trade evidence

18:42 Apr 13, 2014 

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm saying that you're not entirely right. They don't only recognise the colour as being the brand's, they "validate" the fact that indeed, this colour and this brand are associated. When I chose "validation" or "reconnaissance" it wasn't as in "they're good we know it" but more as in "nous apportons preuve par la présente que la couleur est associée - et uniquement associée - à cette marque". So it doesn't fit the "preuves provenant de l'usage par les professionnels". It's a proof that not only comes professionals, it brings something, it brings their approval that indeed this colour is a "distinctive characteristic" of the brand.

18:32 Apr 13, 2014 

Context: "Law/Patents - Law: Patents, Trademarks, Copyright"
should be enough of a clue - the dispute is about protecting a specific colour as being associated with a given brand - the key argument being about that colour representing or not a "distinctive characteristic" of the brand in question;
"recognition" is used in the sense of "brand recognition" i.e. this colour is perceived as "the colour of this brand" the same as you would "recognise" someone's face or way of talking or way or walking
NOT in the sense that peers are "recognising" someone's achievements.