Must-Know Cases and Deals

Hi this is ZipLaw! Today we run through the week's top court cases and deals law firms acted on so you can use them to stand out in applications. All of them (and more) are added to our ZipTracker database every day.

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox.

Here’s what we’re serving today:

• Court cases involving: DWF, Bird & Bird, Slaughter and May, DAC Beachcroft, and Clyde & Co.
• Deals involving: DLA Piper, Gibson Dunn, RPC and DWF.

Lidl v Tesco

In Short: Lidl argues that Tesco's club card branding mimics its own, misleading customers into associating Tesco with Lidl's renowned discount prices. Tesco is having none of it.

The Facts:
Lidl has taken Tesco to court over its club card design, claiming it too closely resembles its own logo and thus, implies a price matching promise that leverages Lidl's discount reputation. High Court Judge Joanna Smith previously sided with Lidl, noting the potential for customer confusion despite the lack of explicit price matching text in Tesco's branding. Now in the Court of Appeal, Tesco argues that the evidence, including a YouGov survey, falls short of proving any intention to deceive consumers.

What Was Each Party Arguing:

• Lidl's Stance: Lidl insists the similarity in branding could mislead consumers into associating Tesco's products with Lidl's value-for-money image, even in the absence of a direct price match claim.
• Tesco's Defence: Tesco counters that the High Court's decision was unduly influenced by Lidl's evidence, arguing that no discerning shopper would be misled into thinking Tesco was price matching with Lidl, especially without explicit communication of such a scheme.

Impact and Key Points for Discussion:

1. The Power of Brand Perception: This case underscores the crucial role of brand imagery and the associations it can evoke. Lidl's argument hinges on the idea that certain design elements can subconsciously convey messages to consumers, a concept that, if upheld, could set a precedent for how closely competitors can mirror each other's branding without crossing a legal line.
2. Evidence in Intellectual Property Disputes: The reliance on consumer surveys and testimonies as evidence in this case brings to light the challenges in proving or disproving claims of brand confusion. The effectiveness and credibility of this evidence could become a focal point for future intellectual property cases.
3. Implications for Marketing Strategies: The outcome of this appeal could have far-reaching implications for how companies design their loyalty programs and promotional materials. A ruling in favour of Lidl may lead to more cautious marketing approaches, particularly when referencing competitors, either directly or implicitly.

Which Law Firms are advising on this?