easyGroup Limited v Easyfundraising [2024] EWHC 2323 (Ch)
easyGroup has lost its latest claim for trade mark infringement and passing off, following a trial before Fancourt J. The principal defendant in this case was Easyfundraising, who operates an online platform for fundraising by retail. Members of the public, or supporters, go to the Easyfundraising platform and click through to various retailers’ websites. If they then buy goods and services from the retailer, a small part of their spend is remitted by the retailer to Easyfundraising, who passes on some of that sum to charities or other good causes nominated by the supporter. easyGroup claimed that the use of the name Easyfundraising in relation to this platform infringed a number of its trade marks, including easyJet, easyHotel and easylife. Its case was that the average consumer would perceive Easyfundraising as a member of its “easy” family of brands.
Each of the infringement claims was dismissed. There was no likelihood of confusion because the common “easy” element was not by itself sufficient for the average consumer to make the connection. The use by Easyfundraising of different get-up to easyGroup’s distinctive white on orange meant confusion was unlikely. The claims under s. 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 were dismissed because no detriment had been caused to, and no unfair advantage taken of, the distinctive character or repute of easyGroup’s marks.
Easyfundraising’s counterclaim for revocation of easyGroup’s marks was largely successful. Notably, the easylife device mark was revoked for lack of genuine use. easyGroup relied on use of variants of the mark as registered. In holding that the variants did alter the distinctive character of the mark, and therefore could not be relied on, Fancourt J came to the opposite conclusion on the same issue to Nicholas Caddick KC in Easy Live Auction No 2.
Chris Aikens appeared as junior counsel for Easyfundraising.