Our clients successfully challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to determine trade mark infringement proceedings issued against them by easyGroup. The net effect is that easyGroup are no longer entitled to pursue these claims against our clients in Ireland.

In January 2026, easyGroup were given leave (following an ex-parte application in late 2025) to issue and serve trade mark infringement proceedings against our UK-based clients, Easyfundraising Limited and The Support Group (UK) Limited (together, “Easyfundraising”). A little over six months later, the Irish High Court delivered a judgment in our clients’ favour striking out easyGroup’s proceedings in their entirety.     

Within the Irish proceedings, easyGroup claimed infringement by Easyfundraising of its combined figurative EU trade mark for “easyfundraising.ie”, which has been registered since July 2025. EasyGroup pleaded that since November 2005, our clients had conducted their business in the UK under the “Easyfundraising” sign through its website, easyfundraising.org.uk. EasyGroup further pleaded that Easyfundraising had “targeted members of the public in the [Irish] State and in the European Union through the UK Website.” 

For background, the Easyfundraising website (and app) allows members of the public (called Supporters) to access retailers’ websites and purchase goods or services in the knowledge that a portion of their spend will be remitted by each retailer to Easyfundraising, which in turn passes on at least 50% of that commission to the Good Causes nominated by the Supporters.

The proceedings were the latest in a series of attempts by easyGroup to prevent our clients from using their own “Easyfundraising” mark. EasyGroup had previously commenced trade mark infringement and passing off proceedings against our clients in the UK, but these actions were dismissed by the UK High Court and further dismissed on Appeal. When easyGroup sought to bring the feud to Ireland in the form of trade mark infringement proceedings, our timely intervention stopped easyGroup in its tracks.  

The Court’s findings in respect of the Jurisdictional Challenge

The central issue in the application was whether there was “targeting” of Irish consumers by Easyfundraising, which would bestow jurisdiction to the Irish courts under the EU Trade Mark Regulation. 

The Irish High Court confirmed that precedent case law clearly establishes that mere availability or accessibility of a website (or an app) in a jurisdiction is not sufficient to amount to targeting the public in that particular jurisdiction. Justice Mulcahy went on to outline the principles which are to be taken into account when assessing whether there is targeting in the State. 

These are as follows:

• Mere accessibility of a website in a jurisdiction is not enough to establish targeting; there must be evidence that the website, advertisement or offer was directed at consumers in that jurisdiction; 
• Targeting is assessed on a case-by-case basis by reference to all relevant factors; there is no single determinative criterion; 
• For jurisdictional purposes, the focus is on whether the advertising or offer was directed at consumers in the relevant territory, not on whether any resulting sale actually occurred there; 
• The act of infringement is committed where the commercial content is made accessible to the consumers or traders to whom it is directed; 
• Jurisdictional analysis must be kept distinct from determining the substantive merits of the infringement claim; 
• At the jurisdictional stage, a claimant need not prove infringement conclusively; evidence giving rise to a reasonable presumption that infringement may have occurred is sufficient; 
• Targeting requires active conduct by the alleged infringer; passive accessibility alone is insufficient; 
• Targeting is determined through a multi-factorial assessment rather than by any single factor; and
• The court must consider the overall impression created by the website and surrounding commercial activity when deciding whether consumers in a particular jurisdiction were targeted. 

Justice Mulcahy also identified a number of factors which indicate if targeting has taken place; and while these indicators are directed to the provision of goods rather than services, he found it “striking” that none of them were a feature of Easyfundraising’s website.

 These indicators are as follows:

• The offer for sale is accompanied by details of the geographic areas to which the seller is willing to dispatch the product; 
• The offer and an advertisement refer expressly to the public of a Member State; 
• The offer is available on a website with a country-specific top-level domain of that Member State; 
• Prices are given in the national currency or the telephone numbers on such a website contain the national prefix of the State concerned; 
• The offer for sale provides details concerning where the seller was prepared to dispatch goods; 
• The international nature of the activity; 
• The use of a language or a currency other than the language or currency generally used in the Member State in which the trader is established; 
• Mention of telephone numbers with an international code; 
• Outlay of expenditure on an internet referencing service in order to facilitate access to the trader’s site or that of its intermediary by consumers domiciled in other Member States; and
• Mention of an international clientele composed of customers domiciled in various Member States. 

Instead, Justice Mulcahy accepted that there was evidence that Easyfundraising had targeted the UK to the exclusion of all other jurisdictions. For example, Easyfundraising required both Supporters and Good Causes to be resident in the UK; the UK was the only jurisdiction in which the Easyfundraising app had been made available on Google Play; and the BACS electronic payment system was used (which is a UK-only method of making GBP transfers). 

While easyGroup had identified a number of retailers with Irish affiliations listed on the Easyfundraising website, Justice Mulcahy was of the view that there was nothing in the mere presence of such retailers on the website which provided evidence that Easyfundraising had targeted Irish users. Furthermore, Justice Mulcahy held that Easyfundraising was not required to restrict its service to retailers who provide goods or services only in the UK in order to show that they have not targeted any other jurisdiction. 

Similarly, while easyGroup had identified a number of Good Causes with Irish affiliations on the Easyfundraising website, Justice Mulcahy found it was clear from our clients’ evidence that almost all of the charities or organisations to whom donations could be directed were UK-based, including those with “Ireland”, “Irish”, “GAA” or similar terms in their title. In contrast, it was found that easyGroup’s complaint didn’t stand up to scrutiny and the court concluded that the inclusion of charities or organisations on the website who market to the UK and Ireland, did not give rise to any inference of targeting of Irish consumers by Easyfundraising. 

Conclusion

Justice Mulcahy concluded that, as plaintiffs, easyGroup, were required to meet a relatively low threshold in order to establish that Ireland had jurisdiction to hear and determine their EU trade mark infringement claim. However, the various factors raised by easyGroup, whether alone or considered collectively, did not give rise to a reasonable presumption that Easyfundraising had infringed the EUTM by targeting members of the public in Ireland through online activity. In fact, Justice Mulcahy confirmed that easyGroup had identified no active conduct on the part of our clients amounting to targeting of non-UK members of the public. 

EasyGroup was therefore found to have not met the evidential threshold required. The High Court set aside the order granting leave to serve notice of the proceedings on Easyfundraising and further declined jurisdiction. As a result, easyGroup will no longer be able to pursue these infringement proceedings in Ireland. 

Much like the Easy Forex case, this case is a reminder that mere accessibility of a website across borders is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction for the purpose of bringing EU trade mark infringement proceedings in Ireland. Where non-Irish businesses operate online and find themselves faced with EU trade mark infringement claims in Ireland, they should consider whether a jurisdictional challenge application is a viable route to having those proceedings stopped in their tracks.    

If you find yourself in such a position, please reach out to a member of our IP disputes team, namely Ciarán Markey, Darragh Killeen or Shannon Fahy. 

Please note: 'ex-parte' refers to an application made without notice to the Defendants.