As a specific example, the boxes that Tiffany wraps it goods in is very distinctive, but the thing that make them distinctive is that blue color. Could they make an argument that anybody else using boxes of that color would be attempting to create brand confusion, and be able to trademark it? For all I know, maybe they already have.
Other examples might be universities trademarking their school colors (like the famous Michigan maize and blue) to require licensing of goods, even if the product doesn’t use the school’s block M logo.
Years ago I worked for a consulting firm for whom the giant manufacturer 3M was a client. We were told that their ubiquitous 3M logo was a trademarked shade of red called “3M Red.” I can find references to 3M Red but no confirmation that it is legally trademarked.
From the 3M website: “3M Red is a bold, dynamic color that makes our logo recognizable and memorable. Thanks to the billions of impressions created through our communications, the 3M logo is recognized in every corner of the world. Always use a 3M Red logo on a white background when designing 3M communications to ensure maximum impact. Use the chart below to determine the correct color formula for your needs, and always match to our Lab* standard or a 3M Red swatch.”
UPS claims their shade of brown as well, when used on delivery trucks.
Trademarks are always restricted by industry - the idea is you don’t want another parcel-delivery company using brown trucks and uniforms. You don’t care if a septic-tank maintenance company also uses brown.
So you can trademark a color for use in a certain way within a certain industry. You can’t claim total ownership of a given color, however.
Cadbury sought for trademark protection for a particular shade of purple (Pantone 2685C) in 2004, it was allowed as a trademark in 2008 but not registered as Nestle opposed the application. The coverage of protection has been progressively reduced.
I am pretty sure the T-Mobile has some sort of hold on their color (Magenta). I did work for an insurance company many years ago designing forms and other documents for the company. I don’t remember what the color was, but I tried to use one I thought more appropriate and was informed that the original color was the official company color. I don’t remember whether it was trademarked or not.
I don’t believe you can trademark a color. A color is something too generic to be trademarked.
Or rather, you can get a trademark for it, but it’s unlikely to stand up in court. When it’s been challenged (like the Cadbury-Nestle purple that penultima thule mentioned) the trademark was overturned.
The standard is that if a design is similar enough to create confusion in a consumer as to brand identity, it’s a copyright infringement. Color could certainly be part of that. But it generally involves more. For example, something in the distinctive Coca-Cola lettering style, in the characteristic red color, and used on an edible product, particularly a beverage would be very likely to be found as violating their trademark. A violation usually has to involve more than one of the ‘characteristic’ traits of the copyright.
And a major part of this is about protecting consumers; to prevent them being confused by knock-off products. So being in different industries is critical.
The Owens Corning trademark pink on fiberglass insulation is nearly the same color as the Mary Kay cosmetics pink, but it’s not infringing because they are such different products that a consumer shouldn’t be confused.
As far as I know the Yellow Truck company and the Yellow Cab company are the only companies that use that color yellow. Then again who else would want to?
There was significant litigation about this when a Yves Saint Laurent, a competing shoe designer made a shoe that was entirely red, including a red sole. Louboutin sued to enforce its trademark on red soles. YSL argued that in something that is a fashion product like shoes, color is a functional aspect of the product and can’t be trademarked.
The federal appeals court in New York issued an interesting decision. The court held, in essence, that Louboutin’s distinctive mark was a red sole which contrasted with an upper of a different color. Because putting a red sole on a different color shoe was distinctive and not part of the overall fashion of a shoe, it was a protectable trademark. However, when the whole shoe was red, the red sole was part of the overall fashion of the shoe, and it was not subject to trademark protection. In other words YSL was able to sell an entirely red shoe without infringing Louboutin’s trademark, but Louboutin is entitled to trademark protection for a shoe with a red sole only.