Solicitor wins dispute over her firm’s “Pure” trade mark


Challenge alleging confusion dismissed

A solicitor has fought off a challenge to register a trade mark for her law firm after the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) judged it was likely to carry little risk of confusion.

The application, for Pure Business Law with the slogan ‘Giving You The Edge’, was submitted by founder Eve Jarrett, whose Milton Keynes firm calls itself ‘The entrepreneur’s law firm’.

It was opposed by Avidity IP in Stratford-on-Avon, the owner of brand Pure Ideas, which it registered in 2010.

Avidity IP’s website calls itself “The UK’s first employee-owned intellectual property firm… a firm of globally experienced and skilled European patent and trademark attorneys”.

Ms Jarrett argued that while her firm’s services – intellectual property is part of its wider offering to businesses – were “identical or similar” to those offered by Avidity, there was little likelihood of confusion.

Avidity claimed that the average consumer would not expect two separate commercial undertakings in the same niche field of practice to operate under such similar marks.

However, coming firmly down on Ms Jarrett’s side, the IPO’s adjudicator found the competing trade marks “to be visually similar to a low degree, aurally similar to at best a medium degree and conceptually similar to the limited extent that both are likely to evoke the concept of specialism/expertise”.

He also found Avidity’s trade mark to be “distinctive to a fairly low degree”.

Further, the likely consumer of such services was likely to pay a “heightened degree of attention” to their choice, reducing the chances of confusion.

The adjudicator concluded: “Even in relation to the identical services at issue, I see absolutely no reason why an average consumer… would assume the services at issue originate from the same or related undertakings, simply because the competing trademarks contain the word ‘PURE’ integrated as part of a phrase.

“Much more likely, in my view, is that they will assume that the word ‘PURE’ has been adopted by completely unrelated commercial undertakings to reflect what those undertakings consider to be their particular specialisms/expertise.”

The adjudicator awarded Ms Jarrett costs, but rejected her invoice for £5,000. Instead he ordered that Avidity pay £1,000, subject to any successful appeal.




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


Civil enforcement – progress at last with CJC report

‘When do I get my money?’ is a question that litigators acting for successful parties are used to fielding. The value of judgments is of course in the recovery made.


Paralegals: Progression and recognition are key to retaining talent

Many lawyers could not do their jobs without the support of paralegals and for law firms to remain competitive, paralegals need to be central to their business.


PII excess: a growing risk for consultant solicitors

As more solicitors choose to work as consultants, a concerning contractual trend has emerged – the passing of professional indemnity insurance excess liabilities onto consultants.


Loading animation