Why minimalist logos are beautiful, but hard to protect

A trademark is a sign that distinguishes one business’s goods or services from another. It is not a general ownership right over a design or a word. Instead, it is a legal tool tied to commercial use and consumer perception, designed to:

Trademarks can take several forms:

Less common trademarks can cover colours, shapes, sounds, or motion, but only if they are distinctive enough to indicate the source of the goods or services.

Logo trademarks often combine visual elements with the brand name, providing protection for both the design and, indirectly, the name it contains. Even if a competitor adopts a different visual presentation, the shared name element may still create a likelihood of consumer confusion. This implicit protection often helps prevent or challenge infringement.

A major advantage of logo trademarks is distinctiveness. A logo that combines words, graphics, colours, or layout is usually more distinctive than a name alone. This increased distinctiveness makes registration more likely to succeed, especially in crowded markets.

Minimalist logos, however, can complicate this advantage. When visual elements are reduced to simple shapes or figures, distinctiveness can weaken, and enforcement becomes harder. While protection exists, it is narrower than many brand owners expect.

Trademark disputes are especially common where well-known brands are involved. Large companies actively enforce their trademarks because even minor resemblance can dilute brand strength or weaken exclusivity. Minimalist logos are particularly vulnerable: the fewer visual elements a design has, the smaller the margin for differentiation.

A clear example is Nike’s dispute with a small ski apparel company that used a logo showing a skier in mid-air. Although the sport was different, the overall look and movement of the figure strongly echoed Nike’s Jumpman silhouette. In trademark law, intent matters less than the impression on consumers. Because Nike’s mark is so well known, the resemblance was enough to trigger legal action.

A more subtle case is the ongoing dispute between Lidl and Tesco over Tesco’s Clubcard branding. Here, the logos do not look identical, but they share a single visual element: a yellow circle on a blue background. On its own, that might seem insignificant, but both companies operate in the same retail sector and target the same audience. In such contexts, even small overlaps can be legally meaningful, because trademark law considers the overall impression and the risk that consumers may associate one brand with another.

These examples illustrate two ends of the spectrum. Clear imitation, like the Nike case, is relatively straightforward to enforce. Subtle similarities, like the Lidl–Tesco case, are more ambiguous but still carry legal risk when brands share markets or consumer bases.

Minimalist logos succeed because they are simple, adaptable, and visually appealing. Trademark law, however, rewards distinctiveness and clarity of origin, not aesthetic restraint. The simpler a logo becomes, the harder it often is to protect, and the easier it may be to challenge or be challenged. For businesses, the lesson is clear: minimalist design should be paired with a deliberate trademark strategy.

The easiest way to make sure your logo is safe to use is to submit it for a free trademark check. Doing so early can help you identify potential conflicts, understand what aspects are protectable, and avoid costly disputes down the line.