Shenzhen Ske Technology Co Ltd v Bargain Busting Limited

Shenzhen Ske Technology Co Ltd v Bargain Busting Limited

SKE failed to provide sufficient evidence of protectable goodwill in the UK at the relevant date, either among trade customers or ultimate consumers. The evidence of pre-launch advertising and sales to a single distributor was inadequate, and the Hearing Officer's assessment was within the bounds of reasonable disagreement. The appeal court found no error of law or irrationality in the Hearing Officer's decision.

Parties
Appellant: Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd; Respondent: Bargain Busting Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Appeal / Appeal From UKIPO Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Goodwill, Trade Mark Opposition, Appeal Procedure
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Passing Off Goodwill Trade Mark Opposition 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd

Appellant

Bargain Busting Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trade Mark Appeal / Appeal From UKIPO Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SKE had protectable goodwill in the UK at the relevant date for passing off under s.5(4)(a) Trade Marks Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether goodwill among trade customers suffices for passing off
  3. 3 Whether pre-launch advertising alone can establish goodwill

Ratio Decidendi

SKE failed to provide sufficient evidence of protectable goodwill in the UK at the relevant date, either among trade customers or ultimate consumers. The evidence of pre-launch advertising and sales to a single distributor was inadequate, and the Hearing Officer's assessment was within the bounds of reasonable disagreement. The appeal court found no error of law or irrationality in the Hearing Officer's decision.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed