Cadbury has been making headlines recently over trade marking the colour purple. The confectionary giant, now owned by Kraft, saw off a challenge in the High Court from its rival Nestlé over whether it has the exclusive right to use the distinctive shade of purple associated with its Dairy Milk bars. The ruling was the culmination of a long-running legal battle between the two of the world’s biggest confectionery companies, but it has also forced changes at one of the smallest, The Meaningful Chocolate Company, which produces a special range of fair trade chocolates for Christmas with a Christian message.

The Meaningful Chocolate Company sells a range of chocolate Christmas tree decorations featuring nativity scenes displayed in a purple packaging. This choice of colour isn’t intended to imitate Cadbury’s. Purple is simply the colour long recognised by the Church as symbolising advent.

In the light of the ruling, intellectual property advisers recommended the company switch to scarlet wrappers so as not to infringe Cadbury’s rights. (Scarlet? Really?) The Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt Rev Stephen Cottrell, urged Cadbury to ease the restriction, warning that it could “demean” itself by being “precious” about the colour. “Cadbury should reflect that before they even existed, the colour purple was around and – perish the thought – after they have gone, it will still be here.” he said.

So, just why would Cadbury see the Church as a threat to its business? And why do brands get so uptight about ownership of colour? Surely few people form their views on a brand based on just the colour of its packaging or its logo? And rather than fighting over a pantone reference, shouldn’t brands differentiate themselves by developing better products, more appealing brand propositions and, dare I say, more creative and innovative ideas?

A fascinating article in Marketing Week delved deeper into the science behind the relationship between colour and branding, using two of the world’s oldest rivals, Coca-Cola and Pepsi as an example. It reported that a study of taste-tests between Coca-Cola and Pepsi found that Coca-Cola’s visual identity triggered activity in an entirely different area of the brain from that for Pepsi. The visual stimulus triggered a neurological response – and a decision – which overrode taste.

Science!

So scientists can prove that brand identity and colour are more than just corporate apparel, they influence what we think and how we behave. So, don’t dismiss the role of colour, but remember that it’s only one part of building a successful brand.  Creating meaningful brand attributes and connecting with your audience are equally important if you want to put some clear blue water between you and your competitors.

I’m off now to write a letter to Richard Branson over our continuing battle about who owns our very own brand colour, ‘mark-making* red’…