Claim No: IP-2022-000066 - [2024] EWHC 1369 (IPEC)
Fecha: 07-Jun-2024
Determination
Determination
I agree with all of the visual similarities identified by the Claimant and set out above. The dominant element of each of Sign 1 and the Morley’s Red and White Mark is the brand name, which although different do present similarly with a closely similar but not identical italic font, the almost identical large, stylised M being the most dominant part of that dominant feature in each case. I find both the font used and the large, stylised M to be distinctive.
The strapline of each, although not dominant, is by no means negligible. I find in each case that it is an important secondary element, which has a distinctive role independent of the dominant element.
The placement of the strapline in both Sign 1 and the Morley’s Red and White Mark, under the dominant element and within the space provided by the drop of the right leg of the letter “M”, together with the almost identical italic serif font, and the similarity in words and the ellipse, add to the visual similarity, although the use of “MMM” in the Morley’s Red and White Mark is a distinctive element of the strapline which is a point of difference with Sign 1.
Also adding to the visual similarity in my assessment is the use of white text on a red background. I accept that those colours are not distinctive in this fast-food arena, but I accept Mr Pearson’s submission for the Claimant that the similarity in font, size and layout of the elements of both signs produces a pattern of white on red which is visually very similar and adds to the distinctiveness of the whole. I do not consider that the average consumer would perceive any difference at all in the shades of red and white used in the Morley’s Red and White Mark as imperfectly held in his mind and Sign 1 as used by the Defendants. Unless compared directly side by side, I find them to be almost identical.
Despite the different brand names in the dominant element (the differences which are made somewhat less significant in my judgment by the almost identical dominant stylised letter “M”, very similar font and word length) and the missing “MMM” and varied strapline in Sign 1, I find Sign 1 and the Morley’s Red and White Mark to be visually quite similar.
Aurally, I find that Sign 1 and the Morley’s Red and White Mark are dissimilar. If both are read out loud, including the strapline, the only real similarity is in use of the word “taste”, but the aural differences in the rest outweigh that similarity and render it negligible, in my judgment.
Conceptually, the brand name “Metro’s” within Sign 1 is not similar to “Morley’s” in the Mark. However, I find Sign 1 and the Mark to be similar conceptually overall, because of the conceptually very similar straplines centred around good taste.
On a global appreciation, then, I find that Sign 1 is similar to the Morley’s Red and White Mark to a medium degree.
- Heading
- Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke
- Section 2
- Section 3
- Section 4
- TRIPLE M/TRIPLE “M”
- THE ISSUES
- THE LAW
- WITNESSES
- EVIDENCE
- Morley’s after SS joined as CEO in 2009
- Morley’s involvement with KK
- Settlement negotiations and agreement
- Issue 2: Who is the average consumer of the Claimant’s goods and services?
- Determination
- Issue 1: Do C’s Marks comprise a family of marks?
- Submissions
- Determination
- Issue 3 – Have any of C’s Marks acquired an enhanced distinctiveness through use?
- Issue 4 – Is Sign 1 similar to the Morley’s Red and White Mark?
- Determination
- Issue 5: If so, is there (because Sign 1 is similar to the Morley’s Red and White Mark and is used by the Defendants in relation to goods and services identical with those for which the Morley’s Red a
- Determination
- Issue 6: Have the Defendants or any of them infringed Sign 1?
- Pleadings
- Law
- Submissions
- Determination
- Issue 7: Is Sign 2 similar to the Triple M Mark?
- Section 30
- Determination
- Issue 8: If so, is there (because Sign 2 is similar to the Triple M Mark and is used by the 6 th Defendant and KK in relation to goods or services identical with those for which the Triple M Mark is r
- Determination
- Issue 9: Have the 6 th Defendant and KK or either of them infringed the Triple M Mark?
- Issue 10: Is Sign 3 identical to the Triple M Mark?
- Issue 11: If the answer to issue 10 is yes, is Sign 3 used by the 5 th Defendant and KK in relation to goods or services identical with those for which the Triple M Mark is registered?
- Issue 15: Is KK jointly and severally liable with the Franchisee Defendants or any of them in respect of any liability for trade mark infringement established against any of them?
- Submissions
- Issue 16: If liability for trademark infringement is established against the Defendants or any of them, did any of the liable Defendants threaten and intend to continue any acts of trade mark infringe
- Issue 17: If liability for trademark infringement is established against the Defendants or any of them, did any of the liable Defendants know or have reasonable grounds to know that they were engaging
- Issue 18: Does Sign 1 fall within the definition of Metro’s Signs in the 2018 Agreement?
- Law
- Submissions
- Conclusions