[QUOTE=BwanaBob]
How’s that possible, or even legal?
There are 16581375 RGB values, so that would mean that given sufficient resources one could trademark every color thus making it actionable to use a color from nature?
If so, screw the legal system, it has finally gone over the edge.
[/QUOTE]
Sure it is legal to trademark a color, assuming that the color has been sufficiently well associated with a product that they are closely identified together. Trademarking doesn’t mean nobody else can use the color. It just means that nobody can use the color to sell a competing product in a way that would cause consumer confusion.
For one example, take Tiffany’s blue boxes. If you are bringing your wife something in that blue box with a white ribbon, she knows it’s from Tiffany’s as soon as she sees the first little corner of blue. If some other jewelry/housewares retailer were to start packing things in boxes that color of blue, Tiffany’s would quite properly be on their asses immediately. On the other hand, if somebody were to make a dress using Tiffany blue, they really couldn’t complain.
[QUOTE=BwanaBob]
How’s that possible, or even legal?
There are 16581375 RGB values, so that would mean that given sufficient resources one could trademark every color thus making it actionable to use a color from nature?
If so, screw the legal system, it has finally gone over the edge.
[/QUOTE]
Wikipedia says “Normally, the distinctiveness through use must be shown.”
It appears that when color is used primarily as a means of brand recognition, it’s trademarkable. If it’s “functional in other situations,” which can easily be read as “while occuring it nature,” then there’s no claim to exercise the trademark. So in the SJ Sharks’ case, that color can be said to be off the table for any other hockey teams, possibly any other pro sports teams, out of a concern for confusing teams via a distinctive color.
[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
As a rule I hate the new, X-Treme, With-Attitude, Mr. Badass sports logos. But if we didn’t have them, then the vintage stuff wouldn’t be as cool. I think the new Bucs flag logo looks like shit, with a stupid font and stupid slashes and rips in the flag. It looks like it was designed by a high school student with Photoshop.
[/QUOTE]
What do you have against logos that are “TOTALLY IN YOUR FACE!”?
As for the trademark status of “Pacific Teal,” I’m not 100% sure about that; I’m only going on a distant memory of hearing that the Sharks were so proud of their color scheme that they had that hue trademarked or some such thing. And, of course, I’m way too lazy to look it up. But I do thank the above posters for bringing some interesting info to the discussion.
I like the Blue Jays’ new logo. It has some character, gives the team a bit of an edge. I have a lot of blue jays–Steller’s Jays, technically, but basically the same bird–who hang around my home. Mean little sons of bitches. The bird in the corner of the Jays’ new logo conveys that better than the old look.
I’m not as sold on the Patriots’ floating, disembodied head logo. It’s a little on the weird side. But they’ve had success with it, so (shrug) what do I know?
[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
My team (the Browns) don’t have a logo. If they ever tried to add one, there would be an uprising resulting in at least 200 million dollars in property damage. We’re rather proud that we don’t need silly marketing gimmicks like logos, cheerleaders, and winning seasons (ok, so that’s a recent thing) to get us interested in football. They’ve worn almost the exact same uniforms for around 60 years, and I’m pretty biased, but I think they’re the best damn uniforms in pro sports.
They do have semi-official logos (12) that aren’t put on the uniform or any equipment, but do sell on hats, get painted on the end zone, etc. It’s a marketing gimmick to sell non-jersey team related stuff and they’re not very well liked. Usually if they need a symbol to represent the team, they use a side image of the helmet.
Now that I think about it… does any other professional sports team not have a logo?
[/QUOTE]
What about this. It’s been around for decades. Obviously, it wouldn’t cut it in today’s logos on 'roids era, but I do still see it from time to time.
[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
My team (the Browns) don’t have a logo. If they ever tried to add one, there would be an uprising resulting in at least 200 million dollars in property damage. We’re rather proud that we don’t need silly marketing gimmicks like logos, cheerleaders, and winning seasons (ok, so that’s a recent thing) to get us interested in football.
[/QUOTE]
While the Brownies don’t have any emblem on the side of their helmet, they’ve had their share of trademarked logos. Try selling unlicensed orange and brown t-shirts that say “Dog Pound” on them in downtown Cleveland on a football Sunday and see how fast the NFL/Browns merchandising police come down on you.
[QUOTE=zamboniracer]
While the Brownies don’t have any emblem on the side of their helmet, they’ve had their share of trademarked logos. Try selling unlicensed orange and brown t-shirts that say “Dog Pound” on them in downtown Cleveland on a football Sunday and see how fast the NFL/Browns merchandising police come down on you.
[/QUOTE]
That’s true - and I don’t know how I forgot about the Brownie, it comes up for debate every offseason on Browns message boards - but I tend not to think of something as an official, definitive team logo if it’s not located on the uniform anywhere. Recently they’ve had some team equipment and jackets that have featured the Brownie, but nothing ever on the uniform.
