Background

This judgment follows a liability-only trial of an action in trade mark infringement brought by easyGroup Limited (easyGroup) against Cubico (UK) Limited (Cubico) under s.10(2)(b) and s.10(3) Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA) and in passing off.

Cubico has operated a business for the supply of bathroom fixtures and fittings, sanitaryware, tiles and other bathroom goods to wholesale and retail customers under the trading name “Easy Bathrooms” since 2013. Cubico carries out its business through a chain of brick-and-mortar showrooms (around 150) throughout the UK and online through its website at www.easybathrooms.com (it also owns the domain name www.easybathrooms.co.uk which has a redirect to its website) and via various social media accounts.

easyGroup’s marks / Cubico’s signs 

easyGroup relied on the registered marks shown below and alleged that Cubico used the “Easy Bathroom” signs, also shown below, to sell its goods and services:

easyGroup marks (left) and Cubico signs (right)

Cubico is also the proprietor of three other UK registered trade marks: Cubico’s Earlier Mark (shown below), a word mark for “EASY BATHROOMS”, and a series of four device marks for a stylised representation of the word mark “EASY BATHROOMS: SIMPLY LUXURIOUS” (Cubico's Later Marks).

Cubico’s Earlier Mark

easyGroup’s claims

easyGroup claimed that use of the Cubico signs amounted to infringement pursuant to s.10(2)(b) TMA and s.10(3) TMA and passing off in relation to Cubico’s advertising and promoting its services using the Cubico signs but not in relation to its goods. easyGroup also claimed that Cubico's Earlier Mark should be revoked for non-use pursuant to s.46(1)(b) TMA (or alternatively was invalidly registered) and Cubico's Later Marks were invalidly registered.

easyGroup’s main arguments were:

1. the existence of the easyGroup family of marks and "the fact that easyGroup has educated the public to understand that a business operating under an easy brand is associated with easyGroup" increases the likelihood of confusion for the purposes of s.10(2)(b) TMA infringement; and
2. the existence of the easyGroup family of marks and the enhanced distinctive quality of the marks amongst the relevant public, both individually and collectively by their use in the UK increases the likelihood that the average consumer will link the Cubico signs to the easyGroup marks.

Judgment 

easyGroup and Cubico had a variety of witnesses and Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke’s judgment discussed 23 different issues. However, in short, the judge rejected easyGroup’s claims.

easyGroup did not satisfy the court that the pleaded easyGroup family of marks existed at the relevant dates for assessing infringement due to a lack of evidence. The earliest relevant date is 2013 when Cubico adopted the trading name “EASY BATHROOMS”. The family that easyGroup relies on is made up of: (1) easyJet; (2) easyGroup; (3) easyHotel; (4) easyBus; (5) easyCar; and (6) easyMoney. easyGroup only adduced evidence that the first three of the family existed and were trading in 2013 but submitted no evidence regarding easyBus, easyCar or easyMoney. Specifically, HHJ Clarke noted that “As before HHJ Hacon, easyGroup has not in this case led any evidence, bar pleadings and assertion, to support the contention that the average consumer would recognise the word 'easy', which is an ordinary English word descriptive of something simple, with any other second word or indication appropriate to their field of operation or characteristic, as being associated with easyGroup.”.

The s.10(2) TMA and s.10(3) TMA claims for infringement and passing off were dismissed.

• In relation to s.10(2) there was no sufficient evidence of confusion - Cubico's emails, Meta social media messaging, and Trustpilot reviews for the past 12 plus years of trading found no evidence of confusion between the Cubico Signs and easyGroup Marks. The fact that there had been parallel trade since Cubico began trading under 'EASY BATHROOMS' in 2013 without any evidence at all of direct or indirect confusion despite the detailed searches was deemed significant.
• In relation to the s.10(3) infringement claim which was only brought in respect of services, easyGroup did not provide sufficient evidence to establish a link between the Cubico Signs and the easyGroup Marks in the mind of the average consumer.

The claim for revocation of Cubico's Earlier Mark for non-use was dismissed due to Cubico successfully evidencing that the mark continued to be used even after the rebranding in 2015, on the front of a store in Wakefield, until December 2020; and

The claims that Cubico's Earlier Mark and Cubico's Later Marks were invalidly registered were also dismissed on the basis that the infringement and passing off claims were dismissed and consequently none of the pleaded grounds under s.5(2)(b), s.5(3) or s.5(4)(a) were satisfied.

Conclusion

This decision further highlights that even where a claimant has a strong and well-known brand, ordinary words with wide commercial use are not automatically off limits, and a claimant cannot convert a common prefix into a monopoly simply by building a “family of marks” around it.

Case details at a glance

Jurisdiction: England & Wales 
Decision level: IPEC
Parties: easyGroup Ltd v Cubico (UK) Ltd 
Date: 01 July 2026
Citation: [2026] EWHC 1645 (IPEC)
Decision: dycip.com/2026-ewhc-1645-ipec