Imagine this: you send your husband to the supermarket to buy some beautiful keto ice cream in a pastel-colored cup with elegant lettering. He comes back, you open the lid, and it’s… a completely different brand! Seems like a minor issue and a simple case of culinary confusion. Yet in the corporate world of American sweets, such confusion can cost millions of dollars and end in a high-profile financial collapse.
That is exactly the kind of drama that unfolded between two popular American ice cream brands — Van Leeuwen and Rebel Creamery. The outcome of the battle: the court found Rebel liable for copying another company’s design, ordered it to pay $24 million in damages, and effectively pushed the company into bankruptcy proceedings.
The Secret Behind a Successful Cup
It all started several years ago. Brooklyn-based craft ice cream brand Van Leeuwen bet on a stylish and distinctive visual identity: soft pastel colors, an elegant, delicate typeface, and minimalism. The packaging looked so aesthetically pleasing that customers were happy to post it on Instagram.
Two years later, a new player appeared on store shelves — Rebel, founded by married couple Austin and Courtney Archibald, who raised their initial funding through crowdfunding. At first glance, the concepts were different: Van Leeuwen offered classic and plant-based flavors, while Rebel focused on healthy eating — low-carb keto ice cream. But Rebel’s packaging turned out to be remarkably similar: the same soft pastel shades, a comparable typeface, and an almost identical presentation of flavor names (such as pistachio or mint chocolate chip).
In legal terms, this is called trade dress infringement — the unlawful copying of a product’s protected overall appearance. If consumers confuse your product with someone else’s because of visual similarities, you have a problem.
Representatives of Van Leeuwen claimed that Rebel had simply “borrowed” the successful design in order to attract customers’ attention more quickly. Warnings about consumer confusion had been reaching Rebel since 2018 — first from buyers for major supermarket chains and later from customers themselves. The court record even includes a letter from one customer who wrote directly to the company that her husband had bought Rebel by mistake because the cups were displayed next to each other and looked virtually identical.
When the case reached a New York court, Rebel’s founders denied all the allegations. However, the federal judge was unmoved. In his ruling, he stated that the likelihood that all the design elements had coincidentally matched was “infinitely small.”
$24 Million and a Bankruptcy Filing
In July 2026, the court issued a harsh ruling: Rebel was ordered to pay its competitors nearly $24 million and immediately change its packaging. For a relatively young company, this proved to be an unbearable burden.
Already in August, Rebel filed for bankruptcy in the state of Utah, stating that the company’s total assets were valued at only $14 million — not enough even to cover the court-ordered debt.
Nevertheless, the founders have no intention of giving up on their healthy sweet products. The company is appealing the decision and assuring fans that its keto ice cream will not disappear from store shelves.
This story has become a powerful reminder for businesses everywhere: in today’s world, unique packaging design is not merely a matter of aesthetics, but an asset just as valuable — and legally protected — as the product’s recipe itself.
Founder of Research & Patent group Intectica, author of patent algorithms for solving problems in the pharmaceutical industry, patent attorney certified in all intellectual property objects (Patents, Design, TM), with education in chemistry and law, chief expert of the patent institution of Ukraine UKRPATENT (1997-2004). Member of international organizations, including ECTA, PTMG, UAM, lecturer and blogger.
