• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
    Alumni
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
    Copyright Reform
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

The UK Intellectual Property Office on the Impact of Lookalikes

July 11, 2013 by Georgios Andriotis

On May 31st, 2013 the UK Intellectual Property Office (“IPO”) released a report on its research into the “Impact of Lookalikes: Similar Packaging and Fast-Moving Consumer Goods”. The issue of lookalikes is a politically “hot” one in both the UK and the EU, as there is pressure from brand owners who seek more effective protection against lookalikes.

The report serves as an attempt to identify the existence of a lookalike effect and its subsequent impact on the relationship between manufacturers, brand-owners, and retailers. In that respect, the research methods used for the report included interviews with stakeholders in the fast-moving consumer goods sector, consumer surveys, and an analysis of sales figures for certain products to assess the impact of a lookalike entering the market.

The findings of the report are telling as to why the lookalike debate is still of essence. Key conclusions include:

  1. Similar-looking products have similar product characteristics and similar origin, according to some consumers. This outcome reveals the existence of a “small, but statistically significant” lookalike effect on consumer behaviour.
  2. A significant number of consumers reported that the accidental purchase of lookalikes had disadvantaged them. Yet, a similarly high number of consumers felt advantaged from any such purchase.
  3. Brand-owners reported that advertising spending and research for new products has been negatively affected by the loss of sales to “own brand” products (products sold under a retailer’s brand).
  4. It is uncertain whether “lookalike packaging generally diverts sales or if the effect of that packaging is negligible.” That said, the report notes that only in a “very limited number of product categories, an association was found between a reduction in the sales of the brand leader and an increase in the sales of lookalike.”
  5. There is a fine line between confusing packaging and using generic cues to provide useful signals to customers.

The report employs a working definition of the term “lookalike” product as the product “sold by a third party which looks similar to a manufacturer brand owner’ s product and, by reason of that similarity, consumers perceive the lookalike to share a greater number of features with the manufacturer brand owner than would be expected simply because the products are in the same product category.”  The research also suggests a statutory definition of a “lookalike” as a “good which by virtue of their name, shape, colour, packaging or labeling or any combination thereof, are similar in overall appearance to the goods; but excluding any of those things where they are descriptive, functional or commonplace.”

The report delves into the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive of 2005 (2005/29/EC) and concludes that it is likely to prevent certain lookalikes by evoking the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations of 2008. The Regulations constitute the implementation of the EC Directive in the UK and forbid any unfair commercial practices in business-to-consumer cases. Nonetheless, the report stresses that the Directive is a maximal measure which hinders any member state from enacting legislation that goes beyond its scope. The report also raises the issue of introducing a private right of action under the Regulations. (An amendment to the Intellectual Property Bill (“IP Bill”) on lookalikes was tabled on June 11th. It proposed broadening the law of passing-off. The amendment, however, was withdrawn on June 18th, 2013.)

The different outcomes of the research serve as indicia of what the public and the various stakeholders feel and expect with regard to the lookalike effect. The report does not provide responses to these outcomes. On the contrary, it raises more questions as to how the lookalike effect might be dealt with more effectively, most notably in the area of enforcement. The newly proposed IP Bill provide an opportunity to address some of these concerns. The Bill is currently at the House of Lords and the report stage will take place on July 27th, 2013.

In Canada, the law provides a number of different avenues to deal with unfair commercial competition and the protection of the public from such practices. Section 36 of the Competition Act confers a private right of action to any person who has suffered loss or damage in some cases. These include: breaching of one of the provisions under Part VI of the Competition Act, or if failing to comply with an order issued by the Competition Tribunal or a court under the Competition Act. Further, Section 7 of the Trade-marks Act prohibits any form of deceptive marketing practice, the use of misrepresentations in describing the goods of competitors or the use of a trade-name that is confusingly similar to that of another business. Also, it is important to note the common-law tort of passing off with regard to business-to-business cases.

Finally, special interest presents the “look-alike, sound-alike” 2006 policy that enables Health Canada to grant or reject the brand name of any health product on the basis of confusion. This review process is additional to the one done from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. The point of the policy is to deal with the errors in prescribing or administering a product caused by names that are similar when written or spoken. Earlier this year, Health Canada initiated consultations with various stakeholders for the revision of the 2006 policy guidelines.

Georgios Andriotis is an IPilogue Editor and a law student at Université de Montréal. 

Posted in Competition, Competition Law, Trademarks, UK

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« Will I Am: Pharrell Williams and Will.i.am In Trade-Mark Dispute | Will Ultramercial Patent Set Up an Ultra Supreme Court Appeal? »

Career Opportunities
Intellectual Property Society of Osgoode (IPSO)
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

Follow @IPOsgoode

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • Gerard Sinanan on Picture This: Consent and Control over Your Image
  • William Foster on Build-Up, Scale Up: Fostering Innovation in Canada
  • Andrea Uetrecht on Broken Promises: Utility Standards and Patent Applications in Canada
  • Nazli Jelveh on Is Google “Feeling Lucky” at the Supreme Court?
  • Denver Bandstra on Legal Battle Over Monkey’s Selfie Leads to Settlement
  • William Chalmers on Legal Battle Over Monkey’s Selfie Leads to Settlement
  • Isabella Martinez on Intellectual Property Strategy For Artificial Intelligence
  • Andrew M on “Shoe-in” for Converse? Iconic Sneaker Company puts Foot Down and Sues for Trademark Infringement
  • Sebastian Beck-watt on Just Laugh It Off: Trademark Parody and the Expansion of User Rights
  • Lou on Apotex Successfully Invalidates Patent on Nexium
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • #WorldIPDay Spotlight on @MayajMedeiros of @NLawGlobal: @IPOsgoode #InnovationClinic Supervising Lawyer
  • #WorldIPDay Spotlight on Charlene Lindsay: Building Bridges and Indigenous Engagement through @SDNRCG
  • #WorldIPDay Spotlight on Lara Hammoud: Improving Access to Justice with @LawyerlyCanada
  • #WorldIPDay Spotlight on Roya Mahboob: Empowering and Educating Girls and Women in Developing Countries through the @DigitalCitizenF
  • IP Osgoode Celebrates #WorldIPDay with a Q&A Series Featuring Women Entrepreneurs from the Innovation Clinic
  • Breaking Up With Big Tech?
  • Cockatoos, Fireworks, and More: Osgoode Competes at the 16th Annual Oxford International IP Moot
  • Robotic Trolls
  • The Toronto Housing Market Just Got Crazier!
  • DMCA Used to Enforce Moral Rights in Video Games
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • Advisory Board (13)
  • Announcements (126)
  • Arbitration (1)
  • Arts (3)
  • Blogs (214)
  • Book Review (8)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (15)
  • Canadian Telecom Summit 2017 (5)
  • Cloud Services (17)
  • Commercialization (108)
  • Competition (34)
  • Competition Law (26)
  • Contracts (78)
  • copyright reform (201)
  • Crowdfunding (1)
  • Cybersecurity (13)
  • defamation (20)
  • Design (24)
  • Development (13)
  • European Union (82)
  • events (112)
  • Fashion Industry (34)
  • Feature Post (287)
  • Financial (7)
  • Freedom of Speech (34)
  • Freedom of the Press (20)
  • Gaming (25)
  • General (162)
  • Human Rights (17)
  • Image (11)
  • Innovation (221)
  • Internet (348)
  • IP (1,645)
    • Copyright (815)
      • CD Levy (11)
      • Digital Downloads (87)
      • Digital Libraries (10)
      • Digital Locks (42)
      • Fair Dealing (117)
        • Parody (3)
        • Satire (2)
      • Infringement (224)
      • Internet Sharing (116)
      • Literary Works (77)
      • Moral Rights (23)
      • Movies (68)
      • Music Industry (133)
      • Originality (51)
      • Ownership (150)
        • Licensees (55)
      • Plagiarism (1)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (28)
      • Subsidiary Rights (7)
    • IP Reform (97)
    • Patents (476)
      • Access to Medicines (29)
      • Cross Border Issues (55)
      • Electronic Processes (26)
      • Infringement (94)
      • Patent Practice (36)
      • Patent Trolls (28)
      • Patentability (132)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (101)
    • Trademarks (314)
      • Domain Names (50)
      • Famous Marks (26)
      • Official Marks (13)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (16)
  • IP Course Topic (18)
  • IP Innovation Clinic (3)
  • IP Intensive (121)
  • IP Litigation Practice (20)
  • IP Osgoode Speaks Series (17)
  • Jurisdiction (352)
    • Canada (177)
    • China (4)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (5)
    • UK (66)
    • US (169)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (23)
  • Links (3)
  • Literature (2)
  • MediaLaws (44)
  • Music Industry (106)
  • Open-Source (21)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (15)
  • Patents Course Topic (30)
  • Privacy (238)
    • Electronic Databases (50)
    • Human Rights Issues (39)
    • Identity Theft (18)
  • Regulatory Policy (112)
  • Reputation Management (8)
  • Satire (1)
  • Smartphones (28)
  • Social Justice (6)
    • United Nations Development Programme (2)
  • Social Media (50)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (55)
  • Taxation (1)
  • Tech Transfer (36)
  • Technology (345)
  • Telecommunications (115)
  • Trade Secrets (11)
  • UK (30)
  • Uncategorized (140)
  • US-Canada Relations (13)
  • WIPO (30)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us   |   Feedback  |   Privacy   

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736