“Brat Green” and beyond: What fashion designers can learn about colour trade marks

When Charli XCX dropped her album “Brat” last year, she didn’t just spark a music frenzy - she launched a colour moment. The acid-lime shade dubbed “Brat Green” flooded social media, merchandise, beauty and fashion. Designers such as Prada, McQueen and Fendi adopted the colour, making it one of 2024’s defining visuals. Fast forward to Summer 2025, and Brat Green is still pulsing through the runways - evolving in tone, but not in cultural relevance.

Charli XCX swiftly registered the word mark “Brat” as a trade mark in the UK, US and EU across multiple classes covering a range of goods and services. Yet, the Brat Green colour itself wasn’t registered. This raises the question: if Brat Green plays such a central role in Charli XCX’s visual identity, why isn’t it protected?

This article explores the legal landscape of colour trade marks through the Brat Green phenomenon.

What is a colour trade mark?

Before diving into colour trade marks, it helps to revisit what a trade mark means as previously explored in this article: Whistle stop tour of IP: What is it and what do you need to know?

In short, a trade mark is a name, symbol or sign that identifies the source of a product or service. It acts as a badge of origin helping consumers instantly recognise who’s behind what they’re buying. Trade marks are registered with official Intellectual Property Offices (such as the UKIPO or EUIPO), filed in classes based on the goods or services they cover.

Colour trade marks fall under the category of non-traditional trade marks which also include sounds, shapes and even smells. A colour trade mark protects a specific colour (or combination of colours) that is distinctively associated with a brand. If successfully registered, the brand gains exclusive rights to use that colour for particular goods or services, preventing competitors from doing the same.

However, exclusivity is limited, and brands can’t own colours outright. In the case of Christian Louboutin v. Van Haren Schoenen BV, Louboutin's trade mark wasn’t for the colour red in general, but for red applied specifically to the sole of a high-heeled shoe. This distinction is crucial, as courts are cautious about granting monopolies over colours, especially when they’re commercially commonplace.

How can Charli XCX trade mark Brat Green?

Registering a colour trade mark (like Charli XCX’s Brat Green) could be a bold branding move, but it’s legally complex. UK and EU law doesn’t allow for ownership of colours in the abstract. Protection is only granted when a colour is used in a specific, distinctive way, that consumers associate with a brand.

To succeed in a colour trade mark registration, Charli XCX must meet key legal requirements:

1. Distinctiveness

Brat Green must scream Charli XCX - not just look stylish. This reinforces the legal principle that a trade mark must be distinctive, which means that consumers should instantly link that colour to the Charli XCX brand. To do this, Charli XCX will need to collate substantial evidence (such as consumer surveys) to support the trade mark registration.

In the UK case Adidas v. Thom Browne, Adidas claimed that Browne’s four-stripe designs infringed its iconic three-stripe trade marks. The UK High Court rejected Adidas’ claim, ruling that Adidas’ position marks were not infringed, even though Adidas’ 3 stripes had acquired distinctiveness through use. Consumers could easily distinguish between the 3 and 4 stripes and were not confused. The case highlights that the scope of these non-traditional trade marks is often narrow.

2. Clear definition

Charli XCX can’t describe the colour as ‘neon green’ when registering the trade mark. She’d need to define the exact shade by using a colour standard system (such as Pantone 3570 C) that assigns unique codes to specific shades. This ensures the trade mark is clear, objective and identifiable, which is essential for trade mark registration.

In the long-running legal saga, the Court of Appeal in Societe des Produits Nestle S.A. v. Cadbury UK Ltd upheld Nestlé’s challenge to Cadbury’s attempt to register the colour purple (Pantone 2685C) as a trade mark for chocolate packaging. Although Cadbury’s application specified a particular shade, it described the colour as “the predominant colour applied to the whole visible surface of the packaging”. The Court of Appeal found that this wording introduced ambiguity. As a result, the application failed to meet the requirement for a trade mark to be clear and precise and was therefore rejected.

In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal applied the “Sieckmann criteria”, set out in Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt and applied in the case Libertel Groep BV v. Benelux-Merkenbureau. The Sieckmann criteria requires that a colour trade mark must be represented in a way that is “clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective”. The Court of Appeal held that submitting a paper sample of the colour(s) proposed for registration does not, on its own, meet the clear and precise representation of the sign. It confirmed that the Sieckmann criteria can be met by specifying the colour using an internally recognised colour code. Cadbury’s use of the term “predominant” failed to meet these standards, as it left open multiple interpretations of how the colour would appear in practice, undermining the clarity necessary for trade mark registration.

In 2022, the High Court reviewed three revised applications by Cadbury. Only (Mark 822) which defined the colour solely 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 colour Brat Green can’t be used for practical reasons (such as visibility or safety). It should be purely about brand appeal. This reinforces that a trade mark must be non-functional to qualify for registration. If the colour serves a practical purpose, it can’t be protected.

4. Secondary meaning

If not inherently distinctive, the Brat Green colour must have acquired distinctiveness over time, meaning it’s built a reputation over time and is recognised by the public as part of the Charli XCX brand. For example, Tiffany & Co.’s decades-long use of its signature blue, combined with advertising and cultural presence, helped it achieve its status.

What fashion designers can learn from Brat Green

Exploring Charli XCX’s ability to trade mark Brat Green isn’t just a pop culture moment, it’s a wake-up call for fashion designers about the strategic power of colour. In fashion, colour is often treated as a seasonal trend or aesthetic choice. When used deliberately and consistently, it can become a core brand asset - one that communicates identity, evokes emotion and builds designer recognition.

Below are a few practical tips to consider:

Use Colour Strategically

Plan for IP Early

Build Recognition and Evidence

Stay Alert to Third-Party Use

Know Your IP Options

Colour trade marks are tough to secure - so explore other forms of IP protection, such as:

For fashion designers, colour can be more than a design choice - it has the potential to become a distinctive asset. While not every colour shade will attain legal protection, treating colour with intention from early on can strengthen your creative identity and help you stand out as a designer. By using it consistently, thinking strategically, and staying aware of how colour is perceived and used, you lay the groundwork for recognition (and potentially a registered trade mark) down the line.