Asda “living dangerously” with in-store optician ads

Using an advertising campaign that intentionally mimics a competitor, and invites customers to draw a comparison between the two services may approximate “living dangerously”, but does not in itself amount to trademark infringement. In what was a disappointing outcome for Specsavers, the High Court was only willing to accept one of the three claims against the supermarket chain, Asda.

As the logo for its in-store optician, Asda chose two oval shapes indicative of a pair of spectacles. The Specsavers’ logo uses the same idea. However, whereas the ovals are positioned side-by-side in Asda’s logo, in Specsavers’ the ovals overlap in the middle. Underlining the mimicry, Asda adopted the pale green hue favoured by Specsavers as the colour for its logo. Despite these similarities the court was unwilling to accept Specsavers’ argument that the logo amounted to an infringement causing confusion.

Factors persuading the court in Asda’s favour included the fact that, since Specsavers had not registered their mark in a specific colour, the colour of the mark in question was an irrelevant issue. It was also noted that although the ovals were similar and formed an important part of the logo, this was not the dominant aspect. The court held that the wording “ASDA optician”, written inside the ovals, formed the active part, and thereby introduced a significant difference from the claimant’s brand. This meant that a ‘reasonably circumspect consumer’ would not be confused by the two logos. The evidence that Asda was intentionally “living dangerously” did not alter this conclusion.

Where Specsavers did succeed was in its claim that the strapline - “be a real spec saver at Asda” - took unfair advantage of the distinctive nature of their trademark. The court held that, wishing to establish a reputation for value, Asda had used a strapline which clearly called to mind “Specsavers” in order to gain an unfair advantage. The court dismissed Specsavers’ third claim that Asda was guilty of passing off. Since none of the marks gave rise to confusion, the element of misrepresentation that lies at the very heart of any such claim was missing.

Further reading:
Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd [2010] EWHC 2035 (Ch)
http://your.asda.com/2010/8/2/judge-rules-you-can-get-spec-savings-at-asda