Mondelēz International, Inc., a corporate leader in name-brand snacks, has initiated a (copy)cat fight with Aldi for its lookalike packaging of popular snack brands including Oreo cookies, Wheat Thins, Chips Ahoy, and more. Mondelēz contends that Aldi “blatantly copies” its popular snacks in a way that “deceive[s] and confuse[s] customers.” Learn more about Mondelēz v. Aldi and this unique trademark infringement case.
Creeping into Court: Federal Trade Dress Law
Mondelēz alleges four causes of action against Aldi including federal trade dress infringement, federal trademark dilution, unfair competition, and dilution. The corporation claims Aldi not only copies their product packaging but seeks to “ride the coattails” of Mondelēz’s substantial reputation and threatens to diminish the quality of Mondelēz’s original snacks. When comparing the parties’ products side-by-side, it’s evident that Aldi uses similar elements like colors, graphics and names that, Mondelēz asserts, are deceptively similar to the original.
The Lanham Act protects companies like Mondelēz from trade dress infringement so long as the plaintiff can prove the following three elements:
- The plaintiff’s trade dress is inherently distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning (i.e., it’s recognizable enough that consumers associate it with a particular source — and that makes it legally protectable from copycats);
- The plaintiff’s trade dress is primarily non-functional (i.e., its design serves to identify the brand rather than provide a practical advantage, and isn’t essential to the product’s use or purpose); and
- The defendant’s trade dress is confusingly similar.
In addition to monetary damages, Mondelēz ultimately hopes to obtain a court order preventing Aldi from selling products that infringe on its brands.
Aldi’s Track Record with Trademark Troubles
While Mondelēz v. Aldi may be the new buzz in the IP community, it is certainly not the first time that Aldi has been accused of taking their “like brands, only cheaper” slogan a bit too far.
- Baby Bellies: In October 2024, Hampden Holdings, the owner of Aldi’s rival brand, Baby Bellies, sent Aldi a letter alleging copyright infringement of eleven product designs. The Australian federal court found Aldi liable for three of the eleven products. The court claimed that Aldi “took the risk that its use of the Bellies design would exceed what the law allows,” describing the conduct as “flagrant.”
- Thatchers Cider Company: In January 2025, the English Court of Appeal issued a decision in the case of Thatchers v. Aldi, where Thatchers filed claims for trademark infringement over its “Cloudy Lemon Cider” product. The Court concluded that Aldi had intended for its product to remind consumers of Thatchers, which provided Aldi with an unfair advantage in profiting from Thatchers trademark.
Trials and Tribulations of Tomorrow
Mondelēz v. Aldi may mark a turning point in how U.S. organizations protect their products and how U.S. courts address trade dress, but the outcome of the lawsuits remains unclear.
Baby Bellies and Thatchers involved the laws of different jurisdictions, and the plaintiffs in those cases had the benefit of unique facts that may not apply to Mondelēz. For example, in Baby Bellies, the plaintiff submitted emails between Aldi and their design firm revealing Aldi’s willful intent to use Bellies’ packaging as a “benchmark” for its design. Additionally, Thatchers had a registered UK figurative trademark covering the entirety of its product packaging, which ultimately served as the evidence the court needed to determine Bellies’ packaging was unique and well-known. In Mondelēz v. Aldi, however, the plaintiff is relying on its common law rights to the prominent elements of its products’ trade dress, meaning Mondelēz never sought to register its arguably distinctive trade dress.
The outcome of Mondelēz v. Aldi remains uncertain. Trade dress infringement is a fact-intensive inquiry that hinges on detailed evidence about consumer perception, market realities, and intent. Because the case is still in its early stages and many facts have yet to emerge, it’s too soon to predict how the court will ultimately rule. What is clear, however, is that if Mondelēz had registered its trade dress—particularly the key design elements it now seeks to protect—it would have entered the proceeding with a significant advantage, including a presumption of validity and stronger enforcement leverage. This case serves as a timely reminder that brand owners should proactively protect their packaging, product design, and other commercial signifiers through trade dress and trademark registration.
Support for trademark infringement
Our intellectual property attorneys routinely assist clients with IP registration and enforcement. If your business desires to safeguard brand identity and reduce legal uncertainty, be sure to connect with us today!
FLB Summer Associate Nicole Cesanek contributed to this blog.
