B&M takes Morrisons to the High Court over copyright

People are searching for B&M and Morrisons today because the two retailers have been linked in a High Court claim reported on 2 November 2026. B&M has begun proceedings against Morrisons, the supermarket, and the claim also names Simon Buckley, a senior buyer of general merchandise at Morrisons [1] [2].

What B&M has filed

The Independent reports that B&M alleges intellectual property infringement and breach of confidence. Court records list the case as relating to copyright and design right [1]. The Ely Standard gives the same allegations and the same case type [2].

A B&M spokesperson said the company has commenced legal proceedings against Morrisons and will take appropriate action where it believes its rights have been infringed. The company said it invests significantly in developing its products and protects its confidential business information [1]. Neither outlet names the products or designs at the centre of the claim. The Independent's version is dated Monday, 2 November 2026, and carries the company's statement without any further detail on the claim's contents [1]. The Independent reports that B&M is suing high street supermarket chain Morrisons at the High Court, according to the company [1]. The Ely Standard adds that B&M cannot comment further while the matter is before the courts [2].

These are allegations filed in court. Neither report says a court has found that any copyright or design right was infringed, and nothing in the coverage points to a ruling, a settlement or a payment.

The people named

The claim names Simon Buckley alongside Morrisons. The Independent identifies him as a senior buyer of general merchandise, using the description on the company's own website [1]. The coverage does not explain why he is named.

Morrisons declined to comment on the claim [1] [2].

Other disputes involving B&M

B&M has been in other High Court disputes. Placera reports a £14 million High Court row with a supplier, The Skinny Food Co, which alleges retaliation. B&M's barristers say the retaliation claims are "wholly without merit" [4]. That supplier dispute is separate from the Morrisons claim.

Skinny says B&M "significantly reduced the volume and value" of its orders, from £10.7 million in the year to 31 August 2021 to around £3.2 million the following year [4]. B&M denies that the de-listings were retaliatory. It says any reduction in sales reflected poor commercial performance of the products or Skinny's own commercial failures, and that all de-listings were for genuine commercial reasons [4]. Those are arguments from court filings. A hearing in the claim is yet to take place, and no ruling has been reported [4].

In December 2024, Burberry began High Court proceedings against B&M over a trademark claim. The proceedings commenced at the High Court in London on 2 December 2024, and Burberry, a luxury fashion house, cited trademark infringement against the value retailer B&M [5]. Sky News reported that Burberry alleged B&M may have misrepresented its merchandise as affiliated with the luxury brand. B&M had sold pet accessories under a "furberry" label, but the report does not say that the claim covers them [5]. The article reports no response from B&M and no outcome. That case is a trademark matter and does not bear on the new copyright claim.

What is not yet known

Several points remain open in the coverage. The reports give only "Thursday" as the filing day [1], and they do not say which designs or products are involved. They do not say what remedy B&M seeks. They do not say whether Morrisons has filed a defence, and neither outlet has a hearing date.

Until the court papers or a hearing give that detail, the story rests on a claim and one statement. So far, the only party speaking on the record is B&M.

What to watch next

The next visible step will be a court listing or a hearing date, which would show whether the case moves quickly toward a trial or settles. Watch for a Morrisons defence, which would set out its position in the same court file that holds B&M's claim. Any ruling or settlement would be a new fact. Until one appears, the reports describe an allegation, not a finding, and that is how they should be read.