When building a successful brand, businesses may more often focus on protecting their name, logo, and other trademarks, but a brand’s value can extend far beyond these traditional identifiers. The colors, packaging, product design, and overall visual presentation that customers associate with your business can become valuable assets of their own. This is where trade dress protection comes into play.
For many businesses, the way a product looks is just as important as the product itself. A distinctive design can influence customer purchasing decisions, build customer recognition, and set a company apart from its competitors. However, failing to protect a product’s identity or allowing another business to copy it can create significant legal and financial risks.
This blog post explores what trade dress is, why it matters, and the lessons businesses can learn from a recent trade dress dispute that resulted in a multimillion-dollar award. It also highlights an important takeaway for business owners: the process behind creating your brand matters. Maintaining records of design decisions, creative development, and the evolution of your product’s appearance can be critical in protecting your brand when disputes arise.
First, how is trade dress different from a trademark? Well, a trademark protects specific brand identifiers, such as a company name, logo, or slogan, whereas trade dress protects the overall look and feel of a product or service, including distinctive design elements, packaging, and visual features that help consumers recognize the brand as well as differentiate it from other brands.
Specifically, the International Trademark Association defines trade dress as a product’s “look and feel.” It is the overall visual appearance of a product or service that helps consumers recognize its source and distinguish it from competitors. It can include features such as a product’s design, packaging, color scheme, shape, size, texture, or the appearance of a business where services are provided. To qualify for trade dress protection, these features must identify the brand and cannot be purely functional. In other words, a key requirement for trade dress protection is that the features being protected must be non-functional. If a product’s design or packaging serves a practical purpose such as protecting the contents, making the product easier to use, improving handling, or providing a better grip, it generally cannot receive trade dress protection. This remains true even if consumers come to associate the feature with a particular brand.
A feature is considered to be purely functional if it is necessary for a product to work, improves how it performs, or makes it easier or cheaper to produce. Functional features cannot be protected as trade dress because other businesses must be free to use them. Trade dress protection applies only to non-functional features, such as distinctive designs, packaging, or visual elements that help consumers recognize a brand.
Some well-known examples of trade dress include distinctive product designs and features such as the unique shape of the Coca-Cola bottle, the recognizable shape of a Hershey’s Kiss chocolate, and the signature red sole of a Christian Louboutin shoe. Each of these examples demonstrates how a product’s design elements can become closely associated with a particular brand and serve as valuable identifiers in the marketplace.
The importance of trade dress is further highlighted in the July 16, 2026 verdict of Van Leeuwen v. Rebel Creamery. In 2021, artisanal ice cream company Van Leeuwen filed a lawsuit against Utah-based Rebel in federal court in Brooklyn, alleging that Rebel copied its distinctive packaging design. Van Leeuwen claimed that Rebel’s low-sugar ice cream pints imitated its signature pastel-colored, monochromatic packaging featuring the company name displayed in contrasting black cursive lettering.
In Van Leeuwen Ice Cream LLC v. Rebel Creamery LLC, U.S. District Judge Eric Komitee held that Rebel Creamery intentionally infringed and diluted Van Leeuwen’s trade dress, ordering Rebel to disgorge approximately $23.8 million in profits and permanently enjoin further sales of the infringing packaging. U.S. District Judge Eric Komitee held that Rebel’s packaging was similar enough to Van Leeuwen’s design that it could confuse consumers and create a likelihood of trademark infringement. The court also pointed to evidence that some consumers and industry professionals had already mistaken Rebel’s packaging for Van Leeuwen’s. In addition, Judge Komitee determined that Rebel acted in bad faith when developing its branding, stating that the company’s explanation for how the packaging was created was not credible and that the similarities between the two designs were unlikely to have occurred by chance.
The Van Leeuwen v. Rebel Creamery decision is an important reminder that product packaging is more than just a marketing tool; it is a valuable legal asset. In this case, the court awarded $23.8 million in profits to Van Leeuwen and permanently ordered Rebel Creamery to redesign its packaging. The ruling shows that copying a competitor’s distinctive look can lead to serious legal and financial consequences. For businesses of all sizes, the message is clear: creating an original brand identity is far less expensive than defending a trade dress lawsuit.
The key takeaway for businesses is clear: trade dress matters. A product’s unique appearance can become one of its most valuable assets, and failing to protect that identity can lead to costly consequences. Business owners should be intentional about developing original designs, documenting the creative process, and taking steps to safeguard the visual elements that distinguish their brand. By prioritizing trade dress protection early, businesses can protect their competitive advantage and safeguard the unique look and feel that customers recognize and trust.