Yahoo Finance EasyJet founder accuses charity shopping website of ‘falsehoods’ in trademark row
The founder of easyJet has accused a charity shopping website of “falsehoods” in an intensifying legal battle over alleged trademark infringement.
Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou raised concerns about Easyfundraising in a letter sent to the Charity Commission’s chief executive Helen Stephenson.
The airline billionaire claims that Easyfundraising has misled customers by spreading alleged “falsehoods” about its business model. Easyfundraising has strongly denied wrongdoing.
It forms part of a broader High Court dispute between Sir Stelios and Easyfundraising, centred on claims that the UK’s biggest charity shopping site is a “brand thief” that has infringed the “easy” trademark.
Easyfundraising, founded in 2005 and backed by private equity firm Palatine, works with brands by donating a percentage of every sale to good causes.
The organisation – which operates as a limited company, not a charity – claims to have raised over £50m for thousands of initiatives across the UK.
Sir Stelios alleged in his letter that the company is in potential breach of charity law, attacking both Palatine and Easyfundraising’s chief executive James Moir.
He said: “In preparing for the legal action against Palatine/Moir, I realised that their business model can only be profitable if they seek to propagate two falsehoods.
“One falsehood is that they are a charitable endeavour when they are not, and the second falsehood is that they have something to do with easyJet when they don’t. We call such companies we take to court ‘brand thieves’.”
He claims that Easyfundraising has also “exploited the uncertainty around their status as a charity to their advantage”, adding that the company has engaged “in activities of significant concern from a charity law and regulatory perspective”.
Sir Stelios said: “I am personally committed to the UK charity sector and feel passionately about calling out activities which are likely to undermine public trust and confidence in UK registered charities and reporting them to the competent regulator.”
Mr Moir has hit back at the claims, telling The Telegraph that Easyfundraising has never professed to be a charity.
He said: “While thousands of charities and causes benefit thanks to our platform, at no point has Easyfundraising ever claimed to be a charity.
“This case is a trademark infringement case, although in desperation easyGroup are now throwing as much mud at the wall as they can in a poor attempt to discredit us.
“An important part of adhering to the Charities Act is openness and transparency. We have nothing to hide and are more than happy to supply any additional information should the Charity Commission require it.”
Underpinning this latest spat is a broader High Court battle over whether Easyfundraising has sought to establish an indirect link with easyJet through its name.
Easyfundraising has persistently denied wrongdoing and said it is “preparing to rigorously defend these baseless accusations in court later this year.”
Mr Moir has said previously that its company trademark was approved in 2010, stressing that the brand is not remotely similar to easyGroup, which receives annual royalties from companies that use the name.
A trial is expected to go ahead in June 2024.
As well as seeking redress in the High Court, Sir Stelios also wants the charity watchdog to intervene.
He said: “The Charity Commission has a statutory objective to increase public trust and confidence in charities. I am concerned that allowing Palatine/Moir to continue operating under its existing business model would be contrary to this.”
Easyfundraising is among a raft of companies or organisations that have been targeted by easyGroup in recent years, including British pop group Easy Life.
EasyGroup has said that “it has a legal right to take other companies to court who seek to associate themselves with our easy family of brands in order to increase their own profits”.
Sir Stelios said: “We take such legal actions against many companies, big and small, and we believe that it is for the UK courts to decide who is on the right side of the law or not.
“We also protect the UK consumer from the risk of confusion by being tricked that a brand thief is actually associated with us.”
