![CA-2024-002240 - [2025] EWCA Civ 946](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
Standard of review on appeal
Standard of review on appeal
Since the judge’s decisions under appeal involved multi-factorial evaluations, this Court can only intervene if he erred in law or in principle, which includes a gap in logic, a lack of consistency or a failure to take into account a material factor that undermines the cogency of the conclusion: see Lifestyle Equities CV v Amazon UK Services Ltd [2024] UKSC 8, [2024] Bus LR 532 at [46]-[50] (Lord Briggs and Lord Kitchin) and Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v Dream Pairs Europe Inc [2025] UKSC 25 at [94]-[95] (Lord Briggs and Lord Stephens).
- 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