Letter: Little 'own' about 'own-brand'

YOU ARE unfair to the owners of established brand names ('The real thing put to the test', Business, 24 April). They are not seeking to prevent supermarkets from providing customers with 'own-brand' products. The problem is that there is little 'own' about them. They are, in packaging and presentation, pastiches which seek to filch the goodwill and reputation built up over time by the brand names.

It is also nonsense to suggest that no direct financial loss is suffered by brand manufacturers. Every time a consumer buys Sainsbury's Classic Cola instead of Coca-Cola, Coca- Cola loses profit. If the 'copycats' did not benefit, why would they go to the trouble of imitating the established brands?

You make no mention of 'extended passing-off', an effective common law remedy that can prevent any trading which involves a misrepresentation causing damage to another trader's goodwill in a brand name. In the present case, the damage is clear, to judge from the brand owners' complaints. All it needs to prove is that the presentation of the 'copy-cat' packaging misrepresents the 'own-brand' product in some way. Champagne (in which we are involved) and Jif lemons have succeeded in this way.

David Sills

Christopher Hughes

Monier-Williams & Boxalls

solicitors

London WC2