Morley’s (Fast Foods) Limited v Jeyatharini Sivakumar & Ors

This was a dispute between two South London chicken franchise networks. Morley’s said the Metro’s network had adopted branding that came too close to Morley’s registered trade marks and overall presentation.

The judge described the case as the latest episode in what Morley’s said was persistent copycat behaviour by KK since around 2010. So this was not a one-off disagreement about a single sign. It was part of a longer commercial conflict about how one network presented itself in the same market.

The court was dealing with real-world branding, not just words on a register. The signs appeared on shop fasciae, windows, menu boards and a Deliveroo menu. That mattered because customers often choose takeaway food quickly, based on what they see first.

The background was important. Morley’s and KK had already been in earlier branding disputes. Those earlier issues ended in a settlement agreement dated 16 December 2018. Under that agreement, KK had to stop using certain signs, but he was permitted to use a specific “Metro’s Fried Chicken” logo shown in an annex, together with any reasonable modifications to it.

Morley’s later said the Metro’s branding had moved beyond what the settlement allowed. It argued that the later signs were too close to Morley’s own marks and that the changes made to the approved Metro’s sign pushed it nearer to Morley’s red-and-white branding instead of keeping a safe distance.

Morley’s relied on three registered marks relevant to the claim: the Morley’s mark, the Triple M mark and the Morley’s red-and-white mark. The defendants accepted that those marks were inherently distinctive and had acquired distinctiveness through use.

They also accepted that the challenged signs had been used in trade for identical or similar goods and services. That narrowed the case. Morley’s did not first have to prove it had any rights at all. The main fight was about confusion, identity, joint liability and the meaning of the settlement wording.

The three challenged signs were used in different places. Sign 1 appeared on restaurant fasciae. Sign 2, shown as “MMM”, appeared in shop windows and on menu boards. Sign 3, shown as “TRIPLE M/TRIPLE “M””, appeared on menu boards and on a Deliveroo menu.

The defendants denied infringement apart from an admission by the 8th defendant that Sign 3 on a Deliveroo menu infringed the Triple M mark under section 10(1), while saying that use was not ongoing. Some defendants also said their use was no longer ongoing because they had ceased trading under the Metro’s franchise.

Morley’s also said KK was liable as a joint tortfeasor with the franchisee defendants for their use of Sign 1. That point matters commercially because it goes beyond direct use by the franchisor itself. It raises the question of when a network owner can be responsible for what franchisees display at local sites.

The court had to decide whether the defendants’ use of the challenged signs infringed Morley’s registered trade marks under section 10(1) or section 10(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. It also had to decide whether KK was jointly liable for franchisee use of Sign 1.

Another major issue was contract interpretation. The 2018 settlement allowed use of a specified Metro’s sign and any reasonable modifications to it. The court therefore had to decide what “reasonable modifications” meant in the commercial setting of a settlement of an earlier trade mark dispute.

For the section 10(2)(b) claims, likelihood of confusion was central. The court assessed that from the perspective of the average consumer of the relevant goods and services. In this market, the judge accepted that customers may choose a shop by convenience of location, shopfront or a delivery-platform advert, often with a medium to low degree of attention.

The judgment also recognised a class of late-night and early-morning customers who may pay a low degree of attention. The judge said it was enough for one class of average consumer to be confused for there to be a likelihood of confusion in relation to that class.

The court also considered Morley’s argument that its marks formed a family of marks. That issue did not ultimately help Morley’s. The judge rejected the family-of-marks argument, which is important because the case should not be overstated beyond the findings the court actually made.

So, in practical terms, the case turned on a mix of trade mark comparison, customer perception, franchisor responsibility and the proper reading of a settlement that was supposed to end an earlier dispute.

Morley’s succeeded on the main liability issues. The court held that the franchisee defendants and KK had infringed the Morley’s red-and-white mark by using Sign 1 under section 10(2)(b).

It also held that the 6th defendant and KK had infringed the Triple M mark by using Sign 2 under section 10(2)(b). For Sign 3, the court held that the 5th defendant and KK had infringed under section 10(1), because the sign was effectively identical to the registered Triple M mark and was used for identical goods or services. The 8th defendant had already admitted infringement of the Triple M mark by use of Sign 3 on a Deliveroo menu.

The court further held that KK was jointly and severally liable with the franchisee defendants for infringement involving Sign 1. The judgment found that he had authorised and procured the use through the franchise arrangements and had the necessary knowledge of the essential facts.

On the contract side, the court held that Sign 1 did not fall within the settlement’s permitted Metro’s signs. KK’s use of Signs 1, 2 and 3 was therefore also in breach of the 2018 agreement. Morley’s was entitled to injunctive relief against defendants still using the signs, and the defendants’ counterclaim was dismissed.

The court also rejected Morley’s argument that its marks comprised a family of marks. That did not stop Morley’s winning on the infringement and contract issues, but it does matter when reading the case carefully. The durable lessons come from the infringement findings, the joint liability finding and the settlement interpretation, not from any broader family-of-marks point.

One of the most useful parts of the judgment is the court’s approach to the phrase “reasonable modifications”. The agreement did not give KK a free hand to keep redesigning the approved sign. It allowed use of a specific sign and any reasonable modifications to it. The question was what counted as reasonable in that setting.

The judge approached that question as one of contract interpretation. The court looked at the natural and ordinary meaning of the words, the overall purpose of the agreement, the factual and commercial context known to the parties at the time, and commercial common sense.

This was a settlement of a trade mark dispute. On that reading, reasonable modifications did not include changes that increased the similarity between the approved Metro’s sign and Morley’s red-and-white mark. The judge said that interpretation made commercial sense.

The court reasoned that a settlement designed to end an infringement dispute would be undermined if the alleged infringer could later alter the approved sign so that it moved closer to the branding said to have been infringed. In other words, the permission had to be read as a controlled compromise, not as an open-ended design licence.

The court identified several changes that were not reasonable because they increased similarity: adding a strapline, removing one edge of the border, dulling the border colour from electric blue to dark blue, and reducing the spacing between the letters in “Metro’s”.

The electric blue border mattered in particular because the judge treated it as part of the distinction intentionally agreed between the parties during the settlement process. Changes that undermined that distinction were not treated as trivial.

That is a strong warning for any business using a settlement, coexistence agreement or brand licence. Small design changes can still create major legal exposure if they shift the overall impression in the wrong direction.

This case is not just about chicken shops. It is about how brand disputes work in any business where customers make quick choices and where visual presentation does a lot of the selling. If your customers choose by shopfront, packaging, menu layout, website or app listing, the overall look of your branding can matter as much as the exact words.

The judgment is especially important for franchise systems. A franchisor may face exposure not only for its own use of a sign, but also for franchisee use if it has authorised or procured that use and has the necessary knowledge of the essential facts. In practice, that makes brand control a legal risk issue, not just a marketing issue.

The case also shows that courts look at branding as customers see it in context. Colours, borders, spacing, slogans and placement can all matter. A business cannot rely on the argument that the words are not exactly the same if the overall presentation still points customers towards the wrong commercial source.

Another useful point is the court’s treatment of customer attention. In convenience-led sectors, customers may choose quickly and with only medium or low attention. Some late-night customers may pay even less attention. That means a business should assess confusion risk in the real buying environment, not in a calm boardroom review of artwork.

There is also a limit to what this case says. Morley’s argued that its marks formed a family of marks, but the court rejected that. So the case should not be read as authority that Morley’s had a legally recognised family of marks here. The findings that matter most for business are the infringement findings, the joint liability point and the settlement interpretation.

This judgment is a reminder that trade mark risk often comes from ordinary business conduct rather than dramatic rebrands. A sign can be rolled out through fascia suppliers, menu designers, franchise manuals and delivery-platform uploads without anyone stopping to ask whether the final version still matches the approved artwork.

Where there has been a previous dispute, the paperwork matters even more. A settlement may contain a carefully negotiated compromise sign, colour treatment or wording. If the business later drifts away from that agreed version, the problem is not only trade mark infringement. It may also be breach of contract.

For franchisors, the documents that matter most are the settlement or licence itself, the approved artwork files, the brand manual, franchise agreements and any internal approval records. If those documents do not line up, local operators can end up using branding that creates liability across the network.

For franchisees and site operators, the practical point is simpler. Use the approved files you are given, avoid local edits, and escalate any proposed changes before they go live. A local designer’s attempt to make a sign look sharper, more modern or more competitive can create a legal problem if it changes the overall impression.

If your business uses licensed branding, franchise branding or a sign approved under a settlement, put practical controls around it. Problems often start when local operators, designers or platform managers make small changes without checking the legal position.

This judgment shows how closely a court can look at visual details and at who authorised the use across a network. It also shows why an approved logo should not be treated as a flexible starting point for local experimentation.

For a time-poor business owner, the safest approach is to build a short approval process before any sign, menu board or app listing goes live. That process does not need to be complicated, but it does need to be consistent.