Cadbury Purple: Legal battle for the color purple
Why exactly purple — and from which year
The Pantone 2685C purple appeared on Cadbury packaging not as a result of a marketing department brief, but in 1920 year, when the Dairy Milk line was rebranded into a purple-gold palette. Brand historians link the choice to reverence for Queen Victoria — the color was associated with royal power and luxury, which for a premium chocolate segment was a winning move. By the time the legal dispute began, the color had already been used for nearly a century — and the courts took this circumstance as a significant proof of 'acquired distinctiveness'.
Two ways to register a color — and why one of them failed
In trademark law, there is a fundamental split: descriptive form, where the color is tied to the method of application to the product, and the per se form (Libertel mark) — the color as such, without any binding to packaging. Cadbury attempted to follow the first path and received a formal refusal, although in essence it was fighting for the second.
| Parameter | Descriptive form (2008 application) | Per se / Libertel (2022 decision) |
|---|---|---|
| Formulation | «Applied to the whole visible surface, or being the predominant colour» | Color as a standalone object, without description of its application |
| Problem | The word 'predominant' allows for an infinite number of packaging design options | Requires proof of color recognizability without the context of the packaging |
| Outcome for Cadbury | Denial of appeal (2013) | Partial registration approved (2022) |
Where exactly was the error with 'predominant colour'
The formulation sounded logical to a marketer and catastrophic to a trademark attorney. The word 'predominant' implies that other colors may be present on the packaging — just in a smaller proportion. And if that is the case, potentially protected under the trademark cover is 'a multitude of forms' of the design: any packaging where violet occupies more than half the surface area, regardless of how the other elements look. The Court of Appeal under the guidance of Judge Sir John Mummery in 2013 ruled that this violates the requirement for a trademark to be 'clear, precise, self-contained, stable over time and objective' — criteria established in the Sieckmann case for non-traditional marks. The vagueness of the protected object's boundaries is a mortal sin in intellectual property law, and it was precisely this that killed the 2008 application.
Chronology: from the first victory to partial rehabilitation
- 2008 — Cadbury files a trademark application for violet with the description 'predominant colour'.
- 2011–2012 — Nestlé challenges the application; Judge Colin Birss rules in favor of Cadbury, allowing registration.
- 2013 — Court of Appeal overturns the decision: the 'predominant' wording is deemed insufficiently precise.
- 2013–2019 — Legal pause, Cadbury reevaluates its strategy for protecting the color.
- 2019–2022 — Nestlé and Cadbury reach a settlement; Nestlé effectively stops actively challenging the process, limiting itself to observation.
- 2022 — High Court (Judge Meade) allows color registration per se, without describing the method of application to the packaging.
The agreement between Nestlé and Cadbury 2019–2022 years ago has still not been disclosed publicly — neither in court documents nor in press releases did the parties specify the terms on which Nestlé ceased active resistance. This is rather a commercial compromise than a legal capitulation: both companies probably found it more advantageous to close a multi-year dispute than to strive for a final victory in the supreme court.
What is needed to register a color per se — and for whom this is suitable
The decision of 2022 year did not open the door to all brands with a corporate color — it rather showed the high entry cost. To follow Cadbury's path, companies need to meet several conditions simultaneously:
- Long-term and continuous use of the color — in the case of the Cadbury brand, the matter was about decades, not just a couple of years of rebranding.
- Proven consumer association: the color should trigger brand recognition without the logo, slogan, or packaging shape.
- Exact indication of the color according to the international system (Pantone, RAL) — without this, the application will not pass the test for objectivity.
- Rejection of any formulations about the 'method of application' or 'predominance' — the application must describe the color as an independent object.
- Readiness for a multi-year process and legal costs — the Cadbury path took 14 years.
How this changed the practice for other brands
After 2022 year, trademark lawyers in Europe and Britain became noticeably more cautious with color application formulations — the matter itself turned into a teaching example of how a single unfortunate word can cause a registration to collapse. Companies such as T-Mobile (purple) and Barclays (blue) monitored the outcome of the case for years because their own applications were built on a similar logic. A practical lesson for brands: if you want to legally protect a color, not just in guidelines, you need to plan a budget for a multi-year process of gathering evidence of recognition from the start — consumer surveys, archival materials, usage history — and avoid the temptation to describe 'how this color is usually applied to the product.' It is the description of the method of application, not the color itself, that most often becomes a legal trap.
Why exactly purple — and from which year
The Pantone 2685C purple appeared on Cadbury packaging not as a result of a marketing department brief, but in 1920 year, when the Dairy Milk line was rebranded into a purple-gold palette. Brand historians link the choice to reverence for Queen Victoria — the color was associated with royal power and luxury, which for a premium chocolate segment was a winning move. By the time the legal dispute began, the color had already been used for nearly a century — and the courts took this circumstance as a significant proof of 'acquired distinctiveness'.
Two ways to register a color — and why one of them failed
In trademark law, there is a fundamental split: descriptive form, where the color is tied to the method of application to the product, and the per se form (Libertel mark) — the color as such, without any binding to packaging. Cadbury attempted to follow the first path and received a formal refusal, although in essence it was fighting for the second.
| Parameter | Descriptive form (2008 application) | Per se / Libertel (2022 decision) |
|---|---|---|
| Formulation | «Applied to the whole visible surface, or being the predominant colour» | Color as a standalone object, without description of its application |
| Problem | The word 'predominant' allows for an infinite number of packaging design options | Requires proof of color recognizability without the context of the packaging |
| Outcome for Cadbury | Denial of appeal (2013) | Partial registration approved (2022) |
Where exactly was the error with 'predominant colour'
The formulation sounded logical to a marketer and catastrophic to a trademark attorney. The word 'predominant' implies that other colors may be present on the packaging — just in a smaller proportion. And if that is the case, potentially protected under the trademark cover is 'a multitude of forms' of the design: any packaging where violet occupies more than half the surface area, regardless of how the other elements look. The Court of Appeal under the guidance of Judge Sir John Mummery in 2013 ruled that this violates the requirement for a trademark to be 'clear, precise, self-contained, stable over time and objective' — criteria established in the Sieckmann case for non-traditional marks. The vagueness of the protected object's boundaries is a mortal sin in intellectual property law, and it was precisely this that killed the 2008 application.
Chronology: from the first victory to partial rehabilitation
- 2008 — Cadbury files a trademark application for violet with the description 'predominant colour'.
- 2011–2012 — Nestlé challenges the application; Judge Colin Birss rules in favor of Cadbury, allowing registration.
- 2013 — Court of Appeal overturns the decision: the 'predominant' wording is deemed insufficiently precise.
- 2013–2019 — Legal pause, Cadbury reevaluates its strategy for protecting the color.
- 2019–2022 — Nestlé and Cadbury reach a settlement; Nestlé effectively stops actively challenging the process, limiting itself to observation.
- 2022 — High Court (Judge Meade) allows color registration per se, without describing the method of application to the packaging.
The agreement between Nestlé and Cadbury 2019–2022 years ago has still not been disclosed publicly — neither in court documents nor in press releases did the parties specify the terms on which Nestlé ceased active resistance. This is rather a commercial compromise than a legal capitulation: both companies probably found it more advantageous to close a multi-year dispute than to strive for a final victory in the supreme court.
What is needed to register a color per se — and for whom this is suitable
The decision of 2022 year did not open the door to all brands with a corporate color — it rather showed the high entry cost. To follow Cadbury's path, companies need to meet several conditions simultaneously:
- Long-term and continuous use of the color — in the case of the Cadbury brand, the matter was about decades, not just a couple of years of rebranding.
- Proven consumer association: the color should trigger brand recognition without the logo, slogan, or packaging shape.
- Exact indication of the color according to the international system (Pantone, RAL) — without this, the application will not pass the test for objectivity.
- Rejection of any formulations about the 'method of application' or 'predominance' — the application must describe the color as an independent object.
- Readiness for a multi-year process and legal costs — the Cadbury path took 14 years.
How this changed the practice for other brands
After 2022 year, trademark lawyers in Europe and Britain became noticeably more cautious with color application formulations — the matter itself turned into a teaching example of how a single unfortunate word can cause a registration to collapse. Companies such as T-Mobile (purple) and Barclays (blue) monitored the outcome of the case for years because their own applications were built on a similar logic. A practical lesson for brands: if you want to legally protect a color, not just in guidelines, you need to plan a budget for a multi-year process of gathering evidence of recognition from the start — consumer surveys, archival materials, usage history — and avoid the temptation to describe 'how this color is usually applied to the product.' It is the description of the method of application, not the color itself, that most often becomes a legal trap.
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
