Apple Inc v Arcadia Trading Ltd [2017] EWHC 440 (Ch) (10 March 2017)

Apple Inc v Arcadia Trading Ltd [2017] EWHC 440 (Ch) (10 March 2017)

The hearing officer was correct to find that the Class 9 specification covered smart watches and related devices, that IWATCH is descriptive for such goods and for computer software closely connected to them, and that Apple failed to establish acquired distinctiveness for IWATCH through use of other I-prefixed marks. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 440 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant: Apple Inc; Respondent: Arcadia Trading Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Appeal / High Court Appeal From Registrar of Trade Marks Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Descriptiveness of Trade Marks, Acquired Distinctiveness, Classification of Goods, Absolute Grounds for Refusal, Interpretation of Trade Marks Act 1994 S.3(1)(c)
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Descriptiveness of Trade Marks Acquired Distinctiveness Classification of Goods Absolute Grounds for Refusal Interpretation of Trade Marks Act 1994 S.3(1)(c)

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Apple Inc

Appellant

Arcadia Trading Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trade Mark Appeal / High Court Appeal From Registrar of Trade Marks Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mark IWATCH is descriptive for goods in Class 9, including smart watches and related devices
  2. 2 Whether the mark IWATCH is descriptive for computer software
  3. 3 Whether IWATCH had acquired distinctiveness through use of other I-prefixed Apple marks

Ratio Decidendi

The hearing officer was correct to find that the Class 9 specification covered smart watches and related devices, that IWATCH is descriptive for such goods and for computer software closely connected to them, and that Apple failed to establish acquired distinctiveness for IWATCH through use of other I-prefixed marks. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.