Discussion
52.Of the documentary evidence of use of “cryptoback” filed by the Defendants, only the account summaries provided possible proof that the word “cryptoback” was presented to the public in the UK and even then only by an inference which Mr Hill invited me to draw; Mr Manuel did not say that this was the case. The evidence about the account summaries did not reveal the manner of presentation and therefore whether it was likely to have been perceived as a trade name. 53.Of the remaining admissible evidence, only in relation to the “Shopping is Mining” article and the “Shop & Mine” webpage was it possible to know how the word cryptocurrency was presented to the public. In neither case was it established that the article or webpage had been seen by anyone in the UK. The Shop & Mine webpage was not dated. In both cases it was more likely than not that cryptoback would have been taken to be the word for a new type of service, not a trade name. 54.In the few months of use before the Filing Date, that service was also presented by the Defendants as “CcrbBack”. This increased the likelihood that “cryptoback” was seen as the generic word for a new type of service, in contrast to “CcrbBack” which was the CCRB version of that service. 55.In my view the evidence does not establish that at the Filing Date Global owned goodwill which was associated with a trade name “cryptoback”.