Case is meaningless in trademark law, in the US at least. The trademark will be officially registered as 'ITV' and variations of case, font, etc. are all included under that mark.
The Mirror is well known for making up quotes and stories or, like other tabloids, just going through web forums picking up stories and running web site gossip as fact.
I bet no one high up at itv said anything that was in that article.
On another note, itv is a trademark in broadcasting, not in other areas. The "red button" service in the uk has been marketed as iTV ( that is, interactive television) for over a decade.
As for who are itv, well if you watch PBS in the USA you're probably familiar with them for programmes such as Brideshead Revisited, Poirot, Morse, Sherlock Holmes (not the recent version, ats the bbc) Jeeves and Wooster and others. Their heyday was in the 80s and early 90s. Now they focus on entertainment rather than drama and have had most success in selling franchises like Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Britains Got Talent, Pop Idol etc although because much of their output is made by independent companies, who also make programmes for the BBC, the rights are not necessarily theirs. Itv is a braodcaster, not a studio as such.
Actually ITV are now touting pay per view. They expect people to pay for programmes like X Factor and the like. No chance, never going to wash. We're already paying too much for BBC.
Do this at your peril ITV.
Apple TV sounds much better anyway. This whole 'i' nomenclature is starting to wear a bit thin.
This whole Apple TV series of events just shows how ridiculous the media has become in its Apple coverage.
1) They create rumors where the Apple TV can apparently do amazing new things (run iOS apps, ,be impossibly small, output 1080p).
2) They then create a new rumor that Apple wont do all the things the earlier rumor was supposed to do.
3) They then create a rumor that Apple will change its name.
4) A freaking international company starts throwing hissy fits based on this new rumor.
And, the worst part is, people are falling for it, and attributing rumored actions to Apple's actions. It seems people no longer tell the difference between what Apple does, and what Apple has been rumored to do. Its even more remarkable considering how large a percentage of these rumors dont even come close to reality (how long had we been hearing of a tablet mac?)
The Mirror is well known for making up quotes and stories or, like other tabloids, just going through web forums picking up stories and running web site gossip as fact.
True! Or lies which ever way you look at it.
Quote:
Now they focus on entertainment rather than drama and have had most success in selling franchises like Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Britains Got Talent, Pop Idol etc although because much of their output is made by independent companies, who also make programmes for the BBC, the rights are not necessarily theirs. Itv is a braodcaster, not a studio as such.
Yes and how ironic Piers Morgans, former Mirror Editor, appears on some of these entertainment shows.
Apple has a way of getting what it wants but there may be a situation where it's named iTV everywhere except in the UK. They will have time to fight this out because I see the iTV coming out only for the US for at least a few months.
Maybe they do not mind selling the logo..... they just want to up the outrage (pretend) so they can up the asking price.
Just want to try again to clarify this, as this is being missed:
It is highly unlikely that anyone at ITV has spoken to anyone at The Mirror about this. The Mirror (along with other UK tabloids) make up a lot of stuff. "The unnamed source" will most likely be "the author of the article".
Besides it's not like Apple reminds the world of something archaic called the house of lords.
Eh?
Are you referring to one of the first bicameral parliamentary systems in the world, upon which most other democracies are still based?
Archaic would imply something that's become outdated or stuck in the past - in what way is the upper house of the UK's national legislature archaic (and please do some reading before you say 'hereditary peers').
The first item I get back is the logo for the itv network.
Found it. Thank you.
Unfortunately, the iTV logo is a 'Wordmark' and not a 'Trademark'.
Quote:
A wordmark, also sometimes word mark, subset of the term logotype, is a standardized graphic representation of the name of a company, institution, or product name used for purposes of identification and branding. A wordmark is usually a distinct text-only typographic treatment as can be found in the graphic identities of the Government of Canada, FedEx, Google, and Wikipedia. The organization name is incorporated as a simple graphic treatment to create a clear, visually memorable identity. The representation of the word becomes a visual symbol of the organization or product.
In the United States and European Union a wordmark may be registered, making it protected intellectual property. In the United States the term wordmark may not only refer to the graphical representation, but the text itself may be a type of trademark.
Quote:
A trademark or trade mark is a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization, or other legal entity to identify that the products or services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities.
A trademark is designated by the following symbols:
™ (for an unregistered trade mark, that is, a mark used to promote or brand goods)
℠ (for an unregistered service mark, that is, a mark used to promote or brand services)
® (for a registered trademark)
A trademark is a type of intellectual property, and typically a name, word, phrase, logo, symbol, design, image, or a combination of these elements. There is also a range of non-conventional trademarks comprising marks which do not fall into these standard categories, such as those based on color, smell, or sound.
The owner of a registered trademark may commence legal proceedings for trademark infringement to prevent unauthorized use of that trademark. However, registration is not required. The owner of a common law trademark may also file suit, but an unregistered mark may be protectable only within the geographical area within which it has been used or in geographical areas into which it may be reasonably expected to expand.
The term trademark is also used informally to refer to any distinguishing attribute by which an individual is readily identified, such as the well known characteristics of celebrities. When a trademark is used in relation to services rather than products, it may sometimes be called a service mark, particularly in the United States.
As I comment previously, iTV is a registered trademark owned by kokos, Theodore C., 2801 Turtle Creek Blvd., Dallas, TX 95219.
Comments
Furious over rumor? Why not first find out if the rumor is true, then get furious?
They are Fast [to get] Furious.
(Sorry, I couldn?t resist)
Check ITV's trademark - the "i" is in lower case...
ok, but apparently so is the tv part :-)
Case is meaningless in trademark law, in the US at least. The trademark will be officially registered as 'ITV' and variations of case, font, etc. are all included under that mark.
I was actually joking...
I bet no one high up at itv said anything that was in that article.
On another note, itv is a trademark in broadcasting, not in other areas. The "red button" service in the uk has been marketed as iTV ( that is, interactive television) for over a decade.
As for who are itv, well if you watch PBS in the USA you're probably familiar with them for programmes such as Brideshead Revisited, Poirot, Morse, Sherlock Holmes (not the recent version, ats the bbc) Jeeves and Wooster and others. Their heyday was in the 80s and early 90s. Now they focus on entertainment rather than drama and have had most success in selling franchises like Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Britains Got Talent, Pop Idol etc although because much of their output is made by independent companies, who also make programmes for the BBC, the rights are not necessarily theirs. Itv is a braodcaster, not a studio as such.
Apple must be laughing their socks off.
Actually ITV are now touting pay per view. They expect people to pay for programmes like X Factor and the like. No chance, never going to wash. We're already paying too much for BBC.
Do this at your peril ITV.
Apple TV sounds much better anyway. This whole 'i' nomenclature is starting to wear a bit thin.
1) They create rumors where the Apple TV can apparently do amazing new things (run iOS apps, ,be impossibly small, output 1080p).
2) They then create a new rumor that Apple wont do all the things the earlier rumor was supposed to do.
3) They then create a rumor that Apple will change its name.
4) A freaking international company starts throwing hissy fits based on this new rumor.
And, the worst part is, people are falling for it, and attributing rumored actions to Apple's actions. It seems people no longer tell the difference between what Apple does, and what Apple has been rumored to do. Its even more remarkable considering how large a percentage of these rumors dont even come close to reality (how long had we been hearing of a tablet mac?)
Anyone know if iStream is taken?
Anybody know if iScream is taken? These rumours...honestly
Says everything it needs to about the product.
Check ITV's trademark - the "i" is in lower case...
Hmm, but the T is not capitalized.
It would be funny though if brand names were case sensitive.
The Mirror is well known for making up quotes and stories or, like other tabloids, just going through web forums picking up stories and running web site gossip as fact.
True! Or lies which ever way you look at it.
Now they focus on entertainment rather than drama and have had most success in selling franchises like Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Britains Got Talent, Pop Idol etc although because much of their output is made by independent companies, who also make programmes for the BBC, the rights are not necessarily theirs. Itv is a braodcaster, not a studio as such.
Yes and how ironic Piers Morgans, former Mirror Editor, appears on some of these entertainment shows.
The posturing could be about squeezing more money out of use of the trademark
Re: the name, let's think outside of the box, folks
iPod: 2 syllables, easy
iPhone: 2 syllables, ditto
iPad: 2 syllables, honestly, given the precedent of iPOD, the name iPAD was almost a no brainer
What to call the postulated TV
Hmmmm
iTunes: again 2 syllables sets precedent
why not iTube?
or
iView
iSee
iCtv
etc...
but seriously Apple TV would be fine as well, other than that they have already have used the name.
This won't be simple for Apple. ITV is a well-known global brand. There will be country by country fights.
I predict "AppleTV."
Nonsense - it is not a well known global brand.
Apple has a way of getting what it wants but there may be a situation where it's named iTV everywhere except in the UK. They will have time to fight this out because I see the iTV coming out only for the US for at least a few months.
Maybe they do not mind selling the logo..... they just want to up the outrage (pretend) so they can up the asking price.
Just a thought here.
en
It is highly unlikely that anyone at ITV has spoken to anyone at The Mirror about this. The Mirror (along with other UK tabloids) make up a lot of stuff. "The unnamed source" will most likely be "the author of the article".
No-one at ITV is over-reacting to this.
Besides it's not like Apple reminds the world of something archaic called the house of lords.
Eh?
Are you referring to one of the first bicameral parliamentary systems in the world, upon which most other democracies are still based?
Archaic would imply something that's become outdated or stuck in the past - in what way is the upper house of the UK's national legislature archaic (and please do some reading before you say 'hereditary peers').
maybe they should just text sj and tell him, " just change the name its no big deal"..
+1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/gree...irror-downturn
Try it again, click "New User Form Search (Basic)"
http://tess2.uspto.gov/
The first item I get back is the logo for the itv network.
Found it. Thank you.
Unfortunately, the iTV logo is a 'Wordmark' and not a 'Trademark'. As I comment previously, iTV is a registered trademark owned by kokos, Theodore C., 2801 Turtle Creek Blvd., Dallas, TX 95219.
http://www.trademarkia.com/itv-76688968.html
Regardless, as many have already mentioned, this conversation is basically moot unless Apple takes the first step.
How much cash does Apple have on hand?