easyGroup Limited v Cubico (UK) Limited (t/a "Easy Bathrooms") [2026] EWHC 1645 (IPEC) 

Easy Bathrooms has been operating a bathroom retail business since 2013. It uses various EASY-formative marks, including (but not limited to) those shown below: 

easyGroup brought a claim alleging (among other claims) that Easy Bathrooms had infringed several of its registered trade marks under Sections 10(2)(b) and 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, including: 

In particular, easyGroup claimed that the marks it relied on in its reputation claim were part of a “family” of easy-formative marks, such that consumers would perceive the “easy” prefix (in plain text) as relating to easyGroup, therefore benefitting from an enhanced distinctive character and wider scope of protection. 

The decision

It was held that easyGroup could not establish that its marks constituted a “family” in the manner pleaded in the case (one united only by the word “easy” in plain text). The judge found that no evidence adduced in the case established that a “family” of marks existed for easy-formative marks in plain text. In fact, easyGroup’s evidence, which included brand guidelines setting out use of a specific font and colour schemes, lowercase “easy”, accompanied by a capitalised suffix word, demonstrated the opposite, as held at paragraph 106:  

“The easy Brand Guidelines require use of Cooper Black font; ‘easy’ being in all lower case with the suffix word beginning with an upper case letter and otherwise being in lower case; the suffix word being attached to ‘easy’; and use of the orange pantone 021c. In my judgment those elements of the required Brand Guidelines are key factors in the relevant public’s perception of the easy brands and any easy family of marks”. 

The Support Group (UK) Limited v easyGroup Limited (O/0430/26)

A separate UK IPO decision issued the following month shows that easyGroup also attempted to rely on the argument that it owns a “family” of easy marks to defend a non-use action. 

easyGroup owned a registration for the mark easy (Reg No. UK00901699792), which was the subject of cancellation and invalidation proceedings in the decision. A key part of easyGroup's evidence of use of the registered mark on its own was in the form shown on the website at https://easy.com/, which is described as “the portal of the easy family of brands”. 

The family argument

easyGroup argued that, in addition, its extensive use of other easy-formative marks, for example easyJet, easyHotel, and easyMoney, should be considered genuine use of the word easy on its own, given that the easy element was present across all of its brands in the easy family, and applied consistently, performing an alleged distinctive role in the other signs. 

The Hearing Officer rejected these claims, stating that easy possesses little to no distinctive character, and the distinctiveness of the easy family exists in the combination of easy accompanied by the capitalised descriptor (and in many cases, its distinctive stylisation). In addition, the use of easy on the website was held to be merely promotional, and did not amount to use of the registered mark for specific goods or services.  

Of particular relevance was the Hearing Officer’s finding at paragraph 49 that:

“what makes the proprietor’s trade marks (and family of brands) distinctive is not the use of ‘easy’ solus, but the use of ‘easy’ as a prefix followed by a descriptive word (as well as the get-up). It follows from this that use of ‘easy’ as a prefix followed by a descriptive word cannot amount to use of ‘easy’ solus, because it alters the distinctive character of ‘easy’ solus”. 

Summary and takeaways 

The argument that a family of trade marks exists can be a powerful one, affording (if established) a broader scope of protection compared to a mark-to-mark comparison in assessing likelihood of confusion. 

However, actually proving the existence of a family of marks that could be confused with other signs with shared characteristics is notoriously challenging.  

Below are some key takeaways to bear in mind when trying to establish and maintain a family of marks:  

1. The more distinctive the family is, the stronger it will be. These cases held that easy is a common dictionary word, which will immediately be understood by the public as describing something that is accessible, convenient, and comfortable. They serve as a reminder of the inherent difficulties in maintaining and enforcing trade mark registrations for everyday words, whether or not they are part of a family. 
2. Not all families are alike. Proving that a family of marks exists is not straightforward, and often this proof needs to demonstrate specific characteristics of that family. Even then, once this has been established, it may make it more difficult to show that there has been a likelihood of confusion with signs that do not share those (sometimes highly distinctive) characteristics. 

Ultimately, owning a family of trade marks can be useful, but proving it exists can be difficult and require highly tailored evidence. Further, the nature of a family of marks and its shared characteristic(s) may limit its useful applicability in all cases. Careful consideration should be given to whethermaking such an argument really improves a case in a trade mark dispute.