Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ITV Warns Apple (Again) Not to Use Their Name [Updated]

I think ITV would be best seen paying Apple for them to take THEIR name away ... lets say ITV in the UK is not synonymous with quality television.

When you work out whats on the TV schedule for the evening ... ITV have three programmes that are bearable-and thats JUST bearable .. mainly soaps and Downton Abbey ... er.. thats it .. the rest is copies of BBC show formats and rip offs of SKY TV efforts ... no cares from this User ...:eek:
 
allmIne said:
As was mentioned above, though, it's enterprise value you need to take account of when determining takeover viability. And that's an awful lot larger than ITV's market capitalisation. ($306billion!)
Click to expand...

306 billion pence, £3Bn

If people are going to quote stock market stats they should learn to read them.
 
Apple will just call it iBox or something, we all thought macbook pro, macbook air and iPad were stupid names at the start.
 
buckers said:
It would be a bit weird in the UK. ITV is a household name, like BBC and CNN. There probably would be some confusion.
Click to expand...

More than that, ITV is a worldwide brand. Their programmes are shown in many different countries.

Personally, I think ITV programming output is complete junk, like a lot of other people, but thats totally irrelevant. ITV is an active trademark used globally.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple just go with iTV and try to sort out the trademark later. ITV have a right to be concerned.
 
Last edited:
KnightWRX said:
Uh ? Cisco sued them over the iPhone and for iOS, Apple got permission prior to the announcement. So yeah, Cisco did stop them from using both trademarks without proper licensing.

ITV doesn't seem to want to license their name out, so in the end, yes, it does stop them, in the UK at least (and other places where ITV holds the trademark).

So while you've said it before, it doesn't make it right or true at all.
Click to expand...
They did the same thing to a small company called iCloud.....iCloud under threat from Apple changed their name and then signed an agreement with Apple and a NDA. But that was after Apple used it first the small company did not have the resources to defend itself....
http://devilsworkshop.org/apple-sued-company-named-icloud/
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/06/10/apple-sued-by-icloud-communications-over-icloud-trademark/
 
Last edited:
SimonTheSoundMa said:
ITV is worth $306bn, I can't see Apple taking it over just for the trademark "iTV".
Click to expand...

No its not. (Disney is worth $74 billion).

markmcrobie said:
It's an open and shut case though - ITV own the trademark and Apple can't use it in the territories where they hold it.
Click to expand...

No its not. The law can be stretched quite a bit. If Apple can prove that there isn't confusion between the two, they can use the word, and that may apply to many countries where ITV (the broadcaster) is not known or even heard of (like in the US).
 
How about iPic as a play on Picture and Picking what to watch

Or iPlay tho BBC might not like that
 
Lesser Evets said:
ITV is an ancient and renowned television company which made/distributed shows such as Captain Scarlet, UFO, the Avengers, Benny Hill, Fireball XL5, (pretty much anything by Gary Anderson's Marionation group), Wooster & Jeeves, Mister Bean, the Prisoner, Quatermass, the Saint, Space 1999, and hundreds of other famous programs known mostly across the UK colonies.

This wouldn't be just a case of "buying a name" but of ripping away a dear trademark and trying to rebrand it to something else with all positive/negative/misleading baggage it carries.

Apple should just ditch the idea of iTV as a name.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Apple should buy ITV. In addition to owning the "ITV" brand Apple would then have access to content which it could distribute outside the UK and other markets.

I believe for the rumoured Apple TV to be successful, it will need a constant supply of content and through ITV Apple could lead by example and show other TV networks how successful Apple's idea for TV is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Truffy said:
What's the point of your post? It's completely pointless, if not insulting.
Click to expand...

My point was that it might make business sense to use a certain product name even if it meant they couldn't sell it in one area of the world, but more likely a small amount of cash could solve the problem after the fact.

They could do what they did with the iphone and call it what they want and deal with the consequences later. There already was an iphone out there if I remember correctly that didn't approve of Apple's name. Apple made a phone, iphone was the obvious name given the iMac, iPod, if they come out with a tv, iTV is the obvious name. Has to be a whole TV though, not just a set top box.

Meant no disrespect to the UK :cool:
 
jamezr said:
They did the same thing to a small company called iCloud.....iCloud under threat from Apple changed their name and then signed an agreement with Apple and a NDA. But that was after Apple used it first the small company did not have the resources to defend itself....
http://devilsworkshop.org/apple-sued-company-named-icloud/
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/06/10/apple-sued-by-icloud-communications-over-icloud-trademark/
Click to expand...

The small company did not have the ressources to defend themselves ? Where are you getting that ? The problem with their case was this :

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...tches-its-own-domain-apple-trademark-suit.ars
There was just one twist to iCloud Communications' lawsuit: it never registered "iCloud" as a trademark with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The company that actually owns the iCloud trademark? Apple.
Click to expand...

Not exactly a case showing Apple "flexing". I'm sure after 60 years in business, iTV has their bases covered as far as the trademark and its enforcement goes. ;)
 
Anyway, for those suggesting Apple could buy ITV, its not quite that straightforward and just won't happen. ITV, I believe, is actually owned by several regional ITV companies and is one of the public service channels in the UK which requires them to meet strict criteria. They are regulated by OFCOM and also have to adhere to EU regulations.

If Apple wanted to buy, not only would they need to convince all of the regional channels to agree, they would also have to be approved by OFCOM, and I suspect the EU would probably want to get involved as well.

Just getting through all that would probably take several years, so unless Apple are going to postpone the launch of their TV until about 2018, it just isn't going to happen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think Apple would have to think twice before trying to use the iTV moniker for any of its products. Not only would it cause trouble in Britain, but over here in Japan, at least in the area where I live, THE ONLY company that supplies internet and television is iTV. So, that would probably cause another legal battle. . . and I can't see why Apple would want to waste money on the name, especially since they have a recognizable and perfectly legible alternative in Apple TV.
 
Lesser Evets said:
ITV is an ancient and renowned television company which made/distributed shows such as Captain Scarlet, UFO, the Avengers, Benny Hill, Fireball XL5, (pretty much anything by Gary Anderson's Marionation group), Wooster & Jeeves, Mister Bean, the Prisoner, Quatermass, the Saint, Space 1999, and hundreds of other famous programs known mostly across the UK colonies.
Click to expand...

Typical American reading that list:

...made/distributed shows such as Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Benny Hill, Blah, Blah, Blah (pretty much Blah Blah Blah), Blah Blah Blah, Mister Bean, Blah, Blah, Blah...

:D

(Which is a shame as Quartermass, The Prisoner, Wooster & Jeeves are some of the most brilliant UK exports available, better than a lot of BBC stuff...)
 
If Apple wants the name then ITV should hand it over and they can rename their network. Of course Apple will need to pay them for it, but bringing this products name in line with all the other iDevices would be nice.
 
Qwaf said:
I have said before, it didn't stop them using iPhone and iOS, two Cisco trademarks. Cisco are many times the size of ITV. (Before they came to the legal agreement)

Granted, iPhone wasn't really a known product and Cisco IOS isn't on consumer devices, most regular people who never hear about it.

Whereas ITV is a name people recognise in the UK, it being like, the second biggest broadcaster (I'm not entirely sure) after the BBC. With the UK being a large market for Apple they may choose to stay away from the name or just perhaps have a different name for it in the UK?

*shrugs*
Click to expand...

Apple licensed those names from Cisco - probably for a nice fee. This company however is not willing to license. Different game where nrither Apple's money nor arrogance will help them.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows Phone OS 7.5; Trident/5.0; IEMobile/9.0; HTC; TITAN X310e))

When you put out quality programming like "I'm a celebrity, get me out of here!" you need to defend your brand as best as you can.

/s ;)

In all seriousness, I'm sure Apple will come out with something unique. iScreen perhaps?
 
ghettochris said:
Definitely a step down in worldwide recognition from the BBC. If the BBC was called iTV and made all the same stuff it would be a more bold name grab.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't the BBC send a letter to Apple, telling them not to call any new products "BBC"? Seriously, what is this thread about? Has Apple said they want to use the name iTV at any time in the last year? If there are stupid rumors with completely made-up names for completely made-up products, that isn't exactly Apple's fault?


Winni said:
Apple licensed those names from Cisco - probably for a nice fee. This company however is not willing to license. Different game where nrither Apple's money nor arrogance will help them.
Click to expand...

Everything can be bought for the right price. I think the price for which ITV would sell the name is more than what Apple would be willing to pay, so it isn't going to happen. Unlike "iPhone" and "iOS", and the trademark for "Apple" in the music business, where the name was worth more to Apple than to the trademark owner.


DakotaGuy said:
If Apple wants the name then ITV should hand it over and they can rename their network. Of course Apple will need to pay them for it, but bringing this products name in line with all the other iDevices would be nice.
Click to expand...

Apple doesn't need the trademark, they just need a license that allows use of the name. But nobody can force ITV. If Apple wanted the name, they would first have to offer enough money so that a sensible company would accept the offer - that would be an awful lot of money, but ITV wouldn't _have_ to accept the offer. So then Apple would have to offer enough money so that anybody not accepting the offer would be fired. That would be an awful lot more money.
 
Last edited:
ghettochris said:
or they could call it the iTV, and just say **** the UK and not sell it there.
Click to expand...

Yeh, its not like the UK is one of the biggest markets for Apple.

iTV is under the name iTV Studio's in the US, so they probably do own the trademark in the US.

DakotaGuy said:
If Apple wants the name then ITV should hand it over and they can rename their network. Of course Apple will need to pay them for it, but bringing this products name in line with all the other iDevices would be nice.
Click to expand...

Thats stupid, they've been using it for 60 years.
 
No surprise - but some of the attitudes in this thread are just so off the chart.

The catch-all answer to Apple's legal issues isn't just to buy the company that is standing in their way nor is it to just use it anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back