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?
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.
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 |
|
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.
- 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


