Easymoney owner fails in High Court case against charity fundraising site
In a dramatic courtroom clash between the well-known brand, EasyGroup Ltd, the company behind the iconic "easy" family of brands such as easyMoney that started as a comparison website and now offers peer to peer lending, and Easyfundraising Ltd, a charity fundraising platform, faced off over allegations of trademark infringement and passing off. The case, EasyGroup Ltd v Easyfundraising Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 2323 (Ch), brought to the forefront key questions about brand identity, consumer confusion, and the power of a single word: “easy.”
At the heart of the case was EasyGroup’s claim that Easyfundraising had unfairly used the word "easy" in its name, creating what it claimed was a likelihood of confusion in the marketplace. EasyGroup, led by the well-known entrepreneur Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou, built a vast empire of "easy" brands, including easyJet, easyHotel, and easyCar, among others. The orange (Pantone 021C, by the way) and white logo, coupled with the distinctive “easy” prefix, became synonymous with budget-friendly services in sectors like travel, hotels, and car rentals. Over the years, Sir Stelios and EasyGroup have aggressively defended their trademarks, ensuring that no one could use the “easy” prefix without their approval.
Enter Easyfundraising, a company founded in 2005 by Ian Woodroffe with a completely different mission. The platform allowed everyday shoppers to raise money for their chosen charities through online purchases. Whenever a consumer bought something from one of Easyfundraising’s thousands of partner retailers, a small commission would be donated to a charity of their choice. Over the years, Easyfundraising had grown steadily, raising millions for good causes. But their name, EasyGroup argued, was too similar to the well-established "easy" brands. In EasyGroup’s view, Easyfundraising was unfairly benefiting from their global reputation and could easily confuse consumers into believing the two were connected.
The legal showdown took place in the High Court's Chancery Division, with EasyGroup arguing that Easyfundraising had crossed a line. EasyGroup’s legal team, led by Michael Edenborough KC, argued that Easyfundraising’s use of "easy" was a direct infringement of its trademarks. They also claimed that by using the "easy" prefix, Easyfundraising was "passing off" its business as part of the EasyGroup family, piggybacking on the goodwill and reputation that Sir Stelios had carefully nurtured over decades.
Easyfundraising, represented by Emma Himsworth KC, stood firm. They argued that they had been using the name for nearly 20 years without issue and that their platform operated in a completely different sphere from EasyGroup’s businesses. Their defence was that no one in their right mind would mistake a charitable fundraising platform for an airline, mortgage comparison website or hotel chain, no matter how similar their names appeared. The two companies, they insisted, existed in completely different worlds.
The crux of the case boiled down to the similarity between the brands. EasyGroup highlighted how deeply ingrained their trademarks were in the public’s consciousness. Their distinctive orange-and-white colour scheme, the use of Cooper Black font, and “easy” prefix had become synonymous with affordable services. They feared that Easyfundraising’s use of the word "easy" could dilute the strength of their brand and confuse consumers into believing there was an affiliation between the two companies.
But Easyfundraising argued that their branding was different enough to avoid confusion. Their website and promotional materials used entirely different colours and fonts. Furthermore, their mission—helping charities raise money—was a world apart from EasyGroup’s focus on travel and hospitality. They maintained that their use of "easy" was born from their desire to make fundraising as simple as possible for users, not to imitate or ride on the coattails of EasyGroup’s brands.
After extensive testimony and cross-examinations, the High Court’s ruling was a major victory for Easyfundraising. The judge found that while both companies shared the "easy" prefix, the similarities between the two stopped there. The court noted that Easyfundraising’s use of the word "easy" did not create enough visual or conceptual resemblance to EasyGroup’s trademarks to cause confusion among consumers. The colour schemes, fonts, and business purposes of the two companies were different enough that the average consumer would not believe that they were connected.
The court also dismissed EasyGroup’s claim of passing off. While acknowledging the strength of EasyGroup’s brand, the judge found that Easyfundraising had built its own reputation and identity over nearly two decades. The court was convinced that there was no intent by Easyfundraising to deceive or mislead the public into believing they were part of EasyGroup’s corporate family.
One of the decisive factors in the ruling was the lack of evidence of consumer confusion. Despite Easyfundraising operating since 2005, neither party could provide any real instances where consumers had mistaken one company for the other. The court found this significant, especially given the amount of time both brands had coexisted in the market.
The outcome is a reminder that even in a world where brands vigorously defend their intellectual property, not every use of a similar name constitutes infringement. For EasyGroup, the case was a rare setback in its long history of protecting the “easy” brand. But it also demonstrated the limitations of brand protection when companies operate in entirely different sectors. The ruling showed that context matters; even powerful brands can’t monopolize common words like "easy" when they’re used in different industries.
In the end, the court’s decision reflected the evolving nature of branding and intellectual property in the modern economy. As businesses increasingly cross into multiple sectors, the boundaries of trademark protection are being tested, and this case offered a fascinating glimpse into the challenges faced by even the most well-known brands in defending their identity.
