CA-2024-00277 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1000

The judge assessed the similarity between the second easyJet mark and the Defendants’ Signs, focussing on the 2015 EF Sign, at [236] as follows:

“In my judgment, there is less similarity between the 2015 EF Sign and the easyJet ... marks than there was between the EF Sign or the @easyuk handle and those marks. That is because the word ‘easy’, which is the only point of any similarity, is less prominent on the 2015 EF Sign, and because the 2015 EF Sign contains other text and a logo that are equally prominent. There is only very low similarity with the 3 easy+ marks.”

The judge held that the respective services were dissimilar for the reasons he gave at [239]:

“…. As regards the second easyJet mark, EFL did not provide retail services to airline passengers, nor, for the same reasons that I have previously given, did it assume any kind of responsibility for any such services provided by its advertisers. There was no evidence of pages of the easyfundraising website alluding to some partnership between EFL and the retailers at that time, but even if there were pages similar to the 2023 pages that were in evidence, they do not, when assessed overall, amount to any indication of partnership or responsibility for the advertiser’s goods or services.”

The judge held that, even if there was some similarity in the services, there would be no likelihood of confusion. In this context he referred to eight instances of alleged actual confusion relied upon by easyGroup, which he considered in the schedule to his judgment. He found that none proved actual confusion.