Thatchers Cider v Aldi: Court Rules No Likelihood of Confusion in Trade Mark Dispute

Introduction

In the High Court of Justice case “Thatchers Cider Company Limited v Aldi Stores Limited”, Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke presided over a dispute concerning alleged trade mark infringement and passing off by Aldi in relation to its cloudy lemon cider product. Thatchers, a long-established cider producer, claimed that Aldi’s product packaging bore a resemblance to its registered trade mark, leading to potential customer confusion and damage to Thatchers’ brand. This article analyses the key topics and legal principles discussed in the case, and the consequent ruling.

Key Facts

Thatchers, known for its alcoholic beverages, is the owner of a UK trade mark registered for cider and alcoholic beverages, except beer. Thatchers contended that Aldi’s sale of a similar cloudy lemon cider product infringed upon this trade mark and constituted passing off. The comparison rested on the overall appearance of Aldi’s product, which Thatchers claimed resembled their trade marked product design, thereby confusing the consumer and diluting Thatchers’ brand.

Aldi, while acknowledging using Thatchers’ product as a benchmark during product development, denied infringement, claiming the product adhered to its “Taurus” house style. Both parties brought forward evidence, including sales figures and marketing effort details, to support their respective claims.

Legal Principles

Several legal principles were applied in this case, reflecting established intellectual property laws in the UK:

Trade Mark Infringement (s.10(2)(b) of the TMA)

The relevant test for infringement under this section is whether there was a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, caused by the similarity of the sign used by Aldi to Thatchers’ registered trade mark. A global assessment involves consideration of the average consumer’s perception, the distinctiveness of the mark, and contextual factors like the sales environment and market behaviour.

Trade Mark Infringement (s.10(3) of the TMA)

This section addresses the use of a sign which might be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark. The case highlighted the “link” requirement, where the use of Aldi’s sign must bring Thatchers’ trade mark to mind.

Enhanced Distinctiveness

The Court assessed whether Thatchers’ mark had gained distinctive character due to extensive use. While the dominant element of the mark was the “THATCHERS” brand, the Court also considered the overall impression of the trade mark on the average consumer.

Passing Off

The classical trinity of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage was explored, with Thatchers required to establish that Aldi’s product misled the public into believing it was either a Thatchers product or affiliated, and that this caused damage.

Defence under s.11(2)(b) of the TMA

This section outlines a defence where the use of a sign is non-distinctive, descriptive, or relates to a product’s characteristics. This defence did not apply due to the Court’s findings on infringement.

The Court also referenced and applied principles from previous cases including “Comic Enterprises”, “Specsavers”, and “Intel”, all of which contribute to the understanding of likelihood of confusion, reputation, and unfair advantage within the trade mark context.

Outcomes

The Court ruled that although there was a low degree of similarity between the Sign and the Trade Mark, there was no likelihood of confusion. The Court found a link in the minds of the average consumer between Aldi’s Sign and Thatchers’ Trade Mark, yet this did not result in unfair advantage or detriment. Consequently, Aldi’s actions were not found to constitute trade mark infringement under either s.10(2)(b) or s.10(3), and no liability was established for passing off.

Conclusion

The case “Thatchers Cider Company Limited v Aldi Stores Limited” reinforces that a nuanced analysis is essential in intellectual property disputes, particularly where consumer perception plays a pivotal role. Despite the presence of a link between the Aldi product and Thatchers’ trade mark, the Court sought a more substantial connection manifesting in confusion or damage, which Thatchers failed to establish. This outcome provides a meticulous interpretation of intellectual property and trade mark laws, ensuring that the threshold for infringement remains high and grounded in concrete evidence.