![CA-2024-00277 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1000](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
Standard of review on appeal
Standard of review on appeal
Since the judge’s decisions under appeal involved multi-factorial evaluations, this Court can only intervene if he erred in law or in principle, which includes a gap in logic, a lack of consistency or a failure to take into account a material factor that undermines the cogency of the conclusion: see Lifestyle Equities CV v Amazon UK Services Ltd [2024] UKSC 8, [2024] Bus LR 532 at [46]-[50] (Lord Briggs and Lord Kitchin) and Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v Dream Pairs Europe Inc [2025] UKSC 25 at [94]-[95] (Lord Briggs and Lord Stephens).
- 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