Register Login

Chicken Inn Loses Trademark Dispute With Chicken Slice

Chicken Inn Loses Trademark Dispute With Chicken Slice

Innscor Africa Limited has failed in its bid to interdict its competitor, Slice Distributors (Pvt) Ltd, also trading as Chicken Slice, for alleged trademark infringement in the High Court.

Chicken Inn filed an application at the High Court in 2019 seeking an interdict against Chicken Slice for using its trademark, “Luv” and its colours.

Chicken Inn argued that Chicken Slice had used “Luv” in its burger and grill logo.

The company also argued it has always used “Luv Dat Chicken” since 1987 before Chicken Slice started using “I Luv it” too on its burgers boxes.

Chicken Inn further submitted that the resemblance of the trademark and colours confuses consumers of their products.

However, Chicken Slice rejected the accusations arguing that Chicken Inn doesn’t own exclusive rights to the tagline “luv”.

In her ruling, Justice Sylvia Chirawu-Mugomba said besides the word “luv”, the marks used are not similar and are used on the burger rather than the Chicken Slice logo. She said:

In my view, a national customer who encounters the products of the plaintiff and the first defendant is not likely to be confused by the difference between them.

Justice Chirawu-Mugomba noted that the evidence brought before the court by Chicken Inn was not sufficient as the similarities revealed through chats of clients do not represent the views of all customers. She said:

Apart from the contention that the Chicken Inn was established in 1987, reference to a university student thesis and a few social media chats, the plaintiff has not put anything else before the court that proves goodwill and reputation.

This cannot be by any stretch of the imagination taken as proving goodwill and reputation. As already indicated, this is a matter of fact.

The proof, being a pre-requisite for passing off, Chicken Inn has failed to prove that Chicken Slice passed off any of its products as those of the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the claim for passing off by the plaintiff against Chicken Slice fails. It is trite that costs are at the discretion of the court. I can perceive no reason why Chicken Inn should not be awarded costs.


Share Article



mthwakazi ka ndaba 1 week ago

instead of being jealous and try to push chicken slice out of their way, chicken inn shld re-strategise to survive the competition posed by up coming competition .
monopolistic tendencies doesn't work anymore

𝚂𝚒𝚢𝚘𝚢o 1 week ago

hey you chicken Inn, don't be jealous kana makundwa kubika huku bikai mbudzi

huku 1 week ago

kkkkk bikai mangai ndozvatajaira

Totito 1 week ago

Kana kubika Madora moati "Dora Slice" & "Dora Burger"

5 days ago

kkkkk guys kkkkk

cid 1 week ago

@ Siyoyo taura hako ngavaite Goat inn kana Chicken vakundwa

Chinese zodiac 1 week ago

Ndiri seni chicken inn handichatenge ndakumhanya nekanonxi byten ikako kuserii

nela 1 week ago

but it's definitely true that you can't tel the difference though


1 week ago

apa mukunetsana mese hamugone kunika chicken slice basa kuwanza mazi spice imiwo chicken inn nyama yenyu inenge isina kuibva tangai magona kubika mozonetsana

Tateguru 1 week ago

It would have confused if it had be "Luv Dat Chicken" and Luv Dis Chicken"

Mambo 1 week ago

Taakumhanya neMambo's Chicken 🐔

Tintin 1 week ago

zvaiva pachena kuti vachanetsana 😂😂😂

chikiti.. musavengana 1 week ago

chicken inn yakadhakwa iyo ma toilets chaiwo chaiwo vanogara vaka vhara hanzi toda ma receipts havana customer care

chicken 1 week ago

chicken in huku ngadziibve tanzwa nekudyiswa ropa

Guka 1 week ago

KKK aaah chicken slice kudi mkhadzi wangu anogona kubika

Big Dhara Munhu Mukuru 1 week ago

Hahaha Ana KFC, Steers and Nando's vakati ziii zvavo vachirova basa se basa. Chicken inn iri kungokwata hayo hhaahah

Rundo "luv" 1 week ago

Saka mumwe ka chinje instead of "Luv"
kavati "Ruv" for Rundo

Leave a comment

Recent News

News Categories