Engineer.AI Global Limited v Appy Pie Ltd & Anor

Engineer.AI Global Limited v Appy Pie Ltd & Anor

All of the Marks lacked inherent or acquired distinctiveness for the relevant goods and services, being generic or descriptive terms in the software industry. The Claimant failed to provide reliable evidence of acquired distinctiveness or reputation in the UK. The Defendants’ use of 'Builder' was descriptive and not trade mark use, and the LinkedIn post was not targeted at UK consumers. Accordingly, the Marks are invalid to the extent indicated, and the infringement claims fail.

Parties
Claimant: Engineer.ai Global Limited; First Defendant: Appy Pie Ltd; Second Defendant: Appy Pie LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property/trade Mark Dispute / Liability Only Trial, Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed.
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Distinctiveness, Trade Mark Invalidity, Comparative Advertising, Joint Tortfeasorship
Intellectual Property Trade Mark Law Trade Mark Infringement Distinctiveness Trade Mark Invalidity Comparative Advertising Joint Tortfeasorship

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Engineer.ai Global Limited

Claimant

Appy Pie Ltd

First Defendant

Appy Pie LLP

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property/trade Mark Dispute / Liability Only Trial, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the Marks inherently distinctive and/or have they acquired distinctive character in the UK?
  2. 2 Do the Marks enjoy a reputation in the UK?
  3. 3 Would the Marks be viewed as a family of marks by reason of their common component 'Builder'?

Ratio Decidendi

All of the Marks lacked inherent or acquired distinctiveness for the relevant goods and services, being generic or descriptive terms in the software industry. The Claimant failed to provide reliable evidence of acquired distinctiveness or reputation in the UK. The Defendants’ use of 'Builder' was descriptive and not trade mark use, and the LinkedIn post was not targeted at UK consumers. Accordingly, the Marks are invalid to the extent indicated, and the infringement claims fail.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed.

Orders

  • All of the Marks are invalid for lack of distinctive character to the extent indicated in the emphasised specifications.
  • Claimant’s claims for infringement are dismissed.