easyJet. easyGroup. easyFood. easyTravelseat. Since 2000, the “easy” brand empire built by Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou has grown into one of the UK’s most recognisable trademark families, and one of its most active enforcers. In the last decade alone, easyGroup has brought more than 52 court actions against businesses trading under names that begin with “easy.” On 1 April 2026, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court handed down a judgment that stopped that run in its tracks. Judge Hacon dismissed every single claim brought against a small Estonian company selling orthopaedic insoles under the name “Easyfeet.” The judgment is a practical lesson in where big brand trademark protection ends and where smaller brands can legitimately hold their ground.

What Was the Dispute About?

easyGroup Limited is the company behind the “easy” empire, the owner and licensor of intellectual property rights for businesses including easyJet, easyFood, easyFoodstore, easyTravelseat and easylife. It brought proceedings in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court against Easyfeetstore OÜ, an Estonian company selling orthopaedic insoles online in the UK through Amazon, its director Andriy Klishyn, and a related US company, Easyfeet Inc.

Easyfeetstore traded under the brand name “Easyfeet” with a red and black logo. It also held its own registered UK trademark, number 3621537, for the word EASYFEET in class 10, covering orthopaedic soles.

easyGroup relied on seven registered trademarks including the easyJet mark, the easyGroup mark, the easyFood mark, the easyFoodstore mark, the easyTravelseat mark, and two easylife marks. It claimed trademark infringement under sections 10(2) and 10(3) of the Trademarks Act 1994, passing off, and a declaration that Easyfeetstore’s own EASYFEET trademark should be declared invalid.

Who Is This Relevant To?

• SMEs who have received a cease-and-desist letter from a larger brand claiming their trading name infringes a registered trademark
• Businesses trading under a name that shares a descriptive prefix or common word with a more established brand
• Anyone who has registered their own trademark and wants to understand how it protects them when a bigger player comes after them
• Brand owners who want to understand where trademark enforcement works, and where it does not

What Was the Outcome?

Every claim brought by easyGroup was dismissed. There was no trademark infringement under either section 10(2) or section 10(3) of the Trademarks Act 1994. The passing off claim was not pressed by easyGroup once the section 10(2) claim failed. The application to have Easyfeetstore’s own registered EASYFEET trademark declared invalid was also dismissed. Easyfeet walks away with its brand intact and its trademark registration confirmed.

Why Was That the Outcome?

The core of easyGroup’s case was the “family of marks” argument. The theory is that when a company builds up enough trademarks using a common word or prefix, that word becomes a signal to consumers that anything carrying it belongs to the same business. easyGroup argued that the word “easy” as a prefix, attached to any word describing a type of product or service, had come to indicate to consumers that the goods came from, or were associated with, the easyGroup business.

Judge Hacon rejected this argument. He noted that the same argument had been rejected by Bacon J in easyGroup Ltd v Beauty Perfectionists Ltd [2024] as “an extreme proposition which is not remotely established on the evidence.” Despite bringing more than 52 proceedings since 2015, easyGroup had never produced survey data or other hard evidence showing that consumers actually make the connection between any “easy + suffix” name and the easyGroup business. The court inferred that no such evidence exists.

Without the family of marks argument, the word “easy” alone carries very little weight. It is a descriptive word, not an invented one, and courts have consistently found that descriptive words have low inherent distinctive character and are difficult to monopolise. Strip “easy” out of the comparison between EASYJET and EASYFEET and there is nothing left that connects them visually, aurally, or conceptually.

The section 10(3) claim, which protects trademarks with a reputation even against use on unrelated goods, also failed. The court found no link in the mind of the average consumer between easyGroup’s marks and the Easyfeet sign. Without a link, there can be no detriment to the trademark and no unfair advantage taken of it. Tellingly, there was no evidence of any consumer having actually made the connection in the years the two brands had coexisted.

How Could This Information Help You?

If you have received a cease-and-desist letter from a larger brand:

Do not assume the letter is the end of the road. This case shows that even a well-funded company with seven registered trademarks, backed by decades of brand building and more than 52 prior court actions, can fail to establish infringement if the shared element is descriptive. A registered trademark of your own, as Easyfeetstore held, is a significant form of protection. Get specialist advice before responding to any enforcement letter, because the legal position may be considerably stronger in your favour than the letter implies.

If you are building a brand around a common or descriptive word:

The easyGroup case illustrates both sides of that reality. easyGroup could not stop “Easyfeet” because “easy” is descriptive. But equally, if you are building a brand around a common word, your own ability to prevent others from using it will be limited. Invest in the elements of your brand that are genuinely distinctive, such as logos, stylised marks, and unique combined marks, and register those early.

If you use trademark monitoring to protect your brand:

easyGroup’s approach of filing 52 to 76 proceedings over ten years is, in effect, aggressive monitoring, but it is expensive and, as this case shows, not always successful. Effective monitoring is about catching similar marks and trading names as they emerge, so that issues can be addressed quickly and cost-effectively, before they reach the point of litigation. Part of good monitoring practice is also maintaining an accurate picture of what is worth acting on and what is not: pursuing every “easy + suffix” business proved counterproductive here. The approach also underlines the value of maintaining a clean exclusions process, where known, legitimate uses are separated from genuine risks, so that your reports reflect real threats rather than noise.

If you are considering registering a trademark in a space where a larger brand is active:

Easyfeetstore registered EASYFEET in class 10 before this dispute arose. When easyGroup applied to have that registration declared invalid, the application was dismissed, because easyGroup’s own marks could not establish the infringement that would have grounded the invalidity claim. Registration is not just about enforcing your rights against others. It is a shield when others come after yours.

Summary

In Easygroup Ltd v Easyfeetstore OÜ [2026] EWHC 767 (IPEC), the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court dismissed all claims brought by easyGroup against a small Estonian insole business. The court found that the word “easy” is descriptive and lacks the distinctive character needed to establish either a likelihood of confusion or a family of marks argument. Without a proven link between the defendants’ sign and easyGroup’s marks, no infringement under section 10(2) or section 10(3) of the Trademarks Act 1994 was made out. Easyfeetstore’s own registered EASYFEET trademark survived the invalidity challenge. For SMEs, the case is clear evidence that big brand enforcement has real limits, and that your own trademark registration can be one of the most effective lines of defence when a larger player comes after your name.

Sadly, there is a well-documented pattern of some larger organisations being quick to seek enforcement action, often using the opportunity to demonstrate their conviction that they will take proceedings all the way, even where their case is relatively weak.

I cannot comment on the legal strategies of large businesses, but for the majority of SMEs the choice to engage in legal proceedings can have significant financial repercussions. It is one of the reasons I started The Trademark Helpline. Whilst we cannot give legal advice and cannot represent you in court, we are able to provide research and guidance to help you make a more informed decision. And if you do choose to proceed, we can provide access to qualified trademark attorneys and solicitors around the globe, and can help keep your cost burden lower by providing their administrative support.

Have a trademark question? Start with a free search or book a 15-minute call.

Free Trademark Search | Book a free 15-minute call | 0161 833 5400