Should know about color brands inside

When Charli XCX released her album “Brat” last year, she not only triggered a music frenzy: she launched a color trend. The acid-green color, called “Brat Green”, flooded social media, merchandise articles, beauty and fashion products. Designers: Inside like Prada, McQueen and Fendi, the color took over and made them one of the formative visual elements in 2024. In the summer of 2025, Brat Green still pulsates over the running walking – in tone, but not in its cultural relevance.

Charli XCX quickly had the word “Brat” entered as a brand in Great Britain, the USA and the EU in several classes for a number of goods and services. However, the color “Brat Green” itself was not registered. This raises the question: If “Brat Green” plays such a central role in Charli XCX’s visual identity, why is it not protected?

This article examines the legal landscape of color brands based on the “Brat-Green” phenomenon.

What is a color mark?

Before we deal with color brands, it is helpful to repeat the importance of a brand. In short, a brand is a name, a symbol or a sign that marks the source of a product or service. It acts as a sign of origin and helps consumers: inside, immediately recognizing who is behind what they buy. Brands are registered with official assets for intellectual property (such as the Ukipo or Euipo) and divided into classes based on the goods or services that they cover.

Color brands fall under the category of “non-traditional brands”, which also include sounds, shapes and even smells. A color mark protects a certain color (or color combination) that is clearly connected to a brand. When registering successfully, the brand receives the exclusive rights to use this color for certain goods or services and prevents competitors from doing the same.

However, the exclusivity is limited and brands cannot have colors completely. In the case of Christian Louboutin against van Haren Schoenen BV, Louboutin’s brand was not for the color red in general, but for red, which was specially applied to the sole of a high -heeled shoe. This distinction is crucial because dishes are careful to grant monopolies on colors, especially if they are commercially common.

How can Charli XCX “Brat Green” protect as a brand?

The registration of a color mark (such as Charli XCX’s “Brat Green”) could be a brave branding step, but is legally complex. British and EU law does not allow colors themselves. Protection is only granted if a color is used in a certain, distinctive manner, consumers: associate inside with a brand.

In order to successfully carry out a color brand registration, Charli XCX must meet important legal requirements:

1.

“Brat Green” has to scream according to Charli XCX – not just look stylish. This confirms the legal principle that a brand must be unmistakable. This means that consumers should be connected to the Charli XCX brand immediately. To do this, Charli XCX must collect extensive evidence (e.g. consumer surveys) in order to support brand registration.

In the British case of Adidas against Thom Browne, Adidas claimed that Brownes’s four-strip designs injured his iconic three-stripe brands. The High Court in Great Britain dismissed Adidas’s complaint and decided that Adidas’ position brands were not injured. Consumers: inside could easily distinguish between the three and four strips and were not confused. The case makes it clear that the scope of these non-traditional brands is often tight.

2. Clear definition

Charli XCX cannot describe the color when registering the brand as “neon green”. It would have to define the exact color using a color standard system (such as Pantone 3570 C), which assigns certain colors clear codes. This ensures that the brand is clear, objective and identifiable, which is essential for brand registration.

In a long -term legal saga, the appellate court confirmed in the SOCIETé of the Produits Nestlé SA against Cadbury UK Ltd Nestlé’s contestation of Cadbury’s attempt to have the color Lila (Pantone 2685c) entered as a brand for chocolate packaging. Although Cadbury’s application specified a certain color, he described the color as “the prevailing color, which is applied to the entire visible surface of the packaging”. The Court of Appeal found that this wording brought about ambiguities. As a result, the application did not meet the request that a brand must be clear and precise and was therefore rejected.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal applied for the “Sieckmann criteria” that were defined in Sieckmann against German patent and brand office and applied in the Libertel Groep BV against Benelux-Merkenbureau. The Sieckmann criteria demand that a color mark are shown in such a way that it is “clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, understandable, permanent and objective”. The Court of Appeal decided that submitting a paper pattern of the color (s) proposed for registration alone does not meet the clear and precise representation of the sign. It confirmed that the Sieckmann criteria can be met by specifying the color using an internally recognized color code. Cadbury’s use of the term “predominant” did not meet these standards, since it left several interpretations open about how the color would appear in practice, which undermined the clarity required for brand registration.

In 2022, the High Court checked three revised applications from Cadbury. Only (brand 822), which defined the color exclusively by its pantone code-without reference to packaging or use-was considered sufficiently clear and precise to meet the Sieckmann criteria.

3. Non-functionality

The color “Brat Green” must not be used for practical reasons (such as visibility or security). It should be purely about brand attractiveness. This confirms that a brand has to be non-functional in order to be considered for registration. If the color serves a practical purpose, it cannot be protected.

4. Secondary meaning

If the color “Brat Green” is not inherently distinguished, it must have gained differentiators over time. This means that it has built up a call over time and is recognized by the public as part of the Charli XCX brand. For example, the decades of use of the characteristic blue of Tiffany & Co. in combination with advertising and cultural presence has contributed to reaching this status.

What fashion designer: can learn inside “Brat Green”

The examination of Charli XCX’s opportunities to protect “Brat Green” as a brand is not only a pop culture moment, but also a wake-up call for fashion designers: inside with regard to the strategic power of color. In fashion, color is often treated as a seasonal trend or aesthetic choice. With the more conscious and consistent application, however, it can become a central brand value-someone who communicates identity, arouses emotions and creates designers: interpreters.

In the following you will find some practical tips:

Strategic color use

Early planning of intellectual property

Building recognition and proof

Pay attention to the use by third parties

Do you know your possibilities in the field of intellectual property

Color brands are difficult to secure. Therefore, explore other forms of protection of intellectual property, such as:

For fashion designers: Color can be more than one design decision inside – it has the potential to become a distinctive capital. Even if not every shade receives legal protection, the conscious handling of color can strengthen your creative identity right from the start and help you as a designer: to withdraw. By consistently using them, thinking strategically and are aware of how color is perceived and used, lay the foundation for recognition (and possibly a registered brand) in the future.