Easy come, easy go: Why trade mark use matters in easyGroup v Jaybank

On 21 November 2025, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) issued its ruling in the case of easyGroup vs. Jaybank Leisure Limited, shedding light on important issues surrounding intellectual property rights, and in particular that if trade marks are not used for a continuous period of five years without proper reasons they become vulnerable to revocation and this lack of use can be used as a powerful defence to claims of trade mark infringement. 

‘Genuine’ use, as we know, must be more than token and must demonstrate use of the goods or services as registered by way of real commercial exploitation. 

Being able to demonstrate genuine use is critical, and trade mark owners should collate and retain a library of evidence of use relating to their trade marks for the exact goods and services as registered to ensure use can be shown if their marks are challenged for non-use. Examples of use should depict the mark prominently. 

Such evidence may include sales invoices, catalogues of products, marketing materials, advertising spend, sample packaging, dated screenshots of the website, and all should be carefully categorised by the relevant five-year period. 

This should also be considered in the context of the use of UK comparable rights, which were created as a result of Brexit. As of 1 January 2026, use in the EU may no longer be used to demonstrate genuine use of these comparable trade marks in the UK.

Case overview: easyGroup v Jaybank Leisure Limited #

easyGroup is the parent company of a family of brands including easyJet, easyHotel, and easyGym. The company is well-known for its aggressive protection of its trade mark portfolio, particularly its use of the prefix “easy-” in the commercial market.

Jaybank Leisure Limited is an online vehicle rental and sales business conducted under the trading name ‘EASIHIRE’.

easyGroup claimed that Jaybank Leisure Limited’s use of the sign ‘EASIHIRE’ for the rental and sale of vehicles has infringed its UK "easyHire" trade mark pursuant to Section 10(2) TMA. For its infringement claim, easyGroup relied on UK trade mark registration no. UK00002349891 for the following series trade mark in Class 39 for rental and hire of motorised vehicles and related advisory and information services.

The decision #

IPEC dismissed the infringement claim brought by easyGroup. Under the usual circumstances, Jaybank’s use of ‘EASIHIRE’ would have constituted infringement of easyGroup’s ‘easyHire’ sign. However, as the use relied upon by easyGroup was deemed by the court as insufficient to demonstrate genuine use of ‘easyHire’, Jaybank had a valid defence of non-use to infringement. 

Likelihood of confusion #

Firstly, IPEC considered the trade mark infringement claim. It was held that easyHire and EASIHIRE were phonetically and conceptually identical. Visually, the differences were limited to the font used, use of upper/lower case letters and 'i'/'y' in ‘easy’/’EASI’. The court found that the average consumer would give limited significance to these differences and would likely see the letter substitution as a typographical error. Hence, the mark and sign were also held to be visually highly similar.

The court found that the contested services and the services as registered by easyGroup were identical or very similar. 

Therefore, the court concluded there was a likelihood of confusion between the mark and the sign, and Jaybank's use of ‘EASIHIRE’  in relation to its services had infringed easyGroup’s easyHire mark, subject to any defence submitted by Jaybank.

Defence of non-use, pursuant to Section 11A of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 #

Jaybank did not make a counterclaim seeking to revoke the easyHire mark relied upon by easyGroup. Jaybank relied on the defence of non-use, pursuant to s.11A, which provides:
"The proprietor of a trade mark is entitled to prohibit the use of a sign only to the extent that the registration of the trade mark is not liable to be revoked pursuant to section 46(1)(a) or (b) (revocation on the basis of non-use) at the date the action for infringement is brought".

In its evidence of use, easyGroup relied on two websites: "easyHire.mobi" and "easyHire.biz".  However, Section 46(3) TMA prevents a trade mark owner relying on any use of the trade mark in the three-month period before an application for revocation is made (or the start of the action to defeat a trade mark infringement claim under s.11A). There was no evidence of use for "easyHire.mobi" outside of the three-month period therefore the website could not be relied upon by easyGroup to prove genuine use of its easyHire trade mark. 

Regarding easyHire.biz, the trade mark was featured prominently, and further, there was no issue with the three-month window. The website was operated by easyHire Technologies Ltd (a licensee of easyGroup) and featured the statement "We operate a global, fast-growing, cloud-based technology platform and licensee network for the multi-billion pound sterling equipment hire industry."
The court held that the easyHire trade mark had not been used for the vehicle rental services for which it was registered, and no proper reasons were given for non-use. As such, Jaybank had a valid defence: non-use, and the court dismissed easyGroup’s claim of trade mark infringement.

Conclusion #

This case underscores that simply owning a trade mark is not enough—use is paramount in defending against competitors. Companies should ensure their trade mark portfolios are consistently utilised and ready to defend, or risk losing their ability to enforce their rights in the future.

If you would like advice on maintaining your trade mark portfolio, demonstrating genuine use, or enforcing your rights, please contact our Trade Mark team, who would be happy to support you.