Trade Mark Consumer Confusion Clarified in EasyGroup v Easyfundraising
On 11 September 2024, the UK High Court delivered a key judgement in the case of EasyGroup v Easyfundraising.
This case is notable for how the court carefully assessed possible consumer confusion between the brands easyfundraising and EasyGroup’s “easy”-prefix brands. EasyGroup, known for its portfolio of “easy” brands such as easyJet and easyHotel, claimed that easyfundraising’s use of the “easy” term infringed its trade marks and could mislead consumers.
However, the court disagreed. It ruled that despite the shared “easy” prefix the two companies operated in distinct sectors. Easyfundraising is a charity platform that allows users to generate donations through online shopping. EasyGroup on the other hand focuses on consumer services like travel and accommodation.
The court determined that these differences in services would prevent consumers from mistakenly associating one with the other, despite the common prefix “easy”. Further the court commented that the “overall journey of the average consumer who used easyfundraising as a supporter” is important in the analysis of a likelihood of confusion.
A key part of the judgment is the court's approach to evaluating the likelihood of confusion. The court considered not only the respective services offered but also how the brands presented themselves to the public and how it would be perceived by the average consumer. It concluded that the “easy” element in easyfundraising’s branding was not prominent enough to confuse EasyGroup’s well-known trademarks, even if the services were considered to be similar to some degree. In addition, the average consumer would understand that easyfundraising does not sell the goods or services the consumer looks at on the platform but rather the retailer. This is more so as a supporter on the easyfundraising website can see the commission earned and credited to their chosen cause.
The ruling highlights the importance of context in trade mark infringement disputes where confusion or the likelihood of confusion on the part of the average consumer is key. The court stressed that the average consumer plays a central role in evaluating confusion. In this case, the average consumer would likely understand the difference between a charity fundraising platform and EasyGroup’s travel and lifestyle services.
Overall, the claims of infringement and passing off were dismissed. In addition, some of Easygroup’s rights were relied upon were revoked for non-use.
For businesses, this case underscores the importance of considering both the nature of their services and how they brand themselves. It also underscores the court’s detailed approach to assessing consumer confusion in trade mark disputes, offering valuable guidance on how branding and consumer perception are interpreted in legal proceedings. Even if a business owns several trade marks with a common element, known as “a family of marks”, it is not enough to get you across the line for infringement or passing off. Also, it’s best not to rely on rights if you cannot support the use thereof.
Written by Chiedza Ngwenyama and Cheryl Payne for ip21.