Skip to content
How a “score-draw” judgment exposed the limits of branding power in a post-SkyKick world
Two companies. One name. One courtroom.
In WISE Payments Ltd v With Wise Ltd, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court delivered a nuanced judgment that gave both sides a taste of victory and a reality check. This was not just an average trademark dispute. It was a branding showdown that revealed how powerful names can falter, and how a challenger can turn the law to its advantage.
Here is how this fascinating case unfolded—and why it matters for anyone in fintech, branding, or IP law.
The Story Behind the Name
Wise Payments Ltd, formerly known as TransferWise, is a well-known global fintech business providing money transfer and financial services. In came With Wise Ltd, a much smaller UK-based startup offering payroll and driver onboarding services. Trouble brewed when the newcomer began using the word “Wise” prominently in its branding.
Wise Payments sued under trademark infringement (s.10(2), s.10(3)) and passing off. With Wise fought back with counterclaims of bad faith trademark filing and passing off. The courtroom became a testing ground for branding rights in a fast-paced digital landscape.
The Courtroom Outcome: A Score-Draw Verdict
Trade Mark Infringement (s.10(2))
The court found that With Wise’s stylised “WISE” sign used for payroll and invoicing services likely confused consumers, infringing Wise Payments’ mark. By contrast, “TRANSFERWISE” was sufficiently distinct from “With Wise,” so no infringement arose in that context.
Bad Faith Claim – applying SkyKick
In a significant move, the court found Wise Payments had filed its Class 9 mark (software) broadly and without intention to use, constituting bad faith. Class 36 (financial services) stood. The mark was narrowed to software specifically tied to services like foreign exchange, invoice and payroll functions.
Section 10(3) & Reputation
Despite Wise Payments having a strong reputation in transfers, multicurrency accounts, and prepaid debit cards, the court found no unfair advantage or detriment, as the services did not overlap enough to create a “link.” The claim was dismissed.
Passing Off – Claimant vs Counterclaim
Wise Payments’ passing-off claim failed, the rebranding to “Wise” was too recent to establish substantive goodwill. With Wise, however, succeeded partially demonstrating goodwill in onboarding and payroll services, with the court finding Wise Payments’ emails calling With Wise a “scam” constituted actionable misrepresentation.
Procedural Spotlight: Disclosure Discipline Matters
The IPEC enforces strict procedural rules. Wise Payments attempted to submit 23 documents late without justification and were excluded. A further batch submitted shortly before trial saw only two admitted. This underscores IPEC’s demand for punctual, well-prepared case presentation.
Final Orders
The judge gave both sides something to win and something to think about. Wise Payments won part of its case, as the court agreed that With Wise’s use of “Wise” for payroll and invoicing was likely to confuse customers. But With Wise also came out ahead in some areas. The judge found that Wise Payments had acted in bad faith when it registered its trademark too broadly for software and agreed that Wise’s customer service emails calling With Wise a “scam” were unfair and damaging. The judge did not throw out Wise’s trademark completely but narrowed it down to cover only what was actually used.
Why Battle in Court When You Can Talk It Out?
This case shines a spotlight on a truth every business should take to heart, not every fight needs to end up in court. The judge pointed out that a simple co-existence agreement could have saved everyone time, money, and headaches. In today’s fast-paced fintech world, smart companies know it’s often wiser to negotiate early, draw clear lines, and keep the focus on growth and not legal battles.
Conclusion
Wise v With Wise is a cautionary tale. It reminds even the biggest brands that powerful names require careful deployment, not assumed dominance and shows that smaller challengers can leverage precision, procedure, and personality to force a draw.
