easyGroup Ltd v Nuclei Ltd & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 1247 (27 October 2023)

easyGroup Ltd v Nuclei Ltd & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 1247 (27 October 2023)

The appeal was dismissed because the Court found that EASYOFFICES is not identical to EASYOFFICE, and although the services were closely related or identical, there was no likelihood of confusion given the absence of actual confusion over years of concurrent use and the relatively low distinctiveness of the EASYOFFICE mark. Honest concurrent use by Nuclei was a significant factor. Thus, there was no infringement under section 10(1) or (2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 or Article 9(1)(a) or (b) of the EUTM Regulation.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Civ 1247
Parties
Claimant/appellant: EASYGROUP LIMITED; First Defendant/respondent: NUCLEI LIMITED; Second Defendant/respondent: PATHWAY IP SARL; Third Defendant/respondent: REGUS GROUP LIMITED; Fourth Defendant/respondent: IWG PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Trade Mark Infringement, Revocation for Non Use, Likelihood of Confusion, Honest Concurrent Use
Intellectual Property Commercial Law Trade Marks Trade Mark Infringement Revocation for Non Use Likelihood of Confusion Honest Concurrent Use

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EASYGROUP LIMITED

Claimant/appellant

NUCLEI LIMITED

First Defendant/respondent

PATHWAY IP SARL

Second Defendant/respondent

REGUS GROUP LIMITED

Third Defendant/respondent

IWG PLC

Fourth Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of EASYOFFICES infringed EASYOFFICE trade marks under section 10(1) and (2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and Article 9(1)(a) and (b) of the EUTM Regulation
  2. 2 Whether the trade marks should be revoked for non-use
  3. 3 Whether there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks and signs

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Court found that EASYOFFICES is not identical to EASYOFFICE, and although the services were closely related or identical, there was no likelihood of confusion given the absence of actual confusion over years of concurrent use and the relatively low distinctiveness of the EASYOFFICE mark. Honest concurrent use by Nuclei was a significant factor. Thus, there was no infringement under section 10(1) or (2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 or Article 9(1)(a) or (b) of the EUTM Regulation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The order of the High Court dismissing the claim and revoking the trade marks for non-use is upheld.
  • No need to hear argument on respondents' notices or contingent cross-appeal.