The discount chain B&M has started High Court proceedings against Morrisons, accusing the supermarket of intellectual property infringement and breach of confidence. Court records show the claim was filed on Thursday 29 October against Morrisons and Simon Buckley, whom reports describe as a senior buyer of general merchandise at the grocer. The case type is listed as “copyright and design right”. No particulars of claim have been made public and no hearing has yet taken place.
The dispute was first reported on Monday 2 November by the PA news agency, with the story carried by The Independent, Bdaily and dozens of regional titles. B&M confirmed the action in a short statement. Morrisons declined to comment.
In short
- B&M is suing Morrisons and a named Morrisons buyer at the High Court over alleged intellectual property infringement and breach of confidence.
- The claim was filed on Thursday 29 October 2026 and is listed in court records as a “copyright and design right” case.
- Neither company has said which products are involved, and Morrisons declined to comment.
- The case lands ten days before B&M’s half-year results on 12 November, with its UK business still trying to return to like-for-like sales growth.
- For shoppers, nothing changes on the shelves yet: there is no injunction, and buying a disputed product for personal use is not an infringement.
What exactly has B&M filed against Morrisons?
According to the court records reported by PA, B&M’s claim names two defendants: Wm Morrison Supermarkets, the Bradford-based grocer, and Simon Buckley, an individual described as a senior buyer of general merchandise. The record categorises the matter as a copyright and design right case. That classification tells us the claim concerns the appearance or creative content of products, packaging or designs, rather than a trade mark or a dispute over prices or supply terms.
B&M’s statement adds a second limb that the court listing does not capture: breach of confidence. A spokesperson said: “B&M has commenced legal proceedings against Morrisons in relation to allegations of intellectual property infringement and breach of confidence.” The spokesperson continued: “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.”
The statement closed with: “As the matter is now before the courts, it would not be appropriate to comment further.” Morrisons declined to comment when approached, The Independent reported. Neither side has identified the products, ranges or documents at the centre of the claim.
What we do not know yet
At this stage the public record is thin. There are no published particulars of claim, no defence and no indication of the remedy B&M is seeking, whether damages, an injunction or the delivery up of goods. We also do not know whether the case will be heard in the Intellectual Property List of the Business and Property Courts or in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, which handles smaller and simpler claims.
It is also not public why an individual buyer has been named alongside the company. Naming an employee as a co-defendant is not unusual in breach of confidence cases, because the duty of confidence can attach to the person who receives information as well as to the business that uses it. Anything beyond that would be speculation, and the allegations have not been tested in court.
Why does a copyright and design right claim matter in retail?
Discount and grocery retailers compete heavily on own-label and exclusive products, especially in general merchandise: homewares, seasonal decorations, toys, garden furniture and gifts. These are the categories where design, rather than a famous brand name, does most of the selling. A cushion pattern, a candle jar shape or a Christmas decoration range can be developed in-house or with a supplier and then sold only in one chain’s stores.
In the UK, the look of such products can be protected by several overlapping rights. Copyright covers original artistic works, which can include surface patterns, illustrations and graphic packaging. UK unregistered design right protects the shape and configuration of an article without any need to register it. Registered designs give stronger protection for the overall appearance of a product.
Breach of confidence sits alongside all three and protects information that was shared in confidence, such as range plans, supplier details, costings or design drafts.
The combination in B&M’s claim, copyright and design right plus breach of confidence, suggests the dispute is not only about what products look like but also about how information may have travelled. That is a more serious allegation in commercial terms, because it goes to the integrity of a retailer’s buying process, not just to whether two products look alike on the shelf.
The UK rights in play, compared
| Right | What it protects | Registration needed? | How long it lasts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copyright (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) | Original artistic works, such as surface patterns, illustrations and graphic packaging | No | Life of the author plus 70 years for most artistic works |
| UK unregistered design right | The shape or configuration of an article (internal or external) | No | Up to 15 years from creation, or 10 years from first marketing, whichever ends first |
| Supplementary unregistered design | The overall appearance of a product first disclosed in the UK | No | 3 years from first disclosure |
| Registered design | The overall appearance of a product, including shape, lines, colours and texture | Yes, at the UK Intellectual Property Office | Up to 25 years, renewed every 5 years |
| Breach of confidence | Information imparted in confidence, such as range plans, costings and designs | No (a common law and equitable claim) | As long as the information remains confidential |
The court listing mentions copyright and design right but not trade marks or passing off, which are the usual tools in supermarket lookalike disputes over branded goods. That makes this case closer in character to a design dispute than to the familiar fights over own-label versions of famous branded products.
Who are B&M and Morrisons, and where do they compete?
B&M European Value Retail is one of the UK’s largest variety discounters. At 28 March 2026 it operated 799 B&M stores in the UK, 342 Heron Foods and B&M Express convenience stores, and 147 B&M stores in France, according to its full-year results. It is listed on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 250 index.
Morrisons is the UK’s fifth-largest supermarket group by most industry measures and has been owned by the US private equity firm Clayton, Dubilier & Rice since its takeover in 2021. Its chief executive, Rami Baitiéh, joined from Carrefour in late 2023. In its third quarter to 26 July 2026, Morrisons reported like-for-like sales growth of 3.2%, its fifteenth consecutive quarter of growth, on sales of about £4.1bn, according to Grocery Gazette and Retail Insight Network. The grocer has also said its cost-saving programme has reached £995m since the turnaround began.
The two retailers overlap most clearly outside food. Morrisons sells clothing and homewares under its own labels, and seasonal general merchandise is a big part of the supermarket trolley in the weeks before Christmas. B&M, by contrast, earns a large share of its UK revenue from general merchandise, with garden, Christmas and toys among its strongest categories in the last financial year.
B&M and Morrisons at a glance
| Measure | B&M | Morrisons |
|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Listed, FTSE 250 | Private, owned by Clayton, Dubilier & Rice since 2021 |
| Chief executive | Tjeerd Jegen (since June 2025) | Rami Baitiéh (since late 2023) |
| Latest reported sales figure | Group revenue £1,433m in Q1 FY27 (13 weeks to 27 June 2026) | About £4.1bn in Q3 (13 weeks to 26 July 2026) |
| Latest UK like-for-like trend | B&M UK like-for-like sales down 2.3% in Q1 FY27 | Like-for-like sales up 3.2% in Q3 |
| Core strength in general merchandise | Garden, Christmas, toys, homewares | Own-label clothing and home ranges sold in supermarkets |
| Next scheduled update | Half-year results, 12 November 2026 | Not yet announced publicly |
Morrisons has been busy reshaping its store offer in recent months. It ended a high-profile trial of AI-powered shopping trolleys in Preston after the technology supplier pulled out, a decision we covered when Morrisons scrapped its AI smart trolleys. The grocer said that move had no financial or operational implications.
How is B&M trading going into the case?
The timing matters because B&M is in the middle of a turnaround. Its full-year results, published on 3 June 2026 for the 52 weeks to 28 March, showed group revenue up 3.6% to £5,775m but group adjusted EBITDA (pre-IFRS 16) down 25.9% to £459m. Adjusted profit before tax fell 37.7% to £284m from £455m. Jegen called it “a difficult year that saw profits fall due to a challenging market and execution issues”.
The weakness was concentrated in the UK. B&M UK revenue rose 2.9% to £4,615m, but like-for-like sales were broadly flat at minus 0.1%. The company said general merchandise was positive on both value and volume, while groceries and household essentials (FMCG) declined. B&M UK’s trading gross margin fell by 150 basis points to 35.2%, which the company put down to lower product margins on seasonal general merchandise and to price cuts on key value lines.
The first quarter of the current year was mixed. In its trading statement on 15 July, B&M reported group revenue up 2.0% to £1,433m, but B&M UK like-for-like sales fell 2.3%. The company blamed a slow start to the garden season against an April 2025 comparison that had been lifted 10.9% by unusually warm weather. It said general merchandise categories returned to growth in May and June, while B&M France grew revenue 14.6% to £156m and Heron Foods grew 2.8% to £142m.
B&M’s recent results in numbers
| Period | Group revenue | B&M UK like-for-like | Key profit measure |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY25 (to March 2025) | About £5.57bn (implied by FY26 growth) | Declining (B&M cites a “prolonged period of underperformance”) | Adjusted EBITDA £620m, adjusted PBT £455m |
| FY26 (52 weeks to 28 March 2026) | £5,775m, up 3.6% | Minus 0.1% | Adjusted EBITDA £459m (down 25.9%), adjusted PBT £284m (down 37.7%) |
| December 2025 (Christmas) | Not separately reported | Plus 3% | Not reported |
| Q1 FY27 (13 weeks to 27 June 2026) | £1,433m, up 2.0% | Minus 2.3% | Not reported at Q1 |
| H1 FY27 (26 weeks to 26 September 2026) | Due 12 November 2026 | Due 12 November 2026 | First adjusted PBT guidance due |
B&M has said that from this financial year it will guide the market on adjusted profit before tax rather than EBITDA, and that the first such guidance will come with its interim results. Its shares closed at 275.4p on 27 October, according to Kalkine Media, after brokers Jefferies and Berenberg both raised their price targets in late October.
What is B&M’s “Back to B&M Basics” plan, and why does protecting ranges matter?
Jegen launched the “Back to B&M Basics” plan in October 2025, a few months after he took over as chief executive. The plan centres on sharper pricing, better availability of best-selling brands, revamped in-store promotions and leaner ranges. In its full-year results, B&M said the rollout of reduced product counts across all FMCG categories would be completed in the third quarter of the current financial year.
General merchandise is where B&M’s own product development matters most. Unlike branded groceries, where shoppers can compare a tin of beans across chains, homewares and seasonal goods depend on look, novelty and price. If a rival sells a similar design, the value of the investment in developing it falls. That is the logic behind the spokesperson’s line about investing “significantly in developing our products”.
Christmas is also central. B&M said December 2025 delivered 3% like-for-like sales growth in its UK stores, helped by revamped seasonal promotions. A legal fight over product designs or confidential range information at the start of November, as Christmas ranges hit the shop floor, underlines how much is riding on the festive quarter for both retailers. For more on how B&M has been reshaping its estate, see our report on B&M’s County Road store closure in Walton.
Why breach of confidence is the sharper allegation
Copyright and design claims ask whether one product copies another. Breach of confidence asks a different question: whether information that was supposed to stay private was used without permission. Under the long-established test set out in the 1969 case Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd, a claimant generally has to show that the information had the necessary quality of confidence, that it was shared in circumstances creating an obligation of confidence, and that it was used without authorisation.
In retail, confidential information can include supplier lists, product specifications, cost prices, design files and future range plans. Those are the documents that move between retailers, agents, factories and buyers every season. That is why buyer relationships are so closely guarded across the sector, and why a claim of this kind tends to attract attention well beyond the two companies involved.
Has B&M been in court over supplier disputes before?
This is not B&M’s only High Court case this year, but in the earlier dispute it is the defendant. The Skinny Food Co, which makes low-calorie sauces, spreads and ready meals, began legal action against B&M earlier in 2026, seeking at least £13.8m in damages, according to PA and The Independent.
Court documents seen by PA in April said Skinny supplied B&M with more than 50 products from late 2020. The supplier alleges B&M “de-listed” it in 2021 and again in 2025, and that the first de-listing followed the breakdown of a proposed investment in Skinny by the Arora family, which ran B&M at the time. Lawyers for Skinny said B&M’s orders fell from £10.7m in the year to 31 August 2021 to about £3.2m the following year.
Skinny’s barrister, George Spalton KC, alleged in court documents that the de-listing was “retaliation” for the failed investment talks and claimed losses of at least £16.85m. At the time PA reported the case, B&M had yet to file a defence. Those allegations are also untested and remain a matter for the court.
The two cases point in opposite directions. In the Skinny dispute, a supplier says B&M treated it unfairly. In the Morrisons case, B&M says its own product development and confidential information were misused. Both show how much value sits in buying relationships in UK discount retail.
How have previous UK supermarket copying disputes ended?
The UK has seen a run of high-profile retail copying cases in recent years, most of them involving the discounters Aldi and Lidl. They are useful as context, although each turned on its own facts and most were trade mark or registered design cases rather than the copyright and unregistered design right claim B&M appears to be bringing.
| Case | What was in dispute | Main legal basis | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| M&S v Aldi (Colin the Caterpillar) | Aldi’s Cuthbert the Caterpillar cake | Trade mark | Settled out of court in early 2022 |
| M&S v Aldi (light-up gin bottles) | Aldi’s light-up gin liqueur bottles | Registered designs | High Court found for M&S in 2023; Court of Appeal upheld in 2024 |
| Lidl v Tesco (Clubcard Prices logo) | Tesco’s yellow circle on a blue square | Trade mark and passing off | Lidl won at the High Court; largely upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2024 |
| Thatchers v Aldi (cloudy lemon cider) | Aldi’s own-label cloudy lemon cider can | Trade mark | Thatchers lost at the High Court but won on appeal in 2025 |
| B&M v Morrisons | Not yet disclosed | Copyright, design right and breach of confidence | Claim filed 29 October 2026; no hearing yet |
The cases show that UK courts are willing to find against a retailer that sails too close to a rival’s product, even where the copier argues that its version is a cheaper alternative. They also show that these cases can take years and often end in settlements. Shoppers’ appetite for cheaper alternatives has grown alongside these disputes, as our analysis of dupe culture and how value shoppers shifted retail explains.
Why this case is different
Most of the famous lookalike fights pitted a brand owner against a discounter’s own-label version. B&M v Morrisons is a retailer suing another retailer, and the claim adds an allegation about confidential information, plus a named individual. That makes it less of a public argument about “dupes” and more of a commercial dispute about how product ranges are developed and sourced.
What does the case mean for shoppers?
For now, nothing changes in store. There is no reported injunction, interim or final, so Morrisons is free to keep selling its ranges and B&M has not asked shoppers to do anything. Until the particulars of claim become public, shoppers will not even know which products are involved.
If you buy a product that later turns out to be at the centre of an intellectual property dispute, you are not at legal risk for owning or using it. UK design right infringement turns on making or dealing in articles for commercial purposes, and registered design law specifically excludes acts done privately and for non-commercial purposes. Copyright infringement likewise concerns copying and commercial dealing, not a shopper putting a cushion on a sofa.
Your consumer rights are unaffected. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described, and you have 30 days to reject faulty goods for a refund. Those rights run against the retailer you bought from, whatever happens in a court case between two companies.
Practical points for Christmas shoppers
- Keep receipts for seasonal general merchandise bought from any retailer, as you would normally.
- Check each retailer’s own returns window for Christmas purchases; many extend it into January, but these are goodwill policies, not legal rights.
- If a product is withdrawn from sale for any reason, you can still use it, and your statutory rights for faults remain.
- Be wary of social media posts claiming products are being “banned” or “recalled” because of the case: no such step has been reported.
Prices, rather than designs, will matter most to most households this Christmas. Shop price inflation has been rising, as our report on UK shop price inflation hitting 2.1% in October sets out.
What does it mean for suppliers, buyers and smaller retailers?
For suppliers, the case is a reminder that design ownership in a retail range is often unclear. Many seasonal and homeware products are developed jointly by a retailer’s buying team, an agent and a factory. If a design is created by a supplier but commissioned by a retailer, ownership of copyright and design right depends on contracts and, in some cases, on when the design was created. Suppliers who sell similar designs to more than one chain should know where they stand.
For buyers, the naming of an individual shows that personal exposure is possible in breach of confidence cases. Buyers who move between rival retailers usually face confidentiality clauses and restrictions in their contracts. Whether any of that is relevant here is not known, and nothing in the public record says Buckley previously worked at B&M or did anything wrong.
Lessons for independent shops and small brands
Smaller retailers and makers often assume intellectual property law is only for big chains. In fact, UK unregistered design right and copyright arise automatically, without any filing. Keeping dated design drafts, supplier correspondence and sample records is the cheapest way to prove when a design was created and who created it.
For smaller disputes, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court offers a lower-cost route, with damages capped at £500,000 and limits on recoverable costs. The UK Intellectual Property Office also runs a mediation service. A registered design, which costs a modest fee at the IPO, gives the strongest and simplest protection for a product’s appearance.
What happens next in B&M v Morrisons?
The next procedural step will be service of the claim and Morrisons’ response. In High Court civil cases, a defendant normally files an acknowledgement of service and then a defence within set time limits, which the parties can extend by agreement. Once statements of case are filed, they usually become available to the public through the court, which is when the products and allegations may become clear.
Many intellectual property disputes settle before trial, often after an exchange of evidence. If the case does go to a full hearing, it could take a year or more to reach trial. Either side could also ask the court for interim measures, but none has been reported.
Key dates to watch
- 29 October 2026: B&M files its claim against Morrisons and Simon Buckley, according to court records.
- 2 November 2026: PA reports the case; B&M confirms it, and Morrisons declines to comment.
- 12 November 2026: B&M publishes interim results for the 26 weeks to 26 September, with its first adjusted profit before tax guidance.
- Late November to December: the peak Christmas trading period for both retailers’ seasonal ranges.
- January 2027: B&M’s usual window for a Christmas trading update.
B&M’s results on 12 November will be the first chance for analysts to ask management about the case, although companies rarely comment on live litigation beyond their initial statement. Investors will be more focused on whether B&M UK like-for-like sales have turned positive and on the new profit guidance.
How does the case fit the wider fight for UK value shoppers?
UK value retail has rarely been more crowded. Supermarkets have pushed into homewares and seasonal goods, the discounters Aldi and Lidl continue to open stores, and online marketplaces such as Temu and Shein compete on price for the same categories. At the same time, Poundland’s financial troubles have put up to 600 high street shops in doubt, as our report on the government’s warning to Poundland’s owner explains.
In that market, a distinctive range is one of the few defences a retailer has against being undercut. B&M’s statement makes clear it sees its product development and range information as assets worth defending in court. Morrisons has not responded publicly, and it will have the opportunity to set out its position in its defence.
The outcome will matter beyond the two businesses. A clear ruling on copyright, design right or confidential range information between two big UK retailers would be read closely by buyers, suppliers and lawyers across the high street. For shoppers, the practical impact is likely to be small. For the industry, it is a case to follow.
Frequently asked questions
Why is B&M suing Morrisons?
B&M says it has started legal proceedings over allegations of intellectual property infringement and breach of confidence. Court records list the case as a copyright and design right claim. Neither company has said which products are involved.
When was the claim filed?
According to court records reported by PA, B&M filed the claim on Thursday 29 October 2026. The case became public on Monday 2 November 2026.
Who is named in the claim?
The claim names Morrisons and Simon Buckley, who is described in reports as a senior buyer of general merchandise at the supermarket. The allegations against both have not been tested in court.
What has Morrisons said?
Morrisons declined to comment when approached by reporters. It will be able to respond formally by filing a defence with the court.
Will products be removed from Morrisons shelves?
Not at the moment. No injunction has been reported, so Morrisons can continue selling its ranges. Any change would require a court order or an agreement between the parties.
Am I breaking the law if I bought a product involved in the case?
No. UK copyright and design right infringement concerns copying and commercial dealing. Registered design law expressly excludes private, non-commercial acts, so owning or using a product at home is not an infringement.
Does the case affect my refund rights?
No. Your rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 run against the retailer you bought from and are not affected by a dispute between two companies. Faulty goods can be rejected for a full refund within 30 days.
When will we learn more?
More detail is likely once statements of case are filed and become available through the court. B&M’s interim results on 12 November 2026 are the next scheduled company update, but it has said it will not comment further on the case.
Is B&M involved in other legal cases?
Yes. The Skinny Food Co is suing B&M for at least £13.8m, alleging it was de-listed as a supplier in 2021 and 2025 after a proposed investment by the Arora family collapsed. Those allegations are also untested.