Wise Payments Limited v With Wise Limited & Ors
Decision date: 11 July 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] EWHC 1722 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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
This case concerned competing businesses trading as "Wise" (formerly TransferWise) and "With Wise", and raised issues of trade mark validity, infringement (s.10(2) and s.10(3)) and passing off. The court narrowed the Claimant's 2018 Class 9 software specifications to software relating to its financial/payment services for lack of adequate justification, found the Wise Logo Mark infringed by the Defendants for identical/similar goods/services (including payroll, invoicing and a downloadable app) but rejected infringement and s.10(3) claims based on the TRANSFERWISE mark, and held the Claimant’s passing off claim failed while the First Defendant succeeded on a passing off counterclaim in respect of payroll and invoice services. Remaining relief and specific orders (including consequences for the 2021 WISE marks) were left for further submissions.
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 supports that a trade mark applicant must be able to justify broad Class 9 software specifications; absent a plausible UK‑focused rationale, the specification may be narrowed. In assessing infringement of a composite/logo mark the court must have regard to the overall impression (with the dominant word element often decisive) and to the context of use (including likely presentation, e.g. on small mobile screens), which can increase the likelihood of confusion for identical or similar goods/services.
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 judgment contains remarks that wholesale rebranding ("find and replace") on websites can render documentary evidence of historical use unreliable; that imprecise trade mark specifications do not alone establish bad faith without evidence of intent or lack of rationale; and that late disclosure in IPEC is generally excluded unless truly exceptional circumstances are shown. These appear as guidance rather than strictly binding propositions.