3 ms·
Sorry, yes I mistyped "copyright" for trademark, however the earlier reference to trademarks should have clued to the correct word. However contrary to your as
by 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 agoSure, 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.