A dog groomer sued her ex-employee for using the same business name. The court decided the employee was wrong because she stole the business's good name, causing the business to lose customers. The ex-employee's arguments about the business having other names or bad customer service didn’t work.
Key Facts
- •Laura Thurgood (Claimant) sued Danielle Laight and Wash Wiggle & Wag Limited (Defendants) for passing off related to a dog grooming business.
- •Ms. Laight previously worked for Ms. Thurgood's business, using the WASH WIGGLE & WAG name.
- •After leaving, Ms. Laight started her own dog grooming business using the same name.
- •Ms. Laight denied passing off, arguing insufficient goodwill, use of other business names by Ms. Thurgood, that she built the business's reputation, no customer confusion, and that damage resulted from poor customer service.
- •Defendants admitted joint and several liability.
- •The court considered whether Ms. Thurgood had goodwill in WASH WIGGLE & WAG, whether the Defendants caused deception, and whether Ms. Thurgood suffered damage.
- •The court found Ms. Laight was not a partner in Ms. Thurgood's business, despite initial claims in the Defence.
- •Ms. Thurgood's business initially operated under SCRUFFY2FLUFFY, then adopted WASH WIGGLE & WAG.
- •Ms. Laight used Ms. Thurgood's business's Facebook and Instagram pages to promote her own business.
- •Ms. Laight retained money collected from customers of Ms. Thurgood's business.
- •Ms. Thurgood's business deteriorated after Ms. Laight's departure.
Legal Principles
Passing off
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Muller & Co’s Margarine [1901] AC 217 (HL)
Goodwill is the attractive force which brings in custom.
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Muller & Co’s Margarine [1901] AC 217 (HL) per Lord Macnaghten at 223
Outcomes
Judgment for the Claimant (Ms. Thurgood).
The court found that Ms. Thurgood had established goodwill in WASH WIGGLE & WAG, Ms. Laight's use of the name constituted a misrepresentation causing damage to Ms. Thurgood's business.