Most founders think a trademark dispute is something that happens to someone else — a legal footnote reserved for giant corporations fighting over a logo. This year alone, I’ve worked directly with two clients navigating exactly that, and nearly took on a third. It’s not rare. It’s becoming routine. And a ruling handed down this July, involving of all things a pint of ice cream, shows just how expensive it can get when a business doesn’t take the risk seriously from day one.

The $23.8 million pint

In July, a federal judge ordered Rebel Creamery to redesign its ice cream packaging and surrender nearly $23.8 million in profits after ruling that founders Austin and Courtney Archibald had intentionally copied Van Leeuwen Ice Cream’s distinctive pints: the monochromatic cartons, matching lids, pastel colors, oversized black script, and minimalist layout.

The case took five years to resolve. Van Leeuwen had introduced its now-iconic design in 2016 after hiring the design firm Pentagram to prepare the brand for national wholesale distribution. Pentagram researched competing brands, presented seven concepts, and helped Van Leeuwen land on the look that turned a Brooklyn ice cream truck into a national brand.

Here’s the detail that decided the case: Pentagram kept everything. Design briefs, presentations, rejected concepts, successive rounds of revisions — a complete paper trail documenting how the brand was built. Rebel, on the other hand, had nothing. The Archibalds testified they created their packaging in Adobe Illustrator but couldn’t produce a single sketch, mockup, or earlier draft — only the finished design. A Wegmans buyer had even warned Austin Archibald before launch that the cartons resembled Van Leeuwen’s. Rebel made no changes.

The judge didn’t mince words, calling the founders’ account “clearly fabricated” and noting the odds that Rebel independently arrived at every one of those same design choices were “infinitesimal.”

What this actually protects

It’s worth being precise about what the ruling does and doesn’t mean, because founders tend to over-learn the wrong lesson. The court didn’t give Van Leeuwen ownership of pastel colors, cursive script, or minimalist design on their own — those remain fair game. What it protected was the *overall combination*, the total commercial impression created when all those elements come together in a way that’s confusingly similar to an existing, established brand.

That distinction matters. It means the standard risk-management advice — “just don’t copy a competitor’s logo” — isn’t the real bar. The real bar is the total look and feel of how you present your brand, and whether a reasonable customer would be confused about who they’re buying from. Van Leeuwen even introduced survey research showing a 34.3% net-confusion rate among ice cream shoppers. That’s not a coincidence; that’s evidence.

The lesson before the lawsuit

The single most useful takeaway from this case has nothing to do with ice cream and everything to do with documentation. As Natasha Jen, the Pentagram partner who led Van Leeuwen’s original design work, put it: “Founders may think documentation is bureaucratic, but it is really a record of authorship and decision making. Save what was presented. Save what was rejected. The process is part of the evidence.”

Every founder building a brand identity should be keeping that same trail — not because they expect to end up in court, but because if a dispute ever does arise, the difference between a defensible brand and an expensive judgment often comes down to whether you can prove how you got there.

When the dispute finds you instead

Not every trademark story ends in a courtroom, and it shouldn’t have to. Right now, I’m leading a brand transition for a beloved Boston-area luxury boutique with eighteen years of history and five locations, which is renewing its name after a trademark matter with an unrelated company who has more resources and legal power. The difference between that situation and Rebel Creamery’s isn’t the law — it’s the response.

This company didn’t wait for a judgment to force change, and it isn’t treating the transition as a loss to manage quietly. It’s using the moment to reintroduce itself: preserving eighteen years of customer trust and community relationships, communicating clearly and confidently with staff and customers, and turning a legal necessity into a genuinely good story — Our new name fittingly, comes from the Italian “to renew.” That’s the version of this situation every founder should aim for if they ever find themselves on the receiving end of a naming conflict: not a scramble, but a plan.

Three clients, one pattern

The boutique above isn’t an isolated case in my own work this year. Earlier this year, I worked with a Prudential Center restaurant through a franchise dispute — different industry, same underlying problem: a name that had to change under pressure, and a business that needed a plan to protect what it had built while making the change.

I also nearly took on a third client: a company that had received a cease-and-desist from Yeshiva University over its use of the name “Einstein.” That engagement didn’t move forward, but the shape of the problem was identical to the others — a business built around a name it didn’t fully control, facing a legal claim it had to take seriously regardless of how it felt about the merits.

Three different industries. Three different opposing parties. The same underlying story each time: a name the business believed was safely its own, and a legal claim that said otherwise. That’s the pattern worth paying attention to — not because trademark law changed this year, but because more businesses are running into the edges of it.

## What every founder should take from both stories

A few things hold true whether you’re defending a brand you built or renewing one you’re required to change:

Document everything, from day one. Keep your design briefs, your early drafts, your reasoning for why you landed where you did. It costs you almost nothing to save a folder of files. It can cost you everything not to.

Take warnings seriously. Rebel had a direct warning from a retail buyer before launch and ignored it. If a customer, vendor, or retail partner tells you something looks too close to someone else’s brand, that’s free information — use it before a court makes you pay for ignoring it.

Have a rebrand plan ready before you need one. Most founders think about trademark risk only in terms of defense — how do I avoid getting sued. Fewer think about the other side: if I ever have to change my name, do I have a plan that protects the trust I’ve already built? That planning gap is exactly where I spend most of my time with clients right now.

Trademark disputes used to feel like a rare, expensive surprise. Increasingly, they’re a predictable cost of doing business in a crowded market — which means the founders who come out ahead aren’t the ones who never face one. They’re the ones who were ready.

*Laura Sauter is the founder of Brandworth™, a strategy and branding consultancy specializing in brand transitions, trademark-driven rebrands, and communications strategy. She is currently leading a brand transition program for a Boston-area luxury consignment boutique.

Let’s Chat!