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

This is an appeal by the Claimant (“easyGroup”) against an order made by Fancourt J on 21 November 2024 dismissing various claims for trade mark infringement, passing off and trade mark invalidity and revocation made by easyGroup against the Defendants and partly upholding counterclaims made by the Defendants against easyGroup. Whereas the judge was faced with a complex set of claims concerning nine different trade marks, easyGroup has confined its appeal to claims for infringement of four trade marks. There is also a contingent cross-appeal by the Defendants concerning the judge’s decision partially to revoke one of the trade marks for non-use which seeks a different restriction if the one imposed by the judge is not maintained. The judge’s order was made for the reasons he gave in a careful and detailed judgment running to 372 paragraphs (plus a 3½ page schedule) dated 11 September 2024 [2024] EWHC 2323 (Ch).

The appeal is brought on one ground for which the judge granted permission and on other grounds for which I granted permission. One of the reasons for the grant of permission both by the judge and by myself is inconsistent conclusions with respect to one of the Defendants’ counterclaims reached by the judge in this case and by Nicholas Caddick KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in easyGroup Ltd v Easy Live (Services) Ltd [2024] EWHC 2282 (Ch). We heard an appeal by easyGroup against the latter decision immediately before this appeal, and we are giving judgment on both appeals at the same time. On this appeal we had the benefit of submissions from all four counsel.

The judge used a series of defined terms in his judgment. In the interests of consistency with my judgment in easyGroup v Easy Live (Services) I shall use terms defined in that judgment where applicable. Otherwise, I will use the terms defined by the judge.