What a logo client is actually buying

Two systems that clients merge into one

A client commissioning a logo believes they are buying something that will be theirs and that nobody else can use. Two entirely separate legal systems govern that outcome, and you are only ever supplying one of them.

Copyright arises automatically in the artwork and protects the expression. It stops somebody copying your drawing.

Trade mark protects a sign used in trade to indicate the origin of goods or services, within specified classes of goods and services, within a territory. It stops a competitor using a confusingly similar mark for similar goods. It generally requires registration to be strong, though many jurisdictions also recognise unregistered rights built through use, under passing off or unfair competition.

You supply the first. Only the client, through a registration process, can obtain the second. Being clear about this is a professional obligation and it protects you.

Why a word mark is weaker than the client thinks

Copyright protects original expression. A single word set in an existing typeface, with modest adjustments, may attract little or no copyright protection in many jurisdictions, because there is not much original authorship in it and because names and short phrases are commonly excluded.

So the client’s brand-new wordmark may have almost no copyright standing. Its real protection, if any, comes from trade mark law, which is a registration they have to pursue, in the classes they operate in, in each territory they care about.

Tell them this. It is useful information, it positions you as somebody who understands the business rather than only the drawing, and it moves a risk off your desk.

What you can honestly say

Never promise originality or clearance. The correct formulation, in the quote and again at handover:

“The design is original work and, to my knowledge, not copied from any existing mark. I am not able to carry out a trade mark search or give legal advice on whether the mark is registrable or conflicts with anyone else’s rights. Before you invest in signage or packaging, I would strongly recommend a clearance search by a trade mark attorney.”

Two things this achieves. It is honest, because you cannot know what is registered across the classes and territories that matter. And it puts the recommendation in writing, which is what you will want if a conflict emerges two years later.

The searching you can reasonably do

You are not doing a legal clearance, but a few minutes of checking prevents obvious embarrassment before you present:

• A plain image and text search for the name and the visual idea.
• The free public trade mark databases most national offices operate, plus the international ones, searched on the word.
• A domain and social handle check, which is not a legal matter but is usually the client’s first practical question.

If any of this turns up something close, say so before you present. Presenting a route that is visibly similar to an existing mark in the same sector wastes a round and damages confidence.

What the client should register, and when

Registration is a process with fees, classes, territories and a timeline measured in months. It is worth telling a client three things, without advising them on their situation:

Registration is by class (the categories of goods and services) so a mark registered for restaurant services does not necessarily cover clothing.

It is by territory. There is no worldwide trade mark; there are national registrations and some regional systems, plus an international filing mechanism that routes to national offices.

It is worth doing before the money goes into signage, packaging and printed stock, because the cost of rebranding after a conflict is enormous compared with the cost of a search.

Say this once, recommend a professional, and stop. Advising on registrability is regulated work in many countries, and going further is both risky and unpaid.

The typeface question

Building an identity on a commercial typeface can create a licence problem specific to logos: some foundries restrict or separately license use of their faces within a trade marked logo. Check the licence before the mark is built, because the alternative is redrawing.

Drawing the letterforms yourself, or starting from an open licensed face under terms that permit modification, avoids the question entirely. This is one of several places where the open licensed route is not merely the cheap option but the cleaner one.

What you deliver, in rights terms

For a logo, the usual and sensible arrangement is full assignment of copyright on final payment, with a portfolio display clause retained. A brand cannot be built on a licence that expires.

State explicitly that assignment of copyright in the artwork is not a grant of trade mark rights and does not constitute clearance, because clients conflate the two and the sentence costs nothing.

When a conflict appears later

Occasionally a client is contacted by another party claiming a similar mark. Your position is straightforward if you documented properly: your work was original, you made no representation about clearance, you recommended a search in writing, and here is the evidence of authorship and date.

Provide the files and the documentation, be helpful, and do not offer opinions on the merits. This is a matter between the client and the other party, and their lawyer.

The limitation

Everything here varies by country: what is registrable, how strong unregistered rights are, whether copyright subsists in a simple wordmark, and how the two systems interact. Some jurisdictions protect trade dress and get-up broadly; others narrowly. Design registration (a third system, protecting the appearance of a product) exists in many places and is entirely separate again.

What travels is the professional conduct: supply original work, say plainly what you can and cannot warrant, recommend a clearance search in writing before the client spends money on production, and keep the dated evidence of authorship. That is the whole of your responsibility and it is worth discharging precisely, because the cases where this matters are exactly the cases where the sums are large.