EasyGroup Wins the Battle but Loses the War: Revocation (partially) Reversed, but still No Infringement.

In this article, Lloyd Lane explores the Court of Appeal’s decision in EasyGroup Ltd v EasyFundraising Ltd & Others ([2025] EWCA Civ 1000). The Court of Appeal’s decision on revocation provides helpful guidance and reassurance to brand owners who may not be using their trade marks across the full breadth of goods or services specified or whose brands or logos have evolved from when they were first registered.

Background

EasyGroup owns and licenses intellectual property for various “easy” brands, including easyJet. It brought claims against EasyFundraising Ltd (“EFL”), a business that facilitates charitable donations via online shopping. 

Once a trade mark is registered a proprietor has five years to put it to genuine use for the goods and service specified. If after five years the mark has not been put to genuine use it will be vulnerable to revocation. 

The High Court dismissed EasyGroup’s infringement claims and partially upheld EFL’s counterclaims for revocation. EasyGroup appealed on grounds relating to revocation and infringement and EFL cross-appealed on several points.

On appeal, the marks and signs at issue were:

Claimant's Trade Marks

Defendant's Signs

Key Issues

• Revocation – Variant Forms: Did use of the variant forms amount to genuine use of the EASYLIFE figurative trade mark as registered?

Trade Mark as Registered

Variant Forms Used

• Revocation – Sub-categories: Could the specifications for advertising and retail services per se in the EASYLIFE and EASYJET marks be narrowed for revocation purposes?
• Revocation – Promotional Use: Did the provision of free email services merely amount to promotional use, or was it sufficient to show to genuine use of the easy.com trade mark?
• Infringement: Did the Court of Appeal’s findings on revocation affect the High Court’s conclusion that there was no infringement?

Outcome

• Revocation - Variant Forms: The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the variant forms did amount to genuine use of the mark in the form registered. The Court of Appeal’s findings aligned with a parallel High Court decision issued just prior to the decision under appeal
• Revocation – Subcategories: The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court was correct to limit the advertising services by reference to the medium through which they were provided – in this case “… in printed publications”. The same was true of retail services, which the Court of Appeal limited to those “… provided by means of an internet website or on board an aircraft”
• Revocation – Promotional Use: The Court of Appeal disagreed with the High Court and held that the email services provided using easy.com were not merely promotional. It was particularly relevant that those services were not provided as a reward or inducement to purchase unrelated services (for example, a free drink given away with clothing would be purely promotional)
• Infringement: Notwithstanding the findings on revocation, the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that there was no infringement. The Court of Appeal stated that “easyGroup’s strongest case is probably in relation to @easyuk [used by EFL as a twitter/X handle], but on balance I conclude that the difference in the services and between the easy.com mark and the sign mean that there is no likelihood of confusion"

Key Takeaways

The decision confirms that:

• Use of variant forms can still amount to genuine use, but trade mark owners must be careful not to stray too far from the form of trade marks they have registered.
• Advertising and retail services can be split into subcategories based on medium (e.g. print vs online / in-store vs online), and proprietors of trade marks for advertising, retail and other similar services per se which do not specify a particular medium should expect their specifications to be trimmed down in a revocation action unless they can prove use across a range of mediums.
• Providing free-to-user services like email can still constitute genuine use of a trade mark.
• Despite EasyGroup’s fierce reputation for brand enforcement, mere use of “easy+SUFFIX” still does not automatically imply brand confusion with EasyGroup’s family of trade marks. The same principle is likely to apply to other trade mark families whose common element is a non-distinctive word.