Easygroup Limited v Easy Live (Services) Limited & Ors.

Easygroup Limited v Easy Live (Services) Limited & Ors.

Both parties had some success, but the defendants are more realistically viewed as the winners because the claimant failed to achieve its main objectives. The litigation could likely have been avoided had the claimant reasonably engaged with the defendants' settlement offers. However, as the claimant established significant infringement, a balanced costs order is appropriate: the claimant must pay 35% of the defendants' costs.

Parties
Claimant: EasyGroup Limited; Defendant: Easy Live (Services) Limited; Defendant: Achilleas Pavlou Achilleous; Defendant: Jonathan Richard Dean Burnside
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Intellectual Property / Judgment on Costs
Outcome
Claimant to pay 35% of defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
Trademark Infringement, Passing Off, Costs Orders, Revocation of Trademark Specification
Intellectual Property Law Trademark Infringement Passing Off Costs Orders Revocation of Trademark Specification

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EasyGroup Limited

Claimant

Easy Live (Services) Limited

Defendant

Achilleas Pavlou Achilleous

Defendant

Jonathan Richard Dean Burnside

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Intellectual Property / Judgment on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the winner for the purposes of costs in a case with mixed success?
  2. 2 Should costs be apportioned given the outcome on various claims and counterclaims?
  3. 3 Did the parties act reasonably in settlement negotiations?

Ratio Decidendi

Both parties had some success, but the defendants are more realistically viewed as the winners because the claimant failed to achieve its main objectives. The litigation could likely have been avoided had the claimant reasonably engaged with the defendants' settlement offers. However, as the claimant established significant infringement, a balanced costs order is appropriate: the claimant must pay 35% of the defendants' costs.

Court Disposition

Claimant to pay 35% of defendants' costs.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay 35% of the defendants' costs.
  • Court to rule separately on payment of a sum on account of costs if not agreed.