Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
8 March 2006
Hearing Officer
Mr D Landau
16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42
Easygroup IP Licensing Limited
Easynet Group Plc & Easynet Limited
Section 3(1)(b) & (c)


Section 3(1)(b): Opposition failed. Section 3(1)(c): Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • None


Originally the grounds of opposition included relative grounds under Sections 5(2)(b) and 5(4)(a) but these grounds were subsequently dropped. The opponent’s evidence of use related to such grounds and was not relied on at the Hearing. That evidence thus had no effect on the Hearing Officer’s decision.

The applicant also filed evidence of use of other trade marks such as easyJet, easyTech, and easyEverything and easyRentacar but was insufficient to convince the Hearing Officer that the applicant had a reputation in “easy marks” and it was accepted that there had been no use of the mark in suit prior to the date of application.

The opponent’s main argument under Sections 3(1)(b) and (c) was that the elements “easy” and com” are very descriptive and non-distinctive and that the combination was not a distinctive marks. The Hearing Officer, however, considered that the mark as a whole did not designate any characteristics of the goods and services at issue and that the mark was acceptable in the context of Section 3(1)(c). He also decided that registration was not barred by the provisions of Section 3(1)(b). Opposition dismissed.

Full decision O/060/06 PDF document54Kb