Case No. EWHC-941-(IPEC)

82.As regards condition (v), as I understand Muzmatch’s pleaded case, it admits (at paragraph 44 of its Defence) that its services were identical to those for which the Match Marks were registered.8 However, in its submissions at trial, it asserted that there is only a low degree of similarity between its services and the class 42 services for which the 1996 Match.com Mark is registered. This was not explored or explained in any detail at trial and given Muzmatch’s pleading, I do not think that it is an argument that is open to Muzmatch. But, in any event, I do not think that it would assist Muzmatch greatly. The class 42 services in question were “information and consultancy services in the nature and field of on-line dating and introduction services”. Even if Muzmatch does not provide such services, the on-line dating and introduction services that it does provide seem to me to be clearly complementary in nature and, in my judgment, there is a reasonably high level of similarity in these services.