shutterstock_89856973_northfoto
13 May 2019Trademarks

Prince estate steps up efforts to register purple TM

The estate of the late singer Prince has filed a 430-page submission to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) outlining the musician’s association with the colour purple.

The file is the latest evidence presented by Paisley Park Enterprises, the business entity representing Prince’s estate, in its bid to trademark the colour.

Paisley Park filed the trademark application in October 2018, after New Jersey company Pantone claimed to have created a shade of purple called ‘Love Symbol #2’ in 2017.

In the trademark application, Paisley Park identifies the colour claimed by its mark as “the approximate equivalent of [the] Pantone Matching System colour identified as Love Symbol #2”.

Paisley Park noted that Prince adopted the name Love Symbol #2 in 1993.

The USPTO initially rejected Paisley Park’s application in 2018, noting that many artists had an association with or used the colour purple to promote their music.

In the decision, the USPTO said that the colour alone would not indicate the source of goods or services as being Prince to the public.

The latest response filed by Paisley Park seeks to establish a clear brand association between Prince and the colour purple.

It includes screenshots of reactions to the singer’s death in 2016, such as images of the singer performing against a purple backdrop and the Eiffel Tower being lit in purple.

Paisley Park’s efforts do not mark the first time a company has sought to gain rights over the colour purple.

Last month, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) invalidated two Cadbury marks  for the shade Pantone 2685C after opposition from Nestlé.

One of Cadbury’s trademarks for the colour for purple ‘as shown on the form of application, applied to the whole visible surface of the packaging of the goods’, survived the Nestlé opposition.

The UKIPO ruled that the Pantone code 2685C was sufficient to indicate the colour claimed by the mark, after Nestlé claimed that the description of the mark was ambiguous.

This story was first reported on by  The Fashion Law blog.

Did you enjoy reading this story?  Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.

Today's top stories:

US federal court to rule on liability for image hyperlinks

PTAB upholds Motorola patents in Hytera dispute

Chinese police seize more than 200,000 counterfeit hard drives

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk


More on this story

Trademarks
16 April 2019   The UK Intellectual Property Office has delivered a mixed verdict after Nestle opposed three of Cadbury’s trademarks for its signature colour purple.
Copyright
3 July 2019   A ruling that a series of illustrations of late musician Prince by artist Andy Warhol are transformative and do not infringe a photographer’s copyright followed previous arguments made by the courts, said lawyers.
Copyright
29 March 2021   A US federal appeals court has ruled that Andy Warhol’s “Prince Series”, featuring modified images of the late pop star, infringed a photographer’s copyright and did not qualify as fair use.