Easygroup Ltd v Easy Live (Services) Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2282 (Ch)
EasyGroup Limited v Easyfundraising Limited & Ors
11 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2323 (Ch)
High Court
EasyGroup sued Easyfundraising for using a similar name. The judge said the names weren't similar enough to cause confusion and that Easyfundraising didn't hurt EasyGroup's business. EasyGroup also lost because it didn't use some of its own trademarks enough and because it didn't prove that an investor company was responsible.
Key Facts
- •EasyGroup Limited (Claimant) sued Easyfundraising Limited and others (Defendants) for trade mark infringement and passing off.
- •Easyfundraising operates an online platform allowing users to donate to charities by shopping through affiliated retailers.
- •The Claimant owns numerous "easy+" brand trade marks, alleging infringement by Easyfundraising's use of various signs, including different versions of the "easyfundraising" logo.
- •Easyfundraising's logos evolved over time, with the 2022 version featuring a yellow/gold "e" logo, which the Claimant argued was closer to EasyGroup's orange branding.
- •The Defendants counterclaimed for revocation of some of the Claimant's trade marks for non-use.
- •The case involved extensive witness evidence and analysis of the Easyfundraising website and its operation.
- •No evidence of actual confusion between Easyfundraising and EasyGroup brands was found despite extensive searches.
Legal Principles
Likelihood of confusion under s.10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 requires a global appreciation of all relevant factors, judged through the eyes of the average consumer.
Muzmatch
Genuine use of a trade mark requires actual use, more than merely token, consistent with the mark's essential function to guarantee origin.
Nuclei
Revocation for non-use considers whether the mark was put to genuine use within a 5-year period, considering variant forms and the average consumer's perspective.
Nuclei, Merck
Section 10(3) infringement requires a trade mark with a reputation, use of a similar sign without due cause, and unfair advantage or detriment to the mark's character or repute.
Muzmatch
Passing off requires misrepresentation, causing damage to the claimant's goodwill.
None explicitly stated but implied throughout passing off claim discussion
Outcomes
The easy.com and first easylife marks were revoked for non-use.
Insufficient evidence of genuine use within the relevant period.
Partial revocation of the second easyJet mark was granted, limiting its protection to in-flight retail services.
The mark's use was limited to in-flight retail, a distinct subcategory of retail services.
Trade mark infringement claims under s.10(2) and s.10(3) were dismissed.
Insufficient similarity of services and lack of evidence of confusion or risk of confusion.
Passing off claim was dismissed.
No misrepresentation or damage to Easylife's goodwill was proven.
Claim against Palatine for joint and several liability was dismissed.
Insufficient evidence that Palatine had knowledge of wrongdoing or caused EFL's actions.
Similar Cases
EasyGroup Limited v Nuclei Limited & Ors
[2023] EWCA Civ 1247
Hayman-Joyce Property Limited v Hayman-Joyce Broadway LLP & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1028 (IPEC)
Athleta (ITM) INC. v Sports Group Denmark A/S & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2449 (Ch)
Lifestyle Equities CV & Ors v Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Limited & Ors
[2024] EWCA Civ 814