Aldi hit by court rulings that it copied brand packaging
29 Jan 2025
Low-cost supermarket Aldi has recently been hit by court rulings in the UK and Australia over misuse of leading brands’ IP in their packaging.
In the UK, the Court of Appeal has ruled that Aldi did in fact infringe trade marks owned by Somerset cider maker Thatchers for its canned cloudy lemon cider (as reported in the Law Society Gazette).
An earlier hearing before the UK High Court had dismissed Thatchers’ claims, but the cider maker appealed.
Lord Justice Arnold, who wrote the lead judgement, with Lord Justice Phillips and Lady Justice Falk concurring, said in his ruling that Aldi’s Taurus cloudy lemon cider was ‘highly similar’ to the Somerset-based cider brand’s canned cloudy lemon cider and that “the resemblance cannot be coincidental.”
The Appeal Court accepted Thatcher’s argument that Aldi’s lemon cider packaging design the previous High Court ruling “was obviously wrong to find that Aldi had not significantly departed from its house style for Taurus ciders”. Overall, the ruling said, “Aldi’s use of the sign [Thatcher’s trade marks] was not in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters because it was unfair competition.”
Lord Justice Arnold added that a review of third-party products, including lemon-flavoured ciders, alcohol and soft drinks, “demonstrate that it is entirely possible to convey the message that a beverage is lemon-flavoured without such a close resemblance.” This resemblance, he concluded, “can only have been in order to convey the message that the Aldi product was like the Thatchers product, only cheaper. To that extent, Aldi intended to take advantage of the reputation of the trade mark in order to assist it to sell the Aldi product.”
The judgement added that this “was an unfair advantage because it enabled Aldi to profit from Thatchers’ investment in developing and promoting the Thatchers product rather than competing purely on quality and/or price and on its own promotional efforts.”
Meanwhile, in Australia, Federal court justice Mark Moshinsky ruled at the end of 2024 that Aldi infringed copyright on three baby food products made by Hampden Holdings, although he dismissed Hampden’s claims relating to another eight products. Moshinsky described Aldi’s conduct in the infringing designs as “flagrant”. Click here for the Guardian’s report on the case.
Evidence submitted to the court included multiple emails between Aldi and the design company it had commissioned to create the packaging, which discussed, amongst other things, how Aldi asked the designers to use Hampden’s packaging as a ‘benchmark’ when designing the retailer’s product range.
Aldi argued that Hampden Holdings was attempting to claim copyright protection for a “look and feel”, but this was not accepted by Moshinsky.
He said in his judgement: “It is true that the identification of those elements involves some degree of abstraction, but the elements are not identified at so high a level of abstraction as to venture into the protection of ideas rather than their expression.” he said. Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.
These rulings underline the importance for brand owners of strong IP protection.
Low-cost supermarket Aldi has recently been hit by court rulings in the UK and Australia over misuse of leading brands’ IP in their packaging.
In the UK, the Court of Appeal has ruled that Aldi did in fact infringe trade marks owned by Somerset cider maker Thatchers for its canned cloudy lemon cider (as reported in the Law Society Gazette).
An earlier hearing before the UK High Court had dismissed Thatchers’ claims, but the cider maker appealed.
Lord Justice Arnold, who wrote the lead judgement, with Lord Justice Phillips and Lady Justice Falk concurring, said in his ruling that Aldi’s Taurus cloudy lemon cider was ‘highly similar’ to the Somerset-based cider brand’s canned cloudy lemon cider and that “the resemblance cannot be coincidental.”
The Appeal Court accepted Thatcher’s argument that Aldi’s lemon cider packaging design the previous High Court ruling “was obviously wrong to find that Aldi had not significantly departed from its house style for Taurus ciders”. Overall, the ruling said, “Aldi’s use of the sign [Thatcher’s trade marks] was not in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters because it was unfair competition.”
Lord Justice Arnold added that a review of third-party products, including lemon-flavoured ciders, alcohol and soft drinks, “demonstrate that it is entirely possible to convey the message that a beverage is lemon-flavoured without such a close resemblance.” This resemblance, he concluded, “can only have been in order to convey the message that the Aldi product was like the Thatchers product, only cheaper. To that extent, Aldi intended to take advantage of the reputation of the trade mark in order to assist it to sell the Aldi product.”
The judgement added that this “was an unfair advantage because it enabled Aldi to profit from Thatchers’ investment in developing and promoting the Thatchers product rather than competing purely on quality and/or price and on its own promotional efforts.”
Meanwhile, in Australia, Federal court justice Mark Moshinsky ruled at the end of 2024 that Aldi infringed copyright on three baby food products made by Hampden Holdings, although he dismissed Hampden’s claims relating to another eight products. Moshinsky described Aldi’s conduct in the infringing designs as “flagrant”. Click here for the Guardian’s report on the case.
Evidence submitted to the court included multiple emails between Aldi and the design company it had commissioned to create the packaging, which discussed, amongst other things, how Aldi asked the designers to use Hampden’s packaging as a ‘benchmark’ when designing the retailer’s product range.
Aldi argued that Hampden Holdings was attempting to claim copyright protection for a “look and feel”, but this was not accepted by Moshinsky.
He said in his judgement: “It is true that the identification of those elements involves some degree of abstraction, but the elements are not identified at so high a level of abstraction as to venture into the protection of ideas rather than their expression.” he said. Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.
These rulings underline the importance for brand owners of strong IP protection.
Low-cost supermarket Aldi has recently been hit by court rulings in the UK and Australia over misuse of leading brands’ IP in their packaging.
In the UK, the Court of Appeal has ruled that Aldi did in fact infringe trade marks owned by Somerset cider maker Thatchers for its canned cloudy lemon cider (as reported in the Law Society Gazette).
An earlier hearing before the UK High Court had dismissed Thatchers’ claims, but the cider maker appealed.
Lord Justice Arnold, who wrote the lead judgement, with Lord Justice Phillips and Lady Justice Falk concurring, said in his ruling that Aldi’s Taurus cloudy lemon cider was ‘highly similar’ to the Somerset-based cider brand’s canned cloudy lemon cider and that “the resemblance cannot be coincidental.”
The Appeal Court accepted Thatcher’s argument that Aldi’s lemon cider packaging design the previous High Court ruling “was obviously wrong to find that Aldi had not significantly departed from its house style for Taurus ciders”. Overall, the ruling said, “Aldi’s use of the sign [Thatcher’s trade marks] was not in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters because it was unfair competition.”
Lord Justice Arnold added that a review of third-party products, including lemon-flavoured ciders, alcohol and soft drinks, “demonstrate that it is entirely possible to convey the message that a beverage is lemon-flavoured without such a close resemblance.” This resemblance, he concluded, “can only have been in order to convey the message that the Aldi product was like the Thatchers product, only cheaper. To that extent, Aldi intended to take advantage of the reputation of the trade mark in order to assist it to sell the Aldi product.”
The judgement added that this “was an unfair advantage because it enabled Aldi to profit from Thatchers’ investment in developing and promoting the Thatchers product rather than competing purely on quality and/or price and on its own promotional efforts.”
Meanwhile, in Australia, Federal court justice Mark Moshinsky ruled at the end of 2024 that Aldi infringed copyright on three baby food products made by Hampden Holdings, although he dismissed Hampden’s claims relating to another eight products. Moshinsky described Aldi’s conduct in the infringing designs as “flagrant”. Click here for the Guardian’s report on the case.
Evidence submitted to the court included multiple emails between Aldi and the design company it had commissioned to create the packaging, which discussed, amongst other things, how Aldi asked the designers to use Hampden’s packaging as a ‘benchmark’ when designing the retailer’s product range.
Aldi argued that Hampden Holdings was attempting to claim copyright protection for a “look and feel”, but this was not accepted by Moshinsky.
He said in his judgement: “It is true that the identification of those elements involves some degree of abstraction, but the elements are not identified at so high a level of abstraction as to venture into the protection of ideas rather than their expression.” he said. Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.
These rulings underline the importance for brand owners of strong IP protection.
Low-cost supermarket Aldi has recently been hit by court rulings in the UK and Australia over misuse of leading brands’ IP in their packaging.
In the UK, the Court of Appeal has ruled that Aldi did in fact infringe trade marks owned by Somerset cider maker Thatchers for its canned cloudy lemon cider (as reported in the Law Society Gazette).
An earlier hearing before the UK High Court had dismissed Thatchers’ claims, but the cider maker appealed.
Lord Justice Arnold, who wrote the lead judgement, with Lord Justice Phillips and Lady Justice Falk concurring, said in his ruling that Aldi’s Taurus cloudy lemon cider was ‘highly similar’ to the Somerset-based cider brand’s canned cloudy lemon cider and that “the resemblance cannot be coincidental.”
The Appeal Court accepted Thatcher’s argument that Aldi’s lemon cider packaging design the previous High Court ruling “was obviously wrong to find that Aldi had not significantly departed from its house style for Taurus ciders”. Overall, the ruling said, “Aldi’s use of the sign [Thatcher’s trade marks] was not in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters because it was unfair competition.”
Lord Justice Arnold added that a review of third-party products, including lemon-flavoured ciders, alcohol and soft drinks, “demonstrate that it is entirely possible to convey the message that a beverage is lemon-flavoured without such a close resemblance.” This resemblance, he concluded, “can only have been in order to convey the message that the Aldi product was like the Thatchers product, only cheaper. To that extent, Aldi intended to take advantage of the reputation of the trade mark in order to assist it to sell the Aldi product.”
The judgement added that this “was an unfair advantage because it enabled Aldi to profit from Thatchers’ investment in developing and promoting the Thatchers product rather than competing purely on quality and/or price and on its own promotional efforts.”
Meanwhile, in Australia, Federal court justice Mark Moshinsky ruled at the end of 2024 that Aldi infringed copyright on three baby food products made by Hampden Holdings, although he dismissed Hampden’s claims relating to another eight products. Moshinsky described Aldi’s conduct in the infringing designs as “flagrant”. Click here for the Guardian’s report on the case.
Evidence submitted to the court included multiple emails between Aldi and the design company it had commissioned to create the packaging, which discussed, amongst other things, how Aldi asked the designers to use Hampden’s packaging as a ‘benchmark’ when designing the retailer’s product range.
Aldi argued that Hampden Holdings was attempting to claim copyright protection for a “look and feel”, but this was not accepted by Moshinsky.
He said in his judgement: “It is true that the identification of those elements involves some degree of abstraction, but the elements are not identified at so high a level of abstraction as to venture into the protection of ideas rather than their expression.” he said. Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.
These rulings underline the importance for brand owners of strong IP protection.
Read Recent Articles
Inngot's online platform identifies all your intangible assets and demonstrates their value to lenders, investors, acquirers, licensees and stakeholders
Accreditations
Copyright © Inngot Limited 2019-2024. All rights reserved.
Inngot's online platform identifies all your intangible assets and demonstrates their value to lenders, investors, acquirers, licensees and stakeholders
Accreditations
Copyright © Inngot Limited 2019-2024. All rights reserved.
Inngot's online platform identifies all your intangible assets and demonstrates their value to lenders, investors, acquirers, licensees and stakeholders
Accreditations
Copyright © Inngot Limited 2019-2024. All rights reserved.
Inngot's online platform identifies all your intangible assets and demonstrates their value to lenders, investors, acquirers, licensees and stakeholders
Accreditations
Copyright © Inngot Limited 2019-2024. All rights reserved.