Authoritative interpretation

For the outcome of this case, Wellichen, UK (Walker Morris) Partner and intellectual property at a law firm, Alan, Head of Trademark and Industrial Design．Harper (Alan Harper) expression: "Aldi (Aldi) He successfully defended himself in the trademark infringement case, And avoided Seichers (Thatchers) The cider company filed a claim against them. This shows when it comes to similar products that appear on supermarket shelves, There are some subtle differences in our intellectual property laws. In the present case, Although Setchers' design does bear some resemblance to Aldi's, But the authorities do not believe that Aldi has infringed at some point. All those selling food or any other consumer goods in the UK, At the same time, companies whose brands and packaging constitute a part of the selling point of related products should pay attention to the important implications brought by this case. "

What are the claims of the prosecution?

The controversy involved the trial of Setchers2020years2monthly "Sechez creamy lemon cider (Thatchers Cloudy Lemon Cider) " product.

The packaging design of this Seichers product is subject to the numberUK00003489711The protection of registered trademarks. Aldi was there2022years5Released its own brand of milky lemon cider in October, namely "Taurus Milky lemon cider (Taurus Cloudy Cider Lemon) " .

Sitchers claims that the overall appearance of Aldi's products is highly similar to its own, And that the other party constitutes infringement.

besides, Setchers also said, Aldi deliberately made consumers think there was a connection between the two products (This can induce them to buy Aldi products) , And in an unfair way exploited and compromised the distinctive characteristics of the prestigious Sitches trademark in the UK.

meanwhile, Setchers also filed a number of claims based on the counterfeit allegations.

Judging by the verdict, People can see that clearly, Setchers did not specify what the company was advocating "mark" What is it.

The judgment states, From the very beginning, Martin．Howe (Martin Howe) It took six pages of court records to explain exactly what Aldi was referring to when he said the allegedly infringing sign.

Setchers' claim against the Aldi logo relates to: Four-bottle sets and single-bottle cans; A flat logo on a wine can or cardboard package; The overall appearance of the wine can; The front of the wine can.

Presiding Judge Melissa．Clark (Melissa Clarke) The final conclusion is that, The logo in question should be the overall appearance of a single can of Aldi products, And not just something on the surface.

What the court decided

There is no possibility of confusion

The court rejected Setchers' claim "Confusion is possible due to the high similarity between the two products" The proposition of.

The court held that, In terms of the appearance design of the package, Aldi has done a good enough job, That's enough to put some distance between Seichers and his trademark.

Although the court acknowledged that the two products do have some visual similarities in aspects such as color schemes, But the court's conclusion remains the same, On the whole, The above two products are less similar, And people should pay more attention to the differences between these products in some major aspects.

Judge Clark held that, These so-called main aspects refer to the products of Sitches "THATCHERS" (Sitchers) One word, And on Aldi products "TAURUS" (Taurus) And images of bulls' heads, They are very different.

meanwhile, The court also considered Aldi products "Shelf display bag" trait.

As everyone knows, The average consumer looks at a product for a few seconds before deciding to buy it, And will look for some visual signals that will motivate them to buy products.

therefore, The court concluded, This color scheme "It's ubiquitous in lemon-flavored drinks" , Can really leave consumers "Overwhelming impression" Can only be the Taurus brand. however, It should be pointed out that, Although the court found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence of confusion, But it also accepts "The average consumer may see the logo and think of the Seichers trademark" The view of.

After taking everything into account, The court held that, The overall assessment showed that there was no potential for confusion, The infringement claim was therefore dismissed.

Does not confer undue advantage or impair distinctiveness or reputation

Some people think that, The average consumer will certainly think of the Sitches logo when they see an Aldi product. That conclusion was echoed by many observers, These people refer to Aldi's products as a counterpoint to Sitchers' products "plagiarize" perhaps "replica" .

however, Sitchers did not convince the court that Aldi had attempted to use Sitchers' trademarks in an improper way.

The court said, Although Aldi added lemon elements to the packaging to convey the lemons of the product, But this does not deviate from the style of his own Taurus cider. The move to add elements of the Taurus brand and the Taurus head image is proof of this.

meanwhile, There is also no evidence that Aldi's use of the logo caused consumers to change their decisions. therefore, The court concluded, Aldi has neither sought to capitalise on the reputation and goodwill of the Saychers trademark, At the same time, his use of the logo involved in the case did not bring similar effects.

Every case is decided on the facts, And they're all unique. At Setchers' request, Judge Clark conducted blind taste tests on the two products. Test result display, Customers who have tasted Aldi products but don't like the taste will also dislike Sitchers products because of this. Judge Clark found that the taste of the two products was very similar, But she did admit it "The two products are different" .

finally, The court rejected the opinion, So Setchers is relevant "Damage to the reputation of the Sitches trademark" The claim also failed.

No misrepresentation

The court held that, Although Sitches does own the goodwill of the Sitches trademark (This crucial element is often overlooked in proceedings involving counterfeiting) , But Aldi didn't make any false statements.

The reason for this judgment is that there is no evidence that consumers believe that Aldi products are Satchers products. Even if Aldi products have been licensed or approved by Sitchers, Or otherwise associated with a transaction involving Sitches, This is always the case.

therefore, The counterfeit charges brought by Setchers were not successful.

What does this verdict mean for the future?

It is interesting that, Lately withTescovLidlThe verdict in that case was in stark contrast, The court noted that Aldi lacked a written record relating to the creative process of its packaging design.

In addition, Although Aldi has admitted to the court that it did use the Sitches trademark as its own "Taurus Milky lemon cider" An important reference for packaging, But Aldi still won the case.

however, Judge Clark made it clear, Her only focus is on the final product Aldi offers, And these products are completely different from Setchers products.

It is important that, The case highlights the challenges brand owners face in creating unique packaging, That is, these packages must be able to become a trademark, And try not to compromise salience by removing a keyword or phrase, as Setchers did.

In addition, It also shows "knockoff" A threshold that a brand can reach before it is deemed to have infringed.

however, It should be pointed out that, Each case needs to be considered on its own merits and facts. This is despite the fact that Aldi achieved a clearly positive outcome in this case, But that doesn't mean next "copycat" The proposition will produce the same result. (Be compiled fromwww. mondaq. com)

TRANSLATORS: Liu Peng　proofread: Wu Xian



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.