![CA-2024-002240 - [2025] EWCA Civ 946](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
The issues in broad outline
The issues in broad outline
easyGroup contends that the Defendants have infringed the Easylife Marks pursuant to section 10(2) of the Trade Marks 1994 because there is a likelihood of confusion between the Defendants’ Signs and the Easylife Marks. easyGroup also contends that the Defendants’ Mark is invalidly registered by virtue of section 5(2) because there is a likelihood of confusion between the Defendants’ Mark and the Easylife Marks. It is common ground that the infringement claim and the invalidity claim stand or fall together, and accordingly attention may be confined to the infringement claim. The Defendants deny infringement and counterclaim for revocation of the Easylife Stylised Mark on the ground of non-use.
- 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