The long-running dispute between Cadbury and Nestlé over the colour purple concluded in 2022. While the decision is specific to its facts, it has broader implications for businesses trying to protect colours as trademarks. In simple terms, it highlights just how difficult it is to “own” a colour in law, even where that colour is strongly associated with a brand in the public mind.

The Core Legal Question

At the centre of the issue is a straightforward but important question: when does a colour count as a trademark “sign”?

UK Law on Colour Trademarks

UK law does allow colours to be registered as trademarks, but only in limited circumstances. The courts require the colour to be clearly and precisely defined, and it must function as a badge of origin; meaning consumers see it as indicating who made the product, rather than simply as decoration.

For example, when you see a particular shade of red on a can, you might immediately think of Coca-Cola. Or a specific turquoise colour might remind you of Tiffany & Co jewellery boxes. Those associations exist in the real world, but the legal question is whether that colour alone can be defined with enough certainty to be protected like a logo or brand name.

Cadbury’s Specific Challenge

This is where Cadbury encountered difficulty. Cadbury sought protection for its well-known purple (Pantone 2685C), a colour many consumers would instantly link with its chocolate packaging.

However, the issue was not whether people recognised the association; it was whether the legal description of the colour was precise enough. If a trademark allows for different visual interpretations depending on packaging, lighting, or context, it may fail the requirement of clarity and precision. In other words, if you cannot pin down exactly what is protected, the law will not grant a monopoly over it.

The Court’s Preference for Certainty

The court’s approach reflects a broader preference for certainty. Trademarks that are tightly defined are more likely to succeed, while those that leave room for variation are vulnerable. Even specifying a Pantone reference is not always enough if the overall scope of protection is still unclear. It is similar to saying “a shade of blue” versus specifying an exact paint code and strictly limiting how and where it is used; the more room for interpretation, the weaker the protection.

Tension Between Branding and Law

The case also highlights a tension between branding and law. From a commercial perspective, companies want broad protection for distinctive brand elements, especially when consumers already strongly associate a colour with their product. But the law takes a stricter view: just because the public recognises a colour does not automatically mean it can be monopolised unless it is defined with legal precision.

For example, many people might associate the golden arches with McDonald’s or a particular shade of green with Starbucks. But those brands do not rely on colour alone; they rely on logos, shapes, and overall branding “get-up” as well. That combination is often more reliable legally than trying to protect a single colour in isolation.

Practical Lessons for Businesses

For businesses and practitioners, the practical lessons are clear. Trademarks need to be defined as precisely as possible, avoiding vague language like “predominant colour” or flexible usage descriptions. Evidence that consumers recognise a colour can help, but it cannot fix a mark that is legally unclear. In many cases, it may be more effective to rely on a combination of branding tools; logos, packaging design, and passing off, rather than attempting to monopolise colour alone.

Final Takeaway

Ultimately, the decision does not prevent colour trademarks from existing. However, it confirms they are exceptional rights, granted only where the legal requirements are strictly met. The key takeaway is simple: even in branding, what you can clearly define is what you can most reliably protect.

Griffin Law is a dispute resolution firm comprising innovative, proactive, tenacious and commercially-minded lawyers. We pride ourselves on our close client relationships, which are uniquely enhanced by our transparent fee guarantee and a commitment to share the risks of litigation. For more details of our services please email justice@griffin.law or call 01732 52 59 23.

GRIFFIN LAW – TRANSPARENT FEES. TENACIOUS LAWYERS. TRUSTED PARTNERS.

Nothing in this document constitutes any form of legal advice upon which any person can place any form of reliance of any kind whatsoever. We expressly disclaim, and you hereby irrevocably agree to waive, all or any liability of any kind whatsoever, whether in contract, tort or otherwise, to you or any other person who may read or otherwise come to learn of anything covered or referred to in this document. In the event that you wish to take any action in connection with the subject matter of this document, you should obtain legal advice before doing so.