Cadbury has wrapped its chocolate in the same shade of purple since 1914 — a deep, regal Pantone 2685C chosen, the story goes, as a tribute to Queen Victoria. Over a century, that purple became inseparable from the brand. Show a British shopper that exact color and they think "Dairy Milk."
By every instinct, that should be a textbook color trademark — exactly the kind of consumer association Louboutin used to protect his red sole. And yet Cadbury spent more than a decade fighting for it, and ultimately lost the broad protection it wanted. The reason is a masterclass in how not to draft a trademark.
The Fatal Sentence
Cadbury had registered its purple, but when rival Nestlé challenged the registration, the courts focused on the exact wording Cadbury had used to describe what it owned. The description said the color applied "to the whole visible surface, or being the predominant colour applied to the whole visible surface, of the packaging."
"Or being the predominant colour." Those few words sank the case. In 2013, the UK Court of Appeal ruled that this phrasing covered an unknown number of different visual forms — purple everywhere, purple mostly, purple in undefined combinations. A trademark has to be clear, precise, and self-contained so the public knows exactly what is protected. Cadbury's description was too vague and open-ended to be a valid single mark.
Louboutin Won. Cadbury Lost. Same Question, Opposite Outcome.
This is the instructive part. Both brands had genuine consumer association with a color. Both colors had real "secondary meaning." The difference wasn't the strength of the brand — it was the precision of the claim.
Louboutin defined his mark narrowly and exactly: a specific red, in a specific position (the sole), in a specific context (contrasting with the upper). That precision made it enforceable. Cadbury defined its mark broadly and loosely: purple, predominantly, somewhere on the packaging. That vagueness made it invalid.
A color trademark lives or dies on the wording. Claim too little and you get nothing. Claim too much, in language that could mean many things, and a court will strike it down for lack of clarity — which is exactly what happened.
The Lesson for Anyone Filing
Cadbury's defeat is one of the most expensive drafting lessons in trademark history. The brand was strong. The consumer association was real. The century of use was unquestioned. None of it mattered, because the application tried to cover too much in language that wasn't precise.
The takeaway applies far beyond color marks: a trademark is only as good as its description. What you write in the application defines what you can defend. A precise, narrow, clearly-bounded claim beats a sweeping, ambiguous one every time — because in trademark law, clarity is enforceability. Cadbury owned the purple in the public's mind. It just never managed to own it on paper.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Cadbury lose its purple trademark?
In 2013, the UK Court of Appeal found Cadbury's description of the mark too vague. The phrase "or being the predominant colour" meant the registration could cover many different visual forms, so it wasn't a single, clear, precise sign. The lack of certainty made the broad registration invalid.
Can a color really be a trademark?
Yes. A color can be a valid trademark if it has acquired distinctiveness — consumers associate it with one brand — and if the claim is defined precisely. Louboutin's red sole succeeded for this reason. The challenge is almost always in describing the color claim narrowly and clearly enough.
What's the difference between Cadbury's and Louboutin's color cases?
Both brands had strong consumer association with a color. Louboutin defined his mark precisely — a specific red, on the sole, contrasting with the upper — and won. Cadbury defined its mark broadly and ambiguously, and lost. The outcome turned on the precision of the wording, not the strength of the brand.
What makes a color trademark application valid?
The color must be non-functional, have acquired distinctiveness through use, and be described clearly and precisely — ideally with a specific shade reference like a Pantone number and a defined manner and place of use. Vague or open-ended descriptions risk being rejected for lack of certainty.