All the latest UK technology news, reviews and analysis
|
|
|
24 Sep 2010
Google could launch a trademark action against the recently announced YouView service owing to its similarity in name and appearance to YouTube, according to legal experts.
Formerly known as Project Canvas, YouView is a partnership between the BBC, ITV, BT, Channel 4, TalkTalk, Arqiva and Five to provide a free-to-air, web-connected TV service via a set-top box.
However, Robin Fry, an intellectual property partner at law firm Beachcroft LLP, said that the site's similarity to YouTube could cause consumers to confuse the two brands.
The use of the world 'You', coupled with a capitalised character in the middle of the word, might suggest a connection between the services. If Google did object, it would be highly likely to win any legal action, according to Fry.
"Google is involved in litigation all over the world, and would not be frightened of taking action against this trademark. It has an clear interest in protecting its trademarks to stop them being diluted," he said.
Adding weight to Fry's claims is the fact that the Intellectual Property Owner's web site has a page detailing the ownership of the YouView brand with 'Notice of threatened opposition' filed on 16 September.
Google refused to confirm or deny to V3.co.uk that it had instigated the notice of threatened opposition. YouView was also contacted for comment, but had not replied at the time of publication.
Fry said that YouView would be placed in a difficult position in any legal wrangle, as it would either have to scrap the brand and start again or fight a risky action.
However, Mark Owen, an intellectual property lawyer with Harbottle & Lewis, believes it highly unlikely that the YouView consortium had not considered the implications of the name or that the similarity might lead to confusion.
"Consumers are unlikely to be confused by the two brands. People don't think the iPlayer is an Apple product despite the [word's] similarity to the iPad or iPhone," he said.
The Intellectual Property Owner's web site also reveals that the trademark was registered by a private individual called Sarah Eales, suggesting that the consortium was keen to avoid the name being discovered before it was announced.
Latest stories from Software
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
Are you confident that the UK's IT infrastructure is secure from attack in the wake of the Flame malware revelations?
Orange and Intel talk us through the ins and outs of their San Diego smartphone
Connect with V3.co.uk
Social networking is almost ubiquitous. This white paper examines the benefits and risks and it looks at the different ways companies can reconcile them
The importance of understanding your infrastructure
Are you looking for a new positing within the Testing...
A leading global provider of critical information to...
Want to work for one of the most dynamic, creative environments...
Want to work for one of the most dynamic, creative environments...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
Dilution of Marque? Brand Confusion? Dogs and Cats Sleeping Together?
Those phrases are tossed around so freely that neither make any sense, and I doubt the barristers that raising such a ruckus have the slightest idea what those terms were originally used for. Example of brand and market confusion by consumers -- an electronics hobby shop was in business under the name of Javanco for nearly 40 years, as the family's name was Javan. Sun Microsystems fought them (and anyone else attempting to use any word resembling "Java", up to and including sending cease and desist writs to coffee shops that had internet kiosks in them.) To the surprize of everyone the small business won the case and was awarded some sum of money under the condition they tell no one how large or small that sum was. A couple of years later, the business went t*t's up. Best guess is the sum was not enough to equal the legal team needed to fight the bottomless pockets of Sun. Dilution of Marque is silly in many cases. Take the smart car. Everywhere, except in the US, smart markets their economy cars through the Daimler/Mercedes-Benz sales, service and marketing network. Except in the US, where Mercedes Benz cars are only sold equipped with their top of the line trim packages and marketed as luxury cars. For that reason, and several politically motivated reasons, Daimler's smart brand cannot be sold in the US, as it would hurt sales of the higher priced vehicles, because Mercedes have always been thought of as luxury cars, and marketing studies apparently indicated that the introduction of an economy line would, and this is a quote from MBUSA from some time back "Dilute the Marque and weaken the image of Mercedes Benz, thus lowering the overall value of the company and its stock." VW used similar language when they began phasing out lower cost models in favor of the Passat and other horrors. To tilt even further off the topic, market analyses done during the 80's and 90's showed that given the opportunity to test drive two nearly identical cars of the same brand, the buyers were more likely to purchase the higher priced automobile because they perceived the higher price to equal higher quality. Are the public at large so stupid they can't be bothered to look at what they're doing? I truly think that examples such as this are indications that we truly are heading toward The End Times. (lmao)
Posted by: Fernblatt 28 Sep 2010
Fry?
Reading the article, I began to wonder why Stephen Fry was so involved in this issue. Then I saw that "Fry" referred to Robin Fry, one of the IP experts commenting on the matter. Maybe he should choose a different surname to avoid consumers confusing the two individuals.
Posted by: Chris 25 Sep 2010