Claim No: IP-2022-000086 - [2024] EWHC 1430 (IPEC)
Fecha: 19-Jun-2024
Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke
Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke:
INTRODUCTION
This is a judgment after a two day liability-only trial of a trade mark dispute between two competitors in the ‘no code’ application development space. ‘No code’ or ‘code-free’ application development allows users to build or create an app without having to carry out coding, and so simplifies app development and makes it accessible to those without prior experience of creating or developing software. The dispute is about the Defendants’ use of the word “Builder” in conjunction with the trade in no-code app development products and services.
There are different types of ‘no code’ app development platforms. One type is a ‘drag and drop’ style app development product, which enables the user to drag the components they want and drop them into place to build the app on their own. Another type is a composable software platform, where the user specifies elements and functionality, and the platform provider builds the app for them.
The Claimant, Engineer.ai Global Limited is a UK incorporated early-stage software developer working in artificial intelligence and offers a suite of composable software platforms to the market. It was incorporated in 2017 but only obtained seed funding in October 2018 and achieved its first sales in March 2019. It is the proprietor of seven UK-registered trade marks in issue, as set out below (together, the “Marks”).
UKTM Reg. No. | Date | Mark | Classes | Description |
3734198 | 17.12.2021 |
| 9, 42 | “Builder House Mark” |
3734190 | 17.12.2021 | BUILDER | 9, 42 | “Builder Word Mark” |
3551066 | 2.11.2020 |
| 9, 42 | “Builder.ai Figurative Mark” |
3551010 | 2.11.2020 | BUILDER.AI | 9, 42 | “Builder.ai Word Mark” |
3734425 | 17.12.2021 | BUILDER STUDIO PRO | 9, 42 | “Builder Studio Pro Mark” |
3734456 | 17.12.2021 |
| 9, 42 | “Builder Now Mark” |
3734452 | 17.12.2021 |
| 36, 42 | “Builder Cloud Mark” |
The Claimant says that all of the Marks have been in use in, and targeted at, the UK since 2019 (i.e. both before registration and afterwards). It says that it trades exclusively under BUILDER (as its house or ‘umbrella brand’), BUILDER.AI and associated sub-brands using BUILDER. It offers products and services through its website at www.builder.ai. It pleads that it is recognised and known within the industry and to its client base in the UK as BUILDER. Its family of products and services comprises:
BUILDER STUDIO which is an AI-powered no-code tool to enable entrepreneurs, small-medium sized enterprises and mid-sized businesses to create software applications. It sells this in a number of iterations: BUILDER STUDIO PRO, BUILDER STUDIO STORE (aimed at those who want to create e-commerce or retail apps) and BUILDER STUDIO RAPID (a software platform designed to enable the swift creation of apps);
BUILDER SURFACE, a software development platform aimed at large enterprises and businesses;
BUILDER NOW, a service that enables businesses to create visual prototypes of a software app before any relevant coding or development work starts;
BUILDER CLOUD, a cloud-hosting service offered by the Claimant to users of its services for hosting, inter alia, apps designed on the BUILDER STUDIO platform; and
BUILDER CARE, a subscription service for software maintenance including updates and bug fixes.
The Second Defendant, Appy Pie LLP (“D2”), is an Indian LLP incorporated in January 2016. It trades in the development and supply of software, specifically ‘no code’ app builders of the drag and drop type, under the name APPY PIE, through its website www.appypie.com (“Appy Pie Website”) The two partners are Mr Abhinav Girdhar and his mother, Ms Savita Girdhar, who does not play an active role in the business of D2.
The First Defendant, Appy Pie Ltd (“D1”) is a company incorporated in the UK. Its sole director and shareholder is Mr Abhinav Girdhar’s wife, Ms Shagun Gupta, and Mr Girdhar acts as a manager of it.
Mr Howe, Kings Counsel, represents the Claimant and Mr Lomas represents the Defendants. I am extremely grateful to them for their very helpful skeleton arguments and oral submissions which were of significant assistance, and the manner in which they managed the trial so that a very great deal of ground could be elegantly and efficiently covered in a short space of time.
- 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







