Earlier this year, the band formerly known as Easy Life, changed their name to Hard Life following a legal dispute with easyGroup over trade mark infringement. With over 200 registered marks in the UK, and the growing number of cases surrounding infringement of trade marks, the group continues to demonstrate its litigious approach when it comes to protecting its brand.
However, in September 2024, easyGroup was unsuccessful in two cases where the defendants had included the word “easy” in their branding.
easyGroup had previously had a partially successful claim against Easy Live, which was back in 2022. Since then, as part of a separate litigation, easyGroup had acquired two marks (one word and one figurative) which had “easylife” as the key component. easyGroup then brought a new claim against Easy Live relying on these “easylife” marks.
easyGroup claim related to Easy Live’s Signs (i.e. "Easy live", "Easy Live Auction", “Easy Live (Services) Ltd”) and two logos it used. The core argument was that these were similar to the “easylife” marks, covered identical or similar goods and services and were likely to cause confusion to the public. easyGroup also claimed that a registered trade mark for the Easy Live logo’s was invalid on the same basis.
The claim was denied by Easy Live, who also counterclaimed for revocation of the stylised “easylife” mark.
Ultimately the High Court rejected all of the claims from both sides, save for one part which is to be determined later. The Court found that, despite the signs being moderately similar and the services identical or highly similar, there was no likelihood of confusion. For that reason, the infringement claim by easyGroup failed, as did its claim for invalidity. Easy Live’s claim for non-use revocation either failed (in respect of some services in class 35) as there had been use of a similar enough version (i.e. one which differed in a way that did not impact its distinctive character) or would be determined at a future hearing (for the remaining services in class 35 and those in class 39).
The core reasoning was that the average consumer would see the similarity around the word “easy” within its descriptive nature, rather than it causing confusion with easyGroup or its trade marks.
Roughly a week after the Easy Live decision came out, the High Court dismissed another easyGroup claim. This claim was against easyfundraising, which runs an online charity fundraising platform offering advertising space.
The claim centred on whether easyfundraising had infringed nine of easyGroup’s registered marks, including word marks for “EASYJET”, “EASYHOTEL”, and “easy.com”, when using signs "easyfundraising", "@easyuk" and "easysearch" as well as various other figurative signs which had the same key components. easyGroup made the claim under Section 10(2) (likelihood to cause confusion to the public) and Section 10(3) (likelihood of causing a reputational impact) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
easyfundraising counterclaimed for invalidity of four of the trade marks relied on by easyGroup, principally for non-use.
The High Court dismissed all of the claims for infringement and passing off. Whilst the precise basis for that finding varies depending on which mark in question, it largely comes down to there being no likelihood of confusion and/or a link (which are pre-requisites for claims under section 10(2) and 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994). Generally there was found to be very limited similarity in the marks themselves, and the similarity was down to the sole use of “easy” which is a common and descriptive term. There was also quite limited similarity in terms of the services of the two parties.
On top of this, the court partially revoked the EASYJET and EASYLIFE marks and wholly revoked the EASY.COM mark for lack of use.
These cases highlight the complex nature of such disputes, and the level of nuance involved in the potential outcome. Understandably, it can be very concerning when a large, well-known brand threatens or brings a claim, but the important point is to take early legal advice so you can properly understand your position before making any decisions on how to deal with the situation.
If you have any questions regarding intellectual property disputes or other Intellectual Property matters, please get in touch with Stephen Ruse (01604 258064/[javascript protected email address]) or Noor Masad (0116 247 3569/[javascript protected email address]).
© Howes Percival LLP | Howes Percival LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC 322781 and is regulated by the Law Society
The information on this site about legal matters is provided as a general guide only. Although we try to ensure that all of the information on this site is accurate and up to date, this cannot be guaranteed. The information on this site should not be relied upon or construed as constituting legal advice and Howes Percival LLP disclaims liability in relation to its use. You should seek appropriate legal advice before taking or refraining from taking any action.
To contact us, please fill out this form and we will get back in touch as soon as possible. Your personal data will be processed in accordance with our privacy policy which can be found here.
Thank you for your enquiry. We will respond as soon as possible.
