It is no secret that Aldi is a connoisseur copycat. While imitation may be commercially effective, it raises an important legal question: when does copying cross the line into infringement?
Under UK law, copying in itself is not unlawful. The issue is whether a product creates consumer confusion, or more commonly in recent cases, whether it takes unfair advantage of another brand’s reputation.
A number of recent disputes highlight how this line is being tested and, increasingly, enforced.
Thatchers v Aldi
Background
In May 2022, Aldi launched Taurus Cloudy Lemon Cider, a product that closely resembled Thatchers’ Cloudy Lemon Cider, which had been on the market since 2020. The similarity in colour palette, layout, and overall presentation led Thatchers to argue that Aldi had deliberately aligned its product with its brand.
Thatchers brought a claim for trade mark infringement under section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, as well as passing off, alleging that Aldi had effectively “ridden on the coattails” of its established reputation.
Outcome
The claim was initially dismissed by the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) in January 2024, on the basis that there was no likelihood of consumer confusion.
However, on appeal in January 2025, the Court of Appeal overturned that decision. The Court held that Aldi had taken unfair advantage of Thatchers’ reputation, even without confusion.
Aldi sought to appeal further, but permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused on 4 June 2025, bringing the dispute to an end.
Significance
This case is a significant development in UK trade mark law. It confirms that confusion is not always required and that taking advantage of a brand’s reputation alone can be enough to establish infringement.
For brand owners, it marks a clear win. For retailers, it signals that “lookalike” strategies may carry greater legal risk than previously thought.
Robinsons v Aldi
Background
In 2025, Robinsons, owned by Britvic, brought a claim against Aldi alleging trade mark infringement and passing off in relation to the packaging of its fruit juice products.
The claim centres on whether Aldi’s product presentation too closely resembles Robinsons’ well-known branding.
Current Position
As of early 2026, the dispute remains ongoing, although Aldi has reportedly begun redesigning the product at the centre of the claim.
Significance
This case reinforces a broader trend: brand owners are increasingly willing to challenge supermarket “lookalikes”, particularly where packaging plays a key role in brand identity.
It also highlights the commercial reality of these disputes — redesigning products can often be a more practical solution than prolonged litigation.
Marks & Spencer v Aldi
Background
One of the most high-profile disputes in recent years arose in April 2021, when Marks & Spencer brought a claim against Aldi over its “Cuthbert the Caterpillar” cake.
M&S argued that the product too closely resembled its iconic “Colin the Caterpillar” cake, raising issues of brand copying and consumer association.
Outcome
The case did not proceed to a final judgment. Instead, the parties reached a confidential settlement in February 2022, with Aldi agreeing to make changes to the product before returning it to shelves.
Significance
Although the case was settled, it captured public attention and highlighted the growing scrutiny around supermarket lookalikes. It also demonstrated how branding, even in seemingly simple products, can carry significant legal and commercial value.
Trademark Thursday Takeaway
These cases demonstrate a clear shift in how imitation is treated under UK law. While copying is not unlawful in itself, the courts are increasingly willing to intervene where a business benefits from another brand’s reputation, or edges too close to unfair advantage.
For businesses, the message is clear – there is a fine line between inspiration and infringement.
Written by Phoebe De Oliveira Simões
26 March 2026