Brand color as a brand asset: how companies anchor colors to themselves
Why a default color belongs to no one
The starting point of any examination is the presumption that a color is not protectable. This is not bureaucratic nitpicking: if we allow monopolizing shades without proof, the market will quickly be divided by colors among ten major players, and the rest will not have a palette. Therefore, in both Russian practice (Art. 1483 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) and American practice, one principle applies — a color is registered only through a proven link to a brand in the eyes of the consumer.
It was this logic that formed the basis of the case Qualitex v. Jacobson Products Co., which the Supreme Court of the United States decided in 1995 in favor of the idea that color itself can be a trademark — the company Qualitex won the dispute precisely because it proved the recognizability of the shade among laundromats, not just the fact of its use. This case is still cited as the basis for all subsequent color registrations, including Russian ones.
The examination checks five parameters:
- continuity of using this exact shade, without palette changes over the years of work;
- the volume of advertising budgets, where the color figures as a constant element, not a random background;
- data from sociological surveys on the level of brand recognition;
- the absence of a functional role for the color in the product itself;
- the precise fixation of the shade by Pantone code — an application for 'green' without a code is technically not considered.
Sberbank, MTS and Gazprom: the four-year difference is explained not by bureaucracy
Sberbank filed a trademark application for green Pantone 349 in the class of banking services and received a refusal on the first attempt — the examination did not see sufficient evidence. The dispute lasted four years, and the deciding argument was a sociological study with a 97% recognition rate: almost everyone surveyed associated this shade specifically with Sberbank, not with banks in general. The registration was granted strictly within the class of banking services — not for 'green color' as such.
MTS pinned the Pantone 485 red for its communication services almost twice as fast — about two years. Gazprom received the Pantone 300CV blue after more than three years. The difference in timelines is a difference in volume and quality of evidence: the more convincing the surveys and the longer the homogeneous advertising campaign, the faster the expertise agrees.
Timelines and costs in figures: Russia and the world
The Russian practice of registering color as a trademark only took shape in the 2010-s — prior to that, the patent office hardly considered such applications seriously. The process in the United States and Europe was forming from the 1980-s, but it took no less time.
| Company | Color | Protection class | Retention period |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sberbank | Green Pantone 349 | Banking services | 4 years |
| MTS | Red Pantone 485 | Telecommunications Services | ~2 years |
| Gazprom | Blue Pantone 300CV | Energy | 3+ years |
| Owens Corning | Pink | Insulation materials | 5 years (registration in 1985 year, first in the USA) |
| Tiffany & Co. | Blue Pantone 1837 | Jewelry packaging | Registration in 1998 year |
| UPS | Brown Pantone 462C | Logistics | Registration in 1998 year |
The general pattern is this: without several years of continuous use and without a promotional budget where color is a constant rather than a one-time element, it is impossible to prove distinctive character—neither in Russia nor in the USA. Here, money is not counted in patent fee amounts, but in the cost of a marketing campaign that for years kept the shade on all media without a single failure.
When colors are refused registration: Cheerios and Pepto-Bismol
General Mills tried twice to register the yellow color of Cheerios packaging and was twice denied — yellow on cereal boxes is used by dozens of manufacturers, and it does not create exclusive association with one brand. A more telling story is Pepto-Bismol: the court rejected the application for pink because this shade historically associates not with the manufacturer, but with the soothing effect on the stomach — that is, with the product's function.
This distinction is key, and it is often overlooked. If the color carries a practical load: reduces surface heating, marks safety, is linked to a product category — the court recognizes it as functional and refuses registration regardless of how many years the brand has used it. Acquired distinctiveness does not save in cases where functionality exists.
What awaits a competitor with a similar shade
A registered trademark on color gives the owner the right to demand that a competitor cease using a similar shade to the degree of confusion in the same product class. It is not necessary to prove actual consumer confusion — it is sufficient to show the likelihood of confusion, and courts adhere strictly to this requirement.
Christian Louboutin in 2012 year obtained protection for the red sole in a case against Yves Saint Laurent (Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals), but not absolute: the court limited protection to cases where the sole contrasts in color with the upper part of the shoe, and refused to ban completely monochromatic red models. This shows that even strong registration does not give unlimited monopoly over color — only over a specific configuration of use.
Following the same logic, in Russia Vanish protects purple in the household chemicals category, Penoplex protects orange in construction materials, and VimpelCom (Bilain) protects the yellow-and-black combination in telecommunications services. However, this applies exclusively within the registered class: MTS cannot prevent a furniture manufacturer from using red, only companies operating in the telecommunications sector.
Where color actually functions as an asset, not merely registered in a registry
Registration is a legal shell. The asset only lives where the color physically meets the consumer without losing recognizability, and it must be monitored across multiple channels:
- logo and main brand block — the first point of entry for recognition;
- packaging and merch — the purchase decision is made in seconds, and the color either works or it doesn't;
- interiors of sales points and offices — color as part of the physical experience, not a picture;
- digital platforms — website, app
Why a default color belongs to no one
The starting point of any examination is the presumption that a color is not protectable. This is not bureaucratic nitpicking: if we allow monopolizing shades without proof, the market will quickly be divided by colors among ten major players, and the rest will not have a palette. Therefore, in both Russian practice (Art. 1483 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) and American practice, one principle applies — a color is registered only through a proven link to a brand in the eyes of the consumer.
It was this logic that formed the basis of the case Qualitex v. Jacobson Products Co., which the Supreme Court of the United States decided in 1995 in favor of the idea that color itself can be a trademark — the company Qualitex won the dispute precisely because it proved the recognizability of the shade among laundromats, not just the fact of its use. This case is still cited as the basis for all subsequent color registrations, including Russian ones.
The examination checks five parameters:
- continuity of using this exact shade, without palette changes over the years of work;
- the volume of advertising budgets, where the color figures as a constant element, not a random background;
- data from sociological surveys on the level of brand recognition;
- the absence of a functional role for the color in the product itself;
- the precise fixation of the shade by Pantone code — an application for 'green' without a code is technically not considered.
Sberbank, MTS and Gazprom: the four-year difference is explained not by bureaucracy
Sberbank filed a trademark application for green Pantone 349 in the class of banking services and received a refusal on the first attempt — the examination did not see sufficient evidence. The dispute lasted four years, and the deciding argument was a sociological study with a 97% recognition rate: almost everyone surveyed associated this shade specifically with Sberbank, not with banks in general. The registration was granted strictly within the class of banking services — not for 'green color' as such.
MTS pinned the Pantone 485 red for its communication services almost twice as fast — about two years. Gazprom received the Pantone 300CV blue after more than three years. The difference in timelines is a difference in volume and quality of evidence: the more convincing the surveys and the longer the homogeneous advertising campaign, the faster the expertise agrees.
Timelines and costs in figures: Russia and the world
The Russian practice of registering color as a trademark only took shape in the 2010-s — prior to that, the patent office hardly considered such applications seriously. The process in the United States and Europe was forming from the 1980-s, but it took no less time.
| Company | Color | Protection class | Retention period |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sberbank | Green Pantone 349 | Banking services | 4 years |
| MTS | Red Pantone 485 | Telecommunications Services | ~2 years |
| Gazprom | Blue Pantone 300CV | Energy | 3+ years |
| Owens Corning | Pink | Insulation materials | 5 years (registration in 1985 year, first in the USA) |
| Tiffany & Co. | Blue Pantone 1837 | Jewelry packaging | Registration in 1998 year |
| UPS | Brown Pantone 462C | Logistics | Registration in 1998 year |
The general pattern is this: without several years of continuous use and without a promotional budget where color is a constant rather than a one-time element, it is impossible to prove distinctive character—neither in Russia nor in the USA. Here, money is not counted in patent fee amounts, but in the cost of a marketing campaign that for years kept the shade on all media without a single failure.
When colors are refused registration: Cheerios and Pepto-Bismol
General Mills tried twice to register the yellow color of Cheerios packaging and was twice denied — yellow on cereal boxes is used by dozens of manufacturers, and it does not create exclusive association with one brand. A more telling story is Pepto-Bismol: the court rejected the application for pink because this shade historically associates not with the manufacturer, but with the soothing effect on the stomach — that is, with the product's function.
This distinction is key, and it is often overlooked. If the color carries a practical load: reduces surface heating, marks safety, is linked to a product category — the court recognizes it as functional and refuses registration regardless of how many years the brand has used it. Acquired distinctiveness does not save in cases where functionality exists.
What awaits a competitor with a similar shade
A registered trademark on color gives the owner the right to demand that a competitor cease using a similar shade to the degree of confusion in the same product class. It is not necessary to prove actual consumer confusion — it is sufficient to show the likelihood of confusion, and courts adhere strictly to this requirement.
Christian Louboutin in 2012 year obtained protection for the red sole in a case against Yves Saint Laurent (Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals), but not absolute: the court limited protection to cases where the sole contrasts in color with the upper part of the shoe, and refused to ban completely monochromatic red models. This shows that even strong registration does not give unlimited monopoly over color — only over a specific configuration of use.
Following the same logic, in Russia Vanish protects purple in the household chemicals category, Penoplex protects orange in construction materials, and VimpelCom (Bilain) protects the yellow-and-black combination in telecommunications services. However, this applies exclusively within the registered class: MTS cannot prevent a furniture manufacturer from using red, only companies operating in the telecommunications sector.
Where color actually functions as an asset, not merely registered in a registry
Registration is a legal shell. The asset only lives where the color physically meets the consumer without losing recognizability, and it must be monitored across multiple channels:
- logo and main brand block — the first point of entry for recognition;
- packaging and merch — the purchase decision is made in seconds, and the color either works or it doesn't;
- interiors of sales points and offices — color as part of the physical experience, not a picture;
- digital platforms — website, app
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
