UK: New Law of Unfair Competition : Is it Necessary?

Last Updated: 2 December 1998
Proponents for a new law claim that a new law of unfair competition is necessary in order to ensure that we comply with our obligations under the Paris Convention. That may well be so. I do not know.

What really interests me is that many also argue that the current law is inadequate to deal with lookalikes. The law is too uncertain, so the argument goes, and it is too expensive.


What is uncertain about the law? To succeed under Section 10(2) Trade Marks Act 1994 one needs a valid trade mark registration and one needs to be able to prove confusing similarity. Under the law of passing off one needs to be able to establish the classic trinity, namely goodwill, misrepresentation and damage. No uncertainty there - the law is clear. In copyright, again, the law is simple, it is unlawful to reproduce without permission a substantial part of a copyright work.

What they mean, of course, is that the outcome is sometimes difficult to predict - a very different matter. It is precisely the same uncertainty faced by a plaintiff trying to prove negligence, defamation, and breach of contract or, indeed, any other pleaded case. The uncertainty lies not in the law, but in whether or not one will be able to convince the court that one has a good case. The uncertainty may be as to the quality of one's evidence to support the case or it may be a concern that the judge will not view the case in the same way or it may be a combination of the two.

Why should brand owners be put in any more favourable position than plaintiffs in any other type of suit? A good reason might be that injustice is resulting. Look at all the lookalikes, they say. The supermarkets are running riot, our hard won brands are being diluted left, right and centre and we are powerless to do anything about it.

Oh, yeah? Show me a case where a brand owner has taken on a supermarket and lost. They can't. In over 25 years of supermarket lookalikes the best they can do is point to Penguin v. Puffin, where the passing off case was won and resulted in material changes to the get-up, but where the trade mark infringement case was lost. The fact that the defendant in that case continued to use the name Puffin had nothing to do with the lost trade mark case, but everything to do with the fact that the parties (trading partners) had had enough fighting and wanted to settle the case. It is invariably overlooked that when the judge made his order, the defendants asked for a variation confirming that they were entitled to use the brand name Puffin and the judge refused.

Where a law is severely defective, it is not difficult to point to meritorious cases, which fail; and it is usually possible to find judicial dicta supporting a change in the law. Take for example the Rank Film Distributors case on the plea against self-incrimination which led to Section 72 Supreme Court Act 1981; and the Amstrad case, which supported the music copyright owners' lobby for a blank tape levy. Strong judgments from Lord Russell and Lord Justice Nicholls (as he then was) in those cases provided powerful support for the aggrieved parties.

Where do we find equivalent dicta to support the push for a new law of unfair competition? Nowhere. In short, there is no uncertainty in the law and there is no injustice, which cannot be dealt with by the existing law.

Expense of litigation

The complaint that the law is too expensive is so outrageous as to take one's breath away. Let us look at who these poor impoverished would-be litigants are. They are almost invariably the mighty national and international brand owners. Supermarkets do not produce copycats of failed or even mildly successful brands. They only go for the mega brands. These are the plaintiffs who in other types of action find the expense of litigation an extremely useful ally. They are able to use the expense of litigation to frighten off the opposition. As soon as they are faced with opponents who have the financial muscle to stand up to them, litigation suddenly becomes too expensive.

Worse still, anybody who takes brand protection seriously knows perfectly well that a trade mark registration certificate is only the start. The brand needs litigation support as much as it needs advertising and promotion. The most expensive trade mark infringement and passing off action that I have ever conducted cost £550,000 all in. That is but a drop in the ocean compared with the money spent on advertising a leading brand of the kind likely to be a target for a supermarket.

Those who believe that litigation is too expensive completely fail to understand the role of litigation in brand support.

The truth, of course, is that the predicament that brand owners find themselves in has nothing whatever to do with the inadequacy or expense of litigation. It is simply that in this day and age, when institutional investors require immediate results, the long-term attention that brands require is a luxury that companies believe they can ill-afford. De-listing is the fear. Sales come first. The brand is of secondary importance. Suing one's principal customer is going to be a no-no for all but the most enlightened sales directors.

That is why brand owners have allowed the supermarkets to get away with murder. The decision is only a difficult one if the long-term interests of the brand are other than of paramount importance.

That consideration will continue to apply if and when the new law of unfair competition is enacted. A sales director is no more likely to want to accuse his principal customer of cheating him by way of unfair competition than he is of wanting to accuse him of cheating him by way of passing off.

When one comes to look at the new law that is proposed (WIPO model 3) one finds that all damaging acts of competition are acts of unfair competition.

"Any act or practice, in the course of industrial or commercial activities, which damages or is likely to damage the reputation or goodwill of another's enterprise, shall constitute an act of unfair competition ... whether or not such act or practice causes confusion."

Clearly, that cannot be right, so we are back to the courts to define the limits of the enactment. If anything, the new law is less certain than the existing law.

The ultimate and infuriating irony is that evidentially it ought to be easier to succeed in a passing off action against a supermarket lookalike, than in an action against a competitor's lookalike. The competitor's name on the pack may well counter any risk of consumer deception, whereas the supermarket's name is purely a retailer's mark and does not identify the manufacturer. It does not help the consumer identify the manufacturer.

In relation to the supermarket lookalike the brand owner has the benefit of the widely held consumer belief that the own label is made for the supermarket by the manufacturer of the market leader. As the judge found in Penguin v. Puffin the more "cues" the supermarket takes from the market leader, the more likely that that consumer perception will be fuelled. "On average nearly half of shoppers (47%) mistakenly believe a copy-cat is definitely or probably made by the brand manufacturer" states the Chairman of the British Brands Group. To a passing off litigator 47% is an astonishingly high level of confusion. Plaintiffs have got home in passing off on a fraction of that figure.


The British Brands Group campaign says it all. Not 47%, but total confusion. They push for a law that obviates the need for them to prove likelihood of confusion in order to win; simultaneously, they produce survey research to show stunningly high levels of confusion among consumers in relation to supermarket lookalikes; and their representative pressing their case in the House of Lords, Lord McNally, concludes his speech in the House of Lords debate "we are objecting to what has always seemed to me to be blatant passing off".

Quite so, my lord. The existing law of passing off is well-equipped to deal with blatant passing off. Try it and see. If a meritorious case is lost, then, but only then, will the proponents of the new law have a satisfactory platform from which to launch their campaign.

Dawn Osborne is a senior solicitor at Willoughby & Partners. Willoughby & Partners, in association with Rouse & Co International, have an active interest group devoted to legal issues relating to the Internet.
The content of this article is to provide only a general information on the subject. Legal advice should be sought for any 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 Topics
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions