ABSTRACT
The doctrine that a common field of activity must exist between claimant and defendant arose in the decision in McCulloch v Lewis A May Distributors Ltd (1947) where the radio presenter, ‘Uncle Mac’, had no common field of activity with the manufacturer of breakfast cereal who adopted the name. In Rolls Razors Ltd v Rolls Lighters Ltd (1949), it was held that no confusion was likely because the respective products sold by the parties were not likely to be confused. The same principle was applied in Wombles Ltd v Wombles Skips (1977), where the proprietors of the children’s characters were held to be a separate field of activity to the defendant, who manufactured rubbish skips. However, on occasion, the courts have found that good will extends beyond the products with which it is associated. In Lego Systems Akieselskab v Lego M Lemelstrich (1983), the makers of the well known toy bricks were able to prevent the defendants entering the UK gardening and irrigation market using their name.
