Kent County Council v Price (Ralph Robert)

Date

6 May 1993

Legislation

Trade Descriptions Act 1968, s.1(1)

Keywords

trade descriptions; counterfeit goods; disclaimers; brand copies

Counsel

unknown

Solicitors:

unknown.

Judge:

unknown.

Court:

High Court (Divisional Court)

Reported:

(1993) 12 TLR 137.

Summary:

Price was convicted in the Magistrate's court of applying a false trade description to a number of counterfeit T-shirts bearing the trade marks Reebok, Adidas and Puma. He appealed against his conviction to the Crown Court where he emphasised the manner of his trading.

Each of the T-shirts forming the subject of the charges was sold by Price as a "Brand Copy" and in the presence of a number of prominent disclaimers stating that they were not genuine goods. Price also gave an oral explanation to each potential customer emphasising that the goods were copies of the well-known brands and consequently were substantially cheaper than the genuine goods. The Crown Court allowed his appeal on this basis and the Crown appealed to the Divisional Court by way of case stated.

Decision:

The Divisional Court held as follows:

• in assessing whether a false trade description had been applied within the meaning of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, it was necessary for the court to examine all of the circumstances under which the goods in question were sold;
• an effective written or oral disclaimer as in this case could constitute a defence to a Trade Description Act offence if, on the facts of the case, the public had not been misled; and
• in the circumstances of this case the courts below had been entitled to find as they had and the offence was thus not made out.