Wirex Ltd v Cryptocarbon Global Ltd & Ors

Decision date: 16 March 2021

Neutral citation: [2021] EWHC 617 (IPEC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

Wirex's registered UK trade mark CRYPTOBACK was challenged by the defendants who alleged prior goodwill and bad faith; the court found the defendants' evidence of prior use unreliable and dismissed the invalidity counterclaim. The trade mark was held valid and infringed by the corporate defendants, and Mr Manuel was held personally liable as a joint tortfeasor for infringements by Global and Cryptocarbon UK but not for those by Bee-One.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high

The judgment indicates that to defeat a registered neologism by a passing-off/s.5(4) claim, a claimant must prove with clear, primarily documentary evidence that the relevant public had taken the sign to denote the claimant's goods or services before the filing date; asserted prior reputation or use unsupported by credible contemporaneous evidence will fail. Personal liability of a company officer for company torts requires evidence of personal involvement sufficient to procure, induce or join in the wrongful acts.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The notes record obiter observations that use of internet archive material (Wayback Machine) may be inadmissible under CPR 63.23(2) absent exceptional circumstances, and that concurrent use of variant terms can support the conclusion that a term was not perceived as a trade name.