Nissin Foods Holdings Co., Limited vs MomoIP LLC

13 Mar 2025Court Report

High Court overturns decision on trade mark non-use in Nissin Foods vs MomoIP

High Court rules in favour of Nissin Foods in trade mark dispute with MomoIP

The High Court of Justice has ruled in favour of Nissin Foods Holdings Co., Limited in its trade mark dispute against MomoIP LLC, overturning a decision by the UK Intellectual Property Office that had previously dismissed Nissin's actions against MomoIP's trade mark registrations. The case, presided over by Iain Purvis KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division, centred on the issue of whether MomoIP's trade mark 'MOMOFUKU' had been put to genuine use within the United Kingdom.

The appeal arose from a decision by Hearing Officer Ms Stephanie Wilson, dated 26 March 2024, which dismissed three actions by Nissin: Opposition 433 532, an application for revocation for non-use 504 798, and an application for a declaration of invalidity 504 852. However, she partially allowed Opposition 436 363, and two applications for declarations of invalidity brought by MomoIP LLC.

The central question in the appeal was whether MomoIP's UK Trade Mark Registration UK 00 906 646 558 for the word 'MOMOFUKU', registered for 'restaurant services' in class 43, had been genuinely used in the UK during the relevant period from 21 April 2017 to 20 April 2022. The Hearing Officer had concluded that there was sufficient evidence of genuine use, a decision that was contested by Nissin Foods.

In her decision, the Hearing Officer had relied on several factors to support her conclusion. These included the sale of over 2,600 copies of the MOMOFUKU cookbook via Amazon.co.uk, website traffic from the UK to MomoIP's website, and a two-day MOMOFUKU pop-up restaurant event in Shoreditch, London, in April 2018. However, Deputy Judge Iain Purvis KC found that the evidence presented did not substantiate the claim of genuine use within the UK.

The court found that the Hearing Officer had made several errors in her factual findings and evaluative decisions. For instance, the assumption that over 2,600 copies of the MOMOFUKU cookbook were sold in the UK was incorrect, as there was no concrete evidence to support this claim. Similarly, the website traffic data and the pop-up restaurant event in Shoreditch were deemed insufficient to establish genuine use of the trade mark in the UK market.

Deputy Judge Purvis emphasised the importance of establishing genuine use within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, as required by Section 100 of the Trade Marks Act. He noted that while MomoIP had used the '558 Mark outside the UK, particularly in New York, Australia, and Canada, the activities cited by the Hearing Officer did not meet the threshold for genuine use in the UK.

The judge highlighted that the evidence of website traffic and Instagram followers did not necessarily indicate promotional activities targeting the UK market. He noted that the presence of the MOMOFUKU website accessible from the UK did not constitute genuine use of the trade mark within the jurisdiction.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the Hearing Officer's decision was flawed due to errors of fact and illogical assertions not supported by the evidence. As a result, the appeal was successful, and the court invited counsel to draft an order reflecting the decision.