Rainbow Trademark of UCI?
 

I was recently reading an article on "the curse of the rainbow jersey" and it mentioned that the UCI has trademarked the colours and you should pay a fee to feature them on a product.

How is this possible? How can you trademark five main colours in a specific order?

For example:

http://2-ps.googleusercontent.com/x/...es7naql7Ej.jpg

Does Fred Perry need to pay a licence fee to make this shirt?

And after all, how stupid is that?

well, I guess the olympic games are in for a surprise then, they've had those colors on the 5 olympic rings since forever!!

I did not know what Fred Perry was but now I do, I like that polo shirt and will probably buy it. THanks! I really like the World Champion themed clothing and bikes.

PS I've been looking for it and I can't find it.

I would assume that it only applies to the use on cycling clothing or some such thing.

Not the same thing in any related way. The IOC has (and should have) the trademark to the rings because it has some design in it. We're talking about coloured stripes here. STRIPES!

I can just go and manufacture a polyester (or merino wool whatever) shirt with pockets at the back and call it "archery equipment". Where do you draw the line?

That's just how trademarks work, feel free to argue with your associated government entity to change the laws. It's the same way that UPS has their color brown trademarked and t-mobile's magenta trademarked.

In particular, the international registration number that UCI has for their 'rainbow stripes' trademark (pdf link to their license program) is 1032330. Looking it up via the international registry shows the related goods that the trademark is for:

Back in the day, Gary Klein got a patent for bike frame "stiffness" and I believe he successfully sued cannondale for infringement.

No doubt the "Trademark" system is crooked and flawed in many ways. What I don't get is this is the governing body of the sport and I just think they're being greedy. I've read some riders getting fined for not complying some regulations about their rainbow jerseys but I don't think they've sued anyone for a product for now.

I just wonder if that happens one day, won't that be weirder than the Specialized Roubaix case?

What's the problem with the UCI having rights to its symbol?

The UCI has used the rainbow stripes for decades and built equity in the World Championship franchise. It's not any different than other trademarks.

Why should other companies be allowed to copy the symbol that the UCI has developed and invested money in promoting.

The shirt you show in your post is clearly copying off the World Championship jersey with the rainbow stripes on the chest, and the bands on the sleeves.

The reason people find the shirt appealing is because of it's association with the World Championship whether they know it consciously or not.

Either find your own design, or pay to license the one your copying. What's unfair about that?

I don't see any problem. If you mean by its symbol the UCI logo, they should have every right to it (and they do). I'm just confused with the idea of having rights to a particular set of colours in a particular order.

It is different than any other trademark. The UCI is a sports governing body and thus should be non-profit. Their sole purpose is not making trade.

I don't know about the trademarks but a patent lasts for 20 years. As you mentioned earlier, this is an ongoing tradition for decades and it is a part of cycling tradition by now.

Do you think car manufacturers still pay Volvo for the idea of seatbelt? They do not. In fact they never did! It was an open patent and any car manufacturer used them free of charge. What we're talking about is the three point seatbelt, one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century.

If the "unlicenced" use of the rainbow stripes will encourage more people to ride bikes I say why not set it free? The UCI will benefit from that as well.

Trademarks last as long as you keep them registered, and protected. Bass' red triangle has been a registered trademark for a couple hundred years.

Coca Cola has been a trademark for 100. do you think people should be able to use Coca Cola on their products?

The fact that the trademark is simple, i.e 5 colored stripes in particular colors and order doesn't mean its not protectable, e.g. bass's triangle, the olympic rings, red soles on high heels.

As for the UCI being a non profit, that's irrelevent. Pretty sure the IOC is also non profit.

I'm sure having more rainbow stripes on more things will certainly increase the riding of bikes.

FWIW: That's not a rainbow. The colors are in the wrong order.

I work in accounting and am not an attorney; [MENTION=38651]merlinextraligh[/MENTION] can feel free to correct me.

The company I work for is an agricultural equipment manufacturer, and I think the issue here lies with how the color or combination of colors is used. For instance, we are not allowed to use the colors green and yellow together on any of our products. John Deere has explicitly told us so. Our own attorneys have told us this: We can use green, we can use yellow, we cannot not use them together on any agricultural equipment. If we were making, say, garage doors or coffee cups, we could use whatever color combos we want (as long as it doesn't imply John Deere). The same way with the aforementioned UPS. I can make whatever I want in UPS brown and yellow, but I would not be able to start a freight/courier business using those colors.

We have even lost sales because of this. Many of our customers want our equipment in green and yellow to match their John Deere tractors and combines, and are baffled because we won't offer it to them. We have offered to pay licensing fees, but Deere isn't interested. This also goes for any shade of green and yellow; it isn't a matter of offering a similar (but different) shade and calling it good, it covers any use of those two colors together. What we ended up doing was to continue using green as the dominant color (the exact same shade of green as JD, by the way), and replaced the yellow with another neutral color. This way the equipment will at least not clash.

As much as I don't want to, I understand their argument. They've spent years building up a brand and reputation with those colors. Someone else using them implies an association and would become free advertising. At the same time, producing faulty or sub par equipment could be a detriment to them if someone associated the two.

What about this then?

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/005...g?v=1314217869

That is awesome.

I get where you're going with the coffee cup thing, but if you want to really be picky about it the phrase "Look mum no hands" is a common one pertaining to cycling, so that might be something where UCI could complain.

That said, in no way do we need more lawsuits. There are plenty of legitimate ones out there already :)

Whether for profit or not, the UCI still has bills to pay and licensing trademarks is a rather innocuous way to do it.

Patents and trademarks are completely different and not useful for comparison.

I don't see why an arrangement of colors should be treated in a different way than an arrangement of letters.

Adidas has a trademark on three stripes - why shouldn't the UCI be able to trademark five stripes in a specific color progression?