Morley's (Fast Foods) Ltd v Nanthakumar & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 186 (14 March 2025)

Morley's (Fast Foods) Ltd v Nanthakumar & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 186 (14 March 2025)

The appeal is dismissed because the judge's findings on likelihood of confusion, visual and conceptual similarity, breach and interpretation of the 2018 Agreement, and absence of sub-licensing rights were rational and legally correct.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 186
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Morley's (Fast Foods) Limited; Defendant/appellant: Thurairasa Nanthakumar; Defendant/appellant: Jarald Kumar; Defendant/appellant: Muthkumaru Thayalakulasingham; Defendant/appellant: Jeyatharini Sivakumar; Defendant/appellant: Vaishdheepan Sanmuganathan; Defendant/appellant: Srikanesarasa Nagaratnam; Defendant/appellant: Kunalingam Kunatheeswaran; Defendant/appellant: Sivarajah Nelan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Likelihood of Confusion, Contractual Interpretation, Franchise Licensing
Intellectual Property Contract Trade Mark Infringement Likelihood of Confusion Contractual Interpretation Franchise Licensing

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morley's (Fast Foods) Limited

Claimant/respondent

Thurairasa Nanthakumar

Defendant/appellant

Jarald Kumar

Defendant/appellant

Muthkumaru Thayalakulasingham

Defendant/appellant

Jeyatharini Sivakumar

Defendant/appellant

Vaishdheepan Sanmuganathan

Defendant/appellant

Srikanesarasa Nagaratnam

Defendant/appellant

Kunalingam Kunatheeswaran

Defendant/appellant

Sivarajah Nelan

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants infringed claimant's registered trade marks
  2. 2 Whether modifications to Metro's Signs breached 2018 Agreement
  3. 3 Whether 2018 Agreement permitted sub-licensing to franchisees

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the judge's findings on likelihood of confusion, visual and conceptual similarity, breach and interpretation of the 2018 Agreement, and absence of sub-licensing rights were rational and legally correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants' appeal dismissed
  • Consequential order of High Court upheld