Claim No: IP-2022-000066 - [2024] EWHC 1369 (IPEC)
Intellectual Property Enterprise Court

Claim No: IP-2022-000066 - [2024] EWHC 1369 (IPEC)

Fecha: 07-Jun-2024

Issue 18: Does Sign 1 fall within the definition of Metro’s Signs in the 2018 Agreement?

Issue 18: Does Sign 1 fall within the definition of Metro’s Signs in the 2018 Agreement?

144.

The 2018 Agreement provides at clause 5.8 that KK is permitted to use in the course of trade “The Metro’s Signs to include for the avoidance of doubt the application of The Metro’s Signs to any packaging and any application for a registered trade mark in respect of the Metro’s Signs.” Metro’s Signs is defined in clause 1 as ““Metro’s Fried Chicken” the logo a copy of which is included at Annex A and any reasonable modifications thereto”. Annex A contains what I have referred to as the Settlement Sign.

145.

The table below sets out the Morley’s Red and White Mark against Sign 1 and the Settlement Sign.

Morley’s Red and White Mark

Sign 1

Settlement Sign

146.

There is no dispute that Sign 1 varies from the Settlement Sign, particularly in respect of the loss of the electric blue border on at least the lower edge, as Sign 1 has been used by the Defendants, and the addition of the strapline “…It’s The Real Taste”. The Claimant also says that the letters of the dominant sign Metro’s have also been pushed closer together, in a way which makes it more similar to the Morley’s sign, which I accept, and the electric blue of the remaining border has been dulled down to a dark blue, which I also accept. The real dispute between the parties is whether these changes are “reasonable modifications” to the Settlement Sign pursuant to the 2018 Agreement.