A lawsuit may be primarily about money at times. Occasionally, it comes down to principle. In the end, a Utah-based keto brand filed for Chapter 11 protection after a federal judge rendered one of the most notable packaging verdicts in recent food industry memory. The case between Van Leeuwen Ice Cream and Rebel Creamery managed to be about both.
Rebel Creamery was ordered to return $23.785 million in profits to the Brooklyn-based ice cream company after U.S. District Judge Eric Komitee found on July 16 that Rebel had purposefully imitated Van Leeuwen’s trade dress, or the general appearance and feel of its packaging. Rebel declared bankruptcy less than a month later. It’s worth pausing to consider the speed of that collapse.
In 2021, Van Leeuwen filed the lawsuit, accusing Rebel of stealing four distinct design elements: oversized black cursive lettering, soft pastel colors, monochromatic cartons with matching lids, and a simple, minimalist layout. In order to expand outside of New York City, Van Leeuwen hired the design firm Pentagram, which helped them launch that style in 2016. When the founders, Laura O’Neill and Ben and Pete Van Leeuwen, first noticed Rebel’s pints on a shelf, they were apparently taken aback. Due in part to their lack of funding and litigation experience, they were initially reluctant to file a lawsuit. Eventually, they continued on anyhow.
It wasn’t just the similarities in appearance that hurt Rebel’s case so much. It was the court’s determination of intent. Rebel’s explanation of how its packaging was put together was rejected by Judge Komitee, who deemed some of the company’s testimony to be false. In a courtroom, that word is powerful. Financial repercussions typically follow when a judge finds that a company not only copied a competitor but also lied about how it happened.
At first, Van Leeuwen had demanded $36.4 million, or nearly all of Rebel’s earnings from the contested pints. Komitee reduced that figure by roughly one-third, realizing that a significant percentage of Rebel’s consumers were purchasing the product due to its keto credentials rather than its attractive packaging. That’s a fair distinction, and it’s the kind of subtlety that isn’t always included in court rulings. However, Rebel’s financial situation made the $23.785 million figure even more problematic for most mid-sized consumer brands. According to court documents, the company’s assets were approximately $13.78 million while its liabilities were $23.85 million.
Two days after filing its appeal on August 12, Rebel filed for bankruptcy. The timing implies that the business had been planning both actions concurrently, which is not out of the ordinary but does show how rapidly things got worse following the decision. The Van Leeuwen judgment is listed as a disputed claim in the Chapter 11 filing, indicating that Rebel is still disputing the debt despite restructuring around it. Although the judge’s conclusions regarding intent make reversals more difficult to contest, it is difficult to determine whether that appeal has a realistic chance from the outside.
The brand might endure this in some way. Walmart, Kroger, and Target carried Rebel’s products, and the consumer base that looked for low-carb options and the distribution network probably have some residual value. The purpose of Chapter 11 is to allow businesses to restructure rather than just close. However, the path ahead entails simultaneously redesigning packaging, reaching a settlement or winning an appeal, and persuading creditors that the company is worthwhile.
Above all, the Rebel Creamery case teaches us a very important lesson about documentation. Pentagram, Van Leeuwen’s design firm, kept everything, including presentation files, rejected concepts, briefs, and subsequent drafts. This paper trail made it easier to explain in court how the look came to be and why it should be protected. Apparently, Rebel was unable to tell a similar tale. That distinction can make all the difference in trademark disputes involving something as intangible as a color scheme and font selection.
This has more general implications for anyone developing a consumer brand. A product’s entire appearance, not just its name or logo, may be protected by law. And that appearance is crucial in a crowded grocery freezer aisle where customers make decisions in a matter of seconds. Perhaps no one knew that better than Rebel. That’s why the resemblance was so expensive.
