That's my color, not yours!

In today's market, brands are constantly waging wars against each other for exclusive use of identifiers. These battles are often fought over who has the right to use a particular color. It's important to note that a company cannot have blanket rights to one color; the usage has to be very specific to their market and product.

image source

For instance, Tiffany & Co had trademarked their use of Tiffany Blue in the high end jewelry market. But they have no rights to that color as it is used anywhere else.

image source

Cadbury has been going after Darrell Lea, a candy manufacturer in Australia, for use of various shades of purple in it's packaging, uniforms, and store signage. They've been disputing who has rights to purple for more than 5 years now.

image source

In April of last year, they lost the suit, with the judge concluding that a variety of candy manufacturers (including Nestlé) use purple packaging, and that "…Cadbury does not have a monopoly in the use of purple for chocolate. Seeing chocolate in a purple wrapper with Darrell Lea's name on it in a Darrell Lea shop does not make me think it comes from Cadbury". The judge went on to add,

"This is an important decision for all Australian manufacturers and consumers as more and more companies seek to obtain exclusivity of use of certain colours and shapes of products. These branding elements can be important aspects of a company's corporate identity, but they're not a carte blanche to intimidate competitors who also have rights". (source)

Cadbury has registered 17 grounds of appeal, and is pursuing them now.(source)
Come on, can't we all just get along? What do you guys think?