By Tunku Nur Atikhah Tunku Abaidah
A logo may occupy only a small space on a product, but in the consumer’s mind, it can carry years of meaning.
The recent trademark dispute between New Balance and Decathlon provides an interesting example. New Balance filed a lawsuit in the United States alleging that a stylised “K” used on Decathlon’s KIPRUN running shoes, particularly when mirrored, resembles its familiar “N” logo. The case is still at an early stage, and whether the similarity amounts to trademark infringement is ultimately a legal question for the court.
For marketers, however, the more interesting question lies elsewhere: how does something as simple as a letter become so strongly associated with a brand that another visual resembling it immediately attracts attention?
That question takes us beyond the courtroom and into the power of brand identity.
Consumers encounter hundreds of visual messages every day, yet certain brands can be recognised almost instantly. Sometimes we do not even need to read the company name. A particular shape, colour, typeface or symbol is enough to trigger recognition. This does not happen overnight. Through repeated and consistent exposure, visual elements gradually become linked with a brand in consumers’ memories. Eventually, the symbol stops functioning merely as graphic design. It becomes a shortcut to the brand itself.
This is especially visible in sportswear. Logos appear prominently on shoes, jerseys and apparel, turning the product into a form of communication. A runner wearing a pair of shoes is not simply using the product; the brand is also being displayed at races, running clubs, gyms, in photographs and across social media. In such an environment, recognisability has enormous value.
This is where distinctive brand assets matter. Strong brands develop recognisable cues—such as colours, typography, product shapes, slogans or symbols—that consumers learn to associate with them. In crowded categories where products increasingly share similar technologies and design trends, the ability to be recognised quickly becomes a competitive asset.
For marketers, therefore, brand identity should not be treated simply as an aesthetic decision. Distinctiveness is a business asset.
At the same time, brands need to distinguish between being familiar and being similar. New and emerging brands naturally observe successful competitors and follow category trends. Running shoes, for example, will inevitably share certain characteristics because of performance requirements and changing fashion preferences.
But there is an important difference between looking like a product that belongs in a category and looking like another brand within that category. The first helps consumers understand what the product is. The second may weaken the brand’s ability to build its own identity.
From a marketing perspective, if consumers repeatedly describe a product by saying, “It looks like Brand X,” the product may have attracted attention, but Brand X may still be receiving much of the mental association. That is hardly the strongest foundation for building independent brand equity.
This is why the New Balance–Decathlon dispute is interesting beyond the legal arguments. The broader issue is the value of consumer association. A symbol becomes powerful when people see it and immediately retrieve a network of meanings: the brand name, previous experiences, advertising, athletes, product quality, lifestyle or even how wearing that brand makes them feel.
The lesson is particularly relevant as more local and regional sportswear brands compete alongside established international players. For emerging brands, the temptation to follow successful visual formulas can be strong. Yet sustainable brand building requires a different question.
Instead of asking, “How can we look like the brands consumers already recognise?”, brands should ask: “What can consumers learn to recognise as uniquely ours?”
The answer could be a symbol, a colour combination, a product feature, a communication style or even a distinctive way of interacting with a community. What matters is that the asset is distinctive, used consistently and strongly associated with the brand over time.
Whatever the eventual outcome of the New Balance–Decathlon case, it offers marketers a useful reminder: the value of a logo is rarely contained in the logo itself. Its real value comes from everything consumers have learned to associate with it.
In increasingly crowded markets, brands compete not only for sales, market share and attention, but also for a distinctive space in consumers’ memories.
The challenge for marketers, therefore, is not simply to make a brand visible. It is to make it recognisable.
Because ultimately, one of the strongest signs of brand identity is when consumers know who you are before they even read your name.
Source note: The current case details referenced in this commentary were verified against Reuters reporting dated 16 September 2026 and the U.S. District Court filing in New Balance Athletics Inc. v. Decathlon America LLC, No. 1:26-cv-14235.
Senior Lecturer School of Business Management Universiti Utara Malaysia
