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

With trademark volumes surging, trademark teams need to think beyond traditional clearance searches, towards a continuous, intelligence-led workflow, says Meghan Medeiros of Corsearch
Brazilian in-house counsel say law firms’ technology investments have not translated into tangible benefits, meaning tech use is a minor factor when selecting advisers
A lack of comfort among some salaried partners shows why law firms must actively foster inclusion, not merely focus on diversity mandates
Arrival of Laura Alonso, alongside a team of 11, will bring ‘significant value’ to ECIJA clients, says CEO
In the first of a two-part article, lawyers at Spruson & Ferguson and Marshall Gerstein provide an overview of China’s system for appealing against patent invalidation decisions
Lawyers and corporate leaders at INTA’s Business of M&A conference in New York discussed how cross-practice collaboration and early in-house involvement can help deals
Lily Li, partner at Morrison Foerster, shares how her litigation team helped secure victory at the ITC in a patent infringement case
Top talking points also included news of an appellate ruling concerning ‘Pisco’ and Indian drugmakers gearing up to launch generic versions of Ozempic as Novo Nordisk’s patent expires
The government’s keenly awaited view on AI and copyright has positive themes but leaves rights owners wanting, says Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard
While IP Australia’s updated manual could be favourable to computer-implemented inventions, stakeholders would like to see whether a consistent and reliable standard is followed during actual examination
Gift this article