look and feel

Moshinsky J has held that the packaging for three of Aldi’s Mamia Baby Puffs products infringed Hampden’s copyright in the packaging for Little Bellies Puffs products. However, the packaging in another eight of Aldi’s Mamia products did not infringe the copyright in the packaging for various Baby Bellies products. Moshinsky J also held that Aldi was liable for additional damages for the proven infringements in light of Aldi’s ‘benchmarking’ strategy.

There was also an issue about ownership.

Illustration of the infringing packaging

Illustration of the non-infringing packaging

• Some of the background
• The Puffs packaging
• The non-Puffs packaging
• Additional damages
• An owership issue
• What happens next
• Meanwhile, in the UK

Some of the background

As you no doubt know, Aldi stores largely carry private label brands (i.e., Aldi’s own in-house brands). One of its private label brands is the Mamia range of baby products.[1]

In 2018, Aldi had embarked on a redesign of the packaging for the products in this range, starting with nappies and wipes.

In 2019, Aldi had moved on to the packaging for its snacking range. As part of this exercise, Aldi identified Hampden’s Little Bellies as the market leader. This led to Aldi instructing its design contractor, Motor Design:

Snacking range architecture needs to follow Baby Bellies with real photography.

This led, in 2020, to Aldi commencing to sell a number of Mamia food products – two varieties of Rice Cakes, three varieties of Fruit Snack Cereal Bars and three varieties of Fruit & Oat Bars.

In July 2020, Aldi also decided to introduce baby puffs products into its Mamia range. As with the earlier snacking products, Aldi identified and used the Bellies puffs products as the reference or benchmark products. Aldi launched three puffs products in August 2021. (It appears the packaging design went through at least 6 versions.)

The Puffs packaging

As noted above, Moshinsky J found that Aldi’s packaging for the blueberry, apple and cinnamon and carrot puffs infringed the copyright in Hampden’s corresponding Baby Bellies products.

The packaging for the blueberry puffs products illustrates this:

At [180], Moshinsky J found Aldi’s packaging reproduced the following layout and design elements of the Baby Bellies packaging:

(a) a small, oval-shaped cartoon character, with a large, light-coloured belly;

(b) a solid white background;

(c) a two-column layout;

(d) a rounded, childlike font;

(e) on the left side, text elements of varying sizes, “stacked” vertically;

(f) on the right side, photographic images of the product and ingredients, in a vertical composition; and

(g) a number in the upper-right corner.

His Honour considered at [181] that the combination of these elements cumulatively involved a degree of creativity or originality and, considered together, were qualitatively significant.

In so finding, Moshinsky J rejected Aldi’s argument that Hampden was seeking to protect the idea or ‘look and feel’. His Honour accepted at [183] that the elements were not taken precisely by Aldi but, nonetheless, all were present in Aldi’s packaging:

Aldi’s characterisation of the applicants’ claim as residing in the ‘look and feel’ of the Applicants’ Works rested on a submission that none of the listed design elements was taken ‘precisely’ by Aldi. I do not accept that submission. Each element listed above is present in item 9 of the Impugned Works. It is true that the identification of those elements involves some degree of abstraction, but the elements are not identified at so high a level of abstraction as to venture into the protection of ideas rather than their expression.

And, at [184], his Honour pointed out that focusing on the differences was contrary to Designer Guild where Lord Hoffmann had stated:[2]

…. In the present case, [the question] is whether the features which the judge found to have been copied from Ixia formed a substantial part of Ixia as an artistic work. That is certainly a question of judgment or impression. But why, in answering that question, should it be relevant to consider whether Ixia did or did not look like Marguerite?

The non-Puffs packaging

In contrast to the findings in relation to the puffs packaging, Moshinksy J held that the packaging for the other products did not reproduce a substantial part of the copyright in Hampden’s Little Bellies products.

For example, the Mamia rice cakes products did not infringe the copyright in either the Baby Bellies blueberry puffs or the Little Bellies products

The Mamia rice cakes products reproduced the layout and design elements of:

(a) a solid white background;

(b) a rounded, childlike font;

(c) on the bottom left, a green oblong shape with writing in it;

(d) on the right side, photographic images of the product and ingredients, in a vertical composition; and

(e) a number in the upper-right corner.

Unlike the puffs packaging, however, at [198] Moshinsky J considered what had been taken was not a substantial part of the copyright. Even in combination, they did not produce something of sufficient creative significance.

At [197], his Honour had earlier drawn attention to significant differences in the Aldi design:

Unlike the Impugned Puffs Works, items 1 and 2 of the Impugned Works do not reproduce the design element of a small, oval-shaped cartoon character. The owl in items 1 and 2 of the Impugned Works is much larger, and does not resemble the cartoon character in item 1 of the Applicants’ Works. While it might be said that a large, light-coloured belly (with writing in it) has been reproduced, I do not consider that this can be considered separately from the character itself, which is not reproduced. Further, unlike the Impugned Puffs Works, items 1 and 2 of the Impugned Works do not reproduce a two-column layout. The ingredients near the bottom of the image stray into the middle of the work, and the MAMIA brand name is central, such that there is not a clear impression of two columns.

Turning to consideration of Hampden’s non-puff packaging:

Moshinsky J noted that the competing designs did both feature a large, oval-shaped cartoon character with a large, light coloured belly but Aldi’s design did not feature photographic images of the products in a vertical arrangment on the right side of the work.

At [203], Moshinsky J considered that the number of design elements that had been reproduced was too few to conclude that a substantial part of Hampden’s copyright had been reproduced:

…. Although the impugned work reproduces the design element constituted by a large, oval-shaped cartoon character, with a large, light-coloured belly (with writing in it), which may be considered to be a creative or original element, the other elements that have been reproduced are commonplace. While the question is to be approached qualitatively, the number of layout and design elements that have been reproduced can be relevant to the qualitative assessment. Here, the number of elements that have been reproduced is too few to conclude that the layout and design elements that have been reproduced, even if taken together, constitute a substantial part of item 2 of the Applicants’ Works.

Additional damages

As noted above, Moshinsky J found that it was appropriate to order additional damages against Aldi under s 115(4) in respect of the infringements. The infringements were flagrant and there was a need to deter similar infringements.

Aldi directed Modern Design to use the Hampden products as the benchmark products and both the Aldi personnel responsible for the range and the Modern Design personnel had referred closely to Hampden’s designs.

In her affidavit, Aldi’s witness had attempted to explain what Aldi meant by ‘benchmarking’:

… development of a Private Label product (or rebranding an existing Private Label product) also involves consideration of the packaging used by competitors. As part of this process a benchmark product is usually identified within the market. This is a product selected by Aldi or the Agency from amongst the range of on-trend products within an on-trend category which have been identified during the market investigation process I have described above. The purpose of the benchmark is to enable us to identify cues that customers may associate with the product type generally and then adapt them to develop the Aldi Private Label product. These cues can include:

(a) the packaging size;

(b) the use of colours known to relate to quality or characteristics – for example, purple is used for salt and vinegar flavours; and

(c) the presentation of aspects of packaging such as product name and key ingredients, and also the expected age range for consumers of the product.

(Moshinsky J’s emphasis).

Things did not improve in her cross-examination.

At [128], Moshinsky J found that he had difficulty accepting the witness’ evidence. Rather, his Honour inferred that ‘benchmarking’ meant:

a process of developing a packaging design that resembled the packaging of the benchmark product (albeit not too closely, because that would infringe the law).

It is also worth noting that Aldi’s legal advice had been that version 4 of the puffs packaging was too close to the Bellies packaging. The internal comment by Modern Design’s designer was “No shit”.

Aldi considered that a further design removing text from the owl’s tummy and amending that wording “should now move it far enough away from the benchmark”.

At [231], Moshinsky J found that Aldi had used the designs which had been developed by a trade rival for its own advantage. It took the risk that its use would exceed what the law allows. Consequently, Moshinsky J found Aldi’s conduct to be flagrant. In addition, Aldi continued selling the products in the infringing packaging after receipt of Hampden’s letter of demand.

An owership issue

Hampden, as its name might suggest, is an IP holding company. Its related company, Every Bite Counts (EBC), had arranged for B&B Studio to design the packaging for nine of the Bellies products in 2017 / 2018.

It also appears that B&B Studio prepared drafts or versions of four other packaging designs. These were sent to another company, Lacorium, where a Mr Mota amended or revised these to produce the final packaging designs for these four products.

Moshinsky J (at [144]) held that the terms of the B&B Studio assignment to Hampden that copyright “shall be assigned” on payment in full of the contract price were effective to assign copyright to EBC once the payment was made.

Aldi argued that “shall be assigned” was in effect an agreement that there would be a further document to effect the design on the basis of Acohs v Ucorp at [193]-[195]. However, Moshinsky J considered that the context in Acohs was very different and distinguishable.

In 2021, EBC purported to assign the copyright in the designs to Hampden with effect from 2018. At [145], MOshinsky J pointed out the assignment could not have retrospective effect but held it was effective to assign EBC’s rights to Hampden from the date of the deed. This also included the right to sue for past infringements.

Moshinsky J was prepared to treat the designs finalised by Mr Mota as works of joint authorship. Section 10(1) defines:

work of joint authorship means a work that has been produced by the collaboration of two or more authors and in which the contribution of each author is not separate from the contribution of the other author or the contributions of the other authors.

At [135], Moshinsky J stated that the collaboration required for joint authorship “does not require the authors to work directly with one another.” Accordingly:

alterations made by Person A to an earlier work created by Person B can, depending on the circumstances, result in a work of joint authorship of Person A and Person B together.

At [150], his Honour recorded that the works were based on the designs prepared by B&B Studio “and involved only limited input from Mr Mota”. Although his contribution was limited, it was sufficient to constitute him an author. Furthermore, the B&B Studio employees had provided feedback to Mr Mota on his drafts. As a result, Moshinsky J considered that the works were the product of collaboration between B&B Studio employees and Mr Mota and the works were works of joint authorship.

Although Lacorium had not assigned copyright to Hampden, as works of joint ownership both B&B Studio and Lacorium were the intial owners of the copyright and B&B Studio had assigned its rights to Hampden in a separate document. Accordingly, Moshinsky J held that Hampden had standing to sue for infringement as the owner of the interest in the copyright originally vesting in B&B Studio.

What happens next

Whether either side will appeal – or, rather, seek leave to appeal – is not clear yet as it appears final orders on the infringement findings have not yet been made.

Moshinsky J dismissed Aldi’s cross-claim in respect of unjustified threats on the basis of three letters as they were directed to the puffs packaging which he had found infringed. However, there is, or may be, an outstanding issue in relation to a fourth letter which is yet to be resolved.

Meanwhile, in the UK

The Court of Appeal has allowed Thatcher’s Cider’s appeal finding that Aldi’s benchmarking strategy took unfair advantage of Thatcher Ciders well-known trade mark.

Hampden Holdings I.P. Pty Ltd v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1452

---

1. You may have come across an earlier imbroglio in which Aldi’s Chazoos Cheezy Twists infringed the Twisties trade mark although, more recently, its Moroccanoil product packaging was exonerated.  ?
2. Extracted by his Honour at [170].  ?