Tiffany will be very CROSS !!!!!!

[Matata]

Date: 5/5/2005 8:42

6 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

from Tiffany.com

The names TIFFANY, TIFFANY & CO., T&CO. 1837, TIFFANY CLASSICS, TIFFANY FOR MEN, TIFFANY MARK, TIFFANY NATURE, TIFFANY PLAYGROUND, TIFFANY SEASHORE, TIFFANY SIGNATURE, TIFFANY TOYS, AMERICAN GARDEN, ATLAS, FIREWORKS, LUCIDA, SCHLUMBERGER, SELECTIONS, STREAMERICA AND TESORO, as well as the TIFFANY BLUE BOX and the color TIFFANY BLUE are trademarks of Tiffany (NJ) Inc. and/or its affiliates and are used under license.

All designs copyrighted by Tiffany and Company, except where otherwise noted.

ELSA PERETTI, DIAMONDS BY THE YARD, PEARLS BY THE YARD and BEAN DESIGN are trademarks of Elsa Peretti. Elsa Peretti designs copyrighted by Elsa Peretti.

PALOMA PICASSO and X DESIGN are trademarks of Paloma Picasso. Paloma Picasso designs copyrighted by Paloma Picasso.

For those with a burning curiosity, trademarks can be searched here. Diamonds by the yard is trademarked; tiffany blue is not. I didn''t do the entire list.

I''m not sure how I feel about the fairness of the ad in question. From my point of view as a consumer, I think it''s clever advertising. It made me laugh. It would not change my mind about purchasing from Tiffany if I were inclined to do so.

 

[Rowan]

I watched something on tv about colors and the people who make the shades and name them and they said that particular shade of blue was created/formulated especially for Tiffany&Co.

 

[Matata]

Date: 5/6/2005 5:32

3 PM
Author: Rowan
I watched something on tv about colors and the people who make the shades and name them and they said that particular shade of blue was created/formulated especially for Tiffany&Co.

Created especially for Tiffany by Mother Nature. Ever see a Robin''s egg?

 

[Matata]

Couldn'' resist.

 

[Rowan]

Oh I know and I've always heard it referred to as Robin's Egg Blue, but it was interesting watching them talk about being commissioned by Tiffany to make a color for them.

 

[lostdog]

I can't resist this since so many people are so sure. Here we go:

You can register a color as a trademark and Tiffany has done so.

(It's not a copyright, which is about the expression of an idea (though not the idea itself). It's not patent, patent is (in theory) something functional, novel, and non-obvious.)

Copyright, and patent for that matter, have fixed lengthss of time. Trademark goes on and on if the holder wishes, so Tiffany Blue is not expiring anytime soon.

Owens-Corning registered pink, when used for batts of insulation, as their trademark. Just try to start a delivery service where you paint all the trucks brown with yellow lettering, and dress your workers in brown uniforms, and see what kind of correspondence UPS sends you.

For Tiffany, it's an aspect of trade dress, and if you try to sell something in such a manner that there is a strong likelihood of confusion between your product and a trademarked product, then company whose looks you are infringing has a good chance of winning a case against you.

The trademark doesn't even have to be registered. As long as they can prove in court that there is an association in the mind of the public, and that the other company was trying to take advantage of that, it's a trademark infringement. The registration just provides a little more protection and makes possible court case harder to defend.

You can claim trademark protection on shapes of products or packages, colors, names, sound (Harley-Davidson did), slogans, letters, and logos when used in trade.

Coca-Cola claims the little wavy line on their cans and bottles as a trademark. They call it the "Dynamic Ribbon Device". If you weren't in the beverage business, you might have a shot at using something similar on your product. You could open up Tiffany's Dog Grooming as your own business, but probably not Tiffany's Gifts and defintiely not Tiffany's Jewelry, all for the same reason you also can't use that exact shade of blue when you compete with Tiffany&Co's lines of business or even if you sell things T&C might reasonably also sell in the future.

There are a ton of gray areas here, you can guess, and that's what keeps the lawyers busy. House brands in the supermarket try to shave that line very close. Sometimes on purpose to goad the name brand companies for not cutting their margins. These battles go on all the time.

But it's not about whether they invented blue or boxes or anything else. T&C have been using the color in a certain manner in their business long enough that they have established it as their trademark. (the actual term is "Acquired Distinctiveness", which has a great double meaning if you are into social theories about shopping...somebody should trademark those words themselves).

* If you can't sleep, here's the actual law about color as a trademark.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmep/1200.htm#_Toc98817711

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thsanks LostDog

 

[katrina_33]

OK, but the point remains that this ad is specifically NOT trying to confuse consumers into thinking that their products are or have something to do with Tiff''s, it''s referencing Tiff''s "acquired distinctiveness" and contrasting it. The whole point of the ad is "we''re different from that other company in that you''re NOT paying for the branding and ''acquired discinctiveness'' when you come to us!"

 

[perry]

While Lostdog is right about US Trademark law, the laws are different in the other counties - and some countries have no "Trademark" protections at all.

Note that these adds are not being run in the US. I''ll bet that Tiffiny has no legal standing on the Trademark issue down under...

Perry

 

[lostdog]

That's a good pint, er, point. Certainly my comments were limited to US law, as that was what T&C is most often operating under.

And I should more accurately have said that "They can register a color as a trademark...". since I don't know if you (or I) can presently do so ourselves, not having acquired distinction.

As for what principles apply in other countries, protections for such things are growing, and certain treaties expand those rights. It would be a pretty intricate thing to come to the actual answer for how Tiffany's rights, established under US law are protected in Australia, because it would revolve on US, Aus, and the agreements to which both countries are members. I am not a lawyer, IP or otherwise, and unless anybody else around here is, it seems somehwat far out on a limb to be able to know what the law might be since it might not be the same as a purely Aussie vs. Aussie situation.

And I don't think anybody can offer conclusions, but only opinions on whether the non-Tiffany ad in question is acceptable practice. Well, at least anybody other than the person judging the case, if there ever is one. Does the ad use T&C's trademarks for comparison? Or is it running an ad designed to look like T&C and attract attention on that basis? As said in the beginning, you can use the trademarks to identify other prodcuts for the comparison, but if you erected a sign over your restaurant with big golden arches, but your name underneath in smaller type and a claiming to have better food, you would be rolling the dice as to getting away with it.

The big one right now along these lines is Google/Geico. Google is selling "Geico" as a keyword triggering advertising that comes up on the search page and says that the practice is not an infringment. Geico says that Google is using their trasdemark to sell competitor's insurance. For either position you can take on this, there is a pretty strong counter-example that seems to demonstrate the postion is wrong, but also completely legal and widely accepted similar practices. Nobody knows the answer because it has't been decided yet. (If you are interested, Google Geico and Google. ) A lot of things have come along in the last few years about trademark dilution, particularly concerning the internet where things published electronically might not be permissable, though on old-fashioned ink and paper they might be. It's a huge area of uncertainty, and some major decisions in this will happen within a few years with big repercussions for the intetrnet or trademakrs or both.

 

[codex57]

Date: 5/8/2005 4:22:31 PM
Author: lostdog

And I don't think anybody can offer conclusions, but only opinions on whether the non-Tiffany ad in question is acceptable practice. Well, at least anybody other than the person judging the case, if there ever is one. Does the ad use T&C's trademarks for comparison? Or is it running an ad designed to look like T&C and attract attention on that basis? As said in the beginning, you can use the trademarks to identify other prodcuts for the comparison, but if you erected a sign over your restaurant with big golden arches, but your name underneath in smaller type and a claiming to have better food, you would be rolling the dice as to getting away with it.

Wasn't the ad shown at the beginning of the thread? It's used for comparison. The company isn't trying to mislead the public into thinking their stuff is Tiffany's stuff. It's poking fun at Tiffany's, without saying their name specifically.

I imagine they're fine legally as I see ads from DHS doing the exact same thing to Fedex and UPS. Coke and Pepsi go at it all the time. Same with Budweiser and Miller.

 

[MissAva]

BurgerKing got introuble for this a few years ago. Chick Fil A has a font they use for their eat more chicken ads with Cows in them, so cute! Anyway with the chciken movie came out when they all tryt o escape BK ran a series of ads they had a smiliar but not the same font in them. They were sued and lost big time...it was the exact same but it was still wrong.