Imagine you enter an online clothing store. What do you see first in the search filters? Of course — size and color. Color is a fundamental concept in the fashion industry. But European justice has its own, rather unexpected view of obvious things.

Recently, the General Court of the EU issued a decision in the Rose Bikes v. EUIPO case (Case T-56/25), once again bringing to the surface the peculiar logic of European judges regarding the registration of color names as trademarks.

How did it all start, and why is this decision surprising? Let’s break it down in simple terms.

The company Rose Bikes, known for its bicycles, decided to register the trademark “ROSE” (which in English and French means “pink” or “rose”) for a broad category of goods: clothing, footwear, and headwear.

However, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) rejected the application. The Office’s logic was straightforward: the word “pink” simply describes the color of clothing. Under the law, purely descriptive words cannot be monopolized, because otherwise other sellers would be unable to properly label their products.

The company disagreed and went to court.

The court dismissed the claim, but the judges’ reasoning left many lawyers stunned.

Under European law, a sign is descriptive if it indicates an objective, permanent, and inherent characteristic of the goods. And here the judges made a striking statement: color is not an inherent characteristic of clothing!

The court explained its reasoning as follows:

• Clothing comes in all kinds of colors.
• The fact that a particular T-shirt is pink is merely a coincidence or a designer’s whim (the court called it an “accidental and arbitrary aspect”).
• Since color does not change the essence of the item itself (a T-shirt remains a T-shirt whether it is white or green), it is not a permanent and intrinsic characteristic of the product.

To support this position, the court referred to earlier precedents. For example, the word “vita” (which means “white” in Swedish) had previously been allowed for kitchenware because kitchenware does not come only in white. Likewise, the color name “cream” was found non-descriptive for watches and sunglasses.

Put simply, the court believes that because color is a variable detail, consumers would not perceive the word “ROSE” on a jacket label as a description of its color.

If color is not a characteristic, then why was Rose Bikes ultimately refused?

The judges found a lifeline in an argument raised by the EUIPO Board of Appeal. They referred to clothing for infants and young people. In our society, the color pink is strongly associated with products for newborn girls. Here, pink is not a coincidence but a clear market convention.

Because Rose Bikes had applied for the broad category of “clothing” (which includes children’s clothing), the court concluded that, for infant products, the word “ROSE” is purely descriptive. And under EU rules, if a sign is descriptive for even part of the goods within a category, it cannot be registered for the entire category.

Why has this decision attracted criticism and raised so many questions?

Experts in intellectual property law criticize the court’s approach for several reasons:

1. Detachment from reality. Claiming that color is a random and insignificant factor in fashion is, at the very least, strange. Color is a key purchasing criterion for consumers and a core element of marketing.
2. The paradox of double standards. If a company attempted to register a simple pink color swatch as a trademark, it would likely be refused because colors must remain available for everyone. But if that is the case, why do courts consider the word “pink” to be less descriptive than the color itself?

What comes next?

The company now has an obvious option: file a new application while clearly limiting its scope — for example, “clothing, excluding clothing for infants and teenagers.”

But this creates another legal trap. If they begin selling ordinary adult clothing in pink under the “ROSE” brand, would consumers simply perceive it as an indication of color? And if they sell black clothing under the “ROSE” (Pink) brand, could they be accused of misleading consumers?

For now, the General Court of the EU has left more questions than answers. Only the EU’s higher court — the Court of Justice — will be able to put a full stop to this “pink” story, if the case reaches the appeal stage.

Founder of Research & Patent group Intectica, author of patent algorithms for solving problems in the pharmaceutical industry, patent attorney certified in all intellectual property objects (Patents, Design, TM), with education in chemistry and law, chief expert of the patent institution of Ukraine UKRPATENT (1997-2004). Member of international organizations, including ECTA, PTMG, UAM, lecturer and blogger.