The Bind: Why trade marks matter for charities
We’re joined by Ben Travers, Partner and Head of Intellectual Property at national law firm Foot Anstey, to discuss the legal considerations charities should keep in mind as they build, protect and grow their brand – from trade marks and intellectual property to partnerships, campaigns and the use of stories and images.
Key takeaways
- Your brand is one of your charity’s most valuable assets.
- Trade marks are about creating value, not just preventing misuse.
- Registration can unlock future licensing, partnership and fundraising opportunities.
- Sharing knowledge and protecting IP can go hand in hand.
- Get legal advice early during a rebrand to avoid costly mistakes later.
What aspects of a brand can be protected?
From a legal perspective, a trade mark is anything that helps people identify the source of a product, service or campaign – what we call a ‘badge of origin’. To ensure control and ownership over a brand, charities should look to register their trade marks.
If a charity is only making one trade mark application (e.g. to help control costs), we would usually recommend protecting the word mark because it offers broader protection, compared with logos, which naturally evolve over time. But trademarks can cover much more than names and logos. Shapes, sounds, slogans and other distinctive brand assets can all be protected if they help people recognise a particular organisation or service. Well-known examples as such assets include the Netflix startup sound and the Comic Relief red nose.
It’s also worth remembering that trade marks are just one part of the wider IP landscape. They’re specifically concerned with how organisations identify themselves, present themselves to the public and create value from their reputation.
Where do charities most often trip up legally when it comes to branding and campaigns?
Many charities still mainly see trade marks as an enforcement tool and, because they may not be planning on bringing infringement claims, they assume registration isn’t especially relevant to them. But that misses the wider value of trade mark ownership. If they haven’t checked existing trade marks or protected their own, they risk losing control of the goodwill and reputation they build, while also limiting future opportunities to license or generate value from their name. Put simply, the biggest issue is underestimating brand value: not recognising it as an asset, not protecting it early enough, and not checking whether something similar has been registered first.
So the risk isn’t just infringement – it’s missed opportunities too?
Traditionally, trade marks are viewed as a form of protection, but when charities start exploring opportunities – such as merchandise, events or partnerships – trade marks become commercial assets that generate value. Until the mid-1990s, charities couldn’t generally benefit from the trade mark registration system. As a result, some long-established organisations never fully adapted to trade mark registration and still haven’t properly protected their brands. You often find charities register a trade mark once and then forget about it, but trade marks need to be managed over time. A registration that covered fundraising years ago may not cover newer activities such as merchandise.
What is an IP strategy?
It depends on the organisation, but at a basic level an IP strategy is about understanding where value sits and deciding what is – and isn’t – worth protecting. Once you understand why you want to protect something, you can identify where it makes sense to invest. Usually, that’s tied to a long-term goal. The value itself will vary from organisation to organisation. For some charities, it sits in the authority and credibility of their information and support services. For others, it’s linked to the events and activities they run.
Can charities protect their IP and still share resources openly?
Choosing to make resources freely available doesn’t mean copyright stops existing. It simply means the organisation has decided to provide access at no cost. That’s important because, if material is repurposed in a misleading way or used by an organisation whose activities could damage the charity’s reputation, copyright may provide a basis for challenge. Ultimately, this comes back to brand – the authority, trust and reputation attached to that information, and the ability to control how it’s presented – and the terms on which the copyright was made available.
“As a bare minimum, identify the core brands. For many charities, that will simply be the organisation’s name.”
How can charities protect their brand cost-effectively?
As a bare minimum, identify the core brands. For many charities, that will simply be the organisation’s name. From there, seek registration in your core territories and for your core goods and services. That’s actually a fairly straightforward starting point. After that, it’s a question of whether there are other brands or assets that would add value through registration. Not everything will necessarily be registrable. For example, if your first-choice name is too descriptive to qualify for trademark protection, you might instead look at protecting the logo.
What should charities consider when using real stories, quotes or photographs?
Ultimately, it’s about making sure people understand how their image or story may be used and aren’t surprised to see it appear in a campaign. The simplest approach is a clear release or consent process. At a public event, that might be covered through terms and conditions explaining that photography will be used for promotional purposes. But where the subject matter is more sensitive – particularly where someone’s health or personal circumstances could be inferred – explicit permission is usually needed. That should come both from the photographer, who owns the image rights, and from those featured in it. It doesn’t need to be complicated, but there should be something in writing that clearly gives permission for the material to be used.
Should charities put expiry dates on the use of images and stories?
It’s worth considering. That said, it also requires a level of housekeeping. If an organisation agrees only to use an image for a certain period and then continues using it beyond that point, it could become a breach of contract or a copyright issue. So if charities are going to take that approach – particularly because it feels like the right thing to do ethically – they need to make sure they have systems in place to manage and monitor it.
If an image appears in a leaflet or report, what happens once that usage period expires? Would those documents need to be destroyed or withdrawn?
It depends on the wording of the agreement, so either outcome is possible. In most cases, you would hope the agreement is drafted in a practical way, stating that no new materials can be produced or distributed after a certain date, rather than requiring materials to be recalled.
How does that work digitally?
Digital content adds another layer of complexity because, once something is published online, it can be copied, downloaded or reused by others. Ideally, those issues are addressed in the release agreement, including who is responsible for dealing with unauthorised reuse. For the organisation’s own use, content would usually be removed once the agreed period expires.
“If we use the example of influencers – their independence is often part of their value, but charities should still consider what happens if an influencer acts in a way that damages the organisation’s reputation.”
What legal risks should charities consider when partnering with others?
If a charity is working with another organisation on products, merchandise or events, the first questions should be: do we have the rights to use our brand in this way and are we infringing anybody else’s? Beyond that, a lot comes down to alignment and control. Are the organisations’ interests genuinely aligned, and are there clear safeguards around brand use? Problems often arise when charities hand over too much control or don’t consider what happens if the relationship breaks down. If we use the example of influencers – their independence is often part of their value, but charities should still consider what happens if an influencer acts in a way that damages the organisation’s reputation. Can the relationship be terminated? Who controls public statements? It really comes down to having the right agreements from the outset.
When should legal or trade mark specialists be involved in a rebrand?
As part of the creative process rather than coming in as blockers at the end. Usually, there’s an initial stage where potential names and brand directions are explored. Once there’s a shortlist, we can run checks and identify any obvious issues. The key thing is to avoid investing time, money and energy in a brand you can’t protect. Once a preferred option is identified, that’s usually when we begin more detailed searches, filing and strategy discussions. Trade mark registration typically takes four to six months if there are no issues, so it’s worth factoring that into the timeline.
Is there anything else you’d like to share that might be useful for charities to know?
The cost of protecting a brand is often lower than people expect. If a charity applies for a UK trademark itself, the government filing fee for one class is £205. That’s likely to cost far less than dealing with problems later, whether that’s infringement issues or missed licensing opportunities.
Join our mailing list for resources, The Bind interviews and insights on how charities can remove barriers and work together.
Recent posts
