// Workers AI · dad joke modeWhat did Perry v Truefitt judge say? Case closed.
 | 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)
|
| Perry v Truefitt | |
|---|---|
| Decided | 1842 |
| Citation | 6 Beav. 66, 49 E.R. 749 |
| Case history | |
| Related action | passing off |
| Keywords | |
| Tort law | |
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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]References
[edit]- ↑ "Perry v Truefitt". vLex. Retrieved 15 March 2026.
External links
[edit] | This England-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing information. |
 | This case law article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing information. |
.svg){kind=small}  | This article relating to law in the United Kingdom, or its constituent jurisdictions, is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing information. |