Cadbury Now Has Exclusive Rights to the Color Purple (Pantone 2685C)

[The Straight Story]

Tis the season for giving, or is that not right?

In any case, Cadbury has just proven itself a real Scrooge by beating Nestlé in the England High Court over exclusive rights to the color purple – specifically, Pantone 2685C.

The ruling allows Cadbury to continue to use the color for all its bars, tablets and drinks and prohibits competitors from using it. The battle has roots as far back as 2004, when Cadbury applied for the trademark of Pantone 2685C, which then prompted Nestlé to argue that they couldn’t “practically” trademark a color.

As related by Design Taxi, however, the judge ruled in favor of Cadbury, reasoning “The evidence clearly supports a finding that purple is distinctive of Cadbury for milk chocolate.” Also that Cadbury has been using the color since 1914 and the British public would be confused if they saw it being used elsewhere.

http://foodbeast.com/content/2013/03/30/sorry-barney-alice-walker-cadbury-now-has-exclusive-rights-to-the-color-purple/

[longship]

1. That does it, I am going to trademark "white"

No one can use white for anything without paying me first.

Think for a minute what white means scientifically. Then, consider what a trademark on black might mean.

The extent to which these are nonsense is the extent that this case is rubbish. I wonder what happens of some person paints their house Pantone 2685C. Or colors their hair with it.

[demwing]

2. Nothing happens

the trademark protection only covers the specific color, and only when used to package or promote chocolate or candy. If the products are materially different, there is no infringement.

In fact, there are several tests:

1. Similarity of the conflicting marks;
2. Relatedness or proximity of the two companies (material difference in products);
3. Strength of the senior users mark;
4. Marketing channels used;
5. Degree of care likely to be used by purchasers in selecting the goods;
6. The "second comers" intent in selecting its mark;
7. Evidence of actual confusion;
8. Likelihood of expansion in product lines

[AnotherMcIntosh]

4. It will mean nothing if a "person paints their house Pantone 2685C" outside of the UK,

where Cadbury and the court is located.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

3. Purple was not available as a color to the masses until 1856 A.D.

It was associated with royalty in Egypt, Persia, and Rome long before it was associated with royalty in Europe.

It was, of course, a British court in this recent case that reasoned that the British public would be confused if they saw Purple Pantone 2685C being used elsewhere.

And as the author of the article found with the link said, with sarcasm,

"so it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Cadbury is UK-based and Nestle is Swiss and the case was undertaken in the British judicial system?"

[onenote]

5. This is the kind of story that dumbs down people

by conveying a misleading understanding of trademark law.

Oh well.