Darrell Lea v Cadbury: the color of purple

Darrell Lea sweets are among my favs.
Yesterday I learnt about the 5-year battle with Cadbury over the colour purple.

The Federal Court recently ruled that Darrell Lea’s use of the colour purple did not amount to misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act, as had been alleged by Cadbury.

To summarise a 5-year dispute, in 2003 Cadbury initiated proceedings against Darrell Lea, alleging they engaged misleading or deceptive conduct and passing off by using a shade of purple that closely resembled its own “Cadbury Purple”. In 2006, Justice Heerey of the Federal Court dismissed Cadbury’s claim, finding that Cadbury did not own the colour purple and as such, Darrell Lea was entitled to use the colour as long as it did not convey to the reasonable consumer that it had some connection with Cadbury... Read the full story.
or in the news.
The facts that supported Darrell Lea:
For instance, (1) it was noted that many of Cadbury’s products feature little or no purple; (2) purple was never used by Cadbury in isolation but was always combined with the “Cadbury” script; (3) the names “Darrell Lea” and “Cadbury” are quite distinct; (4) most of Darrell Lea’s retailing occurs on its own premises; other competitors such as Nestlé’s Violet Crumble use purple, and the list goes on.

Darrell Lea: The origins of the Darrell Lea company started in the early 1900s when Harry Lea mastered the art of confectionery making in Perth with his first creation, Bulgarian Rock, which he sold in a simple street pushcart.
Cabury: website.