In recent years, the fashion industry has seen a sweeping trend of rebranding. Many labels have stripped away their original, character-rich logos in favor of clean, minimalistic sans-serif wordmarks. This shift—often dubbed blanding—is driven by the design principle that “less is more.” But while this aesthetic may serve modern sensibilities, it raises significant questions about brand authenticity and legal protection.

The Legal Cost of Simplicity

At first glance, blanding appears to be just another stylistic phase. However, it has deeper legal implications—particularly in the realm of trademark law, where distinctiveness is the bedrock of protection. As logos become more uniform and less expressive, their ability to distinguish one brand from another diminishes. This erosion of distinctiveness may place trademark rights at risk.

Key legal concerns include:

Loss of trademark protection: If a new logo fails to maintain a consistent commercial impression, the trademark may no longer qualify for protection.
Continuity of use: To retain legal rights, a brand must show ongoing and consistent use of its trademark. Drastic rebranding can interrupt this chain.

Why Brands Embrace Blanding

Despite the risks, blanding offers several benefits:

Broader legal protection: Plain wordmarks rely on the strength of the name itself, potentially allowing for a wider scope of legal coverage.
Digital optimization: Minimalist logos are versatile across devices, making them highly functional for e-commerce and social media.
Streamlined visibility: Simple designs are easier to recognize across various channels, enhancing brand recall in a cluttered digital landscape.

The Drawbacks of Homogeneity

However, these advantages come at a cost:

Complex legal evaluation: Courts and trademark offices may struggle to determine if the new and old marks maintain a consistent impression.
Loss of identity: Simplified logos may weaken a brand’s ability to stand out, compromising both recognition and emotional resonance.
Cultural detachment: Rebranding may abandon traditional design elements that once connected a brand to its heritage.
Generic aesthetic: As more brands adopt similar styles, visual identities begin to blur, diluting uniqueness.
Sacrificing character for modernity: The pursuit of a contemporary look often results in generic and forgettable branding.

This tension reveals the paradox of blanding: while meant to strengthen branding through simplicity, it often leads to visual uniformity that undermines what a brand truly represents.

The Rise of Re-Rebranding

Now, the pendulum is swinging back. A new counter-revolution in branding is emerging—one that favors specificity, personality, and heritage. Brands are rediscovering the value of rich typography, nuanced color palettes, and historical references.

One notable example is Burberry’s 2023 rebranding under creative director Daniel Lee, which reintroduced a serif logo with a nod to the brand’s legacy. This new wave moves away from the obsession with digital scalability and embraces visual depth and distinctiveness.

The Legal Implications of Depth

With this shift, the role of legal counsel becomes even more vital. Branding is no longer just a marketing tool—it’s a strategic decision involving legal risk, intellectual property, and cultural positioning. Visual identity must be treated as a legal asset, not just a stylistic choice.

Conclusion: Finding the Middle Ground

While the minimalist trend in branding was born from a need to adapt to digital platforms, it has created unintended legal vulnerabilities. Distinctiveness remains the cornerstone of a strong trademark. Overly simplified logos may compromise both consumer recognition and legal protection.

Brands must therefore strike a careful balance—embracing modernity without losing their unique identity. In most cases, evolving a logo through small, strategic updates is more effective than radical overhauls. This approach preserves brand equity while minimizing the legal risks that come with a complete transformation.