Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
What does the High Court’s ruling in Envirotecnic Ltd v Gutterclear UK Ltd tell us about challenging trade mark validity?
Envirotectnic Ltd (the appellant) owns a Community Trade Mark (CTM) for the mark ‘Gutter-Clear’ (word) registered in class 19 in respect of ‘Non-metal rain gutter filters in the nature of foam inserts for maintaining gutters and downspouts’). The CTM was registered as of 6 August 2009.
Gutterclear UK Ltd (the respondent) owns a UK trade mark for a logo mark including the word ‘Gutterclear’ in a coloured and stylised form alongside the image of a leaf registered (for an image click here) in class 37 in respect of ‘Commercial, industrial & residential cleaning services. Cleaning equipment rental services’ (the UK trade mark). The UK trade mark was registered on 13 March 2013.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Hearing Officer of the UK Intellectual Property Office in which she dismissed its application for invalidity of the UK trade mark (Decision O-180-15). The appellant’s original invalidity action against the UK trade mark was formulated on two grounds:
under section 5(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994)—namely that the UK trade mark should not have been registered because the CTM is a similar mark registered for similar good and there is a likelihood of confusion between the respective marks
under TMA 1994, s 3(6) on the basis that the UK trade mark was applied for in bad faith—the applicant’s alleged intention being that the appellant would not discover its mark until post-registration
On what grounds did the appellant bring an appeal to the High Court?
The Hearing Officer rejected the invalidity claim in its entirety, finding neither sufficient similarity/likelihood of confusion, nor any evidence of a bad faith in the application for the UK trade mark. The appellant argued there was a distinct and material error of principle and that the Hearing Officer was clearly wrong, on the following key grounds:
when considering likelihood of confusion under
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234