Background
easyGroup Limited is the IP holding company for the portfolio of “easy”-branded businesses co-founded by Stelios Haji-Ioannou — most famously easyJet, but also easyHotel, easylife, easyBus, easyCar, easyMoney, and others. easyGroup holds a suite of registered UK and EU trade marks covering those names plus the underlying EASY mark (the latter of which was subsequently revoked for non-use). The “easy” house style is closely associated with Cooper Black typeface, orange Pantone 021c, and the distinctive lowercase “easy” prefix with a capitalised suffix.
Cubico (UK) Limited — trading as “Easy Bathrooms” — is a Leeds-founded bathroom retail chain that by the time of trial operated approximately 150 UK showrooms and generated around £110 million in annual turnover. It has traded under the “Easy Bathrooms” name since 2013, and internal company documents from 2015 showed that management had specifically chosen not to use orange branding after an investor flagged potential proximity to easyGroup. Cubico holds its own registered trade marks, including an earlier device mark filed in 2015 and the EASY BATHROOMS word mark filed in 2020.
easyGroup sued in 2024, asserting that Cubico’s stylised logos and use of “Easy Bathrooms,” “Easy Living,” “Easy Bath,” and standalone “Easy” signs infringed its registered marks under sections 10(2)(b) and 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, and also constituted passing off. It additionally sought revocation of Cubico’s earlier device mark for non-use.
The Court’s Holding
All of easyGroup’s claims were dismissed. HHJ Melissa Clarke delivered a comprehensive ruling for the defendant on every ground:
No legally recognised “family of marks.” easyGroup’s core argument was that its collection of “easy + descriptor” marks (easyJet, easyHotel, easylife, etc.) operated as a legally recognised brand family, so that consumers would assume any new “easy + noun” name originated from easyGroup. The judge rejected this entirely. A claimed family must be proven through evidence of consumer recognition of the family as such — not merely asserted on the basis that the marks exist. easyGroup’s brand guidelines did require specific visual elements (Cooper Black, Pantone orange, specific capitalisation), but its legal pleadings defined the family purely by the word “easy,” without those visual requirements. No evidence established that consumers in fact perceived “easy + X” as a uniform brand family.
No likelihood of confusion (s.10(2)(b)). After a mark-by-mark, sign-by-sign comparison, the court found visual, aural, and conceptual similarity ranging from low to medium at most between Cubico’s signs and easyGroup’s marks. Critically, the distinctive second element of each mark — “Jet,” “Hotel,” “life,” “Group” — dominated consumer perception over the shared “easy” prefix. The parties operated in entirely different market sectors — airline travel, hotels, and lifestyle retail versus bathroom goods and installation. Most tellingly, after over 13 years of parallel trading in the UK (including Cubico’s 150 stores nationwide), there was zero evidence of actual consumer confusion.
No unfair advantage or detriment (s.10(3)). Because no consumer “link” was established between Cubico’s signs and easyGroup’s portfolio, the reputation claim under s.10(3) failed at the threshold. easyGroup’s wider reputation — principally its easyJet airline brand — could not by itself create a bridge to a bathroom retailer operating under visually distinct branding.
No passing off. easyGroup’s counsel conceded this claim stood or fell with the s.10(2)(b) finding. It fell.
Revocation bid refused. easyGroup’s attempt to cancel Cubico’s 2015 device mark for non-use failed because Cubico demonstrated genuine use via a store fascia at a Wakefield location during the relevant five-year window (2019–2024). Minor colour variations in the mark as used did not alter its distinctive character.
Key Takeaways
- Prove the family, don’t just assert it. Claiming a “family of marks” defence requires evidence that consumers actually perceive the marks as part of a family. Brand guidelines alone are insufficient.
- Long coexistence cuts against confusion. 13 years of parallel UK trading, 150 stores, and £110M in annual turnover without a single documented instance of consumer confusion was powerful evidence that no confusion was likely.
- Different sectors matter. An iconic brand in one sector (low-cost aviation) does not automatically colonise every “easy + noun” name in unrelated sectors (bathroom retail).
- Non-use revocation: variant marks can save a registration. Use of a variant form of a mark, where the variations do not alter its distinctive character, constitutes genuine use sufficient to defeat a revocation action.
Why It Matters
This ruling is a significant setback for easyGroup’s long-running strategy of using its easyJet-anchored brand rights to suppress “easy” trading names across unrelated industries. The IPEC’s message is clear: brand owners claiming a family of marks must prove, on actual consumer evidence, that the family is recognised as such — and long coexistence without confusion will undermine infringement claims even when some degree of similarity exists. For brand strategy teams, the case is a reminder that overly aggressive brand-extension policing in unrelated sectors is not guaranteed by registration alone.
The decision also reinforces the practical value of the UK Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, which provided Cubico — a mid-sized regional retailer — access to a full contested trade mark trial under the IPEC’s streamlined, cost-capped procedure.