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

The Defendants cross-appeal on two grounds. Ground 1 is that the judge erred in law or principle in holding that the differences between Signs 1-3 and 5 and the Easylife Stylised Mark do not alter the distinctive character of the Easylife Stylised Mark in the form in which it was registered, alternatively his decision was one that no reasonable tribunal could have reached. (The Defendants do not need to appeal with respect to Sign 4 having regard to the judge’s findings on use, which are not challenged by easyGroup.)

Ground 2 is that the judge erred in law or principle in holding that the use made of Signs 1, 2 and 3 justified the maintenance of “advertising services” and “promotional services” in the specification of the Easylife Stylised Mark, alternatively his decision was one that no reasonable tribunal could have reached. The Defendants contend that a fair specification would be “providing advertising space by way of printed inserts into printed retail catalogues”, alternatively “providing advertising or promotional space in printed publications”. (The alternative formulation is that of Fancourt J in the easyfundraising case.)