Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 04 SEPTEMBER 2026

Good Different, Or Not Different Enough? Aldi Infringes Hampden’s Copyright In Snack Packaging

K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Contributor
K&L Gates

K&L Gates

The Firm K&L Gates is an integrated, international law firm. As a single global law firm, truly...

View firm profile
Explore more from K&L Gates

The Full Federal Court of Australia has handed down its appeal decision in Aldi Foods Pty Limited v Hampden Holdings I.P. Pty Limited [2026] FCAFC 103 which provides guidance regarding the application of copyright infringement principles to the packaging of look-alike products.

AustraliaIntellectual Property

The Full Federal Court of Australia has handed down its appeal decision in Aldi Foods Pty Limited v Hampden Holdings I.P. Pty Limited [2026] FCAFC 103 which provides guidance regarding the application of copyright infringement principles to the packaging of look-alike products.

The appeal concerned claims by Hampden that products marketed by Aldi under its MAMIA brand infringed copyright in the packaging of Hampden’s BABY BELLIES, LITTLE BELLIES and MIGHTY BELLIES baby and child food products.

The crux of the appeal was whether Aldi’s packaging reproduced a ‘substantial part’ of the relevant Hampden works within the meaning of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

At trial, Justice Moshinsky found that the packaging of three Aldi products (the puff works) reproduced a substantial part of Hampden’s copyright works, whereas six other products (non-puff works) did not have the requisite degree of similarity.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from