![CA-2024-00277 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1000](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
Infringement of the easy.com mark
Infringement of the easy.com mark
Since the judge revoked the easy.com mark for non-use, he did not make any finding as to whether it would have been infringed if he had not revoked it. This is understandable given the multiplicity of issues he was faced with.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The parties
- The Trade Marks
- The Defendants’ Signs
- The issues in broad outline
- The legislative framework
- Assessment of the likelihood of confusion: basic principles
- Revocation for non-use: relevant principles
- Genuine use
- Variant forms
- Partial revocation
- The judge’s judgment
- The average consumer
- Revocation of the Easylife Stylised Mark
- Partial revocation of the second easyJet mark
- Revocation of the easy.com mark
- Infringement of the Easylife Word Mark
- Infringement of the Easylife Stylised Mark
- Infringement of the second easyJet mark
- Infringement by use of the @easyuk sign
- Infringement of the easy.com mark
- Standard of review on appeal
- easyGroup’s grounds of appeal
- The Defendants’ respondents’ notice
- Appeal ground 1: variant forms of the Easylife Stylised Mark
- Appeal ground 2 and respondents’ notice ground 1: partial revocation of the Easylife Stylised Mark
- Appeal ground 3 and the cross-appeal: partial revocation of the second easyJet mark
- Appeal ground 4 and respondents’ notice ground 2: genuine use of the easy.com mark
- Appeal ground 5 and respondents’ notice ground 3: infringement of the Easylife Word Mark
- Appeal ground 6 and respondents’ notice ground 4: infringement of the Easylife Stylised Mark
- Appeal ground 7 and respondents’ notice ground 5: infringement of the second easyJet mark
- Appeal ground 8 and respondents’ notice ground 6: infringement of the easy.com mark
- Conclusions