"Cool Joy!" Gets The Cold Shoulder: ARB Upholds Imitation Complaint Against Epic Foods

Ice cream may be sweet, but the Advertising Regulatory Board's ("ARB")recent ruling leaves a bitter taste for Epic Foods. On 29 June 2026, the ARB's Directorate upheld a complaint by Magnum ICC, finding that Epic Foods' "Cool Joy!" ice cream packaging constituted undue imitation of the complainant's well-known "Joy!" brand and exploited its established advertising goodwill.

The packaging

Epic Foods’ packaging

*Image credit

Magnum ICC’s packaging:  

*Image credit

The complaint

A number of issues were raised by Magnum ICC:

Imitation: Epic Food’s packaging (COOL JOY) imitates the packaging, get-up and trade dress used for JOY ice cream products.

Font: The stylised font used for COOL JOY is very similar to that used for JOY.

Colour combination:  The colour combination used for COOL JOY (white text on a darker background) is the same as that used for JOY.

! (exclamation mark):  An identical red exclamation mark  is used on both products.  

Logo: The red and white Epic logo that appears on the COOL JOY product is similar to the OLA Heart Device trade mark that appears on the JOY product.

Heart shape: This appears behind the COOL JOY name and it is apparently similar to, or reminiscent of, the OLA Heart Device trade mark.

The alleged contraventions

The Magnum ICC argued that Epic Foods had contravened Clauses 8 and 9 of the ARB Code, namely that:

• The COOL JOY trade mark wholly incorporates the JOY trade mark;
• The font used for COOL JOY is stylised and similar to the font used for JOY;
• A red exclamation mark appears on both products.
• The EPIC logo appears in red and white, as does the OLA Heart Device.
• The heart shape behind the COOL JOY name is similar to the OLA heart device trade mark.  

Magnum ICC also claimed that it had advertised extensively and created advertising goodwill. It argued that Epic Foods’ packaging misappropriates the goodwill and reduces the distinctiveness and goodwill in Magnum ICC’s product.

The ARB’s rulings

The ARB dealt with various issues:

Clause 9 of the ARB Code states that an advertiser should not copy an existing advertisement in a way that is ‘recognisable or clearly evokes the existing concept’ and may result in a loss of potential advertising value.   A likelihood of confusion is not required. An issue to be considered is this - is the concept ‘distinctive or crafted as opposed to in common use?’

The ARB dismissed Magnum ICC’s complaint regarding the red-and-white brand logos, finding insufficient similarity to constitute imitation and noting that placing a brand icon above the product name is a common industry practice. It also declined to consider flavour-variant colour schemes, acknowledging these as generic conventions.

However, the ARB said that it would be reasonable to assume that Epic Foods would have been familiar with Magnum ICC’s  product ‘at the time of conceptualising and creating its own packaging.’

The ARB went on to hold that the similarities between "Joy!" and "Cool Joy!" , including the typeface, the dark background, the prominent red exclamation mark, and the stylised lettering, were "more than coincidental". Evidence indicated that the "Cool Joy!" product appeared on the market in October 2025, roughly six years after the complainant's "Joy!" launch, and no independent creative evolution was demonstrated. The ARB found this amounted to conscious copying that clearly evoked the existing concept, in breach of Clause 9.

On Clause 8, Magnum ICC was held to have acquired protectable advertising goodwill in its "Joy!" mark, consistently used since at least 2020, and that EPIC Foods’ packaging took advantage of this goodwill without permission. It further flagged the genuine likelihood of consumer confusion, noting that consumers might assume "Cool Joy!" was simply a new product format from the same brand.

There are lessons to be learned here:

• It is worth noting that Epic Foods had not ‘refuted the allegation that it was aware of and deliberately crafted its packaging to resemble that of the Complainants’, which left Magnum ICC’s allegations entirely uncontested. Participating in the process, even as a non-member, allows an advertiser to put forward legitimate explanations for design choices.
• Operating in the same product category and competing for the same shelf space raises the bar considerably. Design choices that might pass unnoticed in a different market segment invite scrutiny when products sit side by side.

While individual, generic packaging elements may not attract protection, a distinctive combination of elements such as  typeface, colour contrast, punctuation marks and lettering styles can form a protectable whole.