A long-standing legal dispute between two fried chicken chains in London has taken a dramatic turn, with accusations, appeals, and even references to rap music playing a role in the case.
What started as a trademark infringement claim has spiraled into a 15-year battle, with a judge’s controversial remarks now fueling the latest appeal.
The Dispute: Morley’s vs. Metro’s
Morley’s, a well-known South London fried chicken chain, has been fighting to protect its brand from what it calls a “copycat” competitor—Metro’s.
The heart of the issue? Metro’s allegedly using signage and branding too similar to Morley’s distinctive red and white colors and its slogan, “MMM… it tastes better.”
In June 2024, Judge Melissa Clarke ruled in favor of Morley’s, agreeing that Metro’s rival slogan, “…It’s the real taste,” could confuse customers—especially those late at night, when tired, hungry, or even tipsy individuals might not pay close attention to the differences between the two brands.
The Judge’s Controversial Comments
Metro’s legal team is now appealing the decision, arguing that Judge Clarke’s assessment of the “average customer” was flawed.
In her ruling, the judge suggested that many of the customers frequenting these fried chicken shops were “late-night and early morning revellers” who were likely “tired, hungry, and in some cases, intoxicated.”
Barrister Simon Malynicz KC, representing Metro’s, took issue with this characterization, arguing that the judge essentially equated the average customer in trademark law with the hypothetical “moron in a hurry.”
This phrase is sometimes used in legal cases to describe someone who makes quick, careless decisions.
Malynicz claimed the ruling was based on a narrow and exaggerated view of Morley’s customers, rather than a broader, more representative consumer base.
Morley’s Legacy and Cultural Impact
Morley’s has a strong presence in South London, with around 100 outlets.
The brand, originally inspired by KFC, has become a cultural staple, even earning shoutouts from UK rap artists like Stormzy and Krept. Morley’s boss, Shan Selvendran, spoke in court about how the chain had grown since its founding in 1985, becoming “synonymous with fried chicken for everyone in South London.”
Selvendran detailed the struggles Morley’s has faced against imitators, recalling an incident 14 years ago when Metro’s boss, Kunalingham Kunatheeswaran, initially planned to launch a store under the name “Mowley’s.”
He also described cases of confusion between the two brands, including a barista mistaking Metro’s for Morley’s when speaking to him.
The Court’s Verdict and Appeal
Judge Clarke found Metro’s had breached a 2018 settlement agreement that limited its signage, and also ruled that Metro’s use of Morley’s distinctive “Triple M” slogan constituted trademark infringement.
As a result, Metro’s and Kunatheeswaran were held jointly liable, with an injunction issued against them.
However, Metro’s is now challenging that ruling in the Court of Appeal.
The final decision remains on hold, with Lord Justice Newey, Lord Justice Arnold, and Lady Justice Falk set to deliver their verdict at a later date.
What’s Next?
As the legal battle drags on, both sides await the Appeal Court’s ruling.
If Metro’s wins its appeal, it could change how courts define consumer confusion in trademark cases.
If Morley’s prevails, it will reinforce the importance of protecting established brands against imitators.
One thing is clear—this is more than just a fight over fried chicken.
It’s a case about branding, consumer perception, and whether a late-night meal should come with a side of legal drama.