Hampden Holdings I.P. Pty Ltd v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd

Hampden Holdings I.P. Pty Ltd v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1452 is a Federal Court copyright case about children’s food packaging. The applicants said Aldi’s MAMIA snacking range packaging reproduced a substantial part of artistic works used on BELLIES-branded products. The Court had to deal with ownership of copyright, whether Aldi reproduced a substantial part of the applicants’ works, whether additional damages were available, and whether Aldi’s unjustifiable threats cross-claim succeeded.

The published reasons available for this page contain the Court’s introduction, issues, evidence summary, substantial factual background and the judge’s summary conclusions, but the text is truncated before the full reasoning is visible. Because of that, this page explains the commercial story and the Court’s visible conclusions carefully and does not go beyond what can be supported from the available reasons.

On those visible conclusions, the result was mixed. Hampden had the right to bring claims concerning the B&B works, and Lacorium and Hampden had the right to bring claims concerning the Mota works. Aldi’s impugned puffs works were found to reproduce a substantial part of the applicants’ puffs works, but the impugned non-puffs works were not. The Court also concluded Aldi was liable for additional damages, and indicated that Aldi’s unjustifiable threats cross-claim was to be dismissed, subject to an assumption referred to later in the reasons.

The dispute arose out of a redesign of children’s snack packaging in a competitive retail category. Hampden was an IP holding company. It licensed intellectual property to EBC, a related company that sold children’s food products under the BABY BELLIES, LITTLE BELLIES and MIGHTY BELLIES brands. In about July 2017, EBC decided to rebrand LITTLE BELLIES products because its directors felt the existing branding could be improved. The reasons record that EBC considered the existing branding too product-driven and lacking unique or compelling features that communicated the intended message that the products were healthy, natural and free from additives.

EBC, with assistance from its distributor CTD in the Bag, looked for branding companies and ultimately engaged B&B Studio, a UK design agency specialising in visual identity and packaging design. The project involved a structured process. B&B Studio sent a proposal in August 2017 and a revised proposal in September 2017, together with its terms and conditions. EBC and CTD in the Bag were both involved in communications, but the Court stated that the contract was with EBC and that CTD in the Bag was acting as EBC’s agent. That point mattered because ownership and assignment of copyright depended on the contractual chain.

The reasons describe concept development, feedback rounds and finalisation. In December 2017, B&B Studio delivered a concept presentation covering the BABY BELLIES, LITTLE BELLIES and MIGHTY BELLIES ranges. One concept included the character that was later adopted in the packaging. EBC gave feedback and preferred that concept because it best conveyed the brand world and the idea that the brand name sat in the belly of the character. In February 2018, B&B Studio delivered a development presentation. On 12 April 2018, it provided final artworks for four products, including BABY BELLIES Organic Blueberry puffs and LITTLE BELLIES products such as Organic Animal Biscuits and Organic Tomato Fiddlesticks. EBC paid B&B Studio’s invoices.

Later, EBC engaged Lacorium to create packaging for additional products in the BELLIES range based on the B&B Studio designs. The reasons identify four works created by Bruno Mota Chaves, a Lacorium employee. His evidence, which the Court accepted, was that he was directed to produce designs consistent with the B&B Studio packaging and not to introduce new creative elements. For the puffs products, he adapted the existing B&B Studio puffs design by changing flavour names, text colours and ingredient or product images. For other products, he similarly replicated the B&B Studio design and adapted text and imagery to suit the new flavour or product. EBC began using the new BELLIES packaging in about September 2018.

Aldi then undertook its own redesign of the MAMIA baby portfolio. Aldi engaged Motor Brand Design. In April 2019, Aldi instructed Motor Design to use the LITTLE BELLIES brand as the “benchmark” for the redesign of the MAMIA dry food range, also referred to as the snacking range. The reasons say that, whatever precise sense Aldi intended by the word “benchmark”, it was clear that Motor Design had regard to the BELLIES packaging when designing the new MAMIA snacking range. Aldi began selling some products in the new packaging in about February 2020, with more products following in June and December 2020. In 2020 and 2021, Aldi developed baby puffs packaging and Motor Design continued to use the BELLIES packaging as the benchmark. Aldi began selling MAMIA baby puffs in about August 2021.

The case was not framed as a broad complaint that Aldi’s products looked too similar in the supermarket. The applicants limited their case to copyright infringement. They did not plead passing off or misleading or deceptive conduct. That narrowed the Court’s task to a set of specific copyright questions.

First, the Court had to identify who owned the copyright in the relevant packaging works and who therefore had standing to sue. That issue was not straightforward. Five of the relied-on works were created by B&B Studio. Four were created later by Mr Mota, an employee of Lacorium, using the B&B Studio designs. The Court also had to resolve whether B&B Studio had contracted with EBC directly or with CTD in the Bag. The reasons visible on the page state that the Court considered the contract was with EBC and that CTD in the Bag was acting as EBC’s agent.

Secondly, the Court had to decide whether Aldi’s 11 impugned packaging works reproduced a substantial part of one or more of the applicants’ works. The reasons divide the works into two categories: puffs works and non-puffs works. That categorisation became important because the Court’s summary conclusions differed between those categories.

Thirdly, if infringement was established, the Court had to decide whether Aldi was liable for additional damages. The reasons show that liability issues, including liability for additional damages, were heard separately from quantum. In other words, the Court first dealt with whether there was infringement and whether additional damages were available in principle, leaving the amount of any pecuniary relief for later.

Finally, Aldi brought a cross-claim alleging unjustifiable threats of copyright infringement. The Court therefore also had to decide whether Hampden had made threats that were not legally justified.

On the visible summary conclusions in the reasons, the Court reached four headline outcomes.

First, on ownership and standing, the Court concluded that Hampden had the right to bring its claims for breach of copyright in relation to the B&B works. In relation to the Mota works, the Court concluded that Lacorium and Hampden had the right to bring their claims for breach of copyright. That is commercially significant because a business cannot enforce copyright effectively unless the ownership and assignment chain is in order.

Secondly, on infringement, the Court drew a clear distinction between product categories. The impugned puffs works reproduced a substantial part of the applicants’ puffs works. However, the impugned non-puffs works did not reproduce a substantial part of any of the applicants’ works. This split result is one of the most useful features of the case for business readers. It shows that copyright analysis in packaging disputes is granular. A court may find infringement for one subset of packaging and reject it for another, even where both sit within the same broader redesign exercise.

Thirdly, the Court concluded that Aldi was liable for additional damages. The available reasons do not include the full explanation for that conclusion, so this page does not speculate about the detailed basis. But the finding itself is important because it indicates the case involved more than a bare technical infringement issue.

Fourthly, the Court stated that, subject to an assumption referred to later in the reasons, Aldi’s unjustifiable threats cross-claim was to be dismissed. The available text does not include the later paragraph referred to in that summary, so the precise qualification should be checked against the complete judgment.

The only formal order visible in the available text is that the matter be listed for a case management hearing on a date to be fixed. The reasons also state that liability issues had been heard separately from quantum, so pecuniary relief was to be dealt with later.

Even from the truncated reasons, it is clear that the Court paid close attention to the paper trail. Several categories of documents and conduct stand out.

One was the B&B Studio proposal and terms and conditions. Clause 3 of those terms dealt with intellectual property rights and stated, in substance, that intellectual property rights in the final design would be assigned on payment of the price in full and cleared funds. The Court also referred to invoices issued by B&B Studio to EBC and paid by EBC. Those documents helped the Court address both the identity of the contracting party and the ownership chain.

Another was the design development record. The reasons refer to concept presentations, development presentations, feedback from EBC and final artworks delivered in April 2018. Those materials helped explain how the BELLIES packaging was created and what visual expression was embodied in the final works.

The Court also examined how the later Mota works were produced. Mr Mota’s evidence was that he was directed to create further packaging based on the B&B Studio designs and not to introduce new creative elements. He described the limited changes he made to flavour names, colours and ingredient or product images. That evidence was relevant to authorship and ownership of the later works, and likely also to understanding the relationship between the original B&B works and the later variants.

On Aldi’s side, the reasons identify the instruction to use LITTLE BELLIES as the “benchmark” for the MAMIA redesign. The Court said that, whatever exact meaning Aldi attached to that word, it was clear that Motor Design had regard to the BELLIES packaging. The judge also noted difficulty accepting some parts of the evidence of Aldi witness Ms Paquet, specifically in relation to benchmarking. In addition, the reasons record that Aldi did not call certain witnesses, including a Motor Design representative responsible for the redesign, and that the applicants argued for adverse inferences in the Jones v Dunkel sense. The available text does not show how far those arguments ultimately affected the reasoning, but it does show that witness choices and internal design evidence were important features of the case.

The Court also had physical exhibits of the applicants’ works and the impugned works and said those physical exhibits provided a clearer depiction of the works than the images appearing in pleadings, submissions and evidence. That is a useful practical reminder. In packaging cases, the actual pack in hand can matter more than low-resolution reproductions in court documents.

There are two practical themes running through this case. The first is ownership discipline. If your business commissions packaging, do not assume ownership is obvious just because your team paid for the work or gave the creative brief. The Court had to work through a chain involving an IP holding company, a trading company, a distributor, a UK design agency, an Australian design services company and an employee designer. That is not unusual in modern brand development. If your documents are loose, your ability to enforce rights later may be weakened or delayed.

The second theme is design brief discipline. Aldi’s use of LITTLE BELLIES as a “benchmark” did not automatically decide the case. The Court still distinguished between puffs and non-puffs packaging and found infringement only for one category. But the benchmarking instruction plainly mattered because it showed access to and use of the competitor’s packaging during the redesign process. Businesses should therefore treat competitor references carefully. Category research is one thing. A brief that effectively invites designers to work too close to a competitor’s visual expression is another.

The split result is especially important for in-house teams. It shows that legal risk often sits in specific executions, not in the whole project at a high level. A business may be able to defend some packaging variants while losing on others. That means legal review should happen at concept stage and again before final sign-off, especially where a range includes multiple SKUs built from a common design system.

For businesses that hold IP through one entity and trade through another, this case also shows the value of keeping the ownership chain clean and current. If rights are intended to sit with a holding company, the commissioning documents, assignments and licences should all line up with that structure. If later variants are created by employees of another company in the group or by an external service provider, document that too.

The judgment is dated 17 December 2024. The hearing took place over four days in September 2024. The visible order in the available reasons is that the matter be listed for a case management hearing on a date to be fixed. The reasons also state that liability issues were heard separately from quantum, so the amount of any pecuniary relief was not resolved in the visible part of the judgment.

Because the available reasons are truncated, this page should be read as a careful public explainer of the commercial story and the Court’s visible conclusions, not as a complete account of every step in the Court’s reasoning or every final order that may have followed.

This page is based on the Federal Court reasons in Hampden Holdings I.P. Pty Ltd v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1452 as published on the Federal Court judgments site. The available text includes the introduction, issues, parts of the evidence summary, substantial factual findings and the judge’s summary conclusions, but it is truncated before the full reasoning is visible.

Accordingly, the account above focuses on the commercial background, the issues identified by the Court, and the summary outcomes expressly stated in the published reasons. The detailed reasoning on substantial part, additional damages, the cross-claim qualification and any later relief should be checked against the complete judgment when available.