![CA-2024-00277 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1000](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
The issues in broad outline
The issues in broad outline
easyGroup contends that the Defendants have infringed the Trade Marks pursuant to section 10(2) of the Trade Marks 1994 because there is a likelihood of confusion between the Defendants’ Signs and the Trade Marks. The Defendants deny infringement and counterclaim for revocation of the Easylife Stylised Mark, the second easyJet mark and the easy.com mark on the ground of non-use. easyGroup does not pursue claims for infringement pursuant to section 10(3) or for passing off on the appeal.
- 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