Philip Warren & Son Ltd v Lidl Great Britain Ltd & Ors

Philip Warren & Son Ltd v Lidl Great Britain Ltd & Ors

The court found that, although PWS had significant local goodwill and there were similarities in the marks, there was insufficient evidence of operative misrepresentation or material damage to PWS's goodwill caused by Lidl's use of 'WARREN & SONS'. The evidence of confusion was limited, equivocal, and did not demonstrate that Lidl's conduct amounted to passing off. Accordingly, the claim failed.

Parties
Claimant: Philip Warren & Son Limited; Defendant: Lidl Great Britain Ltd; Defendant: Lidl UK GmbH; Defendant: Lidl Stiftung & Co KG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (passing Off) / Judgment After Trial on Liability
Outcome
Claim and counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Goodwill, Misrepresentation, Damages, Injunctions
Intellectual Property Commercial Law Passing Off Goodwill Misrepresentation Damages Injunctions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Warren & Son Limited

Claimant

Lidl Great Britain Ltd

Defendant

Lidl UK GmbH

Defendant

Lidl Stiftung & Co KG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (passing Off) / Judgment After Trial on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Lidl's use of 'WARREN & SONS' constituted passing off against PWS's goodwill
  2. 2 Whether there was operative misrepresentation causing material damage to PWS's goodwill
  3. 3 Whether PWS was entitled to damages or an account of profits

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although PWS had significant local goodwill and there were similarities in the marks, there was insufficient evidence of operative misrepresentation or material damage to PWS's goodwill caused by Lidl's use of 'WARREN & SONS'. The evidence of confusion was limited, equivocal, and did not demonstrate that Lidl's conduct amounted to passing off. Accordingly, the claim failed.

Court Disposition

Claim and counterclaim dismissed