The colour of a product, its packaging or the material used to promote it is often a crucial way of distinguishing the goods and services of one trader from those of another. The use of colour in a product or its packaging is widely recognised as being crucial to building a brand image and marketing and advertising agencies agonise long and hard when deciding which colour, or shade accurately reflect the brand values. (source)
Deutsche Telekom, the mother company of T-Mobile, owns the European trademark on a specific color of magenta, to be used within the tele-communications sector.
But people are taking color trademarks the wrong way, and there is outrage on the web.
There's even a fun "Free Magenta" site that has been created in opposition to this demand for exclusivity. My question is, are they for real, or is this merely a parody?
What people need to understand is that a color can be trademarked for branding purposes, but only within the scope of its specific industry niche. This actually isn't all that revolutionary. Owens-Corning has a trademark on the use of pink for insulation, and Tiffany & Co. has a trademark on its signature robin's-egg blue for their jewelry brand. Just think, if a construction company started using tiffany blue on their building materials, this would not affect Tiffany's brand.
I really want to squelch these common misconceptions that spread like wildfires online.