Government consultation brings Aldi and Saucy Fish row to attention
A dispute involving supermarket chain Aldi and a UK fish brand could have wide ramifications for brand owners due to new powers being considered by the UK government, it has been claimed.
Earlier this month, German retailer Aldi was forced to remove its ‘Saucy Salmon Fillets’ from sale following complaints by The Saucy Fish Co.
Although Aldi has removed the products, The Saucy Fish Co. will have to compensate the retailer for its losses if Aldi defends itself successfully in a forthcoming court case.
However, future disputes on so-called lookalike products could be swayed by a consultation launched by the UK Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, which would grant brand owners extra powers.
The consultation, which closed on Tuesday, May 20, could lead to an amendment of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPRs) to consider granting businesses the power of civil injunctions when tackling lookalike products.
Nick Smee, solicitor at Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co in London, said the proposals could provide an “invaluable weapon” for brand owners.
“The CPRs are designed to protect consumers by criminalising certain trading practices, such as ‘misleading’ actions and ‘aggressive’ practices,” said Smee.
Smee said the measures do not currently include a civil right of action and are instead enforced by local authority trading standards officers.
“This can be a difficult route for brand owners, as the authorities have limited budgets.”
He added: “In the meantime, if The Saucy Fish Co.’s action reaches trial it may provide valuable guidance on where the court currently draws the line on lookalike goods."
The interim injunction won by The Saucy Fish Co. is a prelude to a full court hearing launched by the Grimsby-based company that could also see Aldi forced to pay compensation.
Aldi’s managing director of corporate buying, Giles Hurley, said Saucy Salmon Fillets was a trial product which had “reached the natural end of the trial period”.
He added that the injunction was temporary and “no decision has been made regarding the upholding of the injunction”.
