[2024] EWHC 3256 (IPEC)

Mr Andersson notes that the very long history of the Alice brand in the field means that there are a large number of legacy Alice products in use by radio and TV broadcasters, sound and video recording companies, as well as products bearing the Alice Mark produced by the Claimant. The legacy Alice products in particular require repair, maintenance and refurbishment now, and he describes that as an important part of the Claimant’s business. He says that it also repairs and refurbishes third party products sent to the Claimant, and performs repair, refurbishment, maintenance and installation work, and broadcasting assistance onsite or in the field for clients. His evidence is that the Claimant provides all such services under the Alice Mark.

On this latter point, I have seen from documents in the trial bundle that the Alice Mark appears on invoices from the Claimant for such services. In cross-examination it became apparent that the Claimant does not have a team of service professionals, and those services are all provided by Mr Andersson. Mr Andersson further clarified in cross-examination that various 2023 invoices to Coyle Limited in the trial bundle relate to the provision of services in his secondary area of expertise, namely railway signalling, i.e. not audiovisual broadcasting or transmission, and so are certainly outwith the Class 37 specification for the Alice Mark.