Easygroup Ltd & Anor v Easy Forex Trading Ltd & Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by the Defendants, domiciled in Cyprus, seeking an order that the Irish courts lack jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiffs' claims of trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiffs, owners of well-known brands incorporating the term "easy", allege infringement by the Defendants' use of the word "Easy" in their financial services business, specifically an online trading platform and app. The Defendants contend that under EU regulations, the Irish courts do not have jurisdiction, as their domicile is in Cyprus and they do not target the Irish market. The dispute centers on whether the Defendants' online services, accessible in Ireland and used by a small number of Irish customers, amount to targeting Ireland for jurisdictional purposes.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Irish courts have jurisdiction under Article 125(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (EUTMR) to hear trademark infringement claims against a defendant domiciled in another Member State based on online services accessible and used in Ireland.
2. Whether the Irish courts have jurisdiction under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels Recast Regulation) to hear passing off claims against a defendant domiciled in another Member State based on alleged harmful events occurring in Ireland.
3. What constitutes "targeting" of a Member State in the context of online services for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiffs' Arguments

• The Defendants' use of the word "Easy" in their business name and logos infringes the Plaintiffs' registered EU trademarks and amounts to passing off given the Plaintiffs' goodwill and reputation in Ireland.
• The Defendants have provided services to 16 customers in Ireland via their website and app, which constitutes a "sale" of services in Ireland.
• The sale of services to Irish customers alone is sufficient to establish jurisdiction in Ireland under Article 125(5) EUTMR without the need to prove targeting.
• The Defendants' website is accessible in Ireland, supports English language, and recognizes Irish IP addresses, providing Irish telephone codes and address options, demonstrating targeting.
• The Client Agreement explicitly states that cross-border services are offered to Ireland among other EU Member States.
• The Defendants' app is available for download in Ireland, further evidencing targeting.

Defendants' Arguments

• The Defendants are domiciled in Cyprus and the default rule is that they should be sued there.
• The mere accessibility of an online service in Ireland or the existence of some Irish customers does not amount to targeting Ireland.
• They do not actively target the Irish market, spend no advertising money in Ireland, and the small number of Irish customers is incidental to their EU-wide authorization to provide services.
• The presence of Irish telephone codes, English language, and Irish address options on the website are automatic and generic features, not evidence of targeting.
• The app’s availability in Ireland is due to inclusion among many countries and does not signify specific targeting.
• Unauthorised Google.ie advertising was conducted by a third party without their knowledge or consent and ceased promptly.
• Jurisdiction should only be established if there is "active conduct" targeting Ireland, which is absent here.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
C-172/18 AMS Neve Ltd & Ors v Heritage Aidio SL & Anor [2019] ECLI:EU:C:2019:674	Jurisdiction under Article 125(5) EUTMR requires "active conduct" targeting the Member State; mere accessibility is insufficient.	The Court applied this to hold that jurisdiction in Ireland requires proof of targeting, not just accessibility or incidental sales.
C-324/09 L'Oréal and Others EU:C:2011:474	Website accessibility in a Member State does not alone establish targeting for jurisdiction purposes.	Supported the conclusion that generic website features do not amount to targeting Ireland.
C-98/13 Blomqvist v Rolex SA EU:C:2014:55	Sale of goods to a person in a Member State through an online site constitutes use in the course of trade in that State.	The Court distinguished sale of goods from services, rejecting that a single service sale automatically establishes targeting.
[2024] UKSC 8 Lifestyle Equities CV and Anor v Amazon UK Services Ltd and Ors	Targeting a Member State requires a multifactorial assessment of active conduct and website features designed to procure sales there.	The Court used this test to find no sufficient targeting of Ireland by Defendants, contrasting with the detailed targeting found in Lifestyle.
C&A Modes & Anor v C&A (Waterford) Limited & Ors [1976] IR 198	In passing off, damage is presumed from appropriation of goodwill.	The Court noted that presumption of damage does not equate to jurisdiction without a close connection (targeting) to the forum State.
Falcon Travel Limited v Owners Abroad Group t/a Falcon Leisure Group [1991] 1 IR 175	Presumption of damage in passing off claims.	Reinforced that presumption of damage does not alone establish jurisdiction absent targeting.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by identifying the general rule under Article 125(1) EUTMR that a defendant is to be sued in its Member State of domicile, Cyprus in this case, with Article 125(5) providing an exception allowing suit in the Member State where the infringement act occurred. The Court examined whether the Defendants' online provision of financial services to a small number of Irish customers constituted an act of infringement committed in Ireland sufficient to establish jurisdiction.

The Court analysed the concept of "targeting" as required by the case law, including AMS Neve and L'Oréal, which hold that mere accessibility of a website or incidental sales do not constitute targeting. The Court distinguished the sale of goods (where a sale to a Member State resident may establish use in the course of trade there) from the sale of services, finding that the latter requires proof of targeting of that Member State by active conduct.

Applying the multifactorial test from the UK Supreme Court's Lifestyle case, the Court considered website features and marketing efforts. It found that the Defendants' website automatically recognizes Irish IP addresses and provides generic options such as English language, Irish telephone codes, and address fields, but these are generic and not designed to target Ireland specifically. The website does not include explicit Irish-oriented marketing or sales inducements comparable to those in Lifestyle.

The Court also considered the Client Agreement listing Ireland among many countries where services are offered under an EU-wide authorization. This was found to be standard wording reflecting accessibility rather than active targeting. The availability of the app for download in Ireland was similarly deemed insufficient to establish targeting.

Unauthorised Google.ie advertising by a third party without Defendants' knowledge was found not to constitute active conduct targeting Ireland. The Court emphasised the importance of foreseeability and a close connection between the defendant and the forum State, consistent with Recital 16 of the Brussels Recast Regulation.

Regarding the passing off claim, the Court noted that while damage is presumed in passing off, jurisdiction requires a close connection with Ireland, meaning the Defendants must have targeted Ireland in relation to the alleged passing off. The Court found insufficient targeting to establish jurisdiction for this claim as well.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that neither the trademark infringement claim nor the passing off claim could be heard in Ireland due to lack of jurisdiction.

Holding and Implications

The Court declined jurisdiction in respect of both the trademark infringement and passing off claims against the Defendants.

The direct effect is that the Plaintiffs cannot pursue these claims in the Irish courts; the appropriate forum is the Defendants' Member State of domicile, Cyprus. No new legal precedent was established, but the decision reinforces the requirement of active targeting for jurisdiction in online service cases under EU law, distinguishing between mere accessibility or incidental sales and deliberate targeting of a Member State.