Engineer.AI Global Limited v Appy Pie Ltd & Anor

This dispute came from the no-code software market. The court described no-code or code-free app development as a way for users to build apps without carrying out coding. That makes app development easier for people without prior software experience.

The two sides were competitors, but they offered different types of product. Engineer.AI Global Limited offered composable software platforms. In broad terms, that meant the user specified the elements and functionality, and the platform provider built the app. Appy Pie offered drag-and-drop no-code tools through its website, where the user could build the app directly.

Engineer.AI Global Limited said it had built a family of UK trade marks around the word “Builder”. It relied on seven registrations, including BUILDER, BUILDER.AI and several related sub-brands. It said those marks had been used in and targeted at the UK since 2019 and that customers recognised BUILDER as its house or umbrella brand.

The first complaint was about wording on the Appy Pie website. The examples included phrases such as “App Builder”, “Website Builder”, “Chatbot Builder”, “Android App Builder”, “Business App Builder” and similar combinations. Engineer.AI argued that this use would be seen by customers as connected with its own Builder family of marks.

The second complaint was about a LinkedIn video post called “7 of the best no code app builders in 2022”, which referred to Builder.ai. Engineer.AI said that post was targeted at UK consumers and also infringed its rights.

Appy Pie’s response was straightforward. It said “builder” was an ordinary descriptive word in this market, that it had not used “Builder” on its own, and that its website wording simply described the purpose of its products. It also attacked the validity of Engineer.AI’s marks.

This was not just a simple name-comparison case. Before the court could decide infringement, it had to decide whether Engineer.AI’s marks were distinctive enough to be valid and enforceable for the challenged goods and services.

That mattered because trade mark law does not easily allow one business to monopolise ordinary descriptive language. If a sign mainly describes the kind, purpose or characteristics of goods or services, it may be weak or invalid unless the owner can prove that customers have come to recognise it as that business’s brand.

The court also had to look closely at how Appy Pie used the word “Builder” on its website. Was it using the word as a badge of origin, or simply to describe tools for building apps, websites and chatbots?

For the LinkedIn post, the court had to decide whether the post was targeted at UK consumers. Online content can be visible in the UK without being legally directed at UK customers for trade mark purposes.

Engineer.AI also argued that it had a family of marks built around the common element “Builder”, and that the marks had acquired distinctiveness and reputation in the UK through use. Those arguments depended heavily on evidence about actual trading and customer recognition.

The court dismissed Engineer.AI Global Limited’s infringement claims and upheld the defendants’ counterclaim to the extent pursued.

The judge found that none of the marks had acquired distinctiveness on the evidence before the court. The judgment states that all of the marks were invalid for lack of distinctive character to the extent challenged by the defendants. The Builder House Mark and Builder Word Mark were also invalid to the same extent on the customary-use ground.

That finding largely disposed of the website infringement case. The judge said Appy Pie had used “Builder” only together with preceding words such as “App Builder” and “Android App Builder”, and never on its own. In that context, the word was being used as an ordinary descriptive word to describe the purpose of the products.

The court therefore found that the average consumer would see the website wording as descriptive, not as trade mark use indicating commercial origin. On that basis, there was no likelihood of confusion for the claim pursued under section 10(2)(b).

The judge also said that, if the use was descriptive, Appy Pie LLP had the benefit of the descriptive use defence under section 11(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

On the LinkedIn claim, the court found that the post was not targeted at UK consumers. Because of that, the claim failed at the first hurdle and the court did not go on to decide the comparative advertising issues.

A major theme in the judgment was the weakness of the claimant’s evidence. This is one of the most useful parts of the case for business owners because it shows what can go wrong when a company tries to prove that a descriptive sign has become distinctive in the UK.

The judge said there was no reliable evidence of UK sales or market share held by goods or services bearing any of the marks. There was also very little reliable evidence of the amount invested in promoting the marks, apart from figures the judge accepted for two 2022 campaigns.

The court also found limited evidence about how intensive and geographically widespread the use of the marks had been in the UK. That matters because acquired distinctiveness is about what the relevant public actually recognises, not just what the business says it has been doing.

The judgment specifically noted that the claimant had provided no website metrics that might have helped, such as UK unique visitors or UK page impressions. The judge described that as a wasted opportunity.

There was some evidence of UK media coverage and some Google search data for “Builder.ai”. The court accepted that there had been substantial use of the Builder.ai Word Mark in 2022 press coverage and in the website URL. It also accepted that thousands of people in the UK had searched for “Builder.ai” and gone to the site. But the judge found that this gave only limited support and did not significantly prove acquired distinctiveness.

The court ultimately concluded that the evidence was simply lacking. That conclusion drove the invalidity findings and also meant the claimant did not satisfy the court that the marks had a UK reputation or that consumers would view them as a family of marks.

For business owners, the practical point is simple. If you want to say a descriptive or weakly distinctive sign has become your brand in the UK, your records need to be clear, consistent and tied to the exact sign you rely on.

This case is a strong reminder that a word can be commercially attractive and still be legally weak. In software, words like builder, app, cloud and studio often tell customers what a product does. That can help with marketing, but it can also make exclusivity harder to enforce.

The court accepted that Appy Pie’s wording described the purpose of its products. Phrases like “App Builder” and “Website Builder” told customers what the tools were for. The fact that Appy Pie did not use “Builder” on its own mattered.

That distinction is important for founders. A business may be able to build a brand around a descriptive term if the market comes to recognise it as a badge of origin, but that usually takes strong and consistent evidence. Without that, the owner may struggle to stop others using the same word in a descriptive way.

For many SMEs, this is really a naming strategy issue. A descriptive term may help customers understand the offer quickly, but it may be safer to pair that term with a stronger house brand rather than relying on the descriptive word as the main asset you expect to enforce.

This judgment does not say you should never use descriptive language. It says you should be realistic about what protection that language can deliver, especially in a crowded market where competitors naturally need similar vocabulary.

The LinkedIn part of the case is useful for businesses that market online across borders. The court applied the targeting approach recently restated by the Supreme Court in Lifestyle Equities. The question was whether the average consumer would consider the content to be directed at them in the UK.

Here, the answer was no. The post was on Appy Pie LLP’s LinkedIn page, not on the Appy Pie website or another site from which customers could actually buy goods or services. That mattered because the overall context did not look like a clear UK-facing sales effort.

The court also found there was no clear expression of an intention to solicit custom in the UK. The fact that the post was in English was not enough. The judge noted that English is a main language of business in India, where Appy Pie LLP was based, and is widely used internationally.

One of the seven prices shown in the LinkedIn post was in pounds sterling, but the other six were in US dollars. The court held that this did not make the post UK-targeted overall.

The judge also considered the small percentage of Appy Pie LLP’s LinkedIn followers from the UK. On the evidence, the court was satisfied that the average consumer would not see the post as a meaningful attempt to target UK consumers.

Because the post was not UK-targeted, the claim failed without the court needing to decide whether it was comparative advertising or whether it complied with the 2008 Regulations.

For businesses, the practical point is narrow but useful. Content can be accessible in the UK without being legally directed at UK consumers. Platform, wording, pricing signals, audience data and the overall commercial context can all matter.

This is a practical case about brand strategy, evidence and realistic expectations. It shows the gap between having a registration and having a registration that is strong enough to stop competitors using similar language in ordinary trade.

If your business uses a common industry word as a core brand element, ask two questions early. First, is the word really distinctive, or does it mainly describe the product? Secondly, if you later need to prove acquired distinctiveness in the UK, what evidence will you actually have?

If you are using descriptive wording on your own site, this case is also reassuring. Descriptive combinations may be lawful where they genuinely describe the purpose of the goods or services and are not presented as a badge of origin.

Be careful not to overread the judgment. It does not give a free pass to copy a competitor’s branding. The result turned on the weakness of the marks as proved in this case, the descriptive context of the website wording, and the court’s findings on the evidence.

For many SMEs, the best operational response is to choose a stronger house brand, use it consistently, and keep UK-specific evidence of recognition. If you publish competitor comparisons online, think carefully about where the content is directed and what objective support you have for the comparison.