Absolutely not registrable series: Winter 2025

As 2025 draws to a close, it is time for another instalment in our Absolutely Not Registrable series, a look back at some of the most interesting UK IPO refusals of the year, and what brand owners can learn from them. This serves as a reminder that even the most creative marks can run afoul of the absolute grounds for refusal, often in surprising ways.

The return of the Red Cross

Long-time readers may recall our 2023 article discussing a mark refused by the UK IPO because of its resemblance to the Red Cross Emblem: . The refusal highlighted the Office’s particularly strict stance on any cross-shaped design in shades of red, pink or even orange and two years on this position has not softened.

In 2025, Kraftling GmbH discovered this the hard way when its logo application, shown below, featuring a prominent yellow elephant and a small cross within a tear drop, was refused under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957. Section 3(4) of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 implements protection of the red cross and other emblems, prohibiting use of the signs by anyone other than authorised humanitarian organisations.

We think that most people would struggle to be confused between the mark applied for and the Red Cross, or to even make a link between them. Yet the UK IPO remains unwavering; if your mark contains a cross that could be perceived as “resembling” the protected emblem, the presence of other distinctive elements is irrelevant. Likewise, it does not matter if your goods and services have nothing to do with medical or humanitarian work, the prohibition still applies.

This reflects the idea that some symbols are not merely famous but are protected under international law. The aim is not to prevent consumer confusion, but to uphold the integrity and neutrality of humanitarian emblems.

Japocat: When a red circle becomes a flag

Similar to the above, flags are also afforded special protection under Article 6 of the Paris Convention meaning that any trade mark which consists of or contains a convention country’s flag, coat of arms, or other state emblems cannot be registered without official authorisation from that country’s authorities.

This provision tripped up JAPOCAT, whose logo featured a red circle on a white background. The UK IPO found the design “evocative” of the national flag of Japan and therefore unregistrable.

At first glance, this might seem overzealous. After all, a simple red dot is a common design element  and, similar marks featuring red circles have previously been accepted for registration in the UK. Here is a small selection:

However, the inclusion of “JAPO” in the mark arguably strengthened the association with Japan, tipping the balance towards refusal. The IPO’s reasoning demonstrates that it is not only the visual similarity that matters, but also the context and impression conveyed by the mark as a whole.

This case illustrates how Article 6ter operates as a form of absolute protection for state symbols, not because of potential confusion or dilution, but out of respect for national sovereignty. It also serves as a reminder that even indirect references to protected emblems can trigger objections if they are “evocative” rather than identical.

BIOREPAIR: When Descriptiveness Strikes Back

Not all difficulties are raised by the UK IPO during initial examination. Some marks make it through examination, only to face challenges later. That was the fate of BIOREPAIR, owned by Coswell S.P.A.

Initially accepted for registration in the UK, the mark was subsequently cancelled following an invalidity action filed by a third party based on Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, which prohibits the registration of marks that are descriptive or devoid of distinctive character.

The decision reaffirmed that “BIOREPAIR” merely described the nature or intended purpose of the goods, being biological or organic repair, particularly in the context of cosmetics and dental care products (the goods for which the mark was registered).

This serves as a crucial reminder that even registered marks remain vulnerable to attack, and those attacks might be based on absolute grounds as well as earlier rights. Third parties can apply for cancellation on absolute grounds if they believe a mark should never have been registered in the first place and, if successful, the registration will be removed from the register as if it never existed.

Lessons for 2026

These cases underscore several enduring truths about UK trade mark law. Some symbols, such as the Red Cross or national flags, are protected absolutely, with no room for argument. Others like descriptive or suggestive word marks occupy a greyer area, where commercial creativity must be balanced against legal distinctiveness.

In a landscape where the boundaries of registrability continue to evolve, these 2025 decisions offer a timely reminder that what may seem “absolutely fine” to a marketer might be, in the eyes of the UK IPO, absolutely not registrable and emphasise why seeking advice from an experienced Trade Mark Attorney before filing is essential.