Fashion houses have long favoured repeating geometric motifs and interlocking-letter patterns as trademarks. Louis Vuitton's monogram and Damier canvases (see Figures 1 and 2), Burberry's checkered pattern and TB monogram (see Figures 3 and 4), Gucci's interlocking “G” pattern (see Figure 5) and Tommy Hilfiger's overlapping "TH" (see Figure 6) are all classic examples. 

Figure 1. Louis Vuitton monogram

Figure 2. Louis Vuitton Damier canvas 

Figure 3. Burberry checkered pattern

Figure 4. Burberry TB monogram 

Figure 5. Gucci's interlocking-G pattern

Figure 6. Tommy Hilfiger TH pattern

This design technique – two or more letters or elements combined through artistic overlapping repetition – is known in the fashion industry as “monogram”. As the examples above show, many brands have their own unique monogram, simple yet highly recognisable, and use it liberally across their entire product range, from bags to clothing to accessories and footwear.

But the road to getting a pattern trademark registered is rarely smooth. Because these marks are ornamental in appearance, whether a design made up of a pattern or motif can move from being merely "attractive decoration" to a legally protected trademark capable of identifying and distinguishing the source of goods depends on whether it has the distinctiveness to function as a trademark.

Inherent and acquired: two sources of distinctiveness

Article 11 of China’s Trademark Law prevents trademarks that "inherently lack distinctiveness" from registration, unless the mark has "acquired distinctiveness through use and become capable of identification". This means that a mark can satisfy the distinctiveness requirement in one of two ways. It may possess inherent distinctiveness, where the design itself is distinctive enough for consumers to recognise it as identifying and distinguishing the source of goods rather than as mere decoration. Alternatively, it may possess acquired distinctiveness: even where a mark lacks inherent distinctiveness, it can still become registrable once long-term, continuous and extensive use has built a sole association in the minds of the relevant public between the mark and a specific source.

Pattern trademarks fall right into this dilemma. Repeating geometric motifs, checks and interlocking-letter designs tend to be perceived by consumers, first and foremost, as "decorative product design" rather than as signs distinguishing the source of goods. Such marks remain, in substance, ordinary graphic trademarks – but because their very composition carries an inherently decorative look, examiners and courts tend to scrutinise with particular care whether a mark has moved beyond mere decoration and taken on the function of identifying and distinguishing the source of goods. This can be decided immediately at the substantial examination stage of a new trademark application just from the design itself (inherent distinctiveness), or it might get settled at a later stage (eg, review of refusal) through evidence of use (acquired distinctiveness).

The same logic applies to patterns drawn from traditional culture. If the applicant adds original expression – in the composition, line work, colour or arrangement – that sets the result apart from the traditional element's original public-domain form, the mark can have inherent distinctiveness. And even without that, it can still get registered later once it has acquired distinctiveness through use.

One further point deserves particular attention: distinctiveness is not the same thing as originality. This holds true even despite the fact that injecting original expression into a design can help it acquire inherent distinctiveness. That does not mean originality itself is the legal test for distinctiveness. Under the Beijing Higher People's Court's Guidelines for the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving the Grant and Confirmation of Trademark Rights, whether colour-combination, sound or 3D marks presented in the shape or decoration of the goods themselves possess distinctiveness has nothing to do with whether the applicant created the design first or was the earliest user. The same rule applies to pattern trademarks: distinctiveness, in the trademark law sense, answers the question of whether consumers would perceive the mark as identifying and distinguishing source – not whether the design is original. A pattern may be the applicant's own original creation, never before seen in the market, and still be found to lack inherent distinctiveness because it reads overall as a familiar type of repeating decorative motif. Conversely, a design that is far from novel may still acquire distinctiveness through long-term, extensive use and the market recognition that use builds.

Refusal cases in examination practice: a strict approach to distinctiveness

Pattern trademarks are refused at examination at a strikingly high rate, and brand recognition earns no exemption. A number of internationally renowned brands have had their pattern marks initially refused for "lacking distinctiveness overall”.

Similar grounds for refusal recur across a series of recent decisions, each finding that the pattern trademark in question lacked distinctiveness and refusing it on such grounds.

A contrasting outcome comes from the invalidation proceeding over Burberry's checkered pattern trademark. In 2025, a company sought to invalidate one of Burberry's international registrations, arguing that the check being a "generic pattern" and a "public resource" was deceptive, and that it was liable to be confused with the national flags of other countries. The CNIPA rejected the invalidation request and upheld the registration on the grounds that the evidence submitted by Burberry showed long-term extensive use of the pattern, which had built substantial market recognition, and that in actual use it served to distinguish the source of goods. The petitioner's evidence, meanwhile, was insufficient to show that the check had become a generic design for clothing, footwear or headwear, or directly indicates the main materials, functions or technical characters. 

This contrast between success and failure shows that the outcome of a pattern trademark's registration depends on how convincingly the applicant proves either inherent or acquired distinctiveness.

Strategic recommendations for registration

Building on the above, brand owners developing a pattern trademark portfolio may wish to consider the following strategies.

File early, and put registration on the timeline sooner rather than later

Acquiring distinctiveness depends on long-term, continuous and genuine use. Applicants should file in their core markets and goods categories as early as possible, even where an initial refusal for lack of distinctiveness is likely, because use evidence generally can only be submitted at a later stage of the proceedings, not with the initial stage when filing the application. Filing early simply means entering that evidentiary window sooner.

Systematically preserve and strengthen evidence of use

Persuasive evidence typically includes:

• sales contracts, invoices and e-commerce sales data; 

• advertising contracts, invoices and media coverage; 

• consumer-perception surveys and expert opinions; and 

• promotional material capable of showing a "sole relationship" between the pattern and the applicant. 

Product photographs alone are not sufficient to persuade the examiner. Once a design is finalised, the pattern should be used consistently across products and promotional materials to build a stable association with the brand in the minds of the relevant public. This is precisely the evidentiary foundation on which a finding of acquired distinctiveness ultimately rests. 

It is also worth noting that other similar marks having already been registered or a mark having already been registered abroad cannot serve as a matter of course as a basis for registration in any given case. Chinese trademark examination adheres strictly to the principle of case-by-case review, and rights holders need to build an evidentiary record tailored to the actual use of their own particular pattern.

Consider alternative approaches at the design stage to reduce the risk of refusal

One approach is to combine the pattern with elements possessing inherent distinctiveness (eg, a word mark) within the same application (see Figures 7 and 8).

Figure 7. Example incorporating “BURBERRY” into a pattern trademark

Figure 8. Example incorporating “TOUS” into a pattern trademark

The other approach is to apply for registration of a single or partial repeating unit of the pattern, rather than the entire continuous design. By reducing the density of repetition and enlarging an individual unit, the pattern moves away from reading as background decoration and closer to a standalone graphic device.

Key takeaways

The difficulty in securing registration for pattern trademarks lies mainly in how distinctiveness strikes a balance between decorative appeal and source identification. For trademark applicants, it is essential to consider from the design stage onward whether a pattern is sufficiently distinct from a purely decorative impression, while also planning early for the accumulation of use evidence and making full use of strategies such as combination filings and unit registration to secure registration for pattern trademarks.