Stephen Baker and Oliver Williams of our Dispute Resolution team explain what constitutes trade mark infringement in the case of ‘lookalike’ branding.

Ever-evolving case law in intellectual property disputes has, in recent years, clarified the distinction between ‘lookalike’ brands, which infringe on an established trade mark, and those which are simply similar with no likelihood of public confusion.

It can be difficult to determine whether a lookalike product constitutes trade mark infringement, and even more difficult to determine what action is best taken to combat such infringement. Our specialist solicitors can advise and assist you with safeguarding your intellectual property in a manner which is practical and solution oriented.

Thatchers v Aldi – own-brand association

The recent landmark case of Thatchers Cider Company Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 5 sheds light on what courts consider to be infringing exploitation of established brand identities. The case involved two different brands of cloudy lemon cider: one independent and the other Aldi’s own brand.

The designs on the cans and packaging of both brands of cider were very similar. A key factor in the case was that Aldi had departed from its usual house style for its own brand ‘Taurus’ cider which was ordinarily the word in white on a black background. It was also important that an email between Aldi and the design agency for Taurus evidenced an intention to mimic the Thatchers’ established brand.

The Court of Appeal, ruling in favour of Thatchers, found that Aldi had taken unfair advantage of Thatchers’ reputation “in order to convey the message that the Aldi product was like the Thatchers product, only cheaper”. The Court considered that Thatchers had spent around £3 million advertising its brand and Aldi intended to ‘piggyback’ on their advertising success without spending anything near the same amount of money.

The case represents a victory for established brands over supermarket own brands and sets a powerful precedent for deterring the creation of knock-off products.

Lidl v Tesco – colour and reputation

In 2024’s judgment in Lidl Great Britain Limited v Tesco Stores Limited [2023] EWHC 1517 (Ch), Tesco’s Clubcard logo was found to infringe upon Lidl’s brand, both being a yellow circle in a blue square.

Much like in Thatchers v Aldi, the Court found that the similarities were designed to take unfair advantage of Lidl’s brand reputation for low prices. The Clubcard is presented as a discount provider much like Lidl advertises itself throughout Europe as a discount supermarket.

Lidl’s established reputation was specifically associated with two trade marks – one which was wordless and contained only the yellow circle in a blue square, and the other which then contained the stylised ‘Lidl’ word.

Tesco managed to secure a small win in that some of Lidl’s earlier trade mark registrations were invalidated on the basis that they were obtrusive to the market and made in ‘bad faith’. This decision followed the ruling in Sky v Skykickz, our article about which can be found here.

Chanel v Huawei – market and orientation

In both Lidl v Tesco and Thatchers v Aldi trade mark infringement was found in the case of ‘lookalike’ brands. However, despite clear similarities between the logos of Chanel and Huawei Technologies, in the case of Chanel SAS v EUIPO (Case T-57/16), no infringement was found.

Chanel claimed that its horizontal double C monogram was infringed by Huawei’s figurative mark which looks somewhat like vertically-aligned open ended chain links.

The Court however declined to find any infringement and clarified that shapes and orientation of a logo was important in terms of its distinctiveness, as well as the purpose for which it was applied, regardless of any possible rotation in their market use.

Another clear distinction between this case and the others in this article is that the two brands do not have influence in the same markets as one another. It is demonstrably harder to find infringement where there is less likelihood of confusion and little evidence of taking advantage of another brand or its associated established reputation.

Key Takeaways

A ‘lookalike’ brand may infringe a trade mark if:

1. There is evidence of an intention to mimic an established brand to hijack its reputation.
2. The ‘knock-off’ product changes its design to be similar to an established brand.
3. It clearly is designed to take advantage of a particular association of the established brand and there is a likelihood of confusion between the two brands.

But it might not infringe a trade mark if:

1. The brands operate in very different markets with no likelihood of confusion.
2. The orientation, shape, or other key feature of a brand is markedly different than the established brand.

For more information on what constitutes passing off and trade mark infringement, please consult our previous article which can be found here.

What now?

Our specialist solicitors are skilled in identifying legal issues surrounding intellectual property rights and providing practical solutions to our clients’ disputes. For more information on the contents of this article or advice on the issues raised, please contact us to speak to a member of our Dispute Resolution or Commercial teams.