Why Mondelēz is suing Aldi over lookalike packaging: Full trade dress lawsuit explained

Mondelēz International, Inc., one of the most dominant forces in the global snack industry, has initiated a sweeping lawsuit against Aldi, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Filed on May 27, 2025, the 144-point complaint accuses Aldi of willful trade dress infringement and unfair competition, alleging that the discount grocer copied the packaging designs of at least seven of Mondelēz’s most iconic snack brands to promote its own private-label alternatives. This legal battle, centered on trade dress violations under federal and state law, threatens to redefine the rules of engagement between national brands and budget retailers in the fiercely competitive grocery aisle.

Mondelēz claims Aldi has systematically mimicked the distinctive visual identity of products like OREO, RITZ, CHIPS AHOY!, and WHEAT THINS in a deliberate strategy to confuse consumers. By leveraging packaging similarities across color palettes, font styles, product images, and even the orientation of cookies on the wrapper, Aldi has allegedly created a line of deceptively familiar alternatives designed to siphon off consumer trust and brand equity built over decades. The lawsuit contends that Aldi’s private-label products are sold using packaging so similar to Mondelēz’s established designs that shoppers are likely to mistake them for genuine branded products, especially under the influence of Aldi’s slogan, “like brands, only cheaper.”

What Are the Allegations Against Aldi?

According to Mondelēz, Aldi has engaged in a “pattern and practice” of copying the packaging of its best-selling cookie and cracker products. The lawsuit provides detailed visual and textual comparisons of Aldi’s private-label packaging alongside Mondelēz’s trade dress for products such as OREO sandwich cookies, CHIPS AHOY! chocolate chip cookies, WHEAT THINS crackers, NUTTER BUTTER peanut butter cookies, NILLA WAFERS vanilla wafers, RITZ crackers, and PREMIUM saltines. The company asserts that Aldi’s mimicry extends far beyond coincidental similarity, describing the house-brand packaging as virtual carbon copies designed to trade off Mondelēz’s consumer goodwill and marketing investments.

The complaint highlights how Aldi’s packaging for sandwich cookies incorporates a tilted cookie image with cream filling, a blue background halo, a curved white font beginning with the letters “OR,” and a red-corner logo—nearly identical to Mondelēz’s signature OREO design. Similar parallels are drawn across other snack lines, where design elements such as ombre yellow backgrounds, stylized serif fonts, or shadowed crackers are duplicated with only minimal changes in wording or branding. Despite prior cease-and-desist warnings from Mondelēz in unrelated cases, the company says Aldi has persisted in its strategy, necessitating legal escalation.

How Does This Fit Into a Broader Industry Trend?

The lawsuit is emblematic of rising tensions in the consumer goods industry as private-label brands continue to gain ground on legacy players. In an inflationary retail environment, discount grocers such as Aldi are drawing more traffic by offering lower-cost alternatives to household-name snacks, cereals, and pantry staples. National brands like Mondelēz, facing pressure on both pricing and shelf space, are increasingly turning to intellectual property enforcement as a way to protect their market share and branding investments.

Trade dress infringement cases are rare compared to traditional trademark litigation, but when filed, they carry the potential to set industrywide precedents. This lawsuit arrives at a time when consumer behavior is shifting toward price over brand loyalty, creating new incentives for retailers to mimic well-known products as closely as legally possible. The outcome of this case could influence packaging design strategies across the grocery sector and raise the stakes for what constitutes permissible competition in visual branding.

What’s Unique About Mondelēz’s Packaging Claims?

Mondelēz asserts that its packaging is more than mere decoration—it is a critical component of product identity developed and refined over years of marketing, consumer testing, and in-store optimization. The company cites decades-long consistency in packaging for brands like OREO and RITZ, accompanied by advertising investments amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. Between 2020 and 2025, Mondelēz claims it has sold more than 2.65 billion packages of its seven core brands, all prominently featuring the trade dress now allegedly infringed by Aldi.

In the case of OREO alone, the complaint states that over 650 million units have been sold in the U.S. market within the last five years, and that the brand’s distinctive blue packaging with a white milk splash and curved sans-serif lettering serves as a source identifier recognized worldwide. Mondelēz contends that these packaging elements are non-functional, arbitrary, and uniquely tied to the brand’s identity, thereby qualifying for trade dress protection under federal law.

What Is the Legal Foundation for the Lawsuit?

The legal action is anchored in four causes of action. First, Mondelēz accuses Aldi of violating Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits misleading representations that may cause consumer confusion. Second, the company alleges trademark dilution under Section 43(c), claiming Aldi’s replication has eroded the uniqueness and prestige of its most famous brands. The third claim invokes the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, arguing that Aldi’s sale of copycat packaging constitutes unfair competition under state law. Lastly, the complaint raises a claim under Ohio common law dilution statutes, as some infringing products are believed to originate from manufacturing facilities in Ohio.

Through these overlapping legal avenues, Mondelēz seeks both monetary damages and injunctive relief. The company is asking the court to prohibit Aldi from further producing or selling the infringing products and to award treble damages, punitive compensation for willful infringement, and full legal fees.

What Is Aldi’s Likely Defense?

Although Aldi has not formally responded to the complaint, legal analysts anticipate a defense based on the argument that the packaging elements in question are either functional, generic, or non-distinctive. Courts have historically upheld that certain design features—such as depictions of the product itself or simple color schemes—do not qualify for exclusive protection unless they serve no functional purpose and have acquired secondary meaning.

Aldi may also contend that its private-label packaging contains sufficient branding differences and that any visual similarities are coincidental or dictated by standard industry shelf aesthetics. The defense could further argue that the overall marketplace context minimizes the likelihood of consumer confusion, particularly in a price-sensitive, value-driven retail environment.

Sentiment Analysis and Market View

Mondelēz International (NASDAQ: MDLZ) has not issued a formal investor-facing statement regarding the lawsuit, and the immediate market reaction has been muted. However, institutional investors and brand strategists are watching closely. The legal escalation reinforces a broader strategic pivot among multinational CPG firms: to protect hard-won brand equity through more aggressive legal enforcement, especially as private labels cut into traditional profit margins.

For investors, the lawsuit signals that Mondelēz is committed to defending not just its trademarks but also the visual identities that drive consumer purchase behavior at the shelf level. Analysts suggest the company’s move could preempt similar lawsuits from peers in adjacent sectors, especially if the outcome affirms the strength of trade dress claims in competitive retail settings.

What Could This Mean for the Future of Private Label Packaging?

Should Mondelēz prevail in court, the ruling could significantly tighten the boundaries within which private-label brands operate. Retailers may be forced to adopt more differentiated packaging strategies, not only to avoid litigation but also to reaffirm their independence in the eyes of consumers. In contrast, a defeat for Mondelēz could open the door for more aggressive copycat strategies among value retailers, potentially altering the aesthetic landscape of grocery stores nationwide.

The ripple effects could extend beyond snack foods to any CPG category where packaging design influences consumer decisions. Legal observers note that the case may also inform future trade dress guidelines issued by industry associations or the Federal Trade Commission.

What’s Next in the Legal Timeline?

Mondelēz has requested a jury trial, indicating that the company is prepared for an extended litigation process unless a settlement is reached. The coming months will likely involve motion hearings, evidence submissions, and potentially consumer survey data that assesses confusion levels between Aldi’s products and those of Mondelēz. Experts expect discovery to include internal communications from Aldi’s branding and product development teams, which could shed light on the intent behind the contested designs.

Given the number of products, brands, and state-level jurisdictions involved, the case could take several quarters to reach a verdict. But regardless of its legal outcome, the Mondelēz-Aldi trade dress dispute is already being seen as a pivotal battle over branding rights in the discount era of American grocery retail.