Thatchers, a well-known English cider maker, is contesting a court decision in their legal battle against Aldi.
- Thatchers initially alleged that Aldi’s Taurus cider closely mimicked their cloudy lemon cider in both taste and appearance.
- The High Court previously ruled no confusion existed between the two products, siding with Aldi.
- Aldi’s exclusive branding strategy was cited as a key factor in the court’s decision.
- Thatchers is now appealing the verdict, believing there are legal grounds to contest the ruling.
In a legal showdown that captures the attention of the beverage industry, Thatchers has returned to court with a mission to challenge a prior court ruling that favored discount supermarket Aldi. The crux of the dispute revolves around the accusation by Thatchers that Aldi’s Taurus cider unlawfully mimics Thatchers’ cloudy lemon cider in both flavor and packaging.
The initial confrontation reached its conclusion in January of this year when the High Court determined there was no likelihood of confusion between Thatchers’ product and Taurus cider offered by Aldi. At that time, a spokesperson for Aldi confidently stated, “There’s nothing cloudy about this judgement. It’s clear-cut. Aldi exclusive brands are just that: exclusive to Aldi while leading the market on quality and price.” The statement reflects Aldi’s positioning strategy of maintaining a unique brand identity while offering competitive pricing.
Judge Melissa Clarke, presiding over the original case, noted that the packaging of Aldi’s lemon cider bore only a “low degree of similarity” to the Thatchers design. This assessment considered the visual cues shared by various lemon-flavored ciders, including those from other brands like Alaska and Somersby, which also use similar packaging styles. This precedent was significant in influencing the court’s initial decision.
Now, Thatchers is pursuing an appeal, hoping to overturn the prior judgment. Commenting on the appeal, Mary Bagnall of Charles Russell Speechlys highlighted the challenges inherent in such cases. She remarked, “Appeals in cases such as these are particularly difficult because the Court of Appeal may only intervene if the Judge’s findings of fact were rationally insupportable, or in making her multi-factorial evaluation of the issues, she erred in law or principle.” Bagnall underscored the complexity of intellectual property disputes, urging brand owners to thoroughly consider every element of IP protection when launching new products, emphasizing the rigorous standards required for both trademarks and designs.
The outcome of Thatchers’ appeal could set a significant precedent for intellectual property disputes in the beverage industry.
