Case No. EWHC-941-(IPEC)

77.The relevant date for assessing whether there has been an infringement under s.10(2)(b) or s.10(3) is the date when the use of the sign complained of commenced – unless the mark was registered after that use began, in which case the relevant date would be the date of filing of the application for registration. 78.It appeared to be common ground that the relevant dates here were:a.March or April 2011 for alleged infringements of the 1996 Match.com Mark by the use of the “muzmatch” name. This is because that was the date when use of that name started and, although Muzmatch has since used a variety of different logos featuring that name, Match did not suggest that any of them was so different as to justify a different (and later) relevant date; b.13 January 2017 for alleged infringements of the 2017 Match.com Mark (that being the date on which the application to register that mark was filed); c.3 March 2015 for alleged infringements of the Match Device Mark (that being the date on which the application to register that mark was filed); andd.January 2012 for alleged infringements of the 1996 Match.com Mark by Muzmatch’s uses of the word “match” in its SEO keywords.