Decision: easyGroup v Easyfeetstore [2026] EWHC 767 (IPEC)
Court: Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC)
Judge: HHJ Hacon
Decision: Here
Key issues: Family of marks

Published: 17 July 2026
Authors: Ellen Hughes-Jones

Introduction

The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court has handed down an important decision on the limits of the “family of marks” doctrine in easyGroup v Easyfeetstore. The judgment will be of particular interest to brand owners that manage portfolios of marks sharing a common prefix or naming convention, and to businesses facing claims based on alleged brand ‘families’.

At the heart of the dispute was a question that has surfaced repeatedly in easyGroup litigation over the years: does the widespread use of the EASY prefix across a portfolio of brands mean that consumers will assume any EASY+suffix sign originates or is associated with easyGroup?

HHJ Hacon’s answer was clear: not without evidence.

Background

easyGroup, the owner and licensor of the well-known EASY brand portfolio, brought proceedings against Easyfeetstore, its director and an associated US company. The defendants sold orthopaedic and orthotic insoles online using the signs EASYFEET and EASYFEETSTORE.

easyGroup relied on a number of registered trade marks, including marks such as EASYJET, EASYGROUP, EASYFOOD, EASYFOODSTORE and EASYTRAVELSEAT. It alleged infringement under sections 10(2) and 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, passing off, and sought invalidation of the defendants’ UK EASYFEET registration.

Although a number of issues arose, the case was ultimately driven by easyGroup’s contention that it had established a recognised ‘family of marks’ built around the word EASY.

The key issue: did easyGroup have a protectable family of marks?

The concept of a family of marks is well established in trade mark law. In principle, where consumers recognise a series of marks sharing a common characteristic as originating from the same undertaking, the use of a new mark displaying that characteristic may give rise to indirect confusion.

easyGroup argued that consumers had come to recognise EASY marks as denoting businesses connected with easyGroup. According to that argument, a consumer encountering EASYFEET would assume it was another member of the easyGroup stable of brands.

The difficulty for easyGroup was that the only feature common to all of the marks relied upon was the word EASY. That placed substantial weight on the proposition that the word EASY alone had become a source identifier for easyGroup across a broad spectrum of goods and services.

Why the argument failed

HHJ Hacon concluded that the evidence fell well short of establishing the existence of the claimed family.

A particularly striking aspect of the judgment is the court’s observation that easyGroup has brought numerous similar actions over the years (approx. 76 since 2015), yet had not produced evidence demonstrating that the public recognises EASY+suffix marks as identifying businesses associated with easyGroup.

The judge also relied on earlier authorities, including easyGroup v Beauty Perfectionists [2024] EWHC 1441 (Ch), where similar arguments had been rejected.

The court characterised easyGroup’s position as effectively requiring consumers to assume that any mark consisting of EASY coupled with a descriptive suffix belonged to easyGroup. HHJ Hacon regarded that as an extreme proposition which had not been established on the evidence before him.

This finding proved decisive throughout the remainder of the infringement analysis.

No likelihood of confusion

Once the family of marks argument fell away, easyGroup faced a more conventional comparison between its marks and the defendants’ signs.

The court held that the only common element was the word EASY, which the judge regarded as descriptive and lacking inherent distinctiveness. The suffixes (such as JET, FOOD, TRAVELSEAT, FEET and FEETSTORE) were quite different.

In those circumstances, the court found no relevant visual, aural or conceptual similarity capable of generating either direct or indirect confusion. Importantly, there was also no evidence of actual confusion notwithstanding the parties’ concurrent trading.

The section 10(2) claim therefore failed.

No link, unfair advantage, detriment to distinctive character or detriment to reputation

easyGroup also advanced claims under section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act.

The court accepted that EASYJET enjoyed a substantial reputation and that EASYFOOD had acquired a reputation within its own field. However, even where reputation existed, easyGroup still had to show that consumers would form the requisite ‘link’ between the defendants’ signs and the relevant trade mark.

The court found that no such link had been established. Nor was there evidence of unfair advantage, detriment to distinctive character or detriment to reputation.

As a result, the section 10(3) claims also failed.

Passing off and invalidity

The remaining claims met a similar fate.

The passing off claim failed because the underlying allegation of consumer confusion was not made out. Likewise, the challenge to the defendants’ EASYFEET registration stood or fell with the infringement case and was dismissed.

Commentary

This decision provides one of the clearest recent judicial statements on the evidential burden involved in establishing a family of marks.

The judgment does not undermine the doctrine itself. Rather, it demonstrates that a claimant must prove that consumers genuinely recognise the common element of the alleged family as an indicator of trade origin. Mere ownership of multiple registrations using the same descriptive component will not suffice.

The case is also a useful reminder that descriptive or laudatory terms remain inherently weak foundations on which to build broad exclusivity claims. The larger and more commercially successful a brand portfolio becomes, the more tempting it may be to argue that a naming convention has acquired independent significance. However, courts will still expect robust evidence that consumers perceive it in that way.

For brand owners, the practical lesson is straightforward: if a family of marks argument is going to form a central part of an enforcement strategy, evidence of consumer recognition should be gathered before litigation begins. For defendants, the judgment provides useful support where the alleged similarity rests primarily on a common descriptive element.

In short, easyGroup v Easyfeetstore confirms that a family of marks can be a powerful doctrine, but only where the family is recognised by consumers rather than assumed by its owner.

Introducing Brand Interchange

In-house brand advisers can often feel like they are working behind closed doors. You may be working as the only trade mark lawyer in your organisation, or in a newly formed team, with new ideas, trying to understand new practices. Brand Interchange is designed to support and help you. It’s the first dedicated group of its kind aimed at promoting and celebrating UK brand professionals. To join Brand Interchange, please register with Shoosmiths by completing and submitting the membership form. Registering as a member of Brand Interchange is completely free, and so are all the benefits you receive as a member.