Extreme E Limited v Extreme Networks Limited

Extreme E Limited v Extreme Networks Limited

The Officer erred in finding similarity between the applicant's activities (cultural activities, organisation of sporting and cultural events and activities, organisation of exhibitions for cultural and educational purposes, organisation of motor vehicle races, entertainment in the form of live motor sport races, entertainment in the form of live shows and events relating to motoring or motor vehicles, organisation of real or virtual sports competitions, organisation and conducting of award ceremonies and gala ceremonies for entertainment purposes) and the opponent's 'booking of seats for shows'. The core of the applicant's activities does not overlap with the opponent's service, and any...

Parties
Appellant / Applicant: Extreme E Limited; Respondent / Opponent: Extreme Networks Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Opposition Appeal / Appeal From Registrar's Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part (solely on ground 1)
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Opposition, Likelihood of Confusion, Similarity of Services, Distinctiveness of Marks, Direct and Indirect Confusion
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Trade Mark Opposition Likelihood of Confusion Similarity of Services Distinctiveness of Marks 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 Opposition Appeal / Appeal From Registrar's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in finding similarity between certain services under the contested and earlier marks
  2. 2 Whether the marks are visually, aurally, and conceptually similar to a degree that creates a likelihood of confusion
  3. 3 Whether the earlier mark is inherently distinctive

Ratio Decidendi

The Officer erred in finding similarity between the applicant's activities (cultural activities, organisation of sporting and cultural events and activities, organisation of exhibitions for cultural and educational purposes, organisation of motor vehicle races, entertainment in the form of live motor sport races, entertainment in the form of live shows and events relating to motoring or motor vehicles, organisation of real or virtual sports competitions, organisation and conducting of award ceremonies and gala ceremonies for entertainment purposes) and the opponent's 'booking of seats for shows'. The core of the applicant's activities does not overlap with the opponent's service, and any...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part (solely on ground 1)

Orders

  • The registration of the contested mark should include the activities to which paragraphs 21, 22, and 43 of the Hearing Officer's decision relate.