![CA-2024-002240 - [2025] EWCA Civ 946](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
easyGroup’s grounds of appeal
easyGroup’s grounds of appeal
easyGroup appeals on three grounds. Ground 1 is that the judge was wrong to find that the Easylife Marks and the Defendants’ Signs were conceptually very different. Ground 2 is that the judge was wrong in law to hold that the enhanced distinctive character of the Easylife Stylised Mark did not mean that the average consumer would be more likely to be confused. Ground 3 is that the judge made various errors in his assessment of likelihood of confusion.
- 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