Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
                  This is an application by the defendants (for ease, referred to as " Easy Forex "), domiciled in Cyprus, for an order from this Court that this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs' (" EasyGroup ") claim of trademark infringement and passing off against Easy Forex.
                  In very general terms, EasyGroup, which owns well-known brands such as easyJet, claims that its intellectual property rights are being breached by Easy Forex's use of the term 'Easy' in relation to its provision of financial services to trade in foreign exchange, option contracts, etc.
                  However, Easy Forex claims that the Irish courts do not have jurisdiction to deal with the trademark infringement allegation under Article 125(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (" EUTMR ").
                  Easy Forex also claims that the Irish courts do not have jurisdiction to deal with the passing off claims under the terms of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the " Recast Brussels Regulation ").
                  Easy Forex is a provider of services for online trading of forward contracts, financial options, and other financial instruments. For this purpose, Easy Forex uses its website www.easymarkets.com and an app named 'easyMarkets Online Trading'.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.