Aldi has lost a copyright appeal over its Mamia range of toddler snacks, with a Federal Court panel ruling that two additional products infringed packaging designs owned by competitor Hampden Holdings.
The judgment published on Wednesday also upheld a ruling that the discount supermarket giant remains liable for additional damages for continuing to sell the copycat snacks after receiving legal warnings from the maker of Little Bellies.
The court decision represents another blow for Aldi, an international discount retailer known for offering private-label grocery goods designed to closely resemble major name brands. Historically, the company has avoided intellectual property claims by using distinct product names, having once promoted its range under the marketing slogan "like brands, only cheaper."
In the latest appeal ruling, full court judges added Mamia Fruit and Oat Bars Apricot and MAMIA Fruit Snack Cereal Bars Apple, Blueberry and Banana to the list of infringing products. Reviewing the dispute over the two companies' blueberry puffs, the appeal panel noted that it was apparent the Aldi packaging appropriated numerous aspects of the Hampden packaging design.
Aldi did secure a partial victory in the appeal after showing that primary judge Justice Mark Moshinsky had failed to apply the correct legal approach in his initial ruling. Although the original infringement findings concerning the puffs snacks were retained, the appeal court narrowed their scope by ruling that each Aldi item infringed only one Bellies product rather than multiple items.
Highlighting the complex nature of the legal battle between the food suppliers, the appeal judges stated three times in their written judgment that "The present case is not an easy or clear-cut case."
Origins of the packaging dispute
The legal conflict began after Aldi decided to redesign its Mamia product lineup packaging in 2018. During that redesign process, the supermarket instructed a commercial design agency to benchmark its new packaging directly against Hampden Holdings' Little Bellies brand.
When the redesigned Mamia range hit store shelves in 2021, the packaging featured a smiling blue cartoon owl placed above photographs of the snack food. That imagery triggered an immediate legal warning letter from Hampden Holdings, whose Little Bellies and Mighty Bellies ranges feature a similar looking orange creature positioned above food images.
Although Aldi subsequently made further adjustments to its Mamia branding in response to the complaint, the alterations failed to satisfy Hampden Holdings, which launched a formal copyright lawsuit in the Federal Court in 2022.
Trial evidence and initial court findings
During the court proceedings, key evidence was presented regarding the creation of the original snack packaging. A designer who worked on the Bellies packaging testified about the design process, explaining that the decision to use white as the primary background color was intended to attract the target demographic of "millennial mothers."
In 2024, Justice Mark Moshinsky issued the primary Federal Court ruling on the lawsuit. He found that three Aldi products infringed the copyright of Hampden's Baby Bellies range, but determined that eight other items in the Mamia lineup had not committed copyright breaches.
Justice Moshinsky characterized the three copyright violations as "flagrant." He concluded that while Aldi did not intentionally set out to infringe copyright, the company took a calculated commercial risk that its adaptation of the Bellies packaging designs would exceed what Australian copyright law permits.
The court awarded additional financial damages against Aldi specifically because the supermarket continued to stock and sell the impugned products despite receiving formal legal warnings from Hampden Holdings. Prior to the appeal hearing, Justice Moshinsky had ordered Aldi to submit court disclosures revealing the exact number of impugned products sold or supplied, along with all profits earned from those sales.
Assessment of damages to follow
Despite appealing against all findings of infringement, Aldi failed to overturn the court determination that it is liable for additional damages. The legal proceedings will now return to Justice Moshinsky as the primary judge to assess and calculate the final damages amount Aldi must pay to Hampden Holdings at a later date.
