A Lesson in Lookalike Trade Mark Infringement: Thatchers Cider Company Limited v Aldi Stores Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 5

On 20 January 2025, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales ruled that Aldi had infringed Thatchers’ registered trade mark by selling cider with packaging similar to Thatchers’ cider.

The Court found Aldi had taken unfair advantage of Thatchers’ trade mark reputation, as the similar packaging implied Aldi’s cider was similar, yet cheaper. Importantly:
• Intent to deceive wasn’t necessary
• Consumer confusion wasn’t required

By adopting similar packaging which caused consumers to draw a link with Thatchers Cider, Aldi infringed Thatchers’ registered trade mark. This was even though Aldi branded its cider with a completely different name (Taurus).

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐒𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐞?

While similar principles apply here to prevent businesses from taking unfair advantage of trade marks, a major difference is that only trade marks which are “well known to the public at large in Singapore” (a rare and exclusive class) receive such “unfair advantage” protection. This is a much higher standard than the UK’s, which only requires that the trade mark has a “reputation” in the UK.

This case serves as a stark reminder for businesses that adopting a design resembling a well-known trade mark to ride on its fame could lead to infringement, even without intent to confuse. Businesses must tread carefully in how they market their goods and services.

For more information, please contact Basil Lee: basil.lee@helmsmanlaw.com

This publication is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. It does not purport to be comprehensive or address every aspect of the matters discussed. While we strive to ensure the accuracy of the information at the time of publication, we make no representations or warranties as to its accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any particular purpose. You should seek specific legal or professional advice before taking any action based on the contents of this publication. We do not accept any liability for any loss or damage arising from any reliance placed on this publication or its contents. No lawyer-client relationship is created by this publication.