The claimant gained significant goodwill from the sale and advertisement of its butterfat ghee. However, the registration of the claimant’s trademark stated that the trademark would not give the claimant any right to the exclusive use of the words “Cow Brand”. The second defendant manufactured and sold a ghee product named “Pure Cow Brand Butter Ghee” which was distributed by the first defendant in Trinidad and Tobago.

In September 2017, the claimant became aware that the first defendant had put for sale its own ghee product, which bore the claimant’s trademark, and whose packaging so closely resembled the claimant’s packaging that it could be confused with the claimant’s ghee. The second defendant alleged that the first defendant placed a sticker with the word “Milk” over the word “Brand” on the tin of the defendant’s Ghee. The claimant therefore applied to the High Court for the following:

interim injunctions prohibiting the defendants from infringing the claimant’s trademarks and passing off goods as that of the claimant;

an order for the detention, custody or preservation of the infringing goods in accordance with Rule 17.1(1)(c) of the Civil Proceedings Rules 2016; and

a Norwich Pharmacal Order, by which a party or third party could be compelled to disclose information in the matter.

The court examined whether the claimant was entitled to the interim relief sought. Applying the principle laid down in American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd. [1975] A.C. 396, Jet Pak Services Ltd. v BWIA International Airport Ltd. (1998) 55 WIR 3 and R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd. and Others (No. 2) (1990) 3 WLR 818, the court found that the claimant should be granted the interim relief sought because:

there was a serious issue to be tried in view of the evidence presented by the claimant at that stage, on the basis of which the court found that the claimant had a high likelihood of success in showing that it had significant goodwill, there was a misrepresentation by the defendants leading to a likelihood of confusion between the two ghee products, and that the claimant suffered damage as a result of that misrepresentation, giving rise to an action in passing off;

that damages paid to the claimant could never be viewed as an adequate remedy in the circumstances, as a continuation of the defendants’ actions could cause irreparable damage to the claimant’s goodwill; and

that justice would be better achieved in granting the interim relief as opposed to refusing it.

Further, on examining the cases of Carillon (Caribbean) Limited v First Citizens Bank Limited CV2011-01424, Bankers Trust Co v Shapira [1980] 1 WLR 1274, Mitsui & Co Limited v Nexen Petroleum UK Limited [2005] 3 All ER 511 and RFU Consolidated Information Services Limited [2012] 1 WLR 3333, the court exercised its discretion to grant a Norwich Pharmacal Order in favor of the claimant as there was a wrongdoing of a tortious or contractual nature which involved the defendants, and information held by the defendants may be relevant and necessary for the protection of the claimant’s interest.

The court therefore granted the claimant the interim relief sought.

Cases referred to:

American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd. [1975] A.C. 396

Jet Pak Services Ltd. v BWIA International Airport Ltd. (1998) 55 WIR 3;

R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd. and Others (No. 2) (1990) 3 WLR 818;

Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133;

Bankers Trust Co v Shapira [1980] 1 WLR 1274;

Mitsui & Co Limited v Nexen Petroleum UK Limited [2005] 3 All ER 511;

RFU Consolidated Information Services Limited [2012] 1 WLR 3333;

Carillon (Caribbean) Limited v First Citizens Bank Limited CV2011-01424

P v T Ltd [1997] 4 All ER 200, [1997] 1 WLR 1309;

Carlton Film Distributors Ltd v VCI Plc [2003] EWHC 616, [2003] FSR 876;

AXA Equity & Law Life Assurance Society plc v National Westminster Bank plc [1998] CLC 1177;

Aoot Kalmneft v Denton Wilde Sapte (a firm) [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 417

CHC Software Care Ltd v Hopkins and Wood [1993] FSR 241.

Other authority referred to:

Hollander, Documentary Evidence (8th edn, 2003) p 78, footnote 11