Specsavers v Asda: supermarket’s ‘spec saver’ strapline infringed, but logo did not
Specsavers International HealthcarevAsda Stores
- Court
- High Court
- Judgment
- 30 July 2010
- Citation
- [2010] EWHC 2035 (Ch)
Wordplay that deliberately calls a rival's name to mind can infringe, even without any confusion.
Specsavers sued Asda over an optical advertising campaign that echoed its branding. Specsavers won on one strapline that played on its name, but lost on the logo, other wording and passing off.
What happened
Asda launched an optical marketing campaign with a logo of overlapping green ovals and two straplines referencing 'spec saver(s)'. Early design work started from mock-ups closely resembling Specsavers' own logo before being changed after legal input. Specsavers sued for trademark infringement and passing off. Specsavers also faced a challenge to one of its own trademark registrations, a wordless version of its logo, which Asda argued had never been used on its own and ought to be revoked for non-use.
What did the court decide in Specsavers International Healthcare v Asda Stores?
The court found Asda's final logo, once changed in colour, shape and with prominent Asda branding added, did not create a likelihood of confusion or association with Specsavers, and did not take unfair advantage of or damage Specsavers' reputation. The first strapline, "Be a real spec saver at Asda", was different. The judge found it deliberately called Specsavers to mind and took unfair advantage of its reputation, infringing under Article 9(1)(c) of the relevant trademark law, even though no actual confusion was shown. The passing off claim failed because there was no misrepresentation. Specsavers' wordless logo mark was revoked for non-use, since it had only ever appeared embedded within a worded version of the logo.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that a strapline playing on a competitor's name can infringe even when nobody is actually confused, because the law also protects against unfairly riding on a well known name's reputation.
- If your design process starts by copying a rival's branding and only gets watered down later for legal safety, that history can still count against you even if the final version looks quite different.
- Registering a logo in one form doesn't protect a stripped down version of it unless you actually use that stripped down version in trade, or it risks being revoked for non-use.
- Wordplay on a well known name in advertising carries real legal risk, even where there's no attempt to copy a rival's logo or get-up.
Things to be aware of
- The logo itself was found not to infringe once finalised, despite an early design process that closely followed Specsavers' branding, showing outcomes can differ sharply between elements of the same campaign.
- This was a liability-only judgment. The court did not yet decide on an injunction or damages, which were left to a later hearing.
- The case went on to further appeals, including to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Justice of the EU, so this judgment was not the final word on the dispute.
The businesses involved
Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd
Along with related Specsavers group companies, operates one of the UK's largest optical retail chains and holds trademark registrations covering its logo and branding.
Asda Stores Ltd
Registered in England since 1949, Asda Stores Ltd is an active company whose main business is retail sale in non-specialised stores. It runs a large UK supermarket chain that also operated an optical business, and holds hundreds of trademarks on the UK trademark register.
- Companies House
- 00464777 Active
- Incorporated
- February 1949
- Registered office
- Great Wilson Street
- Business activity
- Other retail sale in non-specialised stores
- UK trademarks
- 554
What happened next
- The dispute proceeded to the Court of Appeal, recorded under neutral citation [2012] EWCA Civ 24.Source: Wipo
- A further Court of Appeal judgment in the litigation followed in 2014, with counsel for one of the parties noted as appearing at that later hearing.Source: 8Newsquare
What others said about it
- bgrow.com notes the case illustrates that a trademark with an established reputation enjoys wider legal protection than one without.Source: Bgrow
- The Brand Protection Blog highlights the later CJEU ruling in this litigation as a positive development for brand owners on how colour combinations are treated in trademark disputes.Source: Thebrandprotectionblog, July 2013
How we can help
If something in this case sounds familiar, talk it through with us. The first call is free for new clients.
This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute trademark advice or guidance. Summary drafted with AI assistance from the published judgment and checked by The Trademark Helpline (how we write these). Judgment: [2010] EWHC 2035 (Ch) on Find Case Law, published under the Open Justice Licence. Company details from Companies House; trademark counts from the UK trademark register. Last reviewed 27 October 2026. Report an error.
