Claim No: IP-2022-000086 - [2024] EWHC 1430 (IPEC)
Fecha: 19-Jun-2024
LAW
LAW
Relevant Dates
There is no dispute between the parties that the relevant date for the purpose of determining whether a registered trade mark has acquired distinctive character for the purposes of s. 47(1) TMA is the date of the application for invalidity, which in this case is the date of the original (unamended) Counterclaim: 2 February 2023 (per London Taxi Corp Ltd (t/a London Taxi Co) v Fraser-Nash Research Ltd [2016] EWHC 52 (Ch), [2016] ETMR 18 at [179]).
Equally, there is no dispute that this is distinct from the relevant date for assessing inherent and acquired distinctiveness for the purposes of determining whether a registered mark is validly registered, which is the date when the application was filed. That is 2 November 2020 for the Builder Home Mark (UK ‘066) and the Builder Word Mark (UK’010), and 17 December 2021 for the remaining Marks in suit. Evidence relating to facts and matters after that date are inadmissible for the purposes of assessment, save where it is of such a type as to support, or enable the drawing of conclusions about, what the position was as at the filing date (see Case C-192/03 Alcon Inc v OHIM [2004] ECR 1-8993 at [39] to [40]).
The relevant date for assessing whether a mark has a reputation is the date that the proprietor of the mark alleges infringing use began. In relation to Category 1 alleged infringement, no date of first use has been alleged, so that must at the latest be the date of the Claim Form: 17 October 2022. In relation to Category 2 alleged infringement, that is the date of the LinkedIn Post, which was a date unknown in July 2022.
- 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