Re:Fluke owns trademark on multimeters with "contrasting yel...
by pilom on Wednesday March 19, 2014 @11:36AM
(#7429350)
A second example of trade dress is Coca-Cola red and white with the cursive font. For instance, this shirt [1] in red almost certainly violates Coca-Cola's trade dress.
[1] http://www.cafepress.com/mf/34611212/enjoy-capitalism_tshirt...
Re:Fluke owns trademark on multimeters with "contrasting yel...
by leephillips on Wednesday March 19, 2014 @11:59AM
(#7429553)
Perhaps if the shirt is also a soft drink. Otherwise I think the likelihood of consumer confusion is pretty slim.
Re:Fluke owns trademark on multimeters with "contrasting yel...
by pilom on Wednesday March 19, 2014 @04:21PM
(#7431577)
In the case of the shirt, there isn't confusion about if it is a soft drink, but a lawyer could successfully argue that a customer might buy the shirt thinking it was a coca-cola shirt. If the coca-cola trade dress did not exist, it is extremely unlikely that a shirt with that design would be marketed.
Re:Fluke owns trademark on multimeters with "contrasting yel...
by Floegipoky on Wednesday March 19, 2014 @11:45AM
(#7429429)
Doesn't fair use apply to this?
Industrial design usually won't qualify because it's functional. The color comes from the use of aluminum, aluminum is used for its structural properties, particular colors have more aesthetic value in the market, etc. Trade dress has to be more specific, not functional, and arbitrary.
A classic example is pink for Owens-Corning insulation. It's a totally arbitrary color choice for a product where aesthetics doesn't factor into buyers' choices, and had become strongly associated in the public with Owens-Corning's brand. If there was a functional reason for the pink color, or it was a situation where people would prefer a certain color for aesthetic reasons, the design choice wouldn't have been eligible for protection.