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

The Claimant submits that Sign 2 is aurally and conceptually identical to the Triple M Mark, although visually dissimilar, as one of the three ways that it says Sign 2 can be spoken is as “triple m”, (the other two being a long “mmm” sound or “em-em-em”, i.e. each letter sounded out individually).

The Defendants deny that Sign 2 is aurally and conceptually identical to the Triple M Mark. It accepts that Sign 2 can be referred to in three ways, but it pleads that the third way is “three-M”, not “Triple M”. It pleads that only “three-M” is aurally similar to “Triple M”, not identical.