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

[Saturnine]

Thinking about it, ITV's trademark is for the name of the company, which produces, sells and broadcasts TV shows. Apple are proposing to create a tangible product which may, or may not, be called the iTV (small i.)

I'm no trademark lawyer but it's possible the two could be allowed by courts to co-exist. I believe trademarks can overlap as long as they're not used for the same purpose.

 

[Specklez]

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 ...

Err, Sky hardly, or don't produce any of their own programming. Mainly buy imports from other countries or from BBC/ITV/Granada/Whatever.

I know that programmes such as Come Dine With Me on Channel 4 is an ITV production I'm sure and look how popular that is? The same with University Challenge on BBC2 and many other programmes. What about The Bill? Lasted years and many people enjoyed it, although I won't disagree that towards the end it got a bit dry. Heartbeat, that's another programme that many people enjoyed.

I'm honestly surprised some people are saying that Apple should have the name ITV, it's just absurd. They're not just a little broadcasting company, they're one of the big ones. People are entitled to their own opinions about whether their television programmes 'suck', but so what? You may dislike them, but other people will enjoy them.

To be honest, I'm glad ITV defended themselves about not giving their name away, Apple aren't 'above' every other company and doesn't/shouldn't get special rights because of its position.

 

[GingerHips]

Other Names

There are many other names that have a better ring to them, and would not associate Apple with a boring old British broadcaster:
iScreen.
MacTV.
iStation.
Apple Home Theatre.
Apple Entertainment Centre.
Apple TVX.
And my personal favorite: iTube ;-)

 

[OllyW]

Thinking about it, ITV's trademark is for the name of the company, which produces, sells and broadcasts TV shows. Apple are proposing to create a tangible product which may, or may not, be called the iTV (small i.)

I'm no trademark lawyer but it's possible the two could be allowed by courts to co-exist. I believe trademarks can overlap as long as they're not used for the same purpose.

Do you think ITV would get away with making a new music programme called The Itunes Show?

 

[GoCubsGo]

This may be a stupid question but aren't the names, "ITV" and "Apple ITV" different. Could apple just use the second name and not get in trouble?

The use of ITV will still be an issue.

How about calling it "i couldcareless" he he...

As others have said, it would be more factual to call it "i couldn'tcareless." Even then, your statement isn't funny.


Apple is hysterical when it comes to these things. They're the first to stomp on anyone trying to use their "property" and yet when the time comes they almost dabble in the possibility of using the name. Apple needs to find another name, ITV shouldn't give up their name on principle alone.

 

[wsc9005]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A406 Safari/7534.48.3)

Why not stay "Apple TV" ??? It's a perfect name to me tho

 

[atomicbloke]

Just call it "iTelevision"

That would be the official name, so no legal hassle with ITV.

People might colloquially call it "iTV" instead, but ITV can't sue consumers.

Problem solved.

 

[garethpauljones]

Perhaps they should just call it iView or something and not even bother with the word TV since it's likely to be more than just a viewing unit for TV shows.

 

[Therbo]

I think it would be hilarious if Apple called it iPlayer. Then the BBC would get mad.

 

[Lesser Evets]

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...



(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...)

haha Well, yeah. But, everyone sees something else in the pile.

W&J and Prisoner are the greatest, but I grew up on that UHF repeating of the Marionation shows and Space 1999, etc. ITV is no small-time TV producer. Nowadays they handle some of Britains greatest raters.

Samxool should rename Sumtool. ITV has made some of the TV greats--worldwide greats--known and loved by billions.

 

[Santabean2000]

iView?

iSee?

TV is my best guess

 

[Chupa Chupa]

This is just the waltz competition that much be danced out. It's Apple's MO, starting with it's corporate name. If Apple wants to use iTV nothing is going to stop it based on past history. Do now and apologize later. Some sort of settlement will be reached to allow Apple to use the moniker. This is more bark than bite here.

Could not agree more.

The idea that people think a computer company could just buy decades and decades of british culture just to use the name is just vile and stinks of generic american destructive consumerism.

I'm pretty sure Apple isn't interested in buying british culture. It just wants the name. It's about business, nothing else. Don't be so Holy Rolly. How many American brands are owned by European companies. I don't see Americans upset when Lever Bros buys a U.S. company or when Inbev bought Budweiser. Budweiser! Not much more American than that.

 

[Saturnine]

Do you think ITV would get away with making a new music programme called The Itunes Show?

Like I said, I'm not a trademark lawyer. I don't know.

But it's hardly the same thing. iTunes isn't just an application anymore, it's a content delivery system, which delivers movies, apps, music and more to electronic devices. It would be fairly easy, in your example, to argue overlap.

 

[Lesser Evets]

Do you think ITV would get away with making a new music programme called The Itunes Show?

A good point, but there might be a legal distinction between an entertainment program and a physical device. I'm no lawyer, don't even play one on YouTube, but there could be a distinction there...

or not.

 

[OllyW]

Like I said, I'm not a trademark lawyer. I don't know.

But it's hardly the same thing. iTunes isn't just an application anymore, it's a content delivery system, which delivers movies, apps, music and more to electronic devices. It would be fairly easy, in your example, to argue overlap.

And there's no overlap between a TV company and a TV?

 

[Hardtimes]

I'd imagine the TV set will be branded AppleTV and the current TV rebranded to AppleTV mini or something.

 

[tdream]

ITV is worth $306bn, I can't see Apple taking it over just for the trademark "iTV".

Where did you get that number? $306 billion is behemoth status. It currently has a market capitalisation of 3.07 billion sterling according to Financial Times. http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Summary?s=uk:itv

I can see Apple buying ITV 15 times over.

 

[ChrisTX]

While I completely agree that "ITV" in the UK has a right to defend their name. I think it's dumb when all of these different people, and companies start using the lower case "i" to market their goods, and services when it is clearly has been associated with the Apple brand first and foremost.

I read a couple posts back where ITV has been around for 50 or so years. Regardless my point still stands that everyone needs to leave the lowercase "i" to Apple and come up with a new marketing scheme. This is not in reference to ITV which has clearly been around longer than Apple to but a general statement to everyone else that uses the lower case i.

 

[yodaforum]

iView?

iSee?

TV is my best guess

I was just going to say iView or iWatch although appleTV has sold a few million so why change it now?

 

[reefoid]

I can see Apple buying ITV 15 times over.

I'll repeat, its not as simple as Tim Cook writing a cheque and magically owning ITV. Its one of the UK's three public service channels, it is strictly regulated and any takeover would likely take years.

So, no, I can't see Apple buying ITV even once over.

 

[Saturnine]

And there's no overlap between a TV company and a TV?

I don't know much about trademark law or overlap but I believe the two key phrases are "engaged in different types of business operations" and "compete for the same customers."

I'm not suggesting either side would win in court, but I do believe Apple could argue that they and ITV are engaged in different types of business operations (Apple do not produce, sell or broadcast TV shows) and, in terms of selling TV sets, would not be competing for the same customers.

Edit: By 'sell' TV shows, I mean to networks, not Joe Public

 

[pdjudd]

Could not agree more.

The idea that people think a computer company could just buy decades and decades of british culture just to use the name is just vile and stinks of generic american destructive consumerism.

And anybody that would think that Apple would actually be stupid enough to do that is insane. First the television is a fictitious product - it doesn't exist. Second - the only time iTV was ever used by apple was describing it as a code name and not a final name for anything (and that was what 4 years ago?). Apple has never given any indication that they were even considering using iTV's name in any commercial product at all anyway. It's just silly and pointless.

ETA:

(Apple do not produce, sell or broadcast TV shows)

Yes, they actually do. They operate the iTunes store which sells TV shows - many of them produced by iTV!

 

[kurosov]

While I completely agree that "iTV" in the UK has a right to defend their name. I think it's dumb when all of these different people, and companies start using the lower case "i" to market their goods, and services when it is clearly has been associated with the Apple brand first and foremost.

First, the network is ITV (sometimes as itv) not iTV.

Second, they are older than apples use of the "i".

I find this rumour quite funny. Network execs warning a company to not name a product they have so far not even acknowledged to be working on because 'analysts' have been using the name like they did with the 'iTab/tablet'.

 

[Therbo]

While I completely agree that "iTV" in the UK has a right to defend their name. I think it's dumb when all of these different people, and companies start using the lower case "i" to market their goods, and services when it is clearly has been associated with the Apple brand first and foremost.

You do realise iTV has been using the iTV name before Apple was even founded?

----------

Or that British Company can suck it up and deal with it. Lol Apple can beat them at their little game of being crumpty, so yeah.

Is it me, or is half this thread anti-british crap?

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Thinking about it, ITV's trademark is for the name of the company, which produces, sells and broadcasts TV shows. Apple are proposing to create a tangible product which may, or may not, be called the iTV (small i.)

I'm no trademark lawyer but it's possible the two could be allowed by courts to co-exist. I believe trademarks can overlap as long as they're not used for the same purpose.

At least in the U.S. that is possible. Dilution cases often hinge on where there is consumer confusion created. In the case of ITV v. iTV, ITV would have a tough burden of proof b/c not only is there probably no confusion, the existence of an iTV doesn't harm ITV's own brand. If anything it likely elevates awareness of it. But of course, that is U.S. law.