SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19 | Ridiculous
Colors that are in general use are not trademarkable. Somebody better wake up the T Mobile's legal dpt. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| I think they are trademark-able (at least in Germany, where they accomplished this), but I believe it only applies as brand infringement when we're talking about a competing provider:
»www.techdirt.com/articles/200803···06.shtml |
|
firewire9999
join:2004-07-11
Livonia, MI | reply to SilverSurfer
Well it making some see RED. |
|
chlen
Ethically Challenged
Premium
join:2001-01-16
Albany, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
edit:
April 1st, @03:43PM
| reply to SilverSurfer
said by SilverSurfer  :Colors that are in general use are not trademarkable. Somebody better wake up the T Mobile's legal dpt. Colors are, in fact even insulation cannot be shades of pink and blue unless it is made by Dow chemical.
Coke owns the Red shade on the bottle.
Colors are trade-marketable and carry the market area and 3 year active use policy as do all trade marks.
BTW this is part of my master's thesis.
»building.dow.com/styrofoam/what.htm
here is an example of Dow's blue trade mark.
®™* Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company ("Dow") or an affiliated company of Dow
**The color Blue is a Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company
Don't speak if you don't know.
edit - mistype
--
"He who is not afraid today to say 'no' to the repressive machinery of a criminal bureaucracy earns the right to be called a Human Being."
»lp.org/
Zion is our milk |
|
anonnotreally
@qc.ca | reply to SilverSurfer
can they counter sue for "stupidty"? |
|
Dogfather
Altitude is your friend
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
 ·MegaPath
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Cox VOIP
·Verizon west (ex G..
·ViaTalk
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
edit:
April 1st, @05:04PM
| reply to chlen
If not an April Fool's joke, this one will certainly be interesting. Engaget obviously isn't selling the same product but the color could conceivably (in the twisted minds of lawyers) confuse people into thinking that T-Mobile somehow owns, contributes or endorses the site.
But in the states, I don't think T-Mobile has the color recognition of Dow Corning Pink insulation (that actually has commercials based on the color) or Cingular had with their ugly orange. Ask 100 people what color a coke can is then ask 100 people what color the T in T-Mobile is.
Also if you look at their branding history (eg on the internet way back machine) the shade of magenta they use has changed over the last few years, none being like the shade used by Engadget. »web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.tmobile.com hardly establishing the same brand identity of Coca-Cola or Owen-Corning's pink insulation.
On the flip side, T-Mobile can just end up making a bunch of influential nerds angry and more inclined to write neg article after neg article about T-Mobile. Is it really worth pissing off a lot of people to protect a portion of the trademark that may not even be enforceable. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to chlen
Congratulations. You're writing a thesis. No one in the entire history of the world before you has ever written one, so I can see why you would want to announce it.
Secondly, there is far too much case law on the matter to debate this on an intellectual/informed level with you. So let's just call it a day and conclude how very smartified you are since you are, after all, writing a thesis. (shock. gasp.) |
|
ja2007123
join:2007-10-06
·AT&T Southeast
 ·Dish Network
| reply to Dogfather
i think apple owns the blog site. too many apple related articles even the worthless article from Apple is longer than any microsoft related artice. Like that time, Vista SP1 was announced, they only post one short article and another diffrent article demonstrating the iphone sdk. |
|
