ITV is base level mainstream reality TV dreck, but sadly it's just the kind of rubbish that's very popular now.
Regardless of how tabloid and brainless the channel is, they've been around since the 1950s and there's no way they'd ever let Apple get anywhere near the 'ITV' name anywhere on planet earth. Remember ITV stuff is also exported all over the world too.
So in short, the new Apple TV will not, under any circumstances, in any country, be called ITV. It will not happen. At all. Ever. End of discussion.
exactly right. Essentially the broadcaster would have to give up the name of the Company. They are not giving up a product name like Cisco and iPhone. It would be like Apple giving up the rights to the name Apple.
The double standard here has reached a new high, IMO. A couple of months ago when iAds was announced and a company sued Apple over the name, most of the posters were enraged and talked about how the company was a troll, trying to ride Apple's coattails etc. And yet, when Apple supposedly wants to co-opt the name of an internationally known 60 year old that is ok.
I remember watching iTV programs on CBC in the 70s when I was growing up in Detroit.
I don't see what the fuss is about. It's not as if ITV has a reputation to damage. Their heyday was over thirty years ago. Now they are purveyors of reality schlock, dubious talent shows and ageing soaps. They have mismanaged themselves into irrelevance. They should be flattered to be associated with something cutting edge again.
ITV is base level mainstream reality TV dreck, but sadly it's just the kind of rubbish that's very popular now.
Regardless of how tabloid and brainless the channel is, they've been around since the 1950s and there's no way they'd ever let Apple get anywhere near the 'ITV' name anywhere on planet earth. Remember ITV stuff is also exported all over the world too.
So in short, the new Apple TV will not, under any circumstances, in any country, be called ITV. It will not happen. At all. Ever. End of discussion.
But is it more subtle than this, is it not? Is there not a distinction between the ITV network and ITVplc. ITVplc just owns the rights to broadcast on the ITV network in the various England And Wales regions plus the Scottish boarders. There are separate entities holding the licence in Northern Ireland and other Scottish regions. The ITV network has been in place since the 1950s (and the concept of an ITV network is owned by the ITA) but the ITV brand as owned by ITV plc has only been in place in the last five years.
I don't see what the fuss is about. It's not as if ITV has a reputation to damage. Their heyday was over thirty years ago. Now they are purveyors of reality schlock, dubious talent shows and ageing soaps. They have mismanaged themselves into irrelevance. They should be flattered to be associated with something cutting edge again.
Saying that, I prefer Apple TV.
What does the current state of the company have to do with whether Apple can take its name?
"You only have to look at recent problems with the iPhone 4 to see not everything Apple produces is gold dust," a source told the publication. "We all take our ITV brand very seriously and we'll do everything in our power to protect it."
That is just batty. They don't want to be associated with the apple brand? If they were an AI user I'd put them on ignore. Crazy Brits!
Trademarks and brands are for specific product or service categories.
The same name can apply to two different products, this is going to be exactly like the Apple Records dispute. Apple doesn't produce programming so 'itv' is a different market than a 'ITV'
Even though the (...) name is not official, (the press) reported on Friday that executives at the (company) were "furious" and met with lawyers this week to "stop the move." (They are) reportedly looking to achieve a global ban, preventing (the other company) from using the name in any territory.
Are we talking ITV's claim on "iTV", or Apple's claim on everything "Apple"? Hmmm.
Seriously, instead of Apple and ITV destroying each-other in courts worldwide and shelling out fortunes in legal fees, wouldn't a mutual agreement (say cross-licensing) be better? Perhaps offer ITV a deal to put their content on iTunes?
Anyway I don't care what the lawyers say. I can tell the difference between a ITV network and a iTV device.
The same name can apply to two different products, this is going to be exactly like the Apple Records dispute. Apple doesn't produce programming so 'itv' is a different market than a 'ITV'
Unfortunately ITV's US trademark claim also covers hardware. Go to www.uspto.gov and search for "ITV" under Trademarks / Search Marks.
They have a very broad claim, and it includes:
"Cinematographic and photographic films featuring dramas, comedies, musicals, sports, current affairs, music, musical performances, animated cartoons and programs (...yadda yadda...) apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images, namely, VCRs, cassette recorders, DVD recorders, personal digital recorders. apparatus for broadcasting, transmission, receiving, processing, reproducing, encoding and decoding of radio and television programs"
Might be hard for Apple to get around this without either an agreement from ITV, or simply a different name.
A new rumor suggesting the Apple TV could be redesigned and renamed the iTV has caused a stir with ITV, the oldest commercial television network in the U.K.
ITV is clearly not the same trademark as iTV. Notice the difference between majuscule and minuscule.
And Elgato will have the same problem especially when talking about their EyeTV product. In spoken English ...
ITV were the people responsible for the X-Factor and Britain's Got Talent (I think you've got a show called America's Got Talent too), just to give you an idea of the quality from them. They used to be quite good about 20-30 years ago but now they just make reality TV show garbage and shows with the word celebrity in them.
The only point of those shows is to wait for the buzzer for 80% of the acts on Britians Got Talent (ironic name) and as for X Factor, you might as well wait for the X Factor winner to play their song on the radio as most of the music involves idiots singing like a strangled cat.
ITV is a pretty s**t channel, at least BBC has some good shows.
Trademarks and brands are for specific product or service categories.
The same name can apply to two different products, this is going to be exactly like the Apple Records dispute. Apple doesn't produce programming so 'itv' is a different market than a 'ITV'
True but an Apple TV lets you watch films on demand downloaded form the internet. ITV also distribute programs over the internet.
ITV in the past produced set top box's for it's now failed ITV Digital network which is also very similar.
Also what happens when you try to search for a show based on Network/Studio, you'd see the name of the device you were using in the list.
The solution is simple though, ITV should just release there own version of Apple TV as iTV. Best to do it after do there usual announcing a product before getting the rights to the name.
I love Apple, but I gotta side with ITV here. Apple can come up with a different name or just stick with AppleTV.
Apple could also purchase ITV, lock stock and barrel... and then shut ITV doors forever with hardly a hit on their mountain of $30+ billion in cash (ITV Plc has a market cap of under $2B... uh, buh bye, lmao) or run them under with the cost of their own lawsuit. Besides, Apple wont be selling a TV channel... its a set top box. Different products that will not conflict nor is it likely to confuse consumers.
Apple could also purchase ITV, lock stock and barrel... and then shut ITV doors forever with hardly a hit on their mountain of $30+ billion in cash (ITV Plc has a market cap of under $2B... uh, buh bye, lmao) or run them under with the cost of their own lawsuit. Besides, Apple wont be selling a TV channel... its a set top box. Different products that will not conflict nor is it likely to confuse consumers.
The situation is slightly different when you're dealing with well-known mark. In such cases, brands can be protected in product categories that can be seemingly different. My point of view of view is that broadcasting and an STB are sufficiently similar in concept not to require this concept but yours may differ.
Trademark law is territorial (although like most IP law is aligning with other countries and becoming more consistent) so what is important if my contention (on this rumour no less!) is correct is whether iTV is a well-known brand in its own territory. Almost every Briton must be familiar with iTV.
There's a reason why Apple deferred in the first place and they probably won't try it on this time. I think this is the reason.
Comments
ITV is base level mainstream reality TV dreck, but sadly it's just the kind of rubbish that's very popular now.
Regardless of how tabloid and brainless the channel is, they've been around since the 1950s and there's no way they'd ever let Apple get anywhere near the 'ITV' name anywhere on planet earth. Remember ITV stuff is also exported all over the world too.
So in short, the new Apple TV will not, under any circumstances, in any country, be called ITV. It will not happen. At all. Ever. End of discussion.
exactly right. Essentially the broadcaster would have to give up the name of the Company. They are not giving up a product name like Cisco and iPhone. It would be like Apple giving up the rights to the name Apple.
The double standard here has reached a new high, IMO. A couple of months ago when iAds was announced and a company sued Apple over the name, most of the posters were enraged and talked about how the company was a troll, trying to ride Apple's coattails etc. And yet, when Apple supposedly wants to co-opt the name of an internationally known 60 year old that is ok.
I remember watching iTV programs on CBC in the 70s when I was growing up in Detroit.
Saying that, I prefer Apple TV.
ITV is base level mainstream reality TV dreck, but sadly it's just the kind of rubbish that's very popular now.
Regardless of how tabloid and brainless the channel is, they've been around since the 1950s and there's no way they'd ever let Apple get anywhere near the 'ITV' name anywhere on planet earth. Remember ITV stuff is also exported all over the world too.
So in short, the new Apple TV will not, under any circumstances, in any country, be called ITV. It will not happen. At all. Ever. End of discussion.
But is it more subtle than this, is it not? Is there not a distinction between the ITV network and ITVplc. ITVplc just owns the rights to broadcast on the ITV network in the various England And Wales regions plus the Scottish boarders. There are separate entities holding the licence in Northern Ireland and other Scottish regions. The ITV network has been in place since the 1950s (and the concept of an ITV network is owned by the ITA) but the ITV brand as owned by ITV plc has only been in place in the last five years.
or iATVHD?
I don't see what the fuss is about. It's not as if ITV has a reputation to damage. Their heyday was over thirty years ago. Now they are purveyors of reality schlock, dubious talent shows and ageing soaps. They have mismanaged themselves into irrelevance. They should be flattered to be associated with something cutting edge again.
Saying that, I prefer Apple TV.
What does the current state of the company have to do with whether Apple can take its name?
Can someone explain to me why a rumor would make anyone furious????
I know, huh? if Apple wanted to use my trademark, I'd be all, "OK. Licensing fees, please. Thank you very much, wealthy company."
Motorola is practically financing the next Star Wars project.
"You only have to look at recent problems with the iPhone 4 to see not everything Apple produces is gold dust," a source told the publication. "We all take our ITV brand very seriously and we'll do everything in our power to protect it."
That is just batty. They don't want to be associated with the apple brand? If they were an AI user I'd put them on ignore. Crazy Brits!
But is it registered, i.e., accompanied with the universally recognized, ® or TM symbol? Or even copyrighted, i.e., with the © symbol?
Trademarks and brands are for specific product or service categories.
The same name can apply to two different products, this is going to be exactly like the Apple Records dispute. Apple doesn't produce programming so 'itv' is a different market than a 'ITV'
They used to be quite good about 20-30 years ago but now they just make reality TV show garbage and shows with the word celebrity in them.
Perfect for an Apple brand, then. Seeing as it's mainly celebrities and celebrity mad chavs who buy into the Apple hype.
Even though the (...) name is not official, (the press) reported on Friday that executives at the (company) were "furious" and met with lawyers this week to "stop the move." (They are) reportedly looking to achieve a global ban, preventing (the other company) from using the name in any territory.
Are we talking ITV's claim on "iTV", or Apple's claim on everything "Apple"? Hmmm.
Seriously, instead of Apple and ITV destroying each-other in courts worldwide and shelling out fortunes in legal fees, wouldn't a mutual agreement (say cross-licensing) be better? Perhaps offer ITV a deal to put their content on iTunes?
Anyway I don't care what the lawyers say. I can tell the difference between a ITV network and a iTV device.
The same name can apply to two different products, this is going to be exactly like the Apple Records dispute. Apple doesn't produce programming so 'itv' is a different market than a 'ITV'
Unfortunately ITV's US trademark claim also covers hardware. Go to www.uspto.gov and search for "ITV" under Trademarks / Search Marks.
They have a very broad claim, and it includes:
"Cinematographic and photographic films featuring dramas, comedies, musicals, sports, current affairs, music, musical performances, animated cartoons and programs (...yadda yadda...) apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images, namely, VCRs, cassette recorders, DVD recorders, personal digital recorders. apparatus for broadcasting, transmission, receiving, processing, reproducing, encoding and decoding of radio and television programs"
Might be hard for Apple to get around this without either an agreement from ITV, or simply a different name.
A new rumor suggesting the Apple TV could be redesigned and renamed the iTV has caused a stir with ITV, the oldest commercial television network in the U.K.
ITV is clearly not the same trademark as iTV. Notice the difference between majuscule and minuscule.
And Elgato will have the same problem especially when talking about their EyeTV product. In spoken English ...
ITV were the people responsible for the X-Factor and Britain's Got Talent (I think you've got a show called America's Got Talent too), just to give you an idea of the quality from them. They used to be quite good about 20-30 years ago but now they just make reality TV show garbage and shows with the word celebrity in them.
The only point of those shows is to wait for the buzzer for 80% of the acts on Britians Got Talent (ironic name) and as for X Factor, you might as well wait for the X Factor winner to play their song on the radio as most of the music involves idiots singing like a strangled cat.
ITV is a pretty s**t channel, at least BBC has some good shows.
Trademarks and brands are for specific product or service categories.
The same name can apply to two different products, this is going to be exactly like the Apple Records dispute. Apple doesn't produce programming so 'itv' is a different market than a 'ITV'
True but an Apple TV lets you watch films on demand downloaded form the internet. ITV also distribute programs over the internet.
ITV in the past produced set top box's for it's now failed ITV Digital network which is also very similar.
Also what happens when you try to search for a show based on Network/Studio, you'd see the name of the device you were using in the list.
The solution is simple though, ITV should just release there own version of Apple TV as iTV. Best to do it after do there usual announcing a product before getting the rights to the name.
Funny that a rumor would set someone off.
All four pages of comments, no less. Now this rumor ought to be good for another dozen - how about iFox?
Here's iTV "furious"
I love Apple, but I gotta side with ITV here. Apple can come up with a different name or just stick with AppleTV.
Apple could also purchase ITV, lock stock and barrel... and then shut ITV doors forever with hardly a hit on their mountain of $30+ billion in cash (ITV Plc has a market cap of under $2B... uh, buh bye, lmao) or run them under with the cost of their own lawsuit. Besides, Apple wont be selling a TV channel... its a set top box. Different products that will not conflict nor is it likely to confuse consumers.
Amazing how people get ticked off with a non-existent Apple product
This!
Apple could also purchase ITV, lock stock and barrel... and then shut ITV doors forever with hardly a hit on their mountain of $30+ billion in cash (ITV Plc has a market cap of under $2B... uh, buh bye, lmao) or run them under with the cost of their own lawsuit. Besides, Apple wont be selling a TV channel... its a set top box. Different products that will not conflict nor is it likely to confuse consumers.
The situation is slightly different when you're dealing with well-known mark. In such cases, brands can be protected in product categories that can be seemingly different. My point of view of view is that broadcasting and an STB are sufficiently similar in concept not to require this concept but yours may differ.
Trademark law is territorial (although like most IP law is aligning with other countries and becoming more consistent) so what is important if my contention (on this rumour no less!) is correct is whether iTV is a well-known brand in its own territory. Almost every Briton must be familiar with iTV.
There's a reason why Apple deferred in the first place and they probably won't try it on this time. I think this is the reason.