A high Court judge was told yesterday that two Dunnes Stores directors have tried to patent the slogan "Betta Valdi" as one of the supermarket chain's trade marks. According to the multinational discount group, Aldi Stores (Ireland) Limited, this patent bid, undertaken by Dunnes Chief Executive Margaret Heffernan and another director, indicated an attempt to damage Aldi's trade mark.
Aldi, which has stores in Dublin and Cork and began trading here at the end of last year, came into the High Court yesterday to seek an interlocutory injunction restraining Dunnes, its servants or agents, from infringing Aldi's trade marks pending the hearing of an action on the issue between the parties.
Mr Brian O'Moore SC, for Aldi, said the word "Aldi" had been patented by his client as a trade mark in the Patent Office in preparation for its launch on the Irish market. It was not denied that the use of the mark was permitted in comparative advertising but, when such an advert from Dunnes appeared in the Irish Examiner newspaper on April 7th last, it was both misleading and incorrect in that incorrect prices were given for Aldi products and exact comparisons had not been made between products in Aldi and Dunnes Stores.
Dunnes had therefore breached advertising regulations in that its prices comparison advert did not accurately reflect the price of goods in Aldi's stores compared with its own, counsel argued.
He said Aldi was a new entrant to the supermarket trade and had taken the market by storm. The use by Dunnes of the name "Aldi" outside the scope of proper comparative advertising was unlawful.
Counsel said the word "Aldi" was used by Dunnes in advertising which was not of a comparative nature. Aldi complained to Dunnes about the use of its trade mark name but Dunnes had refused to give an undertaking not to use it in the future. He said Aldi was a registered trade mark but Dunnes, so far as they been able to establish, was not.
Mr John Gordon SC, for Dunnes, said there was no doubt but that there was intense competition between the two groups. Dunnes had not published any advert which infringed Aldi's trade mark or amounted to misleading advertising, he said.
Had Dunnes offered any undertaking to Aldi, there was no doubt but that such an assurance would have been used by Aldi to "best " Dunnes in the supermarket trade war.
After Mr Justice Herbert suggested that perhaps both sides issue cross-undertakings without prejudice pending the hearing of the action, counsel asked for a recess.
When the proceedings resumed, Mr O'Moore told the judge the matter had been resolved pending the trial of the action.