―That a man is not to sell his own goods under the pretence that they are the goods of
another man and accordingly, a misrepresentation achieving such a result is actionable
because it constitutes an invasion of proprietary rights vested in the plaintiff‖.
He summarised the essence of the cause of action that the plaintiff has to prove in addition to the
quote to include; that the misrepresentation of the product has deceived or is likely to deceive.
The plaintiff is likely to suffer damages from such deception. The right protected in a passing
action is the business or goodwill injured by the misrepresentation. Lord Jauncey of
Tullichettle cited with approval the judgment of Lord Diplock in Erven Warnink BV vs. J
Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd [1979] 2 All ER 927 at 932–933 which gives five essential
ingredients of a passing off action namely: There has to be a misrepresentation. Secondly, the
misrepresentation is made by a trader in the course of trade. Thirdly, it is made to prospective
customers of his or ultimate consumers of goods or services supplied by the trader. Fourthly the
misrepresentation is calculated to injure the business or goodwill of another trade or as a
reasonably foreseeable consequence and fifthly it causes actual damage to a business or goodwill
of the trader by whom the action is brought or will probably do so. The plaintiff of course has to
prove that his or her goods have acquired a reputation in the market and are known by some
distinguishing feature. Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle further held that:
―the proprietary right which is protected by the action is in the goodwill rather than in the
get-up distinguishes the protection afforded by the common law to a trader from that
afforded by statute to the registered holder of a trade mark who enjoys a permanent
monopoly therein.‖
Furthermore, passing off requires evidence of actual sale of goods as that of the plaintiff. The tort
is in the goods rather than in the mark.
That conclusion is consistent with the Ugandan statutory definition which emphasises that the
action is in the act of ―passing off one‘s product‖ as that of another with the intention to deceive.
My conclusion is that the use of the phrase ―one‘s product‖ is wide enough to include a trader
who buys goods from another source with the intention of passing off the goods as that of
another whose goods have acquired a distinct reputation. The trader‘s intention may be to
capitalise on that reputation though it may not have to be for profit. It can be used to dilute or
bring into disrepute a product which has acquired a distinct reputation. In the premises even if
the defendant imported the goods, the evidence is that in the defendants Mbale Supermarket, the
goods were displayed in such a way as to mislead customers or potential customers into buying it
as the product of the plaintiff. Furthermore, close resemblance between marks prima facie prove
the cause of action of ‗passing off‘ the goods as that of another whose mark has been imitated.
I have considered the evidence on the ingredient of whether the goods were passed off. PW1 did
not have any evidence of sale of the products. He did not adduce any records of sales. He was
only able to prove the close resemblance or the identical features of the two products namely
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style
9