Case No. EWHC-11-(IPEC)

). 105.The Defendants admitted in their Defence and Counterclaim use of the Signs and the CE Sign in relation to the First Defendant’s Goods/Services, but, unhelpfully, did not say which were admitted to be identical/similar to those for which the Mark is registered, and which were not. Following the trial, counsel for the Defendants provided me with a list of goods/services which he said were not similar/identical to those for which the Mark is registered: “Intruder / burglar alarms; closed circuit TV systems and components; access control systems and components; emergency lighting; induction loops; disabled refuges; remote monitoring; fire and smoke dampers; and services for the surveying, designing, installing, commissioning, maintaining, repairing and responding to alarms or alerts in relation to each of the above.” 106.It seems to me that on any analysis, the goods/services listed above are at least similar to those for which the Mark is registered. The uses of the respective goods/services are similar – the protection of people and property. The users of the respective goods/services are the same – building and property owners in need of protection (as made clear by the shared clients of the Claimant and the First Defendant). The trade channels through which the goods or services reach the market are the same (the Claimant and the First Defendant operated a “one stop shop” for over a decade). The respective goods and services could also be said to be in competition with each other (that is the very reason for this dispute). 107.Therefore, in my judgment, all of the First Defendant’s Goods/Services are at least similar to those for which the Mark is registered, and the following are identical to those for which the Mark is registered (the