ARTICLE
14 October 2025

Premier Inn Can 'Rest Easy' In UK Trademark Dispute With EasyGroup

NG
Novagraaf Group

Contributor

Novagraaf has been helping iconic brands and innovative organisations drive competitive advantage through intellectual property (IP) for more than 130 years. One of Europe’s leading IP consulting groups, Novagraaf specialises in the protection and global management of IP rights, including trademarks, patents, designs, domain names and copyright. Part of the Questel group, Novagraaf has 18 offices worldwide and a network of more than 330 IP attorneys and support specialists.
Premier Inn has successfully defended a trademark infringement case brought by easyGroup concerning the use of the phrase ‘rest easy'.
United Kingdom Intellectual Property

Premier Inn has successfully defended a trademark infringement case brought by easyGroup concerning the use of the phrase 'rest easy'. The decision highlights the limits of trademark protection where commonly used language is involved and reinforces the importance of context and consumer perception in brand disputes, as Mona Asgari explains.

The easyGroup, owner of the well-known 'easy' family of brands, such as easyJet and easyHotel, has been unsuccessful in its attempt to challenge the use of the phrase 'rest easy' by Premier Inn, the UK's largest hotel brand.

The easyGroup claimed 'rest easy' infringed several of its registered trademarks, including easyHotel and Rest Easy Apartments, but Premier Inn refuted this claim, arguing that its use of the phrase was descriptive and that consumers would not associate it with easyGroup's portfolio of 'easy'-branded businesses.

In August 2025, the High Court agreed with Premier Inn, concluding that there was no likelihood of confusion between Premier Inn's marketing slogan and the easyGroup's registered trademarks.

'Rest Easy' trademark infringement case: The Court's findings

In its ruling, the High Court judge found that the "average consumer" would not "make a link" between the signs used by Premier Inn and the easyGroup marks.

While the court acknowledged that easyGroup has successfully asserted its rights in a recognised "family" of easy-formative marks in previous cases – such as easyGroup Ltd v Easyfundraising Ltd – it noted that the company had not relied on that doctrine in this instance. The absence of that argument, coupled with the descriptive nature of 'rest easy', proved significant.

Reaction and next steps

Following the ruling, easyGroup issued a statement criticising the decision, claiming that the judgment contained "clear errors of law" and that certain findings were "ridiculous". The company has since indicated its intention to appeal.

Key takeaways for brand owners

The ruling provides a valuable reminder to brand owners of the following key points:

  • Common language has limits: Trademark protection will not necessarily extend to ordinary or descriptive phrases, even where a brand has a strong reputation.
  • Context matters: The likelihood of confusion depends on how the mark is used and perceived by the average consumer, rather than the owner's broader brand family.
  • Strategic reliance on a 'family' of marks: Where businesses operate multiple 'sub-brands', explicitly invoking the family of marks concept can strengthen a claim – but only if properly pleaded and supported by evidence.

This decision also serves as a useful reminder that even well-known brand owners must balance enforcement with realism about the scope of their exclusive rights.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More