直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Use of Green and Yellow for Agricultural Equipment Infringes and Dilutes Deere’s Trade Dress Rights

November 14, 2017

Authored and Edited by Jonathan D. Uffelman; Naresh Kilaru; Julia Anne Matheson

Deere & Company has for more than 100 years sold a wide variety of agricultural, forestry, lawn, and garden equipment.  Nearly all its agricultural equipment is painted green and yellow, and Deere owns several registered marks covering its green and yellow color scheme.  FIMCO Inc. has an agricultural division that sells equipment also utilizing green and yellow.  A comparison of the parties’ equipment is shown below, with Deere on the left and FIMCO on the right: 

 

Deere filed suit to prevent FIMCO from using Deere’s registered green and yellow trade dress in connection with sprayers and wheeled agricultural equipment.  Following a five-day bench trial, the Court concluded that FIMCO’s use of the green and yellow trade dress infringed and diluted Deere’s trademarks.  The only likelihood-of-confusion factors that favored FIMCO were the high degree of customer care, and the fact that Deere’s green and yellow mark on trailed agricultural equipment was not as strong as Deere argued, due to multiple other companies using that color scheme over the years. 

With respect to FIMCO’s intent, the evidence showed that FIMCO was aware of Deere’s color scheme when it began using green and yellow.  Nonetheless, the court stated:  “[K]nowledge of a trademark, alone, will not support a finding of intent to confuse if other circumstances show that the defendant believed there was no infringement.”  Here, the Court found insufficient evidence that FIMCO selected the green and yellow colors with an intent to cause confusion.  FIMCO’s CEO testified that the green and yellow color scheme was chosen not to confuse farmers or “ride on John Deere’s back,” but because “that’s what people were ordering.”  He also testified that he learned of Deere’s trademark registrations for the color scheme only when FIMCO was served with the complaint.  Accordingly, this factor was neutral.

On the question of dilution, however, the Court found that much of the same evidence strongly supported a finding that FIMCO’s use of green and yellow diluted Deere’s trade dress rights.  Four of FIMCO’s witnesses testified that farmers want their trailed agricultural implements to match their tractors, and that all things being equal, a farmer with a John Deere tractor would prefer a green and yellow trailed sprayer or applicator.  Further, FIMCO trailed equipment is often depicted in marketing materials as being pulled by John Deere tractors.  Even FIMCO’s CEO referred to green and yellow as “the John Deere” colors at trial.

The case is Deere & Company v. FIMCO Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-105-TBR (W.D. Ky. Oct. 13, 2017).

Tags

Lanham Act, trademark dilution

Related Practices

Trademark and Brand Management

Contacts

Jonathan D. Uffelman
Domain Name Specialist / Attorney
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4328
Email
Naresh Kilaru
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4236
Email

Copyright © 2017 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

Conference

BIA Start-up Festival

May 21, 2026

London

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP