Although brands without a visual identity are hardly conceivable, the status of logos is not uncontested. Logos are probably necessary, but should not be equated with the actual brand. In light of this, the question arises as to what role logos actually play and how one should imagine the existence of a brand beyond its visual representation through these symbols. Using the example of the Boy London brand, both the difference between the function of a logo as a sign and as a symbol, as well as the circumstance that we can indeed equate brands with their logo under certain conditions, can be demonstrated.