Prosperity Law
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Services
    • Conveyancing
    • Commercial Disputes
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Commercial Property Law
    • Corporate And Commercial
    • Debt Recovery
    • Employment Law – Individuals
    • Employment Law – Businesses
    • Healthcare Services
    • High Net Worth Clients
    • Insolvency Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • Settlement Agreements
  • Notary Public
  • Clients
  • Our People
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Tel: 0161 667 3686, 0151 958 0057

Intellectual Property – Can you Trade Mark Colour Combinations?

Home / Blog / Uncategorized / Intellectual Property – Can you Trade Mark Colour Combinations?
Can you Trade Mark Colour Combinations
December 27, 2017
by para
Uncategorized
0 Comments

The courts have delivered the latest ruling on the long-running issue of whether or not companies are able to trademark colours associated with their brands. In Red Bull GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), the European General Court (Second Chamber) (the Court) upheld the EUIPO’s decision to cancel two of Red Bull’s European “colour combination” trade marks for “lack of precision”.

Background

It is easy to see why brands might want to trademark colours. Colour is often the stand-out initial attribute of a product, and can build long-lasting associations with the brand in consumers’ minds. It is this representation of a brand that a trademark seeks to protect. For example, think of Cadbury and it is likely that one immediately also thinks of a particular shade of purple. The same applies to Louboutin shoes and a certain shade of red. However, there is one crucial difference between these two iconic brands and their associated colours: where the US courts ruled that Louboutin could trademark the red it uses on the soles of its shoes, the UK courts declined to permit Cadbury to protect its famous purple in the same way.

Extending trademarks to colours has never been straightforward. In Article 15(1), the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights expanded the accepted definition of a trademark to include “any sign…capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings”. Even this was not sufficient to create unanimity in different jurisdictions, as demonstrated by the different approaches of the UK and US courts. On the face of it, the decision in Red Bull GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office seems to take a similarly hard line to that adopted by the UK courts.

Red Bull

Red Bull was seeking to protect not a single colour but “colour combinations”: the blue and silver livery of its products. Applicants wishing to trademark colour combinations must provide the EUIPO with:

• an appropriate representation of the mark that shows the systematic arrangement of the colour combination in a uniform and predetermined manner; and
• a reference to a generally recognised colour code (e.g. Pantone) relating thereto.

However, the Court ruled that Red Bull’s marks amounted to no more than “mere juxtaposition of two or more colours, designated in the abstract”. This was not sufficient to gain trademark protection.

Implications of the decision

The ruling has been greeted with a certain amount of doom and gloom. However, there are two arguments that suggest Red Bull may be specific to its facts and not necessarily a coup de grace for colour combination trademarks:
1. compare the written description for Red Bull’s colour combination registrations with those submitted in support of colour combination registrations for other brands’ products. Red Bull’s is noteworthy for its lack of detail or, in the Court’s own word its lack of, “precision”; and
2. Red Bull might have made a more effective rebuttal of EUIPO’s case if it had referred more closely to the relevant EU legislation and, in particular, to the point that combinations of colours “in the abstract” are registerable.

It is possible that Red Bull may appeal to the CJEU. In the meantime, brands hoping to register colour combinations should not necessarily be dissuaded by this decision although they might wish to mull over the possibility that registering a single colour may be easier than registering a combination.

Share
Previous Post
Problems Getting Paid? Know Your Employment Rights
Next Post
Getting married abroad - Notary Services

Leave a Reply - Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked (required)

Categories
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Covid-19
  • Employment
  • Events
  • GDPR
  • Healthcare
  • Insurance
  • Law
  • News
  • Notary Public
  • Solicitors
  • Tax
  • Uncategorized
MANCHESTER OFFICE

Vantage Point 4, Hardman Street, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3HF
Opening Hours: Mon-Fri 9am- 5.30pm

Get Directions

Tel: 0161 667 3686

Follow Us
Useful Links
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Our People
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Latest News
  • Employer FAQ’s – Changing Employee Terms & Conditions
  • 2021 – A New Year in Dentistry
  • Prosperity Law Liverpool Appoints New Partner
Liverpool Office

4 St. Paul Square, Liverpool, L3 9SJ
Phone: 0151 958 0057
Opening Hours: Mon-Fri 9am- 5.30pm

Get Directions

Copyright Prosperity Law © 2020. All Rights Reserved Sitemap Prosperity Law LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (number OC340697) authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA 533585). whose registered address is at The Office Suite Top O’Th Hill Farm, Meadowhead Lane Norden, Rochdale, Lancs, OL11 5UL. A list of members is available at each office.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.Accept Privacy Policy
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Necessary Always Enabled