The Court of Appeal of England and Wales delivered a highly anticipated ruling on Monday, January 21, 2025, concerning registered trademark infringement. The case involved Thatchers Cider Company Limited, a renowned producer of premium ciders, accusing Aldi Stores Limited of trademark infringement and misleading consumers. Read the full judgment here Read the full judgment here.
The contested packaging and the earlier registered trademark are shown below.
Thatchers highlighted the similarities in colour schemes, font styles, and imagery on the packaging, arguing that Taurus Cider created a likelihood of confusion and misrepresentation (referred to as "passing off"). The claimant also asserted that the case involved unfairly taking advantage of the reputation of a well-known premium cider. Aldi contested that the packaging was sufficiently distinctive and that consumers would not be confused or misrepresentation would have taken place.
The claim was dismissed at the first instance, as it was deemed that consumers could differentiate between the products and their producers. The use of lemons was considered a generic way to convey product attributes, and the packaging maintained a "sufficient safety distance," ruling out the exploitation of a well-known trademark's reputation.
Thatchers appealed, arguing that the case involved exploiting the reputation of a well-known trademark. They cited the EU Court of Justice decision in L’Oréal v. Bellure (C-487/07), which provides guidance on the interpretation of the law, despite Brexit. Aldi disagreed, arguing that the EU precedent should not be considered.
While the first-instance court adopted a conservative approach, the Court of Appeal embraced a modern interpretation that more broadly considered the interests of the brand owner.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the lower court judge failed to adequately distinguish between the assessment of confusion and the exploitation of reputation, leading to a misapplication of the law. In other words, the fact that the products could be differentiated did not eliminate the trademark infringement. The dismissal of the EU Court’s precedent was also deemed inappropriate.
The Court of Appeal found that Taurus Cider infringed the trademark because using similar packaging amounted to unfairly benefiting from another company’s marketing efforts. Aldi, in effect, bolstered its product’s promotion by using a similar look-alike package. The court also took into account not only the packaging similarities but also external factors like comments on social media. Furthermore, the packaging diverged from the typical marketing style of other Taurus ciders.
This victory is a significant affirmation of Thatchers’ brand value and distinctiveness. For Aldi, the decision serves as a reminder of the legal risks associated with product imitation and the importance of creating unique and distinguishable brands.
The ruling has implications for EU countries as well, since it addresses the interpretation of the aforementioned EU Court of Justice precedent. It also tackles several issues commonly arising in disputes and litigation concerning look-alike products.
Aldi is reportedly planning to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. However, given that the Supreme Court has previously interpreted patent protection in a modern, European-oriented manner, it is highly possible that this case, too, will result in a “modern” ruling that strengthens brand owners’ interests.
The author’s dissertation, “Trademark, Competition, and Origin” (2002), covers topics including the marketing of look-alike products.