From ArsTechnica
General Mills argued that it deserved to be awarded the trademark status because "consumers have come to identify the color yellow" on boxes of oats cereal with "the Cheerios brand." It has been marketed in yellow packaging since 1945, with billions in sales.
The board noted that "there is no doubt that a single color applied to a product or its packaging may function as a trademark and be entitled to registration under the Trademark Act." But that's only if those colors have become "inherently distinctive" in the eyes of consumers. Some of those examples include UPS "Brown;" T-Mobile "Magenta;" Target "Red;" John Deere "Green & Yellow;" and Home Depot "Orange." It goes without saying that anybody can still use those colors predominately in their marketing, but not direct competitors.
Regarding the box of Cheerios, however, the court ruled that consumers don't necessarily associate the yellow box of cereal with Cheerios, despite General Mills' assertion to the contrary. Consumers are confronted with a multitude of yellow boxes of oats cereal, the appeal board noted. By comparison, T-Mobile has only a handful of competitors, and none of them uses the magenta color as a distinctive mark, the appeal board said.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 28 2017, @03:50AM (3 children)
General Mills argued, Sergeant Board opposed.
(how dare the govt stand against the natural entitlements of private initiative? Deregulate immediately - grin).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @10:18AM
It's a long time since I've last seen Kernel Panic. Is he retired now?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @01:44PM (1 child)
De-regulate? That would mean removing ALL trademarks.
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Monday August 28 2017, @02:25PM
No, because the free-market regulates itself, as by magic, you silly. No need for a violent imposed monopoly.
(grin - a large one)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday August 28 2017, @03:51AM (2 children)
Now this is a problem all professional operators of 3-D printers know about: a hermetically-sealed temperature-controlled environment.
I now work for a company in which rapid-prototyping is key. The problem we have is that some filthy cocksucker patented having a temperature-controlled environment within 3-D printing. This is critical if you don't want jobs to curl upwards like potato chips. But unfortunately we cannot mitigate that concern without paying royalties. We can't even roll our own solution without the risk of being sued.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday August 28 2017, @11:33AM
Or, you can creatively skirt the patent:
http://www.flashforge-usa.com/shop/index.php [flashforge-usa.com]
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday August 28 2017, @11:46PM
If your "roll your own" temperature controlled 3D printer solution is only used in-house, that should be protectable as a trade secret (aka not legally discoverable) - or, do your lawyers lack balls?
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @04:24AM
A Cheerios box's most recognizable feature isn't the yellow. Lots of different boxes already use that. It's their distinctive logotype using a serif font and black lettering. Think about it for a second, what other cereal has black type or a formal font choice?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @05:14AM (2 children)
Ruled that any business may call itself McDonald's provided it doesn't sell hamburgers
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @07:02AM
Well, yeah, but that's Canada. Isn't there a Mic-Mac mall in almost every town? Something like 1/4 of the population has a family name that starts with Mc or Mac. It would be impossible for Canada to rule that a plumber, a lawyer, a taxi service, or a restaurant can't call itself McDonald's.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @10:20AM
Great, I'm going to open a chain of that name only selling Cheeseburgers! ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @05:29AM
Yellow belongs to Sprint, and General Mills may not use it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @05:33AM (16 children)
Is that he immediately scrapped the TPP or Trans Pacific Partnership. Now that Obama failed to shove it through in the incredibly undemocratic fashion he was aiming for, we can finally read it. Here [ustr.gov] it is in all its glory. The section on intellectual property is particularly... 'fun.'
In the US we have some absurd IP rules. I think many people find the whole issue thing you can't call champagne champagne unless it's from Champagne, France quite bemusing. Yet we do the exact same thing. For instance Florida, as in Florida Oranges, is trademarked. And we were planning on expanding this world wide. Another fun thing is the "well known trademarks" rules under the TPP. Even if a trademark is in no way used in a given nation, it would somehow nonetheless be trademarked if it was 'sufficiently' well known in that country anyhow. So for instance imagine Cheerio's got their trademark on the yellow color. They could sue businesses using that color even in nations where Cheerios are not sold. It required all countries fully criminalize all intellectual property violations, regardless of whether any competitive edge or monetary gain was involved. You downloaded a copy of a paper from sci-hub? TO PRISON WITH YOU! Oh and fair use? Yeah, that's was going out the window. According to the TPP, nations "may provide limited exceptions" but are not required to do so.
And that's just scratching the surface of one section. The TPP has 30 chapters, numerous annexes, and addendums. It was one giant hand out to multinational corporations and a giant fuck-you to citizens around the world. In the grand scheme of things in politics, not much really affects your day to day life. But the TPP is something that would have had an enormous impact on the lives of individuals around the world. It probably would have a larger impact, in effect, than even the Patriot Act. And Hillary would have shoveled this through at the first opportunity, her public hypocrisy notwithstanding. Reading through this act and seeing how Obama left me, an extremely liberal individual, very jaded towards the party that I used to believe stood for my interests.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday August 28 2017, @11:38AM (13 children)
Well, calling an orange a "Florida Orange" because it grew from a graft of a tree that once spent 5 minutes in the Orlando airport cargo terminal would seem to be a stretch... what's wrong with global marketing of "Florida Oranges" - or "California Oranges" being restricted to fruit grown in those states?
If you want to sell oranges grown in Brazil, or the state of Bahia, why should the consumer be confused with a big label like "California Navel Oranges" on the package?
For that matter, BMW automobiles really should be labeled: "German engineering, assembled proudly in Louisiana, U.S.A." not the ambiguous, misleading "German Automobiles."
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @12:59PM (7 children)
There are already laws against fraudulent/deceptive/misleading marketing and advertising. Trademarking a location is absurd. It's again the reason that you cannot call champagne champagne, but instead are legally required to call it sparkling wine. Imagine "Tex-mex" was trademarked and suddenly you could not call something Tex-mex unless it was made in Texas, or you couldn't call a Chicago hotdog a Chicago hotdog unless it was made in Chicago, or New York pizza crust couldn't be called as much unless it was... so forth and so on to no end.
Your defense of the system is optimistic. Trademarks in general have nothing to do with consumer protections. If they did, I would be the first to agree with you. In reality it always comes down to rent seeking and control.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday August 28 2017, @04:55PM (3 children)
Not if you're from the Champagne region of France and have been marketing your grapes for centuries.
Champagne got into the unfortunate position of becoming associated with a process, and actually a result of that process, that produces sparkling wine. They were the original and only their grapes reached the public as sparkling wine for long enough that the name association stuck. Now that any baboon can inject high pressure CO2 into a bottle and produce a sparkling wine, it isn't exactly right or fair to water down the Champagne brand (of grapes) by using the name inappropriately - but, lack of respect for the name-holders' rights has gone on long enough that it is perceived in the public consciousness as "absurd" that they should care.
It would be like calling all gravelly vocaled basic guitar and drum rock and roll with vague references to Jersey "Springsteen" - at once unfair to the artists not-Springsteen who make the music, and also unfair to Springsteen himself associating his name with product of questionable quality that he did not produce.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @06:20PM (2 children)
Intuition would make you think what you just said is right. After all Champagne has the trademark so surely, surely that means something.
Unfortunately, you are not right. Again, your view of trademarks is very "optimistic." No [wikipedia.org], Champagne did not invent champagne. It was invented and widely shared (the knowledge of that is) by an English scientist in the 1600s. And his invention in turn was a modification of an invention from some monks from Carcassonne in the 1530s. To be clear his recipe is what Champagne would rip off - exactly. Though that'd take a couple of centuries. Champagne, France produced 0 champagne until the 19th century.
And it gets even better. There happens to be a village in Champagne, Switzerland that has made a popular wine called Champagne dating back to 1657 - hundreds of years before the first bottle of champagne was ever made in Champagne. Thanks to trademark law they've been forced to change the name of their wine because trademarks are completely and absolutely illogical. And this is all incredibly typical for trademarks and trademark law.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday August 28 2017, @10:05PM (1 child)
Yes. It means only wine produced in the Champagne region as defined by France's appellation d'origine contrôlée laws can be called champagne in France. The same way only wines produced in the Burgundy region in France can be called burgundy in France. Many wine producers around the world used to usurp French appellation names for products that ranged from somewhat similar to almost, but not quite, entirely unlike wine products. Most now have stopped this practice and instead use somewhat more accurate varietal names and/or local or proprietary names, but other than in France (and perhaps throughout the EU now) I do not believe this is trademarked or illegal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:17AM
This is a very intuitive and logical view but once again completely inaccurate. Intuition and logic have no place when it comes to trademarks and trade agreements. The story of how France managed to make it illegal for the vast majority of the world to use the world champagne to describe champagne starts as far back as the Treaty of Versailles - yip, the treaty that ended World War 1. As mentioned now the EU even forced Champagne, Switzerland to stop selling its wine as Champagne even though it had been doing it for hundreds of years before Champagne, France had sold a single bottle of champagne. This [winesandvines.com] provides some information on the background of how Champagne came to own a worldwide trademark on champagne. It's lacking some details, like the Treaty of Versailles section 275, but it's a good overview! That article also covers the reason why a handful of champagne producers (particularly in California) are allowed to call their champagne... champagne.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Monday August 28 2017, @05:11PM (2 children)
This gets to be a pretty interesting argument really. But I do see one difference: a "Florida orange" sounds like it should be an orange grown in Florida. However, a "Chicago pizza" (usually called "Chicago style pizza") surely isn't a pizza actually made in Chicago if it's a fresh (not frozen) pizza and you're not in Chicago: it's a particular style, just like Tex-Mex, New York pizzas, Philly cheese steaks, Mexican food, Chinese food, etc.
But unlike pizzas, tacos, cheese steaks, or lo mein, things like tomatoes and oranges aren't "made", they're grown. So why shouldn't a "Florida orange" be required to actually be grown in Florida? It does seem deceptive to label an orange that way if it was grown in Brazil. There's no such thing as a "Florida style orange"; oranges do have different species or cultivars, but these have their own specific labels not at all related to location (e.g., mandarin orange, naval orange, clementine, blood orange, tangelo, etc., and the industry probably has far more specific naming conventions than this).
So for "champagne", the problem I see there is that that's a particular style of making something; it's not something you just grow, pick off the tree, and sell as-is, and the art of champagne-making has been copied by many other places, just like the art of making "port". And for many things, location-based name protection really doesn't make much sense, because it's not a guarantee of value at all (but rather the reverse): would I rather eat a pizza crust made in New York, or would I rather eat a freshly-made pizza crust made in New York style? The latter of course, because I don't live in or very near to NYC, so the former would mean a crappy frozen crust. Or how about a genuine made-in-Philly cheese steak? Again, I don't live that close to Philly, so it's not going to be very good since it'll be frozen, and there's no way with those highly different ingredients that it'll reheat very well.
However, having any kind of protection does, as you say, reek of rent-seeking, so there really needs to be a good case for having such a law, versus having no law. Why can't orange sellers simply advertise "grown in Florida", and have that part protected (as it probably already is, by false-advertising laws)? "Florida orange" implies it comes from Florida, but a label saying "product of Florida USA" is very explicit. So in summary, I really don't see a good case for protecting these location names at all. If sellers want to make customers feel good about something based on its origin, they can proudly print that somewhere on the product or package, just like we already do for most manufactured goods.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @06:40PM (1 child)
Mandarin oranges may have an etymology in location as well, though it looks like it's tough to know for sure due to their age. Another thing even more damning on champagne is that Champagne, France did not [wikipedia.org] even invent it. It was invented and the recipe/process widely shared and published by an English scientist hundreds of years before Champagne made their first bottle. And thanks to their trademark they've forced a village in Champagne, Switzerland to change the name of their local wine which they've been selling as Champagne since the 1600s - hundreds years before Champagne made their first bottle of champagne. It's all just so incredibly silly.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday August 28 2017, @11:49PM
Nobody said that the French were Nice people (well, there is that town on the med coast, but they're almost as stuck up there as the Parisians.)
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @01:49PM (1 child)
But what if the orange was grown from a graft of a florida orange tree in the ME? If the tree was a florida orange tree is the orange a florida orange?
My spellchecker is reminding me that maybe there would be room for differentiating florida oranges from Florida oranges.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Monday August 28 2017, @05:01PM
Well, that tree would be illegal in the first place (you are not allowed to export citrus plants from Florida), and if the government found out, they'd probably seize it so you couldn't possibly transfer citrus diseases to the precious Florida Oranges, even if your tree is in ME and you're not a commercial operation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Monday August 28 2017, @03:33PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 29 2017, @12:50AM (1 child)
As far as that goes, if we must label our processed foods with nauseatingly detailed lists of contents and nutritional content estimates, it would seem equally appropriate to label luxury goods with clear information such as: source of materials, nature of labor used in assembly, and maybe even a cost breakdown for where the $120 is going in a $120 pair of shoes. If such information were accurate, it might help the consumers to make more informed choices about where their outsized discretionary purchases are going.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:32AM
I definitely would not mind seeing this. In the digital age it could even be reasonable to simply have a regulated derivative of qr codes to enable users to quickly access the exact information they're looking for without having to look through a novel, or have said novel printed on each and every label. The app could even be customized to do some cool things. For instance people could have it automatically alert the user if something contains peanuts, or whether it was outsourced, or contained genetically engineered products, or whatever their particular ethos holds as something be pursued or avoided.
Alas, consumer information came back at a time when the people were more in control of the government than companies. Without anybody ever realizing it, it seems there has been a successful Business Plot [wikipedia.org]. Somewhere along the line apparently they discovered that there's no need for a coup. Instead they can simply buy congressmen. They come almost bizarrely cheap. Probably a result of the constant and effectively mandatory system of quid quo pro that leads them to power in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @02:58PM (1 child)
Don't worry, the exact same process and results will happen again with NAFTA, this time under Mr. Trump's watch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @04:00PM
Trump is already actively bringing attention to NAFTA negotiations and he is rightly pointing out that, from the perspective of an average American these trade deals are awful. Agree or disagree with Trump he is making his case in public, and that puts him leagues ahead of what Obama tried to do. The reason Obama, and corporate media, did not bring attention to the TPP is because it would have caused a mass outrage if people understood what it actually entailed. I think that is, at the minimum, a subversion of democracy. Yes we are a republic, but we are also one where there are many protections in place to ensure the public can be informed of their representative's actions. What he did was actively work to subvert this accountability.
Why is NAFTA is bad for average Americans? We have a growing trade deficit with Mexico alone that's already just shy of $50 billion. What that means is that we import about $50,000,000,000 dollars more of stuff than we export to them. Why does this matter? Imports in excess of imports means that work (producing products) that could be done domestically is instead being done in foreign countries. That $50 billion is hundreds of thousands of American jobs killed off. Now in cases where there is expertise or resources not available domestically then it's not necessarily a problem since it's not work we could be doing ourselves anyhow. In this case however the vast majority of our imports from Mexico are things that could be done in America - cars/car parts/machinery components/production furniture/etc. Most of these products are also completely untaxed thanks to NAFTA. That is a sort of double whammy since it doubly encourages companies to remove jobs from America.
Free trade agreements massively benefit corporations who can use it to increase their margins dramatically through easier tax avoidance and access to cheaper labor. However, these perks to corporations have an inverse effect on the countries that lose these jobs. The economic defense of free trade is that the citizens of the country that suffers gain from cheaper products. Yet that's rarely how it works. More typical is company A sells makes an item for $20 and sells it for $100. Free trade enables them make it for $15. So they fire all their domestic workers, move everything over to e.g. Mexico where they make it for $15. And they ship it and sell back in the US for... $100. Free trade would be an incredible thing on the time scale of centuries as other countries develop and the US becomes to poor to afford to pay the prices we used to pay when we had these jobs. But I expect within a matter of decades we'll see a revolution in our economic system regardless (thanks to automation) so instead we're accomplishing very little other than screwing our country for the sake of letting corporations add a couple of points to their profit margins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 28 2017, @06:59AM (13 children)
Curiosity is rising it's ugly head here.
How many readily recognizable colors are there? I mean for the typical person, how many different colors do you readily recognize? Magenta is mentioned in TFS - but for me, that is almost a meaningless term. "Some kind of red" is as close as I can come to magenta.
Cheerios yellow? Looks about the same as the yellow "caution" paint that I slap onto things at work. Almost the same as the yellow light that glows before the red one comes on. Is Cheerio's yellow really a color, or is it just a generic yellow? Women expecially - when you go shopping, do you look for a specific shade of yellow to locate your Cheerios? Personally, I wander down the aisle, looking for the word "Cheerios". The color just blends into all the other bright/light colors on the shelves.
John Deere green has some meaning to me. It does seem to be almost unique, and I can usually spot it - unless of course, it's parked at the edge of a field with nice dark green trees behind it.
I guess what I'm asking is, whether colors have real meaning to most people, in regards to branding. To me, it's all pretty meaningless. Why would I even WANT to stake a claim to a color?
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @07:54AM
> Why would I even WANT to stake a claim to a color?
Rent seeking behavior + power + control.
Intellectual property means anybody who uses that IP must license it from you. By owning a color, you've effectively created a scenario where suddenly people who know absolutely nothing about you and have no relationship with you whatsoever - owe you money. And if they don't pay you, you can use the courts to force it out of them. And if they don't pay you a sufficient amount, you can even force them out of business. It's literally a legalized protection racket. 'Oh.. you want to use this color? I see. Well you know, there are some people who don't want you to use it (looks with a smirk over his shoulder at the crew of lawyers he brought with him). But we can work something out. For just a small fee I can protect you from them. Otherwise I don't know. It'd be a shame if anything bad happened to this little business you've got going.'
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Monday August 28 2017, @10:40AM (8 children)
What the heck does gender have to do with this? Are you fishing for a particular response by throwing this in? :)
When I am in the cereal aisle, I see a pretty even mix of genders.
To me, the idea that color can be trademarked seems overbroad since it is aesthetic (the same problem applies to trademarks on "form factor" such as with gopro). But, I also dislike trademarks which are descriptive of the product, since descriptive marks are often used to trick the consumer into thinking it is describing a fact. Both seem like a case where "whoever snaps it up first" gets a big advantage, and trademarks should not be like that. Also with both types of marks, a situation can arise where all the good descriptive words for a thing or all the attractive colors for the target audience are already taken. This hurts the consumer by making it harder to fairly compete in a crowded market.
All trademarks should be abstract and merely serve as an identifier to the consumer as to the origin of the product.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 28 2017, @12:08PM (4 children)
Gender is relevant. Color vision. One out of every four men is at LEAST a little bit color blind. You'll search a long time to find a woman who has any trace of color vision. It's gender linked. Obviously, you're not familiar with all of that crap - MOST men have a color deficiency in either the red or the green spectrum. Some few of us are deficient in BOTH red and green.
If you are EVER in doubt about a color, ask a woman. The chances a woman being unsure are very, very, very slim.
And, no need to thank me. I enjoy triggering people early in the morning!!
This lady's numbers are somewhat different than I learned, but I'll throw her article out there for you anyway - https://www.news-medical.net/health/Color-Blindness-Prevalence.aspx [news-medical.net]
Some more numbers, and related links from this page - http://www.colour-blindness.com/general/prevalence/ [colour-blindness.com]
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 28 2017, @12:13PM
Ehhh, let me correct my error before someone else does.
"You'll search a long time to find a woman who has any trace of color deficiency."
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Monday August 28 2017, @12:14PM (2 children)
I am aware of colorblindness but it doesn't seem relevant to this discussion. The way I see it, a colorblind person will always see "Cheerios yellow" as the same color. It doesn't matter if to them it is some different color than what I see.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 28 2017, @01:07PM
Some explanation is in order, it seems. You say that this particular shade of yellow will always look the same to me - and - I can't argue that. It can't look any different, one day to the next. No, I'm not blue or yellow color blind, so that yellow should always stand out. Except, it doesn't, exactly. Lighting, decor, the colors of things in the vicinity of the Cheerios box, all have an effect on what I percieve. Put up some Christmas decorations, and that Cheerios yellow will stand out plainly. Go with Halloween decorations, and Cheerios begins to fade. Put the cereal aisle near the front or side of the store with windows, I'll see the yellow right away. In another store, with dingy flourescent lighting far from the storefront, that box looks quite different.
And, we're back to my original post, really. I can't explain my world of color to you, and I don't suppose anyone is going to explain how many colors they can readily identify to me.
This is one reason that I dislike "warm" lighting, and prefer "daylight" over any other color/temperature of lighting. I can see a lot more color in daylight, than in any other lighting. Or course, even then, I can't see much more than a fraction of reds and greens.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday August 29 2017, @01:42PM
There's more to it than just colorblindness. Look up "tetrachromacy" -- most people have three cone cells used to detect colors, but some appear to have four, which may allow them to see more color variation than the rest of us. When I read about this previously it was said that it was only possible in women, although Wikipedia does mention that some studies now show a very small fraction of men may have it as well:
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-humans-with-super-human-vision [discovermagazine.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy#Humans [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Zinho on Monday August 28 2017, @02:14PM (2 children)
Obligatory XKCD link. [xkcd.com]
Funny thing is, the XKCD color survey kinda shows that women think of colors mostly in the same terms as men - by which I mean words used to describe them.
I think the "women especially" stereotype comes from the fact that many more words are used to market colors to women than are used to market colors to men. You're much more likely to see a green article described as "lime", "clover", or "seafoam" when being sold to a woman than when sold to a man. There's probably a bunch of psychology associated with this, boiling down to "men don't care" and "women respond to it".
It's possible that trademark law starts creeping in here, as it's probably easier to get trademark protection on a lipstick formula when it's marketed as "Maybelline (R) Sweet Maraschino (TM) Lipstick". Also, with 50 different red lipsticks the vendor has to do something to differentiate products in their own line. The irony for me is that among the women I know the go-to technique for finding their preferred color again isn't to look for the fancy color name; instead, they remember the brand and the associated number (which was probably assigned serially by order of formulation, they don't group nicely by color when sorted by number). The marketers would probably do just as well to have a gamut of nice colors with easy to read numbers as the product name.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 3, Interesting) by cmdrklarg on Monday August 28 2017, @07:23PM
Back in college I was taking a German language class. During an in-class exercise the instructor pointed at this girl's sweater and asked her (in German) "What color is your sweater?" The expected answer was "rot" (red).
She then proceeded to hem and haw, "Well, it's kind of a crimson..."
The instructor's exasperated rant was just priceless.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 28 2017, @11:28PM
"Some were obviously using scripts; based on the filter’s certainty, the #1 spammer in the database was someone who named 2,400 colors—all with the same racial slur."
So, our own Ethanol Fueled participated in the survey? Interesting. Thanks for the link, I've never seen that one!
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday August 28 2017, @11:41AM (1 child)
Cheerios tried to "own" yellow in the cereal aisle. The court ruled that they were too late, and far too many other boxes of oat cereal have been, and are currently, marketed in yellow boxes. Seems reasonable to me.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @12:02PM
Have they trademarked the "hole"?
(Score: 1) by gtomorrow on Monday August 28 2017, @05:42PM
Congratulations! You perceive colors slightly better than your average dog. :'D
But seriously, in your defense, I'm sure you can see AND discern all the 16M+ colors in the visible-to-humans spectrum. Maybe the problem is verbalizing the differences between, say, tomato red and apple red, or possibly giving that difference any importance. I'm pretty sure that at your work, you say you use a certain yellow "caution" paint. I'm betting (in your favor) that if perchance one day a batch of that paint comes in with a slight variance, you'd pick it off immediately.
Next...
Tell that to Coca-Cola, Ferrari, or Marlboro.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @01:10PM
So, if you are a monopoly, you can trademark whatever colors and shapes you like?
(Score: 2) by srobert on Monday August 28 2017, @08:12PM
While they're at it, why don't they just go ahead and trademark the letter 'O'. I just used it three times in that sentence. Will I be getting a "cease and desist" letter? I pr*mise I'll st*p.