Instagram, LLC v Meta 404 Limited

Instagram, LLC v Meta 404 Limited

The Hearing Officer's evaluative conclusions on the distinctiveness of the GRAM mark, the degree of similarity between the marks, the characteristics of the average consumer, the likelihood of confusion, and the absence of a link in the mind of the average consumer were not perverse or plainly wrong. The appeal did not demonstrate any error of principle or law that would justify interference with the Hearing Officer's findings. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Instagram, LLC; Respondent: Meta 404 Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Opposition Appeal / Appeal From UK Intellectual Property Office Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Likelihood of Confusion, Distinctiveness, Acquired Distinctiveness, Average Consumer, Reputation, Similarity of Marks
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Likelihood of Confusion Distinctiveness Acquired Distinctiveness Average Consumer Reputation Similarity 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Instagram, LLC

Appellant

Meta 404 Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trade Mark Opposition Appeal / Appeal From UK Intellectual Property Office Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in assessing the distinctiveness of the GRAM mark
  2. 2 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in concluding the degree of similarity between the GRAM and INSTAGRAM marks and the Soundgram Mark
  3. 3 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in determining the characteristics and attention of the average consumer

Ratio Decidendi

The Hearing Officer's evaluative conclusions on the distinctiveness of the GRAM mark, the degree of similarity between the marks, the characteristics of the average consumer, the likelihood of confusion, and the absence of a link in the mind of the average consumer were not perverse or plainly wrong. The appeal did not demonstrate any error of principle or law that would justify interference with the Hearing Officer's findings. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.