Rest Easy, Premier Inn: High Court Rejects easyGroup’s Trade Mark Infringement Claims

In the recent High Court case easyGroup Limited v Premier Inn Hotels Limited [2025], easyGroup asserted that Premier Inn had infringed on their intellectual property under section 10 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (the “1994 Act”) by virtue of Premier Inn’s use of the phrase “Rest easy” in advertising and marketing.

Factual background

easyGroup, established in 2000, is the owner and licensor of all intellectual property rights in the various “easy” businesses, most notably easyJet. Premier Inn, the UK’s largest hotel brand, whose advertising has famously featured Sir Lenny Henry and the image of an anthropomorphised crescent moon, have since April 2021 been using the phrase “Rest easy” as part of their marketing and brand identity. easyGroup pleaded that Premier Inn’s use of this slogan infringes upon easyGroup’s various trade marks under sections 10(2) and 10(3) of the 1994 Act and, by virtue of same, multiple of Premier Inn’s trade marks are liable to be declared invalid under section 5 of the 1994 Act.

Relevant Legislation

• Section 10(2) of the 1994 Act deals with infringement where a sign is identical or similar to a registered trade mark and is used for identical or similar goods or services. Infringement occurs if there is a likelihood of confusion among the public, including the possibility of association with the registered mark.
• Section 10(3) of the 1994 Act applies to trade marks with a reputation in the UK, even where the goods or services are not similar. It prohibits the use of a similar or identical sign if it takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive character or reputation of the mark, without due cause.
• Section 5 of the 1994 Act blocks registration of a trade mark if it conflicts with earlier rights, including existing trade marks, marks with a reputation, or rights under passing off or copyright, especially where confusion or unfair advantage may result.

High Court

The section 10(2) claim relates to easyGroup’s trade mark “Rest Easy Apartments”. Judge Ashworth noted that easyGroup did not satisfy multiple necessary elements for infringement under section 10(2), namely that the use was not in the course of a trade, as the phrase is a normal English idiom and is not being used in a trade mark sense; the similarity was very low between the two marks; and that the average consumer would not think that there was a likelihood of confusion.

The section 10(3) claim relates to the word mark “EasyHotel”, and the device mark “easy”, both of which are owned by easyGroup. Multiple elements of this claim again failed to be satisfied. Judge Ashworth noted that the average consumer would conclude that the UK trade mark “easy” did not have a reputation or enhanced distinctiveness in respect of any of the services for which it is registered; the phrase is a normal English idiom and is not being used in a trade mark sense; the average consumer would not make a link between Premier Inn’s signs and the easyGroup’s trade marks; and easyGroup failed to establish detriment.

easyGroup’s claims under section 10 of the 1994 Act failed, and subsequently their claims for declarations of invalidity also failed.

Implications:

This judgment is significant for both trade mark law and brand strategy:

• Narrow scope of protection for descriptive marks: Businesses adopting common or descriptive terms such as “easy” face hurdles in claiming exclusivity, even with a well-known brand family behind them.

• Evidence is critical: The court stressed the need for clear proof of consumer confusion or economic harm, not just supposition. easyGroup’s lack of hard evidence undermined its claims.

• Balance with competition: The decision highlights the courts’ reluctance to allow established brand owners to use trade mark law to shut down fair competition in the absence of genuine harm to brand distinctiveness.

• Sector-wide impact: Hospitality, retail, and other consumer-facing sectors should note that rebranding campaigns can potentially use common language provided they avoid misleading associations.

Watch this space:

Despite this defeat, easyGroup has already indicated publicly that it intends to appeal the decision. The appeal is likely to focus on the interpretation of section 10(3) of the 1994 Act and whether reputational “linkage” can be inferred without direct evidence of consumer confusion.

If the case reaches the Court of Appeal, it could further refine the law on how far “family of marks” arguments can extend trade mark protection across different industries. For now, the judgment stands as an important reminder of the evidential thresholds required for brand protection litigation in the UK.

If you would like any further information or advice on these issues, please contact James Milliken from the Commercial team.

*This information is for guidance purposes only and does not constitute, nor should be regarded, as a substitute for taking legal advice that is tailored to your circumstances.