“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’
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.”
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.”
Four teenagers and a 45-year-old man have been found guilty of murdering two boys, aged 15 and 16, who were attacked with machetes in a case of mistaken identity.
The convictions follow a five-week trial at Bristol Crown Court.
The jury heard how Max Dixon and Mason Rist were killed in a case of mistaken identity on 27 January, after being wrongly identified as being responsible for a house attack in the Hartcliffe area of the city earlier that evening.
Antony Snook, 45, Riley Tolliver, 18, and three boys aged 15, 16 and 17 were all on trial each charged with two counts of murder.
As the jury foreman returned the guilty verdicts, none of the defendants showed any reaction from the dock, as they sat impassively and stared straight ahead.
The fatal stabbings in Knowle West lasted just 33 seconds – with both boys suffering what the court heard were “unsurvivable” injuries and “instant severe blood loss”.
Both died in hospital in the early hours of 28 January.
Detective Superintendent Gary Haskins, the case’s senior investigating officer from Avon and Somerset Police, told Sky News that Max and Mason had nothing to do with the house attack.
“Those boys were not known to their attackers, they were best friends, two beautiful children just going about their lives and attacked for no reason whatsoever,” he said.
Much of the prosecution’s case was based on CCTV and doorbell videos, including a camera on Mason’s own house which captured footage of the knife attack against him.
The pair were seen leaving Mason’s home at around 11.15pm and were going for a pizza.
Prosecutor Ray Tully KC told the jury that the boys were set upon by the group who had been travelling in Snook’s Audi Q2.
He said the group were “out for revenge”, “acting as a pack” to hunt down those responsible and “tooled up” with fearsome weapons.
After the attackers fled, Max and Mason were left bleeding in the street.
The investigation involved more than 230 police officers and staff – with thousands of pieces of evidence analysed.
Hundreds mourned victims at school
The teenage victims were in year 11 together at the Oasis Academy John Williams secondary school and were preparing to sit their GCSEs this summer.
The school’s headteacher Victoria Boomer-Clark told Sky News that everyone rallied to support fellow pupils and staff.
She said: “After the boys were tragically murdered, for us first and foremost we were thinking about the families and how they were coping with the absolute tragedy and shock of that.
“I can remember trying to prepare for that Monday morning and my memories now are how exceptionally strong our young people are and how we have a real sense of community.
“Unbeknownst to us the young people had arranged to hold a vigil on the playground during breaktime on that first Monday. We had hundreds of young people and staff coming together in silence.”
Ms Boomer-Clark said the boys would have attended school prom this summer.
“We had a wall that was lit up in red for Mason and Liverpool football club and a wall in blue for Park Knowle Football Club,” she said. “The year group came together and supported each other through it.”
Detective had never seen ‘horrific’ weapons before
Detective Superintendent Gary Haskins said: “The weapons used in the attack on Mason and Max were simply horrific.
“I’ve been a detective for many, many years and I’ve had the misfortune of investigating some serious offences.
“In all my service I’ve not seen a weapon like the one we saw used on those two boys.
“There is no place for a weapon of that type in society for any reason whatsoever.”
The detective praised the boy’s families, who attended court throughout the trial.
He added: “I’m humbled by the families involved in this investigation. They’ve been at court every day, they’ve seen things at court that no parent should ever be exposed to. They saw the attacks on their children, but they maintain their dignity, their courage and their love for their family.
“How can you replace what they’ve lost? They’ve lost two beautiful sons, and I can only hope that the verdicts will bring some form of closure. It will never close completely.”
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The UK economy grew by 0.1% between July and September, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
However, despite the small positive GDP growth recorded in the third quarter, the economy shrank by 0.1% in September, dragging down overall growth for the quarter.
The growth was also slower than what had been expected by experts and a drop from the 0.5% growth between April and June, the ONS said.
Economists polled by Reuters and the Bank of England had forecast an expansion of 0.2%, slowing from the rapid growth seen over the first half of 2024 when the economy was rebounding from last year’s shallow recession.
And the metric that Labour has said it is most focused on – the GDP per capita, or the economic output divided by the number of people in the country – also fell by 0.1%.
Reacting to the figures, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves said: “Improving economic growth is at the heart of everything I am seeking to achieve, which is why I am not satisfied with these numbers.
“At my budget, I took the difficult choices to fix the foundations and stabilise our public finances.
“Now we are going to deliver growth through investment and reform to create more jobs and more money in people’s pockets, get the NHS back on its feet, rebuild Britain and secure our borders in a decade of national renewal,” Ms Reeves added.
The sluggish services sector – which makes up the bulk of the British economy – was a particular drag on growth over the past three months. It expanded by 0.1%, cancelling out the 0.8% growth in the construction sector.
Advertisement
The UK’s GDP for the most recent quarter is lower than the 0.7% growth in the US and 0.4% in the Eurozone.
The figures have pushed the UK towards the bottom of the G7 growth table for the third quarter of the year.
It was expected to meet the same 0.2% growth figures reported in Germany and Japan – but fell below that after a slow September.
The pound remained stable following the news, hovering around $1.267. The FTSE 100, meanwhile, opened the day down by 0.4%.
The Bank of England last week predicted that Ms Reeves’s first budget as chancellor will increase inflation by up to half a percentage point over the next two years, contributing to a slower decline in interest rates than previously thought.
Announcing a widely anticipated 0.25 percentage point cut in the base rate to 4.75%, the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) forecast that inflation will return “sustainably” to its target of 2% in the first half of 2027, a year later than at its last meeting.
The Bank’s quarterly report found Ms Reeves’s £70bn package of tax and borrowing measures will place upward pressure on prices, as well as delivering a three-quarter point increase to GDP next year.
“If you are a member of something, it means you’ve accepted membership. Anything with ‘ship’ on the end, it’s giving you a clue: it’s telling you that’s maritime law. That means you’ve entered into a contract.”
This isn’t your standard legal argument and it is becoming clear that I am dealing with an unusual way of looking at the world.
I’m in the library of a hotel in Leicestershire, a wood-panelled room with warm lighting, and Pete Stone, better known as Sovereign Pete, is explaining how “the system” works. Mr Stone is in his mid-50, bald with a goatee beard and wearing, as he always does for public appearances, a black T-shirt and black jeans.
With us are six other people, mainly dressed in neat jumpers. They’re members of the Sovereign Project (SP), an organisation Mr Stone founded in 2020, which, he says, now has more than 20,000 paying members.
As arcane as this may sound, it represents a worldview that is becoming more influential – and causing problems for authorities. Loosely, they’re defined as “sovereign citizens” or “freemen on the land”.
Their fundamental point is that nobody is required to obey laws they have not specifically consented to – especially when it comes to tax. They have hundreds of thousands of followers in the UK across platforms including YouTube, Facebook and Telegram.
Increasingly, they are coming into conflict with governments and the law. Sovereign citizens have ended up in the High Court in recent months, challenging the legalities of tax bills and losing on both occasions.
More on Leicestershire
Related Topics:
In October, four people were sentenced to prison for the attempted kidnapping of an Essex coroner, who they saw as acting unlawfully. The self-appointed “sheriffs” attempted to force entry to the court, one of them demanding: “You guys have been practising fraud!”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:49
Moment ‘cult’ tries to kidnap coroner
The Sovereign Project is not connected to any of those cases, nor does it promote any sort of political action, let alone violence.
Advertisement
Instead, they are focused on issues like questioning the obligation to pay taxes, as Mr Stone explains, referencing the feudal system that operated in the Middle Ages.
“Do you know about the feudal system when people were slaves and were forced to pay tax?” he asks.
“Now, unless the feudal system still operates today, and we still have serfs and slaves, then the only way that you can pay taxes is to have a contract, you have to agree to it and consent to it.”
Another member, Karl Deans, a 43-year-old property developer who runs the SP’s social media, says: “We’re not here to dodge tax.”
Local government tends to be a target beyond just demands for tax. Mr Stone speaks of “council employee crimes”.
I ask whether, considering the attempted kidnapping in Essex, there is a danger that people will listen to these accusations of crimes by councils and act on them.
“Well that’s proved,” Mr Stone says. “We only deal with facts.”
Evidence suggests this approach is becoming an issue for councils across the UK, as people search online for ways to avoid paying tax.
Sky News analysis shows that out of 374 council websites covering Great Britain, at least 172 (46%) have pages responding to sovereign citizen arguments around avoiding paying council tax. They point out that liability for council tax is not dependent on consent, or a contract, and instead relies on the Local Government Finance Act 1992, voted on by Parliament.
But the Sovereign Project’s worldview extends beyond council tax. It is deeply anti-establishment, at times conspiratorial. Stone suggests the summer riots may have been organised by the government.
“The sovereign fraternity operates above all of this,” he says. “We look down at the world like a chessboard. We see what’s going on.”
He explains that, really, the UK government isn’t actually in control: there is a shadow government above them.
“These are the people who control government,” he explains.
“A lot of people say this could be the crown council of 13, this could be a series of Italian families.”
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Professor Christine Sarteschi, an expert in sovereign citizens at Chatham University, Pittsburgh, says she’s worried about the threat sovereign citizens may pose to the rule of law, especially in the US where guns are readily available.
“The movement is growing and that’s evidenced by seeing it in different countries and hearing about different cases. The concern is that they will become emboldened and commit acts of violence,” she says.
“Because sovereigns truly believe in their ideas and if they feel very aggrieved by, you know, the government or whomever they think is oppressing them or controlling them… they can become emotionally involved.
“That emotional involvement sometimes leads to violence in some cases, or the belief that they have the power to attempt to overthrow a government in some capacity.”
Much of this seems to be based on an underlying and familiar frustration at the state of this country and of the world.
Mr Stone echoes some of the characteristic arguments also made by the right, that there is “two-tier policing”, that refugees arriving in the UK are “young men of fighting age”, that the government is using “forced immigration to destroy the country”.
Another SP member, retired investment banker David Hopgood, 61, says: “I firmly believe it is the true Englishman – and woman – of this country – that has the power to unlock this madness that’s happening in the West.
“We’ve got the Magna Carta – all these checks and balances. We just need to pack up, go down to Parliament and say: It’s time to dismiss you. You’re not fit for purpose.”
The members of the Sovereign Project are unfailingly patient and polite in explaining their understanding of the world.
But there is no doubt they hold a deeply radical view, one that is apparently growing in popularity.