4 Must-Know Cases and Deals

Stand out in law firm applications with these deals and cases.

Ludo Lugnani
Ludo Lugnani

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox.

Hi this is ZipLaw! This is our ZipTracker Newsletter where we run through the top court cases and deals law firms acted on so you can use them to stand out in applications. All of them (and more) are added to our ZipTracker database each week.

Here’s what we’re serving today:

  • Court cases involving: Bird & Bird, Travers Smith and BCLP.
  • Deals involving: White & Case, Linklaters, Baker & McKenzie and Davis Polk & Wardwell.

The following deadlines are coming up! Use ZipTracker to stand out in your applications (we have deals & court cases for all of them) 🙌

  • 📅 Bird & Bird 2026 TC - Tomorrow
  • 📅 BCLP Vac Schemes – 14 January
  • 📅 Travers Smith Vac Scheme & TC – 14 January
  • 📅 Baker McKenzie Vac Scheme – 15 January

Easy Fry vs. easyGroup

Summary: Tefal's in a legal dance-off with easyGroup over its "Easy Fry" airfryers. The twist? Tefal says "easy" is just too, well, easy a word to be trademarked. EasyGroup, on the other hand, is striking its trademark pose, claiming the word is part of its signature move in the business dance floor.

What are the parties arguing?

  • easyGroup: Claims its "easy" brand, paired with a descriptive second word, has a distinctive character and reputation in the UK, alleging Tefal's branding could confuse consumers and dilute its brand value.
  • Tefal: Argues the word "easy" is too generic to be associated exclusively with easyGroup. Tefal asserts its branding, which includes a space between "Easy" and "Fry" and lacks the characteristic black and orange color scheme, wouldn't confuse consumers.

Key Points to discuss:

  1. Trademark Distinctiveness in Descriptive Terms: This case highlights the challenge in trademark law over the distinctiveness of common descriptive terms like "easy." A trade mark needs to be distinctive, therefore this case raises questions about the extent to which such terms can be monopolised.
  2. Consumer Confusion and Brand Identity: The argument hinges on whether consumers can distinguish between Tefal's "Easy Fry" and easyGroup's family of brands. To determine the degree of confusion, the court will assess how the average consumer perceives the brands, focusing on similarities in design, sound, and meaning, and whether such similarities are likely to lead to mistaken identity or association between the products.
  3. Enforcement of Trademark Rights: easyGroup's history of litigating to protect its trademarks suggests a strategy of aggressive enforcement, even against potentially descriptive terms. Tefal challenges this by questioning the validity of such an extensive claim over a common word and its application in different markets.

Which law firms are advising on this?

This post is for paying subscribers only


Already have an account? Log in