Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/384/03
Decision date
9 December 2003
Hearing Officer
Mrs A Corbett
Mark
EEZEEPAY THE EASY WAY TO PAY
Classes
16, 36
Applicant
Eezeepay Ltd
Opponent
EasyGroup IP Licensing Limited
Opposition
Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3) & 5(4)(a)

Result

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

Section 5(3): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. One of a large number of opposition and invalidation cases involving EASY + descriptive term marks and these opponents.

Summary

The opponent's opposition was based on some 80 registrations and prior pending applications of their EASY and EASY plus descriptive element marks and they did not assist the Hearing Officer by indicating where their best case lay. The opponent also filed evidence of use of some of their marks but in the main these marks were in areas of trade far removed from those of the applicant.

The Hearing Officer, in her consideration under Section 5(2)(b), divided the opponent's relevant marks into three distinct groups.

As regards the first category the Hearing Officer noted that all these marks were still pending and concluded that even if registered they would have a very low level of distinctiveness bearing in mind the laudatory and descriptive nature of the word EASY. Taking all the relevant factors into account the Hearing Officer believed that the respective marks were different and would not be confused by the public.

As regards the second category of marks such marks as EASYCARD, EASY MONEY, EASYLIFE and EASYFUNDS were at issue. Bearing in mind the nature of the word EASY and the fact that all these marks, with the exception of EASYMONEY, are still pending, the Hearing Officer believed that the public would be able to distinguish all the respective marks. In the case of EASYMONEY these words have their own dictionary meaning and again the mark is different from that applied for.

In the case of the third category while the respective marks were similar the opponent's goods and services were different from those of the applicant.

Opposition thus failed on the Section 5(2)(b) ground.

The opponent also filed evidence of use in support of such marks as EASYJET and EASYRENTACAR but such marks were not similar to the mark applied for nor were the respective goods and servicing similar. Opposition thus failed in respect of the grounds under Section 5(3) and 5(4)(a).

Full decision O/384/03 PDF document946Kb