Trade mark licensing allows a brand owner, the licensor, to grant a third party, the licensee, the right to use its intellectual property in exchange for royalty payments. In the food and drink sector, this is a high-stakes strategy. Because these products are consumed and often carry strong emotional or sensory associations, a trade mark acts as a direct promise of quality and consistency. When executed correctly, licensing can open new revenue streams and help to cement a brand\u2019s place in popular culture. However, when executed poorly, the resulting backlash or brand dilution can be difficult to repair.<\/p>\n
The challenge lies in navigating the space between brand extension (growing a brand\u2019s reach into new areas) and brand overstretch, which can alienate both new and existing loyal consumers.<\/p>\n
That said, licences and brand collaborations can offer fun and unexpected partnerships that create new revenue streams and playful marketing opportunities for brand owners.<\/p>\n
Below, we examine three collaborations that captured the public\u2019s imagination and three that serves as cautionary tales of brand misalignment.<\/p>\n
Heinz x Kate Spade New York<\/strong><\/p>\n In 2024, Heinz moved from the condiment aisle to the catwalk through a partnership with the fashion house Kate Spade New York. The collection featured a 3D crossbody bag designed to resemble a Heinz ketchup packet.<\/p>\n Why it worked: This collaboration succeeded by treating the Heinz brand as a visual icon rather than just a food product. By aligning with a brand known for its playful and quirky aesthetic, Heinz tapped into “brand affection.” It demonstrated that when a brand\u2019s visual identity is sufficiently famous, it can be licensed as a design element in fashion, effectively turning an ordinary household product into a high-demand fashion item.<\/p>\n Beyond immediate sales and PR buzz, collaborations like this can also support future IP strategy. Demonstrating that a product\u2019s design is recognisable enough to translate into entirely different categories like merchandise helps to provide evidence of acquired distinctiveness, strengthening the case for trade mark protection of key visual assets.<\/p>\n Marmite x Marks and Spencer<\/strong><\/p>\n Marmite\u2019s licensing strategy is built on the brand\u2019s “Love it or Hate it” ethos. Their partnership with Marks and Spencer to create products like Marmite-infused cream cheese, mac & cheese, and hot cross buns is a prime example of a licensee understanding the core product.<\/p>\n Why it worked: Marmite did not try to dilute or soften its flavour to win over new consumers. Instead, it leaned into the audience that had already decided they loved the brand, offering them new ways to try the product beyond the core spread. By partnering with a high-quality retailer to launch limited-edition products, Marmite demonstrated that often, licensing is most effective when it builds on existing affinity rather than attempting to broaden appeal at the expense of character.<\/p>\n Greggs x Primark<\/strong><\/p>\n In 2022, bakery chain Greggs and fashion retailer Primark collaborated on a widely publicised clothing range, featuring hoodies, hats, and footwear emblazoned with the iconic Greggs logo and sausage roll motifs. For food and drink brands that achieve cult status or cultural significance, examples like Greggs highlight the commercial value of securing trade mark protection beyond core food categories.<\/p>\n Why it worked: The partnership successfully harnessed the cult status Greggs holds within British popular culture. By aligning with Primark, a retailer that appeals to a similar, youthful demographic, Greggs was able to extend itself beyond food and into the realm of lifestyle branding. The collaboration resonated because it was knowingly tongue-in-cheek, tapping into the appeal of ironic fashion, particularly among festival-goers and younger consumers. Ultimately, it demonstrated that where a brand enjoys a strong emotional connection with its audience, licensing can elevate even a humble bakery name into a wearable symbol of identity.<\/p>\n Pierre Cardin Food and Drink Products<\/strong><\/p>\n By the late 20th century, Pierre Cardin had become the go-to example of what can go wrong with over-licensing. Once a leading name in Parisian fashion design, the brand ended up appearing on more than 800 products \u2013 including food and drink items such as canned sardines and bottled water.<\/p>\n Why it failed: In the luxury goods sector especially, a trade mark is a sign of quality and reputation. By putting \u201cPierre Cardin\u201d on everyday supermarket goods, that sense of prestige was eroded. There was no real connection between high-end fashion and tinned fish, and consumers didn\u2019t buy into the idea of \u201cdesigner groceries.\u201d Instead, the brand started to feel overexposed and cheapened. What began as an effort to generate easy licensing revenue ended up diluting the very identity that had made the brand famous.<\/p>\n There are also risks from uncontrolled over-licensing from a trade mark perspective. Overly broad specifications can become difficult to justify over time as planned licensing deals expire or never materialise \u2013 particularly\u00a0 in jurisdictions requiring proof of use, such as the US \u2013 and may even invite challenges on bad faith grounds following cases such as Skykick in the UK. A more targeted licensing strategy is often far more defensible than a blanket approach.<\/p>\n Hello Kitty Wine<\/strong><\/p>\n While Hello Kitty is a global licensing powerhouse, an Italian-produced “Hello Kitty Wine” ran into significant trouble when it attempted to enter the UK market.<\/p>\n Why it failed: This failure was rooted in regulatory and social responsibility concerns. The UK\u2019s Portman Group ruled that because Hello Kitty is a character with primary appeal to children, using the imagery on alcohol packaging was a breach of marketing codes. Even though the licensing agreement was legally sound, the collaboration failed because it ignored the ethical implications of the brand\u2019s core audience. It serves as a reminder that certain brands are simply too family-oriented for specific categories.<\/p>\n This case is also a key reminder that sometimes, legal clearance alone is not enough \u2013 regulatory frameworks and brand perception must be considered alongside trade mark rights. A good trade mark strategy should consider all angles, including commercial strategy and potential PR risks, when advising on brand expansion and licensing.<\/p>\n Cosmopolitan Yogurt<\/strong><\/p>\n In 1999, the iconic women\u2019s magazine Cosmopolitan launched its own line of yogurt. Despite the publication\u2019s significant global reach, the product was withdrawn after just 18 months.<\/p>\n Why it failed: While Cosmopolitan\u2019s readership may well have included yogurt consumers, few would look to a lifestyle magazine for authority in nutrition or food products. Unlike more successful collaborations that offer a distinct aesthetic or link, this product provided no meaningful connection to the magazine\u2019s core identity or content. As a result, it was perceived as a superficial brand extension \u2013 simply applying a well-known name to an unrelated product. Consumer response was one of indifference rather than engagement, and in many respects this is just as damaging as outright rejection, as it means resources have been spent to result in a failure to resonate with the public on any level.<\/p>\n What Makes a Partnership Delicious?<\/strong><\/p>\n Looking across these examples, the strongest licensing partnerships are usually the ones that feel intuitive to consumers. The brands involved understand what people already associate with them and build on that, rather than chasing short-term publicity or easy licensing revenue.<\/p>\n The successful collaborations worked because they stayed true to the qualities that made the original brands distinctive in the first place. Heinz leaned into its recognisable visual identity, Marmite embraced its divisive reputation, and Greggs understood the affection people already had for the brand. None of these partnerships tried to reinvent consumer perception entirely; they simply extended it into a new setting.<\/p>\n Where things went wrong, the issue was less about execution and more about credibility. Consumers could not see a natural connection between the brand and the product being sold, and without that, the licensing felt forced. In some cases, such as Hello Kitty Wine, the problem was regulatory and reputational. In others, like Pierre Cardin\u2019s grocery products or Cosmopolitan Yogurt, it was simply a lack of any convincing link.<\/p>\n In the food and drink sector especially, trade marks carry a strong sense of trust and familiarity. Consumers are not just buying a logo; they are buying into a particular expectation of taste and quality. In practice, clients are often drawn to the revenue opportunity, but these examples highlight that consumer perception is far harder to shape (and far easier to undermine) than it might first appear.<\/p>\n Practical Considerations: <\/strong><\/p>\n Getting the legal team involved at the early stages of licensing discussions is critical, as is ensuring that licensing partnerships are supported by robust and professionally drafted agreements.<\/p>\n It\u2019s also important to think upfront about how a brand crisis will be managed. Although a carefully considered and professionally executed collaboration will likely be successful, dealing quickly and strategically with any brand reputational risks resulting from an unsuccessful licence partnership or brand collaboration will ensure brand integrity is maintained.<\/p>\n For further information, please contact the authors, Harri Berridge and Sam Barker.<\/em><\/p>\n This article was prepared by Partner & Trade Mark Attorney Harri Berridge<\/a>, and Trainee Trade Mark Attorney Sam Barker<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Trade mark licensing allows a brand owner, the licensor, to grant a third party, the licensee, the right to use its intellectual property in exchange for royalty payments. In the …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":473,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[499,502,497],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9004111222144113","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog-posts","category-food-drink-ip","category-knowledge-hub","sector-food-drink","service-trade-marks"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
\n