In the modern marketplace, colours have evolved beyond aesthetic appeal to become powerful indicators of brand identity. For instance, Cadbury’s purple to Tiffany & Co’s robin-egg blue has all become unique and distinctive indicators of their respective brands. Colours, whether alone or in combination of colours can evoke instant consumer recognition. Yet, Trademark protection for colours remains one of the most debated issues in Intellectual Property Law, particularly in India, where courts and regulators must balance exclusivity with fair competition.

A brand’s use of colour differs from a colour trademark. The presence of a ™ or ® symbol on a brand image indicates protection of the logo, word, or symbol, not the colour itself. In contrast, a colour trademark protects the colour as the brand within a specific market. The central question is: Where does Indian Trademark Law draw the line between protecting single colours and colour combination as trademarks? We will attempt to discuss and understand the position of Indian trademark law on these aspects in this article.

Types of colour Mark

  • Single Colour Trademark- While the registration of a single colour as a trademark in India is debatable given the inherent statutory limitations stemming from the limiting nature of the language employed in the definition of the word “trademark” under Section 2(1)(m) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (the ‘Act’), the Indian Trademark Registry has allowed registration of single colour trademarks in the recent past, but however, such registrations are be permitted only in exceptional circumstances, wherein the Applicant bears the burden of establishing that the colour in question is both inherently unusual and possesses a distinctive character, evidenced by substantial consumer recognition and exclusive association with the Applicant's goods or services.
  • Combination of colour Trademark- Trademarks that are a combination of colours are more commonly registered under the Act, but however such combinations must be unique, bold, and capable of immediate consumer association with the source of goods or services.

Legal Framework in India

Section 2(1)(m) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 includes the term “combination of colours” in the definition of the word “Mark” and under Section 2(1) (zb) of the Act, the word “Trademark” has been defined as a mark that is:

  1. Capable of being graphically represented; and,
  2. Capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one trader from those of another.

From the above definitions of the words ‘mark’ and ‘Trademark’, though a single colour has not been expressly included under the definition of the word ‘mark’ and only the words ‘combination of colours’ has been included, the Indian Trademark Registry has allowed registration of single colour trademarks (possibly as device trademarks) in exceptional circumstances, where such single colour is very unusual and peculiar in a trade and is recognized by traders and consumers alike that it serves as a badge of origin for that class of goods that is exclusively associated with the applicant in its line of business[1].

As single colour per se is not normally used by traders as a means of brand identification, unlike words or pictures, consumers are not in the habit of making assumptions about the origin of goods and services based solely on their colour or the colour of their packaging. It follows therefore that single colours will, only in exceptional circumstances, be capable of denoting the origin of a product or service. Marks consisting of a single colour will usually be liable to objection under Section 9(1)(a) of the Act because they inherently lack the capacity to be distinguished.

Although the Act does not expressly provide for the registration of single colours, it does not prohibit it either. In practice, Indian courts and the Trademark Registry have allowed registration of single colour marks in exceptional circumstances, where acquired distinctiveness and non-functionality are clearly established.

In order to establish acquired distinctiveness, brands would have to show that the single colour does not serve a practical purpose (like indicating a product's flavour or quality) and is uniquely associated with the brand alone. This would require extensive evidence, which may include worldwide registrations, promotional and advertising materials featuring the colour mark in India, social media campaigns, public consumer surveys, unsolicited media coverage, etc.

Further, the Act also talks about the limitation of colour. Under Section 10 of the Act, if a trademark is registered without any limitation of colour, it shall be deemed to be registered for all colours.

Judicial precedents in India

The question of registrability of a single colour mark and combination of colour marks have been subject to judicial scrutiny by the Courts in India over the years.

One of such instances involving a judicial scrutiny of registration of combination of colours as a trademark was in the case of Colgate Palmolive Company v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd [2] adjudicated by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In this matter, the Plaintiff, Colgate, sought an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendant, Anchor, from using a particular trade dress comprising a colour combination of one-third red and two-thirds white, in that specific sequence, on the packaging and container of its product, namely Tooth Powder. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant’s adoption of a deceptively similar trade dress, especially the red and white colour combination, amounted to passing off, by misrepresenting its goods as those of the Plaintiff.

The Hon’ble Court held that, in determining whether passing off has occurred, the decisive factor is the overall visual impression conveyed to the consumer with regard to the source and origin of the goods, including the colour combination, shape of the container, and overall packaging. The court held that it is the overall impression that a customer gets as to the source and origin of the goods from visual impression of colour combination, shape of the container, packaging etc. If illiterate, unwary and gullible customers get confused as to the source and origin of the goods which they have been using for longer periods by way of getting the goods in a container having particular shape, colour combination and getup, it amounts to passing off. Consequently, the Court recognised colour as a constituent element of trade dress and granted injunctive relief by restraining Anchor from employing the red and white colour combination, in the specified arrangement, on its product packaging and containers.

Indian courts have also afforded judicial protection to trademark owners involving combination of colours as a trademark that have been exclusively associated with the business of such trademark owners. For instance, in the case of Deere & Co. &Anr. vs. Mr Malkit Singh &Ors.[3], the court granted protection to plaintiffs Deere & Co. It ruled that the combination of yellow and green on Deere tractors was distinctive and indicative of their products, and the combination had been in use for over100 years. Therefore, the public would associate the yellow wheels and green body combination with John Deere Tractors.

Another notable decision involving single colour mark was passed by the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Christian Loubutin Sas vs. Mr. Pawan Kumar & Ors.[4] wherein it held that Christian Louboutin’s “…‘RED SOLE’ trademarks have acquired a well-known character…”. The issue again came up before the High Court of Delhi in Christian Louboutin Sas v. Abudakar & Ors[5]. In the instant case, the plaintiff had filed a suit alleging infringement and passing off of its registered RED SOLE trademark. A single Judge relying on the definitions under section 2(1)(zb) and 2(1)(m), held that “…Combination of colour is sine qua non, and meaning thereby that quite obviously one single colour, as contra-distinguished from combination of colours, cannot be a mark falling in the definition of mark. Hence, a single colour not being a mark, the single colour cannot be claimed as a trademark”.

The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court held that a single colour could not constitute a valid trademark, this judgment was later set aside by the Division Bench on procedural grounds. Since no ruling was given on merits, the legal status of single colour trademarks in India remains unresolved and open to further judicial interpretation.

The Underlying Policy Concerns- The restraint of Indian Trademark Office to grant broad protection for single colours (as opposed to colour combinations) is grounded in policy considerations, all of which find roots in statutory interpretation and judicial reasoning.

  • Doctrine of Functionality- Under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, marks that consist exclusively of signs that designates the characteristics of goods are barred from registration. A single colour may perform a functional or aesthetic role (e.g. Red for danger signs, blue for medical packaging). Courts, therefore, treat colour marks cautiously by asking; Does this colour merely serve a functional purpose, or does it truly operate as a badge of origin?
  • Consumer perception Test- The touchstone for registration in India is distinctiveness[6]. Courts are sceptical whether an average consumer perceives a single colour per se as a source of identifier, absent long-standing and exclusive use. By contrast, colour combinations are more likely to strike consumers as unusual, distinctive, and brand-specific, thereby meeting the threshold for distinctiveness.
  • Market fairness- Colour monopolies should not create barriers for smaller players who rely on commonly used shades.

Conclusion

Colour trademarks in India lie at a complex crossroads of branding, legal interpretation, and policy concerns. While combinations of colours are expressly recognized under the Trademarks Act, single colour trademarks exist in a legal grey area, may only be permitted in exceptional cases where the applicant proves acquired distinctiveness and non-functionality, however the judicial opinions remain divided. The line India draws, therefore, is not rigid, but policy-driven ensuring that colours function as true source identifiers without creating monopolies that hinder market competition. As brand strategies and consumer perceptions evolve, Indian jurisprudence on colour marks is likely to continue developing.