SkyscraperCity Forum banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
...........
Joined
·
29,101 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I really belive Cadbury is in the right with this one:

Chocolate makers in a blue
May 21, 2007 - 2:33PM




Confectionary giant Cadbury Schweppes has had a Federal Court win against competitor Darrell Lee over the use of the colour purple.

Cadbury has accused Darrell Lee of misleading and deceptive conduct by using a shade of purple it alleges bears "a striking and obvious" resemblance to its own "Cadbury Purple".

It alleges this may lead consumers to mistakenly conclude that the rival confectionary companies were connected.

In April last year, a Federal Court judge dismissed Cadbury's claim.

Justice Peter Heerey found that Cadbury did not own the colour purple and Darrell Lee's use of the colour was not likely to convey to the reasonable consumer that it was associated with its rival.

However, three Federal Court justices, in Melbourne, today allowed Cadbury's appeal and ordered a new trial at the same court.

Justices Michael Black, Arthur Emmett and John Middleton found the trial judge erred by dismissing disputed expert evidence, called by Cadbury, as inadmissible.

"It cannot be said that the disputed evidence is of so little weight that it could not influence the result of a new trial, so as to produce a different result," they said in their judgment.

In its claim, Cadbury states that since 1995 it has achieved a substantial, exclusive and valuable reputation and goodwill throughout Australia through the colour "Cadbury Purple".

It alleges that since 2001, Darrell Lee has consistently used a colour bearing a "striking and obvious" likeness to "Cadbury Purple" in its signage, badging, wrapping, store fit-out and point of sale facilities.

The new trial will go before the Federal Court at a date to be fixed.
 

·
Galactic Ruler
Joined
·
6,862 Posts
I am pretty sure Darryl Lea's purple is lighter.

It would be deceptive of them to trade off the Corporate Identity and colour brand of Cadbury, but cadbury can't prove it owns a colour. It would however be very stupid and highly unethical for Darrel Lea to use a purple that deliberately mimicked the Cadbury Purple for purposes of piggyback marketing.

I have never thought the Cadbury purple and Darryl Lea purples appear the same, and have always been able to easily distinguish their products. Putting them side by side I am pretty sure Cadbury's is quite a bit richer and deeper.
 

·
Galactic Ruler
Joined
·
6,862 Posts
Darryl Lea could argue too that chocolate is associated with purple. There are many companies that now use purple to represent chocolates. Wonka, readily uses purple as does some american and german chocolate brands. It's nothing new...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,305 Posts
I don't think they should be able to sue based only on the colour. I think it needs to be based on the packaging and brand image in general, not just one aspect of it.

I can see why they might have allowed an appeal, but I doubt this new hearing should overturn the findings of the first. This article is from the Freehills law firm and basically describes the case:
http://www.freehills.com.au/publications/publications_5795.asp
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
435 Posts
hardly striking =


Shit, better cancel my new commodore SV6 order, its purple (morpheous), Cadbury might take it from me :eek:

TPG better watch out:



What a crock, I don't think you can even by darryl lea outside their shops can you?

Who ever made the first chocolate should sue everyone else for making thier chocolate brown, an is dark/white chocolate being racist?

frankly, if they hue combinations are different then case closed. You can't rely on your monitor accurately displaying the colour correctly, even different printers will have slight differences on the same hue combinations..

Crazy, anyways.... whats the next thread.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top