Tik Tok International Ltd v Tiktok Information Technologies UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 1220 (Ch) (18 May 2022)

Tik Tok International Ltd v Tiktok Information Technologies UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 1220 (Ch) (18 May 2022)

The Hearing Officer was entitled to find the Earlier Mark highly distinctive, to find at least a low degree of similarity between the relevant goods and services, and to conclude that there was a likelihood of confusion. No error of principle or misdirection was identified in the Hearing Officer's evaluative judgments.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1220 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant (registrant): Tik Tok International Limited; Respondent (applicant for Cancellation): TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Appeal / Appeal From Registrar of Trade Marks Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Invalidity, Likelihood of Confusion, Similarity of Goods and Services, Distinctiveness of Marks
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Trade Mark Invalidity Likelihood of Confusion Similarity of Goods and Services Distinctiveness of Marks

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tik Tok International Limited

Appellant (registrant)

TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited

Respondent (applicant for Cancellation)

Procedural Posture

Trade Mark Appeal / Appeal From Registrar of Trade Marks Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in finding the Earlier Mark highly distinctive
  2. 2 Whether there is similarity between the relevant goods and services
  3. 3 Whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks

Ratio Decidendi

The Hearing Officer was entitled to find the Earlier Mark highly distinctive, to find at least a low degree of similarity between the relevant goods and services, and to conclude that there was a likelihood of confusion. No error of principle or misdirection was identified in the Hearing Officer's evaluative judgments.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed