61–70 of 90 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with that personally, having a trademark for a particular colour is clearly a dubious concept.
I'm not so sure, when it's an integral part of the brand (Cadbury purple for example) I think it's justified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cooking recipes aren't protected as far as I remember so it would have been surprising to protect the end result.
They are under Australian copyright law
> Copyright does not protect information about the ingredients or cooking methods.
> It is not an infringement of copyright to watch someone prepare a dish and write down the ingredients and method in your own words.
What's copyrighted, is the word-for-word original reference. If you reword it, then that's free to disseminate.
It isn't what people think of as a recipe - the ingredients and methods involved. It's just that particular copy of the ingredients and methods involved.
[0] https://www.copyright.org.au/ACC_Prod/ACC/Information_Sheets...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not so sure, when it's an integral part of the brand (Cadbury purple for example) I think it's justified.
Since you have a limited number of colours on a computer, isn't that just a trademark on a number? And to go a bit further, what's the difference between the Cadbury purple and a purple so close that you can't tell the difference visually?
A Pantone colour will list the required method to create an item with that colour. That is, the mixes required to create it for printing on paper, or for dying clothes, etc.
It's more detailed than just a number.
It's also worth noting that Heksenkaas is a ridiculously overpriced product, which probably explains why they are trying so hard to keep the competition at bay.
Funny the article made no mention of smell, which one might suspect would be treated in a similar way.
Makes me wonder, is there any formal representation for smells like we have with colors?
It's somewhat unfortunate that the ruling merely reasons that it wouldn't be practically possible, rather than reasoning that such a copyright would be a burden on society without any real gain.