Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Did you send in your fee for using the "B" word in your post?Got an email about a pending UPS delivery and noticed this.
They trademarked the color brown? How does that work? No one else can use the color brown without it being a trademark violation?
Did you send in your fee for using the "B" word in your post?
Hmmm... Good thing I'm not fond of the B color and that I think purple and orange in combination are .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!
Got an email about a pending UPS delivery and noticed this.
They trademarked the color brown? How does that work? No one else can use the color brown without it being a trademark violation?
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.Got an email about a pending UPS delivery and noticed this.
They trademarked the color brown? How does that work? No one else can use the color brown without it being a trademark violation?
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).
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
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
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 formThat 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.
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:
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.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:
I was in a radio shack a few weeks ago.
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.
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.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.
But obviously Boeing got away with it.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.
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.
Maybe, maybe not. The key is both in the terms "generally" and "solely."But obviously Boeing got away with it.