In December 2024, the Federal Court of Australia handed down a judgment on a copyright dispute which may spell trouble for companies selling ‘off-brand’ products. Hampden Holdings IP v Aldi Food Stores concerned the Aldi brand Mamia, which was accused of copying the packaging designs of the children’s snack brand Little Bellies.
Background
In 2018, the children’s snack producer Every Bit Counts engaged the services of Lacorium Health Australia to design packaging for certain products under the Little Bellies brand. These were based on a redesign that UK design firm B&B Studio Ltd had done for the entire brand in 2017 and 2018. The packages all featured a cartoon, monster character and vertically ‘stacked’ text on the left-hand side. The right column of the design displayed the product and ingredients ‘in a vertical composition’. All of this was set on a white background.
In 2020, Aldi began selling Mamia snack products with recently redesigned packaging by Motor Brand Designs. The new packaging bore certain similarities to those of the Little Bellies products, although a cartoon owl was used as the mascot rather than a monster. Throughout the process of developing and finalising this design, multiple references to Little Bellies as the ‘market leader’ and the design ‘benchmark’ were made. Although Motor Brand Designs were never instructed to copy or reproduce it, Aldi established Little Bellies as the snacking benchmark.
By late 2022, ownership of the copyright in the designs done by B&B Studios had been assigned to Hampden and the Mamia package designs had been reworked multiple times.
Copyright infringement
In order to establish the infringement, the Applicants had to show that there had been a reproduction of their work. In other words, they had to demonstrate that there was:
- a causal link between their works and the works done by Motor Brand Design; and
- a sufficient degree of objective similarity between them.
The Applicants only had to prove that there had been a reproduction of a substantial part of the work, as copying a substantial part of a copyrighted work is deemed to be done in relation to the whole work.
The court made a distinction between two classes of products that both Little Bellies and Mamia sold due to the differences in their packaging designs; that is, Puffs Works and Non-Puffs Works.
Causal connection
Since there was a clear trail of evidence showing that Motor Brand Designs had consistently referred to the original designs as the ‘benchmark’ for their work, it was relatively simple to establish a causal connection between the Little Bellies and Mamia designs. This was the case for both the Puff Works and the Non-Puff Works.
Degree of similarity
However, the question of the degree of similarity between the works was answered differently regarding the two classes of products. In the case of the Puffs Works, the court found that there was a sufficient degree of objective similarity, citing the following features:
- 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.
His Honour Justice Moshinsky anticipates the point that none of these features are particularly distinctive on an individual level:
“While a solid white background on its own may be unremarkable, it needs to be considered in conjunction with the other elements. When considered together, in my opinion, the layout and design elements involve a degree of creativity or originality.”
On the other hand, the Non-Puffs works were not found to be similar enough for Aldi to have infringed on the copyright. His Honour identified several differences between the character design of the mascots, as well as the overall layout. These altered the cumulative effect of the design so that it no longer sufficiently resembled the Applicants’ Non-Puffs Works designs.
At this stage, no orders have been made regarding how much Aldi is liable for; however, the court determined that additional damages should be awarded as a deterrent of future copyright infringement.
What does this mean for you?
This is a useful illustration for designers who intend to take artistic inspiration from an existing work. By considering the difference between the Puffs Works and Non-Puffs Works in this case, you can better assess whether your work is too similar to the source material and so whether you have infringed on a copyright.
This case also reassures those who would protect their branding and designs from copycats that there is a legal avenue to guard against copyright infringements in cases like this.
If you require advice in either of these areas, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our Intellectual Property + Technology Team!
For further information please contact Ben Gouldson.
The assistance of Eve Gellatly, Legal Assistant, in researching this article is gratefully acknowledged.
Executor of a Will: Challenges and Solutions