easyGroup v Easy Live (Services) No 2 [2025] EWCA Civ 946
easyGroup appealed the decision of Nicholas Caddick KC dismissing its claim for registered trade mark infringement. The Defendants operate an online auction bidding platform and provide back-office software for use in the auctioneering trade under the name Easy Live Auction. The Defendants cross-appealed the Judge’s dismissal of their counterclaim for revocation. This was the second time that the dispute between the parties had reached the Court of Appeal. The appeal was heard immediately before the appeal in another case involving easyGroup (easyGroup v Easyfundraising) before the same constitution because the first instance judges in each case reached inconsistent decisions on the same issues on revocation.
Arnold LJ (with whom Coulson and Zacaroli LJJ agreed) allowed the appeal on infringement in respect of one of the signs in issue (EASY LIVE), but dismissed the appeal on all other signs, including the Defendants’ trading name Easy Live Auction. He also allowed the cross-appeal on partial revocation. The Defendants were deemed the successful party overall and were awarded 50% of their costs of both first instance and the appeal.
The appeal raised the following points of interest:
- In spite of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Court of Appeal reversed the decisions of the first instance tribunal on matters involving multifactorial assessments (likelihood of confusion and revocation for lack of genuine use)
- In cases of partial revocation of specifications of services, the court should consider the “intended mode of use of the services in question”. The Court of Appeal also considered the Nice Classification when arriving at a fair specification.
- A trade mark proprietor can provide “retail services” without concluding a sale with a purchaser of goods or services
- The enhanced distinctive character of a mark will not normally be confined to the precise goods or services in relation to the which the mark has been used
Chris Aikens appeared as sole counsel for the Defendants.