Up to 90 percent of a consumer's initial judgment of a product is based on color*. Considering this, and how color increases brand recognition by 80 percent, it's worth it for companies to greatly consider their colors. At the agency we consider color as one of the components of distinctiveness that we know is our job to bring to brands.
Some brands go quite far quite far legally with their colors.
I get asked, 'how far'?
There are a handful of companies who have successfully owned a color:
To successfully secure such a trademark, a company must prove that a single color:
- Achieves “secondary meaning” (distinguishes a product from competitors and identifies the company as the definitive source of the product)
- Doesn’t put competitors at a disadvantage by affecting cost or quality
- Doesn’t serve a functional purpose
This last piece means that “a color really has to be quite arbitrary” to be trademarked: It can’t be essential to the production of the product or serve any utilitarian purpose.
Sometimes, proving all of his can be extremely challenging.
General Mills, for instance, has twice failed to secure a trademark on yellow for its Cheerios box, on the grounds that the color isn’t synonymous with the brand since too many other cereal companies use it in their branding.
Pepto-Bismol’s attempts to trademark pink were thwarted when a court deemed that the “therapeutic” effect the color had on customers was “functional.”
Many companies trademark colors in conjunction with logos, of course. Of those, blue and red are the two most popular at 18 percent each, followed by yellow (according to the US Trademark Office).
Want to know more... start with The Hustle, who's nice rundown is the majority of this post.
Sources