71–80 of 158 posts
For any trademark of color T(represented as a vector in RGB colorspace), the chance that a brand using color C can be successfully sued is equal to 1-k*||T-C||, where k is lesser than 1 divided by the maximum distance between any two points in RGB colorspace. Find the minimum number of trademarks needed so that for any color the chance of successfully suing is greater than or equal to P.
This is incredibly ridiculous. If a color can be owned by a trademark, what’s to prevent a particular audio frequency being trademarked, or a particular temperature, or a particular luminosity? What if my construction company trademarked “8 meters” — could I go and sue everyone who builds 8-meter-high buildings from then on? Good on Lemonade for fighting it. But something is really wrong with the world when claims li…
This is incredibly ridiculous. If a color can be owned by a trademark, what’s to prevent a particular audio frequency being trademarked, or a particular temperature, or a particular luminosity? What if my construction company trademarked “8 meters” — could I go and sue everyone who builds 8-meter-high buildings from then on? Good on Lemonade for fighting it. But something is really wrong with the world when claims li…
You sound surprised that it is possible to trademark a color. This has been part of intellectual property law for quite some time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_trade_mark I'm not saying I agree that colors should be trademarked, just that it's fairly common practice.
Is it only goodwill that is keeping Crayola from suing everyone? No one ought to have the right to prevent others from using a color of all things.
It’s like kindergarten all over again... “That’s my crayon! You give it back!”
This is incredibly ridiculous. If a color can be owned by a trademark, what’s to prevent a particular audio frequency being trademarked, or a particular temperature, or a particular luminosity? What if my construction company trademarked “8 meters” — could I go and sue everyone who builds 8-meter-high buildings from then on? Good on Lemonade for fighting it. But something is really wrong with the world when claims li…
In this instance, a magenta banner is associated with a company that offers insurance products - and another company is offering insurance products and using a magenta banner in their branding. I think it's actually a fair question whether that crosses a line.
This is incredibly ridiculous. If a color can be owned by a trademark, what’s to prevent a particular audio frequency being trademarked, or a particular temperature, or a particular luminosity? What if my construction company trademarked “8 meters” — could I go and sue everyone who builds 8-meter-high buildings from then on? Good on Lemonade for fighting it. But something is really wrong with the world when claims li…
You sound surprised that it is possible to trademark a color. This has been part of intellectual property law for quite some time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_trade_mark I'm not saying I agree that colors should be trademarked, just that it's fairly common practice.
T-Mobile is in the telecom business, and Lemonade is in the residential insurance business. T-Mobile should not be trying to take-down a company that is not in their competitive space for using the same color on their website.
I am not a lawyer, but I have dealt with this at work. This is not legal advice.
Protections should only apply to things that add something beyond basic elements. For example, it might make sense to allow a particular pairing of colors to be attributed and protected, since that at least requires more creativity than picking a single color. This is like telling everyone that you now own the letter “D” so no one can ever use that in a word again.
I hate when I buy renters insurance only to find out it’s a national cellphone carrier...
Not that it makes it much less silly, but the article mentions: > The problem is, T-Mobile actually does offer insurance on services like cybersecurity and tech-gadget protection policies, which could add a touch of gray to the magenta dispute.
Imagine the implications once you consider there are people who are color blind (and you are all hereby on notice that I own the color CCCCCC.)
This is incredibly ridiculous. If a color can be owned by a trademark, what’s to prevent a particular audio frequency being trademarked, or a particular temperature, or a particular luminosity? What if my construction company trademarked “8 meters” — could I go and sue everyone who builds 8-meter-high buildings from then on? Good on Lemonade for fighting it. But something is really wrong with the world when claims li…
With Trademark law, companies have to protect their trademarks, or risk losing their trademark.
Pretty standard in the US.
This is incredibly ridiculous. If a color can be owned by a trademark, what’s to prevent a particular audio frequency being trademarked, or a particular temperature, or a particular luminosity? What if my construction company trademarked “8 meters” — could I go and sue everyone who builds 8-meter-high buildings from then on? Good on Lemonade for fighting it. But something is really wrong with the world when claims li…
Not too ridiculous. With Trademark law, companies have to protect their trademarks, or risk losing their trademark. Pretty standard in the US.
To me, T-mobile's mark is the color and the logo. But pink alone does not scream "T-mobile" to me.