Fit Kitchen Ltd & Anor v Scratch Meals Ltd
Decision date: 29 July 2020
Neutral citation: [2020] EWHC 2069 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
This case concerned Fit Kitchen Ltd (FKL) claiming trade mark infringement and passing off against Scratch Meals Ltd (SML) over use of the sign FIT KITCHEN, and SML's counterclaim that FKL's trade mark was invalid for bad faith because it was applied for while FKL was dissolved. The judge found the bad faith counterclaim failed, held SML liable for trade mark infringement under s.10(2) but not under s.10(3) (because FKL had not proved reputation by the relevant date), and found FKL established passing off. Licences and later administrative steps to restore the company were recorded but did not change these findings.
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: medium
From the judgment the operative ratio includes: (1) an application for registration made while a company was dissolved raises validity issues but bad faith was not established where the applicant did not know of the dissolution; (2) for s.10(3) the relevant date for assessing whether the proprietor had the requisite reputation is the date on which the defendant first used the accused sign; and (3) the origin function of a trade mark secures that goods/services come from a single undertaking or its licensee rather than identifying a particular legal entity.
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 noted but did not decide arguments about the legal effect of administrative restoration versus bona vacantia on ownership of applications/registered marks (these points were not pleaded). The judge also indicated that, had FKL proved reputation, he would have found SML took unfair advantage of that repute.