Can you really own the word “Easy”? Lessons from EasyJet’s failed appeal

easyGroup tried (and failed) to stop a charity from using “easy” in its branding. The courts ruled there was no infringement and even cut back parts of easyGroup’s trade mark portfolio. The lesson: you cannot monopolise everyday words, and trade marks only survive if you use them genuinely.

Facts: The timeline of the dispute

• February 2022 – easyGroup, the holding company created by Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou to manage the family of “easy-” brands (including easyJet), started proceedings against easyfundraising, a charity platform that directs a share of shoppers’ online spending to good causes. easyfundraising had also operated under names like “easysearch” and used the social media handle @easyuk.
• September 2024 – The High Court ruled in easyfundraising’s favour, concluding that there was no infringement of the claimant’s marks by the defendants nor any passing off. More damagingly for easyGroup, the court trimmed back its trade mark portfolio:
  • EASYJET was partially revoked, narrowed to retail services provided to airline passengers,
  • because its broader registration was not backed by genuine use.
  • EASY.COM was wholly revoked – promotional use of a website name was not enough to count as genuine commercial use of the mark.
• December 2024 – easyGroup appealed, arguing that the judge had been wrong to cut back its marks. It said variant use should still count as genuine use, that promotional activity should preserve EASY.COM, and that there was a likelihood of confusion.
• 24 July 2025 – The Court of Appeal handed down its judgment. The appeal failed in relation to infringement but succeeded in certain respects on revocation. While there were some technical adjustments, the core result remained: no infringement, and parts of easyGroup’s trade mark portfolio lost to revocation.

The legal framework behind the rulings

To understand why the courts came down this way, it helps to look at the two key provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1994 that framed the battle:

• Section 10(2): Likelihood of confusion
  A registered trade mark is infringed where a similar sign is used in relation to identical or similar goods or services and there is a likelihood of confusion. This was the foundation of easyGroup’s claim – that “easyfundraising” was too close to its “easy-” family of marks.
• Section 46(1)(b): Genuine use
  A trade mark can be revoked if it has not been genuinely used for an uninterrupted period of five years, unless there are proper reasons. This was the crux of easyfundraising’s defence — that some of easyGroup’s registrations were vulnerable to being struck out.

In short: easyGroup argued infringement; easyfundraising countered with revocation.

Why easyGroup lost

The courts considered several factors before rejecting easyGroup’s claims:

1. Likelihood of confusion was low
   Would the average person really think a fundraising platform is linked to an airline? The judges thought not. The services were too different, and the overall branding too distinct, for confusion to be likely.
2. Generic words cannot be monopolised
   easyGroup has strong rights in marks like easyJet, but that does not mean it can block every other use of “easy.” Ownership of a brand element does not equal ownership of the everyday word itself.
3. The @easyuk handle was not misleading
   The court decided that, in context, consumers would not assume the @easyuk social media handle was connected to easyGroup or easyJet.
4. Partial revocation did not change the outcome
   Even though some of easyGroup’s trade marks were narrowed or revoked, the bigger picture stayed the same: there was no infringement.

Key takeaways for businesses & charities

This case is more than a corporate squabble. It highlights principles that apply to any organisation choosing a name, protecting a brand, or defending against threats.

1. Generic isn’t always protectable

Using common words like easy, eco, or smart can make your brand approachable — but you won’t have an iron grip on the word itself.

2. Evidence of use matters

The EASYJET and EASY.COM rulings show that trade marks can be narrowed or even cancelled if you do not actually use them as registered.

• A mark covering “retail services” won’t be protected for all kinds of retail if you only use it in a narrow way.
• Simply promoting a mark does not count as genuine use.
• Courts can trim down broad categories (like “retail services”) into narrower sub-categories, based on the purpose and intended use.

The key question is whether your activity is enough to establish or maintain market share for the goods or services associated with the mark. Minimal or purely promotional use is not enough to keep a registration valid.

3. Small players can win

easyfundraising described easyGroup’s claims as “bully-boy tactics.” Whatever your view, the case demonstrates that smaller organisations can push back and prevail against larger, well-funded opponents.

4. Digital branding counts

Social media handles, domains, and online presence are increasingly part of the trade mark landscape. Make sure your chosen handles do not overlap confusingly with others in your space.

The bigger picture

Trade Mark law walks a fine line: On the one hand, it protects established brands from imitators while also preventing companies from monopolising everyday language.

The easyfundraising case shows that context matters: the court looks at how marks are used, what services they cover, and how the public perceives them. It also illustrates the reputational risk of over-enforcement. Aggressive trade mark battles can paint brand owners as intimidating– especially when pitched against charities or small businesses.

The bottom line

So, can you own the word “easy”?

Not by itself. You can protect “easy” as part of a distinctive mark like easyJet — but you cannot block everyone else from using “easy” in completely different contexts. And even where you do have rights, they only survive if you keep them alive through genuine use.

For businesses and charities, the lessons are clear:

• Choose names that are memorable but realistic in terms of protection.
• Keep your trade marks active and aligned with your actual services.
• Do not be intimidated if a bigger player comes knocking – the law requires more than a shared word to prove infringement.

In the end, trade marks are about preventing confusion, not claiming ownership over the dictionary. This case highlights the importance of precise drafting of trade mark specifications, robust evidence of use, and clear branding strategies.

Need help protecting your brand?

Our litigation team regularly advises businesses and brand owners on trade mark and intellectual property disputes. Whether you are facing an infringement claim or want to review the strength of your portfolio, we can provide practical, tailored advice to safeguard your brand.