* This article was written by Daniel Zendel, partner, and Dennis Prahl, associate, Ladas & Parry.

1. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 115 S.Ct. 1300 (1995).

2. Lanham Trademark Act § 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (1946).

3. Campbell Soup Co. et al.v. Armour & Co., 175 F.2d 795 (3rd Cir. 1949).

4. Quoting from Diamond Match Co. v. Saginaw Match Co., 142 F. 727, 729 (6th Cir. 1906).

5. In re Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 774 F.2d 1116 at 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

6. Id. at 1122.

7. Id. at 1127-28.

8. See, Nutrasweet Co. v. Stadt Corp., 917 F. 2d 1024, 1026, 1028 (7th Cir. 1990) (affirming summary judgment that color blue, per se, could not serve as a trademark for sweetener packets).

9. Qualitex, 115 S.Ct. 1300.

10. United Kingdom Reg. No. B1372291 of February 6, 1989 by Sophia-Jacoba GmbH.

11. United Kingdom Reg. No. 1526441 of February 10, 1993 by The Crosby Group, Inc.

12. United Kingdom Reg. No. B1087349 of November 29, 1977 by Dunlop Sports Company Ltd.

13. International Trademark Association Bulletin, Oct. 2, 1995, at 13.

14. Hoffman-La Roche & Co AG v. DDSA Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 1972 R.P.C. 1.

15. Roche Products Ltd. v. Berk Pharmaceuticals, 1973 R.P.C. 461 and 473. See also, Boots Co. Ltd. v. Approved Prescription Services Ltd., 1988 F.S.R. 44 (C.A.) and Wyeth (John) & Brother Ltd. v. M. & A. Pharmachem Ltd., 1988 F.S.R. 26 (each denying protection in the context of single colors).

16. Trade Marks Act 1994 , Eliz. 2, ch. 26, § 1 (1994).

17. First Council Directive of December 21, 1988, to Approximate the Laws of the Member States Relating to Trade Marks (89/104/EEC), O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L40) 1 (1989).

18. Shell-Farben, LG Düsseldorf GRUR 1987, 443, Shell RGZ GRUR 1933, 39.

19. Aral, OLG Düsseldorf MuW 1930, 540.

20. Rote-Punkt-Garantie, BGHZ GRUR 1982, 51.

21. Lila, BGHZ GRUR 1979, 853.

22. Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, 37 O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L 11) (1994) at Article 4.

23. Report on the Committee of Experts on the Harmonization of Laws for the Protection of Marks Second Session (Geneva, June 25 to 19, 1990), 29 Industrial Property 1990 at 378.

24. See D. Shanahan, Australian Law of Trademarks and Passing Off, 412 (1990) (summarizing that "colour has been protected, including a red wrapper for cough sweets..., grey gas cylinders..., and color schemes for taxis..., buses..., the sails of yachts..., pharmaceutical capsules...").

25. Article 90(V) of the Industrial Property Law of 1991, as amended in 1994.

26. See The Nestle Company Inc., Amparo en revision 6925/62, Supreme Court, Segunda Sala, Decision dated October 19, 1964.

27. Law No. 5.772 of December 21, 1971.

28. In The L.S. Starrett Company and Industria e Comercio L. Starrett S.A. v. The Stanley Works and Ferramentes Stanley S.A. (1987/1988).

29. Unfair Competition Prevention Act (enacted December 30, 1961, as Act No. 911), § 2(1) (prohibits "the use of indicators identical or similar to the...container or packaging of another, which is well known in Korea, or the sales, distribution, importation or exportation of goods bearing such indicators so as to cause confusion with the goods of another.").

30. See In re General Electric Broadcasting Co., 199 USPQ 560, 563 (T.T.A.B. 1978) (a series of bells for radio broadcasting services was held to be capable of functioning as a service mark upon evidence of acquired distinctiveness. The decision also referred to other sound marks that had been registered in respect of series of musical chimes, sound of a creaking door, sound of a coin spinning on a hard surface and electrically produced series of three notes).

31. United States Trademark Reg. No. 916522.

32. Harley Davidson Wants to Register a Roar, N.Y. Times, October 8, 1995, §1 at 26.

33. In re General Electric Broadcasting Co., 199 USPQ at 563.

34. Report, supra note 23 at 378.

35. Sweden, Sound Marks, 50 Int'l. TM Assoc. Bulletin October 2, 1995, at 3 (Swedish Trademark Office recently rejected an application for an ice cream vendor vehicle sound mark because the written notes and description illustrating the sound were too vague for the general public to discern the scope of protection of the mark).

36. See Decision of September 17, 1986, BPatG Case No. 29 W (pat) 89/85, upheld by Decision of November 5, 1987, BGH Case No. 1 ZB 11/86 (sound marks that lack visual representation and are only distinctive when played as a melody cannot be granted protection under the Trademark Act then in force).

37. Unfair Competition Prevention Act, supra note 36.

38. In re Clarke, 17 USPQ2d 1238 (TTAB 1990).