It Ain’t Easy – easyGroup Limited v Premier Inn Hotels Limited [2025] EWHC 2229 (Ch)

The High Court has found in favour of Premier Inn in its dispute with easyGroup, deciding that Premier Inn’s “Rest Easy” branding did not infringe easyGroup’s trade marks. The Court decided that there was no evidence of a link in the minds of consumers between Premier Inn’s branding and easyGroup’s marks.

Background

easyGroup brought a trade mark infringement claim against Premier Inn under s.10(2) and s.10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, arguing that Premier Inn’s “Rest Easy” branding had infringed various of its trade marks, including:

• UK trade mark registration no. UK0002246286B for ‘EASYHOTEL / easyHotel’ (word) in classes 38 and 42 (the “easyHotel Mark”);
• UK trade mark registration no. UK00003362833 for ‘ / ’ in classes 35, 39 and 42 (the “easy Mark”); and
• UK trade mark registration no. UK00003515715 for ‘Rest Easy Apartments’ (word) in classes 36 and 37 (the “Rest Easy Apartments Mark”).

The s.10(2) claim was brought in relation to the Rest Easy Apartments Mark, and the s.10(3) claim was brought in relation to the easyHotel Mark and the easy Mark. The claims were brought against Premier Inn’s ‘ / ’ signs and UK trade mark registration no. UK00003601725 for ‘ / ’ in class 43 (the “Premier Inn Rest Easy Mark”) (together, the “Premier Inn Signs”). easyGroup argued that the Premier Inn Rest Easy Mark should therefore be declared invalid.

Decision

s.10(2) Claim

In relation to the s.10(2) claim (likelihood of confusion), the court said that the average consumer would consider the overall impression given by the Rest Easy Apartments Mark when comparing it to the Premier Inn Signs. The comparison was therefore made between “Rest Easy Apartments” and “Premier Inn Rest Easy” with the moon device.

Differences between the marks, such as the additional word “Apartments” in the Rest Easy Apartments Mark, and the moon device and the Premier Inn name in the Premier Inn Signs, with the words “Rest Easy” appearing as the last words, meant that the level of similarity between the marks would not be considered by the average consumer to be great. The court remarked that the idiom “Rest Easy” would not be seen by the average consumer as a dominant component of the Premier Inn Signs, but rather the dominant component was the moon device and/or the words Premier Inn. As such, the average consumer would consider the overall level of similarity between the Rest Easy Apartments Mark and the Premier Inn Signs to be low.

In addition, the court added that no evidence of confusion of a member of the public confusing the Rest Easy Apartments Mark with the Premier Inn Signs had been brought forward. Therefore, there was found to be no likelihood of confusion.

s.10(3) Claim

Considering the s.10(3) claim (unfair advantage), the court found that the easyHotel Mark had enhanced distinctiveness out of use, but only in the white script on the orange background, so the enhanced distinctiveness was only established in this form. Overall, the average consumer would think the easyHotel Mark would have a moderate level of distinctive character. The court found that “easy” had no inherent distinctiveness.

The court remarked that a lot of easyGroup’s evidence, in particular the survey evidence, did not demonstrate the easy Mark being used for the services that were the subject of the action, or provide answers as to the reputation and enhanced distinctiveness of the easy Mark in connection with these services.

Throughout the hearing, easyGroup made reference to certain ‘family of brands’ arguments, despite disavowing any intention to rely on the ‘family of brands’ principle as part of an earlier application. In any case, the court said these arguments did not assist easyGroup as easyGroup did not adduce evidence that the other members of the easy travel family have reputations or enhanced distinctiveness in relation to hotel services.

In summary, whilst the court considered the average consumer would think easyHotel had a reputation and moderate enhanced distinctiveness in relation to hotel accommodation and temporary accommodation, the easy Mark did not have a reputation or enhanced distinctiveness in respect of any of the services for which it is registered. The claim was therefore dismissed.

In any case, the court said there was a very low level of similarity visually and aurally between the easyHotel Mark and easy Mark and the Premier Inn Signs. As such, the average consumer would not make a link between the marks. The court also said that easyGroup did not suffer detriment to show dilution and there was no unfair advantage.

On the invalidity point, due to a finding of no infringement, the Premier Inn Rest Easy Mark was not found to be invalid.

Comment

This case shows how important it is to prepare appropriate evidence. Survey evidence used to demonstrate likelihood of confusion should clearly demonstrate members of the public confusing the two marks. Moreover, survey evidence demonstrating reputation should relate to the goods and services for which the relevant mark is registered, that are the subject of the action.

Finally, it is important to get your ducks in order and consider which arguments you will bring from the start, to avoid a situation such as with the ‘family of brands’ arguments, in which easyGroup appeared to run these arguments by the back door despite its apparent disavowal to do so in a previous hearing.

If you’re involved in a trade mark dispute and would look assistance, get in touch with our legal team at info@briffa.com or through our website form. Our IP experts are here to help.

Written by Joe Clarke – Solicitor