![CA-2024-00277 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1000](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
Revocation of the easy.com mark
Revocation of the easy.com mark
The judge found that the only evidence of use of this mark was as follows:
“149. Mr Anderson's evidence, on which the Claimant relies, was that easyGroup offered free @easy.com email addresses from 2000 so that customers could see what other easy+ brands were available on the easy.com website. The question raised by the Defendants' challenge is whether this use (as to which no evidence of quantity was given) was merely promotional, in connection with the sale of other services or goods, and not to exploit commercially the mark for the relevant goods and services, namely ‘electronic mail services’.
150. The website was just a webmail platform until 2002, but it was then a portal for the various easyGroup businesses. The commercial benefit of the exploitation of easy.com was therefore that of the other businesses, or easyGroup as the parent company (at that early time) and then licensor (in the relevant period). The email addresses were not provided to encourage consumers to buy more on easy.com or from easyGroup, to take out paying subscriptions, or with a view to charging for their use later, but only to use the website for the benefit of other businesses and, indirectly, easyGroup Ltd as their holding company. However, during the relevant period the businesses were not owned by the Claimant but by its licensees.”
The judge accepted at [151] that it did not matter that “easyGroup gave away the email addresses for free”, but nevertheless held that this was not genuine use of the easy.com mark for the following reasons:
“152. … No company in the easy+ group at the time was selling electronic mail services or intending to do so. As Mr Anderson said, the email addresses were used to entice consumers to a portal on which the other businesses provided links to or advertised their different goods and services. This seems to me to be the distribution of promotional items to encourage the sale of other goods and services …
153. There was therefore no use of the requisite quality to amount to genuine use of the easy.com mark …”
- 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