Australia: Federal Court Finds Five Aldi Packaging Designs Infringed Copyright

Australia’s Full Federal Court has found that five packaging designs used by supermarket chain Aldi infringed copyright in artistic works used on a competing range of baby and children’s snack products, increasing the number of Aldi designs found to infringe from three at trial to five on appeal.

The decision was handed down on August 19, 2026, in Aldi Foods Pty Limited v Hampden Holdings I.P. Pty Limited [2026] FCAFC 103 by Justices Burley, Moore and Owens.

The dispute concerned artistic works comprising the front face of packaging for products sold under the BABY BELLIES, LITTLE BELLIES and MIGHTY BELLIES brands and packaging developed for competing products sold by Aldi under its MAMIA house brand. Hampden Holdings I.P. Pty Limited and Lacorium Health Australia Pty Limited were referred to collectively by the Court as Hampden.

At trial, the Federal Court found that Aldi had set out to create packaging that resembled the Bellies products, although Aldi intended to avoid making the resemblance so close that it infringed copyright. The primary judge found that three of Aldi’s Baby Puffs packaging designs infringed copyright and also found Aldi liable for additional damages.

Aldi appealed the infringement and additional-damages findings, while Hampden cross-appealed the finding that Aldi’s other packaging designs did not infringe.

The Full Court found that the primary judge had erred in the approach used to determine whether Aldi reproduced a substantial part of the copyright works. The Court said the analysis had focused on an abstracted list of design features rather than adequately comparing the relevant works and considering the originality of the features said to have been reproduced.

The Full Court reconsidered the infringement claims itself and ultimately found that five Aldi packaging designs infringed copyright.

The infringing works were Aldi’s MAMIA Fruit & Oat Bars Apricot; MAMIA Fruit Snack Cereal Bars Apple, Blueberry and Banana; MAMIA Baby Puffs Blueberry; MAMIA Baby Puffs Apple and Cinnamon; and MAMIA Baby Puffs Carrot packaging.

The decision therefore added two Aldi products to those found to infringe at trial. However, the Full Court also narrowed the findings concerning the three Baby Puffs designs, finding that each infringed one Hampden copyright work rather than multiple works.

The judgment provides guidance on how courts should assess copyright infringement where competing packaging has a similar layout, design or overall appearance. The Full Court explained that the inquiry requires consideration of the actual expression of the copyright work and whether a substantial part of that expression has been reproduced, rather than merely identifying general design concepts or features shared by the works.

The third comparison is useful because the Court did not treat similarities in packaging as automatically establishing infringement. Its analysis required consideration of whether Aldi had reproduced a substantial part of the particular artistic expression protected by copyright.

The Full Court also rejected Aldi’s attempt to overturn the primary judge’s order concerning additional damages. The primary judge had found Aldi’s conduct flagrant because it deliberately developed packaging resembling its competitor’s designs to obtain a commercial advantage while taking the risk that its conduct could cross the line into infringement.

The Full Court said Aldi could have used packaging of its own design but instead chose to emulate the Hampden works for its benefit. It found no basis to disturb the additional-damages order. The amount of pecuniary relief remains to be determined under the procedures established by the primary judge.

Both sides ultimately had mixed results. Aldi succeeded in establishing error in the primary judge’s infringement analysis and successfully defended six of its works, but two additional Aldi products were found to infringe. The Court observed that Aldi had therefore “gone slightly backwards overall.” Hampden improved its position by obtaining relief concerning the two additional products, although the infringement findings concerning the three Baby Puffs works were narrowed.

The Full Court ordered that there be no order as to the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal, meaning each party will bear its own appellate costs.

Case Information

Source: Federal Court of Australia — Aldi Foods Pty Limited v Hampden Holdings I.P. Pty Limited [2026] FCAFC 103