Extreme Networks Ltd v Extreme E Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1386 (14 November 2024)

Extreme Networks Ltd v Extreme E Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1386 (14 November 2024)

The hearing officer made no error of principle in finding that the applicant's services were similar to 'booking of seats for shows' as specified in the earlier mark; the overlap in users and complementarity between organising events and booking seats for shows provided sufficient basis for similarity, and the distinction between core and incidental services is not determinative for similarity assessment.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Civ 1386
Parties
Opponent/appellant: Extreme Networks Limited; Applicant/respondent: Extreme E Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; hearing officer's decision reinstated.
Legal Topics
Likelihood of Confusion, Similarity of Services, Interpretation of Specifications, Appeals From Trade Marks Registry
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Likelihood of Confusion Similarity of Services Interpretation of Specifications Appeals From Trade Marks Registry

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 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Extreme Networks Limited

Opponent/appellant

Extreme E Limited

Applicant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Trade Mark Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the services specified in the trade mark application are similar to 'booking of seats for shows' as specified in the earlier mark
  2. 2 Correct approach to assessment of similarity of services under section 5(2)(b) Trade Marks Act 1994
  3. 3 Interpretation of specifications of goods and services

Ratio Decidendi

The hearing officer made no error of principle in finding that the applicant's services were similar to 'booking of seats for shows' as specified in the earlier mark; the overlap in users and complementarity between organising events and booking seats for shows provided sufficient basis for similarity, and the distinction between core and incidental services is not determinative for similarity assessment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; hearing officer's decision reinstated.

Orders

  • The decision of the hearing officer is reinstated.
  • The opposition succeeds in relation to the relevant services.