The Cheshire Kat: easyGroup’s claim against Premier Inn over ‘rest easy’ fails

This Kat's cat, Lucy, resting easy

There has been a flurry of decisions handed down this year in cases brought by easyGroup. easyGroup is the company behind a number of ‘easy’ brands, most famously the easyJet brand founded by Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou in 2000. The most recent of these was a case brought by easyGroup against the UK hotel chain Premier Inn: easyGroup Ltd v Premier Inn Hotels Ltd [2025] EWHC 2229 (Ch). Premier Inn had begun trading using the sign ‘Rest easy’ as part of a logo and separately on its website in text, which easyGroup claimed infringed its trade marks. The claim was rejected, triggering a strong response and clear indication of an intention to appeal by Sir Stelios.

The judgment considers the family of brands doctrine, easyGroup’s apparent disavowal of it, and marketing slogans. It also concerns use of a sign alleged to be similar forming part of the lock-up of the logo/device.

The marks and signs

The marks relied on, and signs complained of, are set out below (those definitions adopted):

easyGroup had owned the easyHotel UKTM and easy UKTM since 2000 and 2019 respectively. The Rest Easy Apartments UKTM had been registered in 2020 by a third party and assigned to easyGroup in 2024 following an infringement dispute with the previous owner.

easyGroup’s claim was for infringement of the Rest Easy Apartments UKTM under s.10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA), and infringement of the easyHotel UKTM and easy UKTM under s.10(3) TMA [here]. Those provisions are, respectively, infringement by likelihood of confusion and unfair advantage (etc.). easyGroup also applied to invalidate Premier Inn’s trade mark under relative grounds (ss. 5(2) and 5(3) TMA).

Premier Inn denied the claims and counterclaimed for invalidity in respect of the easy UKTM under s.47 TMA on the basis that they were not permitted as a series mark as they were inconsistent and not ‘a sign’. Readers may be familiar with this issue having been raised in Comic Enterprises Limited v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation [2016] EWCA Civ 455, and the argument rejected by the Court of Appeal [here]. As a result of that decision, Premier Inn did not pursue the point at trial, but reserved the right to do so if the matter is appealed (if permitted to do so).

The ‘family of marks’ issue

In an earlier case bought by easyGroup against another alleged infringer, easyGroup Ltd v Easyfundraising Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 2323 (Ch), the court acknowledged that easyGroup’s trade marks had been “consistently” recognised in litigation as a family of brands/marks.

This doctrine is supported by EU law and its application in the UK. In particular, Arnold J (as he was) in W3 Ltd. v. easyGroup Ltd [2018] EWHC 7 acknowledged that a ‘family’ of marks could support the existence of a likelihood of confusion.

However, in the Premier Inn case, easyGroup confirmed as part of an earlier application seeking permission to amend its particulars of claim that it was not seeking to rely on the family of marks doctrine. It is not clear why this was the case, and that earlier judgment is not available.

easyGroup made various arguments at trial that Premier Inn and the judge felt could be interpreted as an attempt to get around this earlier confirmation, for example by relying on the reputation of the other easy- marks to support a claim that the easyHotel UKTM and easy UKTM got a “sort of rocket booster effect” to their reputation and enhanced distinctiveness by being part of the family.  

Emma Himsworth KC, for the defendant, described easyGroup’s attempts to use the easy- family as “a bit like the Cheshire Cat [Kat?] and that it has come in and out like a mirage throughout the litigation at the whim of easyGroup”. The judge described this remark as “not an unfair description”, and decided that having disavowed the family of brands doctrine for the purposes of this case, easyGroup was not permitted to run these arguments, which were a family of marks argument by the back door.

This Kat has some sympathy for easyGroup here; the family of brands doctrine as expressed in W3 relates to the circumstances in which a likelihood of confusion can be found; it does not appear to deal with easyGroup’s argument that the family of brands can ‘rocket boost’ the reputation and enhanced distinctive character. Further, the order recording the disavowal of that doctrine indicates that it was in relation to a likelihood of confusion claim rather than the claim to have a reputation and enhanced distinctive character (“AND UPON the Claimant confirming to the Court that it is not seeking to rely on the Family of Marks doctrine, as it is not asserting that, (i) because easyHotel is part of a wider family of marks including easyJet and easyCar; and (ii) because 'Rest easy' includes the word 'easy', then consumers would believe 'Rest easy' was part of the same family of brands”).

Infringement: the Rest Easy Apartments UKTM

This claim was under s.10(2) (likelihood of confusion). easyGroup claimed that both the ‘Premier Inn Rest Easy’ logo shown above, and the use of “Rest Easy” in marketing text infringed the Rest Easy Apartments UKTM. That position developed somewhat, with easyGroup’s case being that if the logo claim failed, the textual use claim would also fail. The judge found that the textual use was, in any event, not trade mark use.

The judge found that the average consumer would not perceive the ‘Rest easy’ element in the device as having its own independent distinctive role in that sign. Taking some comfort from the lack of evidence of actual confusion, the judge found there was no likelihood of confusion. This included the ‘wrong way round confusion’ that easyGroup alleged (i.e. that someone seeing the Rest Easy Apartments UKTM would then think of the Premier Inn sign), relying on Medion AG v. Thomson Multimedia Sales Germany & Austria GmbH (C-120-04) [2006] ETMR 13 (i.e. Thomson Life). This claim failed.

Infringement: the easyHotel UKTM and easy UKTM

This claim was brought solely under s.10(3) TMA, i.e. easyGroup needed to show that it had a reputation in those marks. As explained above, the judge concluded that easyGroup was precluded from relying on the family of brands doctrine to help with that reputation, and that it had otherwise failed to show a reputation. In case he was wrong on that issue, the judge also found that the reputation attaching to the easy- family did not attach to the same goods/services for which the easyHotel UKTM and easy UKTM were registered for.

This is the area of the judgment where this Kat expects any appeal will focus, mainly as to the interaction between the family of marks argument in the s.10(2) and s.10(3) contexts, and the ability of a new family member to benefit from the reputation attaching to the other marks in the family.

The easyHotel UKTM was found to have a reputation for the provision of hotel accommodation and temporary accommodation, but nothing else. The easy UKTM was found not to have any reputation; its use as part of other signs, e.g. easyJet, was insufficient. While the judge found that it was possible for use of the word ‘easy’ as part of, say, ‘easyJet’ could constitute use of the easy UKTM (relying on W3), he found that there was no evidence that any of the easy- marks had been used for the relevant services.

Having found no reputation, the s.10(3) claim on the easy UKTM fell at the first hurdle. However, for both the easyHotel UKTM and for completeness (in case of an appeal), the judge went on to consider the other elements of such a claim and found that: only the Premier Inn logos used ‘Rest easy’ in the course of trade (i.e. not the text uses in marketing copy); the marks/signs were similar to a very low degree; no link would be made in the mind of the average consumer;  and there was no detriment or unfair advantage.

Conclusion

easyGroup published a strongly worded press statement with comments from Sir Stelios. Sir Stelios complained that the judge “must live in a different era from today”, that the judgment contains “clear errors of law that [he is] confident will be overturned on appeal”, and that several findings were “ridiculous”. The focus of the complaints was about (i) the assessments of the similarity of the signs and the services, (ii) the assessments of use and reputation, and (iii) the treatment of the survey evidence. Following the Supreme Court’s comments in Iconix [IPKat post here] on such challenges to first instance decisions, it will be interesting to see if permission is granted.

Whether the family of marks doctrine enables new marks filed by the owner of that family to accelerate to enhanced distinctive character and reputation-status is a particularly interesting legal point. However, the judgment makes clear that easyGroup had disavowed any ability to run such an argument at an earlier stage. Unless that earlier disavowal was narrower than it seems, it is difficult to see how this would have changed the result.

Finally, while absolutely no criticism is intended, the issues arising from the apparent disavowal of the family of brands doctrine show how parties need to think carefully about how they are positioning their cases early on.