Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
2 April 2003
Hearing Officer
Mr M Foley
06, 07, 09, 16
Ferag Verpakkingstechniek B.V.
Easygroup IP Licensing Limited
Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3), 5(4)(a) & 3(6)


Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed.

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.

Section 3(6) - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. A significant portion of the opponents evidence related to a period after the relevant date, and therefore did not assist.


The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a number of registrations for the marks EASYJET, EASYTRAIN, EASYBUS, EASYTRAK, EASYWEB etc in Classes 16, 39, 42 etc. They also claimed use of their marks but the evidence only established use of the mark EASYJET prior to the relevant date and an announcement of intended use of the mark EASYRENTACAR. The Hearing Officer accepted that the opponents mark was well known in relation to airline services and that it was distinctive for such services.

The applicants also filed evidence but this merely confirmed that they adopted the mark in suit in 1995 and some limited use in the UK with another mark EASYSTRAP in relation to machines for use in the printing industry.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that with the exception of Class 16 where identical goods were at issue the applicants’ goods were not similar to the opponents good’s or services. As regards the respective marks the Hearing Officer accepted that the word EASY was the dominant element in the respective marks but, bearing in mind that it was a common English word, he concluded that the respective marks were not similar to any significant extent. Bearing in mind the nature of the respective goods and services the Hearing Officer decided that there was no likelihood of confusion.

Under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer noted that the respective marks were not very similar and in any event there was no evidence to show that the opponents had a separate reputation in the word EASY which would extend to goods of a very different nature far removed from airline services.

The opponents also failed under Sections 5(4)(a) - Passing Off – and 3(6) bad faith because in the first instance their use was far removed from the applicants’ field of activity and in relation to Section 3(6) no evidence was filed to support the claims made.

Full decision O/082/03 PDF document364Kb