Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
15 March 2006
Hearing Officer
Mr D Landau
09, 37, 38, 42
Registered Proprietor
easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd
Applicant for a declaration of invalidity
Easynet Group Plc, Easynet Limited & Easynet Telecommunications Limited (jointly)
Application for Invalidation
Sections 47(1) & 47(2) (citing Section 3(1)(b), 3(1)(c), 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a))


Application for invalidation, Section 47(1) (citing Sections 3(1)(b) & 3(1)(c): - Failed.

Application for invalidation, Section 47(2) (citing Section 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a): - Failed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the marks Easynet v easyTelecom.
  • 2. Distinctiveness; combination of EASY & TELECOM, distinctive.


The Section 5(2)(b) ground was based on five registered marks, consisting essentially of the word EASYNET with slight variations, and the Hearing Officer considered this ground first. In the result, however, having assessed the matter in accordance with the established guidance, the Hearing Officer found that the “differences in the marks outweighs any similarities” and overall he found no likelihood of confusion despite the identicality/similarity in the goods and services.

This effectively decided the matter under Section 5(4)(a) and the Hearing Officer therefore turned to consider the applicant’s use of their unregistered mark EASYNET TELECOMMUNICATIONS; the evidence however did not support the claim and the Section 5(4)(a) objections therefore failed altogether.

Under Section 3(1)(b) the Hearing Officer considered that the “combination of the words ‘easy’ and telecoms’ do present a distinctive character”, and that ground failed. Neither could he agree ‘that there (was) any need to leave EASYTELECOM free for other traders and so there (was) no public interest issue’. The ground under Section 3(1)(c) also failed, therefore

Full decision O/073/06 PDF document2.76Mb