Easygroup Limited v Easyfeetstore OÜ & Ors

This dispute was between easyGroup, which owns and licenses intellectual property for a range of 'easy' businesses, and businesses selling insoles under the name 'Easyfeet'. The products were orthopaedic and orthotic insoles and related accessories sold online, including into the UK.

easyGroup said that using Easyfeet and Easyfeetstore stepped on its trade mark rights and also amounted to passing off. It relied on a portfolio of registered marks, including EASYJET and other 'easy' marks, and argued that consumers would see the defendants' branding as part of an established family of 'easy' brands.

The defendants were not a single simple trading setup. Easyfeetstore was an Estonian company selling in several territories including the UK. Easyfeet Inc was a Wyoming company selling mainly in the United States. Mr Klishyn was connected to both. That mattered because online trading often raises questions about who is responsible for what activity and which sales are really aimed at the UK market.

The case is useful for ordinary businesses because it shows how a brand dispute actually gets tested in court. It is not enough to say two names feel similar. The court looked at the marks relied on, the goods and services involved, the evidence of use, and whether the public would really think the later brand was commercially connected with the earlier one.

The court had to decide several linked questions. First, did the defendants' use of Easyfeet or Easyfeetstore infringe easyGroup's registered marks under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 by creating a likelihood of confusion? Second, did the defendants' use infringe under section 10(3), which deals with marks said to have a reputation?

The court also had to consider whether easyGroup had proved that some of its marks had enhanced distinctive character, and whether several of them formed a recognised family of 'easy' marks. On top of that, the defendants raised a section 11A defence, requiring easyGroup to prove genuine use of certain marks it relied on. Finally, easyGroup asked the court to declare the defendants' EASYFEET registration invalid.

These issues are closely connected in practice. A business with a strong, well-used mark may have a better chance of stopping a similar sign. But if it wants to go further and argue that a whole series of marks creates a wider commercial expectation in the minds of customers, the court will expect evidence that customers really do recognise that pattern.

The invalidity point also mattered commercially. If easyGroup had succeeded, it would not only have stopped the defendants' use complained of in the case, but also knocked out the defendants' own UK registration for EASYFEET. That is why trade mark disputes often involve both infringement claims and attacks on the other side's registration.

A central part of easyGroup's case was that consumers recognise a family of 'easy' marks and would therefore assume a commercial connection when they saw another 'easy' name. That matters because a recognised family can increase the likelihood of confusion. It can also strengthen the practical reach of a brand portfolio.

The court treated this carefully. It noted the obvious difficulty: the shared feature was the word 'easy', which is descriptive. easyGroup's case was effectively that any mark made up of 'easy' plus another word alluding to goods or services would be taken by average consumers as connected with easyGroup. The court did not accept that proposition on the evidence before it.

That point is commercially important because many businesses build portfolios around a repeated naming theme. A theme can be valuable, but the law does not automatically give a business control over every later name using the same common element. The more descriptive the shared element is, the harder it may be to prove that customers treat it as a badge of one trade source across the market.

The judge also noted that easyGroup's case did not rely on other presentation features said to be associated with the brand family, such as colour and font. For a business owner, that is a reminder that customer recognition may depend on the whole presentation, not just one word. If your brand strategy depends on a repeated family look and feel, the evidence needs to show what the public actually recognises.

The court dismissed easyGroup's claims for trade mark infringement, passing off and invalidity of the EASYFEET registration. It accepted that EASYJET had significant enhanced distinctive character. It also found some modest enhancement for certain other easyGroup marks, but not enough to carry the broader case easyGroup wanted to run.

Crucially, the court was not persuaded that easyGroup had proved a recognised family of 'easy' marks in the broad way alleged. It also rejected the section 10(3) detriment and unfair advantage arguments because the required evidence was not there. The passing off claim was not pressed if easyGroup failed under section 10(2), and the invalidity attack on the defendants' EASYFEET mark rose or fell with the infringement and passing off claims, so that failed too.

The judgment also dealt with the section 11A non-use defence. The court accepted there was sufficient evidence of genuine use for the easyFoodstore mark in the relevant period. It also considered evidence relating to the easylife device mark, but that did not change the overall outcome because easyGroup still failed on the main infringement and passing off issues.

One point the court deliberately did not decide was whether Easyfeet Inc's online activity was targeted at UK consumers in a way that would have made it liable if infringement had otherwise been established. That issue was left open because it was unnecessary to the result. For businesses selling across borders, that is a reminder that UK targeting can become a live issue in online disputes, but this case is not authority for how that point would have been resolved here.

This judgment is a strong reminder that trade mark cases are evidence-heavy. easyGroup did succeed on some narrower evidential points, including genuine use of the easyFoodstore mark for section 11A purposes. But where it wanted the court to accept broader propositions, such as a market-recognised family of 'easy' marks or detriment and unfair advantage under section 10(3), the court expected proper evidence.

That matters for both claimants and defendants. If you are trying to enforce a brand, you need more than confidence in your market position. You may need evidence showing how the mark is used, what customers recognise, and what commercial effect the other sign is having. If you are on the receiving end of a claim, it is worth testing whether the other side can actually prove the assumptions behind its case.

The section 10(3) part of the judgment is especially useful. The court referred to the need for evidence of the relevant commercial effect when detriment or unfair advantage is alleged. In practical terms, a business cannot simply say a similar sign weakens its brand or rides on its reputation. It needs evidence that supports the legal test being relied on.

For SMEs, the wider lesson is record-keeping. Keep dated examples of branding, website pages, product listings, advertising, customer communications and sales activity. If you ever need to enforce your rights, or defend them against a non-use challenge, those records can matter a great deal. Evidence created in the ordinary course of business is usually more persuasive than broad assertions made after a dispute starts.

If you are naming a new business or product, this case does not mean that using a common descriptive word is safe. The defendants still had to defend High Court proceedings. Litigation cost, management time and launch disruption can be serious even where the claim fails.

At the same time, the case shows that large brand owners do not automatically control every name built around a common word. The court looked for evidence, not just brand confidence. For SMEs, the practical answer is balanced risk management: clear your brand properly, avoid getting too close to a known portfolio, and document why you chose the name and how you present it in the market.

A sensible clearance exercise usually means more than checking whether your exact name is already registered. You should also look for similar marks, especially where the first element of your proposed name matches a known brand family. Think about the goods or services involved, how close they are to the earlier registrations, and whether your branding might suggest a connection even if you did not intend one.

For example, if you are launching a health, lifestyle or retail product under a name that starts with a familiar market word and ends with a descriptive product term, you should ask whether customers might see it as part of an existing series. Even if you believe the shared word is common, the cost of getting that judgment wrong can be high once packaging, domains, listings and ad spend are in place.

Use this case as a practical brand-risk checklist. The best time to deal with trade mark issues is before launch, not after a claim form arrives. A short clearance exercise can save a costly rebrand or dispute later.

If you already trade under a name that may overlap with another brand, review your position now. The right response may be to adjust branding, narrow product descriptions, gather evidence of honest use, or seek advice on registration and risk.

If you own a trade mark portfolio, this case also points to a different discipline: keep your evidence in order. If you rely on a family of marks argument, think about what would actually show that customers recognise the family. If you rely on reputation-based claims, think about what evidence would support the commercial effect required by law. If your marks may face a non-use challenge, keep records showing genuine use in the relevant period.

For online sellers, cross-border activity adds another layer. Selling into the UK, or appearing to target UK customers, can create UK trade mark risk. Even where a court does not need to decide that issue in a particular case, it is worth checking your websites, marketplaces, social media, shipping settings and customer messaging so you understand where your business may be exposed.