Aldi has lost an appeal in its copyright infringement case concerning its Mamia range of toddler snacks, with a Federal Court finding two additional products breached the intellectual property of competitor Hampden Holdings. The ruling in August 2026 follows an earlier decision in 2024 where three Mamia products were found to infringe on Hampden's Baby Bellies copyright.
The dispute began in 2021 when Hampden Holdings, which produces Little Bellies and Mighty Bellies snacks, sent a legal letter to Aldi. This followed Aldi's redesign of its Mamia range packaging in 2018, with instructions to an agency to use the Little Bellies brand as a benchmark. The redesigned Mamia products, featuring a blue cartoon owl, went on sale in 2021 and were deemed by Hampden to be too similar to the orange creature on their packaging.
In 2022, Hampden launched a lawsuit. A designer involved in creating the Bellies packaging testified that a conscious decision was made to use a primarily white design to appeal to "millennial mothers." The Federal Court initially found three Mamia products infringed copyright, though it ruled eight others did not. Justice Mark Moshinsky characterized the three infringements as "flagrant," indicating that while Aldi may not have intended to infringe, it had taken a risk with its use of the Bellies designs.
Further damages were awarded because Aldi continued to sell the products even after receiving legal warnings. This case represents a setback for Aldi, a supermarket chain historically known for its "like brands, only cheaper" slogan and its ability to typically avoid infringement claims through distinct product naming.
Both Aldi and Hampden appealed the initial decision. Aldi challenged the findings of infringement for any of its products. In the judgment published on Wednesday, the appeal judges found that two further Mamia products – Mamia Fruit and Oat Bars Apricot and MAMIA Fruit Snack Cereal Bars Apple, Blueberry and Banana – were also in breach of copyright. Aldi's appeal against these specific findings was unsuccessful.
The appeal judges affirmed that Aldi had not succeeded in overturning the finding of liability for additional damages. Regarding the blueberry puffs, the appeal judges stated it was evident that Aldi's packaging had appropriated numerous aspects of Hampden's packaging. However, Aldi achieved partial success in its appeal when the court determined that the original judge had not applied the correct legal approach. While the initial infringement findings for the puffs snacks were retained, their scope was narrowed, with the court concluding that each Aldi product infringed upon only one Bellies product, rather than multiple.
The appeal judges acknowledged the complexity of the case, noting three times in their judgment that it was "not an easy or clear-cut case." The matter will now return to the primary judge to determine the final quantum of damages at a later date. Prior to the appeal hearing, the primary judge had ordered Aldi to disclose sales figures and profits from the disputed products.