Businesses rely upon color for a variety of purposes. For example, colors may provide ornamentation, or may serve to allow a product to blend in with its surroundings (camouflage for hunting gear) or indicate a product’s flavor (yellow for lemon). Importantly, colors can serve as trademarks, but only if they function as a source identifier.
While colors are not included within the statutory definition of trademarks, since 1985, singular colors and color combinations can be trademarked as part of a product, package or service, if, like any other trademark, they serve a source identification function, and do not serve a merely decorative or utilitarian purpose.
Examples of protectable color marks include: red soles for women’s high-heel dress shoes (Louboutin); pink fiberglass insulation (Owens-Corning); red knobs on cooking appliances (Wolf); light blue for jewelry boxes (Tiffany); brown for parcel delivery trucks and uniforms (UPS); magenta for telecommunications services (T-Mobile); and orange for scissor handles (Fiskars).
On April 8, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential ruling defining when colors can be protected as trademarks: In Re: Forney Industries, Inc., No. 19-1073 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The Fortney decision overturns a 2018 ruling by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) stating that industrial toolmaker, Fortney Industries, Inc., was not allowed to register a black, yellow and red design (below) as trade dress for use on packaging for welding tools and accessories.
The Board concluded that a particular color on a product or its packaging can never be inherently distinctive and may only be registered upon a showing of acquired distinctiveness. Such a showing often is difficult and may involve demonstrating years of use of the color as a source identifier, advertising expenses promoting the color as a source identifier, declarations of the trademark owner and/or its customers, or distributors, survey evidence, and/or market research. It could take years and substantial expenditures to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness.
The Federal Circuit ruled that the Board erred in this holding stating that it had exaggerated the restrictions on such trademarks.
U.S. Circuit Judge Kathleen M. O’Malley wrote for a three-judge panel stating “We hold that color marks can be inherently distinctive when used on product packaging, depending upon the character of the color design,”
“While it is true that color is usually perceived as ornamentation, distinct color-based product packaging mark can indicate the source of the goods to a consumer, and, therefore, can be inherently distinctive,” Judge O’Malley wrote.
“We do not believe that, to date, the Supreme Court has gone as far as the Board did here, where the mark is proposed for product packaging, as distinct from product design,” Judge O’Malley wrote.
“It is possible that such a mark can be perceived by consumers to suggest the source of the goods in that type of packaging,” the judge wrote. “Accordingly, rather than blanketly holding that colors alone cannot be inherently distinctive, the Board should have considered whether Forney’s mark satisfies this court’s criteria for inherent distinctiveness.”
In view of the Federal Circuit’s Fortney decision, businesses should re-evaluate their product packaging to determine whether color schemes employed therein are being used as source identifiers and re-consider whether pursuing federal registration is worthwhile effort.
- Practical Considerations For Protecting IP At The Employee On-Boarding Stage
- Identifying and Avoiding Pitfalls in Intellectual Property Agreements
- Fourth Amendment to China Patent Law Will Have Major Impact on Patent Enforcement
- Adding Value to Your Company Through Data Privacy: Three Guiding Principles to Strengthen a Brand
- Non-Disclosure Agreement Lessons from SiOnyx LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. (Decided December 7, 2020)
- Judiciary Responds to Cybersecurity Breach: New Procedure Enacted to Safeguard Highly Sensitive Documents
- One Bite at the Apple: How the Outcome of a Previous Patent Litigation Can Impact Later Lawsuits
- Congressional Spending Bill Includes Significant Trademark and Copyright Rules
- Patent Inventor Teamwork Doesn't Always Make the Dream Work
- Brexit and Trademarks: The Time Is Now
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- October 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017