“243 (iv)….I acknowledge that it could be said [by15 August 2000 ] that easyJet, easyEverything and easyRentaCar formed a family of marks, but as at15 August 2000 there had been relatively little use of the latter two. … 282 Thirdly, I consider that by June 2009 easyGroup was in a position to rely at least to some extent upon a family of trade marks. Moreover, by this time it had been making some attempt to educate the public as to the existence of that family….”
“167. First, in determining whether an advertisement of goods bearing a trade mark on the website of a foreign trader constitutes use of the trade mark in the UK, it is necessary to assess whether the advertisement is targeted at consumers in the UK and in that way constitutes use of the mark in relation to goods in the course of trade in the UK. 168. Secondly, the mere fact that a website is accessible from the UK is not a sufficient basis for concluding that an advertisement displayed there is targeted at consumers in the UK. 169. Thirdly, the issue of targeting is to be considered objectively from the perspective of average consumers in the UK. The question is whether those average consumers would consider that the advertisement is targeted at them. Conversely, however, evidence that a trader does in fact intend to target consumers in the UK may be relevant in assessing whether its advertisement has that effect. 170. Fourthly, the court must carry out an evaluation of all the relevant circumstances. These may include any clear expressions of an intention to solicit custom in the UK by, for example, in the case of a website promoting trade-marked products, including the UK in a list or map of the geographic areas to which the trader is willing to dispatch its products. But a finding that an advertisement is directed at consumers in the UK does not depend upon there being any such clear evidence. The court may decide that an advertisement is directed at the UK in light of some of the non-exhaustive list of matters referred to by the Court of Justice in Pammer EU:C:2010:740 at [93]. Obviously the appearance and content of the website will be of particular significance, including whether it is possible to buy goods or services from it. However, the relevant circumstances may extend beyond the website itself and include, for example, the nature and size of the trader’s business, the characteristics of the goods or services in issue and the number of visits made to the website by consumers in the UK.”
“Our inbound flight from NYC to SXM was moved by the airline to be an hour and a half later, meaning we will not meet our connecting flight, a 1.30 charter flight on St Barth Commuter. If we switch our inbound flights so we land at 12.53pm and we use EasyJet, can you get us to our 1.30pm St Barth Commuter flight? Please advise asap”
“[74] The case law to which I have referred establishes the following principles: (i) Where two separate entities have co-existed for a long period, honestly using the same or closely similar names, the inevitable confusion that arises may have to be tolerated. (ii) This will be the case where the trade mark serves to indicate the goods or services of either of those entities, as opposed to one of them alone. In those circumstances, the guarantee of origin of the claimant’s trade mark is not impaired by the defendant’s use, because the trade mark does not denote the claimant alone. (iii) However, the defendant must not take steps which exacerbate the level of confusion beyond that which is inevitable and so encroach upon the claimant’s goodwill. ”
“55. It seems to me that, in order for the defendant to be liable to the claimant in such circumstances, three conditions must be satisfied. First, the defendant must have assisted the commission of an act by the primary tortfeasor; secondly, the assistance must have been pursuant to a common design on the part of the defendant and the primary tortfeasor that the act be committed; and, thirdly, the act must constitute a tort as against the claimant.”