Background
Hampden Holdings I.P. Pty Limited and Lacorium Health Australia Pty Limited owned copyright in artistic works used on the front of BABY BELLIES, LITTLE BELLIES and MIGHTY BELLIES snack packaging. Aldi developed competing packaging for products sold under its MAMIA house brand. The primary judge found that Aldi’s designers had been instructed to use the BELLIES range as a benchmark and to follow its packaging architecture, while avoiding a resemblance close enough to infringe.
At trial, three of the eleven challenged MAMIA packaging works—the three “puffs” designs—were held to infringe, while eight non-puffs designs were not. Aldi appealed the infringement findings, and Hampden cross-appealed the non-infringement findings. Both sides challenged the primary judge’s method of assessing whether Aldi had reproduced a substantial part of Hampden’s works.
The Court’s Holding
The Full Court held that the primary judge had not applied the correct comparative approach. By abstracting features such as the character, background, typography and two-column layout, the analysis risked overlooking differences in their concrete visual expression. The proper inquiry required a detailed side-by-side assessment of each alleged reproduction against the particular copyright work, considering similarities and differences together and evaluating whether what was taken was qualitatively substantial.
Conducting that assessment itself, the Court held that Aldi’s packaging items 4, 6 and 9 infringed Hampden work item 1; Aldi item 10 infringed Hampden item 6; and Aldi item 11 infringed Hampden item 7. Thus, Hampden gained findings against two additional non-puffs designs, while the existing findings concerning the three puffs designs were narrowed so that each infringed only one Hampden work rather than all three puffs works. The Court preserved the primary judge’s additional-damages order, the dismissal of Aldi’s unjustified-threats cross-claim and the machinery for determining pecuniary relief. Each side was ordered to bear its own appellate costs.
Key Takeaways
- Packaging copyright infringement must be assessed through a detailed comparison of the actual visual expression, not merely by matching abstracted design features or an overall “look and feel.”
- A combination of layout, colour, typography, imagery and character features may constitute a substantial reproduction even where no individual graphic element is copied unchanged.
- Evidence that a designer deliberately emulated a competitor establishes an important causal connection, but infringement still requires sufficient objective similarity and the reproduction of a qualitatively substantial part.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates both the reach and the limits of copyright protection for coordinated packaging designs. Competitors may not escape liability merely by altering individual images when the resulting work appropriates a substantial combination of original visual features, but copyright does not confer a monopoly over generalized packaging architecture or brand “look and feel.”
For brand owners and designers, the ruling underscores the risk of using a competitor’s packaging as a benchmark and then making only selective changes. It also confirms that appellate courts will scrutinize the precise comparator works pleaded and may reach different outcomes across closely related product variants.