A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.
Trade dress is the characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging that signify the source of the product to consumers. Trade dress is an aspect of trademark law, which is a form of intellectual property protection law.
English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.
In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well.
Economic torts, which are also called business torts, are torts that provide the common law rules on liability which arise out of business transactions such as interference with economic or business relationships and are likely to involve pure economic loss.
Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract; they could threaten a supplier to prevent them from supplying goods or services to another party; or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.
Imperial Group plc v Philip Morris Ltd, 1982 FSR 72, was a case of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The plaintiff endeavoured to register the trade mark "MERIT" for cigarette products, but was unable to do so on the grounds that the trade mark was too descriptive. Instead, it registered the mark "NERIT", without any intention of using the mark, but in order to prevent other traders from using the mark "MERIT" because it would be considered too similar to the registered mark "NERIT". The intention was to obtain a de facto monopoly over the unregisterable mark "MERIT".
Canadian trademark law provides protection to marks by statute under the Trademarks Act and also at common law. Trademark law provides protection for distinctive marks, certification marks, distinguishing guises, and proposed marks against those who appropriate the goodwill of the mark or create confusion between different vendors' goods or services. A mark can be protected either as a registered trademark under the Act or can alternately be protected by a common law action in passing off.
Erven Warnink B.V. v. J. Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd., [1979] AC 731, [1980] R.P.C. 31, – also known as the Advocaat case – is a leading decision of the House of Lords that further developed the common law tort of extended passing off for the Commonwealth as originally established in Bollinger v. Costa Brava. Prior to this case "collective goodwill", as required for an action in passing off, only applied to names indicating geographic origin. The Court held that wares whose name falsely suggests its character or quality can be prevented from selling the product under that name.
Reckitt & Colman Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 All E.R. 873, – also known as the Jif Lemon case – is a leading decision of the House of Lords on the tort of passing off. The Court reaffirmed the three part test in order to establish a claim of passing off.
Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc., popularly known as the Lego Case, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court upheld the constitutionality of section 7(b) of the Trade-marks Act which prohibits the use of confusing marks, as well, on a second issue it was held that the doctrine of functionality applied to unregistered trade-marks.
Canadian tort law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian tort law originally derives from that of England and Wales but has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867 and has been influenced by jurisprudence in other common law jurisdictions. Meanwhile, while private law as a whole in Québec was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of tort law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. As most aspects of tort law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, tort law varies even between the country's common law provinces and territories.
AG Spalding and Bros v AW Gamage Ltd, (1915) 84 LJ Ch 449, (1915) 113 LT 198, (1915) 31 TLR 328, [1914-15] All ER Rep 147, (1915) 32 RPC 273, is a leading decision of the House of Lords on the tort of passing off. The Court established a three-part test for a successful claim of passing off. First, the claimant's product must have goodwill. Second, there must be a misrepresentation by the defendant's product, and third, there must be damages inflicted upon the claimant.
Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd. is generally thought to be the first case to clearly acknowledge the existence in Canada of a tort of appropriation of personality.
The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:
A trademark is a type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression that identifies a product or service from a particular source and distinguishes it from others. A trademark owner can be an individual, business organization, or any legal entity. A trademark may be located on a package, a label, a voucher, or on the product itself. Trademarks used to identify services are sometimes called service marks.
Trademark infringement is a violation of the exclusive rights attached to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner or any licensees. Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, especially in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers. An owner of a trademark may commence civil legal proceedings against a party which infringes its registered trademark. In the United States, the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 criminalized the intentional trade in counterfeit goods and services.
In Canada, passing off is both a common law tort and a statutory cause of action under the Canadian Trade-marks Act referring to the deceptive representation or marketing of goods or services by competitors in a manner that confuses consumers. The law of passing off protects the goodwill of businesses by preventing competitors from passing off their goods as those of another.
Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., [1992] 3 SCR 120, is a Supreme Court of Canada judgment on trademark law and more specifically the issue of passing off. Ciba-Geigy brought an action against Apotex and Novopharm, alleging that their versions of the prescription drug metoprolol were causing confusion to the public due to their similar appearance to Ciba-Geigy's version of the drug Lopresor. On appeal to the SCC, the issue was whether a plaintiff is required to establish that the public affected by the risk of confusion includes not only health care professionals but also the patients who consume the drugs in a passing off action involving prescription drugs of a similar appearance. The Supreme Court held affirmatively on this question.
