Colour in branding - asserting a monopoly in a colour for marketing purposes - the Cadbury - Darrell Lea litigation

Peter Gillies

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    This article reviews the litigation between Cadbury and Darrell Lea concerning the use of the colour purple in marketing chocolate products in Australia. At the time of the conduct in question, Cadbury had not registered use of the colour purple as a trade mark, and indeed Cadbury has yet to succeed in registering purple, owing to Darrell Lea’s continuing opposition. The litigation concerned unsuccessful actions pursuant to ss 52 and 53(c) and (d) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and an action in passing off in which Cadbury in substance sought to maintain a monopoly over purple in retailing chocolate. The general principles governing the use of and legal protection of colour in marketing are commented upon, as are the utility and limitations of expert evidence in this class of case.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)253-265
    Number of pages13
    JournalInternational trade and business law review
    Volume12
    Publication statusPublished - 2009

    Keywords

    • Cadbury
    • colour purple
    • monopoly
    • tort of passing of
    • s52 Trade Practices Act (Cth)
    • expert evidence

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Colour in branding - asserting a monopoly in a colour for marketing purposes - the Cadbury - Darrell Lea litigation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this