Morley's (Fast Foods) Limited v Thurairasa Nanthankumar & Ors

Morley's (Fast Foods) Limited v Thurairasa Nanthankumar & Ors

The appeal was dismissed because the judge’s findings on likelihood of confusion, similarity of the marks and signs, and the interpretation of the 2018 Agreement were rational and correct. The 2018 Agreement did not permit the modifications or sub-licensing relied on by the Defendants, and the use of the disputed signs infringed the Claimant’s trade marks.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (ipec) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Contractual Interpretation, Likelihood of Confusion, Franchise Law
Intellectual Property Trade Mark Infringement Contractual Interpretation Likelihood of Confusion Franchise Law

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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (ipec) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants infringed the Claimant’s registered trade marks by use of certain signs
  2. 2 Whether the 2018 Agreement permitted the use of the disputed signs by the Defendants and their franchisees
  3. 3 Whether there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks and the signs used

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the judge’s findings on likelihood of confusion, similarity of the marks and signs, and the interpretation of the 2018 Agreement were rational and correct. The 2018 Agreement did not permit the modifications or sub-licensing relied on by the Defendants, and the use of the disputed signs infringed the Claimant’s trade marks.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.