Absolutely Not Registrable Series: Summer 2026
As we move into the cooler months of 2026, it is time for another instalment of our Absolutely Not Registrable series. In this edition, we look back at some interesting objections raised by the UK IPO against trade marks examined in the first half of 2026 and consider what lessons brand owners can take from them.
From a two-second sound clip, to a running-man silhouette and an unexpectedly offensive word mark, this edition reminds us that sometimes trade mark applications can fail for surprising reasons. As usual, these cases highlight important points for businesses to consider when developing, protecting and clearing new brands.
Sounding out a new trend
One of the more interesting global trends in recent trade mark filings is the attempt to protect non-traditional trade marks. The UK is no exception and we have recently seen a growing popularity of non-traditional marks including motion marks, shape marks and sound marks.
In January 2026, Orion Corporation applied to register a sound mark consisting of a two-second MP3 audio clip. The mark applied for might be a short and catchy jingle, but this was not enough to prevent the UK IPO from refusing the application. The application was refused for all goods in Classes 5 and 10 on the basis that the sound lacked distinctive character and would not be recognised by the average consumer as a trade mark. While many non-traditional trade marks do make it onto the register, this decision is a useful reminder that the requirement for distinctiveness applies regardless of the type of mark being filed.
Consumers can certainly learn to associate particular sounds with a particular business (for example the Netflix ”tudum” sound is almost universally recognisable across the UK and many other territories). However, it often takes time for consumers to make the association. In the meantime, consumers will often rely on more traditional indicators of origin, such as brand names and logos, when deciding who is responsible for the goods or services they are buying.
Businesses should consider how non-traditional assets function within the wider brand strategy and whether their purpose is to function as a trade mark. A sound, animation or distinctive shape may have significant marketing value without necessarily being distinctive enough to function independently as a trade mark or be suitable for registration. The position should also be monitored over time as non-traditional trade marks which start as insufficiently distinctive for registration can sometimes acquire the necessary degree of recognition over time and might later become a registrable asset.
Running towards refusal
Consumers are undoubtedly familiar with certain sporting silhouettes when shopping for trainers and athletic footwear. Nike’s famous Air Jordan logo (see below) comes to mind as an iconic silhouette which is instantly recognisable, even by consumers who do not follow basketball.
Given the commercial success of iconic sports logos, it is perhaps unsurprising that Beijing Jiannong Sports Goods Co., Ltd. sought to register a silhouette of a running man as a trade mark.
Unfortunately, the UK IPO refused the application, holding that the sign merely depicted a runner and, when used on clothing or footwear associated with running, would be perceived as decorative rather than as an indicator of trade origin. A logo can be visually appealing without necessarily functioning as a trade mark. For the purposes of trade mark law, distinctiveness depends on whether the sign is perceived as identifying trade origin rather than whether it is visually appealing or memorable.
It is difficult to know precisely why Nike’s famous Air Jordan logo succeeded where this application failed. One possible explanation is that the Air Jordan pose is less commonplace than a generic depiction of a runner as it is not a pose a basketball player will routinely strike during play, thus making it more distinctive.
Whatever the reason, the case serves as a useful reminder that each application is assessed on its own merits. The existence of other registrations featuring a broadly comparable concept does not guarantee that a new application will meet the required threshold for registrability.
Downright offensive
Storage company Rotho Kunststoff AG received a refusal for its application to register “WOP” in March 2026, after the UK IPO concluded that the mark constituted an offensive slur directed at people of Italian descent.
While we assume that causing offence was not the applicant’s intention, this case highlights an important principle: intent is generally irrelevant when assessing whether a mark is offensive or derogatory. The key question is how the sign is likely to be perceived by the relevant public.
This can create particular challenges for businesses operating internationally. A name or acronym that appears harmless in one market may have an entirely different meaning or association elsewhere. Even where a business has developed a mark independently and without any intention to cause offence, its commercial use can still create legal and reputational difficulties.
For brand owners, clearance searches should not focus solely on potentially conflicting registered rights. The clearance process should also consider cultural and social connotations that could create registrability issues or broader reputational risks.
This is a good example of why trade mark clearance should ideally take place early in the branding process. A quick internet search or check with a native of the country you intend to launch in can sometimes save significant cost and embarrassment by discovering an issue before a name has been launched, packaging has been printed and marketing materials have been produced.
What can brand owners take away?
The common thread of these refusals is that trade mark registrability depends on more than whether a brand looks or sounds good. At first glance, none the marks mentioned in this edition were obviously objectionable, yet all of them ultimately failed to meet the UK IPO’s examination criteria.
Businesses should ensure they consider registrability of new brands at the design stage, rather than treating trade mark protection as something to address once a new brand has already been chosen. Early advice can help identify potential problems, assess whether a proposed sign is capable of functioning as a trade mark and, where necessary, suggest ways of strengthening or adapting the brand before significant investment is made.
After all, a brand may be memorable, marketable and commercially successful but that does not necessarily make it inherently registerable.
Inside IP Autumn 2026
Clean technology series: long-duration energy storage
Share
