4 ms·
> I didn't know exclusively licensing a colour was even possible. Yahoo! did the same with a specific Pantone shade of purple.
by jsjohnst 7y ago
> I didn't know exclusively licensing a colour was even possible.
Yahoo! did the same with a specific Pantone shade of purple.
- disillusioned 7y agoAnd T-Mobile trademarked their particular shade of magenta, right?
- mkl 7y agoColour trademarks are common, but they only apply in narrow areas. E.g. Cadbury chocolate has a trademark purple, but all that means is someone like Nestlé can't package their chocolate in a similar purple colour. Cadbury's purple can be freely used for any unrelated purpose though.
- alasdair_ 7y agoFor a fun example of how trademarks are limited, check out the “Microsoft Windows 95” beer. Sapporo owns the trademark for use on beer products. https://www.ratebeer.com/forums/saporro-black-windows-95-edition_261795.htm https://www.ratebeer.com/forums/saporro-black-windows-95-edi...
- mkl 7y agoThat seems to have been an official promotional tie-in for the launch of Windows 95. I doubt they could have used "Microsoft" otherwise. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/611227/windows-95-beer/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/611227/windows-95-...
- erikpukinskis 7y agoOr the graphics, which are copyrighted.
- fortran77 7y agoThis is a color _trademark_.
- jsjohnst 7y agoNope, they specifically got an exclusive license from Pantone for the color in question.