Extreme E Ltd v Extreme Networks Ltd [2024] EWHC 319 (Ch) (12 February 2024)

Extreme E Ltd v Extreme Networks Ltd [2024] EWHC 319 (Ch) (12 February 2024)

The Hearing Officer erred in finding similarity between the applicant's services (organising events, exhibitions, ceremonies) and the respondent's service (booking of seats for shows), as the core activities are distinct and overlap is only incidental; the Officer's findings on similarity of marks, distinctiveness, and likelihood of confusion were within the range of reasonable judgments and not open to appellate interference.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 319 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant / Applicant: Extreme E Limited; Respondent / Opponent: Extreme Networks Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Appeal Under S.76 Trade Marks Act 1994 / Appeal From UK IPO Hearing Officer's Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part (solely on ground 1); Officer's findings on similarity of certain services overturned; registration of the contested mark to include those services.
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Opposition, Likelihood of Confusion, Similarity of Services, Similarity of Marks, Distinctiveness, Direct and Indirect Confusion
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Trade Mark Opposition Likelihood of Confusion Similarity of Services Similarity of Marks Distinctiveness Direct and Indirect Confusion

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Extreme E Limited

Appellant / Applicant

Extreme Networks Limited

Respondent / Opponent

Procedural Posture

Trade Mark Appeal Under S.76 Trade Marks Act 1994 / Appeal From UK IPO Hearing Officer's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in finding similarity between certain services for the purposes of trade mark opposition
  2. 2 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in the visual and aural comparison of the marks
  3. 3 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in assessing the distinctiveness of the earlier mark

Ratio Decidendi

The Hearing Officer erred in finding similarity between the applicant's services (organising events, exhibitions, ceremonies) and the respondent's service (booking of seats for shows), as the core activities are distinct and overlap is only incidental; the Officer's findings on similarity of marks, distinctiveness, and likelihood of confusion were within the range of reasonable judgments and not open to appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part (solely on ground 1); Officer's findings on similarity of certain services overturned; registration of the contested mark to include those services.

Orders

  • Registration of the contested mark to include activities described in paragraphs 21, 22, and 43 of the Officer's decision (organising cultural, sporting, exhibition, and award/gala events).