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

Cookies Settings

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

Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
Gift this article