This ruling should be a wake-up call for food and drink manufacturing businesses to rethink their trademark protection strategies and a stark warning to new entrants in the industry about the costly legal and commercial risks of imitation.
For years, supermarkets and discount stores have relied on lookalike products as a competitive strategy, capitalising on the trust and recognition consumers have in established brands while offering a lower price point. Until now, brand owners have often struggled to take meaningful legal action unless they could establish clear consumer confusion.
This ruling marks a turning point in UK trademark law. Courts are no longer just assessing whether consumers mistakenly believe they are buying the original product but rather whether retailers are deliberately creating the impression that a lookalike is the same but cheaper.
Aldi’s Taurus Cloudy Lemon Cider may not have explicitly misled consumers into thinking it was Thatcher’s, but it was designed to evoke the Thatcher’s brand and thereby its reputation, its provenance, and its quality, leveraging this reputation and trust built over years. The Court of Appeal’s decision recognises this tactic for what it is - taking unfair advantage of an established trademark - and establishes that brand reputation is now an asset that deserves protection in its own right.
Indeed, courts will no longer be restricted to assessing whether a product is a direct copy or likely to mislead but whether it takes unfair advantage of a brand’s reputation by influencing consumer perception. This shift means brand owners must look beyond evoking the thought of 'the same but cheaper' in the minds of consumers and consider the more subtle ways lookalikes manipulate consumer expectations. Understanding how consumers interact with branding is now central to determining what can and cannot be challenged in court. It does not just come down to whether a product is visually similar to a well-known brand but whether it evokes the same trust, quality, and recognition in the consumer’s mind.
This subtle yet critical distinction sets a precedent that could shape future disputes, making it clear that brand owners have more tools at their disposal to challenge lookalike products.
When it comes to safeguarding branding, businesses must ensure that every element contributing to consumer recognition is protected. This includes front and back labelling, packaging, promotional materials, colour schemes, fonts, multipack layouts and how the product is presented both online and in store. A well-rounded trademark strategy that covers all aspects of branding and overall appearance is now essential to prevent competitors from taking advantage of an established brand’s reputation.
Should a “lookalike” case arise, timing is crucial. Delaying action can weaken a brand’s legal position and allow imitators to gain a foothold in the market. Taking swift action against lookalikes using the unfair advantage principle can often be a quicker and more cost-effective route than traditional trademark infringement and passing off claims.
For new businesses, the best strategy is to be original. Copying elements from well-known brands, even subtly, is now a high-risk approach. Courts are spotting not just direct deception but whether a product creates an association with an established brand in the consumer’s mind. With this in mind, originality is the safest and smartest way forward.
The Thatchers vs. Aldi case is likely just the beginning. With brand owners now empowered to take action against lookalikes based on unfair advantage, we may see a rise in legal disputes across multiple sectors. Retailers and manufacturers that have long relied on brand mimicry may soon find themselves facing fresh legal challenges as courts continue to reinforce brand protection.
For brand owners, it is a major victory, providing stronger grounds to challenge lookalike products. For retailers and producers, it is a stark warning that mimicry is no longer just a grey area in marketing - it carries serious legal and commercial risks.
For a more in-depth look at the Thatchers vs. Aldi case, read the full article here.
