“Thanks so much for celebrating our story with us,” was the message from Easy Life, after playing their final gigs under that name. “See you later, maybe never.”
For the band and their thousands of fans, hopefully there will be another chapter.
The two gigs, hastily organised for London and their hometown of Leicester, came less than two weeks after they announced they were being sued by easyGroup, holding company for easyJet and other “easy” brands, over their name.
Twitter
This content is provided by Twitter, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Twitter cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Twitter cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Twitter cookies for this session only.
While it seemed “hilarious” to the band at first, they quickly realised this was no joke. In easyGroup’s lawsuit it was pointed out they had used an image of an orange and white plane, similar to the branding for easyJet, for their Life’s A Beach tour, among other accusations about reputational damage. In a statement, EasyGroup founder and chairman Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou labelled them “brand thieves”.
The band’s supporters – including fellow musicians such as Professor Green, Arlo Parks and Mahalia, several MPs, plus UK Music chair and deputy Labour leader Tom Watson and Tom Gray, the chair of the Ivors Academy – argued any similarities were tongue in cheek and harmless, with plenty of fans offering to support a crowdfunder to raise money for legal fees.
Easy Life themselves said they were “certain in no way have we ever affected their business”.
‘David v Goliath’
Image: Pic: AP/Scott Garfitt
It was a blow that seemingly came from nowhere after a huge year: their biggest ever headline show at London’s Alexandra Palace and plans for a third album to follow their first two in 2021 and 2022, which both charted at number two in the UK. In 2022, they played Glastonbury’s famous Pyramid Stage. It was all a long way from their first gig – “no one was there, lol”, they joked on Instagram recently – in 2015.
But after initially hoping to fight the case, which they said would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, they were forced to concede defeat, realising essentially it was “David vs Goliath – and our British legal system favours Goliath”.
“Perhaps our case will help provoke a dialogue around legal reform and justice being available to all,” they wrote in a letter to fans shared on their website.
EasyGroup have launched similar lawsuits before, detailing those that have been successful on their website – and hitting out at those who “think they can make a fast buck by stealing our name and our reputation”.
‘We are very confident’
Twitter
This content is provided by Twitter, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Twitter cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Twitter cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Twitter cookies for this session only.
James Moir, head of the charity shopping site easyfundraising, understands the band’s situation, as his company is facing a similar claim by easyGroup, brought in February 2022. Mr Moir says they will fight their case in court in 2024 – again, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds.
“It’s been incredibly drawn-out,” he said. “It’s a difficult thing to take on, hugely costly. We are very confident, that’s part of the reason we’re fighting this, but even [if you win] you don’t get all your fees back. So this is going to cost us.”
Easyfundraising’s company trademark was approved in 2010, he said, and there is nothing “remotely similar” to the easyGroup brand – aside from the word.
“It’s ludicrous,” he said. “No one owns the word ‘easy’.”
Mr Moir said he sympathises with Easy Life having to make the “impossible decision” not to fight the case, adding: “There’s got to be a more sensible way that would be better, fairer for smaller organisations, better for not clogging up the court systems. Let’s be honest, this is about corporate bullying. That’s what’s at the heart of it.”
An easyGroup spokesperson said it would not comment further on the band at this time following their decision to change their name. Of the action against easyfundraising, the spokesperson said the company was “protecting the consumer from any confusion – remember as brand thieves they are not subject to our product/service standards”.
The spokesperson continued: “It needs to be repeated that many of our partners use the easy brand name and get up as part of their business strategy – in return for an annual royalty. It cannot be remotely fair for other third parties to just pick it up and use it for free.”
Image: Easy Life’s Life’s A Beach tour poster was included in documents submitted to the High Court
Can you claim ownership of a word?
Several trademark and legal experts have been following the legal row since the story made headlines at the beginning of the month.
Emma Kennaugh-Gallacher, senior professional support lawyer at intellectual property (IP) experts Mewburn Ellis, says easyGroup has “long been zealous in policing the use of what it considers to be its proprietary ‘easy+’ mark”, but case law so far indicates “there is by no means an assumption that they can simply claim ownership to any easy+ phrase”.
It depends on context and history of use, among other factors, she added.
Josh Schuermann, IP expert for international law firm Reed Smith’s Entertainment & Media Group, says there has been an increase in these types of cases in recent years, due to social media making it “easier than ever” to create content and share information.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Helen Wakerley and Isabelle Tate, partner and associate respectively at IP law firm Reddie & Grose, said that while easyGroup does not own the word “easy” it could argue that links would be made to its brands. Any action against the name of the band alone “would have made things more challenging” for easyGroup, they said – however, Easy Life’s use of easyJet livery on merchandise and tour posters had “muddied the issue”, as “there is no parody defence to trademark infringement, which exists in copyright law”.
And Jill Bainbridge, contentious intellectual property partner at the Harper James law firm, said that while the case may “be regarded as a David v Goliath situation”, easyGroup leaving a perceived infringement unchallenged could “open the door for others to follow suit”.
‘There should be a quicker way’
For the artists now formerly known as Easy Life, the case has brought an abrupt end to a band that was very much on the up. Fans now remain hopeful of seeing them return under a new name.
For easyfundraising, they await their day in court. “We remain confident,” says Mr Moir. “But I think this brings into question, how cases like this continue to be allowed to be brought.
“If an organisation such as ourselves has had a trademark approved for 13 years and there is, you know, a very, very quick understanding and you can look and say, we’re in completely different sectors, we do completely different things, we don’t have an orange logo – a very, very quick test to prove that there is no passing off [as another brand].
“Is there not a better way that cases like this could be dealt with? It just seems wrong on every level.”
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer brushed aside growing tensions between the White House and Europe over Ukraine on Wednesday, saying he trusted Donald Trump and wanted the “special relationship” to go “from strength to strength”.
Speaking to reporters ahead of a crucial meeting at the White House, Sir Keir insisted that the UK was working “in lockstep” with the president on the matter of Ukraine.
Asked if he could trust President Trump in light of what has happened in recent weeks, the prime minister replied “yes”.
“I’ve got a good relationship with him,” Sir Keir said.
“As you know, I’ve met him, I’ve spoken to him on the phone, and this relationship between our two countries is a special relationship with a long history, forged as we fought wars together, as we traded together.
“And as I say, I want it to go from strength to strength.”
The prime minister has now arrived in Washington, but even before he touched down, the choreography of the trip hit a little turbulence as President Trump appeared to pour cold water on the prospect of a US military backstop for Ukraine as part of any peace deal – a key UK and European demand.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:04
Can Starmer ‘win’ in Washington?
“I’m not going to make security guarantees beyond very much,” Mr Trump said at his first cabinet meeting on Wednesday.
“We’re going to have Europe do that because Europe is the next-door neighbour.”
His remarks seemed at odds with those made by the prime minister on the way to Washington as he reiterated how important a US military backstop was for Ukraine.
“We all want a peaceful outcome,” the prime minister said.
“It’s got to be a lasting peace, and that requires us to put in place an effective security guarantee.
“Exactly what the configuration of that is, exactly what the backstop is, is obviously the subject of intense discussion.”
He added: “But the reason I say the backstop is so important is that the security guarantee has to be sufficient to deter Putin from coming again because my concern is if there is a ceasefire without a backstop, it will simply give him the opportunity to wait and to come again because his ambition in relation to Ukraine is pretty obvious, I think, for all to see.”
While European allies such as the UK and France are preparing to put peacekeeping troops on the ground to police the Ukraine-Russian borders, leaders have been clear that US support is essential to containing President Putin and securing that support is the key purpose of the prime minister’s trip to Washington.
President Zelenskyy has also demanded that clear guarantees of US military backing and security be part of his deal with the US on critical minerals, but a framework agreed this week by both sides did not include an explicit reference to any such support.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:01
Putin is ‘very cunning’
Ahead of the trip to Washington, the prime minister pledged to increase UK defence spending – a key ask of all NATO members by President Trump – and reiterated his commitment to putting British boots on the ground in Ukraine as he attempts to lower tensions between Europe and the US and demonstrate to President Trump that the UK is willing to play its part.
“When it comes to defence and security, we have for decades acted as a bridge because of the special relationship we have with the US and also our allegiance to our European allies,” Sir Keir said.
“I’ve been absolutely resolute that we’re not going to choose between one side of the Atlantic and the other. We will work with the US, we will work with our European allies, that’s what we’ve done for decades, and it’s what we’ll do whilst I’m prime minister.”
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Sir Keir also gave the British public a “message of reassurance” after his decision to accelerate defence spending in the face of Russian aggression, saying he had done it to “ensure their safety” and increased investment would bring opportunities.
“I want to reassure the British public that what we’re doing is to ensure their safety, their security and defence of our country.
“I want to also be clear that this is an opportunity because, as we increase defence spending, then that gives an opportunity for our industrial strategy, for jobs across the UK, good well-paid jobs in defence.”
Police searching for the body of a murder victim have found human remains in North Yorkshire.
Mother of three Rania Alayed was murdered in 2013 by her husband Ahmed al Khatib, of Gorton, Manchester, who was jailed for life the following year.
Her body was never recovered and multiple searches have taken place in the years since then, said Greater Manchester Police (GMP).
Image: Police at the scene along the A19 in Thirsk
On Tuesday, after receiving new information, GMP officers located buried human remains by the A19 in Thirsk.
The force said in a statement: “While no official identification has taken place, we strongly suspect the remains are that of Rania.
“Her family have been informed of the latest development and are being supported by specially trained officers. They remain at the forefront of our minds.”
Ms Alayed’s son, Yazan, speaking on behalf of their family, said: “The discovery of my mother’s remains more than a decade onwards has come as a surreal surprise to me and my family.
More on Manchester
Related Topics:
“At last, being able to provide a final resting place is all we have wanted for the last 11 years, to have the ability to lay down a few flowers for my mother is more than I can ask for from this world.”
Detective Chief Inspector Neil Higginson, from GMP’s major incident team, said Ms Alayed’s murder was “utterly horrific” and not knowing where her body was had caused further pain to those who knew her.
“More than a decade after her murder, we now strongly believe we have located Rania’s body and are finally able to provide closure to her family, who we know have endured so much pain and grief over the years.
“Rania’s family have always been kept informed following our searches over the last few years, and we are providing them updates as we get them following this most recent development,” he said.
During Mr al Khatib’s trial, a court heard how Ms Alayed was born in Syria and met her husband when she was 15.
Seven companies named and shamed in the Grenfell Inquiry are to be investigated and face being placed on a blacklist.
Following the deaths of 72 people in the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has given the government’s response to the inquiry, published in September after seven years.
The government has accepted the findings of the report, which found “systematic dishonesty” contributed to the devastating fire and there were years of missed opportunities to prevent the catastrophe.
Seven organisations criticised in the report will now be investigated under the Procurement Act, Ms Rayner said.
If they are determined to have “engaged in professional misconduct” their names will be added to a “debarment list”, which all contracting authorities will have to take into account when awarding new contracts.
Arconic, Saint-Gobain (the former owner of Celotex), Exova, Harley Facades, Kingspan Insulation, Rydon Maintenance and Studio E Architects will all be investigated.
More on Grenfell Tower
Related Topics:
Cabinet Office parliamentary secretary Georgia Gould said the organisations will be notified when an investigation is opened, and warned investigations into other organisations could take place.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan said companies named and shamed in the report “should be barred from future contracts” and “this must now finally happen without further delay”.
Image: Angela Rayner earlier this year confirmed Grenfell Tower will be demolished. Pic: PA
Ms Rayner, who is also the housing secretary, said the government “accepts the findings” of the inquiry and it will “prioritise residents and protect their interests, and make sure that industry builds safe homes, and provide clearer accountability and enforcement”.
She apologised again to the families and friends of those who died, survivors and those who live around the tower.
“To have anyone anywhere living in an unsafe home is one person too many,” she told the House of Commons.
“That will be our guiding principle and must be that of anyone who wants to build or care for our homes. That will be an important part of the legacy of Grenfell.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:47
What will happen to the Grenfell site?
More training for social housing tenants
She announced “stronger protections” for social housing tenants, giving them more power to challenge landlords and demand safe, high-quality housing.
The “Four Million Homes” training will be expanded – a government-funded initiative that provides guidance and training for social housing tenants.
However, the National Housing Federation (NHF), which represents about 800 housing associations, said it missed the point as it said social housing tenants cannot access government funding to remove dangerous cladding – and manufacturers of unsafe materials have not contributed to the costs.
Kate Henderson, chief executive of the NHF, told Sky News: “The money to fund this work is coming from people on the lowest incomes in this country, and to make matters worse, means fewer homes will be built for those in dire situations on housing waiting lists, living in overcrowded homes and stuck in temporary accommodation.
“The government must put an end to this unfair funding regime and give social housing providers and their residents equal access to building safety funding.”
Image: Grenfell Tower pictured days after the devastating fire. Pic: AP
Ms Rayner also announced:
• A new single construction regulator so those responsible for building safety are held to account
• Tougher oversight of testing and certifying, manufacturing and using construction products – with “serious consequences” for those who break the rules
• A legal duty of candour through a “new Hillsborough Law”, so public authorities must disclose the truth
• Stronger, clearer and enforceable legal rights for residents so landlords are responsible for acting on safety concerns
• A publicly accessible record of all public inquiry recommendations
Polly Neate, chief executive of housing and homelessness charity Shelter, said it is “right” the government has committed to take forward all the inquiry’s recommendations but said it needs to boost funding for legal aid so people can actually enforce their rights as tenants.
Earlier this month, the government announced the tower, which has stood covered in scaffolding since the fire nearly eight years ago, will be “carefully” demolished in a process likely to take two years.