4 ms·

"The real problems however arise with trademarked colours (think tiffany’s blue, whiskas purple, kinder orange, etc.) " Is it a problem, though? The only limit

"The real problems however arise with trademarked colours (think tiffany’s blue, whiskas purple, kinder orange, etc.) " Is it a problem, though? The only limitation is that you can't use these colors to misrepresent a product a product in a commercial setting. You can't sell an item wrapped in Tiffany's Blue. " That’s where you literally can’t use a colour in a particular copyright category. " No, these colors are not protected under copyright, only trademarks. The limits on using them only apply to particular context of trade. You can use trademarks freely as long as they're not misrepresenting the trade item. You can paint with them. They can appear in your photographs. What you can't do is brand a product with them.

quitit 4y ago
Sorry, yes I mistyped "copyright" for trademark, however the earlier reference to trademarks should have clued to the correct word. However contrary to your assumption; trademark protection is proactive or the owner risks losing their trademark to general use. This requires that even similar usage in other branding/trademarks is opposed. For the Tiffany & Cp example, it means any kind of medium blue can't be used in their registered trademark categories regardless if it obvious that it's not Tiffany & Co. The benchmark for litigation is not misrepresentation. This is a problem as there is currently a land grab for colours, and since each must be protected broadly, and each trademark owner files the broadest number of categories possible this becomes a minefield.
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  Sure, and I think we probably agree that some reform is needed around trademarking colors. So I'll correct myself as well and agree that it is a problem -- though somewhat limited in scope. My point was only that it isn't a broad limitation such as Copyright creates that spills over into say, letting a camera take pictures with a shade of blue or using blue in a piece of software. I believe the scope of the trademark's application is fairly narrow, so it's not something most people in other fields need to worry about.

quitit 4y ago

Sorry, yes I mistyped "copyright" for trademark, however the earlier reference to trademarks should have clued to the correct word. However contrary to your assumption; trademark protection is proactive or the owner risks losing their trademark to general use. This requires that even similar usage in other branding/trademarks is opposed. For the Tiffany & Cp example, it means any kind of medium blue can't be used in their registered trademark categories regardless if it obvious that it's not Tiffany & Co. The benchmark for litigation is not misrepresentation. This is a problem as there is currently a land grab for colours, and since each must be protected broadly, and each trademark owner files the broadest number of categories possible this becomes a minefield.

throwaway09223 4y ago
Sure, and I think we probably agree that some reform is needed around trademarking colors. So I'll correct myself as well and agree that it is a problem -- though somewhat limited in scope. My point was only that it isn't a broad limitation such as Copyright creates that spills over into say, letting a camera take pictures with a shade of blue or using blue in a piece of software. I believe the scope of the trademark's application is fairly narrow, so it's not something most people in other fields need to worry about.