[NA]Trademarks - curiosity question[NA]

Everskyward

Everskyward

Experimenter
Joined
Mar 19, 2005
Messages
33,448
Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Got an email about a pending UPS delivery and noticed this.

attachment.php


They trademarked the color brown? How does that work? No one else can use the color brown without it being a trademark violation?
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2015-06-30 at 12.43.00 .png
    Screen Shot 2015-06-30 at 12.43.00 .png
    23.7 KB · Views: 142
Everskyward said:
Got an email about a pending UPS delivery and noticed this.

attachment.php


They trademarked the color brown? How does that work? No one else can use the color brown without it being a trademark violation?
Click to expand...
Did you send in your fee for using the "B" word in your post?
 
I am not an intellectual property expert, but I think that this falls more in the category of "trade dress," in which UPS would vigorously challenged the right of another company engaged in the same business (package and freight delivery) cloaking all of their marketing and vehicles and uniforms and the like in Brown. The reasoning is that doing so is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace.

You would see the same reasoning if (for example) a new company called EverSkyward Express popped up, doing express delivery in trucks and airplanes cloaked in white with purple and orange trim. FedEx might have a thing or two to say about that!
 
They have trademarked their shade of brown and there are a few others out there too. I want to say that IBM has trademarked their shade of blue but I may be completely wrong.
 
SCCutler said:
I am not an intellectual property expert, but I think that this falls more in the category of "trade dress," in which UPS would vigorously challenged the right of another company engaged in the same business (package and freight delivery) cloaking all of their marketing and vehicles and uniforms and the like in Brown. The reasoning is that doing so is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace.

You would see the same reasoning if (for example) a new company called EverSkyward Express popped up, doing express delivery in trucks and airplanes cloaked in white with purple and orange trim. FedEx might have a thing or two to say about that!
Click to expand...
Hmmm... Good thing I'm not fond of the B color and that I think purple and orange in combination are :vomit:.

Thanks for the explanation Spike.
 
Everskyward said:
Got an email about a pending UPS delivery and noticed this.

attachment.php


They trademarked the color brown? How does that work? No one else can use the color brown without it being a trademark violation?
Click to expand...

Short answer: If I started a parcel transportation service, and used the color brown as my identifier, UPS could argue that I did it to confuse a potential customer and cause them harm.

UPS would be unable to enforce said trademark against another industry that used brown as their color, nor could they enforce the trademark if another parcel delivery service used brown, but not as a unique identifier (for example, if FedEx started using brown trucks because the paint was cheaper, but not because the brown was their new identifier, they would not have violated the trademark).
 
Everskyward said:
Got an email about a pending UPS delivery and noticed this.

attachment.php


They trademarked the color brown? How does that work? No one else can use the color brown without it being a trademark violation?
Click to expand...
The key most people miss is that trademarks are not absolute in the sense that "no one" can use it. They are associated with certain goods and services with the goal of avoiding customer confusion about where something came from.

So, to use the UPS example, the trademark for the color brown means that UPS is claiming exclusive rights to use the color brown (which they use for their employees uniforms) In association with delivery services. IOW, when some guy with a brown uniform walks up to your door with a package, you expect it to be a UPS guy and they can theoretically stop some other delivery company from using it in that way. (I'm not commenting on the validity of their claim, just want it essentially is.) I'm sure you can think of other examples - the color scheme various airlines use comes to mind immediately.

An example of differen companies using the same trademark is Caddillac dog food - nothing to do with General Motors.

There are some exceptions. The Trademark Act, for example, recognizes a concept called "famous marks." An example of that is the Coca Cola logo. No matter if it's a bottle or an article of clothing, people will reasonably think it's associated with the Coca Cola Company. That concept is actually relatively recent in U.S. Trademark law (which explains the dog food a little).

Edit: I just noticed that Nick nailed it. He's absolutely right.
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone for the answers. It just struck me as funny seeing that on my notice of pending delivery.
 
SkyHog said:
Short answer: If I started a parcel transportation service, and used the color brown as my identifier, UPS could argue that I did it to confuse a potential customer and cause them harm.

UPS would be unable to enforce said trademark against another industry that used brown as their color, nor could they enforce the trademark if another parcel delivery service used brown, but not as a unique identifier (for example, if FedEx started using brown trucks because the paint was cheaper, but not because the brown was their new identifier, they would not have violated the trademark).
Click to expand...

Many years ago, Intel's line of processors (286, 396, etc) was growing so it tried to trademark "486". The USPTO denied the claim, hence "Pentium". Altho Boeing does have rights to '737' among others, everything is in context, as Nick explained.

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=46044
 
murphey said:
Many years ago, Intel's line of processors (286, 396, etc) was growing so it tried to trademark "486". The USPTO denied the claim, hence "Pentium". Altho Boeing does have rights to '737' among others, everything is in context, as Nick explained.

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=46044
Click to expand...

That might be true of Boeing, but many other aircraft manufacturers must not have trademarked their model numbers. There's Bell/Cessna 206, Airbus/Cessna 320, Cessna/Commander 680 and on and on.
 
murphey said:
Many years ago, Intel's line of processors (286, 396, etc) was growing so it tried to trademark "486". The USPTO denied the claim, hence "Pentium". Altho Boeing does have rights to '737' among others, everything is in context, as Nick explained.

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=46044
Click to expand...

Pentium was the next generation from 486. They decided to clean up their naming standards from the old 386 and 486 stuff which started getting a bit funny with 486dx4/100 and so on. The USPTO decision was only partly the reason for the rebranding. USPTO said a string of numbers is not distinct enough to be a trademark.
 
Last edited:
When Auto Zone first started, their name was Auto Shack. Radio Shack sued them for trademark infringement. I never understood that one since they sell completely separate/distinct products in different markets.

I guess Zone can change their name back now if they'd like...since Radio Shack went tango uniform. :wink2:
 
Everskyward said:
That might be true of Boeing, but many other aircraft manufacturers must not have trademarked their model numbers. There's Bell/Cessna 206, Airbus/Cessna 320, Cessna/Commander 680 and on and on.
Click to expand...
You can name something whatever you want. The question is whether it is protectable as a trademark. Keeping in mind what I wrote earlier, the question is always what it is being used for, not what it is. Function, not form

Numbers are interesting. The general rule is that a number that is "used solely as a model, style or grade designation within a product line does not function as a trademark." That's from the U.S. Trademark' Office's examination manual. Pretty much for the reason mtuomi said.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
When Auto Zone first started, their name was Auto Shack. Radio Shack sued them for trademark infringement. I never understood that one since they sell completely separate/distinct products in different markets.

I guess Zone can change their name back now if they'd like...since Radio Shack went tango uniform. :wink2:
Click to expand...

I was in a radio shack a few weeks ago.
 
timwinters said:
When Auto Zone first started, their name was Auto Shack. Radio Shack sued them for trademark infringement. I never understood that one since they sell completely separate/distinct products in different markets.

I guess Zone can change their name back now if they'd like...since Radio Shack went tango uniform. :wink2:
Click to expand...
Few situations are that clear cut. I don't know the evidence that was presented so I'm speculating based on experience. Both sell electrical connector and other items, so there is a bit of overlap. Many of these kinds of cases use market surveys to gauge consumer recognition.

Wink aside, I'd doubt Auto Zone would want to give up the brand recognition it has developed over the years.

As an aside, I see people using trademark and copyright as somewhat equivalent terms. While they can overlap, they are completely different concepts. Somewhat simplistically since the details are more complex, one can think of it in terms of trademarks protecting brand and copyright protecting creativity. An overlap example can illustrate. A complex design might be protectable by copyright as an original work of art. If it is used for branding a product or service, it might (also or separately) be protectable as a trademark.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Few situations are that clear cut. I don't know the evidence that was presented so I'm speculating based on experience. Both sell electrical connector and other items, so there is a bit of overlap. Many of these kinds of cases use market surveys to gauge consumer recognition.

Wink aside, I'd doubt Auto Zone would want to give up the brand recognition it has developed over the years.

As an aside, I see people using trademark and copyright as somewhat equivalent terms. While they can overlap, they are completely different concepts. Somewhat simplistically since the details are more complex, one can think of it in terms of trademarks protecting brand and copyright protecting creativity. An overlap example can illustrate. A complex design might be protectable by copyright as an original work of art. If it is used for branding a product or service, it might (also or separately) be protectable as a trademark.
Click to expand...

Or to put it a other way, the title of the originallStar Trek in the bold, italic, san serif block font is a registered trademark of Paramount, a Star Trek script is copyrighted.

Or CBS or whichever division of Sumner Redstone's empire it belongs to these days.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The key most people miss is that trademarks are not absolute in the sense that "no one" can use it. They are associated with certain goods and services with the goal of avoiding customer confusion about where something came from.

So, to use the UPS example, the trademark for the color brown means that UPS is claiming exclusive rights to use the color brown (which they use for their employees uniforms) In association with delivery services. IOW, when some guy with a brown uniform walks up to your door with a package, you expect it to be a UPS guy and they can theoretically stop some other delivery company from using it in that way. (I'm not commenting on the validity of their claim, just want it essentially is.) I'm sure you can think of other examples - the color scheme various airlines use comes to mind immediately.

An example of differen companies using the same trademark is Caddillac dog food - nothing to do with General Motors.

There are some exceptions. The Trademark Act, for example, recognizes a concept called "famous marks." An example of that is the Coca Cola logo. No matter if it's a bottle or an article of clothing, people will reasonably think it's associated with the Coca Cola Company. That concept is actually relatively recent in U.S. Trademark law (which explains the dog food a little).

Edit: I just noticed that Nick nailed it. He's absolutely right.
Click to expand...
There's another aspect to 'brown' in context of UPS - the word is used in a marketing slogan, as an alternate reference to the company, eg 'Let Brown deliver.....' or similar phrases.
 
midlifeflyer said:
You can name something whatever you want. The question is whether it is protectable as a trademark. Keeping in mind what I wrote earlier, the question is always what it is being used for, not what it is. Function, not form

Numbers are interesting. The general rule is that a number that is "used solely as a model, style or grade designation within a product line does not function as a trademark." That's from the U.S. Trademark' Office's examination manual. Pretty much for the reason mtuomi said.
Click to expand...
But obviously Boeing got away with it.
 
Years ago, I read (and I'm too lazy to Google it to see if it's true or an urban legend) that Peugeot held the rights to any 3-digit numeric car model designation with a zero as the middle digit.

Seems like an aggressive claim, especially for numbers they've never even used, but stranger things have happened I guess.
 
LoneAspen said:
Years ago, I read (and I'm too lazy to Google it to see if it's true or an urban legend) that Peugeot held the rights to any 3-digit numeric car model designation with a zero as the middle digit.

Seems like an aggressive claim, especially for numbers they've never even used, but stranger things have happened I guess.
Click to expand...

Ford 500
Chrysler 300
 
Everskyward said:
But obviously Boeing got away with it.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. The key is both in the terms "generally" and "solely."

Most things that are generally not considered usable as trademarks from the get-go can become trademarks if they are used consistently enough over a long enough period of time to get into the public mind. At this point, the 7X7 has been used so long and so consistently that I would bet that the public seeing 797 together with something to do with an airplane would automatically think it came from the same company as the 707, 727, 737, 747.... That's exactly the type of thing that would take it out of the general rule.

thats true of most words and phrases that are are in the same category as numbers in terms of their ability to be used as trademarks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top