Tiffany Blue and Glossier Pink: Can You Own a Color?

By Sophia Sonkin '27

---

Few cinematic moments are as indelibly etched in our collective imagination as Audrey Hepburn’s Holly Golightly, pearls glinting in the dawn, gazing longingly through the window of Tiffany & Co. in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Yet it’s not just Hepburn’s elegance that lingers- it’s the luminous robin’s egg blue of the Tiffany storefront, a hue that has become a visual shorthand for luxury and romance. (1) Officially dubbed Pantone 1837, “Tiffany Blue” has transcended mere color to become a cultural touchstone, instantly recognizable whether peeking from a velvet-lined jewelry box or gracing our Instagram feeds. (2)

This shade, first introduced on the cover of Tiffany’s Blue Book in 1845, is so intimately woven into the brand’s identity that by 1998, Tiffany & Co. successfully claimed it as their own through trademark protection. (3) In doing so, they transformed a simple pigment into a fortress of brand exclusivity, a move that prompts a provocative question: Can a company truly own a color? And if so, where do the boundaries of that ownership begin and end?

The Battle Over Green-Gold: Qualitex v. Jacobson

A trademark is a type of intellectual property that uses words, phrases, symbols, designs, or combinations to distinguish one source's goods or services from another's. Its primary purpose is to help consumers recognize product or service origins and protect brand identity from imitation. (4)

While trademarks often evoke ideas of logos and brand names, they also encapsulate more unconventional identifiers, such as color. This possibility, however, was not always clear in U.S. law. Color trademarks in the United States hinge on the landmark Supreme Court case Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. (1995).

Qualitex, a dry-cleaning supply manufacturer, had distinguished its press pads with a unique green-gold hue for decades. This color became so closely identified with Qualitex’s products that, when rival Jacobson Products began selling nearly identical pads in the same shade in 1989, Qualitex responded by registering the color as a trademark and suing for infringement. (5)

Initially, Qualitex prevailed in the District Court. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Lanham Act did not permit a color alone, absent any accompanying word or symbol, to function as a trademark. (6) The opposing side argued that allowing color alone to serve as a trademark would create legal uncertainty, risk depleting the limited supply of available colors, and was unnecessary since companies could already use color as part of a logo or trade dress. They believed existing protections against unfair competition were sufficient and worried about potential confusion and monopolization of colors. The Supreme Court took up the case to resolve a deceptively far-reaching but straightforward question: Can a single color, by itself, serve as a trademark under U.S. law?

In a unanimous decision, the Court answered with a resounding yes. Writing for the Court, Justice Stephen Breyer explained:

“Color alone, at least sometimes, can meet the basic legal requirements for use as a trademark. It can act as a symbol that distinguishes a firm’s goods and identifies their source, without serving any other significant function.” (7)

The Court held that the Lanham Act’s broad language, covering “any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof,” encompasses color, provided two key criteria are met:

Non-functionality: The color must not serve a utilitarian purpose (for example, “safety red” for fire extinguishers is functional and cannot be trademarked).

Secondary meaning: The color must have acquired distinctiveness in the marketplace, so consumers associate it with a single source due to long-standing, exclusive use. (8)

By overturning the Ninth Circuit’s restrictive interpretation, the Supreme Court’s decision in Qualitex established that color can, under the right circumstances, serve as a protectable trademark. This paved the way for iconic brands, from Tiffany’s robin’s egg blue to Glossier’s millennial pink, to lay legal claim to their signature shades and wield color as a powerful tool of brand identity.

Legal Requirements and Limitations/What Does It Take to Trademark a Color?

Trademarking a color is no simple feat. The U.S. Supreme Court explicitly set the standards for this in the Qualitex decision, and only a handful of brands have managed to clear it:

• Distinctiveness and Secondary Meaning: A color is not inherently distinctive. To qualify for trademark protection, a brand must prove that the color has acquired “secondary meaning”: consumers must instantly think of a single source upon seeing the color. This is typically demonstrated through years of exclusive use, robust advertising, and consumer surveys. (9) For example, Tiffany & Co. has successfully established a secondary meaning for its signature robin’s egg blue through decades of exclusive use and widespread marketing.

• Non-functionality: The color cannot serve a practical purpose. For example, orange can’t be trademarked for safety vests because it is used for visibility, not branding. In contrast, Tiffany Blue serves no functional role and is protected only for packaging and promotional materials, not for the jewelry itself or unrelated products.

• Industry Specificity: Protection is limited to the specific goods or services for which the color has acquired distinctiveness.

• No Unfair Competitive Advantage: The color cannot be essential to the use or purpose of the product or affect its cost or quality, as this would put competitors at a disadvantage. For instance, Christian Louboutin’s red soles are protected only when applied to the bottom of shoes with a contrasting upper, leaving the color red available for other uses in footwear design. This ensures that trademark law doesn’t lock up colors essential for other businesses to operate fairly. (10)

From Courtroom to Marketplace: Iconic Color Trademarks

The legal precedent set by Qualitex opened the door for brands to claim ownership over colors, but only after navigating a rigorous application process. Applicants must submit evidence to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) demonstrating secondary meaning and non-functionality. The process includes providing market research, sales data, advertising expenditures, and sometimes expert testimony.

Trademarking a color can elevate a brand’s marketing strategy, transforming products into instantly recognizable icons and fostering lasting customer loyalty. Glossier offers a masterclass in this. Founded in 2014, Glossier quickly cultivated a devoted following, thanks to its minimalist, “no-makeup makeup” philosophy and no-nonsense, approachable beauty products that resonate with modern consumers. In 2020, after initial resistance from the USPTO, Glossier secured a trademark for the specific use of “millennial pink” on the interior surfaces of its product boxes, a subtle yet powerful branding move. Glossier submitted nearly 100 customer declarations affirming that the pink box lining was synonymous with the brand to overcome the USPTO's skepticism. The company also showcased widespread social media engagement and coverage highlighting the pink interior as a Glossier signature. Notably, Glossier narrowed its claim to the contrasting pink interior, rather than the color pink in general. It sidestepped concerns about monopolizing a basic color and demonstrating the precision required for successful color trademark registration. (11)

The path to color trademark protection is not without obstacles. The USPTO and courts are cautious about granting exclusive rights to colors, aiming to prevent any one company from monopolizing essential hues and thus limiting competitors’ options. Unlike brands such as Tiffany & Co., Mattel has not formally registered Pantone 219C, known as Barbie Pink, as a standalone color trademark for Barbie products.

Nevertheless, Mattel has established strong common-law rights in Barbie Pink through decades of consistent and prominent use, dating back to Barbie’s 1959 debut. This bright pink hue is inseparable from Barbie’s identity, appearing on everything from dolls and packaging to promotional campaigns. (12)

Despite lacking a federal registration, Mattel aggressively enforces its rights against competitors who use similar shades in connection with dolls and related toys, arguing that such use could mislead consumers or dilute the Barbie brand. For example, Mattel has taken legal action in high-profile cases, such as its 1997 suit against MCA Records over the use of Barbie Pink in the "Barbie Girl" music video and packaging. However, the court ultimately ruled against Mattel, finding the color had not acquired sufficient secondary meaning in that context. (13)

However, the scope of protection for Barbie Pink remains limited. Courts have generally declined to extend Mattel’s rights in Barbie Pink beyond toys and related accessories, ruling that the color lacks inherent trademark significance for unrelated goods like fashion apparel.

This limitation of scope has broader implications. Market differentiation and brand strategy could be significantly affected as other companies, especially those in unrelated markets like fashion apparel, have greater freedom to use similar shades of pink. This can lead to confusion if such colors begin to dominate the branding space, potentially diluting the perceived uniqueness of Barbie Pink. While courts aim to foster competition by preventing color monopolies, there's a fine line between competitive freedom and consumer confusion. Striking the right balance is crucial to ensuring that consumers are not misled about product origins.

The Practical Reality: Possible—But Rare

A company can indeed "claim" a color, but it must do so within narrow, well-defined boundaries. For the color to be protected, it needs to transcend mere aesthetic appeal and function as a badge of origin—one that consumers unmistakably associate with a single source. Brands that achieve this status can leverage a formidable competitive edge, but they must also stay ever-vigilant. This involves policing the marketplace for potential infringers and, when necessary, defending their rights robustly in court. 

While laden with challenges, those who succeed don't just own a color; they capture a piece of the consumer’s mind. As seen with Tiffany Blue, the right strategy and vigilance can engrave a color in brand legacy and our collective cultural memory.

Endnotes

1. Cohen, Alina. "How Tiffany & Co. Monopolized a Shade of Blue." Artsy, April 11, 2017. https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-tiffany-monopolized-shade-blue.

2. "The Story of the Iconic Tiffany's Blue Color." Fashion Law Journal. https://fashionlawjournal.com/the-story-of-the-iconic-tiffanys-blue-color/.

3. "TIFFANY BLUE Trademark of Tiffany (NJ) LLC - Registration Number 4804204 - Serial Number 86571740." Justia Trademarks. https://trademarks.justia.com/865/71/tiffany-86571740.html.

4. "What is a Trademark?" United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Last modified March 31, 2021. https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/what-trademark.

5. "Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995)." Supreme Court of the United States, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/159/.

6. “How the Supreme Court Decides to Review Intellectual Property Cases: A Practitioner’s Guide.” UIC Law Review of Intellectual Property Law 8, no. 2 (2009): 227–258. https://repository.law.uic.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1509&context=ripl.

7. "Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.: A Landmark Supreme Court Decision on Color Trademarks." Tech & Media Law. https://techandmedialaw.com/qualitex-co-v-jacobson-products-co-a-landmark-supreme-court-decision-on-color-trademarks/.

8. "The Palettes of Brand Identity and Color Trademarks." Wilson Legal Group, February 20, 2024. https://www.wilsonlegalgroup.com/blogs/trademark-law/claiming-color-in-a-trademark-application.

9. Purdue Global Law School Blog. "Trademark Protections for Color." https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/trademark-protections-for-color.

10. “Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Inc., 696 F.3d 206 (2nd Cir. 2012)." Harvard Law Review. https://harvardlawreview.org/2013/01/christian-louboutin-s-a-v-yves-saint-laurent-america-inc/.

11. "Glossier Now Has a Trademark Registration for Its Millennial Pink-Lined Product Packaging – The Fashion Law." Osler, December 23, 2020. https://www.osler.com/en/about-us/media-centre/glossier-now-has-a-trademark-registration-for-its-millennial-pink-lined-product-packaging-the-fash/.

12. "The Power of Barbie’s Brand and Intellectual Property." Litton Legal. https://littonlegal.com.au/blog/the-power-of-barbies-brand-and-intellectual-property/.

13. "Pink Perfection: The Trademarking of Barbie’s Signature Hue." IP and Legal Filings, October 30, 2023. https://www.ipandlegalfilings.com/pink-perfection-the-trademarking-of-barbies-signature-hue/.