## Facts

- Wagamama Ltd. operated the “WAGAMAMA” Japanese-style noodle bar in London (opened April 1992) and owned three UK registrations for the word mark WAGAMAMA, including for restaurant and catering services.
- WAGAMAMA had gained substantial reputation through press coverage, television features, awards, and limited paid advertising; it also extended branding through merchandise and a book.
- The word “WAGAMAMA” was effectively meaningless to most consumers in England, functioning as a distinctive badge of origin.
- City Centre Restaurants plc (and its UK subsidiary) operated multiple restaurant chains and developed a new concept restaurant chain, selecting the name “RAJAMAMA.”
- A RAJAMAMA restaurant opened in London in late April 1995, using the name for restaurant services.
- After receiving a pre-action complaint and once proceedings commenced, defendants altered branding to “RAJAMAMA’S” / “RAJA MAMA’S,” intending to continue use.
- Wagamama sued in the Chancery Division for registered trade mark infringement and passing off; the matter proceeded to an expedited trial.

## Issues

1. Whether use of RAJAMAMA and RAJAMAMA’S/RAJA MAMA’S for restaurant services infringed WAGAMAMA under Trade Marks Act 1994 § 10(2) due to similarity of marks and likelihood of confusion (including association).
2. Whether defendants’ use of RAJAMAMA/RAJAMAMA’S amounted to passing off by misrepresenting a connection with Wagamama, causing likely damage to Wagamama’s goodwill.

## Decision

- The court held that defendants infringed Wagamama’s registered WAGAMAMA marks under Trade Marks Act 1994 § 10(2).
- The court held that defendants also committed passing off.
- The court rejected the argument that adding an apostrophe and “S” (or inserting a space) avoided infringement or passing off, because the distinctive core “RAJAMAMA” remained.
- The court granted injunctive relief restraining use of RAJAMAMA/RAJAMAMA’S for restaurant services.

## Legal Principles

- Under Trade Marks Act 1994 § 10(2), infringement is established where a defendant uses a similar mark for identical or similar services and there is a likelihood of confusion, including a likelihood of association (economic linkage) in the mind of the average consumer.
- In assessing similarity and confusion for service marks used in the marketplace, the court considers overall visual and aural impression and the realistic conditions of consumer perception, including imperfect recollection.
- A newly established restaurant brand can acquire significant protectable distinctiveness and goodwill through publicity, awards, and market recognition, even with modest advertising spend.
- Minor presentational changes (e.g., possessive endings or spacing) will not avoid infringement or passing off where they do not alter the dominant distinctive element that drives consumer perception.
- Passing off requires (i) goodwill, (ii) a misrepresentation likely to lead the public to believe the defendant’s business is connected with the claimant, and (iii) likely damage; actual confusion is not required where likelihood is shown.

## Conclusion

The court found that WAGAMAMA had strong distinctiveness and goodwill for restaurant services and that RAJAMAMA/RAJAMAMA’S was sufficiently similar to create a likelihood of confusion by association, establishing both statutory infringement and passing off and justifying an injunction restraining the defendants’ use of the name.


Wagamama Ltd. v. City Centre Rests. plc, [1995] F.S.R. 713 (Ch. 1995)