CA-2024-002240 - [2025] EWCA Civ 946

easyGroup contends that the judge erred in law when he said in [108] that the enhanced distinctive character of the Easylife Stylised Mark “does not mean that the average consumer was any more likely to be confused” (and repeated the error in relation to the Easylife Word Mark at [138]), because that is contrary to principle (h) in the standard summary. I agree that, read in isolation, that sentence appears to be erroneous. As counsel for the Defendants submitted, however, [108] must be read as a whole. It is clear from the last sentence of [108] that what the judge meant was that the enhanced distinctive character was not sufficient to lead to any real likelihood of confusion having regard to the other relevant factors. That reasoning discloses no error.