Germany's Top Court Strips Obi of Its Orange Trademark After Hornbach and Globus Challenge
Updated: 6 days ago
TL;DR: Germany's Federal Court of Justice ruled on 17 September 2026 that DIY chain Obi cannot claim trademark protection for its signature orange, calling the colour a generic signal for hardware stores rather than a mark of one brand.
The Colour Is Common Property
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) rejected Obi's appeal on 17 September 2026, after rival chains Hornbach and Globus petitioned to cancel Obi's abstract colour mark for orange. Presiding judge Thomas Koch said orange is 'at most a reference to DIY chains in general', not to Obi specifically.
Consumer surveys Obi submitted showed only 45.6 to 49.6% of people associated orange with the brand, while an opposing expert opinion put it around 30% — below the threshold German law requires for protection.
Why the Bar Is So High
Abstract colour marks are among the hardest forms of intellectual property to defend, precisely because colours are functional and widely shared. Multiple German DIY retailers use orange and red branding, which undercut Obi's claim to exclusivity.
Obi responded that orange 'remains one of the central visual identifiers of Obi' and that the ruling changes nothing in day-to-day practice — a reminder that losing the registration is not the same as losing the association.
What It Means for Brand Owners
The decision is a significant precedent for German colour-mark protection, confirming how high the distinctiveness bar sits even for a colour a brand has used for decades. Recognition is not the same as legal ownership.
For marketers, it is a prompt to build distinctiveness across multiple assets — logo, typography, shape, sound — rather than betting brand equity on a single colour a court may deem generic.
Marketing Minute's Take
Owning a colour in customers' minds and owning it in law are two different things, and this ruling widens that gap. The practical lesson is portfolio thinking: spread distinctiveness across a system of assets so no single legal setback dents recognition. A brand that lives or dies on one colour is one court case from a problem.
Quick FAQ
Why did Obi lose its orange trademark?
The Federal Court of Justice ruled that orange functions as a generic signal for DIY chains rather than identifying Obi specifically, with consumer surveys falling below the distinctiveness threshold required for protection.
Who challenged Obi's colour mark?
Rival DIY chains Hornbach and Globus petitioned to cancel the abstract orange colour mark.
Does Obi have to stop using orange?
No — Obi can keep using orange; it simply loses exclusive trademark protection for the colour. Obi said the ruling changes nothing in day-to-day practice.
Owning a colour in customers' minds and owning it in law are different things, and this ruling widens that gap. The takeaway is portfolio thinking: spread distinctiveness across logo, type, shape and sound, so no single legal setback dents recognition. A brand built on one colour is always one court case from a problem. — Daniel Nikolla, Founder of Merx Marketing
The takeaway: recognition isn't legal ownership — build distinctiveness across a system of assets, not a single colour a court can call generic.
If you lost the legal right to your signature colour tomorrow, would customers still recognise you?
If you would like to know more about this topic, please contact us on danieln@merxmarketing.co.uk
Sources: HORIZONT, ZDFheute.
Related reading
Written by Daniel Nikolla, Founder of Merx Marketing Ltd and Marketing Minute
