Why brandmarks are getting riskier to design

Mar 2026 · 4 min read · Rohan Kumar

Simple, unique logos were always rare. My take on why type logos keep rising, and what a heated Reddit discussion added.

Creating a logo that was both simple and unique was always rare, and brands paid a premium for it. Here's my take on why that's getting even harder, and why type logos keep rising.

The idea

Creating a logo that was both simple and unique was rare. Brands paid a premium for it.

Today, simplicity is risky. Too many logos look alike, and the legal consequences are higher than ever.

The world is smaller on the internet

The internet made branding global. Your logo now competes with millions. With fewer shapes and ideas left, simple logos started colliding instead of standing out.

That's why many brands avoid symbols today. Not because they're bad, but because they're unsafe.

Typography became the safer choice

Words are easier to own, protect, and defend.

But a name alone doesn't build meaning anymore. A logo by itself can't carry a brand.

Meaning moved to the identity system

Meaning shifted from the logo to the entire visual identity system. Color, layout, motion, and tone now do what logos used to do.

The logo is no longer the hero. It's the anchor, while the identity tells the story.

Logos still matter. But identity is what makes brands unforgettable.

What I actually meant

This post got a lot of pushback on r/logodesign, and some of my wording was misleading. So let me clarify.

Brandmarks were a solid choice before, and they work best when they're timeless and unique. Because of that, everyone tries to make brandmarks simple. And when that happens, many people think alike and end up creating similar-looking logos. When that occurs, companies can face plagiarism and legal issues. That's why I said type logos are a safer option. I never said brandmarks are impossible or don't work.

The most misunderstood point was "meaning shifted from the logo to the entire visual identity system." What I meant: if you go with a simple type logo and don't push creativity or meaning into it, that's completely fine, because you can always complement it with a strong visual identity system.

I was also talking about symbols, specifically brandmarks, not logos in general. Type logos aren't new. They're growing, and this was my take on one of the reasons why.

What the discussion added

The post passed 70,000 views and drew a lot of strong opinions. Here are the points worth keeping.

Identity systems aren't new

Several designers pointed out that the best logos have always been part of a design system. Branding systems go back to the 1950s, with companies like IBM, Lufthansa, and CBS.

And a logo never carried a brand by itself. As one commenter put it, people don't love or hate a brand because of its mark, but because of every touchpoint they've had with it over time. I agree, and I should have explained that better.

Trademarks are more nuanced than "similar means risky"

Trademarks generally apply within specific classes of goods and services, so similar logos in unrelated industries can coexist. Exactly where that line falls was hotly debated in the comments.
Some of the logos I compared sit in different markets, and some belong to brands or trademarks that are no longer in use.
It's never been easier to check for potential infringement, since you can reverse-image-search the entire internet.

Some think wordmarks are popular simply because they're easier and cheaper to create, and many companies aren't willing to pay for comprehensive identities anymore. My take: when you say cheaper, you have to ask why other kinds of logos are more expensive, and that circles back to the same point.
Others see it as driven more by trends than by risk. Many iconic marks started as full lockups and slowly dropped parts as their brand equity grew.

Symbols still matter, maybe more than ever

App icons can't use typography or motion, which is one reason most AI companies still have symbols.
Plenty of startups still actively want logomarks.
Simple geometric marks can be too generic, which makes them harder to register and defend. But there's no hard evidence of companies abandoning symbols.

Originality is harder, not impossible

Shapes and ideas aren't a finite set. What has changed is that designers now need more research and exploration to find original ideas than they did 60 years ago, when the world was far less saturated with logos.

Simple shapes can still be instantly recognizable; think of Apple or Reddit. The real struggle is creating something unique and recognizable that also communicates the brand accurately. And designers need to come up with their own ideas instead of following "top logos of the year" lists. I agree there.

Where it might go next

One commenter saw the upside: with less weight on the mark, more focus goes to the actual word, the name people say out loud. Branding is more psychological than ever. I also think this could give other logo types a revival, like mascot and emblem logos.

The biggest pushback: evidence

The strongest criticism was that I presented an opinion as fact, without data to back the claim that brands avoid symbols because of legal risk. The popularity of wordmarks alone doesn't prove why they're popular. That's a fair standard for a claim like this.

Where I've landed

Logos still matter. Simple, unique brandmarks are still possible; they're just harder to make. And if someone can still give a business a brandmark that's both simple and unique, they should be paid accordingly.