Category: For Clients

Audit the Intellectual Property in your business, with funding available through Innovate UK

Two IP consultant trade mark attorney Rachel Havard discusses the IP Audits Plus scheme for SMEs, and possible government funding available, for applications made through Innovate UK Edge.

As a trade mark attorney, it is fascinating for me to carry out a deep dive into the present and future interests of a business, to be able to offer well informed advice upon how to identify and protect valuable intellectual property (“IP”) rights, insofar as they might exist now, are able to be protected, or could be created for protection in the future. Working closely with patent attorney colleagues, I have had the pleasure of conducting many IP audits over the years, for businesses in diverse and often rather unusual markets. My blog below sets out available options, and how these could help your own business.

Possible government funding for IP audits

The IP Audits Plus scheme, available through Innovate UK Edge, enables qualifying SMEs to receive a £2500 (inc. VAT) contribution from the UK Intellectual Property Office (“UK IPO”) towards an IP audit to the value of £3000 (inc. VAT). As such, for a payment on their part of only £500 (inc. VAT), the business can receive a thorough assessment of its position in relation to IP rights available to them, along with recommendations for optimising their protection.

The IP Audits Plus scheme is a competitive grant-funding scheme, open to SMEs ranging from start-ups to already high turnover businesses, if they have witnessed, or are expecting, strong growth, and IP will be significant to the development and commercialisation of the product/service allowing the business to grow.

Should IP audit funding be granted, future costs for protection of identified IP will usually need to be incurred, but the audit process will result in a clear set of recommendations for efficient protection where it really matters, along with dos and don’ts to effectively maintain that protection, to avoid infringing third parties’ IP rights, and with a strong steer towards the most cost effective, tailored approach for the business concerned.

Applications and process for IP Audits Plus through Innovate UK Edge

The audit would need to be applied for with the assistance of a regional Innovation and Growth Specialist from the Innovate UK Edge network of such advisors. Should the application for audit funding be granted, the recipient needs to appoint IP attorneys, such as Two IP, to carry out the audit. The audit report would require submission with the UK IPO by a specified date, usually within a couple of months, to enable their release of the government funding payable to the selected IP attorneys, with the audit recipient to pay the remainder.

The audit process will often begin with a fact finding meeting or visit of your business from the selected IP attorneys. As part of the process, we would explore the following and related areas, and develop the audit report from the information gathered, adding our own strategic recommendations:

Scope of your business, both technical and geographic, looking at the present, but also future possible directions or expansion;
Existing IP in your ownership – which could include registered IP such as registered trade marks, design registrations or granted patents, or automatic rights not requiring registration, such as copyright or unregistered design rights;
Potential IP ownership issues or contractual considerations;
IP rights capable of protection, yet to be sought;
Potential threats to and opportunities for protecting, enforcing, and exploiting your IP;
Possible bars to use and/or registration of your IP;
Recommendations and cost estimates for bolstering and managing your IP, so placing you in the best position to benefit from it.

You would receive a detailed report upon the above, for discussion with your Innovation and Growth Specialist, ahead of sign off for release of the funding. The chosen IP attorneys will usually offer a follow up consultation to agree next steps, but you could likewise take your audit report away to other IP attorneys to progress in the future.

What next?

The IP Audits Plus scheme is offered as part of a much broader package from Innovate UK Edge, and they should be your first port of call if considering an application under this scheme. See further details here.

As this is a competitive process, Innovate UK Edge will assess the capability of a particular business to benefit from an IP audit, with an eye to future possible returns and, particularly, high growth prospects. They would look to match your business with one of their Innovation and Growth Specialists with relevant experience and expertise, who could offer advice on internationalisation, sales and marketing, and other business growth areas, including assisting in completion of the application for funding under IP Audits Plus, should they consider that appropriate.

Should you be granted the funding for an IP audit, you could then appoint your preferred firm of IP attorneys, who would work with you and with your Innovation and Growth Specialist to see the audit through to the final report and recommendations, to ensure you can get the most out of your IP and the opportunities it can give you.

Even if you do not qualify for the IP Audits Plus scheme, Two IP could still help identify and protect the IP in your business, if you chose to approach us directly. Should you be seeking focussed advice upon a specific innovation or branding project, we would likewise be delighted to help.

Please do visit our website at www.two-ip.com, or get in touch with us at hello@two-ip.com with any questions you might have about identifying protectable IP and how best to protect it in your ownership.

Why AI is changing our world

Our new patent attorney and Artificial Intelligence (AI) expert, Coreena Brinck, reviews the basics of AI and summarises the differences between generative AI and Artificial General Intelligence.

Over to you, Coreena….

As a patent attorney I’ve always enjoyed working with computer-implemented technology and AI systems are computer programs which I find particularly interesting. AI programs can allow insights into data to be found which might otherwise be missed completely and/or be found more quickly than if a different analytic approach is used instead.

I’ll keep the explanation from here on in as simple as possible to give a basic overview of AI technology as I’ll be writing more in-depth about the many forms and flavours of artificial intelligence as it permeates our lives in so many different ways in future blog articles.

AI – what is it good for?
AI is already being used for applications ranging from drug discovery and image diagnostics in the medical sector, and in control systems for everything from coffee makers to cooling systems, cars to entire factories, and transport networks to stock pickers. In 6G communication networks AI systems will be used in various contexts to maximise the utilisation of resources. AI language models, such as Chat-GPT and LLAMA, are increasingly being used in a range of applications. This type of AI model can be trained for things like screening job applicants to approving your mortgage application, as well as a whole host of text-based applications, including speeding up the process of writing patent applications! Pretty scary stuff. Which is why there is so much in the news about regulation, ethics and accountable AI.

So that is what AI can do – but what exactly is AI?
First of all, there are lots of different data analytics and/or decision-making computer programs which provide a form of AI but the term AI these days is used mostly to refer to a computer program comprising one or more neural networks, NNs. Data is input and then flows through the NN which comprises lots of nodes linked together. The nodes of AI NNs modify the data in a particular way, and the way they modify the data can also change with the data input.

To obtain useful output from most AI systems, the AI NN is trained by feeding into the AI NN examples of data which have known patterns or features. Eventually the nodes are modified sufficiently (in other words they “learn”) to process the data in such a way that the AI NN output becomes consistent whenever those patterns or features appear in the data input. How quickly and reliably the AI NN learns to do this depends on which AI NN model is used and also the quality and volume of training data used to train it.

So what is AGI?
Most existing AI systems are narrow AI systems dedicated to one task with a narrow focus of competence. They are set up to tackle a particular task and so are limited in what they can do, how they learn, and the pace they can learn, and do not adapt easily, or at all, if a task they are trained to do later changes.

Some AI models may be reconfigured to perform a different task, especially if they are retrained on new training data for that task, but quite often the only way to handle a completely different task is to build and train a completely new AI model. Developing, testing, and training a new AI model, however, all takes time and money.

Artificial General Intelligence, AGI, models could theoretically be built to tackle diverse tasks like ironing your clothes, ordering food, walking the dog, cutting your hair, driving a car, mowing the lawn. To do this, however, they need to process and learn a bit more about the way humans process and learn. We don’t need to swap out our driving brain and upload and train a new brain to mow the lawn, and then do the same when we want to walk the dog, for example.

This is why there so much excitement about Artificial General Intelligence – they are built slightly differently so they can be used for different types of tasks, as well as allow the tasks tackled by the AI system to change and even be reused for totally different applications. AGI though does not necessarily mean anything with human level sentience (never mind superhuman intelligence). AGI is not the same as Generative AI language models like ChatGPT or LLAMA 2 either – although these are very versatile when it comes to processing text for different applications but they would not be that great for example handling object recognition or allocating communications network spectrum.

This is the most basic and simple explanation I could think of for how AI and AGI differ. I’m sure there is an AI LLM system that could probably generate a more catchy description (possibly biased) but this is my own, human-generated, take. But in a nutshell: AGI models seek to be more adaptable than narrow, task-specific AI models can ever be. A key goal of AGI models is to be able to handle different tasks in different contexts and/or environments, ideally without needing retraining and/or specially curated training data sets. Developing such AGI models, which is hugely challenging, is ongoing and commercially viable systems are likely to emerge in the next few years.

Meanwhile, although AGI may be a game changer eventually, it does not mean that narrow focus AI models which are optimized for a particular type of task are no longer needed.

My recommendation is that it is always worth considering obtaining a patent if you are developing or using AI (or AGI) technology. If you do have any questions about whether you could patent your technology (regardless of whether it is an application which is using AI in a new and inventive way or a fundamentally new and inventive core-AI system) do reach out to me as I’d love to chat with you and find out if I can help you.

Meanwhile, I say “Vive la machine” – in the hope that some day in the not too distant future one will bring me a Martini before cooking my dinner.

Coreena will be taking part in the virtual FemTech Titans Panel on Aug 29th – FemTech Titans: The Women Leaders Trailblazing AI. Click here to book.

For another great introduction to the subject of AI, we have recently enjoyed listening to BBC Radio 4’s ‘Understand Tech and AI’ podcast and would thoroughly recommend – click here to listen.

If you would like to discuss protecting your AI with Coreena, you can get in touch here.

UK address for service – don’t miss the bus!

If you or your clients are based outside the UK, we strongly recommend you have a UK address for service recorded for your/your clients’ UK IP rights, to ensure prompt notification can be received of any challenges upon their validity.

In January 2023, we emphasised the importance of appointing a valid UK address for service for trade marks and designs, especially those designating the UK in International trade mark (Madrid Protocol) or International design (Hague Agreement) registrations, which might otherwise only have an address for service outside the UK jurisdiction.

In our article here, we reported upon a significant procedure change by the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO), effected by their Tribunal Practice Notice (TPN) No 2/2023. The TPN can be viewed here.

The TPN provides that – in the event of third party challenges to a UK registered right, such as invalidation, revocation on grounds of non-use, revocation on grounds other than non-use, or rectification – absent a UK address for service, a preliminary letter by post would be issued by the UK IPO directly to the rights holder (should they have no representative at all) but otherwise directly to the holder’s recorded representative outside the UK. This communication would require the holder to provide a valid UK address for service within just one month, together with confirmation of its intent to defend its right. Without any response within this very short period, the holder could risk losing its rights.

The effects of the TPN are now becoming significant for so-called “clone” trade mark and design registrations on the UK Registers, as created from European Union (EUIPO) registrations at the point of Brexit. The Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and EU had specified that the UKIPO could not require a UK address for service for these clone registrations for a three year period, but that period will come to an end on 31 December 2023. As such, from the start of next year, the TPN will encompass post-Brexit clone registrations as well, and will require appointment of a UK address for service where any new contentious proceedings are launched, such as invalidations, revocations or rectifications. Directions from the UK IPO to appoint a UK address for service, where needed, will be sent by post to a non-UK address, and will give only one month for that appointment to be made.

Just one month is such a short period of time to receive by post, react to, obtain client instructions, and appoint UK representation for any challenge upon your/your clients’ UK rights. As such, we would strongly recommend that you promptly appoint a UK address for service for any of your clients’ UK registrations – be those national registrations, UK designations in International registrations, or UK clone registrations created out of EUIPO registrations – to ensure that notifications of any challenges to those rights can be promptly received and acted upon.

Wherever questions are raised relating to validity of an IP right in the UK, local advice and representation is crucial, and Two IP’s attorneys are well qualified to help you. Get in touch here or email hello@two-ip.com.

Unified Patent Court – How did the first month go?

As of the end of June 2023, 535,152 European patents and applications have been opted-out from the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

In the last couple of weeks before the UPC opened for business on 1^st June, the number of opt-outs dramatically increased, reaching a peak of just over 36,336 patents and applications opted-out on 30 May 2023.

Since then, the numbers have stabilised at around 2,700 applications and 7,600 patents per week. With approximately 3,700 European patent applications filed and around 1,500 patents granted each week at the European Patent Office (EPO), there are still many more patents being opted-out as patent owners continue to review whether they want their patents to fall under the jurisdiction of the new court.

Technology-wise, patents and applications covering preparations for medical purposes, takes first place with 22,810 cases opted-out. Second, third and fourth places go to computing and communications fields, which aligns with the dominance of technology, media and telecoms companies in the opt-out rankings.

The first patent revocation action before the UPC (ACT_459505/2023) was filed on 2 June, against European patent EP3666797 “ANTIGEN BINDING PROTEINS TO PROPROTEIN CONVERTASE SUBTILISIN KEXIN TYPE 9 (PCSK9)”.

As of 26^th June, 7 infringement proceedings and 3 further revocation proceedings have been filed at the UPC. Of the infringement proceedings, three have been filed by Ocado Innovation Limited, the software and robotics company that also owns online supermarket Ocado. The patents relate to Ocado’s robots, and the grid system that they operate within, for picking items in Ocado customers’ online orders.

Read the full UPC statistics here: UPC opt-outs: statistics and trends one month in – Kluwer Patent Blog (kluweriplaw.com)

Links to all the UPC cases here: First patent revocation actions before the UPC have been filed – The IPKat (ipkitten.blogspot.com)

We talk Two IP on the ‘Talking IP with Justin Simpson’ podcast

Two IP founder Anna Molony and consultant Rachel Havard were thrilled to be invited to join Billtrader founder Justin Simpson on his podcast ‘Talking IP with Justin Simpson’.

In their conversation with Justin, Anna shares the reasons behind setting up Two IP and the benefits of working outside of the traditional practice model and Rachel talks about her reasons for joining Two IP as a Consultant Trade Mark Attorney and shares how it is going so far.

You can listen to the full podcast episode:

For Apple Podcasts: click here

For Spotify: click here

If you are a patent or trade mark attorney and would like to learn more about joining us, click here to book a confidential call with one of our Directors.

Unified Patent Court Opens

The Unified Patent Court has finally opened after 50 years in the making. The Court which will have jurisdiction for European Patent actions in an initial set of 17 countries including France and Germany. It is reputed that several parties have lodged multiple infringement actions at the Court. Since opening on the 1st June, there is only a single infringement action and a single revocation action showing on the system.

However, the Court has had extensive problems with its computer systems which have been used to date pre-dominantly to allow patentees to file opt-outs so as to remove their patents from the jurisdiction of the Court.

So it may well be that users have struggled to get their infringement actions on file with the Court and that the numbers showing will increase in the coming week.

It is reputed that one large IP services provider was unable to lodge opt-outs for several of their clients by the deadline of the Court’s opening.

Others have highlighted that they had extensive difficulties with the Court’s computer system.

It is notable that the revocation action is against a patent, in the name of Amgen at the European Patent Office, which one might have expected to have been opted out. It is conceivable that the Court will now be hearing a revocation action on a Patent which potentially owing to problems with the Court’s computer systems left the patent within the Court’s jurisdiction.

There is plenty of potential for some very interesting arguments between patent owners and the court on this topic.

If you would like to discuss the implications of the UP and the UPC on your business, our patent attorneys can advise and take the appropriate action on your behalf. Get in touch here or email us at hello@two-ip.com

The Unitary Patent is here! But should you use it?

From today, 1st June 2023, it is possible to get a Unitary Patent (UP) following grant of a European Patent by the European Patent Office (EPO). So what is it? And should you use it?

The UP is a European patent which has unitary effect in 17 European Patent Convention (EPC) states: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden. It is simple to obtain following grant of a European patent by filing a Request for Unitary Effect at the EPO.

Let’s look at some of the pros and cons of going the UP route when your European patent reaches grant. The biggest pro is that you have a single patent with the same protection in all 17 countries, with no need for any translations. The next is that a single annual renewal fee covers all 17 countries. But these two pros also lead to two potential cons. Firstly, the renewal fee has been set to correspond to the combined renewal fees due in the four countries where European patents were most often validated in 2015 (DE, FR, GB and NL), so if you typically only validate in 2 or 3 countries, the UP will be more expensive. And secondly, because it is a single patent, you can’t choose to drop any of the countries that it covers, or reduce the renewal fee.

The next big pro is that alongside the UP we have the new Unified Patents Court (UPC), which is the forum for taking infringement action against a UP. This means that you can sue for patent infringement in all 17 countries at once at this new central court. But the UPC is also the source of the biggest downside of the UP for patent owners – the validity of a UP can be attacked through the UPC, meaning that patent coverage in all 17 countries can be lost through a single (successful) validity attack. But, realistically, for the majority of SME patent owners the risk of a central validity attack is low, as is the likelihood that you will want to take infringement action.

And what about the rest of the EPC member states, including the UK, that are not currently participating in the UP? For these (non-UP) EPC states we will continue to validate European patents in the countries in which you want it to take effect – following the “classic” procedure, as we have always done, and annual renewal fees will continue to need to be paid for each country.

And what if you don’t want a UP? Well, you’ll be relieved to know that you don’t have to opt for a UP in the countries that it covers – a European patent can still be validated in the “classic” way in each of the countries participating in the UP.

One thing to note however, for classically validated European patents in both non-UP and UP states, is that the UPC is also now the forum for taking infringement action and validity action against all classically validated European patents, including those granted before today. It is possible to opt-out of the UPC’s jurisdiction, and many patent owners (particularly those with high value patents which might be at high risk of central validity attack) are choosing to do this. The question to consider, as noted above, is what the risk is to each patent that you own of a central validity attack by a third party competitor is, and what is the likelihood that you will want to take infringement action.

You can find more details about the UP and the UPC on the EPO website here: EPO – Unitary Patent

If you would like to discuss the implications of the UP and the UPC, and whether you should opt for the UP or opt-out of the UPC, our patent attorneys can advise and take the appropriate action on your behalf. Get in touch here or email us at hello@two-ip.com

Do as I say, not as I do!

This is the last of our series of blogs about supermarket branding battles, from Two IP trade mark attorney Rachel Havard.

Last time, we talked about copycat products and brand lookalikes – see our last blog here, which had particular focus upon discounter Lidl. Let’s now look at a classic case of “do as I say, not as I do!”

Few could have missed that Lidl have been prominent in the news lately, acting as gamekeeper rather than poacher. We refer, of course, to Lidl’s success before the UK High Court, against supermarket Tesco. This concerned Tesco’s selection and use of imagery of “a graphical device formed of a blue square background and a yellow circle”, for its Clubcard loyalty scheme, with examples shown below:

These images and others below are taken from the Judgment, which you will find here – and some great bedtime reading, if you like, at a mere 102 pages.

The essentials

Lidl registered, and use in the UK, The Mark with Text below:

Tesco were found to infringe Lidl’s registered trade mark rights by taking unfair advantage of and causing detriment to the reputation of the Lidl mark. Interestingly, this was the infringement case run, rather than allegations of a likelihood of confusion as to origin of the respective goods. Passing off and copyright infringement by Tesco were also found to have occurred.

Lidl also had trade mark registrations of the logo without the word “LiDL”, as below:

even though their use was always with the word “LiDL”. Trade mark applications which had led to registrations of The Wordless Mark were deemed to have been filed in bad faith; Lidl could not provide reasoning for seeking registration in that form at the date of application; also, repeated filing by Lidl of applications for this same mark were an attempt to “evergreen”, i.e. to circumvent the requirement to have used a trade mark in its registered form, or differing only in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark in the form in which it was registered, if registration is not to be successfully attacked on non-use grounds. All bar one of Lidl’s registrations for The Wordless Mark were therefore deemed invalid.

Deep dive

From a consumer perspective, this case and its outcome grabs attention, because the players and branding elements concerned are so recognisable; but a judgment running to 102 pages seems a lot to reach the conclusions discussed above.

For brand owners and their advisors, however, the judgment is a treasure chest of dos and don’ts for the process of selecting, designing, developing and registering trade marks, but also for futureproofing in anticipation of challenges further down the road. It highlights the importance, early on, of recognising red flags and seeking appropriate advice.

The creative process behind Tesco selecting the yellow circle presentation – a clear change of direction from previous promotions of its Clubcard scheme – was subjected to close scrutiny at trial. Early concerns expressed in emails within the Tesco creative team were exposed. Much criticised was a lack of clarity on the extent of involvement of external branding agencies in the creative process. Ordinary people, who had been doing their every day jobs, found themselves on the stand accounting for the part they had played.

Intentions of Lidl, too, at the date of filing their trade mark applications for The Wordless Mark even as long ago as 1995, were open to question and an inability to explain those historical intentions led to important trade mark registrations being deemed invalid.

No simple, side by side comparison here – of two trade marks for the same goods and whether they might be confused. This judgment shows that brand owners may need to be prepared for a deep dive into their entire process of brand creation.

Afterword

What cannot be ignored in all of this, is something of a double standard on the part of Lidl, as they regularly adopt the same colour elements and presentations for their products as those directly competitive with them, but argue to distinguish these by use of different word elements with such get up. The High Court disregarded mention by Tesco of Lidl’s own behaviours, as not being relevant to the case before them; but it will certainly be interesting when reasoning from this case is utilised by those in the same market place, whose products and branding are regularly imitated closely by Lidl.

With Tesco all set to appeal, and their version of the yellow circle/blue background imagery still being used extensively, there is definitely more to come!

For advice and assistance at all stages of the brand creation process, our experienced trade mark attorneys are here to help. Get in touch here or email hello@two-ip.com

Copycat products and brand lookalikes

This is the second of our series of blogs about supermarket branding battles from Two IP trade mark attorney, Rachel Havard.

Last time, we talked about the evolution of the consumer, and fierce competition amongst supermarkets and discounters – see our last blog here. Copycat products and brand lookalikes now play a huge part in this.

The problem

Discounters such as Aldi and Lidl are no strangers to imitation of the leading brands, using very similar aspects of product appearance, packaging, and colour, but generally avoiding use of word elements which might be seen as too close to the leading brand name. That said, they often choose brand names sharing first letters or letter combinations in common with the imitated brand, as well as other similarities of product get-up. Even if there is not confusion as to the commercial origin of the respective goods, there is a deliberate imitation by one of another, to piggy back off the reputation of the leading brand and prompt customers to buy the cheaper, lookalike product instead.

Below for comparison are a few examples of brand imitations by Lidl, placed beside the well-known or leading brand:

IP protection considerations

The traditional approach of Intellectual Property Offices and the courts has been to attach more significance to word elements of branding than to stylisation, logo elements or other product get-up. Likewise, there has been the tendency for brand owners to register the block capitals version of their word trade marks, quite rightly to embrace any reasonable graphic representation of that word. There is also the issue that, once a trade mark has been on the register for 5 years or more in the UK, non-use for a 5-year period of that mark as registered could result in revocation of the registration if challenged by a third party.

As stylisation and logo elements will come and go for a brand, just as design trends come and go, registration of a brand name in block capitals would seem best for futureproofing. Ideally, though, the brand owner should consider available IP protection for all or any elements of their branding which they see as capable of attracting custom; this could include word elements, stylisation of words, logo elements used and/or the overall get-up of packaging, including particular colour schemes.

If elements of branding or product get-up have accrued goodwill, such that a misrepresentation by another could damage that goodwill, then there could be the option to bring a passing off action, as a common law right even without registration. However, passing off actions would require the compilation of persuasive evidence of goodwill, and proof of other essential elements of the tort when, in contrast, a trade mark registration could very clearly define exclusive rights enjoyed in a trade mark, who owns them and for what goods. Similarly, design protection could be utilised to defend other key elements of branding, in the same way as relied upon by Marks & Spencer in their successful challenge of a “light up gin bottle” the subject of an Aldi imitation of Marks & Spencer’s own product.

Join us next time for our final blog in this series – “Do as I say, not as I do!”

If you have brands you need to protect, or want to bolster the protection you do have, our experienced trade mark attorneys are here to help. Get in touch here or email hello@two-ip.com

Where does your brand loyalty lie?

This is the first of a series of blogs about supermarket branding battles from Two IP trade mark attorney, Rachel Havard.

We, as consumers, want our weekly shop to still include quality products, but at an affordable price. We need those pennies in our wallets to stretch that little bit further.

Major players in the supermarket sector are jockeying for position, pursuing that all important competitive edge, so that we spend with them rather than elsewhere.

Whatever a business’ fame or fortune these days, continued survival is not a given – we have only to look at our local high street to see it – and those still in the game are trying everything they can, including imitation, mimicry and probing the boundaries of others’ intellectual property rights for limitations.

Historically, supermarkets have placed their own brand equivalent products next to the leading brands on the shelves. It might have been the case many years ago that customers believed the leading brand to manufacture the supermarket’s own version. So much so that Kelloggs once ran a marketing campaign stressing that they “don’t make cereals anyone else”.

Supermarkets are now finding their biggest competitors to be so-called discounters, such as Aldi and Lidl, both of whom imitate the appearance of leading brands as closely as they can.

Today’s savvy consumer knows exactly what they want and where to get it. If they feel they cannot justify paying for the leading brand, they will look for what they believe will be the next best thing, and the degree of similarity in brand elements of respective products will play a big part in the choices they make.

Join us next time for our blog about “Copycat products and brand lookalikes”.