The High Court has declined jurisdiction over EasyGroup’s trademark infringement and passing off claims against Easy Forex Trading Limited and Blue Capital Markets Limited, finding that the evidence did not show the defendants targeted Ireland through their online services.
The ruling was made by Mr Justice Twomey on 16 October 2024, on the defendants’ application challenging the Irish court’s jurisdiction. The court did not decide whether infringement or passing off had occurred. It provisionally listed the case for mention a week later to deal with final orders and costs, while allowing the parties to tell the Registrar if that listing was unnecessary.
EasyGroup Limited and EasyGroup IP Ireland Limited alleged that the defendants’ use of “Easy” for online financial trading infringed their EU trade marks and amounted to passing off. They relied on the easyMarkets website and app, the defendants’ authorisation to provide services across EU member states, and evidence that Irish visitors received English-language pages and Irish contact and address options. A private investigator based in County Laois opened an account and made a €90 gold trade. EasyGroup also relied on 16 Irish customers among 11,255 worldwide customers and on sponsored search results that appeared on Google.ie.
The defendants, domiciled in Cyprus, argued that Irish courts lacked jurisdiction. They said the website was accessible internationally, they did not target Ireland or spend money advertising there, and the Google.ie advertising had been placed without their authorisation by third parties. The court recorded that EasyGroup did not contest the defendants’ explanation about the advertising.
For the trademark claim, the judge held that having Irish customers was not, by itself, enough to establish jurisdiction under Article 125(5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation. The key question was whether the defendants had actively targeted Ireland. In the court’s assessment, automatic country, phone and language options, euro pricing, the app’s availability in Ireland and a general list of countries in standard client terms did not show such targeting. The court distinguished those features from website prompts that, in another case considered in the judgment, specifically steered UK consumers towards purchases for delivery there.
The judge also found that the limited Google.ie advertising did not establish active targeting by the defendants because the evidence was that it was unauthorised and was stopped when brought to their attention. The court noted the evidence that the defendants had spent nothing on Irish advertising.
For passing off, the court held that Irish goodwill alone did not establish that the harmful event occurred in Ireland for jurisdictional purposes. It required a close connection between the alleged conduct and Ireland, which it found lacking for the same reasons as in the trademark claim. The court therefore declined jurisdiction over both claims.