And there's no overlap between a TV company and a TV?
Yeah, just like there's no overlap beween Apple Records and Apple moving into the Music industry with the iTunes store... wait a second...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, just like there's no overlap beween Apple Records and Apple moving into the Music industry with the iTunes store... wait a second...
That would actually be acceptable. As long as the logo didn't look like Burger King's or "Bill's Burger King" didn't try and fool people into thinking they were like the chain, they could use it.
I can see why Apple would want to use the word "iTV" as it's simple and obvious. However they don't own the letter "i" and nor do they have the right to use "ITV" which has been in the UK for many years and one of the main channels. On this ocassion Apple are wrong and should stick with Apple TV or use another name.
I know ITV produce a fair amout of real dross (Jeremy Kyle springs to mind
I think there is no way to be a mass-producer of entertainment and have a perfect track record of artistic merit and intellectual awesomeness.
However, from the pile of bland and mediocre rises quite a lot excellence. ITV has done some of the best, despite a load of so-so or lesser quality. I liked Cracker in the 90s. Though their TV isn't mainstream in America, some of it has a large following, and some of their old programs have huge kudos among those that make play/movie/TV entertainment in huge American media companies.
In fairness, Apple aren't wrong here because we have absolutely no evidence they plan on using iTV. And given the information regarding global trademarks and the like, I really can't see it happening.
This whole thread is based on a newspaper article without any real substance.
Just let the better company win. It goes along with their branding. Or don't...and let their billions win.
60 years? Or maybe 8.
When ITV started in 1955 it wasn't the name of a company. It was simply a catch-all abbreviation for the Independant Television companies regulated by the ITA.
The company - ITV plc was created in 2004 when the largest two companies (Carlton & Granada) merged.
Mind you - people in the UK have always called it ITV
Agreed! And a simple Wikipedia search would have helped SO many (even many from the UK) understand at least that much.
At the end of the day, I agree with the poster that said everyone's getting worked up about a company that's gearing up it's legal machine based on the rumors of a product that may or may not exist and that may or may not be called iTV.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple announced the Apple TV as iTV but change it after ITV refused to licence the brand.
I agree. ITV was established in 1955 and is one of the worlds oldest TV networks, its audience even includes Queen Elizabeth II.
Additionally, a lot of the worlds best known TV franchises were created by ITV. A list of well-known ITV programmes, both past and present, is:
- A Touch of Frost
- Agatha Christie's Marple
- Agatha Christie's Poirot
- The Benny Hill Show
- The Bill
- Britain's Got Talent
- Catchphrase
- Coronation Street
- The Cube
- Dancing on Ice
- Daybreak
- Downton Abbey
- Emmerdale
- Family Fortunes
- Gladiators
- Hell's Kitchen
- I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!
- The Jeremy Kyle Show
- The Krypton Factor
- Loose Women
- Mr. Bean
- Piers Morgan's Life Stories
- Pop Idol
- The Price Is Right
- The Royal
- Stars In Their Eyes
- That Sunday Night Show
- This Morning
- The Trisha Show
- Wheel of Fortune
- Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?
- The X Factor
Incidentally, ITV films and broadcasts the iTunes Festival in the UK.
Last edited:
sTV - a little too close to Sexually Transmitted Virus in my mind. If someone told me they'd just got a new sTV, I'd suggest they'd best consult their doctor...
And there's no overlap between a TV company and a TV?
I think if Apple began making content it might be a problem.
Of course, it could be argued that ITV is a distributor and Apple is using iTV for content distribution. There begins a messy edge where things mingle and outcomes can be argued and bent in courts.
As it stands, Apple has a device named iTV where ITV is a television production/distribution company. There is no true mistake there, and it could be upheld in court that Apple isn't infringing on ITV's name or trademark because they are making Apples to ITV's Oranges... both similar in ways but different. Apple might be reverting back to iTV because they consulted rungs of lawyers that recognize that they have some edge in a court case brought on by ITV.
It was announced as a code name - not the final product name.
Apple is not going to revert back to a product name that they never used before. And lets be honest, if they thought they could have used it, they would have over 4 years ago when the product launched. Not much has changed in that amount of time to change things.
Apple is not going to use iTV - no way - not when they are already distributing their content in their own marketplace. There is no evidence whatsoever that Apple is looking to change their product name at all. Why bother? The Apple TV as it stands right now is a popular product - why change it to something that will only tick off potential partners.
It doesn't say when the name was trademarked, though. You don't have to be a PLC to have a trademark...
----------
Do they?
Scottish Television may have something to say about that
I sorta doubt sTV have a trademark in any country other then the UK. Their tiny.
Wake up!
The world is becoming a smaller place, and there are fewer and fewer countries where copyright, etc can be ignored. ITV has been in existence since 1955 and is a household name in the UK. Even if Apple wanted to it cannot just ignore this and do as it pleases. Sure the two organisations can come to a financial arrangement, but it would be wrong to assume that Apple can just use the name and there will be no consequences.
Personally I prefer the name Apple TV anyway.
The world is becoming a smaller place, and there are fewer and fewer countries where copyright, etc can be ignored. ITV has been in existence since 1955 and is a household name in the UK. Even if Apple wanted to it cannot just ignore this and do as it pleases. Sure the two organisations can come to a financial arrangement, but it would be wrong to assume that Apple can just use the name and there will be no consequences.
Personally I prefer the name Apple TV anyway.
Your point is valid, but the purposes don't have to be identical, just in the same or closely related domains. A TV broadcaster and TV set manufacturer are pretty close.
I'm not sure why there's all the fuss, as iTV is not such an amazingly great name. It sollows Apple's pattern, sure but a TV named "TV" sounds pretty dopey to me. I prefer iVision, and I'm sure the marketers at Apple can do even better.
They may be smaller than ITV, but they have owned the STV trademark in the UK for many years and is the largest commercial Scottish channel I believe, hence Apple wouldn't be able to use it in the UK.
I think everyone's thinking about this the wrong way.
The iPod is not a pod.
The iPad is not a pad.
The MacBook is not a book.
The MacBook Air has nothing to do with air.
The point is, they can come up with a clever name that will become well known over time (remember how everyone hated the iPad name when it first came out?), and still describes what the product does without saying "Apple" (the company name doesn't really belong in the product) or TV.
The iPod is not a pod.
The iPad is not a pad.
The MacBook is not a book.
The MacBook Air has nothing to do with air.
The point is, they can come up with a clever name that will become well known over time (remember how everyone hated the iPad name when it first came out?), and still describes what the product does without saying "Apple" (the company name doesn't really belong in the product) or TV.
But it isn't a widely used house-hold name, so would probably settle for a bit of money for Apple using it, and there would be little confusion.
iTV, and no other option
There's no way Apple would settle for a watered-down brand, for what will become their most radical industry changer since iTunes. Whatever it takes.
iTV will change our viewing world - we'll likely say 'did you see that on iTV?' before 'TV' again becomes the vernacular. No small, single-country, dumbed-down broadcaster is going to stand in the way. Indeed, given the mucky reputation of the UK's ITV channel, buying it would provide Apple with a content provider, a full set of domains, no legal challenges, and a cleaner association with the abbrev. iTV (even if ITV is mucky in the UK alone). Can't see any obstacle would be high enough - no price even approaching the revenue ambition of iTV.
There's no way Apple would settle for a watered-down brand, for what will become their most radical industry changer since iTunes. Whatever it takes.
iTV will change our viewing world - we'll likely say 'did you see that on iTV?' before 'TV' again becomes the vernacular. No small, single-country, dumbed-down broadcaster is going to stand in the way. Indeed, given the mucky reputation of the UK's ITV channel, buying it would provide Apple with a content provider, a full set of domains, no legal challenges, and a cleaner association with the abbrev. iTV (even if ITV is mucky in the UK alone). Can't see any obstacle would be high enough - no price even approaching the revenue ambition of iTV.
Very true, it doesn't. Then the question would be if iTV (ITV) is just an abbreviation and a household name or if it is actually trademarked.
I know that ABC, NBC, and CBS aren't trademarked names by themselves.
All useless downvoting aside, no one seems to have anything to say about whether or not the actual name ITV is trademarked. Or wether or not the people at ITV can fight with the public use doctrine, or what is even available in the UK.
It seems that we all just want to pick fights, downvote, and insult each other. Seems about what I'd come to expect.
Last edited:
And all it can show are repeats of Top Gear!
Now *there's* an idea. Call it the iStig!