Bollinger v. Costa Brava Wine Co Ltd [1960] 1 All ER 561
FACTS:
- The plaintiffs, J. Bollinger and eleven other persons, had their businesses incorporated in France and produced and supplied wine in the Champagne District of France and sold in England and Wales, respectively. The wine was sold under the name of “Champagne”, and there was immense reputation and goodwill attached to the same.
- The Plaintiffs sought an injunction against the Defendants, Costa Brava Wine Co. Ltd., who sold wine from grapes grown in Spain and named their product “Spanish Champagne”. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants were conducting false trade, and the same was an offence under Section 2(2) of the Merchandise Act 1887.
- The matter was appealed before the High Court of Justice – Chancery Division.
- For the actions of the defendants to be deceptive a substantial portion of the public must likely to be deceived by such actions, i.e. misled by the product “Spanish Champagne”
ISSUE:
- Whether the Defendant’s use of the contended mark intended to deceive or cheat the public?
HELD:
- The High Court of Justice – Chancery Division held that the resemblance between the two contended products was deceiving and that a common man’s knowledge must be applied in the test for the same. It is not easy for individuals to hold such profound knowledge, and there was a likelihood of individuals being misled by “Spanish Champagne” as simply “Champagne”.
- The Court also held that the Plaintiffs had satisfied their burden of proof and passed the Pigeon Hole Theory, and stated that for actions to be deceptive, a large portion of the public should be likely to be misled.