Natural Instinct Ltd v Natures Menu Ltd
Decision date: 20 March 2020
Neutral citation: [2020] EWHC 617 (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 was a dispute in IPEC between Natural Instinct Ltd (owner of the registered mark NATURAL INSTINCT for pet food) and Natures Menu Ltd, which launched TRUE INSTINCT / NATURES MENU TRUE INSTINCT. The judge found the claimant's mark had acquired high distinctiveness and reputation, the defendant's signs were similar to the mark, and there was a likelihood of confusion; accordingly the defendant infringed under ss.10(2) and 10(3) and the claimant succeeded in passing off. The judge also found the defendant had failed adequately to disclose known adverse documents evidencing consumer confusion.
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 supports the proposition that a trade mark with established reputation and distinctive character increases the likelihood of confusion and can found infringement under ss.10(2) and 10(3). A later user’s adoption of a similar sign can infringe even where a house mark appears, if the similar element retains an independent distinctive role that causes confusion. Parties in IPEC must disclose known adverse documents (including written instances of confusion) that come to their attention; such documents should be disclosed even if no formal search is required.
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 notes record obiter observations including that many users cannot reliably distinguish organic search results from paid Google Ads and tend to click the top result; that generic or descriptive terms (e.g. "raw") cannot be monopolised and will not support passing off; and that practical, proportional considerations in IPEC can justify relying on company witnesses to report consumer confusion rather than calling numerous first‑hand consumers.