Stuttafords (PVT) v Stuttafords Ltd (Civil Cause 526 of 1994) [1995] MWHCCiv 28 (9 February 1995)

TN THF. HTGH COURT OF MALl\WT PRINCIPAL REGISTRY - - - · - - -·-----· -- --- C TVTl, C /\USE NUMBER 526 OF 1994 ------·-- ---- -·---- - - - - - - - - - - -- ---- l ___ _,./ I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l'T.i\ T NTT FP . S'T'llT'T'i\FORns I ,TD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . DP. FP. NDl\NT CORl\rvJ : MSOSl\ ,l' f< cl c; , 1 m b ,7 l a , o f C nu n s C' l for I_ h 0 pl a i n 1- i f f i l n r r Dr 0 ~~ 0 n t-r, cJ , Co u n c; e l for t hr d r f 0 n o r1 n 1- --.... J {~ l Uv'v c; n 1<. ,7 h ,7 n rl , , , 0 f f i r i cl l T n t 0 r p r r 1- r r ,l'UDGMEN'r 'T'h i c; i c; ,7n r1on l i rc1t inn hv 1- hC' nl r1 i n1 i ffc; who srrk for the' f o ll n1_,17i nci orc1r,rs: - (cl) ( h ) c;l- rikinq out· 1- 17..-, nam0 of thr rlC'fr,nrlant ni'l.mC'S rlosf'lV r0c:;0mhl0::; thr n,7mC' of thr n l c'lint-iffs ; in jc; rnislrildir:q r rqistrv as t- hf' samr t· h0 company it i l l 'ha!- ,tnd i n 7 u n r t i o 11 ;, n 1· h0 sc1id nz,mr in th0ir husi n rss . , c c; i- r a i 11 i n q t h 0 d r f <' n d cJ 11 h :; f r om u s i n a i s 'T' h f' an n l :i r cl t i o n t o by on0 nf th0 shc1r0holcl0rs ,Hicl clir0ctor of ihf' plai11tiffc:; ' romp,1ny . s ummons and th0 'l' h,~ nrfr,ncli'll71- Th0.y d0.rid0d notir0 of h0arinq o f not 1-_h0 c1 po 7 i r a 1- i on w;=1c; srrv od w_it-h · th0 originat_i11q thrrf'foro prorC'C'dC'n to h0r1 r thr o l c1intiffs apoliration . in nn v way . to ro soo nd c:; u p nor t f."' cl a b s 0 n r 0 • c1 f f _i d o v i t cl r p o c:; 0 d l) v a n t- h E' i r i n T a c; c1 r 0 1' hf' r A. s 0 t h i s f r om c o. n b 0 f a c t- c; of 0. x t r a c: t· f' d c l f' a r . a f f j d riv j t- f o n -,' a rd an d i ncornoration was t-. h 0 D le:, i n t _i f f c:; ' st r a i g h 1- Th 0 olct .intiff,.; ' comp ;rny wns inrorporatod and rcqist-rr0.d in Ma .l awi on 1 5th F00ru0rv , 1 991 in thr na m0 of St-111- t·a fr)rrls (Pvl· ) Lim_itc,d i1ncl t-h0 Rrgjst-rar of. a rert.ifi,,1tc' 01 romoanirs the samr dav . is ~1,7 inly onnngrd in thr 1-> 1 1 '.:; i n r, s s il 11 d a l so outsirlC' Malowi o sjstrr romp-:iny ra .ll rd S tut t·ofo rrls Rrmovals Limit-ocl of Hararr , Z.imh0bw0 whose man aging On 15th dirrrt· or js a lso a diror~or of ~hr p l aint_iffs company . Prbruary , 1994 , J- )7,, () r i I )C () C p () r ;-1 t i () n n ,7 Ill,, 0 f Tht' cic1y . s o m0 eonsC'qu,..,nt· l v w,1s n -l c1intif fs hrlirvr t-h,71- 1 hr cl (1 I",, 1;c1c1ntc; r ompc1ny w, 1s .incorpn ri1 t· 0d il C (' r I j r j C ,7 1-(' t_hc· t· hr d0fr 1 ndc7n ·t ', rr,;i st0r-0d 1-hri r c • l r c1 r i 11 g w .i -1· h i r: M cl 7 c1 w j jn , l)nj unctj o n wit-h r, i Ill i 1 · (' rl I in I s 1 · u t-- 1. cl F (> r ( 1 s ':i'hc c o rnp ,rn v issurd by f r r i q h t , ,7 n ci th,11- r r m n v a l s na m<:> on rompc1ny i '.;surd a r, cl in o f , - - the b u siness of with th0 so l e objective of enga ging itself 1 n removals , the shareholders of the defe nd a nts company is Glens (Malawi) L imited who are: jn t.he busin ess of removals, freight and clearing. IncidentaJly one of and clearing. fre ight The plaintiffs co nt end that the names of the two compani es are so sjmilar that there is lik e ly to be confusion in the eyes of customers as to which company they are dealing with and that thPy be ] .i eve t ha t some people w~o 7ave dealt with or wi 11 deal with the defendants compa ny believing it to be the pJ.ainti ff 's company . The nlai nti ffs also state that the incorporation of the defendants company was ca l c ulat ed to mislead the public. is that The plaintiffs act· ion is founded on the tort of passing Th e principle on wh .ich the c o u rt. interferes in cases of off . to passing off renresent the b~siness which is carrjed on by another as carried on by himself. Fur t h er that t he basis of the action for passing off is a proprietary right not so much in the name itself but in in t hr o ugh the good wi ll estab l ished connectio n with the plaintiff ' s busjness - see Tussaud v Tu ssaud (1890) 44 Ch. D. 678. sho uld not be permitted the use of a perso n the name involved (Pvt) Limitrd ' the defendants th e present case and I find o n the pla int iff~ company 1s called In js 'Stutt afo rds t h0. facts before me that. both 'St-uttafords Li mit ed '. companies are The plai n tiffs c ompany was registered and incorpor ated first and it was not until a year lat er t hat the defendant i ncorporc:tted and registered their company. t .he names of the two companiE's are so similar that thE'y ,,,,:)U.ld cause confusion in, the people dealing or wishing to deal with is them further compounded by the fact that the two companies are in the same line of business . I h ave no problems in f inding t.ha+ lin e of busin ess . i den ti fyi ng one Th e confusion the other. company from same the in in a common A company has from thP u se of that. n a me . law rj ght to rCc'strai n, another company which has or is about to reg js ter under the same n ame as it.self , Th e company has a similar l aw if it can show that the name of the other right under common company which it h as ·regjstered is th e same as or so simila r to its name that confusion h as ex i sted or th at persons have dealt with that other company believing that it is its company - in this respect the so und as we ll as t h e spe llin g of th Cc' n ame 1 s - see Hendriks v Montagu (1881) 17 ch. D 638. materia l I havP a l ready said that the names of the two comp an1es they wouJd cause co nfusi on 1n anyone I would in the ther ef ore order herei n are so si mjl ar t ha t deaU ng or wishing to deal wi th any of circumstance s grant the plaintiffs prayer. that :- them . I (a) the defe ndant s n a me br str uck out from the company names register as the same is misl eadi ng and cJos e Jy resemb]es the name of the p J.aintjffs ; a nd ... - 3 - (b) t h e defendant is restrained fro m u sing the said namr i n thejr busi n ess . Th e defendant 1s r.ondemn8d in r.osts . Made jn Chambers on the 9th day of February , 1995. {:~/) 6<x_C?, ~i ~ ~) Mrs A S E Msosa JUDGE