Perry v Truefitt
This law-related article does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations, which can be found through legal research. Unsourced or poorly sourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2025) |
This article possibly contains original research. (August 2025) |
| Perry v Truefitt | |
|---|---|
| Decided | 1842 |
| Citation | 6 Beav. 66,49 E.R. 749 |
| Case history | |
| Related action | passing off |
| Keywords | |
| Tort law | |
Perry v Truefitt (1842) 6 Beav. 66 is the English case in which the tort of passing off was first articulated by the court.
Background
[edit | edit source]Mr Leathart made a hair treatment product and showed the mixing process to Mr Perry, a perfumer and hairdresser, who decided to call the mixture "Medicated Mexican Balm" and marketed the mixture under the title "Perry's Medicated Mexican Balm".[citation needed]
Mr Truefitt, one of Perry's competitors, made a product that was very similar to Perry's mixture, which he marketed under the name "Truefitt's Medicated Mexican Balm", using bottles and labels that looked like Perry's product.[citation needed]
Perry filed a bill against Truefitt, arguing that the name "Medicated Mexican Balm" was valuable to his business and that he should have exclusive right to prevent others from using it.[citation needed]
Decision
[edit | edit source]The Court denied Perry the right to the name. However, Lord Longdale held that misrepresentation can be grounds for an injunction, stating that "a man is not to sell his own goods under the pretence that they are the goods of another man".[citation needed]
See also
[edit | edit source]References
[edit | edit source]External links
[edit | edit source] | This England-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
