Introduction
Introduction
This is an appeal by the Claimant (“easyGroup”) against an order made by Nicholas Caddick KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge on 17 September 2024 dismissing easyGroup’s claims that (i) the First Defendant (“ELS”) has infringed two trade marks, namely the compound word “easylife” and a stylised mark including that compound word, by the use of various signs, in particular the words EASY LIVE AUCTION, compounds such as “EasyLiveAuction” and logos which include those words, and (ii) a trade mark registered by ELS is invalid. There is also a cross-appeal by the Defendants against the judge’s partial dismissal of their counterclaim to revoke one of the trade marks for non-use. The judge’s order was made for the reasons he gave in a judgment dated 4 September 2024 [2024] EWHC 2282 (Ch).
I granted permission for both the appeal and the cross-appeal, in part because of inconsistent conclusions with respect to the counterclaim reached by the judge in this case and by Fancourt J in easyGroup Ltd v easyfundraising Ltd [2024] EWHC 2323 (Ch). We heard an appeal by easyGroup against the latter decision immediately after this appeal, and we are giving judgment on both appeals at the same time. On this appeal we had the benefit of submissions from all three counsel.
The judge used a series of defined terms in his judgment which in the interests of consistency I will adopt.
- 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
![CA-2024-002240 - [2025] EWCA Civ 946](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png)