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

Similarity between the Defendants’ Signs and the Easylife Word Mark. It was common ground that the Defendants’ Signs were similar to the Easylife Word Mark and that the extent of this similarity was greater than in the case of the Easylife Stylised Mark. The judge’s assessment at [132] was as follows:

“… given the important conceptual difference referred to in paragraph 86 above (which applies equally in the case of the Easylife Word Mark) and given the other (albeit less important) distinguishing features, I conclude that the level of similarity is moderate.”

Similarity in services. This was the same as with respect to the Easylife Stylised Mark.

Distinctive character. The judge said at [138] that “it seems probable that the Easylife Word Mark could have acquired an enhanced distinctive character by reason of Easylife’s extensive trading since September 2020”.

Overall assessment. The judge held that there was no likelihood of confusion for essentially the same reasons as in the case of the Easylife Stylised Mark. I should note, however, that in this context he said at [137]:

“… whilst the absence of stylisation means that the Easylife Word Mark is somewhat closer to the Defendants’ Signs than the Easylife Stylised Mark had been, I remain of the view the average consumer (of both types) would still see the similarity as arising from the use of the word ‘easy’ - a normal and widely used word of a descriptive nature. Indeed, in the absence of any stylisation, the average consumer would if anything be even less inclined to assume that another sign including the word ‘easy’ was the Claimant or Easylife or associated in some way with the Claimant and/or Easylife and/or the Easylife Word Mark.”