Wikipedia's rule on non-free images, WP:NFCC, lists ten conditions a copyrighted file has to clear before it can appear anywhere on the encyclopedia. A company logo clears the hardest one automatically. The other nine still apply.
The hardest one is the first: no free equivalent can be available, or creatable, that would serve the same purpose. A living person's photograph almost always fails that test, because anyone with a camera could, in principle, go and make a free one. A purpose-built logo can't be substituted that way. Draw a free replacement for it and the result is either a generic shape nobody would recognize, or a close copy of the real design — which is exactly as unfree as the original. No free equivalent could ever serve the same purpose, so the policy's strictest condition is already met before the file is even uploaded.
Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
The other nine criteria do not bend the same way. The file has to run at the lowest resolution that still serves its purpose, not the crisp render a brand team sends over. It can appear in exactly one place: the infobox of the article about the company or product the logo identifies, never in a list of clients, a parent company's page, or anywhere a press kit happens to get mirrored. And it needs a written rationale — not a blanket claim of ownership, but a specific sentence naming the one article the exception was granted for.
Not every logo needs that argument at all. A wordmark set in an ordinary typeface, with nothing added but a straight line or a basic shape, usually has no copyright to clear in the first place — it sits below the threshold of originality, and once it is tagged correctly it can be used anywhere on the project, not just one infobox. Communications teams are routinely surprised to learn that the mark they treat as proprietary is, in copyright terms, nobody's.
None of this survives a rebrand automatically. The old file's rationale names one article and one purpose; once a new logo replaces it there, the old one is orphaned, and an orphaned non-free file runs on a short clock before it is deleted outright. Sending over the new artwork does not fix that by itself. Someone still has to remove the old file, upload the new one with its own rationale, and accept that it will appear exactly once, at whatever resolution a reviewer decides the purpose actually requires.
