Morley’s (Fast Foods) Limited v Jeyatharini Sivakumar & Ors
Decision date: 7 June 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] EWHC 1369 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This is a trade mark dispute in which Morley’s succeeded in part, establishing that Metro’s/KK and several franchisees infringed Morley’s registered marks by using three signs (Sign 1, Sign 2, Sign 3). The court found Sign 1 likely to cause confusion with Morley’s Red and White Mark for a substantial part of the late‑night consumer class, Sign 2 likely to cause confusion with the Triple M Mark when used on menus, and Sign 3 identical to the Triple M Mark; KK was held jointly liable with franchisees and in breach of the 2018 settlement agreement. Morley’s obtained injunctive relief against defendants still using the signs and the defendants’ counterclaim was dismissed.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The judgment holds that a licence to use a sign "subject to reasonable modifications" must be construed so that reasonable modifications do not increase similarity to a third party’s trade mark or undermine an agreed distinguishing feature (here, the electric blue border); and a franchisor can be jointly and severally liable for trade mark infringement where it authorises or procures franchisees’ use, having reasonable grounds to know the use would be infringing and acting in furtherance of a common design.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judge’s adverse findings about KK’s credibility and deliberate adaptation of trade dress were treated as relevant to assessments of knowledge and intent in imposing accessory/joint liability. The judgment also treated social media and influencer material as admissible evidence of consumer perception/confusion.