Cadbury turns purple over lawsuit loss

Cadbury uses a distinctive dark shade of purple in its marketing efforts across the globe. In 2003 the company launched legal action against Australian confectioner Darrell Lea over the use of various shades of purple in its store signage, uniforms and assorted product packaging.

Justice Peter Heerey concluded last week that the case against Darrell Lea would not proceed because Cadbury had no exclusive claim to the colour. Heerey also dismissed the claims that Darrell Lea had attempted to pass off its goods as Cadbury products, an act illegal under the Trade Practices Act.

“Cadbury and Darrell Lea are competitors in the retail chocolate market, yet they each have distinctive product lines which are sold from different sorts of premises under distinctive trade names,” says Heerey.

“They have distinct identities in the market place. Cadbury does not own the colour purple and does not have an exclusive reputation in purple in connection with chocolate,” he says.

“Darrell Lea is entitled to use purple, or any other colour, as long as it does not convey to the reasonable consumer the idea that it or its products have some connection with Cadbury. I am not satisfied that this has occurred, or is likely to occur.”

Heerey also brought up the issue of the legal bills incurred by Darrell Lea over the past three years, and confirmed that the question of costs will be discussed in the courts at a later date.

John Tolmie, chief executive of Darrell Lea, says the company was relieved at the finding, and claimed that it signalled the an end to a legal case that should not have come about in the first place.


Cadbury had also contacted a number of other rival Australian companies to highlight their use of the colour, and threatened legal action if it continued.