In 2020, Thatchers launched its Thatchers Cloudy Lemon Cider, branded with images of lemons and lemon leaves. Two years later, Aldi brought out a Taurus Cloudy Cider Lemon drink also branded with images of lemons and lemon leaves.
Thatchers brought legal action but their case was dismissed by the High Court. This week, however, the Somerset producer won at the Court of Appeal.
Thomas Chartres-Moore, head of intellectual property (IP) at Stephens Scown, representing Thatchers, said the appeal win ‘shows that there is a real value in brands investing in appropriate IP protection to fight off unfair copycat tactics’.
Delivering the main judgment in Thatchers Cider Company v Aldi Stores [2025] EWCA Civ 5, Lord Justice Arnold said: ‘Aldi was able to achieve substantial sales of the Aldi Product in a short period of time without spending a penny on promoting it… That was an unfair advantage because it enabled Aldi to profit from Thatchers’ investment in developing and promoting the Thatchers Product rather than competing purely on quality and/or price and on its own promotional efforts.’
Thatchers spent more than £2.9m on advertising, marketing and promotion between 2020 and 2022, and had made more than £29m retail sales by August 2023. The Court of Appeal judgment states there is no evidence Aldi spent any money promoting its product, which was part of a range of Taurus ciders.
Mary Bagnall, head of IP, Charles Russell Speechlys, said: ‘Consumers are accustomed to seeing own label versions of popular products, and that is all part of healthy competition and consumer choice.
‘However, this decision should act as a warning to discount supermarkets, who are looking to launch competing products to established brands, that they cannot expect to adopt lookalike packaging which rides on the coattails of other companies’ marketing and advertising efforts without significant repercussions.’
Jeremy Hertzog, partner, Mishcon de Reya, said: ‘Taking advantage of another brand's image and reputation in this way can amount to trade mark infringement, even if the marks are not confusingly similar’.
