We've all witnessed this before - when a popular product brand becomes successful, a larger or competing company often produces a similar product at a much lower price.

It's not necessarily a bad thing – after all, why pay more for something you can get for less? But in some instances, this can lead to ethics violations and copyright infringement.

One example is the recent copyright case against ALDI — a major retailer known for its affordable prices and for stocking products that are similar to well-known brands.

Recently, the German retailer was accused of copying Little Bellies, an Australian children's snack food brand, and is now facing a lawsuit.

The case, which is sure to test copyright laws in Australia, was brought to the courts by Little Bellies' owner Hampden Holdings.

According to Hampden Holdings, ALDI allegedly plagiarised Baby Bellies Organic Puffs to create Mamia Organic Baby Puffs. Credit: Facebook/Little Bellies.

Hampden Holdings, the owner of Little Bellies, alleges that the German retailer has copied their fruit and vegetable puffed corn snacks — namely Organic Blueberry Puffs, Organic Apple & Cinnamon Puffs, and Organic Carrot Puffs — and is selling them for a much lower price.

The German retail giant has a track record of lawsuits for copyright infringement, all of which have gone the retailer’s way.

In 2001, US snack brand Frito Lay sued ALDI for a similar case. And more recently, in 2015, Israeli beauty company Moroccanoil also sued, yet both of these cases against the German retailer failed.

The Australian Financial Review has reported that Hampden Holdings licences the brands to Every Bite Counts, the company currently leading the lawsuit against ALDI.

Lance Scott, a principal at Gestalt Law and the attorney for Every Bite Counts, said: ‘As a copyright case against ALDI, the case is novel in Australia. The critical issue is copying. There is no comparison of trademarks.’

Mr Scott added that his client Every Bite Counts wants to safeguard its ‘valuable intellectual property’, which they have invested in heavily.

IP legal expert Katrina Rathie remarked that the lawsuit appears to be more about getting ALDI to change its packaging and gain a settlement.

She explained: 'The test for copyright in Australia is a qualitative test, not quantitative.'

'Has ALDI reproduced a substantial part of the artwork, the essential creative elements and infringed the artistic work? You can't look at colour for copyright.'

Furthermore, the statement of claim alleges that ALDI was aware or should have been aware that the owner of the copyright for Every Bite Counts' Baby Bellies did not licence the reproduction of any packaging designs.

‘The respondent did not obtain (or seek) a licence to reproduce the Blueberry Puffs Work, the Apple and Cinnamon Puffs Work, or the Carrot Puffs Work (or a substantial part thereof) for use on the packaging of the respondent's Blueberry Puffs Product,’ it read.

While larger retailers have the financial resources to pursue legal action against retail chains such as ALDI, small business owners who believe their intellectual property has been infringed upon are often left with limited options.

Small businesses invest significant time and resources into developing unique products and brands, but when larger companies replicate their ideas, it can lead to devastating consequences.

Not only does it hurt the smaller company's unique selling position, but it also undermines their creativity and hard work.

Furthermore, the cost of pursuing legal action can be prohibitive for small businesses, leaving them with few options for recourse.

This puts them at a significant disadvantage compared to larger corporations that have more resources to defend their intellectual property.

Such has been the case for a Byron Bay resident who accused ALDI of imitating her picnic rug design.

Key Takeaways

• ALDI is facing a lawsuit from the Australian children’s snack food brand Little Bellies, accusing the retailer of plagiarism.
• ALDI has a track record for copyright infringement lawsuits, which have gone the retailer’s way.
• The case is likely to challenge Australia's copyright laws, as copyright infringement can be hard to prove under a ‘qualitative’ test.
• Small businesses often have limited options for recourse if their intellectual property is infringed upon, as the cost of pursuing legal action can be prohibitive for them.

Meanwhile, ALDI admitted to creating the packaging for their products without a licence and not seeking one, but they denied committing copyright infringement. Additionally, ALDI has filed a cross-claim, stating that they are ‘a person aggrieved within the meaning of... the Copyright Act’.

ALDI refused to give further comments on the matter on the grounds that it is still an ongoing legal case.

Members, are you surprised by this news story? Is ALDI going too far when it comes to cheaper alternatives of well-known brands? Do you think they should be supporting local products instead? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

 

[petertrudgett]

We've all witnessed this before - when a popular product brand becomes successful, a larger or competing company often produces a similar product at a much lower price.

It's not necessarily a bad thing – after all, why pay more for something you can get for less? But in some instances, this can lead to ethics violations and copyright infringement.

One example is the recent copyright case against ALDI — a major retailer known for its affordable prices and for stocking products that are similar to well-known brands.

Recently, the German retailer was accused of copying Little Bellies, an Australian children's snack food brand, and is now facing a lawsuit.

The case, which is sure to test copyright laws in Australia, was brought to the courts by Little Bellies' owner Hampden Holdings.

According to Hampden Holdings, ALDI allegedly plagiarised Baby Bellies Organic Puffs to create Mamia Organic Baby Puffs. Credit: Facebook/Little Bellies.

Hampden Holdings, the owner of Little Bellies, alleges that the German retailer has copied their fruit and vegetable puffed corn snacks — namely Organic Blueberry Puffs, Organic Apple & Cinnamon Puffs, and Organic Carrot Puffs — and is selling them for a much lower price.

The German retail giant has a track record of lawsuits for copyright infringement, all of which have gone the retailer’s way.

In 2001, US snack brand Frito Lay sued ALDI for a similar case. And more recently, in 2015, Israeli beauty company Moroccanoil also sued, yet both of these cases against the German retailer failed.

The Australian Financial Review has reported that Hampden Holdings licences the brands to Every Bite Counts, the company currently leading the lawsuit against ALDI.

Lance Scott, a principal at Gestalt Law and the attorney for Every Bite Counts, said: ‘As a copyright case against ALDI, the case is novel in Australia. The critical issue is copying. There is no comparison of trademarks.’

Mr Scott added that his client Every Bite Counts wants to safeguard its ‘valuable intellectual property’, which they have invested in heavily.

IP legal expert Katrina Rathie remarked that the lawsuit appears to be more about getting ALDI to change its packaging and gain a settlement.

She explained: 'The test for copyright in Australia is a qualitative test, not quantitative.'

'Has ALDI reproduced a substantial part of the artwork, the essential creative elements and infringed the artistic work? You can't look at colour for copyright.'

Furthermore, the statement of claim alleges that ALDI was aware or should have been aware that the owner of the copyright for Every Bite Counts' Baby Bellies did not licence the reproduction of any packaging designs.

‘The respondent did not obtain (or seek) a licence to reproduce the Blueberry Puffs Work, the Apple and Cinnamon Puffs Work, or the Carrot Puffs Work (or a substantial part thereof) for use on the packaging of the respondent's Blueberry Puffs Product,’ it read.

While larger retailers have the financial resources to pursue legal action against retail chains such as ALDI, small business owners who believe their intellectual property has been infringed upon are often left with limited options.

Small businesses invest significant time and resources into developing unique products and brands, but when larger companies replicate their ideas, it can lead to devastating consequences.

Not only does it hurt the smaller company's unique selling position, but it also undermines their creativity and hard work.

Furthermore, the cost of pursuing legal action can be prohibitive for small businesses, leaving them with few options for recourse.

This puts them at a significant disadvantage compared to larger corporations that have more resources to defend their intellectual property.

Such has been the case for a Byron Bay resident who accused ALDI of imitating her picnic rug design.

Key Takeaways

• ALDI is facing a lawsuit from the Australian children’s snack food brand Little Bellies, accusing the retailer of plagiarism.
• ALDI has a track record for copyright infringement lawsuits, which have gone the retailer’s way.
• The case is likely to challenge Australia's copyright laws, as copyright infringement can be hard to prove under a ‘qualitative’ test.
• Small businesses often have limited options for recourse if their intellectual property is infringed upon, as the cost of pursuing legal action can be prohibitive for them.

Meanwhile, ALDI admitted to creating the packaging for their products without a licence and not seeking one, but they denied committing copyright infringement. Additionally, ALDI has filed a cross-claim, stating that they are ‘a person aggrieved within the meaning of... the Copyright Act’.

ALDI refused to give further comments on the matter on the grounds that it is still an ongoing legal case.

Members, are you surprised by this news story? Is ALDI going too far when it comes to cheaper alternatives of well-known brands? Do you think they should be supporting local products instead? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

 

[Thecheesequeen]

Aldi is notorious for copying other companies’ ideas. I can’t understand how they keep getting away with it.

 

[Suzanne rose]

And that might be why Aldi have so called cheaper products

 

[Rob44]

We've all witnessed this before - when a popular product brand becomes successful, a larger or competing company often produces a similar product at a much lower price.

It's not necessarily a bad thing – after all, why pay more for something you can get for less? But in some instances, this can lead to ethics violations and copyright infringement.

One example is the recent copyright case against ALDI — a major retailer known for its affordable prices and for stocking products that are similar to well-known brands.

Recently, the German retailer was accused of copying Little Bellies, an Australian children's snack food brand, and is now facing a lawsuit.

The case, which is sure to test copyright laws in Australia, was brought to the courts by Little Bellies' owner Hampden Holdings.

According to Hampden Holdings, ALDI allegedly plagiarised Baby Bellies Organic Puffs to create Mamia Organic Baby Puffs. Credit: Facebook/Little Bellies.

Hampden Holdings, the owner of Little Bellies, alleges that the German retailer has copied their fruit and vegetable puffed corn snacks — namely Organic Blueberry Puffs, Organic Apple & Cinnamon Puffs, and Organic Carrot Puffs — and is selling them for a much lower price.

The German retail giant has a track record of lawsuits for copyright infringement, all of which have gone the retailer’s way.

In 2001, US snack brand Frito Lay sued ALDI for a similar case. And more recently, in 2015, Israeli beauty company Moroccanoil also sued, yet both of these cases against the German retailer failed.

The Australian Financial Review has reported that Hampden Holdings licences the brands to Every Bite Counts, the company currently leading the lawsuit against ALDI.

Lance Scott, a principal at Gestalt Law and the attorney for Every Bite Counts, said: ‘As a copyright case against ALDI, the case is novel in Australia. The critical issue is copying. There is no comparison of trademarks.’

Mr Scott added that his client Every Bite Counts wants to safeguard its ‘valuable intellectual property’, which they have invested in heavily.

IP legal expert Katrina Rathie remarked that the lawsuit appears to be more about getting ALDI to change its packaging and gain a settlement.

She explained: 'The test for copyright in Australia is a qualitative test, not quantitative.'

'Has ALDI reproduced a substantial part of the artwork, the essential creative elements and infringed the artistic work? You can't look at colour for copyright.'

Furthermore, the statement of claim alleges that ALDI was aware or should have been aware that the owner of the copyright for Every Bite Counts' Baby Bellies did not licence the reproduction of any packaging designs.

‘The respondent did not obtain (or seek) a licence to reproduce the Blueberry Puffs Work, the Apple and Cinnamon Puffs Work, or the Carrot Puffs Work (or a substantial part thereof) for use on the packaging of the respondent's Blueberry Puffs Product,’ it read.

While larger retailers have the financial resources to pursue legal action against retail chains such as ALDI, small business owners who believe their intellectual property has been infringed upon are often left with limited options.

Small businesses invest significant time and resources into developing unique products and brands, but when larger companies replicate their ideas, it can lead to devastating consequences.

Not only does it hurt the smaller company's unique selling position, but it also undermines their creativity and hard work.

Furthermore, the cost of pursuing legal action can be prohibitive for small businesses, leaving them with few options for recourse.

This puts them at a significant disadvantage compared to larger corporations that have more resources to defend their intellectual property.

Such has been the case for a Byron Bay resident who accused ALDI of imitating her picnic rug design.

Key Takeaways

• ALDI is facing a lawsuit from the Australian children’s snack food brand Little Bellies, accusing the retailer of plagiarism.
• ALDI has a track record for copyright infringement lawsuits, which have gone the retailer’s way.
• The case is likely to challenge Australia's copyright laws, as copyright infringement can be hard to prove under a ‘qualitative’ test.
• Small businesses often have limited options for recourse if their intellectual property is infringed upon, as the cost of pursuing legal action can be prohibitive for them.

Meanwhile, ALDI admitted to creating the packaging for their products without a licence and not seeking one, but they denied committing copyright infringement. Additionally, ALDI has filed a cross-claim, stating that they are ‘a person aggrieved within the meaning of... the Copyright Act’.

ALDI refused to give further comments on the matter on the grounds that it is still an ongoing legal case.

Members, are you surprised by this news story? Is ALDI going too far when it comes to cheaper alternatives of well-known brands? Do you think they should be supporting local products instead? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Big business as usual. I'm surprised that Aldi hasn't requested a tax-break for doing it.

 

[rehandra]

We've all witnessed this before - when a popular product brand becomes successful, a larger or competing company often produces a similar product at a much lower price.

It's not necessarily a bad thing – after all, why pay more for something you can get for less? But in some instances, this can lead to ethics violations and copyright infringement.

One example is the recent copyright case against ALDI — a major retailer known for its affordable prices and for stocking products that are similar to well-known brands.

Recently, the German retailer was accused of copying Little Bellies, an Australian children's snack food brand, and is now facing a lawsuit.

The case, which is sure to test copyright laws in Australia, was brought to the courts by Little Bellies' owner Hampden Holdings.

According to Hampden Holdings, ALDI allegedly plagiarised Baby Bellies Organic Puffs to create Mamia Organic Baby Puffs. Credit: Facebook/Little Bellies.

Hampden Holdings, the owner of Little Bellies, alleges that the German retailer has copied their fruit and vegetable puffed corn snacks — namely Organic Blueberry Puffs, Organic Apple & Cinnamon Puffs, and Organic Carrot Puffs — and is selling them for a much lower price.

The German retail giant has a track record of lawsuits for copyright infringement, all of which have gone the retailer’s way.

In 2001, US snack brand Frito Lay sued ALDI for a similar case. And more recently, in 2015, Israeli beauty company Moroccanoil also sued, yet both of these cases against the German retailer failed.

The Australian Financial Review has reported that Hampden Holdings licences the brands to Every Bite Counts, the company currently leading the lawsuit against ALDI.

Lance Scott, a principal at Gestalt Law and the attorney for Every Bite Counts, said: ‘As a copyright case against ALDI, the case is novel in Australia. The critical issue is copying. There is no comparison of trademarks.’

Mr Scott added that his client Every Bite Counts wants to safeguard its ‘valuable intellectual property’, which they have invested in heavily.

IP legal expert Katrina Rathie remarked that the lawsuit appears to be more about getting ALDI to change its packaging and gain a settlement.

She explained: 'The test for copyright in Australia is a qualitative test, not quantitative.'

'Has ALDI reproduced a substantial part of the artwork, the essential creative elements and infringed the artistic work? You can't look at colour for copyright.'

Furthermore, the statement of claim alleges that ALDI was aware or should have been aware that the owner of the copyright for Every Bite Counts' Baby Bellies did not licence the reproduction of any packaging designs.

‘The respondent did not obtain (or seek) a licence to reproduce the Blueberry Puffs Work, the Apple and Cinnamon Puffs Work, or the Carrot Puffs Work (or a substantial part thereof) for use on the packaging of the respondent's Blueberry Puffs Product,’ it read.

While larger retailers have the financial resources to pursue legal action against retail chains such as ALDI, small business owners who believe their intellectual property has been infringed upon are often left with limited options.

Small businesses invest significant time and resources into developing unique products and brands, but when larger companies replicate their ideas, it can lead to devastating consequences.

Not only does it hurt the smaller company's unique selling position, but it also undermines their creativity and hard work.

Furthermore, the cost of pursuing legal action can be prohibitive for small businesses, leaving them with few options for recourse.

This puts them at a significant disadvantage compared to larger corporations that have more resources to defend their intellectual property.

Such has been the case for a Byron Bay resident who accused ALDI of imitating her picnic rug design.

Key Takeaways

• ALDI is facing a lawsuit from the Australian children’s snack food brand Little Bellies, accusing the retailer of plagiarism.
• ALDI has a track record for copyright infringement lawsuits, which have gone the retailer’s way.
• The case is likely to challenge Australia's copyright laws, as copyright infringement can be hard to prove under a ‘qualitative’ test.
• Small businesses often have limited options for recourse if their intellectual property is infringed upon, as the cost of pursuing legal action can be prohibitive for them.

Meanwhile, ALDI admitted to creating the packaging for their products without a licence and not seeking one, but they denied committing copyright infringement. Additionally, ALDI has filed a cross-claim, stating that they are ‘a person aggrieved within the meaning of... the Copyright Act’.

ALDI refused to give further comments on the matter on the grounds that it is still an ongoing legal case.

Members, are you surprised by this news story? Is ALDI going too far when it comes to cheaper alternatives of well-known brands? Do you think they should be supporting local products instead? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

People will buy what they can afford and I honestly don't think the average person could give a toss. They want value for money these days with things so tough for so many. I recently tried the hazel nut spread from Aldi and it is idential to Nutella in taste but dollars cheaper. I also buy the frozen yougurt on sticks and also some mini icecreams . The yogurt sticks are identical to the Bulla ones and half the price. I have purchased both Bulla and Aldi brands and there is no difference in taste whatsoever. I am of the opinion they are made by the same people just a different outside packet.

 

[Greatgwr]

Yet another reason among many to NOT shop at Aldi EVER

 

[Glo72]

I shop at Aldi and will continue to do so. So many of their products taste the same as big brand names,sometimes better.

 

[Cool Lynda]

We've all witnessed this before - when a popular product brand becomes successful, a larger or competing company often produces a similar product at a much lower price.

It's not necessarily a bad thing – after all, why pay more for something you can get for less? But in some instances, this can lead to ethics violations and copyright infringement.

One example is the recent copyright case against ALDI — a major retailer known for its affordable prices and for stocking products that are similar to well-known brands.

Recently, the German retailer was accused of copying Little Bellies, an Australian children's snack food brand, and is now facing a lawsuit.

The case, which is sure to test copyright laws in Australia, was brought to the courts by Little Bellies' owner Hampden Holdings.

According to Hampden Holdings, ALDI allegedly plagiarised Baby Bellies Organic Puffs to create Mamia Organic Baby Puffs. Credit: Facebook/Little Bellies.

Hampden Holdings, the owner of Little Bellies, alleges that the German retailer has copied their fruit and vegetable puffed corn snacks — namely Organic Blueberry Puffs, Organic Apple & Cinnamon Puffs, and Organic Carrot Puffs — and is selling them for a much lower price.

The German retail giant has a track record of lawsuits for copyright infringement, all of which have gone the retailer’s way.

In 2001, US snack brand Frito Lay sued ALDI for a similar case. And more recently, in 2015, Israeli beauty company Moroccanoil also sued, yet both of these cases against the German retailer failed.

The Australian Financial Review has reported that Hampden Holdings licences the brands to Every Bite Counts, the company currently leading the lawsuit against ALDI.

Lance Scott, a principal at Gestalt Law and the attorney for Every Bite Counts, said: ‘As a copyright case against ALDI, the case is novel in Australia. The critical issue is copying. There is no comparison of trademarks.’

Mr Scott added that his client Every Bite Counts wants to safeguard its ‘valuable intellectual property’, which they have invested in heavily.

IP legal expert Katrina Rathie remarked that the lawsuit appears to be more about getting ALDI to change its packaging and gain a settlement.

She explained: 'The test for copyright in Australia is a qualitative test, not quantitative.'

'Has ALDI reproduced a substantial part of the artwork, the essential creative elements and infringed the artistic work? You can't look at colour for copyright.'

Furthermore, the statement of claim alleges that ALDI was aware or should have been aware that the owner of the copyright for Every Bite Counts' Baby Bellies did not licence the reproduction of any packaging designs.

‘The respondent did not obtain (or seek) a licence to reproduce the Blueberry Puffs Work, the Apple and Cinnamon Puffs Work, or the Carrot Puffs Work (or a substantial part thereof) for use on the packaging of the respondent's Blueberry Puffs Product,’ it read.

While larger retailers have the financial resources to pursue legal action against retail chains such as ALDI, small business owners who believe their intellectual property has been infringed upon are often left with limited options.

Small businesses invest significant time and resources into developing unique products and brands, but when larger companies replicate their ideas, it can lead to devastating consequences.

Not only does it hurt the smaller company's unique selling position, but it also undermines their creativity and hard work.

Furthermore, the cost of pursuing legal action can be prohibitive for small businesses, leaving them with few options for recourse.

This puts them at a significant disadvantage compared to larger corporations that have more resources to defend their intellectual property.

Such has been the case for a Byron Bay resident who accused ALDI of imitating her picnic rug design.

Key Takeaways

• ALDI is facing a lawsuit from the Australian children’s snack food brand Little Bellies, accusing the retailer of plagiarism.
• ALDI has a track record for copyright infringement lawsuits, which have gone the retailer’s way.
• The case is likely to challenge Australia's copyright laws, as copyright infringement can be hard to prove under a ‘qualitative’ test.
• Small businesses often have limited options for recourse if their intellectual property is infringed upon, as the cost of pursuing legal action can be prohibitive for them.

Meanwhile, ALDI admitted to creating the packaging for their products without a licence and not seeking one, but they denied committing copyright infringement. Additionally, ALDI has filed a cross-claim, stating that they are ‘a person aggrieved within the meaning of... the Copyright Act’.

ALDI refused to give further comments on the matter on the grounds that it is still an ongoing legal case.

Members, are you surprised by this news story? Is ALDI going too far when it comes to cheaper alternatives of well-known brands? Do you think they should be supporting local products instead? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

 

[Cool Lynda]

I think Aldi are doing.a service, providing cheaper alternatives. Plus, I don't think the packaging looks anything like the Little Bellies packaging.

 

[Ronloby]

Big money rains supreme!. This sort of thing happens all the time because the BIG company has the money to win all cases going to court. Aldi do this copyright thing all the time and WIN all the time, like most overseas companies do.

 

[Jest]

is there something wrong in peeling a carrot or grating a carrot? seems to me it has to be in a packet. Please do not tell me "time poor" that is one of the silliest sayings.

 

[RTS]

We have a free market economy. This means large supermarkets can raise prices as much as they like, and manufacturers can price their goods as they like. To complain because someone else is willing to charge less for a similar item seems to go against that way of doing business.
I'm on the consumer's side, where a cheaper product is better.

 

[tiakina]

Yet another reason among many to NOT shop at Aldi EVER

If you can afford to pay the higher prices,good luck to you - a lot of us have to work within a budget.I buy the majority of my groceries at Aldi and have found that their fresh fruit and veggies are of better quality than the other supermarkets.

 

[johno cpfc]

If you can afford to pay the higher prices,good luck to you - a lot of us have to work within a budget.I buy the majority of my groceries at Aldi and have found that their fresh fruit and veggies are of better quality than the other supermarkets.

And to add that they are CHEAPER Too.

 

[kayjay37]

We've all witnessed this before - when a popular product brand becomes successful, a larger or competing company often produces a similar product at a much lower price.

It's not necessarily a bad thing – after all, why pay more for something you can get for less? But in some instances, this can lead to ethics violations and copyright infringement.

One example is the recent copyright case against ALDI — a major retailer known for its affordable prices and for stocking products that are similar to well-known brands.

Recently, the German retailer was accused of copying Little Bellies, an Australian children's snack food brand, and is now facing a lawsuit.

The case, which is sure to test copyright laws in Australia, was brought to the courts by Little Bellies' owner Hampden Holdings.

According to Hampden Holdings, ALDI allegedly plagiarised Baby Bellies Organic Puffs to create Mamia Organic Baby Puffs. Credit: Facebook/Little Bellies.

Hampden Holdings, the owner of Little Bellies, alleges that the German retailer has copied their fruit and vegetable puffed corn snacks — namely Organic Blueberry Puffs, Organic Apple & Cinnamon Puffs, and Organic Carrot Puffs — and is selling them for a much lower price.

The German retail giant has a track record of lawsuits for copyright infringement, all of which have gone the retailer’s way.

In 2001, US snack brand Frito Lay sued ALDI for a similar case. And more recently, in 2015, Israeli beauty company Moroccanoil also sued, yet both of these cases against the German retailer failed.

The Australian Financial Review has reported that Hampden Holdings licences the brands to Every Bite Counts, the company currently leading the lawsuit against ALDI.

Lance Scott, a principal at Gestalt Law and the attorney for Every Bite Counts, said: ‘As a copyright case against ALDI, the case is novel in Australia. The critical issue is copying. There is no comparison of trademarks.’

Mr Scott added that his client Every Bite Counts wants to safeguard its ‘valuable intellectual property’, which they have invested in heavily.

IP legal expert Katrina Rathie remarked that the lawsuit appears to be more about getting ALDI to change its packaging and gain a settlement.

She explained: 'The test for copyright in Australia is a qualitative test, not quantitative.'

'Has ALDI reproduced a substantial part of the artwork, the essential creative elements and infringed the artistic work? You can't look at colour for copyright.'

Furthermore, the statement of claim alleges that ALDI was aware or should have been aware that the owner of the copyright for Every Bite Counts' Baby Bellies did not licence the reproduction of any packaging designs.

‘The respondent did not obtain (or seek) a licence to reproduce the Blueberry Puffs Work, the Apple and Cinnamon Puffs Work, or the Carrot Puffs Work (or a substantial part thereof) for use on the packaging of the respondent's Blueberry Puffs Product,’ it read.

While larger retailers have the financial resources to pursue legal action against retail chains such as ALDI, small business owners who believe their intellectual property has been infringed upon are often left with limited options.

Small businesses invest significant time and resources into developing unique products and brands, but when larger companies replicate their ideas, it can lead to devastating consequences.

Not only does it hurt the smaller company's unique selling position, but it also undermines their creativity and hard work.

Furthermore, the cost of pursuing legal action can be prohibitive for small businesses, leaving them with few options for recourse.

This puts them at a significant disadvantage compared to larger corporations that have more resources to defend their intellectual property.

Such has been the case for a Byron Bay resident who accused ALDI of imitating her picnic rug design.

Key Takeaways

• ALDI is facing a lawsuit from the Australian children’s snack food brand Little Bellies, accusing the retailer of plagiarism.
• ALDI has a track record for copyright infringement lawsuits, which have gone the retailer’s way.
• The case is likely to challenge Australia's copyright laws, as copyright infringement can be hard to prove under a ‘qualitative’ test.
• Small businesses often have limited options for recourse if their intellectual property is infringed upon, as the cost of pursuing legal action can be prohibitive for them.

Meanwhile, ALDI admitted to creating the packaging for their products without a licence and not seeking one, but they denied committing copyright infringement. Additionally, ALDI has filed a cross-claim, stating that they are ‘a person aggrieved within the meaning of... the Copyright Act’.

ALDI refused to give further comments on the matter on the grounds that it is still an ongoing legal case.

Members, are you surprised by this news story? Is ALDI going too far when it comes to cheaper alternatives of well-known brands? Do you think they should be supporting local products instead? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

It's called competition. I guess the biggest worry is that Aldi sells them a lot cheaper even though the costs are similar.

 

[Penny4]

Love Aldi!

 

[Lucinda]

What a bully boy Aldi has become, to replicate the packaging of an Aussie product, then pass it off as its own.
I hope the owner of Baby Bellies win this trademark case, which will send a message to Aldi to stop ripping off our Aussie brands.

Aldi is well known for copying the packaging of Aussie products, which is how they make their money.
Don't come up with your own products or designs ......... just rip off others.

I prefer to shop at Coles and Woolworths and keep my money in Australia.

 

[Ricci]

In an ideal world I would love to stand by my principles and say to hell with Aldi and support the little guy. However, unfortunately it is not an ideal world and what with the cost of groceries just lately something has to give and this time it's my principles as much as it pains me. I need to eat, feed my pets. clean my house and myself and all the other myriad things at the best possible price and unfortunately Aldi all too often has the best price.

 

[Trudi]

Yet another reason among many to NOT shop at Aldi EVER

Sorry mate, but Aldi is my preferred supermarket.