T-Mobile demand Lemonade to stop using the color magenta(thehustle.co)
thehustle.co
T-Mobile demand Lemonade to stop using the color magenta
https://thehustle.co/11052019-deutsche-telekom-lemonade-color-rights/
157 comments
Lemonade is an insurance company, not music.
Unrelated to the post, but I'm reminded that the color in question (at least as far as light goes) does not actually exist and is made up by our brains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9dqJRyk0YM
TLDR; Clickbait headline. This is a fairly common practice. T-Mobile has filed and enforces a color mark, a type of trademark, as do many other corporations, for a specific shade of pink known as RAL 4010. Not the entire magenta range.
This might seem like overreach, but is just a natural consequence of trademark laws.
If you can trademark a name as simple as "apple", and if you can trademark an icon as simple as 4 squares of identical size and shape next to another (windows/microsoft), then it becomes quite obvious that colors are treated the same.
In the end, trademark laws as a whole will have to be reformed, but this is just a natural consequence of the current laws.
If you can trademark a name as simple as "apple", and if you can trademark an icon as simple as 4 squares of identical size and shape next to another (windows/microsoft), then it becomes quite obvious that colors are treated the same.
In the end, trademark laws as a whole will have to be reformed, but this is just a natural consequence of the current laws.
Well, there is a thing called colormark, But as far as I know, color marks apply to companies from the same industry. T-Mobile and Lemonade are not in the same industry therefore, Lemonade should be able to use Magenta.
The issue the article points to is both companies provide insurance products: Lemonade for renters and T-Mobile for its own handsets. I’m not convinced the average consumer would be confused by the two, however.
They both sell insurance, so one could argue they are in the same industry. Unless we're going to sub-divide insurance between Home/Car and Phone.
T-Mobile sells insurance on devices they also sell. I have never seen a dedicated insurance company selling insurance specifically on mobile devices. The likelihood of consumer confusion is tiny.
That's like saying that blizzard and oracle are competitors because they are both in the software industry. If you can't substitute the product from one company with another, then they are not competitors.
In this case, if you can't buy phone insurance (the product you would buy from T-Mobile) from Lemonade, they are not competitors.
In this case, if you can't buy phone insurance (the product you would buy from T-Mobile) from Lemonade, they are not competitors.
>They both sell insurance..
Does anyone know whether T-Mobile sell THEIR insurance or they act as brokers selling someone else's insurance (e.g. Allianz, AXA, etc.)?
I also wonder the % of revenue of T-Mobile from insurance Vs their other business lines.
(I don't really wonder)
Does anyone know whether T-Mobile sell THEIR insurance or they act as brokers selling someone else's insurance (e.g. Allianz, AXA, etc.)?
I also wonder the % of revenue of T-Mobile from insurance Vs their other business lines.
(I don't really wonder)
Most consumer insurance companies are selling upstream insurance. They buy insurance wholesale, and then resell it making a cut and taking care of the customer facing part.
T-Mobile does the same. So in that way they're no different than any other type of consumer insurance company.
T-Mobile does the same. So in that way they're no different than any other type of consumer insurance company.
IMHO selling insurance as a form of extended warranty on a physical product is not the same thing. I see what you're saying but I just don't see the average consumer confusing the two brands just because T-Mobile happens to sell insurance for their phones. They also sell cell phones but I don't think of them as a cell phone company, they're simply a carrier.
T-Mobile don't just sell "extended warranties" they also sell theft, accidental damage, and similar even on phones (on their network) you didn't buy from them (e.g. €10/month). There's no distinction between what they do and other insurance companies insuring the same product class do.
So as I said, unless you sub-divide the insurance industry on arbitrary lines, they are both selling insurance to the consumer. Claiming that because it is only "extended warranties" (which it isn't anyway) isn't really a legal argument for trademark law. We're talking about markets here, they're both in the insurance market regardless of how you frame it.
So as I said, unless you sub-divide the insurance industry on arbitrary lines, they are both selling insurance to the consumer. Claiming that because it is only "extended warranties" (which it isn't anyway) isn't really a legal argument for trademark law. We're talking about markets here, they're both in the insurance market regardless of how you frame it.
According to the article, there might be a problem there as T-Mobile does offer several forms of insurance: Things like mobile device insurance and cybersecurity insurance.
And therein lies the obvious conclusion of allowing conglomerations. If one company has their foot in every possible industry, they can yield control far beyond what would normally be considered unreasonable.
I mean we are actually discussing “T-Mobile isn’t a mobile carrier, they’re an insurance company”.
I mean we are actually discussing “T-Mobile isn’t a mobile carrier, they’re an insurance company”.
Rather "T-Mobile I'd a mobile carrier AND an insurance company".
Knowing T-Mobile and the full-of-shiteness that I possesses them, they can argue this about every market. I am.sure they own a canteen somewhere so there goes the food industry, and they probably sponsor some major team so there goes sports equipment and so on and so forth. Greed doesn't stop.
Even trade marks are like that thus Toyota Lexus and Lexis Nexus can coexist, though a court case had to settle that dispute.
You have a gross misunderstanding of how it works.
You can't trademark the entire word "apple" you can trademark the the word apple within a set of industries. You can't start a computer/isp/copy machine company called apple, but you definitely can start a woodworking shop called apple.
You can't trademark the entire word "apple" you can trademark the the word apple within a set of industries. You can't start a computer/isp/copy machine company called apple, but you definitely can start a woodworking shop called apple.
An example of how this gets dicey when you expand into new industries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
And Telekom trademarked the color magenta for the industries they're active in - such as mobile phone insurance or cybersecurity insurance, which happens to be the same industry Lemonade is active in.
It's not "natural consequences". Canonical counter example is this cease-and-desist for a book copying the Jack Daniels label design: https://mashable.com/2012/07/22/jack-daniels-trademark-lette...
I remember when Intel tried to trademark the number "80". Thankfully they lost that one.
>then it becomes quite obvious that colors are treated the same.
Does it? Because that seems like nonsense.
Does it? Because that seems like nonsense.
Color is an interesting thing, however. Because there are only so many colors to go around.
Imagine if companies could reserve an entire letter. All words beginning with that letter would belong to them.
Imagine if companies could reserve an entire letter. All words beginning with that letter would belong to them.
You mean like Apple did with the lowercase "I"?
Or rather, tried to do?
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/apples-future-wont-be-brou...
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/apples-future-wont-be-brou...
This ownership of color is just ridiculous.
By that logic, Google is literally using the Fuchsia color #FF00FF for Fuchsia OS which is literally classed a Magenta as the web color!
T-Mobile, I dare you to sue Google.
By that logic, Google is literally using the Fuchsia color #FF00FF for Fuchsia OS which is literally classed a Magenta as the web color!
T-Mobile, I dare you to sue Google.
Unfortunately they have to do this if they don’t want to lose the trademark. You can’t trademark something if it’s deemed to be of common use. Of course if your trademark is a color then this can be quite difficult.
> Unfortunately they have to do this if they don’t want to lose the trademark.
That's what the lawyers say, anyway. Thousands of companies manage to do business for decades without egregious trademark actions.
That's what the lawyers say, anyway. Thousands of companies manage to do business for decades without egregious trademark actions.
Consider this scenario:
Company A has a trademark. Company B creates its own product (perhaps trademarked as well) which is somewhat similar to Company A's trademark but in a sufficiently different product space that a lawsuit by Company A would seem potentially frivolous. Company B then grows its business over several years, starts moving into adjacent product categories, and ends up with a product that now could get mixed up with Company A's. Company A sues Company B, but Company B argues that it has invested a lot into its own brand, and Company A should have been policing its brand years ago to make sure Company B doesn't end up investing in a brand that Company A would end up considering infringing down the road.
Company A has a trademark. Company B creates its own product (perhaps trademarked as well) which is somewhat similar to Company A's trademark but in a sufficiently different product space that a lawsuit by Company A would seem potentially frivolous. Company B then grows its business over several years, starts moving into adjacent product categories, and ends up with a product that now could get mixed up with Company A's. Company A sues Company B, but Company B argues that it has invested a lot into its own brand, and Company A should have been policing its brand years ago to make sure Company B doesn't end up investing in a brand that Company A would end up considering infringing down the road.
Is there any record of this happening over something as frivolous as a trademarked color?
I hear a lot that bad things could happen if companies don't bully people over trademarks, but I also see lots of companies being good neighbors and doing fine regardless. Are all of these companies both cursed with incompetent lawyers and blessed with uncanny luck?
I hear a lot that bad things could happen if companies don't bully people over trademarks, but I also see lots of companies being good neighbors and doing fine regardless. Are all of these companies both cursed with incompetent lawyers and blessed with uncanny luck?
See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
In short, Apple Corps sued Apple Computer three times over obviously frivolous issues, extracted three settlements, and then when Apple actually did get into the business of selling music, sued them again...and lost.
I'm not convinced that their behavior was either justified or effective.
I'm not convinced that their behavior was either justified or effective.
A funny tangent is the story of wrong Guy's BBC interview on this very topic.
I am more amazed that they issued that patent in the first place.
edit - sorry, mistake, I meant trademark. I didn't know that wording mistakes were downvoted so harshly.
I am amazed they can even claim a trademark over magenta, is that better?
edit - sorry, mistake, I meant trademark. I didn't know that wording mistakes were downvoted so harshly.
I am amazed they can even claim a trademark over magenta, is that better?
Trademarks are not patents.
trademarks protect customers from confusion.
copyright protects the right of an author not to have their work copied (without their permission)
patents protect inventors from having their inventions used (without their permission)
copyright protects the right of an author not to have their work copied (without their permission)
patents protect inventors from having their inventions used (without their permission)
Worth reading just for the colorful puns.
[deleted]
For some background, the reason these laws exist is to protect consumers from counterfeiters. If someone produces jewelry in a clean baby blue box, customers will start to expect that same level of quality, etc. They will be ripped off if someone else uses the same packaging but a low quality product.
However many things have to be considered from the consumers perspective. Is there likely confusion? Is one of the main things courts are supposed to consider.
However many things have to be considered from the consumers perspective. Is there likely confusion? Is one of the main things courts are supposed to consider.
Yeah I don't understand their reasoning here. If some cell service company started using the colors of verizon/sprint/T-mobile I could see that as confusing and potentially misleading.
But outside of their market, they should have no say on who uses that color.
But outside of their market, they should have no say on who uses that color.
From the article, there is overlap in their markets.
To add even more color to the kerfuffle, Lemonade filed a motion yesterday with the European intellectual property office to loosen Deutsche’s legal vice-grip on the color, and has petitioned to remove DT’s color-rights on magenta in the insurance sector.
The problem is, T-Mobile actually does offer insurance on services like cybersecurity and tech-gadget protection policies, which could add a touch of gray to the magenta dispute.Please don't quote with code blocks. It's painful to scroll horizontally, especially for mobile users.
Without code blocks:
> To add even more color to the kerfuffle, Lemonade filed a motion yesterday with the European intellectual property office to loosen Deutsche’s legal vice-grip on the color, and has petitioned to remove DT’s color-rights on magenta in the insurance sector.
> The problem is, T-Mobile actually does offer insurance on services like cybersecurity and tech-gadget protection policies, which could add a touch of gray to the magenta dispute.
Without code blocks:
> To add even more color to the kerfuffle, Lemonade filed a motion yesterday with the European intellectual property office to loosen Deutsche’s legal vice-grip on the color, and has petitioned to remove DT’s color-rights on magenta in the insurance sector.
> The problem is, T-Mobile actually does offer insurance on services like cybersecurity and tech-gadget protection policies, which could add a touch of gray to the magenta dispute.
I know HN is super minimalistic but I’d love a way to indent quotes considering how often we do it here
I'm not against that but what is wrong with using a carrot? It works well.
> I'm not against that but what is wrong with using a carrot?
Depends on how you, um, use the carrot. I'd recommend eating it, but there are many other ways it could bring joy.
In the context of quoting, using a caret (this symbol: ^) is not common, with the exception of saying THIS^.
The ">" symbol is officially known as the "greater-than sign"[1]. That's the one you probably meant.
</typography nerd mode>
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater-than_sign
Depends on how you, um, use the carrot. I'd recommend eating it, but there are many other ways it could bring joy.
In the context of quoting, using a caret (this symbol: ^) is not common, with the exception of saying THIS^.
The ">" symbol is officially known as the "greater-than sign"[1]. That's the one you probably meant.
</typography nerd mode>
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater-than_sign
It doesn’t indent
Why is this a problem? Visually, it's very clear what is and is not a quote.
So that it’s more clear? and supports multiple paragraphs
Do you indent your code? Or are the curly braces enough?
Do you indent your code? Or are the curly braces enough?
...clearly we're not going to agree on this. Yes, I indent code, but—while I've never thought about this before—I actually think using carrots could work equally well! I'd add one carrot per ident level to the start of every line.
Back to quotes, for multiple paragraphs, I just add a ">" to the start of each paragraph.
Back to quotes, for multiple paragraphs, I just add a ">" to the start of each paragraph.
I totally agree with you, but FYI they're called "carets". Much as I like the idea of carrots in comments :-)
[deleted]
> It doesn’t indent
I just use a carrot and make it italics, easy to see.
Though it should be:
> "It doesn’t indent"
• https://getitwriteonline.com/articles/titles-italics-or-quot...
• https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/14876/use-quotat...
I just use a carrot and make it italics, easy to see.
Though it should be:
> "It doesn’t indent"
• https://getitwriteonline.com/articles/titles-italics-or-quot...
• https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/14876/use-quotat...
Isn't it nicer once it's indented though? https://imgur.com/a/LR0Otpb
I'm pretty sure this is the reason people try to use code blocks for quotes—because they want it indented.
I'm pretty sure this is the reason people try to use code blocks for quotes—because they want it indented.
It may do that on the web, on a desktop machine.
That’s not what happens on mobile.
That’s not what happens on mobile.
Am I not understanding something? https://imgur.com/gallery/QEgymrZ
This.
I can't find the text of the demand, but there's a thing called "trade dress," though I'm not sure if reaches to sometihng this basic and without more design elements.
I'm so sorry to do this, but it's "counterfeiters".
The post title itself has a worse one. Should be either:
T-Mobile demand Lemonade stop using the color magenta
T-Mobile demand that Lemonade stop using the color magenta
That would make sense if T-Mobile actually provided good service.
I've been on T-Mobile for 15 years and have had great service the whole time. There have been a few unexpected perks along the way as well that have helped me out, such as free wifi on flights and free international calls. Just thought I'd voice an opinion of someone who is satisfied with T-Mobile
Do they not? I certainly haven't had any problems with them, but I switched to them from Sprint, so my tolerance for sucktitude is a lot higher than average.
Depends. All cell phone companies have areas where they provide bad service, and areas of good service. T-mobile has historically had the least coverage, which is the greatest way to suck, but that has been changing.
I started with TMo for ethical reasons about 10 years ago, but their SFBay coverage has been really spotty for me in general the whole time. No bars in office buildings, in the suburbs, on underground public transportation where other people appear to have active connections...just lots of inconvenient holes.
I know its at least a year out but I'm personally looking forward to the 600Mhz 5G rollout - theoretically the range will be unbelievable. I don't want gigabit speeds when I'm 50 feet from a tower, I want 10mbps wherever I am!
There needs to be some kind of association for shared defense against bullies. Increase the cost of patent/IP trolling while reducing the risk of defending.
NATO for small-businesses and startups.
NATO for small-businesses and startups.
They're not even using the same pink! So this isn't just a usual "trademarks just work this way" thing, it's also a question of how much of the colorspace a trademark can own.
The techcrunch article is a bit more informative -- https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/04/lemonade-gets-a-nastygram-...
The techcrunch article is a bit more informative -- https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/04/lemonade-gets-a-nastygram-...
I'm going to trademark the color blue. Now every silicon valley startup is infringing.
I bet if your company was named IBN and you used a similar font and shade of blue to IBM's, you'd be hearing from their lawyers.
In this case, I don't think a typical consumer would see brand confusion, which is really the benchmark for trademark enforcement usually.
In this case, I don't think a typical consumer would see brand confusion, which is really the benchmark for trademark enforcement usually.
A comment elsewhere here links to a color comparison. Looking at them, I doubt I could tell you which one is T-Mobile and which is Lemonade with confidence greater than chance.
Oh, I could immediately recognize which one was T-Mobile when I looked at the comparison. T-Mobile has a subdued magenta, whereas Lemonade uses bright hot pink. You can see the stark difference on their websites as well (though when you hover over one of the Lemonade buttons, it looks practically identical to the T-Mobile magenta).
I believe both of you :) Human color perception is weird like that.
Modern trademark laws (and IP laws in general) are generally upsetting. It seems like they exist primarily for the benefit of large established players.
Nevermind that owning the exclusive rights to use a particular colour in this way is absurd.
Nevermind that owning the exclusive rights to use a particular colour in this way is absurd.
Honestly, I'm not sure the laws are the issue, but rather the cost of fighting lawsuits in the courts.
I hate when I buy renters insurance only to find out it’s a national cellphone carrier...
Not that it makes it much less silly, but the article mentions:
> The problem is, T-Mobile actually does offer insurance on services like cybersecurity and tech-gadget protection policies, which could add a touch of gray to the magenta dispute.
> The problem is, T-Mobile actually does offer insurance on services like cybersecurity and tech-gadget protection policies, which could add a touch of gray to the magenta dispute.
Slightly tangentially O2 (Telefonica) my mobile provider also sold my car insurance (though underwritten by Ageas), they weren't even a consideration until they popped up with a good deal on a comparison site.
Maybe Lemonade (insurance) should sue Lemonade (buffet restaurant) for word infringement. Then they can sue someone else. Eventually it will loop back to T-Mo.
Props to Lemonade for fighting the claim. I just hope EU/German laws are as punishing as US ones when it comes to trademark abuse.
For those curious, based on the CSS on their respective websites, they aren't _exactly_ the same HEX color, just pretty similar.
(Lemonade is #ff0083, while T-Mobile is #e20074. Comparison here: https://www.colorcombos.com/combotester.html?color0=e20074&c...)
(Lemonade is #ff0083, while T-Mobile is #e20074. Comparison here: https://www.colorcombos.com/combotester.html?color0=e20074&c...)
These claims generally aren't based on hex colors, they're based on Pantone swatches. There's some leeway on how those swatches are converted to RGB.
Is this really what companies worry about? An insurance (edit: ha, I thought it was a beverage company until I read another comment) company is using a similar colour as our telecommunications company so let's get lawyers involved?
Yes, they do.
Lots of companies trademark their brand colors. UPS has a particular shade of brown.
There are others, including 3M, Barbie pink, the yellow of a Wiffle Ball bat, and Cadbury purple.
Lots of companies trademark their brand colors. UPS has a particular shade of brown.
There are others, including 3M, Barbie pink, the yellow of a Wiffle Ball bat, and Cadbury purple.
Cadbury lost that courtcase though https://inews.co.uk/news/consumer/cadbury-purple-trademark-c...
Lemonade is an insurance company.
[deleted]
You're from Germany by any chance?
I think that in Lemonade german site, they changed the color to a darker pink (probably until the issue with T-mobile is finished)
I think that in Lemonade german site, they changed the color to a darker pink (probably until the issue with T-mobile is finished)
Well, based on a 2017 version of their site in archive.org, their 'pink' is rgb(214, 0, 109) while T-Mobile's current pink is rgb(226, 0, 116). Not the same, but as a graphic designer, I think they'd be visually indistinguishable for most people unless comparing bordering swatches.
But fuck T-Mobile though. Magenta is a primary color in most types of print. That they can somehow stop other people from using it is bullshit.
But fuck T-Mobile though. Magenta is a primary color in most types of print. That they can somehow stop other people from using it is bullshit.
In the late 90's, early 2000's, they aggressively tried to intimidate each and everyone using the letter T for any marketing purposes.
I was surprised Apple didn't crack down harder on non-Apple iTech. That was legitimately confusing.
Apple got away with stealing the name OS9 from Microware so they were not really a position to sue others over similar names without getting their own court testimony from the earlier trial thrown back at them.
They weren't first (imode, Cisco IPhone, iriver).
I'm not from Germany, but I did notice that they changed the color for the German site. My comparison is to the American site.
Still pretty close.
pretty close?
Where's the line then?
Where's the line then?
The line is where a judge or jury decides it is.
I don't see the reason why you get downvoted.
The laws are made by the lawmakers (congress, parliaments, etc.)
Justice is there as the supreme/ultimate power to resolve issues between parties. We can't go around smashing heads because "my colour/your colour". When two parties have an issue that cannot be resolved amicably (I don't mean crimes), then Justice gets to say the final word. We live in a civilized world.
The laws are made by the lawmakers (congress, parliaments, etc.)
Justice is there as the supreme/ultimate power to resolve issues between parties. We can't go around smashing heads because "my colour/your colour". When two parties have an issue that cannot be resolved amicably (I don't mean crimes), then Justice gets to say the final word. We live in a civilized world.
Not sure where the line is, but this is a case that's far too close IMO because the shades here change depending on screen type more than they are different from one another.
Amusingly I have 2 LCD monitors here, an acer and a samsung, and when I put Tmobile on the Samsung and Lemonade on the Acer, the colors look functionally identical to the naked eye.
Amusingly I have 2 LCD monitors here, an acer and a samsung, and when I put Tmobile on the Samsung and Lemonade on the Acer, the colors look functionally identical to the naked eye.
Case closed :)
Lyft also has a similar color as T-Mobile. Did T-Mobile make the same ask of Lyft?
What's next? Sue Lemonade for using 'L', 'e', 'm' and 'o' alphabets because they're also used in T-mobile's name?
Both trademark and copyright laws need reforms, and fast. This is getting ridiculous, they're not even in the same industry.
Although this is clearly ridiculous, it does seem a little odd that Lemonade isn't using a bright shade of yellow.
I was slightly irritated by the same - what's the logic behind such branding? Imagine "Orange Mobile" using purple as their primary brand color...
Pink lemonade is a thing. It's just lemonade with food dye, but it's a common thing to do for some reason.
It's not unprecedented, by any means. John Deere has won cases against companies using its trademarked green and yellow color scheme. Granted, that was within the same industry.
https://www.deere.com/en/our-company/news-and-announcements/...
https://www.deere.com/en/our-company/news-and-announcements/...
Green and Yellow, on tractors, is quite a bit more narrow than Magenta, in any industry.
Is this where minimalistic flat design eventually ends up? Trademarking colors?
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
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
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
I'm not saying I agree that colors should be trademarked, just that it's fairly common practice.
I'm not saying I agree that colors should be trademarked, just that it's fairly common practice.
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.
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.
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
I almost missed the followup to this, which is here:
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.
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.
> 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...
I wonder if they would consider the idea of painting them in a different colour...
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.
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.
> 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!”
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!”
That isn't how trademarks work.
rather tragic over-reach I feel. I hope the law is challenged down the road.
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.
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.
Can I trademark #ffffff? And then sue everyone who uses white paper?
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.
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.
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.
The "damages" would be the resale value of those houses combined.
> 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) 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.
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) 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.
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.
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.
Did you mean UPS brown?
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
Not too ridiculous.
With Trademark law, companies have to protect their trademarks, or risk losing their trademark.
Pretty standard in the US.
With Trademark law, companies have to protect their trademarks, or risk losing their trademark.
Pretty standard in the US.
> 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-su...
>
> 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-su...
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.
> 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.
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.
To me, T-mobile's mark is the color and the logo. But pink alone does not scream "T-mobile" to me.
My point was simply trademark fights are common, and not all that ridiculous.
Protections should only apply to things that add something beyond basic elements. For example, it might make sense to allow a particular pairing of colors to be attributed and protected, since that at least requires more creativity than picking a single color.
This is like telling everyone that you now own the letter “D” so no one can ever use that in a word again.
This is like telling everyone that you now own the letter “D” so no one can ever use that in a word again.
The basic elements of colour that most people perceive is pretty limited. But within just "pink" there are lots of different shades that have different properties and need careful thought. I think there is something here more than just the basic elements. But it is not always obvious or objectively measurable.
Sounds like a fun math excercise:
For any trademark of color T(represented as a vector in RGB colorspace), the chance that a brand using color C can be successfully sued is equal to 1-k*||T-C||, where k is lesser than 1 divided by the maximum distance between any two points in RGB colorspace. Find the minimum number of trademarks needed so that for any color the chance of successfully suing is greater than or equal to P.
For any trademark of color T(represented as a vector in RGB colorspace), the chance that a brand using color C can be successfully sued is equal to 1-k*||T-C||, where k is lesser than 1 divided by the maximum distance between any two points in RGB colorspace. Find the minimum number of trademarks needed so that for any color the chance of successfully suing is greater than or equal to P.
This reminds me of a similar case between SparkFun and Fluke from 2014 where Fluke demanded that SparkFun stop selling their own multimeters which had the same colors as the Fluke brand multimeters.
https://www.sparkfun.com/news/1428
https://www.sparkfun.com/news/1428
Plenty of yellow multimeters (not Fluke copies) made outside the USA where nobody cares about their childish crayon hoarding. And people wonder why stuff isn't made in USA anymore?
TMobile I demand you stop calling your internet service UNLIMITED.
It's not, there's tons of fine print and multiple limits.
It's not, there's tons of fine print and multiple limits.
Cyan, Yellow, and Black called, they want their color back.
There's a good overview of color trademarks here.[1]
[1] https://www.colormatters.com/color-and-marketing/color-brand...
[1] https://www.colormatters.com/color-and-marketing/color-brand...
This article led me down a Wikipedia trial until this interesting defense against trademark infringement:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry
and pink insulation foam
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/774...
[deleted]
This is worrisome, because they claiming a broad swath of the colorspace around magenta. It's hard enough to get the exact right color, without worrying that huge players will assert copyright.
FWIW I found this website useful when deciding on complementary colors; you can see how other companies have solved combinations.
https://brandpalettes.com/
... and here's what they have for T-mobile (no listing for lemonade)
https://brandpalettes.com/t-mobile-color-codes/
FWIW I found this website useful when deciding on complementary colors; you can see how other companies have solved combinations.
https://brandpalettes.com/
... and here's what they have for T-mobile (no listing for lemonade)
https://brandpalettes.com/t-mobile-color-codes/
The “protect people from counterfeiters” argument is a laughable defense
This is supply side protectionism at its root
Release a proper spec and let people implement
These rules enable protection for a middle man who owns a logo but otherwise produces none of the physical equipment or theory behind the functionality itself
It’s exactly the sort of nonsense ownership we need less of
Make these CEO actually contribute literally not through popularity contests and regulatory capture
This is supply side protectionism at its root
Release a proper spec and let people implement
These rules enable protection for a middle man who owns a logo but otherwise produces none of the physical equipment or theory behind the functionality itself
It’s exactly the sort of nonsense ownership we need less of
Make these CEO actually contribute literally not through popularity contests and regulatory capture
Here it's T-Mobile (tech) suing Lemonade (music) over a color.