A decision has been made in the trademark dispute between easyJet parent easyGroup and a charity fundraising platform.
Yesterday (11 September) in London the Chancery Division of the High Court ruled against easyJet parent easyGroup in a trademark dispute with Easyfundraising, the charity platform founded by Ian Woodroffe OBE, which helps users give to good causes by adding donations to their online shopping baskets.
THE BACKGROUND
The easyGroup conglomerate, founded by Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou in 1998, argued that Easyfundraising’s use of the word ‘Easy” constituted a breach of its trademark rights, with the prefix covering a range of its brands – most famously air travel but also several other sectors.
Easyfundraising maintained that its use of the word “Easy” in its name was not intended to cause confusion with easyJet or any other easyGroup company, telling Mr Justice Fancourt that the name was chosen due to its simplicity and the ease of use of its services, rather than any attempt to capitalise on easyJet’s brand recognition.
THE ARGUMENTS
EasyJet’s legal team, led by Michael Edenborough KC, argued that easyGroup’s longstanding reputation and substantial goodwill built around the ‘Easy’ prefix across numerous industries gave it an exclusive right to the name. The company further claimed that use by an organisation not part of easyGroup could dilute its brand, which has been carefully built over the years, reminding the court that the group had fiercely protected its intellectual property for decades. Over the years, the company has won or settled intellectual property disputes with a raft of organisations, including flatshare firm EasyRoommate (2009), car finance outfit EasyCarMoney (2011), EasyPizza (2005), Columbian airline EasyFly (2021), online retailer EasyLife (2020), betting site EasyOdds (2014) and another Easy Life – this time an indie rock band – which last year changed its name to Hard Life following threats of legal action.
Emma Himsworth KC for Easyfundraising posited that that fact that the fundraiser operates in a completely different market from easyJet renders any confusion unlikely. She pointed out that the platform is well known for its philanthropic work and that no reasonable consumer would mistake it for a subsidiary or affiliate of the airline. The defence further contended that the word ‘Easy’ is a common English word, and its generic nature meant it could not be monopolised by any single company, even one as large and recognisable as easyJet. Furthermore, the defence argued that Easyfundraising had been using its brand name without challenge since its inception, and any claims of confusion were speculative rather than based on evidence of actual consumer misunderstandings.
While, under the Trade Mark Act 1994, it is difficult to trademark everyday words, protection can be granted under certain circumstances, especially where there is a distinction between the name and the product. For example, a greengrocer would be unable to protect the word ‘apple’ because it is simply descriptive of a product, but the computer company ‘Apple’, with the name used in a fanciful or arbitrary way, can be trademarked. The same might apply to Windows: fine to protect computer software – especially given the product’s extensive use – but unlikely to be approved for use by a double-glazing company.
THE DECISION
In the event, in its 81-page ruling the court decided in favour of Easyfundraising, with Mr Justice Fancourt holding that “it is unlikely that any but a few would make the association and be confused as they were relatively sophisticated and careful business persons, or professionals, and as such are most unlikely to consider that Easyfundraising is an ‘easy+’ brand or connected in some way with easyGroup”, adding: “Users of Easyfundraising’s advertising services would be least likely to be confused, as they were relatively sophisticated and careful business persons, or professionals, and as such are most unlikely to consider that Easyfundraising […] is an easy+ brand or connected in some way with easyGroup.”
Addressing earlier claims that Easyfundraising was not well thought of, the judge remarked: “[The] large number of retailers that advertise with Easyfundraising and have done so for years, including well-known and reputable high street brands such as Marks & Spencer and John Lewis, demonstrate that retailers do not share the claimant’s view that Easyfundraising has a poor reputation.” Somewhat undermining the claimant argument, he went on to note that “easyJet itself advertised on Easyfundraising between 2010 and 2022.”
Commenting on the decision, Jim Dennis, partner and intellectual property disputes lawyer at the law firm Simkins, wrote in an emailed statement: “[easyJet] has had many successes in its efforts to monopolise the ‘Easy’ name, both battling it out in court and pressuring opponents into dropping their names.”
Dennis continued: “In this instance, however, the Court found that Easyfundraising’s services were not sufficiently similar to those for which easyGroup’s trade marks were registered. easyGroup will no doubt consider this failed claim to be nothing but a minor inconvenience in its pursuit of brand protection. It is, however, an extremely costly strategy that only a handful of companies can afford to adopt.”
THE PARTIES
In easyGroup v Easyfundraising, the claimant was represented by Michael Edenborough KC of Serle Court and Jamie Muir Wood of Hogarth Chambers, instructed by Edwin Coe.
The defendant was represented by Emma Himsworth KC of One Essex Court and Chris Aikens of 11 South Square, instructed by Hansel Henson.