Background
Our client, Tick Tick Trader Ltd, operates a business providing education and training services relating to financial trading.
In April 2023, our client applied to register the UK trade mark TICKTICKTRADER in Class 41. The application covered education and training services connected with financial trading. The application proceeded through examination at the UK Intellectual Property Office without objection and was subsequently published for opposition.
Following publication, the application attracted the attention of TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited, the operator of the widely known TikTok social media platform.
The Opposition
TikTok filed a formal opposition against our client's application under Opposition No. OP000442257.
The opposition relied on several earlier UK trade mark registrations for TIKTOK / TIK TOK and was brought under sections 5(2)(b) and 5(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
In essence, TikTok argued that the marks were sufficiently similar to give rise to a likelihood of confusion and that use of TICKTICKTRADER would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the reputation of the TIKTOK trade mark.
Pre-Opposition Correspondence
Before the opposition was formally pursued, TikTok's representatives contacted our client asserting that the TICKTICKTRADER name conflicted with their trade mark rights. They demanded that our client withdraw its application and cease use of the name entirely.
Our position was clear from the outset: the objections were not well founded, and our client was not prepared to concede a commercially viable brand without proper legal basis.
Given the parties' fundamentally different positions, settlement discussions did not progress and the dispute proceeded through the opposition process before the UKIPO.
Defence and Submissions
We filed a defence and counterstatement, denying the opposition in its entirety. Our submissions focused squarely on the correct legal test, namely, the overall impression created by the marks.
The word TRADER was not incidental. It formed a central part of the mark and significantly changed the structure, length and meaning of the sign.
We also addressed the nature of the relevant services. Financial trading education is a specialist field. Consumers typically research and compare providers before enrolling in training programmes. As a result, they are likely to pay a relatively high degree of attention when selecting such services.
With regard to TikTok's reliance on reputation, we accepted that the TikTok brand is widely known. However, reputation alone is not a monopoly. It does not entitle even a well-known brand to prevent the registration of every superficially similar mark.
Hearing
The matter proceeded to a hearing before the UKIPO. The hearing focused primarily on whether the marks were sufficiently similar to cause confusion, and whether the reputation of TikTok's mark meant that the use of TICKTICKTRADER would take unfair advantage of that reputation.
Decision
In a decision issued on 19 February 2026, TikTok's opposition was dismissed in its entirety.
The Hearing Officer accepted that some of the parties' services were identical, as both specifications covered education and training services. However, similarity of services alone was not enough to bridge the clear differences between the marks.
When comparing the marks, the Hearing Officer found that although there was a degree of visual and aural similarity arising from the shared "tik/tick" sound, the marks were clearly different when considered as wholes. The structure and length of the marks differed significantly, and the presence of the word TRADER materially changed the overall impression.
The Hearing Officer also found that the marks conveyed different conceptual meanings. While TikTok is commonly associated with the sound of a clock, TICKTICKTRADER would be understood as referring to trading activity.
Taking these factors together, the Hearing Officer concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks. TikTok's claim under section 5(3) also failed. Although the TikTok brand was recognised as having a significant reputation, the Hearing Officer found that consumers would not establish the necessary mental link between the marks.
Outcome and Costs
TikTok's opposition was dismissed in its entirety. As the successful party, our client was awarded £1,700 as a contribution to its legal costs. Our client's application was therefore allowed to proceed to registration.
This was not a case about brand recognition. It was a case about whether that recognition could be stretched beyond its proper legal limits.
Conclusion
This decision highlights that when assessing similarity, the overall impression created by the marks is critical. In this case, the conceptual differences between the marks were sufficient to outweigh any visual or aural similarities.
The decision also reinforces an important principle in trade mark law: reputation alone is not decisive. An opponent must still demonstrate that consumers would form a genuine connection between the marks in question.
Businesses should not feel compelled to surrender strong brands simply because the opposing party is large or well known. Where the legal merits justify it, standing firm can be the correct commercial decision.
