UK: A Case Of Look-Alikes And Smell-Alikes

Last Updated: 26 October 2006
Article by Lindsey Wrenn, Lee Curtis and Rebecca Tilbury

On the 4th October 2006, the English High Court handed down a judgment which appears to make it easier for trade mark owners to prevent so-called look-alike products.

The L'Oreal Group is a manufacturer of high quality perfumes and other beauty products. Among its global brands are L'Oreal, Lancôme and Gariner. Many of L'Oreal's products are aimed at the luxury perfume market. In the case at hand, L'Oreal complained that the defendants, a Belgian company called Bellure NV, Starion International Limited and Malaika Investments Limited imported, marketed and distributed a range of perfumes in the UK, which were both smell-alikes and look-alikes of its Tresor, Miracle, Anais Anais and Noa ranges.


The marketing of so-called smell-alike perfumes has been a feature of the UK perfumes market for many years. When a brand owner wishes to launch a new fragrance it will issue a 'perfume brief' to one or more fragrance houses. It will present the concept and usually indicate the family of fragrances to which the new perfume is to belong. The brand owner will usually identify an existing perfume which will form a benchmark to which the new fragrance will be marketed and generally this benchmark fragrance is one produced by a competitor.

There are other firms who not only use competitor's products as benchmarks, but deliberately mimic the smell of leading perfumes. It was accepted by L'Oreal that UK copyright law does not prevent so-called smell-alike products of the like covered by this case. However, L'Oreal also alleged that the packaging of the defendants products also mimicked the 'look' of its leading brands and also that the defendants made illegitimate use of its registered trade marks in so-called comparison lists.

Comparison lists

Although the defendants claimed that it was not company policy to distribute comparison lists externally indicating that its products smelled like certain named L'Oreal brands, it was apparent that this policy was widely ignored. A security consultant acting on behalf of L'Oreal had been told that the defendant's products ‘smell like the originals’. Furthermore, the consultant had been supplied with a list of the defendant's products, alongside which the original L'Oreal's brand names had been written in manuscript.

Section 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 states as follows:-

'A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign which is identical with the trade mark in relation to goods and services which are identical with those for which it is registered.'

However, Section 11(2) (b) of the Act provides as follows:-

'The trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit a third party from using, in the course of trade, indications concerning the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods or rendering of the service, or other characteristics of goods or services…provided he uses them in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.'

The defendants argued that since smells are difficult to describe in words, a comparison which uses the name of the ‘benchmark’ perfume to describe the smell of another e.g. Pink Wonder smells like Miracle is an indication of the characteristics of the goods (Pink Wonder) was legitimate.

However, the court held that although such use of a brand name may describe certain characteristics of the goods concerned, the use of L'Oreal's trade marks was not in accordance with honest practices in commercial and industrial matters. The use of registered trade marks in the comparison lists of the defendants essentially 'free rode' on the back of the reputation of L'Oreal's well known brand names. Accordingly, the defendants defence was rejected, and they were found to infringe L'Oreal's trade mark registrations under Section 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.


It should be remembered in the case at hand that the defendants did not use any of L'Oreal's brand names on the products themselves, nor marks which that the court held were confusingly similar. L'Oreal, however, alleged that the packaging of the defendants products were sufficiently similar to the corresponding L'Oreal product to cause confusion in the marketplace and essentially ‘piggy backed’ on L'Oreal's reputation. A number of the trade mark registrations upon L'Oreal relied upon in this case consisted not only of simple word marks but registrations for the packaging itself.

Section 10(2) (b) the Trade Marks Act states as follows:-

'A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign where because:-

(b) the sign is similar to the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services identical with those for which the trade mark is registered,

there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association with the trade mark.'

The court found that no one consumer had been confused into thinking that the defendant's products were indeed those of L'Oreal. There was in essence no confusion as to trade origin or any likelihood of confusion. As a result L'Oreal's claims under Section 10(2) (b) failed.

Furthermore, L'Oreal's common law action under passing off also failed. It will be remembered that for a passing off claim to succeed the so-called 'holy trinity' must be established.

  1. that L'Oreal had goodwill in the business associated with it branded perfumes,
  2. that the defendants misrepresented their products as those of L'Oreal, and
  3. that L'Oreal's business would be damaged or is likely to be damaged by the defendant's actions.

Although the court found that L'Oreal had significant goodwill in the business associated with it perfumes, where L'Oreal's passing off case failed was under the misrepresentation claim. Although the tort of passing off has developed over the years, essentially the tort prevents one trader passing off his goods as those of another and the essential component is still that a consumer would be misrepresented into thinking that a particular product was associated, authorised or was indeed that of the trade mark owner. The court found that no consumer would be confused into thinking that the defendant's products were L'Oreal's, even though some of the defendants packaging was obviously based on the look of L’Oreal’s products.

Reputable marks

There one might have assumed that the case would have been concluded. However, L'Oreal also alleged that a number of it’s registered trade marks were reputable trade marks and thus the defendants actions were contrary to the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act which states as follows:-

‘A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade in relation to goods and services a sign which

(a) is identical with or similar to the trade mark,…

where the trade mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom and the use of the sign being without due cause, takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.'

There are three requirements under this head:

  1. similarly between the sign and the mark;
  2. the existence of a reputation of the mark; and
  3. either the taking of unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the mark; or detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the mark.

It will noted that Section 10(3) in contrast to Section 10(2) does not mention the word 'confusion'.

Lack of confusion

In Sabel BV v Puma AG, the ECJ identified three kinds of possible links between a mark and a sign. They were:

'(1) where the public confuses the sign and the mark in question (likelihood of direct confusion); (2) where the public makes a connection between the proprietors of the sign and those of the mark and confuses them (likelihood of indirect confusion or association); (3) where the public considers the sign to be similar to the mark and the perception of the sign calls to mind the memory of the mark, although the two are not confused (likelihood of association in the strict sense).'

The court held the first two categories is a necessary condition for infringement under Section 10(2) of the Act. A link falling within the third category is insufficient for infringement under that section. However, a link falling within the third category is sufficient for infringement under Section 10(3) of the Act. It is important once again to note that the court found that confusion is not necessary to be proved to sustain a claim under Section 10(3).

Reputation and distinctive character

The court held that L'Oreal's registered trade marks did have a reputation in the marketplace. So were the defendant's signs similar to those of L'Oreal's registered mark and did the defendants actions takes unfair advantage of or were detrimental to the distinctive character of the registered marks?

Crucially in the defendants evidence it was admitted the defendants packaging gave:-

'a wink of an eye to existing branded product.'

The commercial purpose behind this was:-

'to make it sell easily for whose who recognise it.'

It was also noteworthy that each design that the defendant put in evidence was identified by certain characteristics (date, job number etc.,.). The most significant feature, however, was that the name of L'Oreal fine fragrance products appeared in a box named 'K/OFF', which the defendant confirmed stood for 'knock off'. Therefore, there seemed little doubt about the defendant's motives in their actions.

Five part test

The court applied a five part test to the question of whether infringement had occurred under Section 10(3).

  1. Was the similarity between the packaging deliberate? The packaging of the defendants deliberately ‘winked at’ at L'Oreal's brands. Although the court accepted that the defendants had attempted to avoid infringement under the Act, they had ‘sailed too close to the wind’ and at times ‘had capsized’,
  2. Were the plaintiff's brands good sellers? L'Oreal's brands were good sellers, otherwise the defendant would not have picked them to mimic,
  3. Did the degree of similarity because the defendants packaging and that of the plaintiff enable the former to sell their products at a higher price? The degree of similarity in packaging enabled the defendants to charge a higher price than could normally have been expected for their products,
  4. Did the defendant's products directly benefit from the advertising efforts of the plaintiffs? The defendant's products directly benefited from the advertising and promotion of L'Oreal's products,
  5. Did the defendant's products sell because of the reputation of the plaintiff's brands? The defendant's products sell because of the reputation of L'Oreal's products.

Accordingly the court found that the defendants had in part received 'the reward for the costs of promoting, maintaining and enhancing a particular trade mark' and that the defendants products as a whole had taken unfair advantage of the reputation of L'Oreal's brands.

However, crucially the court found that the defendants had only infringed the plaintiff's trade mark registrations of their packaging as a whole. L'Oreal failed in its case based solely on word mark registrations, as the word marks that the defendants had used were not sufficiently similar for the purposes of Section 10(3). It was only when the plaintiffs packaging as a whole was taken into account that the defendants were found to 'sailed to close to the wind', given the similarity of their own packaging to that of L'Oreal.

Conclusions to be drawn

What lessons are to be drawn from this case?

  1. It is not necessary to prove confusion to establish infringement under Section 10(3) of the Act,
  2. The defendant's motives and overall actions seem to have some bearing of the findings of the court under Section 10(3). The poor use of comparison lists, and the deliberate mimicking of L'Oreal products weakened the defendants position. It might be supposed that if the defendants had not been so obvious in their motives that infringement may not have been found. Therefore for traders wishing to 'compete' with the brand leader it crucial that they make sure that their actions surrounding the marketing of their products, for example in product presentations to buyers, and in ones use of language in presentations do not attempt to benefit from the reputation of the brand owner,
  3. For the brand owners, it would appear that there is now a definite benefit from registering the packaging of product as a whole, as well as word marks. It should be remembered that L'Oreal failed to prove infringement under 10(3) on the basis of the word mark registrations alone.

Has this made look-alike products harder to pursue in the UK? Possibly, however there may be still ways for a cunning trader to avoid 'capsizing' in the words of the court and also trade mark owners must also be cunning enough to register distinctive packaging and give themselves a full arsenal of weapons to protect the hard won reputation in their brands.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.