Little Bellies triumphs over Aldi in copyright showdown

What happened?

On 17 December 2024, the Federal Court of Australia sided with baby and infant snack food brand, Little Bellies, in a watershed copyright infringement case against ALDI.

Often accused of mimicking well-known products with private label imitations, ALDI has historically avoided liability for claims in passing off and misleading and deceptive conduct. Despite ALDI’s resilience, Little Bellies managed to break ALDI's winning streak by proving copyright infringement in artistic works, being the design and expression of its organic snack packaging, marking the first successful copyright claim against ALDI in Australia.

What is copyright?

Under the Copyright Act 1968 (the Act), copyright is automatic and registration is not required. Generally, it subsists in creations that tick the following boxes – namely a creation that:

1. is a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work;
2. is original and fixed in a tangible form (e.g. Paper, computer or video (not an idea)); and
3. has an identifiable author.

The Act protects the expression of ideas or information—not the ideas or information itself. Think of it like this: copyright can subsist in a photo of a scenic winery, but another photo of the same winery, taken from the same spot, may not be deemed to be a copy for the purposes of the Act.

‍

The relevance of copyright to consumer goods

In the context of consumer goods, product packaging often qualifies as “artistic work”. Under section 31 of the Act and in relation to artistic work, copyright owners are granted exclusive rights to:

1. reproduce the work in a material form (i.e., label designs). In considering whether reproduction has occurred, there are two material considerations, being:
   • (a) that there is a causal connection between the infringing work and the original works; and
   • (b) there is a noticeable resemblance.
2. publish or distribute it; or
3. share it with the public (i.e. via advertisements).

It’s worth noting that even copying a small but significant part of an artistic work can be tantamount to infringement. Courts will focus on the quality of what has been copied, rather than just the quantity.

‍

Good, maybe. But not different enough?

In the case against ALDI, the court addressed claims of copyright infringement involving reproduction of Little Bellies’ packaging designs.

The evidence revealed that ALDI’s design brief included images of Little Bellies’ packaging, referred to as its “design benchmark" (clearly satisfying the first of the material considerations when assessing reproduction).

Due to the similar expression of the designs, the court focused on comparisons against two specific examples of packaging produced by Little Bellies (one of which appears below), making detailed observations about their objective similarity:

‍Baby Puffs found to have infringed

The court positively ruled on ALDI’s ‘Baby Puffs’ design, citing the layout and design elements constituted a substantial part of the design of Little Bellies 'Organic Puffs. The court also went on to emphasise that differences in design are not decisive. The key question is whether a substantial part of the applicant’s work was reproduced. Here, it found that it was.

‍

Rice Cakes given a reprieve  

In making a negative finding in respect of ALDI’s ‘Rice Cakes’ design, the court found that ALDI’s packaging did not reproduce a substantial part of Little Bellies’ works. Specifically:

1. the small, oval-shaped cartoon character from Little Bellies’ design was not reproduced. Instead, ALDI’s owl is much larger and distinct in appearance;
2. while ALDI’s packaging includes a large, light-coloured belly with writing, this feature cannot be separated from the overall character design, which is not copied; and
3. ALDI’s layout differs significantly; there is no clear two-column structure, as the ingredients and branding disrupt this impression.

The court concluded that the reproduced elements, even when considered together, are too common and lack sufficient creative importance to qualify as a "substantial part" of Little Bellies’ original work. This assessment focused on the quality of the copied elements, not just the quantity.

‍

Key takeaways:

1. ‍Copyright is automatic: in Australia, copyright protection automatically applies to specific works created by residents. However, it does not cover ideas or concepts—only the tangible expression of those ideas. ‍
2. Quality over quantity in infringement: in assessing infringement, it is not about copying the whole work but whether a "substantial part" is taken. The focus is on the quality and importance of what has been copied. ‍
3. New brand protection strategy: the ALDI case highlights the potential for brands to broaden a legal claim by adding copyright infringement to cases traditionally based on "passing off" or "misleading and deceptive conduct."

‍

Final thoughts

For consumer brands, packaging designs and product labels are valuable assets. Understanding and enforcing copyright ensures competitors can’t exploit your hard work.

If you need help safeguarding your IP, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us.

‍