Marks and Spencer PLC v Aldi Stores Limited
Decision date: 31 January 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] EWHC 178 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This case concerned whether Aldi's "light-up" gin bottles infringed Marks & Spencer's registered UK designs for decorated gin bottles with integrated base lights. The court held that four of M&S's registrations (UK 78, 80, 82, 84) were infringed because Aldi's bottles did not produce a different overall impression on the informed user. The judge interpreted the photographic registrations objectively (treating two darker images as depicting an integrated light), applied a spirits/liqueurs sector informed-user standard, and rejected Aldi's argument that certain features were excluded by the technical-function rule.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
Photographic design registrations are to be interpreted by reference to the visible features of the photographs, assessed objectively by the court rather than being resolved by ancillary register descriptions; the proprietor's own disclosures within the statutory 12‑month grace period before priority are excluded from the design corpus used in infringement comparison; and the "solely dictated by technical function" exclusion only removes protection where a feature was selected solely to achieve a technical function, so aesthetic choices with technical consequences remain protectable.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment observed that optional descriptions on the public register risk misleading the public if used to resolve ambiguity in images, calling into question the legal relevance of such descriptions; and noted practical difficulties with assuming the informed user will make direct comparisons via the public register.