Intellectual Property Enterprise Court
Claim No: IP-2022-000086 - [2024] EWHC 1430 (IPEC)
Fecha: 19-Jun-2024
Category Two alleged infringement
Category Two alleged infringement
My finding that the Builder.ai Figurative Mark lacks inherent or acquired distinctiveness such that they are invalid to the extent sought by the Defendants means the Category 2 alleged infringement claim must fail and be dismissed, as that requires the admitted use of identical signs by D2 to be in relation to goods and services identical to those for which they are registered. Even if I am wrong about the distinctiveness of the Builder.ai Figurative Mark, I would find that the Category 2 alleged infringement claim cannot succeed. I will deal with it briefly.
- Heading
- Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke
- THE CLAIMS
- “Category 1” alleged infringements
- Category 2 Infringement
- Joint Tortfeasorship
- The Defendants’ defence to infringement
- THE COUNTERCLAIM
- C’s Defence to Counterclaim
- THE ISSUES
- LAW
- Family of marks
- Distinctiveness
- Reputation
- Infringement
- Trade Mark Invalidity
- Targeting of websites
- Joint Tortfeasorship
- WITNESSES
- The parties
- The ‘no-code’ application development market in 2021
- The Claimant’s sales figures
- The Claimant’s market share in the UK
- The Claimant’s advertising and marketing spend
- The Claimant’s advertising and marketing activities
- Sponsorship of rugby league games
- Platinum Jubilee campaign
- Google AdWords and web searches
- ‘Builder’ and ‘Builder.ai’ as descriptive terms
- The LinkedIn Post complained of
- Other uses of signs complained of
- DETERMINATION BY ISSUE
- Issue 1: Are the Marks inherently distinctive and/or have they acquired an enhanced distinctive character in the UK by reason of the Claimant’s use of them in the course of trade?
- Builder Word Mark and Builder Home Mark
- Determination
- Builder.ai Word Mark and Builder.ai Figurative Mark
- Determination
- Builder Studio Pro Mark
- Determination
- Builder Now Mark
- Builder Cloud Mark
- Determination
- Acquired distinctiveness
- Issue 2: Do the Marks enjoy a reputation in the UK?
- Issue 3: Would the Marks be viewed by the average consumer as a family of marks by reason of their common component “ Builder ” and/or by reason of the Claimant’s use of the Marks in the course of tra
- Category One alleged infringement
- Category Two alleged infringement
- Conclusions