Judge rules Aldi infringed on Thatchers’ cloudy lemon cider trademark
In a landmark ruling on look-alikes, the Court of Appeal decided that Aldi infringed on the British cider brand Thatchers’ trademark with its cloudy lemon cider product.
Thatchers launched a legal battle against the German food chain in 2022, claiming that Aldi infringed its trademark by creating and selling a cloudy lemon cider similar to Thatchers’ product.
Aldi’s cloudy lemon cider, Taurus, was launched in May 2022.
Thatchers argued the Aldi product was highly similar to its own lemon cider. It noted the colour palette of yellows and greens and the background of creamy yellow confused customers.
However, last January, High Court judge Melissa Clarke ruled in Aldi’s favour, finding it did not infringe on Thatchers’ trademark.
In her ruling, she noted that there is no likelihood of confusion between the brands, it has a low degree of similarity to the trademark, and Aldi’s use did not take unfair advantage of the trademark.
Thatchers sought to appeal this decision, which went to the Court of Appeal in mid-December.
Aldi infringed on the Thatchers’ trademark
Just slightly over a month since the hearing, the Court of Appeal handed down its ruling on Monday. Leading the judgment was Lord Justice Arnold, who was previously the judge in charge of the Patent Court before he went to the Court of Appeal.
In the 45-page judgment, he allowed Thatchers’ appeal against Judge Clarke’s dismissal and found that Aldi infringed the trademark.
Thatchers’ had law firm Stephens Scown on for it while Aldi had Freeths for its defence.
Geoff Steward, partner & co-head of IP at Addleshaw Goddard, stated: “This is a watershed moment for look-alikes and a significant trade mark law development which is long overdue.”
“The scale and proximity of look-alike packaging in the UK is far worse than anywhere else in Europe. Armed with the correct packaging trade mark registrations, UK brandowners can now sound the death-knell on the practice of supermarket own-brands free-riding on their brand IP,” he added.
Counsel Tristan Sherliker at Bird & Bird noted: “While UK law says that just creating a mental link with someone else’s reputation can be frustrating, it’s lawful. But once it strays into an unfair commercial advantage, that can be a trade mark infringement.”
Richard May, IP partner at Osborne Clarke said: “This judgment addresses Aldi’s overt ‘like brands, only cheaper’ marketing and how close so called dupes or lookalikes can get before a court is willing to step in and say that’s unfair.”
May added: “In this case, the court was not prepared to tolerate Aldi’s behaviour and was happy to conclude that there was unfair advantage because Aldi’s deliberate strategy enabled it to profit from Thatchers’ hard work and not its own.”
Commenting on the results, Martin Thatcher, Thatchers’ managing director, said: “We couldn’t be happier with this decision, which vindicates our position that Aldi had taken unfair advantage of the hard work we put in to our cider and brands.”
“This is a victory not just for our family business, but for all businesses whose innovation is stifled by copycats. We’re thrilled the Court of Appeal got to the core of the issue and cleared up any cloudy judgment,” she added.
While an Aldi spokesperson added: “We are disappointed that the Court of Appeal disagreed with the High Court in this case.”
The spokesperson stated that Aldi thinks the decision was “wrong” and highlighted its intention “to appeal.”
“Aldi offers exclusive brands as low-price alternatives to more expensive branded products. The High Court was clear that Aldi customers know what they are buying when they shop with us,” they added.