If it looked exactly the same, but was not made by Aardman, would you not have gone seen it? How much is that marginal extra chance worth, ceteris paribus, that you would go see it because you recognize the name, exactly? Now multiply that by the proportion of people who would actually recognize Aardman as a brand name (i.e. less than 1.0).
Note that we're not talking about just the style of how the movie and the figurines look like, because the assertion which we're discussing stems from the axiom that it's easily reproducible. If it is not, then it drops to assertion #2 which does not talk about IP.
That is the value of the IP of Aardman, and I'd wager it's not worth an amount that would make a transaction worth it for the big studios talked about by the grand-OP (>$100MM).
Without seeing a trailer how would we know it looked exactly the same? Looking the same counts for nothing without script, voice acting, production values etc. Just look at some of the cheap junk Disney have turned out.
Aardman had almost complete 100% awareness in the UK thanks to Wallace and Gromit, and use of a national treasure or two for voice acting. The Creature Comforts ads that must have run for a decade or more - and still get voted in the top 5 best ads 30 years later, along with their other shorts and films. So it's difficult to generalise for areas that don't have the same love and awareness.
After 30+ years of Wallace and others, along with their production values and including plenty for the adults make it a safe bet. Like you'd also expect from Pixar. Thoroughly good it was too.
Taking the kids to a Disney movie is far more likely to give nothing to the parents, or turn out to be one of their cheapie efforts.
That's exactly why we took the kids to Chicken Run, having seen no trailer.