Colors Are Trademarks, Court Says

[meetthemets]

Well, it looks like my high school will be safe. They've used Orange & Blue since 1928 and I can prove it. The Knicks didn't start until '46, '62 for the Mets and Broncos and '72 for the Alberta/Edmonton Oilers. Oh wait, I forgot the University of Florida. Oh well, we can always return to our original Cardinal and Black. Aw, heck, those are South Carolina's hues.

I understand the ruling but there has got to be some common sense used. But then you're dealing with greedy professional and college teams here so all bets (and colors) are off. Heaven help us!

I think some of you guys are completely missing the point of this whole case. It has nothing to with your high school. There's nothing in this case that says schools can't use certain colors. Companies can use whatever colors they want in their corporate identity. There's nothing about the case that says you will get sued if you wear a certain color of blue. If your school colors are orange and blue, fine. That has nothing to do with the case.

The case is saying that you can't go to a Texas game and sell burnt orange shirts that say Texas on them. Even though Texas is technically registered to the university, Smack was trying to say that they had the right to produce shirts if they did not bear any school trademarks on them, and saying that they had a right to produce shirts with the state name of Texas on them, which they do. Unfortunately when the shirts say Texas on them, and are produced in burnt orange and sold at or near a Texas game, they are obviously trying to trick consumers into thinking they are registered by the university. They are obviously referring to the University of Texas, and that's where the ruling comes in.

[Mingjai]

The case is saying that you can't go to a Texas game and sell burnt orange shirts that say Texas on them. Even though Texas is technically registered to the university, Smack was trying to say that they had the right to produce shirts if they did not bear any school trademarks on them, and saying that they had a right to produce shirts with the state name of Texas on them, which they do. Unfortunately when the shirts say Texas on them, and are produced in burnt orange and sold at or near a Texas game, they are obviously trying to trick consumers into thinking they are registered by the university. They are obviously referring to the University of Texas, and that's where the ruling comes in.

That's the best summary of a case holding I've seen in a long time! The media need people like you to tell them what court decisions mean.

[meetthemets]

Well, the article is a bit misleading. They make it sound like the schools own the colors as a trademark. It all has to do with the context those colors are being used in.

[ebod39]

on a sidenote:  an interesting battle is brewing in the retail market where 3 companies are

jostling for position to be recognized by the color red. Not in a legal, "I'm gonna sue you sense" but in a public recognition sense (as my example above demonstrates). Target, JCPenney and Macys are all seeing Red in thier logos and marketing. Of the three companies listed, which one would you pick as the initial winner as to who the public associates with the color red?

IMO, Target is the clear winner.

True enough, although I don't think that one necessarily thinks "Target" from just the color red.

Not quite like the Tiffany Blue box or the brown of UPS.

true, but within context of the question "what retail company do you associate with the color Red? most folks would say Target over a Macys or Penneys. Now if you were to ask people "what company" without specifying a niche market or product, "do you associate with the color Red"...

I would personally think Coke would be on tip of most peoples tongues.

[benpc21]

Not surprised by this.

What I was surprised was a few months back was Jack White from the White Stripes whining and crying that red, black and white was the White Stripes color scheme and that bands were ripping them off for having used them: The Used and Green Day amongst others.

Curious if that court finding protects bands as it does teams.

Eddie Van Halen and his 5150 guitar come to mind automatically when I read this, and as far as I recall Eddie has been around a little bit longer, so is it Jack White who is ripping him off?? And for the record, if your band is called the White Stripes, it better have just that, some White Stripes in its logo....Its like if you had a team called the Blue Jays and they HAD NO BLUE in their color scheme, it just doenst make sense. Sorry to beat a dead horse, but sometimes common sense just comes out.