The discount supermarket giant known for its products mimicking the big brands redesigned its Mamia range packaging in 2018, instructing an agency to use the Little Bellies brand as the benchmark for the new designs.
The Mamia range went on sale in 2021 featuring a blue cartoon owl smiling above images of the food.
That triggered a legal letter from Hampden Holdings, whose Little Bellies and Mighty Bellies feature a similar-looking orange creature above images of food.
Subsequent changes Aldi made to its branding failed to satisfy Hampden, which launched a lawsuit in 2022.
A designer behind the Bellies designs testified about the process of designing the packaging, including the decision to make it primarily white to appeal to the target audience of "millennial mothers".
The Federal Court in 2024 found three products infringed the Baby Bellies copyright but ruled eight others in the Mamia range had not.
Justice Mark Moshinsky described the three infringements as "flagrant" and said Aldi, despite intending to not infringe, had taken a risk that its use of the Bellies designs would exceed what the law allows.
Additional damages were awarded because Aldi continued to sell the products despite legal warnings.
The result served as a blow to Aldi, which once used the slogan "like brands, only cheaper" and has historically managed to avoid claims of infringement by using sufficiently different product names.
Both sides appealed the decision, with Aldi challenging any product infringed copyright.
In a judgment published on Wednesday, two further Mamia products - Mamia Fruit and Oat Bars Apricot and MAMIA Fruit Snack Cereal Bars Apple, Blueberry and Banana - were also found in breach.
Aldi also failed to dislodge the finding it was liable for additional damages.
In the case of the two companies' blueberry puffs, the appeal judges found it was apparent the Aldi packaging appropriated numerous aspects of the Hampden packaging.
The supermarket giant however won part of its appeal by demonstrating that the original judge did not apply the correct approach.
The original infringement findings about the puffs snacks were retained, but their scope narrowed with the court finding each Aldi product only infringed one Bellies product, not multiple.
"The present case is not an easy or clear-cut case," the appeal judges wrote three times in their judgement.
The matter will now return to the primary judge to decide damages at a later date.
Before the appeal was heard, the primary judge had ordered Aldi to reveal how many of the impugned products it sold or supplied, and its profits from those sales.
10°C