Archive for the ‘Eco-Marks’ category

Green Patent Acquisitions: Ecover Buys Method’s Green Cleaning Tech and Business

September 27th, 2012

Method is a San Francisco company that makes green cleaning products. Recently, the company’s Belgian competitor, Ecover, acquired Method in a deal that would create the world’s largest pure play green home cleaning company (see Greenbiz article here).

Method has a diverse IP portfolio which includes at least seven utility patents and applications, over 40 trademark applications and registrations, and at least 15 design patent applications.

More particularly, Method owns U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2010/0093595 and 2010/0299846, entitled “Liquid cleaning compositions” (Cleaning Compositions Applications) and directed to cleaning compositions comprising a surfactant system, a certain percentage of water, a solvent system, and an enzyme. The cleaning compositions are in a form of continuous phase and provide improved cleaning efficacy with lower active doses of cleaning ingredients.

According to the Cleaning Compositions Applications, the invention can be used in highly concentrated form and thus provides advantages such as the need for less packaging and reduced energy consumption in shipping and lower volume of active ingredients to dispose of:

[E]mbodiments of the cleaning compositions . . . provide several advantages over known compositions, including but not limited to the ability to create an efficacious cleaning composition in a highly concentrated form (e.g., 4x, preferably 5x, more preferably 6x concentrates), thereby minimizing packaging requirements and energy consumption for packaging and shipping; lower quanitities of actives are required per washload, reducing the cost of the products, as well as minimizing the amount of cleaning activities added to sewer and septic systems and the environment; less packaging to recycle or add to landfills; etc.

As to green brands, Method owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,078,271 for the mark POWERGREEN for a variety of cleaning preparations in Class 3.

Method’s design patents include D522,372, D541,661, D614,032 and D619,008 (’008 Patent), which protect various bottle designs such as this one of the ’008 Patent:

According to the Greenbiz article, the partnership will provide each company access to new geographic markets and technical information such as Method’s developments in green solvents and Ecover’s biosynthetic surfactants.

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks, Green Patents

EPEAT Certification Highlights Importance of Eco-labels

August 3rd, 2012

EPEAT, Inc. (EPEAT) is an Oregon company that administers an environmental rating program certifying green computers and other electronic equipment.

Manufacturers can register their products as EPEAT certified, and purchasers, whether they are large institutions or individuals, can use EPEAT’s searchable registry to select certified products to buy.

Products that satisfy the EPEAT criteria, based on IEEE environmental standards, are EPEAT certified. More particularly, a product has to meet all of EPEAT’s required criteria to earn certification and, depending on how many of the optional criteria are met, the product is designated Bronze, Silver or Gold.

EPEAT owns two U.S. Certification Mark Registrations for its brand. U.S. Registration No. 3,534,585 is for the EPEAT word mark, and U.S. Registration No. 3,534,586 is for the EPEAT design mark pictured above.

Both registrations are for “electronic equipment” in Class A and each states that the mark ”certifies that the goods meet environmental standards set out by the certifier.”

Certification marks differ from ordinary trademarks in that, instead of indicating the commercial source of a product or service, they communicate that goods or services meet certain quality or manufacturing standards. They are owned not by the individual businesses, but by the organizations that set the standards, in this case EPEAT.

For the certification mark application process, it is the certifying organization, not the ultimate user, that applies to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for federal registration of a certification mark.

The EPEAT certification has been in the news recently because of Apple’s equivocation on whether to use it for its computers. Apple decided to drop its EPEAT certification, but did a 180 after several high-profile customers indicated that they would be unable to buy Apple’s monitors, laptops or desktop computers absent the certification.

According to this Greenbiz piece, many government agencies and corporations use the EPEAT registry as a guideline for IT procurement. Clearly, eco-labels, particularly independent third party environmental certifications such as EPEAT, are becoming essential for doing business.

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks, Energy Efficiency

Lighting Science Hits Electronic Lighting Science with LED Eco-mark Suit

July 13th, 2012

Lighting Science Group (LSG) is a Florida-based designer and manufacturer of LED lighting products, including retrofit lamps, luminaires, and lighting solutions for architectural and design projects.

LSG has been marketing its products under the brand name Lighting Science for about eight years, and LSG owns three trademark and service mark registrations for the mark LIGHTING SCIENCE.

U.S. Registration Nos. 3,121,689 and 3,948,258 are for various LED bulbs, lighting systems, lamps, and light fixtures in Class 11, and U.S. Registration No. 3,929,071 is for installation, manufacturing, and design and development services relating to LED lighting in Classes 37, 40 and 42, respectively (collectively, LIGHTING SCIENCE Marks).

Recently, LSG sued Electronic Lighting Science (ELS) for infringement of the LIGHTING SCIENCE marks. The LSG Complaint, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, alleges that ELS’s use of the name “Electronic Lighting Science” and the phrase “Electronic Lighting Science LED Products” to sell LED lighting fixtures, bulbs and other products infringes the LIGHTING SCIENCE Marks.

LSG is seeking damages and injunctive relief.

Although there has been a ton of LED patent litigation, with new cases filed almost every month, there’s been relatively little activity in LED trademark enforcement (the Whelen case briefed here is the only one I can think of). There may be more to come…

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks, Energy Efficiency, IP Litigation

Enviance Eco-mark Complaint Highlights Importance of GHG Emissions IP

June 20th, 2012

Enviance is a Carlsbad, California, corporation that produces and sells Environmental Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software and provides other environmental services. The ERP software enables Enviance’s clients to measure, manage, and report things such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and environmental health and safety (EHS) data in order to mitigate their environmental performance.

Enviance owns at least three U.S. trademark and service mark registrations for the ENVIANCE mark (Enviance Marks):

Registration No. 2,615,961 for “computer software for providing information and forms creation in the area of environmental regulation and compliance, brownfield redevelopment, health and safety” in Class 9;

Registration No. 2,762,766 for “consultation in the fields of environmental regulation, health, safety and compliance, substance testing, waste disposal and brown field redevelopment; providing information in the fields of environmental regulation, health, safety and compliance, substance testing, waste disposal and brown field redevelopment via global computer network” in Class 42; and

Registration No. 2,976,477 for “dissemination of advertising for others via global computer network” in Class 35 and “financial management services; insurance underwriting services in the fields of marine, fire, accident, home, life, and environmental risk; electronic funds transfer services” in Class 36.

Earlier this month, Enviance sued Enviance Services (“ES”), of Houston, Texas, for trademark infringement relating to the use of the Enviance Marks. ES was created by two companies: Energy Services Acquisitions II (“ESA2”), a company that provides services relating to the Pipeline Safety Act and the Clean Air Act, and Reces, an environmental consultancy.

Enviance’s complaint alleges that ES has been using the term “Enviance” in its promotions, and that the term is substantially similar to Enviance’s registered marks.

According to the complaint, Enviance has been using the Enviance Marks in connection with its products and services since June of 2001. Thus, the company says it has built up a strong reputation and goodwill with consumers, and the Enviance Marks have become a distinctive symbol in the industry.

Enviance alleges that ESA2 and Reces’s use of the mark, in relation to ES, is designed to mislead consumers into believing the origin of goods and services is the already established corporation Enviance.

Therefore, Enviance seeks to prevent further use of its trademarks to prevent other companies from unjustly enriching themselves based on the hard work that Enviance has already done to build its reputation.

As GHG emissions accounting and reduction becomes financially and legally important in places like Australia and California, we can expect to see increased IP litigation involving this type of software product.

*Jared LeBeau is a contributor to Green Patent Blog. Jared is a Summer Associate with the downtown San Diego office of McKenna Long and Aldridge LLP. He will be entering his third and final year at the University of San Diego School of Law in the fall of 2012. He received a dual undergraduate degree in Psychology and Criminal Justice from Marist College in 2009.

Comments Off »

Posted in Carbon Emissions, Eco-Marks, IP Litigation

Companies and Conferences Tout New WindMade Certification

June 18th, 2012

WindMade is a new certification label for companies that obtain at least 25% of their electricity from wind power.

Recently, Danish hearing aid manufacturer Widex became the first company in the world to receive the WindMade label. A wind turbine supporting 95% of Widex’s energy use, including production, put the company well above the percentage threshold required to earn the WindMade certification.

The certification allows companies to convey to consumers their commitment to renewable energy sources, thus giving customers the opportunity to support companies and products that use wind power to satisfy a significant portion of their energy needs.

According to the WindMade web site, Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Wind Systems A/S was a founding partner of the WindMade program and is still a lead sponsor.

Vestas filed a U.S. service mark application for the WINDMADE design mark (shown above) in December 2011. WindMade asbl, a Belgian company, is the current owner of U.S. Application Serial No. 79/105,250, which claims priority to European Community Trade Mark No. 009629445.

The WindMade label, which is supported by the UN Global Compact, is not limited to companies; it also certifies events that procure 100% of their electricity footprint from renewable power sources.

The first event to be WindMade certified was the European Wind Energy Association’s 2012 Conference & Exhibition in Copenhagen (see the press release here), and the first North American event to receive the WindMade label was the American Wind Energy Association’s WINDPOWER 2012 Conference & Exhibition (see the press release here).

Although the WindMade label is currently used solely at the corporate level, companies will be able to attach the certification to products in the near future and could enjoy increased profits as a result. Morten Albaek, Senior Vice President of Global Marketing and Customer Insight at Vestas Wind Systems A/S, reports that “67 percent of 31,000 consumers globally have told us they would favor WindMade products, even at a premium.”

Product level WindMade designation is expected to be announced in the first half of 2013.

*Natalie Kleffman is a contributor to Green Patent Blog. Natalie will be entering her third year at University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) in August and is currently a summer associate at McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP in San Diego, California.

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks, Wind Power

Little “e” is Key as eSolar eNforces eCo-mark

June 2nd, 2012

eSolar is a Burbank, California, solar thermal company that makes solar power plants using flat mirrors, or heliostats, to concentrate sunlight onto a centrally located water tank suspended on a tower. This type of structure is known as “power tower” architecture.

The company owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,828,737 for the ESOLAR word mark for, inter alia, ”power plants” in Class 11, “capturing and conversion of solar energy into electricity and steam” and “generation and production of energy” in Class 40, and power plant design, development and consulting services and power plant engineering services in Class 42 (’737 Registration).

Last month eSolar sued eSolar Exchange, an online marketplace for renewable energy projects, for trademark infringement. According to the eSolar Complaint, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, eSolar Exchange’s use of the ESOLAR mark in its domain name and on its web site in connection with services directly related to solar and renewable energy infringes the ’737 Registration.

eSolar alleges that the defendant’s use of a lower-case “e” is a compelling indicator of infringement:

Defendant’s use of the ESOLAR Mark with a lower-case “e” in connection with the capitalized word “Solar” is virtually identical to the manner in which eSolar uses the ESOLAR Mark, further demonstrating Defendant’s infringing conduct.

Founded in 2007, eSolar has seen much success in business deals to implement and deploy its technology. A major one, which was at the time the biggest solar thermal deal ever, is a master licensing agreement with Chinese electrical power equipment manufacturer Penglai Electric (Penglai).

Obviously that success has made eSolar a valuable green brand and one worth protecting.

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks, IP Litigation, Solar Power

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update

May 4th, 2012

There have been several green patent complaints filed in the past several weeks in the fields of biofuels, LEDs, lithium ion batteries, and industrial water purification.

Biofuels

Gevo, Inc. v. Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC and E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co.

On April 10, 2012, Gevo filed suit against Butamax and DuPont in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging Butamax and DuPont are infringing one of its patents related to the production of isobutanol. This suit is the latest salvo in litigation between Gevo and Butamax. (see previous posts here, here, here, and most recently here.)

The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,153,415, entitled “Reduced By-Product Accumulation for Improved Production of Isobutanol” (the ‘415 Patent). The ’415 Patent issued on April 10, 2012, the same day Gevo filed this latest suit against Butamax.

According to the complaint (Gevo-Butamax_Complaint-4-10-12), the ‘415 Patent describes “recombinant isobutanol-producing microorganisms containing a disruption in the expression or activity of an endogenous 3-keto acid reductase activity and methods for producing isobutanol using such organisms.”

Gevo’s complaint alleges Butamax makes infringing microorganisms to produce isobutanol through deletion or inactivation of the YMR226c gene. Gevo claims Butamax describes its infringing process in PCT Publication No. WO/2011/159853, entitled “Recombinant Host Cells Comprising Phosphoketolases”, and PCT Publication No. WO/2011/159998 entitled “Production of Alcohol Esters and In Situ Product Removal During Alcohol Fermentation”.

Gevo is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions and damages.

LEDs

Whelen Engineering Company, Inc. v. CPS Emergency LED Lighting & Equipment

Filed March 29, 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Whelen’s complaint (Whelen Complaint) alleges CPS infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,641,284, entitled “LED Light Assembly”, and D500,384, entitled “Reflector for Light Assembly”.

Whelen also alleges CPS has infringed several of its trademarks. The marks at issue are Whelen’s LINEAR-LED, FREEDOM and VERTEX marks. Whelen claims CPS has either used identical marks or confusingly similar marks.

Whelen is seeking treble and punitive damages and injunctive relief. They are also seeking CPS’s alleged infringing products be destroyed.

Lektron, Inc. v. iLight Technologies, Inc.

Lektron, Inc. v. Philips Solid-State Lighting Solutions, Inc.

Lektron, Inc. v. The Sloan Company, Inc. dba SloanLED, Inc.

On April 6, 2012, Lektron filed three separate suits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma alleging that iLight, Philips and SloanLED have each infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,361,186 entitled “Simulated Neon Light Using LED’s” (’186 Patent). (Each complaint can be viewed here: (Lektron-iLight Complaint) (Lektron-Philips Complaint) (Lektron-Sloan Complaint)).

The ’186 Patent describes a product designed to replace traditional neon lights with a more durable product that consumed less energy by replacing fragile glass tubes with energy efficient LED lights. The Lektron product is sold under the LEON trademark.

Lektron is alleging direct infringement and is seeking injunctive relief and damages from each defendant.

Everlight Electronics Co. Ltd., and Emcore Corporation v. Nichia Corporation, and Nichia America Corporation

On April 19, 2012, Everlight filed suit against Nichia (Everlight-Nichia Complaint) in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, seeking declaratory judgment for patent non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of two of Nichia’s patents, and alleging Nichia is infringing one of its patents.

Everlight is seeking declaratory judgment for patent non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of two patents owned by Nichia: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,998,925 entitled “Light Emitting Device Having a Nitride Compound Semiconductor and Phosphor Containing Garnet Fluorescent Material” (’925 Patent), and 7,531,960 entitled “Light Emitting Device with Blue Light LED and Phosphor Components” (’960 Patent).

Nichia recently filed suit against an Everlight customer in a Tokyo District Court asserting the Japanese counterpart to the ’970 Patent (Japanese Patent No. 4350094). Nichia also filed suit against Everlight in Germany asserting the European counterpart to the ’925 Patent (European Patent No. EP 0 936 682).

According to the Everlight complaint, Nichia has threatened litigation over several other patents in Japan, and Everlight prevailed in a patent infringement action initiated by Nichia in Taiwan. This suit, filed by Everlight, is in response to the suits Nichia has filed and the threats Nichia has made to Everlight’s potential clients.

In addition to seeking declaratory judgment for non-infringement and invalidity, Everlight is seeking declaratory judgment that the ’960 and ’925 patents are unenforceable due to fraud and inequitable conduct during prosecution by Nichia.

Everlight is also asserting that Nichia infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,653,215 entitled “Contact to N-GaN with Au Termination” (’215 Patent). Everlight is seeking damages, attorney fees and costs.

Lithium Ion Batteries

Energizer Holdings, Inc., Eveready Battery Company, Inc., v. Wahl Clipper Corp., and Wahl Clipper Ningbo Ltd.

Filed April 11, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Energizer’s complaint (Energizer_Complaint) alleges that Wahl infringes several of its patents. The patents in dispute are U.S. Patent Nos.:

5,290,414 entitled “Separator/Electrolyte Combination For a Nonaqueous Cell”;

7,923,138 entitled “Housing for a Sealed Electrochemical Battery Cell”;

7,968,230 entitled “High Discharge Capacity Lithium Battery”;

8,007,940 entitled “Separator/Electrolyte Combination For a Nonaqueous Cell”; and

RE41,866 entitled “Nonaqueous Electrochemical Cell with Improved Energy Density”.

Energizer claims Wahl makes, offers for sale, imports and is selling products containing the asserted patents in its Lithium Pen Trimmer. They are seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, treble damages and attorney fees.

Water Purification

Aquatech International Corp., and Debasish Mukhopadhyay v. N.A. Water Systems, LLC, and Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies Support

On April 4, 2012, Aquatech filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Water Systems and Veolia Water seeking a declaratory judgment that U.S. Patent No. 7,815,804, entitled “Method for Treating Wastewater or Produced Water” (’804 Patent), owned by N.A. Water and Veolia ( a subsidiary of N.A. Water), is invalid and unenforceable and that its products do not infringe the ’804 Patent. (Aquatech Complaint)

Aquatech is a licensee of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,925,255 entitled “Method and Apparatus for High Efficiency Reverse Osmosis Operation” and 6,537,456 entitled “Method and Apparatus for High Efficiency Reverse Osmosis Operation” (though these patents are not asserted in this complaint).

Aquatech’s patents related to its HERO water purification process. The HERO process uses the patents in a high efficiency reverse osmosis water purification process which is used in many industries including power generation, petrochemical, and microelectronics. The HERO technologies have been licensed to companies such as General Electric and Intel.

Aquatech claims N.A. and Veolia have coerced and intimidated potential customers into using Veolia’s OPUS water purification process (described in the ’804 Patent) under threat of patent litigation – claiming the HERO process infringes upon the OPUS process. Aquatech claims Veolia knew, or should have known, that the HERO process does not infringe the OPUS process and that such claims of infringement were false.

Aquatech is seeking a declaration that the HERO process does not infringe the OPUS process, that each claim of the ’804 patent is invalid, and that the ’804 Patent is unenforcable due to inequitable conduct.

Comments Off »

Posted in Batteries and Fuel Cells, Biofuels & Biomaterials, Eco-Marks, Green Patents, IP Litigation, Water Filtration

Green Technology IP Summit to be Held in Chicago

April 28th, 2012

Please note that the Green Technology IP Summit has been canceled.

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks, Green Patents, Policy & Initiatives

In Green Brand Battle U.S. Court Bars Chinese SUN-EARTH Eco-mark

February 28th, 2012

SunEarth (owned and operated by the Solaray Corporation since 1992) has been marketing and selling solar thermal collectors and related components under the SUNEARTH brand since 1978.

In 2009, SunEarth filed an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seeking federal trademark protection for the SUNEARTH word mark.

The USPTO suspended action on the application in view of an earlier filed application owned by Ningbo Solar Electric Power (Ningbo) for the SUN-EARTH (and Design) mark:

Through a predecessor company, Ningbo had been using its SUN-EARTH design mark in China since 1978 and began using the mark in the U.S. in 2004.

A U.S. trademark application filed in 2006 for the SUN-EARTH design mark went abandoned for failure to file a Statement of Use.

In 2008, Ningbo filed a second application to register the SUN-EARTH design mark. This was the application cited against SunEarth.

The USPTO granted Ningbo’s second application and issued it as U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,886,941 (’941 Registration) on December 7, 2010. Ningbo changed its name to Sun-Earth Solar Power (SESP) in 2010.

After filing a proceeding in the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel the ’941 Registration and trying to negotiate a settlement with Ningbo, SunEarth sued for trademark infringement, cancellation of the registration, and other claims in the Northern District of California in October 2011.

The court recently granted a preliminary injunction against SESP, prohibiting it from using the SUN-EARTH name or mark in the United States.

According to the Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, although SESP has a presumption of ownership of the SUN-EARTH mark due to its federal registration, SunEarth “[is] likely to be able to prove a protectable ownership interest in the trade name and mark that is senior to that of [SESP].”

The Court based this on its determination that SunEarth was likely to have been using the SUNEARTH mark in the United States before SESP entered the U.S. market in 2007:

Plaintiffs are likely to be able to establish legally sufficient market penetration over their trade name and mark prior to 2007.

The court also noted that SunEarth had produced some evidence of actual consumer confusion:

In addition to several instances of confusion by trade show organizers, Plaintiffs have proffered more than ten examples of actual customer confusion . . .

This case is a good illustration of the “first to use” system of trademark priority in the United States.

A federal trademark registration creates a presumption of trademark ownership. However, that presumption can be rebutted by showing a similar trademark was used by someone else in interstate commerce within the United States before the registered trademark.

This case also highlights the difficulties foreign based clean tech companies may face in protecting their green brands when they decide to enter the U.S. market. We’re likely to see more of these types of cases, particularly from Chinese companies.

David Gibbs is a contributor to Green Patent Blog. David is currently in his third and final year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego. He received his undergraduate degree in Geology from the University of California, Berkeley.

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks, Energy Efficiency, IP Litigation, Solar Power, Unfair Competition

Green Branding Enters Its Blue Period

January 20th, 2012

Just as new patent filings can indicate the direction technology is moving, trademark application data can reveal trends in branding.

This is the idea behind the Dechert law firm’s Annual Report on Trends in Trademarks (created and produced by Glenn Gunderson) in which the firm draws from the most recent year’s trademark data to highlight some new branding and marketing trends.

In 2008 the Dechert report (trends_in_trademarks_2008) focused on the explosion in green branding, demonstrated by the spike in applied-for trademarks and service marks containing eco-friendly terms such as “green,” “eco-,” and “enviro.”

Four years on, some of those terms, most notably “green,” have become ubiquitous in branding and marketing environmentally friendly products, services, and business practices.

As a result, the term “green” has become descriptive of environmentally friendly attributes and lost the inherent distinctiveness required to obtain a U.S. trademark registration.

This is because a mark that is “merely descriptive” of the goods or services it is being used to market or sell is not registrable without an additional showing that consumers have come to associate the mark with the source of the goods or services.

I have discussed several instances of this erosion of “green” in trademark applications in previous posts, e.g., here.

Perhaps, then, it is no surprise that another color has emerged from the green marketers’ toolbox to signal environmentally friendly attributes.

In a previous post (Is Blue the New Green?: Bollore Wins Allowance of BLUECAR Eco-Mark), I discussed Bollore Group’s successful bid to register the mark BLUECAR for, inter alia, electric vehicles and electric motors.

The BLUECAR trademark application was rejected by the trademark examiner on the basis that the mark is merely descriptive because the goods could encompass blue colored vehicles.

On appeal to the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Bollore successfully overcame the rejection by arguing that its use of the mark in connection with environmentally friendly vehicles creates a double entendre because the word “BLUE” evokes an image of cleaner, bluer skies.

I ended that post by asking whether green might be losing its monopoly as the color of environmentally friendly products and services and stating that “perhaps blue is the new green.”

Just a couple of weeks ago, I read a piece that appeared in the Economist’s The World in 2012 issue entitled The Greening of Blue. The article noted several examples of “blue becoming the new green.”

Those include Volkswagen’s “BlueMotion” badge for efficient cars, Mercedes-Benz’s “Blueefficiency” emblem, New Holland’s “ecoBlue” low-emissions tractors, Samsung’s “Blue Earth” solar-powered phone, and, of course, Bollore’s Bluecar.

The article quotes Jack Bredenfoerder, a color expert at the brand consultancy Color Strategy, who said “green is so obvious” and blue is more serious, a global color associated with the sea and cooperation (think the UN).

So now seems to be the moment for blue in green (Miles reference intended). Green marketers: you’d better register your blue marks before the new color goes the way of green and becomes merely descriptive and unregistrable.

But stay tuned and stay on your toes because it won’t end here. A veritable rainbow of green branding colors awaits; according to Bredenfoerder a new clean and efficient color will soon start to compete with blue, which raises the question: will white be the new blue?

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks

« Older Entries