easyGroup Limited v easyfundraising Limited & Ors

This appeal came out of a larger trade mark dispute between easyGroup and easyfundraising. easyGroup is the company set up to own and license intellectual property for the wider easy businesses. easyfundraising runs an online platform that helps supporters raise money for charities and other good causes when they shop with participating retailers.

The platform works in a specific way. A supporter uses easyfundraising to click through to a retailer’s website, buys from that retailer, and triggers a commission payment. easyfundraising then passes some of that commission to the supporter’s chosen cause and keeps part of the revenue for its own business. The court recorded that it is a business, not a registered charity or not-for-profit organisation.

That commercial model mattered. The Court of Appeal treated the service as more than a simple retail offering. It looked at what the average consumer would think they were getting from the platform, and whether they would understand the underlying retail transaction to be with easyfundraising or with the third-party retailer.

At first instance, the case was much broader. easyGroup had advanced claims involving nine trade marks and causes of action including passing off. The High Court dismissed various claims and partly upheld counterclaims for revocation. On appeal, easyGroup narrowed the fight. That is important because the Court of Appeal was not deciding every possible complaint about use of the word easy. It was deciding a smaller set of issues about four registrations and specific signs used by the defendants.

The appeal was about four registrations. Two were Easylife marks in Class 35. One was a stylised Easylife mark registered from September 2003 for Class 35 and Class 39 services, although the Class 39 services were not relied on in the appeal. The other was an Easylife word mark registered from September 2020 for Class 35 services including advertising and marketing services and retail services connected with the sale of a wide range of goods.

The third registration was an EASYJET mark in Class 35, 39 and 43, although only certain Class 35 retail services mattered on appeal. easyGroup did not rely on the inflight services for the appeal. The fourth registration was easy.com for electronic mail services in Class 38.

The defendants’ signs included different easyfundraising signs and word uses, plus EASYSEARCH and @easyuk. easyGroup said those signs infringed under section 10(2) because customers would think the services came from the same undertaking, or from economically linked undertakings.

For business readers, the useful point is how narrow the court’s comparison was. It did not ask a broad question such as whether both sides used easy branding. It asked whether these particular signs, used in their real commercial setting, created a likelihood of confusion with these particular registrations.

The appeal raised two main issues. The first was revocation for non-use. The defendants argued that some easyGroup registrations should be revoked, in whole or in part, because they had not been genuinely used. That included arguments about whether use in a slightly different form still counted as use of the registered mark.

The second issue was infringement under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The court repeated the standard approach. Likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally, through the eyes of the average consumer, taking account of all relevant factors. The average consumer normally sees a mark as a whole, relies on an imperfect recollection, and the court must consider the actual context in which the sign has been used.

The judgment is especially useful because it keeps these issues separate. A registration can survive a non-use attack, or be restored in part, without that leading to an infringement win. Equally, a registration can be narrowed through partial revocation, which may affect the later comparison of services.

The court also recorded an important factual point about the average consumer. For supporters using the platform, the average consumer was an ordinary member of the public paying an average level of attention. The trial judge had found, and the appeal court recorded, that no supporter who was at least reasonably attentive would think, after clicking through to a retailer’s website, that they were still on the easyfundraising platform or buying from easyfundraising rather than the chosen retailer.

easyGroup did better on revocation than it had at trial. On the Easylife stylised mark, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had gone wrong in his analysis of some variant forms. The legal test was whether the differences between the mark as registered and the mark as used altered the distinctive character of the registered mark.

The court looked objectively at the signs and their distinctive character. It concluded that the variants relied on did not alter the distinctive character of the registered stylised mark. That meant they could count as genuine use in acceptable variant forms. For a brand owner, that is an important point. You do not always need strict identity between the registered form and the form used in trade, but the changes must not alter the mark’s distinctive character.

That did not mean the registration stayed untouched. The court still considered partial revocation and accepted that the Class 35 coverage should be narrowed. So easyGroup improved its position on whether there had been use, but it did not keep the full breadth of the original wording.

The court also revisited the EASYJET registration. It substituted a narrower wording for the relevant Class 35 services, tied to retail services connected with the sale of specified goods provided by means of an internet website or on board an aircraft. On the appeal, easyGroup was not relying on the inflight services, but the narrowing still mattered because it shaped the later infringement comparison.

On easy.com, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge’s view that the use shown was only promotional. The court held that a free email service could still amount to genuine use if users would see it as a real email service in its own right, even if the provider also had a wider commercial motive. That is a useful reminder for digital businesses. A free service is not automatically non-genuine just because it supports a broader commercial strategy.

Even after improving the position on revocation, easyGroup still failed on infringement. The Court of Appeal upheld the overall conclusion that the defendants’ signs did not create the required likelihood of confusion with the marks relied on.

A central point was the nature of easyfundraising’s service. easyGroup argued that the defendants’ services were very similar, or even identical, to retail services because they brought together third-party offers and enabled supporters to choose. The court did not accept that analysis in the way easyGroup wanted.

The court accepted there was some similarity with retail services at a fairly high level. But it held that the average consumer would understand the defendants’ core offer as a convenient way for supporters indirectly to give money to good causes. The underlying services were provided by third parties. That commercial character mattered when assessing confusion.

The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the infringement grounds relating to the Easylife word mark, the Easylife stylised mark and the EASYJET registration. It also found no infringement of the easy.com mark. In relation to @easyuk, the court noted that the sign had been used as a social media handle to promote the defendants’ main services, and on balance there was still no likelihood of confusion.

The easy.com part of the appeal is a good example of how the court separated validity from infringement. easyGroup succeeded in restoring the mark against non-use revocation, but still could not show confusion. The court considered easyGroup’s case strongest in relation to @easyuk, yet still concluded that the differences in the services and between the mark and the sign meant there was no likelihood of confusion.

If you are launching a new brand, this case is a warning against shortcuts. A quick internet search, domain check or company name check is not enough. You need to compare your proposed sign with registered marks in the relevant classes, then ask how customers will actually meet your branding in the real world.

If you are already trading under a registered mark, the case is also about housekeeping. Broad specifications can be cut back if your real use is narrower. And if your branding has evolved over time, you may need to show that the version you use is still an acceptable variant of the registered mark.

The case is especially useful for online businesses, marketplaces, platforms and service aggregators. Courts will look closely at what your service really is. Calling something retail, advertising, platform or email is not enough by itself. The court will ask what the average consumer thinks they are getting, who is actually supplying the underlying service, and whether the sign points to a common trade origin.

It is also a reminder not to overread a dispute involving a well-known brand portfolio. The Court of Appeal did not say that a shared word is always safe, and it did not say that a strong brand family automatically controls every use of that word. The analysis stayed tied to section 10(2), the registrations actually relied on, and the real commercial context.

Although this case turned on its own facts, it shows the kinds of material that matter in trade mark disputes. Courts want to see what the business actually did, not just what it says it does. That includes how the mark appeared in trading, what services were really offered, and how customers encountered the sign.

For non-use issues, evidence should show real commercial exploitation of the mark on the market for the relevant goods or services. For confusion issues, the court will look at the actual context of use, including websites, social media, promotional material and the customer journey.

In a digital business, that often means the practical evidence file matters as much as the legal argument. If your registration is important, keep records that show continuous use and the commercial role of the service offered under the mark.

The Court of Appeal judgment was handed down on 24 July 2025. The appeal arose from a High Court judgment of Fancourt J dated 11 September 2024, with the order made on 21 November 2024. The appeal was heard on 18 and 19 June 2025.

The final result was mixed. easyGroup succeeded on some revocation points, including acceptable variant use of the Easylife stylised mark and genuine use of easy.com, but failed overall on infringement. The durable lesson is that non-use analysis and confusion analysis must be kept separate.