From first impressions to lasting recognition, our digital agency crafts scalable, flexible, and brand-aligned identities that speak clearly at every touchpoint.
The logo looks fine,
but doesn’t scale.
Flexible geometry that holds
up across sizes and formats.
Inconsistent branding across channels.
Core logo system that unifies print, digital, and motion use.
Hard to read, hard
to remember.
Refined for simplicity, clarity,
and long-term recognition.
Doesn’t hold up next
to competitors.
Repositioned the logo to reflect the brand’s strength.
A logo becomes an asset once the business can stop others from using something similar. In the Netherlands that protection usually comes from registration, and there are two main routes. One is a Benelux trademark, filed with the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property, known as BOIP. The other is an EU trade mark, filed with EUIPO. The design brief should know which one is planned.
A Benelux registration covers Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg as one territory. You cannot file for the Netherlands alone. For a company that sells mostly at home, it is the simpler and cheaper option. An EU trade mark covers every member state with a single registration, which suits a brand with ambitions across Europe.
The catch with the EU route is that the mark must survive examination and opposition across the whole Union. A word that is descriptive in any official language can be refused. An earlier similar mark in one member state can block the entire application. A name that looks clean at home may not be clean in Portuguese or Polish.
This is where logo design and legal protection meet. Registries separate word marks from figurative marks. A word mark protects the name in any lettering. A figurative mark protects the drawn logo, the specific combination of shape, lettering and sometimes colour. Many companies file both.
Distinctiveness decides whether either survives. A descriptive name set in a pretty typeface is still descriptive. Examiners look through light styling and ask whether the public would read the sign as a brand or as a plain description of the goods. Stylisation rarely rescues a weak word. A strong symbol, on the other hand, can carry protection on its own.
That has direct consequences for the designer. If the name is close to descriptive, the symbol needs to do the heavy lifting. It should be original enough to register as a figurative mark in its own right, not a generic icon of the product. A coffee cup for a coffee brand protects very little.
Colour deserves thought too. A figurative mark filed in black and white is generally treated as covering the shape in any colour. Filing in a specific colour can narrow protection to that version. Most teams file the monochrome form unless the colour itself is central to the brand.
Before the final artwork is signed off, run a search in both registers and in the relevant classes of goods and services. The designer should hand over clean files of the exact versions to be filed, so that what is registered matches what is used.
Many buyers assume that more options mean a better outcome. Ask for ten logo concepts and one is bound to be right. In practice a long first round does the opposite. Directions get thinner. The choice gets harder. The meeting ends with a vote instead of a decision.
Each real direction takes work. The designer has to understand the brief, explore a visual idea, test it small and in one colour, and draw it cleanly enough to judge. Ask for ten in the same time and the effort per idea collapses. You end up comparing font choices.
Three to four directions is the range most experienced designers prefer. That is enough for genuinely different answers. One might be a wordmark in custom lettering. Another might pair the name with an abstract symbol. A third could lean on a monogram.
Different is the important word. A good first round covers distinct strategies rather than shades of one idea. If all four options use the same geometric sans serif with a slightly different icon, the round has failed, however many files it contains.
Presentation matters as much as the count. Show each direction in use, on a website header, a business card, a social avatar and a document cover. A logo judged floating on a white slide tells you little. Seen in context, weak directions drop out fast.
Each option should come with a reason. The designer ought to explain in a sentence or two why it looks the way it does. If that explanation is missing, the direction probably is too.
After the first round, narrow hard. Pick one direction, perhaps with a detail borrowed from another. Merging two whole concepts usually weakens both. Later rounds should change less and less, moving from structure to proportions to spacing.
Put this in the contract. Specify the number of initial directions, the refinement rounds and what counts as a new direction rather than a revision. Clear limits protect both sides and keep the project moving.
Not every logo needs the same process. Scope scales with brand maturity,
stakeholder count, and usage needs — not complexity for complexity’s sake.
Didn’t find what you were looking for? Drop us a line at info@toimi.pro.
Yes — if the logo is almost there but not quite working, our creative tech agency can fine-tune it without starting from scratch. Sometimes the solution is one layer down: proportion, spacing, or how it performs in use.
That’s not a problem. Most clients don’t know. Our development team helps uncover that — through positioning, examples, and early testing before any visuals.
It depends on what you need. Some projects stop at a mark. Others come with typography, rules, and usage logic. Either way, the output is built to last well past the pitch deck.
Yes. Each version is tested in real-world contexts: app icons, social, packaging, dark mode, embroidery — well beyond a Figma mockup.
Anywhere from one week to a few — depending on scope, feedback pace, and how final the output needs to be. Fast doesn’t mean rushed — it means focused.
