EasyJet’s moms and dad business sheds High Court hallmark fight

EasyJet’s moms and dad business has actually shed a High Court hallmark conflict versus a charity buying web site which has “easy” in its name.

EasyGroup took lawsuit versus easyfundraising Ltd, its owner Ian Woodroffe OBE and capitalists The Support Group (UK) Ltd, after asserting it had actually infringed numerous hallmarks.

The offenders refuted the accusations made versus them, asserting there was no proof to recommend a consumer would certainly puzzle both brand names.

In a judgment on Wednesday, Mr Justice Fancourt disregarded very easyGroup’s insurance claims, stating “it is unlikely that any but a few would make the association and be confused” in between both brand names.

He included: “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 or easysearch is an easy+ brand or connected in some way with easyGroup.”

EasyGroup was established in 1998 by Greek Cypriot business owner Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou and since May 2024 detailed greater than 200 “easy+” top quality company endeavors and web sites within its profile, consisting of easyJet, easyBus and easyHotel.

Mr Justice Fancourt stated that from a “very early stage Sir Stelios intended the easy+ businesses to be a collection of different brands” and very easyGroup declared that in 2005 these hallmarks were infringed when easyfundraising was introduced.

He included that very easyGroup stated its hallmark was once more infringed in 2007 by easyfundraising’s production of the easysearch brand name.

Among the various other insurance claims made versus easyfundraising, very easyGroup likewise affirmed the charity buying web site’s “poor reputation” would certainly have an adverse effect on the very easy+ brand name, the court stated.

But in an 81-page judgment, he stated that as “there is no identity or similarity of services provided by easyfundraising and the services specified, the claimant’s claim of infringement as at 2005 and 2007 must fail”.

The court included: “It is unnecessary, and in any event impossible, to consider in detail the issue of risk of confusion on the facts that I have found, given that there is no similarity of goods or services.”

Mr Justice Fancourt kept in mind that 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”.

Story proceeds

He included: “Indeed, many of the easyGroup licensees, including easyJet itself, advertised on easyfundraising between 2010 and 2022, generating around £1.25 million of sales.

“Whether the advertising was placed by affiliate networks or agents and whether it was to the knowledge of senior personnel at the licensees is really immaterial: what the facts demonstrate is that easyfundraising was not a platform that reputable brands (such as easy+ brands) did not use to advertise those brands.”

After the decision, Sir Stelios stated very easyGroup was “disappointed with this decision which has a number of contradictions and will be appealing this judgment immediately”.

He included: “Irrespective of today’s ruling, our legal action has successfully de-masked easyfundraising.org.uk false marketing as a charity when in fact they are a highly profitable organisation with less than 13% of proceeds going to genuine registered charities.

“We will continue our challenge which we believe to be in the interest of the UK consumer and the UK’s real registered charities.”