Extreme Networks Limited v Extreme E Limited

Extreme Networks Limited v Extreme E Limited

The hearing officer made no error of principle in finding that the Applicant's services—such as organising cultural activities, exhibitions, sporting events, and related entertainment—were similar to the Opponent's service of 'booking of seats for shows.' The distinction between core and incidental services is not determinative for similarity. There was sufficient overlap in users and complementarity to support a finding of similarity. The High Court judge erred in substituting his own assessment for that of the hearing officer without identifying a material error of principle.

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the services specified in the Applicant's trade mark application are similar to 'booking of seats for shows' in the Opponent's earlier mark for the purposes of section 5(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the hearing officer's assessment of similarity of services

Ratio Decidendi

The hearing officer made no error of principle in finding that the Applicant's services—such as organising cultural activities, exhibitions, sporting events, and related entertainment—were similar to the Opponent's service of 'booking of seats for shows.' The distinction between core and incidental services is not determinative for similarity. There was sufficient overlap in users and complementarity to support a finding of similarity. The High Court judge erred in substituting his own assessment for that of the hearing officer without identifying a material error of principle.

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.