News - BSkyB wins legal case over Microsoft use of 'SkyDrive' name

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jenny_Y8S

Yeah, you're right because the SkyDrive service is commonly delivered through a dish and satellite combination and Sky TV no no such association.

Hold on...

---

Drive in the Sky (Cloud)...which ties in with their "Azure" cloud platform.

SkyTV does not have to be delivered via satellite (which are in space, not the sky).

Perhaps the names only make sense to the tech savvy?

This might work in Microsoft's favour, they could say to Sky, hey don't use your own storage solution for backing up photos and stuff but use ours - then any Sky Customer sees "SkyDrive" and doesn't think any different, and Microsoft can carry on using their own name too. This benefits Microsoft because of an increase in user base. It benefits Sky, because they don't have to manage the storage network.

The benefit of MS Skydrive is they can save Word, Excel, Powerpoint docs and edit them online using the Office Apps etc

Are we to assume Skyrim will soon be targeted because BSkyB want to introduce a special interest channel with that name?* Perhaps Skype also, the SkyPE channel could be invaluable for schools short of inspiration about what to do on the field.

I think Sky got into cloud services rather later than Microsoft, seems to me Microsoft should be telling Sky they must name their cloud storage product quite differently... Unless of course this has been rumbling on since 2007 and only just reached a judgement - not entirely implausible!

*(Channel for programming from Pacific rim countries in the vein of Sky Atlantic, I know what you thought... dirty minds!)


EDIT: On seeing other posts seems Microsoft made a stupid decision in naming the product, probably by taking a far too US centric view. Should have called in CloudDrive or some whatever.

Perhaps in all fairness if consumer confusion is the issue then from now on nobody should get to use the name SkyDrive...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingpotnoodle

Are we to assume Skyrim will soon be targeted because BSkyB want to introduce a special interest channel with that name?* Perhaps Skype also, the SkyPE channel could be invaluable for schools short of inspiration about what to do on the field.

I think Sky got into cloud services rather later than Microsoft, seems to me Microsoft should be telling Sky they must name their cloud storage product quite differently... Unless of course this has been rumbling on since 2007 and only just reached a judgement - not entirely implausible!

*(Channel for programming from Pacific rim countries in the vein of Sky Atlantic, I know what you thought... dirty minds!)


EDIT: On seeing other posts seems Microsoft made a stupid decision in naming the product, probably by taking a far too US centric view. Should have called in CloudDrive or some whatever.

Perhaps in all fairness if consumer confusion is the issue then from now on nobody should get to use the name SkyDrive...

---

Consumer confusion is part of the issue in determining if trademark has been violated. If Sky have a valid trademark, and the Court says they do, and if it's been infringed by someone that had no right to use it, as the Court decision says, then it's really a bit much to say the legal owner if the trademark can't use it either.

It 's kind-of like me nicking your car, getting caught, denying it was your car and saying it was mine, and the court then convicting me of nicking it, but crushing it anyway. You've found the thief, got me convicted and were rewarded by the court destroying your car, not giving it back. Is that "fairness?"

If a trademark exists, and IF it covers the relevant goods and services classes, and IF someone else infringes that trademark, then the mark owner has a right to expect their pisition to be defended by the courts, or we might just as well not have a trademark system in the first place. And personally, for all it's faults, I think the consumer is a huge beneficiary of trademarks, not least because it helps stop some fly-by-night nobody marketing legally crap as Rolls Royce, or Apple, or Rolex, or Rayban, or .... well, no doubt millions of other and often less prominent examples.

As for the first couple of examples in your post, you don't just register a word, even Sky, and assume that stops anyone else using it for anything. That's not how it works. You register a trademark in specific classes, and it protects that trademark in those classes, and they're fairly limited. Because BSkyB have several relevant classes registered for "Sky" doesn"t stop me starting a band called Sky ( though the band of that name might object), or offering Skydiving classes, or starting a plumbing company, or a limousine service called Sky Blue, or whatever.

Quite a bit of the legal argument was over exactly what the registered classes covered, as the internet and services it can provide evolved fast. MS lost that argument, too.

I really suggest anyone thinking this decision is ludicrous reads, or at least skims, the actual judgement. It is long, and tedious as hell, but it does cover all these sorts of issues, explaining both the legal logic, the relevant prececents and where the current case differs from them, and exactly how the decision was reached. And it does all hang together well.

Thanks for the details, Saracen. Before reading that I thought that maybe the June 2011 date had to do with the SkyDrive site overhaul, which amongst other things "lessened emphasis on the 'Windows Live' piece of the 'Windows Live SkyDrive' brand, in favor of the simpler 'SkyDrive'" (quoted from here), but it looks like it's a long standing case.

I guess I should take my own advice and read source links. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ET3D

Thanks for the details, Saracen. Before reading that I thought that maybe the June 2011 date had to do with the SkyDrive site overhaul, which amongst other things "lessened emphasis on the 'Windows Live' piece of the 'Windows Live SkyDrive' brand, in favor of the simpler 'SkyDrive'" (quoted from here), but it looks like it's a long standing case.

I guess I should take my own advice and read source links. :)

---

It is indeed a quite old case, finally settled, but that "rebranding" issue is part of the judgement.

For instance, the consumer confusion is likely to be very different between "SkyDrive" as "Microsoft SkyDrive". I'm not saying the lateer wouldn't infringe, but it'd sure be a hell of a lot less confusing.

There were quite a few issues in this judgement, some entirely separate from each other, but others over-lapping. That's why the judgement is quite long - each has to be dealt with separately, but where they overlap, dealt with in the context of the others too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

It 's kind-of like me nicking your car, getting caught, denying it was your car and saying it was mine, and the court then convicting me of nicking it, but crushing it anyway. You've found the thief, got me convicted and were rewarded by the court destroying your car, not giving it back. Is that "fairness?"

---

Well, no... bad analogy. Sky weren't actually using the "SkyDrive" name in that exact form or had a similar cloud storage product at the time, so it wasn't really nicked and as I read they objected to the concatenation of Sky and another word from the outset because it's something they do in many of their own brands. If a single car is stolen there is no confusion about who owns the car and should have the car.

To force a car analogy it's like me designing a car that looks rather like it is a new design from your company, you object instantly but I ignore you and sell mine anyway. Later on people blame you when my cars break down because they look so much like one of yours. You get quite irate and ask me to pay compensation, you also want to launch a similar car that now looks *really* similar and have evidence it will confuse the hell out of your punters. However I'm now quite entrenched with that design and it's not very easy to change it.

The problem as I see it now is that if as Sky showed consumers aren't clear then the problem could apply in reverse, if Microsoft rebrand to "Ground Drive" or whatever and Sky actually then do use "Sky Drive" for their cloud product then a lot of consumers will probably still think it's a Microsoft service and may end up sorely disappointed that the functionality isn't what they remember and start complaining to the wrong company (now MS) again. Therefore if consumer protection is a grand aim then perhaps nobody should use "Sky Drive" to avoid confusion for the poor little lambs... I appreciate that probably has sod all legal basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

If a trademark exists, and IF it covers the relevant goods and services classes, and IF someone else infringes that trademark, then the mark owner has a right to expect their position to be defended by the courts, or we might just as well not have a trademark system in the first place. And personally, for all it's faults, I think the consumer is a huge beneficiary of trademarks, not least because it helps stop some fly-by-night nobody marketing legally crap as Rolls Royce, or Apple, or Rolex, or Rayban, or .... well, no doubt millions of other and often less prominent examples.

---

Of course totally agree... it'd be very hard not to.

Although my new Appel tarMac is a very nice computer, even if the fan sounds a bit gravelly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

As for the first couple of examples in your post, you don't just register a word, even Sky, and assume that stops anyone else using it for anything. That's not how it works. You register a trademark in specific classes, and it protects that trademark in those classes, and they're fairly limited. Because BSkyB have several relevant classes registered for "Sky" doesn"t stop me starting a band called Sky ( though the band of that name might object), or offering Skydiving classes, or starting a plumbing company, or a limousine service called Sky Blue, or whatever.

---

Those examples were rather clearly jokes. I'm sure Sky have no intention of pursuing Nissan over the Skyline or challenging people who market "Sky Diving" either (mental image of people attempting to parachute whilst holding a satellite dish at 28.2E to watch Game of Thrones).

My first reaction (knowing about how trademarks apply to certain market categories already) to the whole thing was "Oh dear, Sky being rather silly, not like they had a cloud storage product in 2007 was it" - Sky only got into broadband in 2006 and "Sky" is a rather generic word clearly associated with clouds. But on reading more detail it does seem Sky have a very valid case and Microsoft didn't think about the localisation of the brand and foolishly named it, they should have steered clear of "Sky*" and I assume many others now will.

If this is all about consumer confusion then why don't they just put the company's name in parenthesis next to it in the app store or what ever? It takes away all the ambiguity and no one has to be sued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zap117

If this is all about consumer confusion then why don't they just put the company's name in parenthesis next to it in the app store or what ever? It takes away all the ambiguity and no one has to be sued.

---

It's not all about consumer confusion. That is one of a considerable number of aspects.

Well at least Sky can use any forthcoming monies to produce more of it's quality programmes at value for money prices...