Trademarksly acted for Park Agility Pty Ltd in UKIPO invalidity proceedings resulting in the partial invalidation of the SHARE.P composite trade mark
Trademarksly 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 Trademarksly
All content is provided for general information only and does not constitute commercial or legal advice.
