EUTM Online “Targeting” and Irish Jurisdiction: “Reasonable Presumption” Requires Active Conduct, Not Mere Accessibility

Case: Easy Group Ltd and Anor v Easy Fundraising Ltd and Anor (Approved) [2026] IEHC 512
Court: High Court of Ireland (Commercial)
Judge: Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy
Date: 23 July 2026

1. Introduction

The plaintiffs—two companies within the “easy” brand group—sued UK-based defendants for alleged infringement of EU Trade Mark No. 019144557, easyfundraising.ie (registered 10 July 2025). The alleged infringement was said to occur through the defendants’ long-running UK platform easyfundraising.org.uk (and associated app), which facilitates fundraising by directing “supporters” to participating retailers and sharing commission with “good causes”.

The defendants applied to (i) set aside service out of the jurisdiction, (ii) have the Court decline jurisdiction, and (iii) strike out the proceedings (the “jurisdiction motion”). The practical centre of gravity was whether the plaintiffs had put forward sufficient evidence that the UK website/app “targeted” the public in Ireland (and/or the EU), because online “targeting” was the alleged act of infringement needed to engage jurisdiction under the EU Trade Mark Regulation.

Key issues

• Jurisdiction under the EUTMR: whether jurisdiction was available under Article 125(2) (plaintiff domicile/establishment) and/or Article 125(5) (place of infringement).
• Targeting threshold on a jurisdiction challenge: what evidential standard must be met to show the online acts were directed at Ireland/EU.
• Procedural objections: whether service out relied on the correct Order 11 gateway; and whether the Irish plaintiff had a sufficient “establishment”.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court held the proceedings were governed by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (EUTMR) and applied the CJEU “targeting” jurisprudence.
• Standard of proof: the Court rejected a “balance of probabilities” requirement and held that, at the jurisdiction stage, the claimant must adduce evidence giving rise to a reasonable presumption that acts of infringement may have been committed (drawing particularly on Case C-104/22, Lannen MCE Oy v Berky GmbH).
• Procedural points:
  • Service out under Order 11, rules 1(f) and 1(g) was permissible; it was not mandatory to proceed under rule 1(v).
  • The Irish plaintiff’s activity was sufficient, on balance, to amount to an “establishment”, so Article 125(2) could be invoked; but this did not change the dispositive need to show an act of infringement through targeting.
• Targeting: none of the plaintiffs’ seven factors—individually or cumulatively—created a reasonable presumption of targeting of Irish (or EU) consumers/traders by the defendants.
• Outcome: the Court set aside the order permitting service out and declined jurisdiction.

3. Analysis

3.1 Statutory framework (EUTMR): the jurisdiction map

The Court’s analysis is anchored in Articles 124–126 EUTMR:

A key feature of the judgment is the Court’s insistence that, whichever gateway is relied on, the claimant must still point to an act of infringement—here, online targeting—sufficient to meet the jurisdictional threshold.

3.2 Precedents cited and their role

(a) L'Oreal SA and Ors v eBay International AG and Ors [2012] Bus LR 1369 (Case C-324/09)

• Rule applied: “Mere accessibility” of a website in a territory is not enough; the offer/advertisement must be targeted at consumers there.
• Influence here: This was the starting point for rejecting the plaintiffs’ attempt to equate Irish accessibility/usage with Irish targeting.

(b) Case C-172/18, AMS Neve v Heritage Audio SL

• Rule applied: For Article 125(5)-type jurisdiction, the court must be satisfied the allegedly infringing acts were committed in the territory; the act is committed where the commercial content is made accessible to the consumers/traders to whom it is directed.
• Crucial clarification: The “result” (e.g., purchases) is irrelevant; what matters is direction/targeting of the commercial content.
• Influence here: Helped the Court separate (i) evidence that Irish users could or did access the platform from (ii) evidence the defendants directed their commercial activity at Ireland.

(c) Case C-104/22, Lannen MCE Oy v Berky GmbH

• Rule applied (standard at jurisdiction stage): It is “excessive” to require a detailed merits examination at the jurisdiction stage; evidence giving rise to a reasonable presumption that infringement may have occurred is sufficient.
• Active conduct emphasis: The infringement must relate to “active conduct” by the alleged infringer.
• Influence here: This authority supplied both (i) the evidential standard the Court adopted and (ii) the “active conduct” lens that defeated the plaintiffs’ reliance on passive accessibility and small Irish traffic.

(d) Irish and UK applications of “multi-factorial” targeting

• easyGroup Limited v Easy Forex [2024] IEHC 590 (Twomey J)
  • Applied CJEU targeting principles; rejected jurisdiction where there was no targeting of Ireland despite some Irish users.
  • Provided a close factual analogue: Irish uptake alone does not equal targeting.
• Lifestyle Equities CV v Amazon UK Services [2024] UKSC 8
  • Cited for the need for a “multi-factorial assessment” of targeting.
  • Supported the Court’s method: no single factor (traffic, app availability, listed retailers/charities) is determinative.

(e) Standard-of-proof debate: Ryanair Ltd v Billigfluege.de GmbH [2015] IESC 11

• Defendants’ use: argued that because service out finally determines jurisdiction, the facts grounding jurisdiction should be proven on the balance of probabilities.
• Court’s distinction: unlike a pure contractual jurisdiction clause dispute, “targeting” is intertwined with merits and should not be finally tried at the jurisdiction stage; therefore, the Lannen “reasonable presumption” approach governs.
• Significance: This is a meaningful Irish articulation of how domestic “finality” concerns interact with CJEU guidance for EUTMR online targeting challenges.

3.3 Legal reasoning: why the plaintiffs’ “targeting” evidence failed

The Court treated “targeting” as the dispositive factual-legal hinge. It accepted the settled proposition that online targeting requires more than passive accessibility; it requires indicia of direction and, per Lannen, active conduct. The plaintiffs identified seven factors; the Court tested each against that framework and against the overall impression of the defendants’ UK-facing service.

(1) Irish-affiliated retailers listed on the site

• The Court accepted some Irish-affiliated retailers appeared, but found this consistent with a UK-targeted platform because the relevant retailers sold/advertised into the UK.
• Critically, the plaintiffs produced no evidence that the defendants took steps to direct Irish consumers to those listings (e.g., Irish-directed advertising, Irish-specific content, Irish domain, Irish currency/phone indicia).
• The proportion of “Irish” retailers was tiny relative to the platform’s scale; the overall impression remained UK-directed.

(2) “Irish” good causes / charities on the platform

• The plaintiffs’ analysis (counting names containing “Ireland”, “Irish”, “GAA”, etc.) was rejected as lacking rigour because the entities were overwhelmingly UK-based (addresses shown as UK addresses).
• Where a small number were later found Ireland-based, they were removed; the Court treated these as limited instances not converting the platform into Ireland-targeted conduct.
• The Court emphasised the irrelevance (for EUTM territoriality) of UK-only use: EU trade mark courts have no jurisdiction over UK use post-Brexit, reinforcing the need for Ireland/EU direction evidence.

(3) Template social media adverts/messages facilitating sharing

• The templates linked to an “obviously UK” domain (.org.uk), which undermined any claim of Ireland-directed first impression.
• Posts by third-party organisations were not treated as evidence of the defendants targeting other Member States; they showed, at most, that UK-based organisations could share a link.

(4) Irish visitor traffic to the UK website

• The Court accepted that absolute visitor numbers could be relevant but found the tiny proportion of Irish traffic more telling: it suggested absence of targeting.
• Absent evidence of active steps to solicit Irish users, Irish traffic levels did not rationally ground a presumption of targeting.

(5) App availability in Ireland (especially via Apple’s default distribution)

• Downloads from Ireland were negligible relative to UK downloads; the Court also noted non-UK downloads (e.g., US) that could not plausibly indicate targeting.
• The defendants’ evidence that Apple’s app store availability is a default (with Google Play requiring affirmative country selection) mattered: affirmative selection was UK-only, reinforcing UK targeting intent.

(6) Terms and conditions referencing Irish-issued cards

• A clause noting that cards issued outside the UK/US/Ireland might not track reliably was not “straight away” evidence of Irish targeting, particularly when read with a prominent UK-residency requirement elsewhere in the terms.
• The Court treated it as an incidental technical/operational term, not active marketing direction.

(7) Non-UK users could register; no geo-blocking/residency verification

• The Court rejected an implied duty to implement geo-blocking to disprove targeting, reiterating that mere accessibility is not targeting.
• The plaintiffs’ argument effectively assumed its conclusion: that because Irish users were not blocked, they were being targeted.
• The Court accepted the defendants’ points about proportionality and data minimisation (collect only what is necessary), and found that requiring intrusive verification to “prove a negative” was not justified on the evidence.

3.4 Procedural and structural points of note

Order 11 gateway: rules 1(f), 1(g) vs 1(v)

The Court held the plaintiffs were not confined to Order 11, rule 1(v) merely because an EU instrument (the EUTMR) governed the claim. Trade mark infringement was treated as a civil wrong comfortably within rules 1(f) (tort/wrong) and 1(g) (injunction to restrain a wrong). Even if the wrong gateway had been selected, the Court indicated it would have cured the defect if that were the only objection.

“Establishment” under Article 125(2): the Hummel Holdings lens

Applying Case C-617/15, Hummel Holdings, the Court considered whether the Irish plaintiff showed a real and stable presence (personnel/material equipment; appearance of permanency). Despite the defendants’ attack (minimal assets; registered office at solicitors), the Court found sufficient Irish activity (use of professional service providers; Ireland-focused IP protection activity) to meet the establishment criterion “on balance”.

However, the Court treated this as non-determinative because, on the facts presented, the plaintiffs’ evidence of infringement outside Ireland was “practically non-existent”; if Ireland targeting failed, the case failed whichever gateway was invoked.

3.5 Impact

• Sharper Irish articulation of the jurisdiction-stage evidential standard: The judgment expressly adopts the CJEU’s “reasonable presumption” approach and explains why a “balance of probabilities” test is inappropriate where the jurisdictional fact (targeting) overlaps with merits and should not be finally tried at the threshold stage.
• “Active conduct” becomes the practical fulcrum: The decision operationalises Lannen by asking: what did the defendant do to direct the commercial content to Ireland? Passive features (accessibility, default app distribution, small Irish usage) will rarely suffice.
• Low Irish traffic is not a shortcut to jurisdiction: Plaintiffs will likely need stronger indicia (Irish-directed ads/SEO spend, Irish domain/currency/phone, Irish delivery/eligibility messaging, Ireland-specific campaigns) rather than post hoc lists of Irish-sounding retailers/causes.
• No implied obligation to geo-block to avoid EUTM liability: The Court’s reasoning discourages attempts to convert “not blocking” into “targeting”, especially for legacy platforms predating the claimant’s EUTM registration.
• Practical litigation consequence: Service out and EUTM forum selection in Ireland will be vulnerable to early strike/jurisdiction motions unless targeting evidence is assembled with “forensic” care from the outset (even before discovery).

4. Complex concepts simplified

• “Targeting”: In online trade mark cases, the question is not “Can people in Ireland view the website?” but “Was the website’s commercial message directed at people in Ireland?” Direction is assessed holistically, using objective indicators.
• “Active conduct”: Something the trader does to reach the foreign market (e.g., Irish-specific ads, Irish pricing/currency cues, Irish delivery options, Irish domain/content). Mere global internet availability is passive.
• “Reasonable presumption” (jurisdiction stage): The claimant does not have to prove infringement conclusively, but must show enough credible material that it is reasonable to suppose infringement may have occurred in the territory. It is more than speculation and less than final proof.
• Article 125(2) vs 125(5) EUTMR:
  • 125(2) points to the plaintiff’s domicile/establishment (in certain cross-border scenarios) and can support broader EU-wide relief.
  • 125(5) is the “place of infringement” forum, typically requiring proof of territorial targeting for online acts.
• Why UK-facing facts did not help: Post-Brexit, EU trade mark courts do not police UK-only use of signs. So the plaintiffs needed evidence of EU/Ireland-directed acts, not just UK platform scale or UK charity participation.

5. Conclusion

Easy Group Ltd and Anor v Easy Fundraising Ltd and Anor [2026] IEHC 512 reinforces that EUTM jurisdiction in Ireland for online infringement hinges on evidence of direction/targeting grounded in active conduct, assessed multi-factorially. The Court adopted the CJEU’s “reasonable presumption” threshold at the jurisdiction stage, but held the plaintiffs’ evidence—Irish-affiliated listings, Irish-named causes, small volumes of Irish traffic, default app availability, and the absence of geo-blocking—did not rationally support a presumption of Irish/EU targeting. The result was decisive: service out was set aside and jurisdiction declined.