Tripadvisor LLC v Handsam Ltd [2016] EWHC 1659 (Ch) (07 July 2016)

Tripadvisor LLC v Handsam Ltd [2016] EWHC 1659 (Ch) (07 July 2016)

The Hearing Officer made no distinct and material error of principle and was not clearly wrong in his global assessment under section 5(2)(b) or in his assessment of the link under section 5(3); the appeal amounted to a challenge to his value judgment, which is not a proper ground for appellate interference.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1659 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant/opponent: TripAdvisor LLC; Respondent/applicant: Handsam Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Opposition Appeal / High Court Appeal From Trade Mark Registry Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Likelihood of Confusion, Global Assessment, Section 5(2)(b) Trade Marks Act 1994, Section 5(3) Trade Marks Act 1994, Reputation and Link, Indirect Confusion, Complementarity of Goods/services
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Likelihood of Confusion Global Assessment Section 5(2)(b) Trade Marks Act 1994 Section 5(3) Trade Marks Act 1994 Reputation and Link Indirect Confusion +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TripAdvisor LLC

Appellant/opponent

Handsam Limited

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Trade Mark Opposition Appeal / High Court Appeal From Trade Mark Registry Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in law in his global assessment under section 5(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in his assessment of the 'link' under section 5(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994

Ratio Decidendi

The Hearing Officer made no distinct and material error of principle and was not clearly wrong in his global assessment under section 5(2)(b) or in his assessment of the link under section 5(3); the appeal amounted to a challenge to his value judgment, which is not a proper ground for appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed