IP SERVICE INTERNATIONAL acted for Park Agility Pty Ltd in UKIPO invalidity proceedings resulting in the partial invalidation of the SHARE.P composite trade mark
IP SERVICE INTERNATIONAL acted for Park Agility Pty Ltd in a UKIPO trade mark invalidity proceedings against the UK Trade Mark Registration “Share.P”.
Our client sought to invalidate a UK Trade Mark Registration, a series of two composite marks for “Share.P” with a stylised “P” device, owned by a Swiss traffic technology provider, due to a conflict with our client's "SHAREPARK" trade mark.
Key Issues
The challenge was brought under s 47(2) Trade Marks Act 1994 on the basis of s 5(2)(b), relying on our client’s earlier UK mark SHAREPARK for overlapping technology, parking and mobility-related goods and services.
Findings
The hearing officer accepted that the relevant goods and services included a mix of consumers and professional users, with the purchasing process predominantly visual. While the earlier mark’s distinctiveness was assessed as low for parking-related goods/services (and medium for others), the marks were found conceptually identical (given the strong “parking” association of the “P” device) and sufficiently close overall, such that there was a likelihood of confusion (direct and, alternatively, indirect) across a substantial part of the specification.
Outcome
The invalidity action therefore succeeded in large parts: the registration was declared invalid for significant categories in Classes 9, 39 and 42, including various software/telecommunications and data-related items, transport and parking reservation/rental services, and software/platform-as-a-service offerings tied to renting/sharing parking spaces and facilitating payments. The registration remained valid for a narrower set of goods and services, including certain electrical/charging apparatus in Class 9, packaging and storage of goods in Class 39, and specified Class 42 items such as industrial research/design and quality control/authentication services, plus certain hosting/platform and website-related services.
Costs were awarded in our client’s favour.
Our client was represented by Max Steinhausen (UKIPO decision O-0759-25, 15 August 2025).
Contact our Intellectual Property Lawyers at IP SERVICE INTERNATIONAL
All content is provided for general information only and does not constitute commercial or legal advice.
