Factual and Procedural Background
Company A and Company B claim that Company C and Company D infringed EU Trade Mark No. 019144557, easyfundraising.ie, which was registered on 10 July 2025. [Para 13] They were granted leave on 15 December 2025 to serve notice of the proceedings on the defendants in the UK, and service was effected on 14 January 2026. [Para 14] The pleadings allege that since about November 2005 Company C has used the sign “EASYFUNDRAISING” in trade and has targeted members of the public in the State and the EU through its UK website. [Para 15][Para 16] This judgment concerns Company C and Company D’s motion to set aside service, decline jurisdiction, and strike out the proceedings. [Para 18]
Company A is a UK company and the owner of the EUTM, while Company B is an Irish subsidiary whose stated activity is the protection of the brand in the State and which was licensed to use the EUTM in Ireland. [Para 21] Company C owns the UK trade mark and has operated the UK website since 2005, and Company D is its sole shareholder. [Para 23] The dispute follows earlier UK infringement and passing-off proceedings by Company A, which were dismissed by the High Court in September 2024 and by the Court of Appeal in July 2025. [Para 29][Para 32]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Irish court had jurisdiction under Article 125(2) of the EUTMR because the plaintiffs were established in the State. [Para 72][Para 73]
- Whether jurisdiction alternatively arose under Article 125(5) on the basis that the alleged infringement occurred in the State through online targeting. [Para 72][Para 73]
- Whether the plaintiffs adduced sufficient evidence of targeting of members of the public in the State or the EU to meet the jurisdictional threshold. [Para 19][Para 73][Para 76][Para 133]
- Whether the plaintiffs’ service-out application was brought under the correct procedural rule and whether Company B was an establishment of Company A in the State. [Para 138][Para 146][Para 162][Para 169]
Arguments of the Parties
Company C and Company D's Arguments
Company A and Company B's Arguments
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| L'Oreal SA and Ors v eBay International AG and Ors [2012] Bus LR 1369 |
Mere accessibility is not enough; targeting must be assessed case by case by reference to relevant factors. |
The court used it as the core authority for the proposition that the UK website’s accessibility in the State did not, by itself, establish targeting. [Para 76][Para 80][Para 82][Para 84] |
| Pammer v Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co KG (Joined Cases C-585/08 and C-144/09) [2012] Bus LR 972 |
By analogy, accessibility alone does not establish targeting. |
The case was cited within L'Oreal and treated as supporting the same accessibility principle. [Para 80][Para 82] |
| AMS Neve v Heritage Audio SL |
Jurisdiction turns on whether offers or advertisements are directed to the relevant member state; the result of sales is irrelevant. |
The court relied on it to emphasize that the question was targeting, not whether Irish sales actually occurred. [Para 87][Para 94][Para 96][Para 99] |
| Lannen MCE Oy v Berky GmbH |
At the jurisdiction stage, a reasonable presumption is sufficient; active conduct is required. |
The court used it to frame the lower evidential threshold and to distinguish jurisdiction analysis from the substantive infringement inquiry. [Para 101][Para 105][Para 116][Para 119] |
| easyGroup Limited v Easy Forex [2024] IEHC 590 |
No targeting of Irish consumers where the evidence does not show directed activity in the State. |
The court used it as a domestic comparator and rejected the idea that limited Irish use of an online platform was enough. [Para 110][Para 112][Para 119][Para 122] |
| Lifestyle Equities CV v Amazon UK Services [2024] UKSC 8 |
Targeting requires a multi-factorial assessment. |
The case was cited through easyGroup v Easy Forex as support for a holistic assessment of the website and commercial context. [Para 111][Para 122][Para 123] |
| Ryanair Ltd v Billigfluege.de GmbH [2015] IESC 11 |
A jurisdiction clause exception must be proved on the balance of probabilities. |
The defendants relied on it, but the court distinguished it because the EUTMR jurisdiction question was not the same as a final determination of a jurisdiction clause dispute. [Para 125][Para 128][Para 131] |
| Hummel Holdings |
An establishment requires a real and stable presence, personnel and material equipment, and an appearance of permanency. |
The court used it to assess whether Company B could be treated as an establishment of Company A in the State. [Para 158][Para 159][Para 164][Para 169] |
| Re Burland's Trade Mark (1889) 41 Ch. D. 542 |
Proceedings seeking an injunction against trade mark infringement can fall within the equivalent of Order 11, rule 1(g). |
The plaintiffs cited it to resist the argument that they had invoked the wrong procedural rule for service out. [Para 148][Para 149] |
| Vodafone Gmbh v International Licensing and Intellectual Ventures II LLC [2016] IEHC 321 |
“Tort” in Order 11, rule 1(f) means a civil wrong in its ordinary sense. |
The plaintiffs relied on it to say that trade mark infringement was a civil wrong within rule 1(f). [Para 148][Para 149] |
| Trafalgar Developments Ltd v Mazepin [2022] IEHC 167 |
The ordinary threshold for service out is an arguable case reasonably capable of being proven. |
The court cited it as the general service-out benchmark, but held that EUTMR targeting required the separate reasonable-presumption analysis. [Para 152] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first set out the EUTMR framework: Articles 124 to 126 make jurisdiction depend on the defendant’s or plaintiff’s domicile or establishment, or on where the act of infringement was committed, and Article 126 limits the territorial scope depending on which gateway is used. [Para 50][Para 63][Para 70][Para 73]
It then rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs had to prove targeting on the balance of probabilities. Because the jurisdiction question was not the same as the merits, and did not finally determine infringement, the court held that the plaintiffs only had to produce evidence giving rise to a reasonable presumption that targeting may have occurred. [Para 125][Para 128][Para 132][Para 134][Para 135]
The court dismissed the wrong-rule objection to service out, holding that nothing in the Rules or the EUTMR required reliance on Order 11, rule 1(v), and that rules 1(f) and 1(g) adequately described the claim. It also said any technical defect could have been cured by deeming service good. [Para 148][Para 150][Para 151]
On establishment, the court accepted that Company B’s level of activity in the State was enough for it to count as an establishment of Company A, so Article 125(2) was satisfied. [Para 162][Para 163][Para 169]
On targeting, the court weighed the defendants’ UK-only indicia against the plaintiffs’ evidence and found that the plaintiffs had shown no active conduct directed at the State or the EU. It held that the presence of Irish retailers or good causes, the social-media templates, the traffic and download figures, the Irish card point, and the absence of geo-blocking were all consistent with UK-only targeting and did not create a reasonable presumption of infringement. [Para 182][Para 191][Para 197][Para 223][Para 225][Para 232][Para 238][Para 244][Para 253][Para 261][Para 268][Para 277][Para 283]
Holding and Implications
SET ASIDE SERVICE AND DECLINED JURISDICTION. The court held that the plaintiffs had not met the evidential threshold because they had not shown a reasonable presumption that Company C targeted members of the public in the State through its online activity. [Para 286][Para 287] The direct consequence is that the proceedings cannot continue in this court on the present service order, and the matter was listed for final orders on 30 July 2026. [Para 288][Para 289]