Claim No: IP-2022-000066 - [2024] EWHC 1369 (IPEC)
Fecha: 07-Jun-2024
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 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 in infringing activity?
The Defendants have made no submissions to me on this point. The Claimant submits that the Franchisee Defendants could and should have performed basic due diligence to ensure that KK had rights to sub-license the signs they came to use, and that this amounts to reasonable grounds to know. I accept that submission.
In relation to KK, I accept the Claimant’s submission that he knew that Sign 1 was different to the Settlement Sign, and he knew that the Settlement Sign was reached in order to compromise infringement proceedings against him. I have made specific findings that in developing Sign 1 he intended to make it as similar to Morley’s Red and White Mark as he thought he could get away with. In my judgment, he had reasonable grounds to know that use of Sign 1 which was materially modified from the Settlement Sign, would be infringing, particularly given his history of following a strategy of imitating the Claimant’s branding and locations as closely as possible, and the Claimant’s history of taking infringement actions against him.
I further accept the Claimant’s submission that KK knew that the Franchisee Defendants were not named in the 2018 Agreement, were not within the definition of “Related Parties”, and that the 2018 Agreement contained a clause excluding third party rights.
- 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