The National Guild of Removers And Storers Ltd v Luckes & Ors
Decision date: 7 December 2017
Neutral citation: [2017] EWHC 3176 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: medium
This case concerned reinstated online references to the National Guild of Removers and Storers (NGRS) on (1) the Reallymoving directory and (2) ALS's own website after ALS's membership had ended. The court found the Reallymoving reinstatement was an act controlled by reallymoving.com so the defendants were not liable for that reinstatement, but ALS was liable for passing off via its own website where the misrepresentation appeared under its control; damages of £2,000 were awarded for the ALS website misrepresentation. NGRS's appeal was dismissed; the defendants' cross-appeal succeeded in part insofar as Mr and Mrs Luckes were not jointly liable with ALS for the website misrepresentation.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
Liability for passing off attaches to the party who performs or directly controls the act creating the misrepresentation; agency or ostensible authority can impose liability on a principal only where agency is pleaded and established, and joint tortfeasor liability requires active cooperation or knowledge of the wrongful act.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment suggested CJEU trade mark authorities (e.g. L'Oréal/eBay, Google France/LV) have limited persuasive value when applying English common-law passing off principles, and it indicated there is no general common-law or contractual duty to monitor third-party platforms for reinstated content on the facts of this case.
Warning
- This chunk contains substantial repetition of material from the judgment, which may obscure sequencing of findings. Notes contain substantial repetition and may obscure sequencing of findings; they may be incomplete in detail.