When Imitation Turns into Litigation
By Samantha Ludemann | Associate
For years, Aldi has created its own versions of well-established products, often featuring packaging that bears a striking resemblance to the original products. Aldi’s products are promoted in the marketplace as budget-friendly alternatives. However, recently Aldi has suffered a wave of legal woes over its copycat packaging designs. Courts in both Australia and the UK have found that Aldi’s packaging designs were infringing on the intellectual property rights held by the owners and creators of the original products.
The Australian Case in Detail
In Australia, Hampden Holdings I.P. Pty Ltd, the owner of the “Baby Bellies” brand, and Lacorium Health Australia Pty Ltd (together, the Applicants), initiated legal action against Aldi Foods Pty Ltd. The Applicants claimed that Aldi’s “Mamia” baby food packaging infringed on the copyright of their “Baby Bellies” packaging design. The Court found that copyright subsisted in the packaging designs and that this was owned by the Applicants. Moshinsky J found that Aldi’s “Mamia” baby puffs packaging infringed on the copyright of the “Baby Bellies” packaging designs in the following instances:¹
Aldi denied the allegations of copyright infringement and, in response, filed a crossclaim asserting unjustified threats. It was found that Aldi’s design team had deliberately used the Applicants’ packaging as a “benchmark” and Aldi closely replicated key elements such as the layout, font, and character designs. The court ruled that this amounted to flagrant infringement, justifying an order for additional damages.
Moshinsky J considered that “an award of additional damages is appropriate to deter similar infringements of copyright,” noting that such an award could act as a strong deterrent against future copyright infringements, potentially influencing not only Aldi but also other retailers with similar packaging strategies to reconsider their approaches to copycat packaging.¹ Aldi has the option to appeal this decision to the Full Federal Court, and if past actions are any indication, we expect an appeal to be forthcoming.
The UK Case in Detail
In the United Kingdom, the Court of Appeal upheld Thatchers Cider’s appeal against Aldi, finding that the supermarket’s use of similar packaging for its Taurus cloudy lemon cider infringed Thatchers’ registered trade mark:
Aldi’s design closely resembled Thatchers’ branding, using elements like the colour scheme and layout, suggesting a link between the two products. The court determined that Aldi had unfairly capitalised on Thatchers’ market reputation to sell its own product at a cheaper price. Amounting to trade mark infringement under section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (UK). ² Aldi now faces the prospect of further action as it considers an appeal to the UK Supreme Court. While it is not an overly common practice, the UK decision shows the benefits of trade marking packaging, in this case it assisted in solidifying Thatcher’s exclusive rights.
Is this a beginning to the end of “dupes”?
Aldi’s budget-friendly alternatives hinge on packaging designs that leverage the success and recognition of another brand, effectively serving as a ‘dupe’ for the original. Dupes have gained significant popularity in the marketplace in recent times, as they are promoted as delivering similar results without the extraordinary price tag. When do these alternatives cross the line into infringement of the creator’s originality and design?
These cases potentially signal a broader judicial trend to clamp down on ‘copycat’ products. For businesses using similar tactics, these rulings serve as a cautionary tale about the risks of exploiting the reputation of well-known brands through lookalike products and packaging. Such tactics could result in hefty legal consequences.
The legal landscape created by these cases highlights the risks companies face when pushing the boundaries of design imitation, especially when adopting a competitor’s branding as their own “architecture” or when packaging is so similar that it implies a connection between the products.
It’s clear that as more companies embrace “inspiration,” they’ll need to tread carefully. As for Aldi, will they rethink their approach to “value-based mimicry”? We’re not so sure.
At XVII Degrees, we specialise in intellectual property law and take pride in assisting original creators in safeguarding their innovative work and ideas. If you are concerned about your brand being copied or want to further protect it from imitation by competitors, reach out to us at www.17degrees.com.au and connect with one of our experienced IP lawyers to explore your options for securing your intellectual property.
Follow XVII Degrees for more intellectual property updates and insights.
References:
[1] Hampden Holdings I.P. Pty Ltd v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1452. Retrieved from https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca1452
[2] Thatchers Cider Company Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd (2025) EWCA Civ 5 (20 January 2025). Retrieved from https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025-EWCA-Civ-5-CA.2024.000463-Thatchers-Cider-Company-Limited-v-Aldi-Stores-Limited-Handed-Down-Judgment-H.D-.pdf
