easyGroup Ltd v easyfundraising Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1000 (24 July 2025)

easyGroup Ltd v easyfundraising Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1000 (24 July 2025)

The Court held that the Defendants' use of the 'easy' signs did not infringe the Claimant's trade marks as there was only a low degree of similarity and no likelihood of confusion for either the public or business users. The Claimant failed to prove genuine use of the Easylife Stylised Mark in a form not altering its distinctive character, justifying revocation. Partial revocation of the second easyJet mark was appropriate, limiting its specification to retail services provided to airline passengers. The easy.com mark was revoked for non-use as its use was merely promotional and not genuine use for electronic mail services.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 1000
Parties
Claimant/appellant: EASYGROUP LIMITED; First Defendant/respondent: EASYFUNDRAISING LIMITED; Second Defendant/respondent: THE SUPPORT GROUP (UK) LIMITED; Third Defendant/respondent: IAN WOODROFFE
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment Following Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Revocation for Non Use, Likelihood of Confusion, Partial Revocation, Variant Use of Trade Marks
Intellectual Property Commercial Law Trade Mark Infringement Revocation for Non Use Likelihood of Confusion Partial Revocation Variant Use of Trade Marks

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EASYGROUP LIMITED

Claimant/appellant

EASYFUNDRAISING LIMITED

First Defendant/respondent

THE SUPPORT GROUP (UK) LIMITED

Second Defendant/respondent

IAN WOODROFFE

Third Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment Following Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants infringed the Claimant's trade marks under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant's trade marks should be revoked for non-use under section 46(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
  3. 3 Whether use of variant forms of the registered marks constituted genuine use

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Defendants' use of the 'easy' signs did not infringe the Claimant's trade marks as there was only a low degree of similarity and no likelihood of confusion for either the public or business users. The Claimant failed to prove genuine use of the Easylife Stylised Mark in a form not altering its distinctive character, justifying revocation. Partial revocation of the second easyJet mark was appropriate, limiting its specification to retail services provided to airline passengers. The easy.com mark was revoked for non-use as its use was merely promotional and not genuine use for electronic mail services.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • Revocation of the Easylife Stylised Mark for non-use upheld.
  • Partial revocation of the second easyJet mark confirmed, specification limited to retail services provided to airline passengers.