澳大利亚折扣超市奥乐齐（Aldi）在联邦法院的上诉中未能推翻2024年的一审判决，其旗下Mamia婴儿零食系列的三款产品包装被认定侵犯了竞争对手Bellies品牌的版权 1。Bellies品牌由Hampden Holdings IP所有 1。联邦法院全席法庭不仅维持了原有的侵权裁定，还额外认定该系列中另外两款Mamia产品同样构成侵权 1。根据判决结果，奥乐齐在诉讼中总体上“略有退步” 1。
这起版权纠纷源于2022年，当时Hampden Holdings针对11款产品对奥乐齐发起了法律诉讼 1。涉案的Mamia婴儿泡芙零食系列最初于2021年上市 1。联邦法院全席法庭在审理中指出，一审法官的审理方法存在缺陷，原因是未能将涉嫌侵权的奥乐齐产品与Hampden的产品进行并排对比 1。此案也进一步明确了“模仿品”策略在澳大利亚版权法下的法律边界，即版权法保护的是思想的表达形式而非思想本身，在进行实质性相似测试时需要综合评估 1。
Australian discount supermarket Aldi has lost its bid to overturn a 2024 Federal Court ruling that found the packaging of three products in its Mamia baby snack range infringed the copyright of the rival Bellies brand 1. The Bellies brand is owned by Hampden Holdings IP 1. In its decision, the Full Court not only upheld the initial infringement findings but also determined that two additional Mamia products were in breach of copyright 1.
The legal action began in 2022 when Hampden Holdings launched a case against Aldi concerning 11 products, following the 2021 launch of Aldi's Mamia baby puffs snack range 1. The Full Court found that the trial judge’s approach was flawed because it did not engage in a side-by-side comparison of the alleged Aldi duplicates of the Hampden products 1. According to the judgment, Aldi went "slightly backwards overall" 1. This case highlights the legal boundaries of "dupe" strategies under Australian copyright law, which protects the expression of ideas rather than the ideas themselves and requires a comprehensive assessment for substantial similarity 1.
评论
还没有评论，欢迎留下第一条。