For years, easyGroup - owner of easyJet and easyHotel - has asked this question through multiple legal challenges against the use of the word "easy" in other branding. The conglomerate has consistently argued that this harms the distinctive nature of the group's mark and therefore impacts brand value.
This article looks at easyGroup's recent action in the High Court focused on hotel chain Premier Inn's marketing tagline "Rest Easy."
Legal Arguments
The question for the High Court in England was clear: has Premier Inn confused consumers or gained an unfair advantage by using "easy" in its branding, thus harming easyGroup's commercial value and infringing its intellectual property rights?
Despite easyGroup putting forward a number of arguments in support of their position, the court decided that there was no infringement by Premier Inn.
In assessing potential infringement of easyGroup's registered trademarks, the Deputy Judge referred to the assessment in trademark law of the perspective of the 'average consumer' concluding that there was no realistic risk of confusion between "Premier Inn Rest Easy" signage and easyGroup's registered marks. The marks were held to convey different meanings and lacked sufficient similarity to confuse the average consumer.
The court also examined the distinctiveness of "easy" and "rest easy" in the hospitality sector. The Deputy Judge found that these were common English phrases that had long featured in industry marketing. Emphasis was placed on their descriptive nature which limited their ability to indicate a particular origin of supplier. It is ultimately not unique - and the court therefore held that easyGroup cannot monopolise the use of the word "easy" under trademark law.
easyGroup sought to rely on consumer data to show Premier Inn gained customers by adopting the "Rest Easy" tagline allegedly to piggyback easyGroup's brand reputation and goodwill conveying links to low-cost accommodation. Such approach was used successfully in Thatcher's Cider v Aldi (which we covered here: Thatchers Vs Aldi in Court of Appeal: The End of Lookalikes? and Thatchers was just the start: Courts are now protecting how brands make us feel, where Thatcher's used sales data to show that Aldi's copycat product had an impact on consumers. But the Deputy Judge dismissed the argument, noting that whilst Aldi's new product became instantly popular with consumers with limited marketing, there was no evidence to suggest that Premier Inn's adopted use of "Rest Easy" caused such a change in consumer behaviour.
Intention to Appeal
In response, easyGroup have announced that they plan to appeal the decision, with owner Stelios Haji-Ioannou commenting that "every UK trademark owner… should be worried about the value of their assets if this decision remains unchallenged."
Comment
For now, the case underscores the importance of branding to commercial value and the impact of brand dilution in a competitive market. easyGroup argued that its investment in the "easy" mark deserves protection - and intends to appeal the decision to defend this position. But the Deputy Judge's opinion also represents the view that intellectual property rights cannot be used to restrict healthy competition.
MFMac understands the importance of ensuring brand protection and challenging infringements. Intellectual property rights (including trademarks) are important tools to maintain company value and protect against copycat rivals. But not every act by a competitor can be challenged in the courts. MFMac's leading experts can provide you with appropriate guidance to help you navigate all aspects in protecting and enforcing your intellectual property portfolio.
Written by Josh Chambers, Trainee Solicitor.
