（b） The action of passing off was developed to prevent one person from using any name which is likely to divert business their way by suggesting that the business is actually that of some other person or is connected in any way with that other business. It thus enables people to protect the goodwill they have built up in relation to their business activity. In Ewing v Buttercup Margarine Co Ltd （1917） the plaintiff successfully prevented the defendants from using a name that suggested a link with his existing dairy company. It cannot be used， however， if there is no likelihood of the public being confused， where for example the companies are conducting different businesses （Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Dunlop Motor Co Ltd （1907）） and Stringfellow v McCain Foods GB Ltd （1984）。 Nor can it be used where the name consists of a word in general use （Aerators Ltd v Tollitt （1902））。

　　Part 41 of the Companies Act （CA） 2006， which repeals and replaces the Business Names Act 1985， still does not prevent one business from using the same， or a very similar， name as another business so the tort of passing off will still have an application in the wider business sector. However， the Act introduced a new procedure to deal specifically with company names. As previously under the CA 1985， a company cannot register with a name that was the same as any already registered （s.665 Companies Act （CA） 2006） and under CA s.67 the Secretary of State may direct a company to change its name if it has been registered in a name that is the same as， or too like a name appearing on the registrar‘s index of company names. In addition， however， a completely new system of complaint has been introduced.

[上一頁]                 [下一頁]