I read the article. And then I commented, providing information NOT PROVIDED IN THE ARTICLE. Namely, a correct legal citation to one of the most famous color trademark cases, and a link to the court's decision.
edit: could the down voters please explain yourselves? Am I wrong in assuming that some people would like to read the actual case mentioned in the article, instead of just a couple sentences about it?
When contributing value to the discussion, context is important. The article clearly distinguishes this situation from the case you cited. If you want to discuss that decision in more detail, try:
"If anyone is interested in the case mentioned in the article, here is a link to the full-text decision. [link]
Because the colour used in that trade mark was purely for the purpose of identifying the product and had no practical or aesthetic purpose, the court held that the colour could not be used by competitors."
edit: could the down voters please explain yourselves? Am I wrong in assuming that some people would like to read the actual case mentioned in the article, instead of just a couple sentences about it?