easyGroup Trademark Cases: What the ‘easy’ Disputes Teach Every Business
easyGroup, the company behind easyJet and a long list of other "easy" brands, holds 378 UK trademarks and has taken many businesses that use the word "easy" to court. Its cases are some of the clearest lessons in UK trademark law on what a family of marks can and can't stop. If your business name starts with a common word, or you're thinking about enforcing one, the easyGroup trademark cases are worth understanding before you register a trademark or pick a fight.
- Brand
- easyGroup Limited
- Incorporated 2000, London
- UK trademarks
- 378
- on the UK register
- Courts involved
- Court of AppealHigh CourtIPEC
A common word is a weak foundation for a brand you want to defend.
Who is easyGroup?
easyGroup Limited was incorporated in 2000 and is based in London. It owns and licenses the "easy" brand family, with 378 trademarks on the UK trademark register. In court it has argued that "easy" plus another word forms one recognisable family of marks, and used that argument against businesses with similar names. The courts have tested that approach many times, and the results are a practical guide for any brand owner.
The key case: easyOffice v easyOffices
easyGroup v Nuclei
easyGroup claimed that a rival's EASYOFFICES brand infringed its EASYOFFICE trademarks. The Court of Appeal upheld the findings that it did not, and that easyGroup's marks were liable to be revoked for lack of genuine use. The court found the marks similar and the services similar, but the earlier marks were not distinctive enough to make confusion likely, and the rival had traded honestly alongside them for a long time.
That one case brings together the three themes that run through easyGroup's disputes: how far a common word can be owned, whether the marks are actually used, and what long side-by-side trading does to a claim.
“What I'd take from this is that a common word is a weak foundation for a brand you want to defend. The more ordinary the word, the more the rest of your name, logo and get-up has to do.”
The cases over time
Each badge describes that one case- 2006Easynet v easyGroup IP Licensing · High CourtEASY.COM registration upheldDefendant won
- 2018easyGroup v Easy Fly Express · High CourtNo claim in England against an airline based outside the UKDefendant won
- Pathway IP v easyGroup · High CourtEASYOFFICE marks revoked for non-useClaimant won
- 2019Easy Rent A Car v easyGroup · Court of AppealEnglish case paused for litigation already started in CyprusDefendant won
- 2020easyGroup v Easyfly SA · High CourtPermission to sue set asideProcedural ruling
- 2021easyGroup v Beauty Perfectionists · High CourtEU wide injunction power keptClaimant won
- 2022easyGroup v Easy Live · High CourtLimited infringement; most marks liable to revocationPartly successful
- 2023easyGroup v Easy Live (costs) · High CourtOrdered to pay 35% of costs after a partial winProcedural ruling
- easyGroup v Nuclei · Court of AppealeasyOffice v easyOffices: no infringementDefendant won
- easyGroup v Easy Live · Court of AppealPassing off appeal won on licence fee damagesPartly successful
- 2024easyGroup v Beauty Perfectionists · High CourteasyCOSMETIC: no infringementDefendant won
- 2025easyGroup v easyfundraising · Court of Appealeasyfundraising: no infringementDefendant won
- easyGroup v Easy Live · Court of AppealBare EASY LIVE found confusingly similarPartly successful
- easyGroup v Jaybank Leisure · IPECEASYHIRE claim fails on genuine useDefendant won
- 2026easyGroup v Easyfeetstore · IPECEasyfeet: “easy” found descriptiveDefendant won
- easyGroup v Cubico · IPECEasy Bathrooms: no infringementDefendant won
Can you own a common word like “easy”?
Not on its own, and not in every market. The courts have repeatedly looked at "easy" as an ordinary word that describes a benefit, and asked whether the public sees the whole family as pointing to one business.
easyGroup v Easyfeetstore
An insole seller based outside the UK trading as "Easyfeet" did not infringe the family of "easy" marks, because "easy" was found to be descriptive and the family had no recognised reputation among consumers.
Read our summaryeasyGroup v Cubico
A bathroom retailer trading as Easy Bathrooms since 2013 did not infringe and was not passing off. The court found the earlier marks not distinctive enough for confusion to be likely.
Read our summaryeasyGroup v easyfundraising
The charity shopping platform did not infringe easyGroup's marks or pass off its business, because the services were different and there was no real risk of confusion. On appeal, easyGroup's "easylife" and "easy.com" marks survived the non-use challenge, but the no-infringement finding stood.
Read our summaryeasyGroup v Beauty Perfectionists
An online cosmetics retailer based outside the UK using "easyCOSMETIC" did not infringe the EASYJET marks, which were also partly revoked because they were not genuinely used for non-flight retail.
Read our summaryThe same pattern shows up for other brands. In Engineer.AI v Appy Pie (IPEC, 2024), a BUILDER family of marks was found to be descriptive in the no-code software industry and invalidated, which ended the infringement claim. In Mastercard v Hitachi Credit (High Court, 2004), sharing the word MASTER was not enough to stop a CREDIT MASTER application without showing real harm to Mastercard's reputation.
Use it or lose it: genuine use
A trademark can be revoked if it hasn't been genuinely used for the goods and services it covers, and anyone defending an infringement claim can raise it. Several easyGroup claims turned on this point.
Pathway IP v easyGroup
EASYOFFICE trademarks were revoked for non-use, because the evidence only showed facilities offered as an extra to office rental, not use for the registered services themselves.
Read our summaryeasyGroup v Jaybank Leisure
The marks were found similar and confusion likely, but the claim against a car hire business still failed, because easyGroup could not prove it had genuinely used its EASYHIRE mark for hire services.
Read our summaryeasyGroup v Easy Live
Most of the marks relied on were found liable to revocation for non-use, and the main confusion and passing off claims failed.
Read our summaryWhere easyGroup did succeed
The cases easyGroup won, or partly won, are just as instructive.
easyGroup v Easy Live
In the same case, the court found limited infringement under the "unfair advantage" rule, because an early logo had been designed to call easyJet's branding to mind. Deliberately borrowing a famous brand's look is where reputation protection bites.
easyGroup v Easy Live
easyGroup won its passing off appeal, because it could claim damages for the licence fee it could have charged the rival auction platform for using similar branding.
Read our summaryeasyGroup v Easy Live
The bare "EASY LIVE" branding was found confusingly similar to the "easylife" catalogue retailer's trademarks, which easyGroup had bought, while fuller forms like "EASY LIVE AUCTION" were not.
Read our summaryEasynet v easyGroup IP Licensing
The EASY.COM registration was upheld, the court rejecting the argument that a mark made of two descriptive words needs something "unusual" to be registered.
Read our summaryDisputes with businesses outside the UK
easyGroup v Easy Fly Express
easyGroup could not show a cargo airline based outside the UK was targeting UK or EU customers, so it could not sue in England.
Read our summaryeasyGroup v Easyfly SA
The claims against an airline flying only domestic routes outside the UK were arguable, but permission to sue was set aside because the original application had not fairly disclosed that its services were purely domestic.
Read our summaryEasy Rent A Car v easyGroup
English proceedings were put on hold because near-identical litigation on the same consent issue had already been started in Cyprus.
Read our summaryeasyGroup v Beauty Perfectionists
The court kept the power to grant an EU-wide injunction in a claim already under way when the UK left the EU.
Read our summaryThe cost of a partial win
easyGroup v Easy Live
After winning only part of its claim, easyGroup was ordered to pay 35% of the defendants' costs, because the court found the defendants were the more realistic overall winners. Winning a point is not the same as winning the case, and costs follow the overall result.
What I’d take from the easyGroup trademark cases
- 1What I'd take from this is that a common word is a weak foundation for a brand you want to defend. The more ordinary the word, the more the rest of your name, logo and get-up has to do.
- 2Registering a family of marks doesn't create a family in the public's mind. That has to be built and proved, mark by mark, market by market.
- 3Use matters as much as registration. A mark you haven't used for the goods you're relying on can be the first thing the other side attacks.
- 4Deliberately echoing a famous brand's look is risky, even when the name itself is different.
- 5Before enforcing, weigh the whole case. A partial win can still leave you paying costs.
If your name includes a common word, a trademark clearance audit checks how distinctive it really is and what's already out there, and a trademark search is a quick first look at the register. If someone has contacted you about your name, or you're thinking of contacting them, we can help with the cease and desist letter and the steps after it. Once you're registered, trademark monitoring keeps watch for names that come too close.
Book a free call, email enquiries@thetrademarkhelpline.com or ring 0161 833 5400.
Related questions
This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute trademark advice or guidance. Case summaries are drawn from published UK judgments; summaries drafted with AI assistance and checked by The Trademark Helpline (how we write these). Company details from Companies House; trademark count from the UK trademark register. Last reviewed 26 October 2026. Report an error.
