Introduction

The Intelectual property protection Act aims at the protection of people’s inventions, their symbols, names and even images they create. All these are covered in trade marks, patents, trade secrets and copyrights.In the case of Aldi, there no substantial claim to show any loss which is directly related to the trademark infringement. The Kelogg’s coco pops have to proof that the Aldi Choco rice has been able to confuse buyers. This can only be achieved through buyers complains and since the Aldi brand has the required quality the consumer behaviour is not able to complain of the high quality. (THIS IS NOT CORRECT, WHERE DOES THIS REFER TO?Through this, Aldi has been able to prevent any trademark infringement cases. (HOW? WHERE IS THIS INFORMATION?) The lack of proof by buyers complain is able to mean that Aldi did not create the brand with any intention of confusing buyers and thus has not infringed on any trade mark rights. Lack of proper evidence of the diverting attention of the buyers and confusing them means that Aldi are not infringing any trademark rules. (WHAT PART OF THE ACT DOES THIS REFER TO?) Please refer to section 10 of the trademark act (deceptively similar).

In addition, the differences in prices plays a key role to eliminate the chances of trademark infringement. This is because the buyers are argued to have a clear understanding of which product they are buying according to the shelf price. For instance, in the case of Morrocan oil Vs Aldi Stores, the Moroccanoil costs is able to cost £30 while Aldi’s Miracle Oil is sold for £3.99. It was ruled that the buyers were able to differentiate the products even with the price tags. This big difference in price is able to show that the confusion to the buyers cannot arise. Similarly, Kelogg coco pops costs 49p per 100g while Aldi Choco rice is able to cost 28p per 100g. this price difference means that buyers will always be clear in their mind the product they are picking from the shelf. Moreover, the meaning of the two words, coco and Choco is not easy and therefore Aldi is not liable for trade mark infringement.

The intention of the trade mark is also considered when looking at the trade mark infringement. Lowering the cost is a proof that Aldi is not there to harm the coco manufacturers. Lowering the price is a strategy for marketing and not harming anyone because they will harm themselves first. The intellectual property is able to protect against harm and Aldi intention is seen not to be against the harm to their competitors.(WHAT PART OF THE ACT DOES THIS REFERTO? WHAT SECTION?According to the intellectual property principles, it is a crime to have total similarity of the products.(what part of the act?) Nevertheless, the two products in this case have some clear differences which can be visually be identified. This means that Aldi is not committing and trade mark infringement.(what section of the act?

In conclusion, even looking at the ingredients will be able to show that Aldi is not committing and trade mark crimes. In addition, the principles are able to indicate that when some clear differences exist between property law. The infringement of the trade mark is infringed when there is a loss of cost factors. No loss can be directly being attributed to Aldi and thus they were not coming any trade mark infringement.

References

1. Adidas AG v Pacific Brands Footwear Pty Ltd (No 3) (2013) 103 IPR 521 (FCA)
2. Modena Trading v Cantarella Bros (2013) 215 FCR 16 (FCAFC)
3. Moroccanoil Israel Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd [2014] All ER (D) 217 (May), [2014] EWCH 1686 (IPEC)