![CA-2024-002240 - [2025] EWCA Civ 946](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, I would allow both the appeal and the cross-appeal in part. I would allow the appeal to the extent of substituting a finding of infringement of both Easylife Marks by use of the sign EASY LIVE, but otherwise dismiss it. I would allow the cross-appeal to the extent of substituting “providing advertising or promotional space in printed publications” for “advertising services; promotional services” in the specification of the Easylife Stylised Mark, but otherwise dismiss it.
Lord Justice Zacaroli:
I agree.
Lord Justice Coulson:
I also agree.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The parties
- The Easylife Marks
- The Defendants’ Signs
- The Defendants’ Mark
- The issues in broad outline
- The legislative framework
- Assessment of the likelihood of confusion: basic principles
- Revocation for non-use: relevant principles
- Variant forms
- Partial revocation
- The average consumer
- Counterclaim for revocation of the Easylife Stylised Mark
- Claim for infringement: the Easylife Stylised Mark
- Claim for infringement: the Easylife Word Mark
- Standard of review on appeal
- Order of consideration
- The Defendants’ grounds of cross-appeal
- Cross-appeal ground 1: variant forms
- Cross-appeal ground 2: partial revocation
- easyGroup’s grounds of appeal
- The Defendants’ respondents’ notice
- Appeal ground 1: conceptual similarity
- Respondents’ notice grounds 1 and 2: comparison of services
- Appeal ground 2: enhanced distinctive character
- Respondents’ notice grounds 3 and 4: enhanced distinctive character
- Appeal ground 3: likelihood of confusion
- Re-assessment of likelihood of confusion
- Conclusions