IP Australia rejects BP’s green colour mark application

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

IP Australia rejects BP’s green colour mark application

The Australian trade mark registrar has rejected BP’s application for a green colour mark

bp20logo.png

BP's logo

In a June decision, the examiner from IP Australia once again denied BP’s application for a green colour mark, siding with an objection filed by retail chain Woolworths. BP’s application (no 909518) covered classes 4 (fuels provided through service stations), 37 (vehicle service stations and services) and 43 (take-away food services). The IP Office found that there was not sufficient evidence that the colour served as a means to distinguish BP’s goods.

BP’s original application was filed in April 2002, and has been subject to several challenges from Woolworths, from the registrar’s office all the way to the Full Federal Court. While the original application referred to “the colour green shown in the representation on the application form”, BP amended the claim in 2012 to define a specific shade, Pantone 348C. However, this amendment failed to convince the examiner, who noted that stating the specific shade would not have any effect on the issue of whether the colour mark was distinctive. This is in line with an examination report from early 2013, in which the examiner noted that referencing the Pantone colour does not change the mark in any way nor does it help to establish that the mark would help distinguish the source of BP’s goods.

The same examiner report also noted single colour marks are “usually considered to be devoid of inherent adaptation to distinguish” and that the evidence required to sustain a single colour mark application generally has to be “extremely persuasive”.

BP is represented by Davies Collison Cave and has until July 17 to appeal.



more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Ranjna Mehta-Dutt, who moved to Chadha & Chadha after 25 years at Remfry & Sagar, says the firm plans to expand its life sciences practice through targeted recruitment and dedicated teams for bigger clients
The initial contempt of court claim targeted Stobbs and the firm’s client for allegedly interfering with the administration of justice
Acquisition of platform developed by Boehmert & Boehmert lawyer set to create a combined platform for patent drafting and prosecution in Europe
Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Sponsored by CAS
CAS provides practical pointers on how intellectual property and R&D teams can work in tandem to unlock tangible benefits and avoid wasted spend
Sponsored by CAS
CAS explores how AI is transforming intellectual property, from inventorship and copyright disputes to new demands on patent attorneys
Sponsored by That.Legal
Gillian Tan of That.Legal discusses a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and what it reveals about the evidential burden in bad-faith trademark claims
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
Gift this article