Aldi Stores Ireland Ltd v Dunnes Stores [2019] IESC 41 (28 May 2019)

Aldi Stores Ireland Ltd v Dunnes Stores [2019] IESC 41 (28 May 2019)

The Supreme Court held that Dunnes Stores' advertising campaign did not meet the requirements for lawful comparative advertising under the 2007 Regulations and the 2006 Directive because it failed to objectively compare material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of the products, omitted or concealed material differences likely to affect consumer choice, and thus constituted misleading advertising and trade mark infringement. The appeal was allowed, reinstating the High Court's orders against Dunnes.

Citation
[2019] IESC 41
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Aldi Stores (Ireland) Limited; Plaintiff/appellant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG; Defendant/respondent: Dunnes Stores
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Comparative Advertising, Trade Mark Infringement, Misleading Advertising, Consumer Protection, Interpretation of EU Directives
Commercial Law Intellectual Property Law Consumer Protection Law EU Law Comparative Advertising Trade Mark Infringement Misleading Advertising Consumer Protection +1 more

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aldi Stores (Ireland) Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Aldi GmbH & Co. KG

Plaintiff/appellant

Dunnes Stores

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dunnes Stores' comparative advertising campaign infringed Aldi's trade marks under Irish and EU law
  2. 2 Whether the advertising constituted misleading commercial practices under the Consumer Protection Act 2007 and the 2007 Regulations
  3. 3 Whether the products compared met the requirements for lawful comparative advertising under the 2006 Directive and 2007 Regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that Dunnes Stores' advertising campaign did not meet the requirements for lawful comparative advertising under the 2007 Regulations and the 2006 Directive because it failed to objectively compare material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of the products, omitted or concealed material differences likely to affect consumer choice, and thus constituted misleading advertising and trade mark infringement. The appeal was allowed, reinstating the High Court's orders against Dunnes.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Injunction restraining Dunnes Stores from using, publishing, displaying, or infringing Aldi's trade marks in any comparative advertising or promotional material in the manners found unlawful.
  • Order prohibiting Dunnes from engaging in prohibited comparative marketing communications contrary to Regulations 4(2)(b), (c), or (d) of the 2007 Regulations where such communications use Aldi's marks.