Van Leeuwen Wins $23.8 Million in Trade Dress Lawsuit Against Rebel Creamery

The Van Leeuwen trade dress lawsuit against Rebel Creamery has reached a significant result. In July 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York found that Rebel intentionally infringed Van Leeuwen's distinctive ice cream packaging and awarded Van Leeuwen approximately $23.8 million in Rebel's profits. The court also permanently barred Rebel from selling products in the infringing packaging and required the company to redesign its ice cream pints.

The decision comes more than five years after Van Leeuwen first filed its lawsuit in 2021. What began as a dispute over two companies' similar-looking ice cream pints has now become an important example of how trade dress law can protect a company's broader visual identity.

How the Van Leeuwen Trade Dress Lawsuit Started

Van Leeuwen filed its complaint against Rebel Creamery in April 2021 in the Eastern District of New York. Van Leeuwen alleged that Rebel copied the distinctive packaging it had developed for its ice cream products.

Van Leeuwen described its trade dress as a combination of monochromatic cardboard pints, matching monochromatic lids, pastel colors, prominent black script lettering, and an overall minimalist appearance. The company alleged that it had continuously used this packaging since August 2016 and had invested substantial resources into promoting the design.

Van Leeuwen also alleged that Rebel began using similar packaging in 2018. According to the original complaint, Rebel's pints incorporated many of the same characteristics, including pastel monochromatic containers, matching lids, black script lettering, and a minimalist design. The complaint argued that the overall similarities created confusion between the two brands.

The side-by-side comparison included on page 7 of the complaint illustrates why the packaging became the focus of the dispute. Both brands used rows of pastel-colored pints with prominent black script branding and relatively sparse front-facing designs. Van Leeuwen alleged that consumers and even a national retail buyer had confused or associated the two brands because of those similarities.

The Court Finds Rebel Intentionally Copied Van Leeuwen's Packaging

After several years of litigation, the case proceeded to a four-day bench trial before U.S. District Judge Eric Komitee.

The resulting decision went substantially in Van Leeuwen's favor. The court found that Rebel intentionally infringed Van Leeuwen's trade dress by adopting packaging that was confusingly similar to Van Leeuwen's established design. The court also found that Rebel's conduct diluted Van Leeuwen's trade dress.

Intent played an important role in the decision.

Rebel argued that its founders had not seen Van Leeuwen's packaging when they developed their own design. The court rejected that explanation. Judge Komitee found that Rebel acted in bad faith and concluded that its explanation for how the packaging developed was not credible. The court also pointed to evidence that consumers and people within the industry had actually confused the two companies' products.

That distinction is important for businesses. Similarity alone does not automatically establish trade dress infringement. Courts can consider the overall appearance of the products, consumer confusion, the strength of the asserted trade dress, and evidence surrounding how and why a competing design was adopted.

Van Leeuwen Awarded $23.8 Million in the Trade Dress Lawsuit

The financial result makes the Van Leeuwen trade dress lawsuit particularly noteworthy.

The court awarded Van Leeuwen approximately $23.8 million in profits earned by Rebel from the infringing products. It also permanently enjoined Rebel from continuing to sell products using the infringing trade dress and required Rebel to redesign its packaging. The court rejected Rebel's defenses and counterclaims.

The award shows that an intellectual property dispute over packaging can carry consequences far beyond changing a label or removing a product from a shelf.

Van Leeuwen's original complaint sought, among other remedies, an injunction against the disputed packaging, recovery of Rebel's profits, damages, and removal of infringing packaging from the marketplace. Five years later, the final result delivered two of the most consequential forms of relief Van Leeuwen had pursued: control over the continued use of the disputed packaging and recovery of Rebel's profits.

Why Trade Dress Can Become a Valuable Business Asset

The case also provides an important lesson about what businesses actually own when they build a recognizable brand.

A traditional trademark might protect a company name, product name, slogan, or logo. Trade dress can protect the distinctive overall appearance of a product or its packaging when that appearance functions as an identifier of source.

That distinction matters because consumers do not always identify products by reading their names.

Think about walking through a grocery store. You may recognize a particular beverage from the shape of its bottle, a snack from the colors and layout of its package, or a cosmetic product from the way its container looks on the shelf. Those visual characteristics can become part of the goodwill associated with the brand.

We discuss this distinction in greater detail in our guide to trade dress infringement and how it differs from trademark infringement.

Does the Decision Mean Businesses Can Trademark Colors?

Color played a prominent role in Van Leeuwen's packaging, but the decision should not be interpreted to mean that Van Leeuwen owns pastel colors generally.

Trademark protection can sometimes extend to a color, but businesses face specific requirements before they can claim exclusive trademark rights in one. The central question is whether consumers recognize that color as identifying the source of particular goods or services rather than viewing it as merely decorative or functional.

We explain those requirements in our article on whether a business can trademark a color.

The distinction is especially relevant here. Van Leeuwen's case involved the complete visual presentation of its ice cream pints. The pastel palette worked alongside the monochromatic containers, matching lids, black cursive lettering, and minimalist layout to create the overall appearance at issue.

What the Van Leeuwen Decision Means for Brand Owners

The nearly $23.8 million judgment demonstrates why businesses should treat distinctive packaging as more than a marketing decision.

Companies can spend years creating a visual identity that customers recognize immediately. Once consumers begin associating that appearance with a particular source, competitors that adopt a confusingly similar presentation can threaten the goodwill the original business built.

For established brands, that means it may be worth evaluating whether distinctive packaging, product configurations, colors, or other visual elements have become protectable intellectual property.

For businesses developing new products, the lesson works in the opposite direction. A company should not evaluate a new package solely by asking whether it copied another company's name or logo. The overall appearance matters as well. A different brand name may not eliminate an infringement problem when the complete presentation still creates consumer confusion.

Final Thoughts

The outcome of the Van Leeuwen trade dress lawsuit demonstrates just how valuable a recognizable visual identity can become.

Van Leeuwen began this case in 2021 arguing that Rebel had copied the overall appearance of packaging that it had spent years developing and promoting. In 2026, the court found intentional infringement, ordered Rebel to redesign its packaging, permanently prohibited continued sales using the infringing design, and awarded Van Leeuwen approximately $23.8 million in Rebel's profits.

For business owners, the case provides a straightforward takeaway: intellectual property protection does not stop at your business name or logo. The way customers recognize your products can become a valuable part of your brand, and businesses should consider how to protect that identity as they grow. If you need help evaluating or enforcing your trademark or trade dress rights, contact Stockman & Poropat, PLLC.