http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32593735
QuoteCourt says Skype's name is too similar to Sky's
Video chat software Skype's name is so similar to the broadcaster Sky's that the public is likely to be confused between the two, an EU court has ruled.
The judgement prevents Microsoft from registering a trademark for Skype's name and bubble-design logo.
The US company intends to appeal against the decision.
Judges at the General Court of the European Union said: "Conceptually, the figurative element conveys no concept, except perhaps that of a cloud."
"[That] would further increase the likelihood of the element 'Sky' being recognised within the word element 'Skype', for clouds are to be found 'in the sky' and thus may readily be associated with the word 'sky'."
Microsoft had brought the case to challenge an earlier ruling by the European Union's Office for Harmonisation of Internal Markets, which, following a 2005 complaint by the broadcaster, also said Skype branding was too similar to Sky's to be granted an EU-wide trademark.
This is not the first legal clash between the two companies.
In 2014, Microsoft changed the name of its cloud storage service from SkyDrive to OneDrive after the High Court in London ruled Sky's trademark had been infringed.
However, a spokeswoman for Microsoft said it was not now facing the prospect of another imminent rebrand.
"The case was not a legal challenge to Skype's use of the mark, it was only against the registration," she told BBC News.
"We're confident that no confusion exists between these brands and services and will appeal. This decision does not require us to alter product names in any way."
Microsoft believes it still had the means to prevent anyone else from trying to call their product Skype.
Smartpen battle
In theory, Sky could now try to pursue Microsoft for a licensing fee even if it did not want to block the use of Skype's name outright.
However, the firm did not directly address this point in a statement released following the ruling.
"Sky notes today's decision from the General Court of the European Union," it said.
"This relates to a long-running dispute with Skype over the extension of its trademark applications to cover a broad range of goods and services that overlap with Sky's own trademark registrations - including, but not limited to, TV related products and services.
"Our intention has been to protect the Sky brand with our research showing that similarities in name and logo have the potential to confuse customers."
I'm not sure I agree with the ruling. In these cases my personal yard stick is, "Is there a chance to confuse the two or think they're part of the same group?" Both Sky and Skype are well known brands, and I doubt anyone thinks that one is connected to the other or that there's competition between the two.
For comparison, see the case of "Focus" in Germany. The news magazine Focus sued Ford when they wanted to introduce their model of the same name, but the courts ruled that the two products were sufficiently dissimilar that there's no risk of the customer being confused or misled. Or think of Bounty which is a paper towel and a chocolate bar.
A counter example would be Budweiser which was an EU beer before Anheuser Busch tried to bring its American Bud over, and this could obviously cause issues if there's two competing same-name brands in the same market segment.
Back to Sky: in Germany there's a supermarket chain of that name, but chances are they registered their brand before the broadcaster (current Sky was previously Premiere in Germany).
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deutsch-werden.de%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fsky-supermarkt.jpg&hash=0ecb3c135228718ef73b743800dfd0826f4b2802)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.hostonnet.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F08%2Fskype-logo.jpg&hash=97b41acdca6deb45685904e79122e0fc3f408980)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.uswitchstatic.com%2F_img%2Flibrary%2Fnews_image%2Fsky_tv_color_logo_634x306x24_expand_ha5ab3ba9.jpg&hash=2204e05b39f602c40dcf6c2a9d336b0f4d1d597b)
Yeah, totally the same.
Microsoft are being denied trademark protection, not being forced to change the logo. It's not the same issue and the threshold afaik is lower. At the end of the day they can keep using and marketing it.
Though Sky could now push for them to either abandon the brand or (probably more lucrative) charge a licensing fee.
Since Microsoft would refuse, that would lead to another case where the burden of proof would be higher. If I recall correctly from my IP law classes, Sky would need to prove that Microsoft is purposely leeching off their customers and marketing, which I find doubtful.
The only thing that happened here is that Microsoft wanted a trademark to protect its brand, and has been denied it because there's a similar one already granted. The only thing is that this leaves Microsoft defenceless against people ripping off the Skype brand.
Still doesn't sound like a desirable outcome in this case. It's hard for me not to see this as a case of the EU protecting their own against evöl amerikkkan corporations at the (possible) expense of the consumer.
Quote from: Syt on May 06, 2015, 03:39:57 AM
Still doesn't sound like a desirable outcome in this case. It's hard for me not to see this as a case of the EU protecting their own against evöl amerikkkan corporations at the (possible) expense of the consumer.
I don't know, Sky is controlled by 20th Century Fox, an American corporation. I think you're reading too much into this.
Maybe. :hmm:
Quote from: celedhring on May 06, 2015, 03:48:56 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 06, 2015, 03:39:57 AM
Still doesn't sound like a desirable outcome in this case. It's hard for me not to see this as a case of the EU protecting their own against evöl amerikkkan corporations at the (possible) expense of the consumer.
I don't know, Sky is controlled by 20th Century Fox, an American corporation. I think you're reading too much into this.
And Skype, even if owned by Microsoft, was developed by Estonians, Swedes and Danes and is still mostly developed in Estonia.
Quote from: The Larch on May 06, 2015, 04:22:50 AM
Quote from: celedhring on May 06, 2015, 03:48:56 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 06, 2015, 03:39:57 AM
Still doesn't sound like a desirable outcome in this case. It's hard for me not to see this as a case of the EU protecting their own against evöl amerikkkan corporations at the (possible) expense of the consumer.
I don't know, Sky is controlled by 20th Century Fox, an American corporation. I think you're reading too much into this.
And Skype, even if owned by Microsoft, was developed by Estonians, Swedes and Danes and is still mostly developed in Estonia.
There are only two possible logical explanations:
-the judge and/or the applicable law is absolutely moronic
-a law nominally meant to control the power of the big corporations is used as a tool in the games/battles of big corporations, as usual
Ruling sounds retarded to me.
It's a sensible decision, not every brand is needed or deserve to have trademark protection.
This only comes a surprise because the US Court pretty rubber stamp any & all applications.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2015, 07:35:39 AM
It's a sensible decision, not every brand is needed or deserve to have trademark protection.
This only comes a surprise because the US Court pretty rubber stamp any & all applications.
Skype, dude. We are talking about Skype.
Quote from: Tamas on May 06, 2015, 07:38:35 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2015, 07:35:39 AM
It's a sensible decision, not every brand is needed or deserve to have trademark protection.
This only comes a surprise because the US Court pretty rubber stamp any & all applications.
Skype, dude. We are talking about Skype.
Yes? Trade & Patent courts give protection way too easily to internet/software based brands.
there's only one skype, and it's not likely to be repeated except for intentional copies. name's too distorted unless EU trademark laws are extremely particular over this issue
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2015, 07:35:39 AM
It's a sensible decision, not every brand is needed or deserve to have trademark protection.
This only comes a surprise because the US Court pretty rubber stamp any & all applications.
Why shouldn't trademarks receive trademark protection/ Why is giving trademarks trademark protection just a matter of a "rubber stamp?" Do you say that Canadian marriage license issuers just "rubber stamp" marriage license applications?
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2015, 07:44:58 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 06, 2015, 07:38:35 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2015, 07:35:39 AM
It's a sensible decision, not every brand is needed or deserve to have trademark protection.
This only comes a surprise because the US Court pretty rubber stamp any & all applications.
Skype, dude. We are talking about Skype.
Yes? Trade & Patent courts give protection way too easily to internet/software based brands.
Why do you think so? How can we distinguish between giving "protection way too easily" to giving "protection just about exactly easily enough?"
Bad prescedent.
3 letters the same is enough to be an intrusion?
Will it be 2 next?
Then 1?
Only 26 companies allowed in the UK?
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2015, 07:35:39 AM
It's a sensible decision, not every brand is needed or deserve to have trademark protection.
This only comes a surprise because the US Court pretty rubber stamp any & all applications.
???
Where to start. US courts don't entertain TM applications - those go to an agency, the PTO. US courts often deny trademark protection when challenges arise. The possession of a valid and enforceable TM is based not on "need" or "desert" but on criteria set forth in the law. Those criteria seem to be similar in the US and EU based on the OP case report, although it is possible (likely?) that a typical US court might come to a different decision.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2015, 07:44:58 AM
Yes? Trade & Patent courts give protection way too easily to internet/software based brands.
Oh more. There is no "trade & patent" court. Patent cases go to federal district courts, some who favor patentees, some not. Appeals usually go to the Federal Circuit. That is sort of like a "patent court" and it is sort of pro-patentee. However, they keep getting reversed by the Supreme Court (yeah those guys) in a series of cases over the past decade that have ratcheted back significantly on patent. Not to mention there are 3-4 "reform" bills floating around Congress that would ratchet back further.
Trademark cases usually go to regular federal courts and I am not aware of any perception that the US is more protective than other jurisdictions.
You really can't take verbal shortcuts when it comes to Patent & Trademarks law or the Grammar-Law police is on your ass HARD.
Meh. It's an American tech company. It's a matter of policy for European institutions to persecute them.
GF- these aren't grammatical quibbles. The gist of your posts seems to be that the US is comparatively highly protective of patent and trademarks (compared to ?) and that the courts in particular are overly solicitous to rights holders ("rubber stamps"). If that was not the point you are trying to convey, tell me and I will stand corrected. But in reality I don't think the US regime stands out that much and the clear trend going back about a decade is court rulings against putative or actual rights holders.
I haven't reviewed the EU decision in the OP, but the article indicates that the decision had nothing to do with Skype's right or eligibility for TM protection in theory; rather the issue seems to have been that the court found the proposed mark to be confusingly similar to Sky's. US law has the same doctrine, and US courts adopt similar approaches in analyzing claims of confusion and similarity. The outcome here is curious at first glance, though without seeing the court's reasoning, it's hard to evaluate.
You should have just called him a little turd in Yiddish and saved the time.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2015, 02:04:59 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2015, 07:44:58 AM
Yes? Trade & Patent courts give protection way too easily to internet/software based brands.
Oh more. There is no "trade & patent" court. Patent cases go to federal district courts, some who favor patentees, some not. Appeals usually go to the Federal Circuit. That is sort of like a "patent court" and it is sort of pro-patentee. However, they keep getting reversed by the Supreme Court (yeah those guys) in a series of cases over the past decade that have ratcheted back significantly on patent. Not to mention there are 3-4 "reform" bills floating around Congress that would ratchet back further.
Ooh...that sounds interesting, could you elaborate on that or post a link to an explanation aimed at laymen?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2015, 02:41:49 PM
GF- these aren't grammatical quibbles. The gist of your posts seems to be that the US is comparatively highly protective of patent and trademarks (compared to ?) and that the courts in particular are overly solicitous to rights holders ("rubber stamps"). If that was not the point you are trying to convey, tell me and I will stand corrected. But in reality I don't think the US regime stands out that much and the clear trend going back about a decade is court rulings against putative or actual rights holders.
I haven't reviewed the EU decision in the OP, but the article indicates that the decision had nothing to do with Skype's right or eligibility for TM protection in theory; rather the issue seems to have been that the court found the proposed mark to be confusingly similar to Sky's. US law has the same doctrine, and US courts adopt similar approaches in analyzing claims of confusion and similarity. The outcome here is curious at first glance, though without seeing the court's reasoning, it's hard to evaluate.
I'm not sure GF is making intellectual arguments. I tried to get him to restate his emo generalizations in more specific terms (like, what limits he feels are being over-stepped), but he has just responded with more emo. Given that he's not making intellectual arguments, I don't think he can be persuaded by your intellectual arguments.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 06, 2015, 06:02:19 PM
Ooh...that sounds interesting, could you elaborate on that or post a link to an explanation aimed at laymen?
Some of the major ones are:
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006): Supreme Court reversed the longstanding presumption that patentees could get injunctions, ruled that standard test for injunctive relief applies
KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) - Supreme Court made it easier for accused infringers to invalidate a patent for obviousness
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012)
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014)
Series of decisions limited the scope of what is patentable - significant impact on business method patents and software patents in particular.
Quote from: grumbler on May 06, 2015, 06:06:43 PM
I'm not sure GF is making intellectual arguments. I tried to get him to restate his emo generalizations in more specific terms (like, what limits he feels are being over-stepped), but he has just responded with more emo. Given that he's not making intellectual arguments, I don't think he can be persuaded by your intellectual arguments.
Domo arigato, Mr. Grumbler.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2015, 02:41:49 PM
GF- these aren't grammatical quibbles. The gist of your posts seems to be that the US is comparatively highly protective of patent and trademarks (compared to ?) and that the courts in particular are overly solicitous to rights holders ("rubber stamps"). If that was not the point you are trying to convey, tell me and I will stand corrected. But in reality I don't think the US regime stands out that much and the clear trend going back about a decade is court rulings against putative or actual rights holders.
That's my point but I went wrong when I used "court" instead of the PTO office for the whole generalization. Compared to? Compare to running/particing a sensible society.
The PTO gave a design patent to the Apple Watch! A square with round corner!
Quote from: grumbler on May 06, 2015, 06:06:43 PM
I'm not sure GF is making intellectual arguments. I tried to get him to restate his emo generalizations in more specific terms (like, what limits he feels are being over-stepped), but he has just responded with more emo. Given that he's not making intellectual arguments, I don't think he can be persuaded by your intellectual arguments.
We don't have marriage licences, afaik.
My mastery of the written language, any of them, is not up to par to have an intellectual argument in a timely manner during the work day.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 07, 2015, 11:24:44 AM
The PTO gave a design patent to the Apple Watch! A square with round corner!
The source you cite here does not support your argument.
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2015, 11:28:18 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 07, 2015, 11:24:44 AM
The PTO gave a design patent to the Apple Watch! A square with round corner!
The source you cite here does not support your argument.
Source I cite (http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=D0728624&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-adv.htm%2526r%3D1%2526p%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPTXT%2526S1%3Dapple.AANM.%2526OS%3Daanm%2F(apple)%2526RS%3D&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page)
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 07, 2015, 11:34:05 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2015, 11:28:18 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 07, 2015, 11:24:44 AM
The PTO gave a design patent to the Apple Watch! A square with round corner!
The source you cite here does not support your argument.
Source I cite (http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=D0728624&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-adv.htm%2526r%3D1%2526p%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPTXT%2526S1%3Dapple.AANM.%2526OS%3Daanm%2F(apple)%2526RS%3D&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page)
The source you cite here does not support your argument.