An IP law firm has published a review of research around lookalikes to challenge legal assumptions on copycats.
Stobbs commissioned its review of evidence on ‘the psychology of lookalikes’ to challenge the legal notion that having a different brand name is sufficient to avoid customer confusion or deception.
“Our legal system has long recognised brand names as the most important identifying trait for recognising a product,” according to the report.
It sets out the evidence that consumer choices are more influenced by a range of other factors, including colour, shape, and packaging design.
“We commissioned the report so that brand owners, lawyers and judges are all up to date on the latest consumer science,” said Stobbs head of litigation Geoff Steward.
Read more: How did M&S manage to beat Aldi on copycat claims this time?
“There are a lot of mistaken assumptions being made by lawyers as to how consumers behave and respond to lookalikes.
“The report is to summarise all of the latest research so that lawyers can revise their thinking.”
Citing existing research, the report claims up to 50% of own-brand products in supermarkets possess features of an original branded version.
Among the many investigations cited is a 2013 study by the British Brands Group, in which 330 UK consumers were asked to compare branded products with two own-label alternatives – one a lookalike, the other not. The study found consumers viewed the lookalike product as better quality than the non-lookalike, highlighting how copycats can take unfair advantage of a brand’s reputation through design mimicry.
Steward said: “Ultimately, expert evidence from consumer behavioural scientists is probably going to be needed on unfair advantage cases.”
No comments yet