EasyJet’s Trademark Battles: Defending the Brand

By Jessica Halstead

Why is EasyJet involved in so many claims?

Over the past two decades, there have been countless examples of EasyJet’s concerns with other companies making use of the word “easy” as part of their bran d. From a jet-washing small business to a charitable organisation, there are no restrictions to who this airline company is willing to take to court for the protection of their brand. However, when we deep-dive into these claims, the scope is much greater than just the airline company.

EasyJet is part of a wider organisation called EasyGroup, set up in 1998 by Stelios Haji-Ioannou, with ownership of over 200 ‘easy’ businesses. Therefore, it seems that the hyperfixation with the word “easy” in brand names has considerably greater stake for this collection of brands, than solely EasyJet. This article aims to explore a few of these claims and what this means for EasyGroup’s future ability to successfully sue companies who adopt “easy” in their brand name.

In which scenarios has EasyGroup been successful in claims in the past?

EasyGroup has found no difficulty in successfully eradicating “easy” features from other companies. Perhaps this is due to the companies in question being of a smaller scale, and hence tribunal costs seem more daunting for these business owners. For example, easyjetwashing has been one of the victims to EasyJet’s intellectual property claim spree. Consequently, many of the claims are settled before even going to trial via alterations to the brand name. However, what are EasyGroup claiming that these companies have done to threaten their brand by use of the word “easy”?

When EasyGroup sued Easybathrooms in August 2024, they claimed that the brand name and logo were infringements which allowed the company to benefit from the intellectual property of EasyGroup. However, when assessing both logos, it is bizarre how EasyGroup were able to successfully complete this claim despite having – at the time and today – no trademark on that word. Even the logos do not display visual similarities and so the confusion over this successful claim grows stronger.

Another brand that was a victim of EasyGroup’s desperation to shelter the word “easy” was EasyLife in October 2023. The premise for the owner of EasyGroup making these claims often related to the concern that consumers may confuse the companies and falsely make the assumption that both are part of the same brand. Although there seems little ability for the consumer to confuse a home products retailer with a non-consumer facing brand (EasyGroup), the financial threat of legal action was sufficient for EasyGroup to achieve the desired result.

The case that suggests the demise of future EasyGroup intellectual claims...

The lack of challenge the dominance of EasyGroup has faced in intellectual property claims seems to be coming to an end in light of EasyGroup’s loss to Easyfundraising. During the court hearing, the judge had to consider the risk of confusion between the two companies given the facts, because the sophistication levels of the companies were not comparable. Easy fundraising labels themselves as a charitable organisation while EasyGroup is a non-charitable, profitable organisation. The judge ruled Easyfundraising successful in the claim and the EasyGroup’s winning streak was finally broken.

We would hope that this decision was not granted because of Easyfundraising being the first charitable counterparty for EasyGroup to sue. However, this seems to be a just decision given that EasyGroup made the claim that Easyfundraising had been benefitting from the success of the brand’s reputation since 2005. This is more specifically a claim of infringement against 9 registered trademarks under Section 10(2) and Section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Yet, no claim had been put forward until 2022 when plans to sue were announced.

Why did EasyGroup not enact legal action sooner if they were so concerned about protecting their brand?

Does a future intellectual property claim appear within reach for EasyGroup?

Easyfundraising’s success in this claim creates a conundrum for Stelios’s collection of companies where registering a trademark for “easy” may become necessary. However, in doing so, the courts are often less inclined to grant successful claims from infringement of a given trademark, according to some scholars.

The future of intellectual property claims looks unclear for EasyGroup but it is likely that the ever-growing scope of the organisation will ensure the retention of its intimidating presence against smaller businesses. Unfortunately, it seems that “easy” is therefore off-the-cards for future small business founders!