easyGroup Limited v Easy Live (Services) Limited & Ors

easyGroup Limited v Easy Live (Services) Limited & Ors

The Court found a likelihood of confusion between EASY LIVE and the Easylife Marks, particularly the Easylife Word Mark and Stylised Mark, based on visual, aural, and conceptual similarity, enhanced distinctive character, and evidence of typographical confusion. The Court also held that partial revocation of the Easylife Stylised Mark was warranted, limiting its specification to 'providing advertising or promotional space in printed publications.'

Parties
Claimant/appellant: EASYGROUP LIMITED; First Defendant/respondent: EASY LIVE (SERVICES) LIMITED; Second Defendant/respondent: ACHILLEAS PAVLOU ACHILLEOUS; Third Defendant/respondent: JONATHAN RICHARD DEAN BURNSIDE
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal allowed in part; infringement found for EASY LIVE sign; partial revocation of Easylife Stylised Mark specification ordered.
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Trade Mark Revocation, Likelihood of Confusion, Distinctive Character, Partial Revocation
Intellectual Property Commercial Law Trade Mark Infringement Trade Mark Revocation Likelihood of Confusion Distinctive Character Partial Revocation

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EASYGROUP LIMITED

Claimant/appellant

EASY LIVE (SERVICES) LIMITED

First Defendant/respondent

ACHILLEAS PAVLOU ACHILLEOUS

Second Defendant/respondent

JONATHAN RICHARD DEAN BURNSIDE

Third Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants' use of EASY LIVE infringed the Easylife Marks under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants' registered mark is invalid under section 5(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
  3. 3 Whether the Easylife Stylised Mark should be partially revoked for non-use under section 46(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found a likelihood of confusion between EASY LIVE and the Easylife Marks, particularly the Easylife Word Mark and Stylised Mark, based on visual, aural, and conceptual similarity, enhanced distinctive character, and evidence of typographical confusion. The Court also held that partial revocation of the Easylife Stylised Mark was warranted, limiting its specification to 'providing advertising or promotional space in printed publications.'

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal allowed in part; infringement found for EASY LIVE sign; partial revocation of Easylife Stylised Mark specification ordered.

Orders

  • Finding of infringement of both Easylife Marks by use of EASY LIVE sign.
  • Partial revocation of Easylife Stylised Mark: specification amended to 'providing advertising or promotional space in printed publications'.