You haven't read the court judgment, have you?
MS started out calling it Microsoft Live SkyDrive, but that evolved several times, through Windows Live Folders, but was accessed through logging in to a MS account. It then morphed again to Sky Drive, but withinSky Live.
MS applied for a trademark in May 2008 and Sky registered an opposition. And won.
It was not until mid 2010 that MS started marketing SkyDrive in a way that was independent from Live, and an MS environment.
It was not until October 2011 that MS began marketing SkyDrive separately, and this was, in the words of an MS marketing manager "part of a strategy to focus on individual the product names rather than the Windows Live service".
We then ended up with links embedded into emails, for example, branded entirely SkyDrive, with no reference to MS. The recipient of the email sees no MS links.
Part of the judgment reads
The Mr Hall referred to is MS General Manager Business Planning.There is no dispute that the recipient of an email with a SkyDrive picture link attached neither sees Windows Live branding nor anything to indicate that SkyDrive is connected with Microsoft. It was also accepted by Mr Hall that in such circumstances, the recipient was not necessarily a Microsoft or Windows Live Account holder and therefore had not accessed SkyDrive through the filter of a Microsoft account.
Your claim, therefore, that MS called it Microsoft SkyDrive not SkyDrive is, therefore, simply not correct.
Also, before MS adopted this strategy, and an overt, deliberate strategy at that, of calling it SkyDrive, divorced from the MS branding, they had already had the trademark court ruling, and LOST. Sure, they appealed, but they went ahead anyway despite losing, and then lost the appeal as well, that being the recent appeal court judgment I've been referring to, and quoting from.
As for the point about making cars, thank you for making my point for me.
If you produce ANYTHING, "passing it off" as a Ferrari product, or a Harrods product, or BMW, Rolls Royce, Rolex, etc, then you are abusing the trademark.
So, two points.
First, it's not about whether Sky offers cloud storage. They did, they may do again, but it's not the point. Trademark law protects categories of operation, "classes" as they're known. Ferrari make cars, yes? Try selling Ferrari branded clothes, watches, handbags, wallets and leather goods, etc, using the Ferrari "brand", their name and more especially their logo, and see what happens to you. Ditto, Rolex, Harrods, etc. And of course, such companies often do produce "merchandising", meaning Ferrari (and Rolls, Mercedes, Aston Martin, BMW, Lotus, and many others) might all make cars, but they also protect their brand in all sorts of other areas, and indeed, operate in all sorts of other areas.
It's the "passing off" that can get you in trouble. Years ago, a small shop opened up, called themselves Horrods (IIRC) and adopted the gold on green lettering of Harrods, the same typeface, etc, and produced, for instance, carrier bags that, unless you noticed the "a" in Harrods had morphed into "o" in Horrods, would be mistaken for the world-famous and distinctly up-market Knightsbridge store by most people.
It was, arguably, seeking to trade using Harrods good name.
Brands are, as I said a few posts ago, hugely valuable assets, and just about any company seeks to protect it's brands. Sky, for all that I personally dislike so much about them, had every reason to have the hump over MS abusing their trademark. MS rolled the dice on this and lost, not once, but twice, in court.
Finally, those "classes" I mentioned .... Sky might not offer cloud storage, but cloud storage is not a class. It's a part of a broader class that Sky emphatically do genuinely operate and provide goods and services in, AND for which they held the registered trademark long before MS got around to it.
Oh, and finally finally, it's not about some "backwater" broadcasting company on a few islands. The case doesn't revolve around UK trademarks (UKTM for short) but CTM as well. The C, in this case, stands for "Community", as in European Community. Hardly a few backwater islands, even for the high and mighty MS.
But even if it were just these islands, MS aren't doing it from "3,000 miles away". They do, you know, have a decent-sized office here, and local lawyers, etc, precisely to ensure they comply with local (and EU) rules and laws,
Well, it's not exactly snappy, but my bet is if they'd carried on marketing SkyDrive as MS Skydrive, or Microsoft SkyDrive, the outcome may well have been different.
But remember, they made a deliberate strategic decision to separate SkyDrive from the Microsoft branding, having already had a trademark court ruling that it infringed Sky's trademark.
They also tried to persuade the court that "Sky" was "allusive" of the internet, and that most people understood Sky referred to the internet. Huh?
The judge, quite rightly IMHO, crapped on that claim from a considerable height,
That's the stock market symbol for MacDonalds.
I'm sure there's many highly paid "branding" experts hard at work (for a change!) at Redmond, trying to come up with a replacement name.
mCloud anyone? Although I think "uSpace" would also be available.
Maybe we need a Hexus QOTW or poll?
Apparently Sky have previously tried to do the same thing with skype ages ago (I just read about it from ages ago), so yes, they are over protective ******s.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)