5 ms·

This is incredibly ridiculous. If a color can be owned by a trademark, what’s to prevent a particular audio frequency being trademarked, or a particular tempera

This is incredibly ridiculous. If a color can be owned by a trademark, what’s to prevent a particular audio frequency being trademarked, or a particular temperature, or a particular luminosity? What if my construction company trademarked “8 meters” — could I go and sue everyone who builds 8-meter-high buildings from then on? Good on Lemonade for fighting it. But something is really wrong with the world when claims like Deutsche Telekom’s are taken seriously in the first place. This is almost like the “illegal number” involved in decss years ago. Here’s the color: #e20074

bityard 7y ago
You sound surprised that it is possible to trademark a color. This has been part of intellectual property law for quite some time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_trade_mark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_trade_mark I'm not saying I agree that colors should be trademarked, just that it's fairly common practice.
- TimTheTinker 7y ago
  > You sound surprised that it is possible to trademark a color. Is it only goodwill that is keeping Crayola from suing everyone? No one ought to have the right to prevent others from using a color of all things. It’s like kindergarten all over again... “That’s my crayon! You give it back!”
  - sidlls 7y ago
    That isn't how trademarks work.
- ARandomerDude 7y ago
  The problem is it's too broad a claim. Trademarking a color is limited to (1) a specific competitive space, and (2) when it is a distinctive identifier of your brand (e.g., DeWalt's yellow and black scheme in the power tools business). T-Mobile is in the telecom business, and Lemonade is in the residential insurance business. T-Mobile should not be trying to take-down a company that is not in their competitive space for using the same color on their website. I am not a lawyer, but I have dealt with this at work. This is not legal advice.
  - mikepurvis 7y ago
    Related to tools and colours, SparkFun got in trouble a few years ago over selling knockoff multimeters with the same colour scheme as the iconic Fluke one: https://www.sparkfun.com/news/1428 https://www.sparkfun.com/news/1428
    - taftster 7y ago
      I almost missed the followup to this, which is here: https://www.sparkfun.com/news/1430 https://www.sparkfun.com/news/1430 Apparently Fluke "allowed" SparkFun to distribute the multi-meters in question to educational and charitable organizations, rather than just destroying them. I guess that's as close to a nice resolve as you can get without Fluke just completely dropping their action.
    - pvaldes 7y ago
      > Sparkfun: So we really only have two options, ship them back [the multimeters, to China] or have them destroyed. I wonder if they would consider the idea of painting them in a different colour...
      - mikepurvis 7y ago
        Given that they were destined to be sold for $15 a pop, and already assembled ready to go, I very much doubt that this would have been economically workable. Even sourcing a paint that would adhere to the plastic body of the device would be a huge headache.
        pvaldes 7y ago
        Could be sold for $17 also, people would understand it, and the other option is to distroy the products and lose the entire investment or to give out the product for free at your coast and maybe close the project for lack of funds.
- pcurve 7y ago
  rather tragic over-reach I feel. I hope the law is challenged down the road.
Emphere 7y ago
No opinion about the specifics of this case but brands often do have very strong color associations (think McD) so it is not surprising that they can trade mark colors under certain cases
arkades 7y ago
If any of those were actually distinctively associated with a particular brand, I could see an argument being made for it. I think the key to how reasonable it is to trademark it depends on how widely it's enforced, both in terms of industry and in terms of how much of the color is involved. In this instance, a magenta banner is associated with a company that offers insurance products - and another company is offering insurance products and using a magenta banner in their branding. I think it's actually a fair question whether that crosses a line.
balls187 7y ago
Not too ridiculous. With Trademark law, companies have to protect their trademarks, or risk losing their trademark. Pretty standard in the US.
- deathanatos 7y ago
  For reasonable ideas about what constitutes the trademarks, which a color and all nearby shades alone is not. To me, T-mobile's mark is the color and the logo. But pink alone does not scream "T-mobile" to me.
  - balls187 7y ago
    My point was simply trademark fights are common, and not all that ridiculous.
- sls 7y ago
  > Can I Lose My Trademark Rights If I Don’t Sue Infringers? > > The short answer is “No,” a trademark owner does not have to sue every single infringer, and the failure to do so in an isolated case of infringement will likely not result in abandonment. https://www.dbllawyers.com/can-lose-trademark-rights-dont-sue-infringers/ https://www.dbllawyers.com/can-lose-trademark-rights-dont-su...
  - balls187 7y ago
    Continuing from your article. > However, the failure to take action in the face of widespread infringement could significantly impact a mark owner’s rights. > It is for this reason that many larger companies that invest heavily in their trademark portfolios err on the side of caution in pursuing infringers. This reads like a risk to me.
dheera 7y ago
Can I trademark #ffffff? And then sue everyone who uses white paper?
- dragontamer 7y ago
  A trademark cannot serve a utilitarian function. People write on white paper, and therefore white cannot be trademarked. EDIT: If you wanted an "ivory" white to build a brand around... that would be allowed as a trademark of course. But it would consistently be that "ivory white" color that you picked as a trademark, and nothing else.
  - dheera 7y ago
    That's even better, there are lots of ivory white houses out there to sue. The "damages" would be the resale value of those houses combined.
    - dragontamer 7y ago
      > That's even better, there are lots of ivory white houses out there to sue. Only if those houses are in the same industry as your trademark. You can paint your house UPS-brown and they won't be able to sue unless you were using it as a place of business. Case in point: Lake McDonald Lodge (https://www.yelp.com/biz/lake-mcdonald-lodge-west-glacier https://www.yelp.com/biz/lake-mcdonald-lodge-west-glacier) can exist because its in a totally different business than McDonald's fast food. Yeah, "McDonald" is trademarked, but trademark is very restrictive over what you can sue over. ---------- So your hypothetical "Ivory" trademark will only apply in the industry that you've registered the trademark under. You can't just sue private houses for using your color. EDIT: Furthermore, to obtain a "Colormark" trademark, you need to prove that the color has secondary meaning to your particular business. Ex: Fedex-brown is a trademark because Fedex is using that particular brown to color their trucks and employee uniforms, and applies it consistently across their enterprise. It would be unfair if I were to start my own rival shipping company using a similar color uniform as Fedex. I'd have to use blue-uniforms or green-uniforms instead. -------- EDIT: As an example: General Mills was unable to trademark "Yellow" as a trademark on Cheerios cereal, because yellow was used on too many cereal boxes already and clearly wasn't a color that people associated with General Mills.
dragontamer 7y ago
Is it too hard to use another color? The reason for trademarks is simple: branding. Since there are a near infinite number of colors available (for example: #e21088 should be different enough to not violate trademark), different groups can claim colors of their own (if they wish to trademark a certain color). Catch-phrases, simple words ("Taste the Rainbow" or "They're more than Good, they're Great"), or even names (Mario) can be trademarked. Furthermore, Trademarks only apply within the industry. I can use FedEx-brown so long as I don't compete against FedEx.
- godzilla82 7y ago
  Did you mean UPS brown?

bityard 7y ago

You sound surprised that it is possible to trademark a color. This has been part of intellectual property law for quite some time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_trade_mark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_trade_mark I'm not saying I agree that colors should be trademarked, just that it's fairly common practice.

TimTheTinker 7y ago
> You sound surprised that it is possible to trademark a color. Is it only goodwill that is keeping Crayola from suing everyone? No one ought to have the right to prevent others from using a color of all things. It’s like kindergarten all over again... “That’s my crayon! You give it back!”
- sidlls 7y ago
  That isn't how trademarks work.
ARandomerDude 7y ago
The problem is it's too broad a claim. Trademarking a color is limited to (1) a specific competitive space, and (2) when it is a distinctive identifier of your brand (e.g., DeWalt's yellow and black scheme in the power tools business). T-Mobile is in the telecom business, and Lemonade is in the residential insurance business. T-Mobile should not be trying to take-down a company that is not in their competitive space for using the same color on their website. I am not a lawyer, but I have dealt with this at work. This is not legal advice.
- mikepurvis 7y ago
  Related to tools and colours, SparkFun got in trouble a few years ago over selling knockoff multimeters with the same colour scheme as the iconic Fluke one: https://www.sparkfun.com/news/1428 https://www.sparkfun.com/news/1428
  - taftster 7y ago
    I almost missed the followup to this, which is here: https://www.sparkfun.com/news/1430 https://www.sparkfun.com/news/1430 Apparently Fluke "allowed" SparkFun to distribute the multi-meters in question to educational and charitable organizations, rather than just destroying them. I guess that's as close to a nice resolve as you can get without Fluke just completely dropping their action.
  - pvaldes 7y ago
    > Sparkfun: So we really only have two options, ship them back [the multimeters, to China] or have them destroyed. I wonder if they would consider the idea of painting them in a different colour...
    - mikepurvis 7y ago
      Given that they were destined to be sold for $15 a pop, and already assembled ready to go, I very much doubt that this would have been economically workable. Even sourcing a paint that would adhere to the plastic body of the device would be a huge headache.
      - pvaldes 7y ago
        Could be sold for $17 also, people would understand it, and the other option is to distroy the products and lose the entire investment or to give out the product for free at your coast and maybe close the project for lack of funds.
pcurve 7y ago
rather tragic over-reach I feel. I hope the law is challenged down the road.

Emphere 7y ago

No opinion about the specifics of this case but brands often do have very strong color associations (think McD) so it is not surprising that they can trade mark colors under certain cases

arkades 7y ago

If any of those were actually distinctively associated with a particular brand, I could see an argument being made for it. I think the key to how reasonable it is to trademark it depends on how widely it's enforced, both in terms of industry and in terms of how much of the color is involved. In this instance, a magenta banner is associated with a company that offers insurance products - and another company is offering insurance products and using a magenta banner in their branding. I think it's actually a fair question whether that crosses a line.

balls187 7y ago

Not too ridiculous. With Trademark law, companies have to protect their trademarks, or risk losing their trademark. Pretty standard in the US.

deathanatos 7y ago
For reasonable ideas about what constitutes the trademarks, which a color and all nearby shades alone is not. To me, T-mobile's mark is the color and the logo. But pink alone does not scream "T-mobile" to me.
- balls187 7y ago
  My point was simply trademark fights are common, and not all that ridiculous.
sls 7y ago
> Can I Lose My Trademark Rights If I Don’t Sue Infringers? > > The short answer is “No,” a trademark owner does not have to sue every single infringer, and the failure to do so in an isolated case of infringement will likely not result in abandonment. https://www.dbllawyers.com/can-lose-trademark-rights-dont-sue-infringers/ https://www.dbllawyers.com/can-lose-trademark-rights-dont-su...
- balls187 7y ago
  Continuing from your article. > However, the failure to take action in the face of widespread infringement could significantly impact a mark owner’s rights. > It is for this reason that many larger companies that invest heavily in their trademark portfolios err on the side of caution in pursuing infringers. This reads like a risk to me.

dheera 7y ago

Can I trademark #ffffff? And then sue everyone who uses white paper?

dragontamer 7y ago
A trademark cannot serve a utilitarian function. People write on white paper, and therefore white cannot be trademarked. EDIT: If you wanted an "ivory" white to build a brand around... that would be allowed as a trademark of course. But it would consistently be that "ivory white" color that you picked as a trademark, and nothing else.
- dheera 7y ago
  That's even better, there are lots of ivory white houses out there to sue. The "damages" would be the resale value of those houses combined.
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    > That's even better, there are lots of ivory white houses out there to sue. Only if those houses are in the same industry as your trademark. You can paint your house UPS-brown and they won't be able to sue unless you were using it as a place of business. Case in point: Lake McDonald Lodge (https://www.yelp.com/biz/lake-mcdonald-lodge-west-glacier https://www.yelp.com/biz/lake-mcdonald-lodge-west-glacier) can exist because its in a totally different business than McDonald's fast food. Yeah, "McDonald" is trademarked, but trademark is very restrictive over what you can sue over. ---------- So your hypothetical "Ivory" trademark will only apply in the industry that you've registered the trademark under. You can't just sue private houses for using your color. EDIT: Furthermore, to obtain a "Colormark" trademark, you need to prove that the color has secondary meaning to your particular business. Ex: Fedex-brown is a trademark because Fedex is using that particular brown to color their trucks and employee uniforms, and applies it consistently across their enterprise. It would be unfair if I were to start my own rival shipping company using a similar color uniform as Fedex. I'd have to use blue-uniforms or green-uniforms instead. -------- EDIT: As an example: General Mills was unable to trademark "Yellow" as a trademark on Cheerios cereal, because yellow was used on too many cereal boxes already and clearly wasn't a color that people associated with General Mills.

dragontamer 7y ago

Is it too hard to use another color? The reason for trademarks is simple: branding. Since there are a near infinite number of colors available (for example: #e21088 should be different enough to not violate trademark), different groups can claim colors of their own (if they wish to trademark a certain color). Catch-phrases, simple words ("Taste the Rainbow" or "They're more than Good, they're Great"), or even names (Mario) can be trademarked. Furthermore, Trademarks only apply within the industry. I can use FedEx-brown so long as I don't compete against FedEx.

godzilla82 7y ago
Did you mean UPS brown?