Shape and colour trademarks protect something other than a name or a standard logo: the shape of a product, a colour, a slogan or a piece of imagery. They can be registered, but the bar is high, and some very well-known brands have failed to clear it. These are the UK cases that show what gets through, what doesn't and why, whether you want to trademark a logo or something more unusual.
What is an unusual trademark?
In simple terms, three hurdles come up again and again:
- Customers have to rely on it. Recognising a shape or colour isn't enough. People have to use it, on its own, to tell who made the product.
- It has to be one precise sign. The picture and any written description have to pin down exactly what's protected, down to the shade of colour.
- It can't just be doing a job. A shape that's there because of how the product works, or how it looks, is hard to protect as a trademark.
Many of these cases also turn on acquired distinctiveness: whether years of use have taught customers to treat the sign as a badge of origin, meaning a sign that tells them who's behind the product.
Shapes: recognised isn't the same as relied on
Nestlé v Cadbury
Nestlé failed to register the shape of its four-finger Kit Kat bar. Consumers associated the shape with Kit Kat, but didn't rely on the shape alone, separate from the Kit Kat name, to identify who made it. Recognising a shape as the Kit Kat one isn't the same as relying on it to identify the maker.
Read our summaryNestlé v Cadbury
The Court of Appeal confirmed that the four-finger shape could not be registered, because consumers only associated it with Kit Kat rather than relying on it alone as a sign of origin. Shoppers recognising a shape isn't enough.
Read our summaryLondon Taxi Company v Frazer-Nash
The court found the registered shape trademarks for the Fairway and TX1 taxis invalid, and found that a rival's new Metrocab taxi neither infringed them nor amounted to passing off. A product's shape is hard to defend as a trademark if it's also doing a functional or aesthetic job.
Read our summaryPhilips v Remington
Philips' detailed shaver-head shape trademark was invalid because it was purely functional, but its more abstract triangle-and-circles device marks were upheld. Detailed shapes of functional products often fail, while simple abstract logos linked to a product can still succeed.
Summary coming soonColours: one sign, one exact shade
Nestlé v Cadbury
The High Court confirmed that Cadbury could register the colour purple as a trademark for chocolate, but only for milk chocolate, not chocolate generally. A colour can be registered, but only for the goods your evidence actually covers.
Summary coming soonNestlé v Cadbury
The Court of Appeal ruled that Cadbury could not register purple for chocolate, because the wording in its application covered an undefined range of appearances rather than a single, precise sign. A colour trademark description has to describe one fixed sign, not a range of possible looks.
Summary coming soonCadbury v Comptroller General
The Court of Appeal refused to let Cadbury amend its registered purple colour trademark by deleting the problem wording about purple being the predominant colour, because the registration was a single flawed mark, not a series of marks. You can't patch up a vague registration after the fact by deleting the wording that causes the trouble.
Read our summaryFromageries Bel v Sainsbury's
The High Court upheld the cancellation of the registered shape-and-colour trademark for Mini Babybel cheese, because describing the colour simply as red was too imprecise. If colour matters to your trademark, name the exact shade, not just red or blue.
Read our summaryThom Browne Inc v Adidas
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidation of six adidas three-stripe trademarks, because their written descriptions allowed too many variations of the stripes that the pictures didn't show, so they didn't count as a single, clear sign. A written description can't promise more than the picture shows.
Read our summarySlogans, and getting the filing right
Nestlé v Mars
Nestlé tried to register HAVE A BREAK on its own, separate from the full HAVE A BREAK... HAVE A KIT KAT slogan. It failed because the shorter phrase wasn't distinctive enough in itself, and the question of whether use alongside another mark can build acquired distinctiveness was referred to the EU's top court. Carving a short phrase out of a longer slogan doesn't automatically make it protectable.
Summary coming soonNestlé v Mars
Nestlé could not rescue its application for the plain shape of a POLO mint by adding colour and size limits after filing, because that would change the identity of the mark rather than simply narrow it. Define the exact mark, including colour and size if needed, before you file.
Summary coming soonOnce registered, what does an unusual mark stop?
Whirlpool v Kenwood
Kenwood's kMix stand mixer, though reminiscent of the KitchenAid Artisan, did not infringe KitchenAid's registered shape trademark. There was no confusion, and no unfair advantage or damage to the mark. Looking similar to a famous product isn't enough; it takes proof of actual harm or an unfair edge.
Summary coming soonJulius Sämann Ltd v Tetrosyl
Tetrosyl's flashing Christmas tree air freshener infringed the Magic Tree fir-tree shape marks, which survived a challenge to their validity on several fronts, though the passing off claim failed. A product shape used consistently for years as a trademark can be hard to copy, even in a seasonal version.
Summary coming soonO2 v Hutchison 3G
O2's bubble imagery was a valid trademark, and a rival's TV advert infringed it on paper, but the advert was lawful because it complied with the comparative advertising rules. An advert can technically infringe a trademark and still be lawful if it's an honest, accurate comparison.
Summary coming soonWhat I’d take from these shape and colour trademark cases
- 1What I'd take from this is that recognition and reliance are different things. The evidence has to show customers use the shape or colour to identify you, not just that they know it.
- 2Precision wins. One exact shade, one fixed sign, and a description that matches the picture.
- 3Fix it before you file. Colour, size and wording usually can't be added or taken out later.
- 4Shapes that do a job, practical or visual, are the hardest to protect. A simpler, more abstract version often does better.
- 5Even a registered shape has limits. Looking similar to a famous product isn't the same as infringing it.
Most businesses start with their name and logo, and we can help you trademark a logo so the picture, colours and description all match. If you want to register a trademark for a shape, colour or slogan, a trademark clearance audit looks at whether it's likely to be accepted and what evidence of use would help, and a trademark search shows what's already on the register.
Book a free call, email enquiries@thetrademarkhelpline.com or ring 0161 833 5400.
Related questions
This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute trademark advice or guidance. Case summaries are drawn from published UK judgments; summaries drafted with AI assistance and checked by The Trademark Helpline (how we write these). Last reviewed 30 October 2026.
