Personally, I feel it is wacky to trademark colors unless it accompanies an extreme narrow use. For eg: Coca-cola Red would be a valid trademark when it is used as a drink color whereas if I use that color to paint my truck, that is a fair-use and the trademark owner has no infringement claims over me.
In the event, the drink company wants to diversify into making automobiles at a future date and wants to trademark a Coca-cola Red paint (for automobiles), it should be a separate trademark and the grant of the trademark should be subject to prior-art and other grant rules that already exist in trademark law.
In the same breadth, companies should be allowed to trademark combinations of colors (ie., swatches) in narrowly defined use areas.
That would balance the needs of IP creators/owners with other innovators without stifling non-infringing usage based on the definition above.
The T-mobile magenta infringement case in the article is bonkers and a case of TM law gone wrong.
In the event, the drink company wants to diversify into making automobiles at a future date and wants to trademark a Coca-cola Red paint (for automobiles), it should be a separate trademark and the grant of the trademark should be subject to prior-art and other grant rules that already exist in trademark law.
In the same breadth, companies should be allowed to trademark combinations of colors (ie., swatches) in narrowly defined use areas.
That would balance the needs of IP creators/owners with other innovators without stifling non-infringing usage based on the definition above.
The T-mobile magenta infringement case in the article is bonkers and a case of TM law gone wrong.