On Sunday, 8 June 2025 02:28:11 BST G. Branden Robinson wrote: > At 2025-06-07T08:10:35+1000, Robert Thorsby wrote: > > Perhaps I can throw some light on "purple". > > [...] > > > The idiots at Cadbury claim intellectual property rights over the > > colour generally referred to as "purple" and the words "colour > > purple". They are idiots because they cannot validly make such a claim > > -- perhaps in the UK, but only if the UK parliament has enacted a > > special law for that purpose. > > Interesting! I wonder if they've tangled with the Alice Walker estate. > > Regards, > Branden
Hi Branden, I think Alice Walker's estate is safe. What Cadbury trademarked (UK 1995 [1]) was the use of pantone 2685C (one of the many hues under the umbrella term "purple"). It was further restricted to the use of that particular ink on the wrapping of a "chocolate in bar or tablet form". Cadbury were unsuccessful in extending the trademark to their other lines. Since the trademark only applied to an ink (subtractive colour model) I think they would have a difficulty providing any RGB (additive colour) exactly matched. Although #330072 is close, which is not used as the colour name "purple" by either X11 (#a020f0) or HTML (#800080), so I don't think the Cadbury trademark explains the difference between the two "standards". Cadbury never trade marked the word "purple" although they have trade marked some phrases, my favourite being "marvellous smashables", I wonder which advert agency dreamt that one up. [2]. Cheers Deri [1] https://www.thedrum.com/news/2019/02/05/after-two-decades-cadbury-finally-cedes-its-purple-trademark [2] https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00003048998
