Pathway IP II GmbH v HQHUBS Ltd O/395/22
In the matter of an Opposition by Pathway IP II GmbH to the Application no. 3510920 by HQHUBS Ltd to register as a trade mark “HQHUBS” in classes 35, 36, 41 and 43
Jacqueline Reid appeared for the Opponent, PATHWAY IP II GmbH, instructed by Haseltine Lake Kempner LLP. The Application sought to claim every single service listed in classes 35, 36, 41 and 43. The Opponent relied on its earlier mark “HQ” for services in classes 35, 36 and 43 in respect of a limited subgroup of those services. The Applicant was not experienced in trade mark matters and apparently taken no advice before making the application. However, even though the applicant did not intend to use the mark in relation to all the services applied for, the Hearing Officer did not accept that the application was made in bad faith, because, in filing the application, the applicant displayed a complete lack of understanding of the trade mark system and the purpose of a trade mark, rather than having a nefarious purpose (of seeking to unfairly benefit from the trade mark system). At the hearing the applicant sought to substantially reduce the scope of its application. However, the core business of the applicant was the same as that of the opponent, though on a far smaller scale, the opponent being dominant in the market. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer concluded that there was a risk of indirect confusion between HQHUBS and HQ in respect of corresponding services, under s. 5(2)(b) Trade Marks Act 2014.