Some people don’t like change, so when a big brand changes its image with an updated logo, there is bound to be reaction. F1 surely anticipated some sort of backlash when they launched their new logo at the end of last year, but perhaps didn’t expect it to get quite so far.
Stationery firm, 3M has opposed the new logo, claiming that it bears more than a passing resemblance to their own logo, on the Futuro range. 3M has demanded a significant sum of money by way of fee.
Formula One launched its new logo at the end of 2017, unveiling it at the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. The previous logo had been in place for more than 20 years, meaning that many F1 fans had grown up with the previous logo. The new logo, with a white line through the middle of a curved stripe, followed by a straight line, replaces the slanted “F”, with the speed lines shaped like a 1 opposite.
Lewis Hamilton voiced the thoughts of many when he said he feels the new logo is as “iconic” as the previous version.
3M is reported to have lodged a formal complaint claiming that F1 did not have consent to produce something so similar. F1’s trademark application covers more than half of the eligible categories (26 of 45) although 3Ms concern is that the logo is just not different enough. The formal complaint was lodged on 22 May and could take up to four months for the courts to make a decision.
Watch In Style
Despite the noise about the logo that kicked off in Abu Dhabi, the F1 Paddock Club in Abu Dhabi is one of the greatest places in the world to watch a sporting event live. Make it part of a holiday and do it in style with hospitality tickets from specialist firms like Edge Global Events https://edgeglobalevents.com/f1-paddock-club/abu-dhabi/.
For more commentary on the new F1 logo, read the article on the BBC website.
The size of 3M means that they have resources to fight it. The 3M revenue of £23.8bn is a large pot to borrow from. They are not interested in a settlement because they simply do not need the money. Their single goal will be to prevent F1 from intellectual property they consider to have been copied.