Aldi goes “Bellie” up in pack artwork copying case

In December 2024, the Federal Court of Australia found Aldi liable for flagrantly copying the pack artwork for its competitor’s “Baby Bellies” children’s snacks. The artwork in question included several packs that shared distinct design elements. 

To many in the food industry, Aldi is well known for producing similar looking pack artwork to its competitors’ products. And it would seem Aldi itself is a proud advocate of this approach by living up to its motto “Like brands. Only cheaper.” 

While Aldi has for the most part safely navigated the fine line between unlawful copying and legitimate “inspiration,” the Baby Bellies case provides a salient reminder to all food companies about the importance of recognising – and not infringing – copyright in pack artwork, and underscores why seeking legal advice before launching new packaging is essential to avoid costly missteps. 

In Hampden Holdings I.P. PL v Aldi Foods PL [2024] FCA 1452, the Federal Court found that various of Aldi’s MAMIA snack packs substantially reproduced the artistic features of the artwork on the Baby Bellies packs. 

This followed action taken by the producers of Baby Bellies against Aldi alleging that Aldi had gone beyond mere inspiration by taking key artwork elements including unique cartoon characters, layout, font style, and photographic images appearing on the Baby Bellies packs. 

The case included key evidence obtained in discovery, which showed that Aldi referenced the Baby Bellies packs as “benchmarks” throughout the Aldi pack design process. The Federal Court placed significant weight on this evidence, finding that it involved more than mere “benchmarking” and amounted to Aldi flagrantly copying a substantial part of the Baby Bellies pack artwork. 

Court’s analysis of layout and features in artwork 

The Federal Court analysed and compared nine pack artworks produced by Baby Bellies and eleven pack artworks produced by Aldi. 

The Court held that three of Aldi’s pack artworks had infringed the copyright in three of Baby Bellies’ pack artworks, specifically, the Puffs pack artworks. Central to the Court’s reasoning was the finding that the individual design elements and their overall arrangement carried sufficient originality and artistic expression to warrant protection, rather than simply embodying generic aspects of packaging. 

The Court held that Aldi reproduced the following layout and design elements: 

• a small, oval-shaped cartoon character with a large, light-coloured belly; 

• a solid white background; 

• a two-column layout; 

• a rounded, childlike font; 

• on the left side, text elements of varying sizes “stacked” vertically; 

• on the right side, photographic images of the product and ingredients in a vertical composition; and 

• a number in the upper-right corner. 

The Court emphasised that this was more than a question of mere “look and feel.” The layout and artistic elements collectively formed a protectable expression. Importantly, the Court reiterated that the test for copying is qualitative – not a matter of counting how many elements are copied, but whether the copied parts amount to a substantial part of the original work’s artistic expression. 

The Court acknowledged that certain elements (such as a white background), taken alone, may be “unremarkable,” but that the elements listed above, considered together, are “qualitatively significant.” 

Interestingly, the Court held that Aldi’s non-Puffs pack artworks did not infringe copyright. 

In the above example, the Court held that the following layout and design elements reproduced by Aldi were not a substantial part of Baby Bellies’ pack artwork: 

• a solid white background; 

• a rounded, childlike font; 

• on the bottom left, a green oblong shape with writing in it; 

• on the right side, photographic images of the product and ingredients in a vertical composition; and 

• a number in the upper-right corner. 

The variance between the two analyses illustrates the challenge companies face when seeking to emulate competitors while staying within the bounds of copyright law. It also highlights the importance of obtaining advice from a legal professional to prevent falling afoul of the law. 

Emails and design documents revealed Aldi had deliberately used Baby Bellies packaging as a benchmark, instructing designers to emulate the key features to produce highly similar packaging, then attempting to amend the artwork to “move it far enough away from the benchmark”. This direct reference and reproduction was a decisive factor in finding infringement. 

Notably, the Court awarded additional damages due to the flagrant nature of the infringement, to deter similar conduct and because Aldi continued to sell the infringing products for months after receiving a cease-and-desist from Baby Bellies. 

Lessons learned and reminders for business 

• Using reference artwork: The Aldi case makes it clear that simply labelling a reference artwork as a “benchmark” will not avoid infringement. What matters is how that reference is used in practice. 

• No “10% rule”: This case serves as a reminder that copyright tests require a qualitative comparison of artwork. Businesses cannot avoid liability by applying quantitative assessments such as “taking less than 10%.” 

• Additional damages: Aldi was found liable not only for copyright infringement but also for additional damages due to its flagrant conduct. These damages may amount to hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. 

Aldi has appealed the decision, with the appeal listed for hearing by the Full Federal Court in November 2025. 

Regardless of the appeal’s outcome, the clear takeaway for food businesses is to exercise caution when creating packaging that references competitor products. Seeking specialist legal advice before launching new artwork – especially when drawing inspiration from market leaders – is essential for mitigating the risk of litigation and substantial financial consequences. 

Want Intellectual Property updates delivered straight to your inbox? Click here to subscribe.