B&M takes Morrisons to High Court over copyright infringement
B&M is suing high street supermarket chain Morrisons at the High Court, according to the company.
A spokesperson from B&M said the claim has been filed over allegations of “intellectual property infringement and breach of confidence”.
According to court records, the claim was filed on Thursday against Morrisons and Simon Buckley, who according to the company’s website is a senior buyer of general merchandise.
The case type is listed as a “copyright and design right”, but no other details of the claim or documents are currently available.
A hearing in the case is yet to take place.
A spokesperson for B&M said: “B&M has commenced legal proceedings against Morrisons in relation to allegations of intellectual property infringement and breach of confidence.
“We invest significantly in developing our products and protecting our confidential business information and will take appropriate action where we believe those rights have been infringed.
“As the matter is now before the courts, it would not be appropriate to comment further.” Morrisons declined to comment.
B&M was sued earlier this year by The Skinny Food Co, for almost £14million over claims it stopped purchasing products from the supplier as “retaliation” for an investment bid breakdown.
The Skinny Food Co launched legal action in February of this year, seeking at least £13.8million in damages for the alleged breaches by B&M.
Invest at least £100 in Stocks or ETFs of your choice. Get fractional shares worth £50!
Terms and conditions apply.
Go to websiteADVERTISEMENT
Invest at least £100 in Stocks or ETFs of your choice. Get fractional shares worth £50!
Terms and conditions apply.
Go to websiteADVERTISEMENT
In court documents, George Spalton KC, representing Skinny, said: “B&M’s decision to de-list Skinny was motivated at least by the breakdown of the negotiations between (Arora) and Skinny in respect of the proposed investment by the Arora family in Skinny, and by Arora’s desire to make good his threats to ‘ruin’ Skinny.”
He continued that B&M “repeatedly assured” Skinny that it could “have confidence in B&M as a trading partner”, asked for “exclusivity in respect of certain product lines” and “sought to dissuade Skinny from dealing with B&M’s competitors.
The barrister claimed this led to Skinny stopping “pursuing opportunities” with B&M’s rival, Home Bargains, and to buy machinery worth more than £235,000 solely to serve anticipated demand for B&M for its products.
KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.