• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Right after launch in the US: Kroger sues Lidl for trademark infringement

8. August 2017

Welcome to the United States: Two weeks after the opening of its first grocery store in the US, the german discounter Lidl is involved in its first legal battle. The Kroger Co., the second largest player on the US grocery market after Walmart, is suing the german retailer for a trademark infringement. Kroger sees his private brand label “Private Selection” harmed by Lidl’s new introduced own private label brand and trademark “Preferred Selection“.

Private-label goods are more frequently used by grocery retailers to individualize their assortment and moreover lower the costs and get more profits. By opening 21 stores in the US until the end of july and planning to open up to 80 additional stores until the mid of 2018, the german discount chain Lidl tries to attack the US grocery market with full force. And the introduction of the private-label “Preferred Selection” is part of the strategy.

 

Kroger sees unfair competition by Lidl

Now Kroger, owner of 2,796 supermarkets and 784 convenience stores in the US, claims that Lidl is using the label “Preferred Selection” in order to damage their 20-year-old home brand “Private Selection”. Therefore Kroger filed a lawsuit at the U.S. District Court in Virginia just two weeks after the opening of Lidl’s first US store. The aim is to prohibit the further use by Lidl of its “Preferred Selection” branding.

Kroger_supermarkt

“The trade mark would allow them to engage in unfair competition against Kroger, because customers could assume that the two brands belonged together”, Kroger’s lawyers argue in their lawsuit.

Kroger also fears that the reputation of their label will be damaged if customers make bad experiences with the new Lidl home brand. As a result, their own sales would suffer.

 

 

Lidl rejects accusations: “Private Selection” has limited scope of protection

The german discounter denies these accusations. “Preferred Selection” be an own developed speciality brand which is well adopted by the consumers. Lidl also states: “Kroger is using this lawsuit to try to: disrupt the on-going launch of a new, emerging competitor that offers consumers high-quality products at far lower prices; distract from the positive reviews garnered by Lidl’s launch by painting Lidl as a copycat — when in fact Lidl is a decidedly different and (better) grocery experience; and drive up Lidl’s costs by having to defend against Kroger’s spurious claims.”

In addition, Lidl’s attorney Brett August has onemore argument on his side: “Private Selection is not a strong mark. It is largely descriptive and therefore has limited scope of protection.”

The fronts are therefore hardened and this could be just the start of a long conflict between the two grocery retailers. If Kroger is successful at the court, Lidl would have to destroy all packaging and advertising materials with the “Preferred Selection”Inscription on it. The two parties will face each other at court at the end of july.

 

UPDATE: A preliminary injunction against Lidl has been denied by the court for now. The court in Richmond, Virginia, sets the beginning of the further process on January 11th.

 

 

Are you suspected of having infringed trademark rights or is a competitor violating your rights?

Then we should talk to each other, because this is nothing to joke about! Our lawyers advise you individually and together with you develop the right strategy to protect your brand.

Make a free and non-binding call back call today:

CAT-call_en

Source:

Images: alexas_fotos / Pixabay.com / CC0 License | 127071 / Pixabay.com / CC0 License | www.wikipedia.org – CC-BY-SA 3.0

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Trademark Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.