Orange owns orange?
Does Orange own the color orange? They're not saying they're the only business that can use the color
orange, but the European wireless carrier has filed suit against UK competitor easyMobile for using the color orange in
its advertisements. easyMobile only wants to use the same color of orange used by all the other companies in the
easyGroup brand (like easyJet), but Orange isn't buying it and says that both companies using the same shade is going
to be too confusing for customers. We'd like to give the British public a little more credit than that.
[Via textually.org]






















surely the easy group has prior art? i mean, if i'm not mistaken easyJet was using the orange before Orange was using orange... if you catch my drift..
I hereby officially claim the color blue. anyone who uses it from now on has to go through me. that will be all.
and i pick black :)
and as i look at this there is a bright orange commercial from Vonage across the top of the window.
- We’d like to give the British public a little more credit than that.
You sure about that?
Anyways, Orange mobile have 4 years on the easy empire, and being as how they've sued everyone else for attempting to use the word easy, what goes around comes around.
Apparently it's getting more common for companies to attempt copyright to particular shades. This is the first I've heard where they claim an entire end of the spectrum. Surely Issac Newton would hold the copyright on that? Suchard for instance copyright a particular shade of a purple/lilac colour for its chocolate.
Personally I don't agree with copyright of colours, as after all you are copyrighting a choice of using something that already exists in a particular context, rather than inventing anything (call me old fashioned).
If I cut the front off a VW Golf and weld it to the back of a BMW that doesn't make me a car manufacturer. Likewise, if I mix two random tins of emulsion paint the result isn't a Picasso.
The colour orange isn't 'orange's' logo. The square with the text is. Likewise easy's logo is the text combined with the colour. Orange these days stands for cheap and generic. In the 70's it was designer chic. Things mean different things over time. They should both get over trying to set these things in stone. Like the Polo mint case trying to copyright a circle with a hole inside, this should end up in a dark dusty cupboard somewhere.
Does this mean the University of Tennessee can expect a cease and desist notice?
I am delighted at this news. I was at a conference last year where the keynote speaker, Stelios (son of a billionaire and founder of the Easy group) claimed that they would aggressively pursue and shut down any company with the name 'easy' in the title - as they had invested millions in the brand 'easy' and thereby were entitled to its usage in *any* commercial space. Most notably, they tried to sue easyArt - a small, non-related business, who Stelios claimed was 'passing off' their trade name. Pathetic. Quite frankly, I hope Orange wins. Stelios, your own medicine tastes awful doesn't it?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/05/09/stelios_faces_his_domain_waterloo/
After Andrew McCartney's comments, I therefore hope they both drown in vats of Tango, like the orange obsessed control freaks they are.
So is it the word or the colour that determines recognition of the trade mark? It reminds me of this:
http://www.njagyouth.org/colortest.swf
I guess everyone better close out their ING Direct accounts (http://www.ingdirect.com).
they might want to check with Crayola (http://www.crayola.com) first... I think they have been around a helluva' longer then orange(TM)!
Its not that bad, its related to mobiles, and its using that orange colour. Making a drink using "Coca Cola Red" will get you sued aswell.
Well, colour can be protectable as long as it's distinctive enough - in simple terms if people associate that shade of orange (and it is a specific pantone shade, not a large chunk of the colour spectrum) with Orange then it's registrable as a trade mark. Note - trade mark, *NOT* copyright. This seems reasonable to me - it would be pretty confusing to have two companies selling extremely similar products and services and using colours that also look very much alike. The company who started using that colour in association with that product should quite reasonably be able to stop the newcomer from profitting from use of that colour.
Yeah, right. Look at Kodak, Shell and DHL. All three use the Red on Yellow.
You guys remember the suits Monster was trying to make against every company and/or product that uses Monster in the name. I don't know if this is still going on, I heard that Monster settled with some of the companies in order to get a piece of all future business. Maybe that is what Orange is trying to do?
I hereby trademark any and all waves including, but not limited to all colors, sounds, radio waves, microwaves, light, etc. I plan on suing God for using them.
Seriously, people, I can see where a company would want to distinguish itself with a particular shade, but I don't think it should be able to trademark that shade.
This is just like Monster (the high end electronics cable maker) suing: 1) Disney for Monsters Inc.; 2) Monster.com job search; 3) Discovery Channel for Monster House & Monster Garage; 4) many other companies using the word "Monster" in their name including a mom & pop retro clothing store on the West coast, & a childrens skiing/snowboarding safety production company out of Colorado, no ties at all to cable equipment, power strips and AV. This copyright thing is getting a bit out of hand. (google "Monster cable suing" to see Monster take over of all things monster. Spread the word "Be afraid of the Monster."
I was nicked for a t-shirt in my cafepress shop because it contained the word "caution," which the dude who owns the Caution Clothing Company claims is his sole right to use. Quick, everyone - copyright all the words you can so you can continue to communicate! I claim "the" - now see what you're gonna do!
Are you gonna sue Orange Bowl. too?
British...