easyGroup v Easyfeetstore: ‘easy’ prefix insole seller did not infringe
EasygroupvEasyfeetstore OÜ
- Court
- IPEC
- Judgment
- 1 April 2026
- Citation
- [2026] EWHC 767 (IPEC)
A prefix like 'easy' needs real evidence of consumer recognition before a court will protect it as a family of marks.
easyGroup, owner of the easyJet brand family, claimed an insole seller trading as Easyfeet infringed its 'easy' trademarks. The court dismissed every claim, finding no proof consumers recognise 'easy' itself as a sign of easyGroup.
What happened
easyGroup, the company behind easyJet and a wide portfolio of 'easy-' prefixed trademarks, sued Easyfeetstore OÜ, a company selling orthopaedic and orthotic insoles under the name Easyfeet, along with a related company, Easyfeet Inc. easyGroup argued that Easyfeet infringed seven of its registered trademarks and amounted to passing off, relying on the idea that the public sees 'easy' as a family of marks all pointing back to easyGroup. easyGroup also tried to have Easyfeetstore's own EASYFEET trademark struck off the UK trademark register. The case was heard in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), a division of the High Court designed for smaller and medium sized IP disputes.
What did the court decide in Easygroup v Easyfeetstore OÜ?
The court found that easyGroup had not shown that the public actually recognises 'easy' on its own as indicating easyGroup, beyond the already accepted reputation of easyJet specifically. Without that recognition, there was no enhanced distinctive character to rely on. The court found no meaningful visual, aural or conceptual similarity between the marks beyond the shared descriptive word 'easy', no likelihood of confusion, and no link in the mind of the average consumer that could support a claim under section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, which covers marks with a reputation. The invalidity claim against Easyfeetstore's own mark fell away because it depended on the same findings.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that owning dozens of trademarks starting with the same word doesn't automatically give you rights over that word. The court wanted evidence that customers actually connect 'easy' itself with easyGroup, not just a list of registrations.
- A descriptive word like 'easy' is harder to protect broadly. It's worth checking whether your core trademark relies on an everyday word before assuming competitors using similar language are infringing.
- If you're accused of infringing a 'family of marks', it's worth considering whether the claimant can actually prove consumers recognise the shared element, rather than just owning lots of similar registrations.
Things to be aware of
- This is one IPEC decision and turns on the specific evidence easyGroup put forward about consumer recognition, not a general ruling that 'easy' can never be protected.
- The judgment doesn't say easyGroup's other 'easy' trademarks are invalid, only that this particular infringement and passing off claim failed on the evidence given.
- Costs and any appeal are not covered in the material available, so the practical financial outcome for either side beyond the dismissal isn't known here.
The businesses involved
Easygroup Limited
Registered in England in 2000 and still active, based in London. Owns a large portfolio of 378 trademarks on the UK trademark register linked to the 'easy' brand family, including easyJet.
- Companies House
- 04060333 Active
- Incorporated
- August 2000
- Registered office
- London
- Business activity
- Other business support service activities n.e.c.
- UK trademarks
- 378
Easyfeetstore OÜ
A company trading as 'Easyfeet', selling orthopaedic and orthotic insoles, with a related company, Easyfeet Inc.
What happened next
- Briffa, who acted for Easyfeetstore OÜ, Easyfeet Inc. and their co-owner, said they were pleased with the result in defending the claim.Source: Briffa, May 2026
What others said about it
- Fieldfisher framed the result as easyGroup's infringement claim failing to get off the ground from the start.Source: Fieldfisher, May 2026
- D Young & Co placed the decision within a line of IPEC cases limiting easyGroup's reliance on an asserted 'easy' family without strong consumer recognition evidence.Source: D Young & Co, May 2026
- Burges Salmon pointed to this as part of a repeated pattern of easyGroup litigation against 'easy-' prefixed traders, with the claim dismissed in full.Source: Burges Salmon
- Sprintlaw highlighted that a key plank of easyGroup's case, that consumers assume a connection whenever they see 'easy', was central to why the claim failed.Source: Sprintlaw
How we can help
If something in this case sounds familiar, talk it through with us. The first call is free for new clients.
This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute trademark advice or guidance. Summary drafted with AI assistance from the published judgment and checked by The Trademark Helpline (how we write these). Judgment: [2026] EWHC 767 (IPEC) on Find Case Law, published under the Open Justice Licence. Company details from Companies House; trademark counts from the UK trademark register. Last reviewed 24 October 2026. Report an error.
