Cadbury loses the colour purple (Pantone 2865c) to Nestle - Polidicks

[B]Cadbury has lost the exclusive right to use its iconic purple colour on chocolate bars after a bitter court battle with Swiss rival Nestle. [/B][B]It has lost a legal test case to trademark the particular shade of purple - Pantone 2865c – for the exclusive use of Cadbury products. [/B][IMG]http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Cadbury-s-Dairy-Milk-Bars-chocolate-522025_800_600.jpg[/IMG] [URL]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2443740/Cadbury-loses-year-battle-Swiss-rivals-Nestle-trademark-colour-PURPLE-chocolate-bars.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=matt.ant;42407342][B]Cadbury has lost the exclusive right to use its iconic purple colour on chocolate bars after a bitter court battle with Swiss rival Nestle.[/B] It has lost a legal test case to trademark the particular shade of purple - Pantone 2865c – for the exclusive use of Cadbury products. [img][URL]http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Cadbury-s-Dairy-Milk-Bars-chocolate-522025_800_600.jpg[/URL][/img][/QUOTE] Source?

Fuck I love Cadbury chocolate, I wish I had some right now matt.ant is the king of viral marketing

Trademarketing colors for products? Since when did that bullshit happen?

[QUOTE=Sword and Paint;42407396]Trademarketing colors for products? Since when did that bullshit happen?[/QUOTE] Since forever? [Editline]blayzd[/editline] The only company who can make high heels with red soles is Louboutin, the only company that can make scissors with orange handles is Fiskars etc

pantone [img]http://www.mercianlabels.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Untitled1-200x150.jpg[/img] [img]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbj3qvB1Xi1qa5woe.jpg[/img] seems they've been going through color transitions over time anyways god forbid they lose a specific pantone, I wonder if there's a zone in which you can't pick other pantones or if they literally can move one indiscernable shade over

[QUOTE=Sword and Paint;42407396]Trademarketing colors for products? Since when did that bullshit happen?[/QUOTE] You're a bit behind, you can trademark shapes now.

Cadbury went downhill when they got bought out by kraft

[QUOTE=Legend286;42407430]You're a bit behind, you can trademark shapes now.[/QUOTE] Didn't Facebook try and trademark the word 'face'?

[QUOTE=Legend286;42407430]You're a bit behind, you can trademark shapes now.[/QUOTE] I think trademarking colors is really stupid, same with shapes.

[QUOTE=daijitsu;42407426]pantone [img]http://www.mercianlabels.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Untitled1-200x150.jpg[/img] [img]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbj3qvB1Xi1qa5woe.jpg[/img] seems they've been going through color transitions over time anyways god forbid they lose a specific pantone, I wonder if there's a zone in which you can't pick other pantones or if they literally can move one indiscernable shade over[/QUOTE] not sure but I think as long as it appears to be different so like 5 shades over

Mmm, sure love the 'new shape' chocolate that is smaller but looks bigger and the fact the chocolate is getting cheaper and less tasty. I miss old cadbury.

[QUOTE=duckmaster;42407449]I think trademarking colors is really stupid, same with shapes.[/QUOTE] Colors tend to be a massive indicator of identity in products, so trademarking them actually makes sense. Luckily, there's thousands of different shades of the colors that you can just pick one that isn't.

[QUOTE=zombini;42407474]Colors tend to be a massive indicator of identity in products, so trademarking them actually makes sense. Luckily, there's thousands of different shades of the colors that you can just pick one that isn't.[/QUOTE] Red is coke, blue is pepsi

What do Nestle want with it so badly? I'm not condoning the act of trademarking a colour but it almost just seems unfair on Cadbury.

Milka purple is better anyways

[QUOTE=zombini;42407474]Colors tend to be a massive indicator of identity in products, so trademarking them actually makes sense. Luckily, there's thousands of different shades of the colors that you can just pick one that isn't.[/QUOTE] but there's only so much of the color that registers as 'luxurious'/'opulent', which as a chocolate company is a huge powermove in marketing. compare this dark, thick purple with a tinge of red to something like a powdery light easter purple that looks like it tastes like chalk

when I was a kid I always thought the two cups of milk being poured on the package were rabbit ears

I dunno about your guys but my chocolate is usually brown. I would find purple coloured chocolate very suspicious.

[QUOTE=ViralHatred;42407472]Mmm, sure love the 'new shape' chocolate that is smaller but looks bigger and the fact the chocolate is getting cheaper and less tasty. I miss old cadbury.[/QUOTE] I agree. Kraft haven't let the company be and over-Americanised everything. Why the hell do you need jelly beans and popping candy in CADBURY CHOCOLATE? Oh yeah, to mask the fact it doesn't taste as nice. Is it true US chocolate is pretty crap? I've only tried Hershey's and it seemed dry and a bit tasteless. Although you do have various peanut butter sweets which I'd like to see more of.

So why not move to 2866c?

[QUOTE=Memobot;42407739]Is it true US chocolate is pretty crap? I've only tried Hershey's and it seemed dry and a bit tasteless. Although you do have various peanut butter sweets which I'd like to see more of.[/QUOTE] US sweets are pretty good, but their chocolate is genuinely terrible. Over in Europe, our chocolate companies require very fresh milk to make chocolate. Over in the US, Hershey pioneered a technique that lets them make chocolate with older milk, and more cheaply. This technique gives the chocolate a very noticeable tangy and sour taste and aftertaste. Other American manufacturers followed Hershey, and add a small amount of butyric acid to their mixes to emulate the taste for the US market. If you are European, you'll likely find Yank chocolate to be horrible for this reason, it's got a totally different taste and requires a different palate. Also, in terms of % cocoa, European law dictates that milk chocolate must be 25% cocoa solids or more, with an exception for the UK and a few other countries letting us sell it at 20% cocoa solids or more. US chocolate requires 10% chocolate liquor or more to be milk chocolate, which works out in such a way that there is less actual chocolate in US chocolate. They can cook a mighty fine steak, and do some nice sweets, but stay clear of the chocolate. Also, stay clear of Cadbury's, it's going downhill slowly. Save up that cash and buy some quality instead of quantity if you're going for chocolate. You'll never regret Lindt or whatnot, even if it means giving up multiple Cadbury bars.

[QUOTE=Terminutter;42408334]US sweets are pretty good, but their chocolate is genuinely terrible. Over in Europe, our chocolate companies require very fresh milk to make chocolate. Over in the US, Hershey pioneered a technique that lets them make chocolate with older milk, and more cheaply. This technique gives the chocolate a very noticeable tangy and sour taste and aftertaste. Other American manufacturers followed Hershey, and add a small amount of butyric acid to their mixes to emulate the taste for the US market. If you are European, you'll likely find Yank chocolate to be horrible for this reason, it's got a totally different taste and requires a different palate. Also, in terms of % cocoa, European law dictates that milk chocolate must be 25% cocoa solids or more, with an exception for the UK and a few other countries letting us sell it at 20% cocoa solids or more. US chocolate requires 10% chocolate liquor or more to be milk chocolate, which works out in such a way that there is less actual chocolate in US chocolate. They can cook a mighty fine steak, and do some nice sweets, but stay clear of the chocolate. Also, stay clear of Cadbury's, it's going downhill slowly. Save up that cash and buy some quality instead of quantity if you're going for chocolate. You'll never regret Lindt or whatnot, even if it means giving up multiple Cadbury bars.[/QUOTE] I can attest to this, I've eaten imported Hershey bars and I thought I was eating solidified mudwater that had been pumped out of the Chernobyl sarcophagus.

[QUOTE=Terminutter;42408334]US sweets are pretty good, but their chocolate is genuinely terrible. Over in Europe, our chocolate companies require very fresh milk to make chocolate. Over in the US, Hershey pioneered a technique that lets them make chocolate with older milk, and more cheaply. This technique gives the chocolate a very noticeable tangy and sour taste and aftertaste. Other American manufacturers followed Hershey, and add a small amount of butyric acid to their mixes to emulate the taste for the US market. If you are European, you'll likely find Yank chocolate to be horrible for this reason, it's got a totally different taste and requires a different palate. Also, in terms of % cocoa, European law dictates that milk chocolate must be 25% cocoa solids or more, with an exception for the UK and a few other countries letting us sell it at 20% cocoa solids or more. US chocolate requires 10% chocolate liquor or more to be milk chocolate, which works out in such a way that there is less actual chocolate in US chocolate. They can cook a mighty fine steak, and do some nice sweets, but stay clear of the chocolate. Also, stay clear of Cadbury's, it's going downhill slowly. Save up that cash and buy some quality instead of quantity if you're going for chocolate. You'll never regret Lindt or whatnot, even if it means giving up multiple Cadbury bars.[/QUOTE] If you've got the money, Lindt or Thorntons. Pricey but you get real chocolate, none of this cheap mass produced shit.

[QUOTE=pentium;42407848]So why not move to 2866c?[/QUOTE] mainly because it doesn't exist

[QUOTE=duckmaster;42407449]I think trademarking colors is really stupid, same with shapes.[/QUOTE] We go over this again and again in every single thread about trademarks. A trademark protects visually distinctive elements of a brand. For example, if you look on the box to a Black & Decker power tool, you'll see a notice that black and orange is a trademark of the company. That doesn't mean nobody can use the colors black or orange, or that the word 'black' is off-limits because they trademarked it too. It just means that as part of a brand of power tools, those elements are already 'taken'. What it means is that you can't sell power tools in a black and orange color scheme under the name Black & Pecker. They'll rightfully sue you because you're at best creating needless confusion between the brands, and at worst deliberately trying to rip off their brand. You could probably sell computer parts with that color scheme, and maybe even name, because it's a substantially different market that would cause no confusion and obviously you're not ripping off a product line that already exists. If you sell glossy white computer parts with a logo of a fruit, though, you're probably ripping off Apple. If you sell cola in a red can with fancy white lettering, you're probably ripping off Coca-Cola. Fancy text, the color red, and cola are not solely owned by Coca-Cola, but when combined they're a pretty recognizable brand, and that's what a trademark is for. Trademarks exist to protect things which may not individually be unique (unlike copyrights or patents), but which in aggregate serve to specifically identify your company. And in doing so, it's to protect the consumer from being tricked into buying a shitty knock-off trying to cash in on the popularity of a known brand. Trademarks benefit the consumer just as much as they benefit the holder.

So they spent millions of dollars in court fees in order to force this company to offset the tint of the color purple that they use on their packaging. Petty, much?

[QUOTE=daijitsu;42407426]pantone [img]http://www.mercianlabels.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Untitled1-200x150.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Jesus christ marketing is effective I saw that colour and literally the first thing that came to mind was Cadbury

[QUOTE=catbarf;42408560]We go over this again and again in every single thread about trademarks. A trademark protects visually distinctive elements of a brand. For example, if you look on the box to a Black & Decker power tool, you'll see a notice that black and orange is a trademark of the company. That doesn't mean nobody can use the colors black or orange, or that the word 'black' is off-limits because they trademarked it too. It just means that as part of a brand of power tools, those elements are already 'taken'. What it means is that you can't sell power tools in a black and orange color scheme under the name Black & Pecker. They'll rightfully sue you because you're at best creating needless confusion between the brands, and at worst deliberately trying to rip off their brand. You could probably sell computer parts with that color scheme, and maybe even name, because it's a substantially different market that would cause no confusion and obviously you're not ripping off a product line that already exists. If you sell glossy white computer parts with a logo of a fruit, though, you're probably ripping off Apple. If you sell cola in a red can with fancy white lettering, you're probably ripping off Coca-Cola. Fancy text, the color red, and cola are not solely owned by Coca-Cola, but when combined they're a pretty recognizable brand, and that's what a trademark is for. Trademarks exist to protect things which may not individually be unique (unlike copyrights or patents), but which in aggregate serve to specifically identify your company. And in doing so, it's to protect the consumer from being tricked into buying a shitty knock-off trying to cash in on the popularity of a known brand. Trademarks benefit the consumer just as much as they benefit the holder.[/QUOTE] A simpler way to explain it is to say it has to be able to pass [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry]the moron in a hurry test.[/url]

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;42408710]So they spent millions of dollars in court fees in order to force this company to offset the tint of the color purple that they use on their packaging. Petty, much?[/QUOTE] It's not petty when this actually happens: [QUOTE=Zeke129;42408758]Jesus christ marketing is effective I saw that colour and literally the first thing that came to mind was Cadbury[/QUOTE] Humans pick up on color as a very distinctive point of recognition. When you're walking down a store aisle or scrolling through lists of items online, color is the first thing that jumps out to suggest a familiar brand. Frankly, given the similarities between the Cadbury and Nestle marketing, I'm surprised this didn't happen sooner.