Premier Inn vs EasyGroup: Why Litigation Isn’t Always the Easiest Route

Premier Inn “Rests Easy” whilst litigation proves not so “Easy” for easyGroup. The High Court recently handed Premier Inn a clean win against the easyGroup litigation over the “Rest Easy” trade mark. This trade mark dispute is a stark reminder for brands about what is and what is not protectable, and that litigation is not always the best course of action. In this case, the court dismissed all claims under sections 10(2) and 10(3), and the invalidity attack fell away.

Why Premier Inn won the trade mark case in the easyGroup litigation

• Premier Inn’s customer insight team found 4,069,961 post-stay survey responses and 888,033 Google and TripAdvisor reviews without a single consumer linking “Rest Easy” to easyGroup or easyHotel. One stray TripAdvisor post reviewed the wrong hotel entirely – a mistake, not brand linkage.

• Premier Inn’s guest support operation reviewed 1,032,191 unsolicited customer interactions, and again found zero links or confusion about the “Rest Easy” trade mark.

• EasyGroup’s own disclosure searched 17+ million emails, 14+ million files, and 120+ terabytes of data, and still found no evidence of consumers making a link between the two brands. They even created a “Brand Protection” page that invited public tip-offs, and none were received.

• After nearly four years of concurrent use, the court found there was simply no evidence that consumers were making the link easyGroup alleged.

If they had been quicker out of the blocks, perhaps they might have had an ‘easier’ time of it, but this wouldn’t necessarily change the fact it is commonplace in the sector, and the lack of confusion was really the turning factor in this case.

What does the Premier Inn trade mark case teach businesses about trade mark disputes?

How a mark is used is key.

“Easy” is an ordinary English word, and “rest easy” is pretty common in advertising. Premier Inn’s brand lock-up (purple brand colour, custom script, moon device, “Premier Inn”) only meant a very low similarity with easyGroup’s marks. That wasn’t enough for confusion, and not enough for a “link” once context was added either.

Prove reputation where it matters.

EasyGroup’s surveys, which were permitted only to show reputation, skewed to easyJet and airlines generally, and therefore didn’t show an association with hotel services. Their own airline reputation overshadowed themselves! That reputation doesn’t translate into reputation in hotels.

Delay can be harmful, even if limitation periods are ‘A OK’.

Premier Inn launched in April 2021, and easyGroup’s first complaint letter was on the 27th of February 2023 (with a further letter on the 5th of May 2023). That near two-year gap undermined any claim of genuine market harm, though the lack of confusion was the more damning factor for easyGroup’s case.

What does this mean for your brand protection?

Trade mark law won’t let you have a monopoly over everyday language or shut down fair competition. If you claim consumers are confused, you’re going to have a tough time if your own data doesn’t back this up, especially when there is such a significant amount of evidence pointing the other way. If litigation is the route you decide to go down, this trade mark dispute demonstrates exactly how important it is to have the evidence of confusion between brands to prove your case.

EasyGroup is a party known for aggressive litigation and brand protection, but for a smaller business, litigation that is shaky or weak could be incredibly damaging in terms of costs and time. It’s better to form a full commercial view as early as possible.

Why you need an expert

Whether you are unsure if litigation is the right route for you, need advice on trade mark disputes, or you have other trade mark related queries, at Asenda Law we’re here to help.