The High Court’s ruling in easyGroup Ltd v Easyfeetstore OU & Ors represents the latest in a series of trade mark disputes pursued by easyGroup and continues a now familiar trend, with the claim dismissed in full. In the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, HHJ Hacon rejected the allegations of trade mark infringement under both section 10(2) and section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, along with the accompanying claims for passing off and invalidity.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute centred on the defendants’ use of the name “EASYFEET” and the EASYFEET logo for an online insole business. The defendants traded internationally, including in the UK, and held their own UK registration for the EASYFEET mark. easyGroup, the licensor of well known “easy” brands (including easyJet), argued that the branding infringed its rights and took unfair advantage of its reputation.

However, the Court was not persuaded. A key issue was the absence of any real similarity between the parties’ goods and services. Whilst easyGroup’s activities span sectors such as transport, retail and brand licensing, the defendants operate in a niche area, selling specialist foot care products. The judge found that in most cases, there was no meaningful overlap, making it difficult for easyGroup to satisfy the requirements of section 10(2).

The Court also found the similarities between the marks to be weak, as there was no visual, phonetic or conceptual similarity. Although both parties used the word “easy”, this was held to be a common and descriptive term which could not on its own indicate a link to easyGroup. The result was that consumers were unlikely to be confused into thinking that Easyfeet’s insoles were connected with easyGroup. The absence of any evidence of actual confusion reinforced this conclusion.

The claim under section 10(3), which protects well-known brands even outside their core markets, also failed. A key requirement of this provision is that the public makes a mental “link” between the defendant’s sign and the claimant’s brand.

Here, the Court found no such link. Consumers shopping for orthopaedic insoles were unlikely to assume any connection with easyGroup’s businesses, despite the shared “easy” prefix. easyGroup’s attempt to rely on a “family” of “easy” marks did not succeed, largely because the shared element lacked distinctiveness and had not been shown to uniquely identify easyGroup in the minds of consumers. Given these findings, the remaining claims for passing off and invalidity of the EASYFEET mark also fell away.

Key takeaway

The judgment represents another clear loss for easyGroup and reinforces the courts’ reluctance to extend broad protection to branding built around ordinary words which lack distinctive character.

Simply sharing a common word, especially a descriptive one, is not enough to establish trade mark infringement, particularly where the businesses operate in completely different fields. Even well-known brand owners must show real similarity between products or a clear consumer connection. Without that, claims under both section 10(2) and section 10(3) are unlikely to succeed.