Revive A Phone Limited v WeFix

Revive A Phone Limited v WeFix

The Hearing Officer correctly conducted the global assessment, properly considered the low distinctiveness of the common element, and did not err in principle. There is no basis for interference with the decision, and the appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Revive A Phone Limited; Respondent: WeFix
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Registrar of Trade Marks Decision / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Likelihood of Confusion, Distinctiveness of Marks, Appeal Procedure
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Likelihood of Confusion Distinctiveness of Marks Appeal Procedure

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

Revive A Phone Limited

Appellant

WeFix

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Registrar of Trade Marks Decision / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in finding a likelihood of confusion under Section 5(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 between the Appellant's marks and the Respondent's earlier mark
  2. 2 Whether the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider the low distinctiveness of the common element in the marks

Ratio Decidendi

The Hearing Officer correctly conducted the global assessment, properly considered the low distinctiveness of the common element, and did not err in principle. There is no basis for interference with the decision, and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed