Foo - Stupid arrogant corporations.

So I'm looking at the tracking page for some bike parts I ordered, and I notice this note at the bottom of the page:


UPS, UPS brandmark, and the Color Brown are trademarks of United Parcel Service of America, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The color brown?! They trademarked a color? Successfully? Ugh.

I think tomorrow, in honor of Talk Like A Pirate Day, we should have a good, old-fashioned keelhauling. The jackass marketing dweeb that came up with the idea and the schmuck at the USPTO that accepted the application would be a good start.

In the meantime, it's flagrant trademark infringement time!

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4210/colorbrownjg8.jpghttp://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4210/colorbrownjg8.jpg
brownbrownbrownbrownbrownbrownbrownbrownbrown
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4210/colorbrownjg8.jpghttp://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4210/colorbrownjg8.jpg

You need to find out the *specific* brown that they use, because it's probably very clearly defined. In UPS's defence, they have probably only trademarked the use of that specific brown under specific circumstances. Or maybe not... that could be why Surly doesn't offer Skidmark Brown any more.

Edit: Except, I guess Surly *does* still offer Skidmark Brown. Go Surly!

It's actually more common then you may think.

It's actually more common then you may think.There is no doubt in my mind that more idiotic things than colors have been trademarked, patented, and copyrighted.

But this is still pretty stupid.

There is no doubt in my mind that more idiotic things than colors have been trademarked, patented, and copyrighted.

But this is still pretty stupid.

I'm specifically referring to color.

Pullman Brown[citation needed] is the color of the United Parcel Service (UPS) delivery company with their trademark brown trucks and uniforms. UPS is a trademark of UPS. In its advertising, UPS refers to itself as "Brown" ("What can Brown do for you?").

The color UPS Brown is trademark, which prevents other delivery companies from using it as part of their brand.


Wikipedia

Skidmarks are brown too; Anyone want to trademark those?

A trademark only affects certain uses of a particular item. UPS, has established the color brown as part of its identity over a long period of time. Recently it has begun making "brown" a synonym for the company itself ("What can Brown [UPS] do for you?") So it would have reason to be concerned about small independent companies painting their trucks brown and putting their personnel in brown uniforms in the hope of confusing the public. It isn't like the trademark applies outside of the area of advertising and competing in the shipping businesses, so, No, UPS has not actually trademarked "Brown" anymore than Trump tried to trademark the phrase, "You're fired!" or Wal-Mart trademarked all uses of the word "Always!"

Apparently the TM is still pending since there is another trucking company that has registered the name.

I have blue trademarked.

I thought that was Raiyn.

Some years ago Harley Davidson lost a battle with the USPTO to use the "sound" of a Harley as a trademark. It was denied saying that a sound can not trademarked.

Now, being from Tampa, and everyone knows Tampa is the Pirate Capital of the US, all I have to say is ...Arrrrgg Matey! <with patch over right eye>

Apparently the TM is still pending since there is another trucking company that has registered the name.

I wonder if I can get a trademark for the little "TM". Now that could be worth a forture.

Apparently the TM is still pending since there is another trucking company that has registered the name.

Yep, Brown Trucking in Georgia. It's the dudes last name too/

Some years ago Harley Davidson lost a battle with the USPTO to use the "sound" of a Harley as a trademark. It was denied saying that a sound can not trademarked.


Interesting, but it can probably be copyrighted...just like a song. :D

In shipping departments, if they don't care what company is used to ship the parts, they write "Best Way" on the shipping order.

So..we have a trucking company in LA called...you guessed it..."Best Way"!

I suppose this can work against you, too...

"Why is it when they move stuff by ship it's call cargo, and when they move it by truck it's called a shipment?" - Gallagher

I suppose this can work against you, too...

"Why is it when they move stuff by boat it's call a cargo, and when they move it by truck it's called shipment?" - Gallagher
Fixed it for you. :)

I have copyright laws for X136. You will be hearing from my solicitors.

Good Day Sir!

Jsharr United Amalgamated Limited.

Yea, lot of companies do that, ever hear of Coke Red?

Well, we can patent genes (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml)(yes, we can!), so why not colors?

I'm all with you on this one. This has been on my radar for a few years now.

Microsoft uses all these normal words for their software products and then trademarks the names so they can't be used in other software products (or who knows what else).
Windows and Explorer I know are trademarked names. We developed an explorer like control one time at my work and could not use the word "Explorer" in it. We had to call it a "File Navigator" so we didn't infringe on M$ trademark on the word "Explorer".

The color brown?! They trademarked a color? Successfully? Ugh.

The company I work for has trademarked a colour, too. Realize, that trademarking a colour doesn't mean that no one else in the world can use it. It means that for the specific contexts for which you've trademarked it, no one else can use it. (Like no other cola cans use Coca-Cola's specific shade of red. They're close, but not dead-on.)
In the case of UPS, that would mean: trucks, uniforms, advertising, etc. having to do with parcel delivery. I'm betting that if you owned a candy company, and used UPS Brown as a wrapper colour for chocolate bars, there would be very little argument against it.
There's plenty of other companies that use our trademarked shade of green. There aren't any other biotech companies that manufacture immunofluorescent assays using this particular shade of green to advertise their products.

(Like no other cola cans use Coca-Cola's specific shade of red. They're close, but not dead-on.)I was thinking of this exact example this morning. While I'm sure UPS and Coca-Cola (and others) had to at least specify an exact shade of "their" respective colors, color is a subjective thing. At least subjective enough for UPS/Coca-Cola's vast empire of lawyers to crush, kill, and destroy whatever smaller company they set their eyes on. Most likely using the "You're confusing our customers!" argument. Because they apparently think so little of their apparently idiotic customers, that they think they'd be confused if Bob's Discount Box Sendin' happened to use generic brown trucks. :rolleyes:

We developed an explorer like control one time at my work and could not use the word "Explorer" in it. We had to call it a "File Navigator" so we didn't infringe on M$ trademark on the word "Explorer".Perhaps you didn't think that one through (http://browser.netscape.com/) all the way... :p

Yeah, I realize that Microsoft has a lot more smooshing power than whatever little is left of Netscape, but that's the thing. Microsoft has the money and the power to do pretty much as it pleases, whereas if Microsoft trampled on some smaller company's property, boo hoo to them. Here's a million bucks, **** off.

Perhaps you didn't think that one through (http://browser.netscape.com/) all the way... :pMaybe its ok as it is not a browser. It's control that gives similar functionality as the Windows Explorer (not Internet Explorer).

Oh, right, Windows Explorer. I forgot that Microsoft isn't even clever enough to come up with different generic, everyday terms to trademark for vastly different tasks. They just cover this up by making one application do both things... :rolleyes:

Oh, right, Windows Explorer. I forgot that Microsoft isn't even clever enough to come up with different generic, everyday terms to trademark for vastly different tasks. They just cover this up by making one application do both things... :rolleyes:

Exactly! :)

They probably want less names for people to remember so they know which "names" to "BUY".

Yea, lot of companies do that, ever hear of Coke Red?

That's a nasal condition, right?

I was thinking of this exact example this morning. While I'm sure UPS and Coca-Cola (and others) had to at least specify an exact shade of "their" respective colors, color is a subjective thing. At least subjective enough for UPS/Coca-Cola's vast empire of lawyers to crush, kill, and destroy whatever smaller company they set their eyes on. Most likely using the "You're confusing our customers!" argument. Because they apparently think so little of their apparently idiotic customers, that they think they'd be confused if Bob's Discount Box Sendin' happened to use generic brown trucks. :rolleyes:

Colour (when viewed by an individual) may be subjective, depending on lighting conditions and the person's perceptive abilities... but colour itself is a very measurable, objective trait. Check out the colour matching systems from Pantone, and you'll know what I'm talking about.

As for Bob's DBS using brown trucks (maybe even with a goldenrod "DBS" logo in a shield-like emblem,) there's a reason that companies lawyer up and get all pissy when someone does this. Trademark dilution is a big problem. Xerox, Kleenex, Elmer's Glue... they've all gotten shafted by trademark dilution. Xerox (a company name) has been diluted to the point of being "verbed." Kleenex has come to represent all tissues, and pretty much any brand of plain white glue is called Elmer's.
The knockoff companies that use successful companies pre-existing colour schemes (like the orange/blue/white of Elmer's) are offering a less expensive and often inferiour product and attempting to draw market share away from the pre-existing product by mimicking their marketing tactics (which another company paid to design.) Marketing, advertising and graphic design don't come cheap; so companies protect their trademarked logos and insignias.

Exactly! :)

They probably want less names for people to remember so they know which "names" to "BUY".I'm sure it's only a matter of time before we see the Office Explorer Suite, packed full of useful software like Text Explorer, Spreadsheet Explorer, and Presentation Explorer. The Professional edition even comes with Database Explorer!

The Professional edition even comes with Database Explorer!I hope not....this was something else that a team I was on was thinking of creating. :eek::rolleyes:

Remember the Coca Cola polar bears? A few years back Coke wanted to trade mark the polar bear and tried to take on the small beverage company Polar Beverage (http://www.polarbev.com/) and to try and force them from using the polar bear as their logo.

Coke lost. :D

As for Bob's DBS using brown trucks (maybe even with a goldenrod "DBS" logo in a shield-like emblem,) there's a reason that companies lawyer up and get all pissy when someone does this. Trademark dilution is a big problem.I realize this (not that I can find it in me to care all that much), and I'm not talking about intentional (or at least malicious) aping of style.

I suppose what it comes down to is irritation at using blunt force to protect something as irrelevant as a marketing campaign and/or "branding". I'd be just as happy walking down an aisle at the supermarket, seeing items in plain, brown boxes with a factual, textual description (and maybe a line drawing) of the contents. In fact, I would prefer it over the current shiny, flashy, look-at-me packaging created with who knows how many chemicals and crap, and costing who knows how much to develop and create. To me, most marketing is a waste of money, and just makes the products I buy more expensive to pay for it.

Things like trademarking colors just jumps out at me as a severe symptom of such disease.

That's a nasal condition, right?

Haha I knew someone would bring it there

The less brown we see, the better....

http://cdn.davesdaily.com/pictures/211-upsgirl.jpg

Remember the Coca Cola polar bears? A few years back Coke wanted to trade mark the polar bear and tried to take on the small beverage company Polar Beverage (http://www.polarbev.com/) and to try and force them from using the polar bear as their logo.

Coke lost. :D

I remember Polar's retaliation to Coke suing them....the infamous "polar bear disgust" commercial.

A coke bear takes a sip of a red bottle, makes a face of disgust and spits it out....then opens a bottle of Polar up, and is utterly delighted with it.

Coke got pretty butt-hurt over that one, and a judge did allow for that commercial to be pulled, since there was a coke bottle in it(although the logos were nuked).

Fixed it for you. :)

You always have my back...thanks!

...at least I spelled his name right...