Perry v Truefitt
Page Module:Message box/ambox.css has no content.Page Template:Multiple issues/styles.css has no content.
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
Template:RefimprovePage Module:Message box/ambox.css has no content.
|
Page Module:Infobox/styles.css has no content.Page Template:Infobox court case/styles.css has no content.
| Perry v Truefitt | |
|---|---|
| Decided | 1842 |
| CitationTemplate:Pluralize from text | 6 Beav. 66, 49 E.R. 749 |
| Case history | |
| Related actionTemplate:Pluralize from text | passing off |
| Keywords | |
| Tort law | |
Script error: No such module "Check for conflicting parameters".
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
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.[1]
Decision
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
References
Page Template:Reflist/styles.css has no content.
- ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Perry v Truefitt". vLex. Retrieved 15 March 2026.
