ISN Reveal by Riad Beladi
By Riad Beladi, Edited by James Taylor
Is it Wheat Thins or Thin Wheat? Nutter Butters or Peanut Butter Crème Filled Cookies? Nilla Wafers or simply Vanilla Wafers?
To most consumers, they might look similar, sound similar — and possibly even taste the same. But for Mondelez International, the distinction matters deeply.
The Chicago-based snack food giant, behind such household names as Oreo, Chips Ahoy, and Wheat Thins, filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Illinois last month against Aldi US. The suit accuses Aldi of deliberately designing look-alike packaging for its private-label products to mimic Mondelez’s iconic snack brands, in a manner that the company argues is misleading to shoppers.
In its filing, Mondelez claims Aldi has “blatantly copied” its product packaging — from names and fonts to colours and layout — in a way that is “likely to deceive and confuse customers.” The lawsuit further states that the Aldi packaging could “dilute the distinctive quality of Mondelez’s unique product packaging” and cause “irreparable harm” to its brands.
The snack company is seeking monetary damages as well as a court injunction to block Aldi from continuing to sell the alleged copycat products.
Among the products cited in the lawsuit are Aldi’s Thin Wheat crackers, which resemble Wheat Thins, and various other store-brand versions of popular snacks like Chips Ahoy cookies, Premium Saltine Crackers, and Oreos. Mondelez included side-by-side images in the filing to highlight the alleged visual similarities.
But industry experts and legal observers point out that this will be a difficult case for Mondelez to win.
Three Legal Hurdles for Mondelez
First, Aldi’s private-label snacks are sold exclusively in its own stores, clearly marked as Aldi-branded products. That makes it hard to argue that a typical shopper would mistake them for original branded goods.
Second, Mondelez will need to prove actual financial loss — that Aldi’s look-alike products have resulted in measurable damage to its bottom line. That’s a tall order in a marketplace where price-conscious consumers often opt for store brands intentionally.
Third, and most crucially, Mondelez would need to provide evidence that consumers are genuinely confused — that they bought Aldi products thinking they were purchasing Mondelez-branded ones. Without this, the case for trademark infringement or “passing off” becomes much weaker.
Dupe Culture Is Nothing New
Aldi has built much of its success on offering private-label goods that echo the look and feel of national brands but at significantly lower prices. For many shoppers, that’s the entire point. The chain — with over 2,400 stores in the U.S. — once promoted itself under the slogan, “Like Brands. Only Cheaper.”
Social media is filled with taste-test videos and discussions about Aldi’s “dupes,” with fans often praising how close the products are to the originals. For many, the brand similarity is more of a feature than a flaw.
Aldi has faced legal challenges before. In Australia, it was found liable for copying the design of children’s snack packaging. And in the UK, it lost a trademark appeal involving a cider brand. But the American legal system sets a higher bar for proving trademark infringement, particularly in cases where private-label goods are clearly sold under a different store name.
The Bigger Picture
This lawsuit reflects broader tensions in the modern supermarket model. National brands like Mondelez spend billions on marketing, packaging design, and brand loyalty, while discounters like Aldi and Lidl often emulate that branding style to win over customers with lower prices.
But unless Mondelez can prove customer confusion or brand damage with clear evidence, this case could follow the path of many others: high-profile headlines but little legal success.
For now, Aldi’s snack shelves remain fully stocked with familiar-looking alternatives — and that’s likely to continue unless a judge rules otherwise.
ISN Reveal – International Supermarket News