Elise Steegstra
Aldi, Dupes and IP Law: When “Inspired By” Becomes Infringement
Lookalike products — often called dupes — are everywhere. They promise consumers a familiar experience at a lower price, and for retailers, they are a powerful commercial strategy. But from an intellectual property perspective, dupes sit on a legal fault line.
Courts in Australia and the United Kingdom are drawing clearer boundaries around copycat packaging and branding — and why Aldi, in particular, keeps finding itself at the centre of these disputes.
This blog post expands on those themes and explains what brand owners and product teams should take away from two recent and important cases.
What is a “dupe” in IP terms?
A dupe rarely copies a brand name or logo outright. Instead, it borrows:
That is where modern IP disputes are being won — and lost.
The Australian position: copyright steps into the spotlight
In Hampden Holdings I.P. Pty Ltd v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1452, the Federal Court of Australia considered whether Aldi’s children’s snack packaging infringed copyright in the competing Bellies range.
The case is significant because:
This matters because trade mark and passing-off claims against Aldi have often failed in Australia. Courts have historically been reluctant to find deception where consumers understand they are buying an Aldi product, even if the packaging looks similar.
Copyright law changes that dynamic.
Where packaging involves original artistic expression — including layout, fonts, illustrations, characters and composition — it may be protected as an artistic work. If a substantial part of that work is reproduced, infringement can occur regardless of what consumers think.
The UK position: unfair advantage and “parasitic intent”
The UK case, Thatchers Cider Company Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd, takes a different but complementary approach.
Thatchers owned a registered trade mark for the branding of its Cloudy Lemon Cider. Aldi launched a competing cider with packaging that the Court of Appeal ultimately found was designed to call Thatchers to mind.
The court held that:
Aldi sought permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court, but that permission was refused in 2025.
The bigger picture: IP strategies need to be layered
Taken together, these cases show that relying on trade marks alone is often insufficient.
Key lessons for brand owners include:
1. Look beyond trade marks
Copyright, registered designs, and trade marks each protect different aspects of a product. Packaging frequently engages all three.
2. Protect creative packaging early
Original artwork, illustrations, layouts and typography should be treated as valuable IP assets, not just marketing materials.
3. Intent matters
Internal documents, benchmarking instructions and design briefs can become critical evidence in infringement proceedings.
4. Confusion is no longer the only battleground
Courts are increasingly prepared to intervene where a competitor deliberately rides on the reputation of another brand — even where consumers know they are buying a cheaper alternative.
Key Takeaways
Dupe culture is not going away. But these decisions show courts are becoming less tolerant of strategies that cross from competition into appropriation.
If your brand relies on distinctive packaging or visual identity, a layered IP strategy — combining trade marks, copyright and design protection — is no longer optional. It is essential.
If you’d like to hear a deeper breakdown of these cases, including how they fit into Aldi’s broader litigation history, you can listen to the full episode of Elise Explains IP wherever you get your podcasts.
Courts in Australia and the United Kingdom are drawing clearer boundaries around copycat packaging and branding — and why Aldi, in particular, keeps finding itself at the centre of these disputes.
This blog post expands on those themes and explains what brand owners and product teams should take away from two recent and important cases.
What is a “dupe” in IP terms?
A dupe rarely copies a brand name or logo outright. Instead, it borrows:
- colour palettes
- layouts and composition
- typography and font styles
- imagery, characters, or iconography
- the overall “look and feel” of a product
That is where modern IP disputes are being won — and lost.
The Australian position: copyright steps into the spotlight
In Hampden Holdings I.P. Pty Ltd v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1452, the Federal Court of Australia considered whether Aldi’s children’s snack packaging infringed copyright in the competing Bellies range.
The case is significant because:
- The court found copyright infringement in packaging artwork, not trade mark infringement.
- Aldi’s packaging reproduced a substantial part of the original artistic works — assessed qualitatively, not mechanically.
- Internal evidence showed the competing products were used as a benchmark during the design process.
This matters because trade mark and passing-off claims against Aldi have often failed in Australia. Courts have historically been reluctant to find deception where consumers understand they are buying an Aldi product, even if the packaging looks similar.
Copyright law changes that dynamic.
Where packaging involves original artistic expression — including layout, fonts, illustrations, characters and composition — it may be protected as an artistic work. If a substantial part of that work is reproduced, infringement can occur regardless of what consumers think.
The UK position: unfair advantage and “parasitic intent”
The UK case, Thatchers Cider Company Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd, takes a different but complementary approach.
Thatchers owned a registered trade mark for the branding of its Cloudy Lemon Cider. Aldi launched a competing cider with packaging that the Court of Appeal ultimately found was designed to call Thatchers to mind.
The court held that:
- Aldi intended consumers to think “this is like Thatchers, but cheaper”
- That intent meant Aldi took unfair advantage of the reputation of Thatchers’ trade mark
- Infringement was established under section 10(3) of the UK Trade Marks Act — even without consumer confusion
Aldi sought permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court, but that permission was refused in 2025.
The bigger picture: IP strategies need to be layered
Taken together, these cases show that relying on trade marks alone is often insufficient.
Key lessons for brand owners include:
1. Look beyond trade marks
Copyright, registered designs, and trade marks each protect different aspects of a product. Packaging frequently engages all three.
2. Protect creative packaging early
Original artwork, illustrations, layouts and typography should be treated as valuable IP assets, not just marketing materials.
3. Intent matters
Internal documents, benchmarking instructions and design briefs can become critical evidence in infringement proceedings.
4. Confusion is no longer the only battleground
Courts are increasingly prepared to intervene where a competitor deliberately rides on the reputation of another brand — even where consumers know they are buying a cheaper alternative.
Key Takeaways
Dupe culture is not going away. But these decisions show courts are becoming less tolerant of strategies that cross from competition into appropriation.
If your brand relies on distinctive packaging or visual identity, a layered IP strategy — combining trade marks, copyright and design protection — is no longer optional. It is essential.
If you’d like to hear a deeper breakdown of these cases, including how they fit into Aldi’s broader litigation history, you can listen to the full episode of Elise Explains IP wherever you get your podcasts.