header-logo header-logo

09 November 2022
Issue: 8002 / Categories: Legal News , Intellectual property
printer mail-detail

Tesco & Lidl go head to head on trade mark

Trade mark owners who are not using their mark may need to do more than simply filing and refiling in order to hang onto their rights, following Lidl Great Britain Ltd v Tesco Stores Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1433.

The dispute concerned Tesco’s Clubcard Prices loyalty discount scheme, which uses a yellow circle on a blue square with the words ‘Clubcard Prices’. Lidl claimed it was too similar to the background to its logo, a wordless blue square and yellow circle with a thin red border. Tesco denied this and counterclaimed for invalidity of Lidl’s registration which is not used in the UK in its registered form, on grounds of bad faith filing.

Overturning the High Court, the Court of Appeal allowed Tesco’s allegations to proceed.

Richard Kempner, partner at HLK, who represented Tesco, said: ‘Tesco has been permitted to continue to argue at trial that a wordless version of Lidl’s logo was periodically filed and refiled by Lidl in bad faith’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll