TIKTOK v TICKTICKTRADER

Background

Our client, Tick Tick Trader Ltd (“our client”), 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 (“UKIPO”) without objection and was subsequently published for opposition.

Following publication, the application attracted the attention of TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited (“TikTok”), the operator of the widely known TikTok social media platform, and one of the most commercially dominant digital platforms globally.

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.

TikTok objected to the registration of TICKTICKTRADER 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.

Central to TikTok’s position was the strength of its brand. The company relied heavily on the global reach of the TikTok platform, pointing to the scale of its user base and the widespread recognition of the name.

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. On our client’s behalf, we responded in detail.

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.

Our response also addressed the legal comparison between the marks and the practical implications of the restrictions proposed by TikTok. In our view, those restrictions would have left our client in a commercially unworkable position and effectively stripped the brand of its value.

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 subsequently 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.

A key point was that the marks had to be compared as wholes.

The correct comparison was therefore between TICKTICKTRADER and TIKTOK, not isolated elements of the words. We explained that 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. For the claim to succeed, TikTok needed to show that consumers would make a genuine connection between the marks.

We submitted that the differences between TICKTICKTRADER and TIKTOK were such that no such link would arise.

Both parties subsequently filed evidence supporting their respective positions. TikTok relied on extensive material concerning the popularity of the TikTok platform, including statistics relating to downloads, marketing activity and social media engagement.

Our client’s evidence addressed the nature of its business and the use of the TICKTICKTRADER brand in the financial trading education sector.

Hearing

The matter proceeded to a hearing before the UKIPO.

The hearing focused primarily on two questions:

• 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. Without such a link, the claims of unfair advantage and detriment could not succeed.

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, reinforcing the strength of its position. 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

Legal

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.

Commercial

Businesses should not feel compelled to surrender strong brands simply because the opposing party is large or well known.

This case is a clear example of a situation where pressure was applied, but the legal position did not support it. Once tested properly, that position did not hold.

Where the legal merits justify it, standing firm is not only justified, it is often the correct commercial decision.

This matter reflects our approach to proportionate, ethical enforcement: pushing back where necessary, advising with clarity, and ensuring that clients are not pressured into conceding rights they are entitled to defend.