Aldi Cookie Copyright

The corporation behind Oreo has filed a lawsuit in the US against the budget supermarket Aldi, accusing it of "blatantly" copying the packaging of its famous snacks. Court documents showed that Mondelēz International said Aldi uses similar packaging likely to "deceive" consumers and "ride the coattails" of the company's "attraction, fame and prestige". The snack giant also is behind Wheat Thins, Nutter Butter, Chips Ahoy!, and Ritz - all products the company accuses Aldi of copying with its "discount" versions. Although Aldi did discontinue or alter the packaging of some products, the supermarket has continued making "unacceptable copies", the lawsuit stated. The company claimed that if Aldi is allowed to continued with its product lines, it will "irreparably harm" the Mondelēz brand. In the lawsuit, Aldi is accused of trademark infringement, unfair competition and unjust enrichment. Mondelēz said it is seeking damages. Mondelēz described Aldi's business model as hinging on "low-priced private label products that resemble the look and feel of well-known brands". Aldi, which has its headquarters in Germany, is known as a discount supermarket offering affordable alternatives to well-known brands. There are over 2,500 Aldi shops in the US however they are under the same ownership as the UK Aldi they operate as completely separate businesses

BBQ - Why is copyright important for Businesses?

Oreo Copyright

Birkenstock Sandals Not Art

Birkenstocks may be cool enough for Barbie but the sandals do not qualify as works of art, a German court has ruled. The company had claimed its footwear could be classified as art and so was protected by copyright laws in a case it put forward to stop rivals selling copycat versions of the cork-soled sandals. But a judge dismissed the claim, saying the shoes were practical design items - a decision Birkenstock called a "missed opportunity for the protection of intellectual property". Birkenstocks' popularity means rivals often sell knock-off versions, prompting the firm to make the claim to protect what it called its "iconic design". In this case, Birkenstock took three manufacturers and retailers to court, seeking to protect four of its sandal designs. German law distinguishes between design and art when it comes to a product. Design serves a practical purpose, whereas works of art need to show a certain amount of individual creativity. Art is covered by copyright protection, which lasts for 70 years after the creator's death, whereas design protection lasts for 25 years from when the filing was made. Shoemaker Karl Birkenstock, born in the 1930s, is still alive. Since some of his sandals no longer enjoy design protection, the firm attempted to gain copyright protection by seeking to classify its footwear as art.

Birkenstocks