Could a Skype name change be on the horizon?

[Ink]

Content source

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/skype-may-name-change-193125291.html

Yesterday, the EU’s Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) ruled in a judgement that Sky’s opposition to Skype’s trademark is valid, both because Skype contains the letters ‘sky’ and also as the two brands haven’t existed side by side for long enough to rule out the likelihood of confusion.

Sky initially filed their own trademark application in 2003, with Skype following suit in 2004 and 2005.

So what does all this mean for Skype’s future?

Speaking to TheJournal.ie, barrister and media and intellectual property expert Ronan Lupton said that this one probably has “some distance left to run”.

“A finding has been made, but the exact implications of it are not yet clear,” says Lupton.

Is the decision potentially very financially damaging to Skype? Yes.

Might they have to change their name? Yes.

I think it’s also interesting that the OHIM found that the fact Skype might be run over a Sky broadband network has no relevance to the finding.
​

Lupton also thinks that the decision is one with merit.

“More tech-savvy users may be very clear that Skype and Sky are not one and the same,” he says.

But that doesn’t mean that more regular consumers wouldn’t confuse the two, or even think that Skype is a subsidiary of Sky.
​

But Skype’s legal fight isn’t necessarily finished just yet.

The company still has the option to appeal the OHIM’s decision before the European Court of Justice, the EU’s highest arbiter.

 

[BoraMurdar]

This act is so stupid that I am speechless. Whoever mix up well known Skype for a Sky is an idiot.

 

[Deleted member 21043]

This is ridiculous... I've never heard of anyone get confused between the two companies before.

If Skype changed their brand name, I recon it would affect their reputation - the brand name "Skype" has flown to millions of people over the years. If they just changed it, it would potentially confuse people and/or lower their product usage (it's possible).

Regardless of this, I like the name "Skype" and I am sure many others do. I'd hate to see it changed to something else. Hopefully Skype win this and won't have to change their name. Because if they do, that's stupid...

I tell you, the law suits regarding issues related to patenting these days just get funnier and funnier...

Thanks for the thread!

 

[Nico@FMA]

This is ridiculous... I've never heard of anyone get confused between the two companies before.

If Skype changed their brand name, I recon it would affect their reputation - the brand name "Skype" has flown to millions of people over the years. If they just changed it, it would potentially confuse people and/or lower their product usage (it's possible).

Regardless of this, I like the name "Skype" and I am sure many others do. I'd hate to see it changed to something else. Hopefully Skype win this and won't have to change their name. Because if they do, that's stupid...

I tell you, the law suits regarding issues related to patenting these days just get funnier and funnier...

I understand what you are saying but remember the conversation we did have about trade marks? Technically if a senior trade mark holder does file a dispute like sky did then it does not matter who you are if the dispute is valid then you have 3 options:

1: Change the name (and hope that Sky calls it a day as Sky can sue them for using the name and if the claim is valid it will cost Skype millions)
2: Pay off the dispute and keep the name (Only if the senior trademark holder agrees and is willing to settle)
3: Sign a seniority agreement which is pretty much the same as option 2 but the difference is that sky would sign this agreement and allows Skype to continue as a name and this would mean that Sky loses seniority claim towards the brand name Skype.

On a personal note i have to say that the trademark office has been very sloppy here as a quick search would point that Sky has seniority so the name Skype could NEVER get seniority, on the other hand its lame by Sky to file a dispute, because when Skype did file their brand name for registering at the trademark office there is a legal 3 months cooldown time where senior mark holders can file a dispute to block the registering process and then Skype would have been forced to come up with a different name as the trademark office by law is not allowed to register the name in the first place.
I know this first hand....
When i wanted to register FMA i could not it was denied due to the fact that the EU trademark office denied the name because there was already a senior trademark holder which did dispute the name.
How would the know? Simple by law the trademark office have to contact the holder and inform them that a similar name is being registered. So i needed to change it to FMAIS.
Anyway as mentioned i went trough the process myself, and i just cannot understand that Skype was allowed to be registered in the first place because as i said by international law it does not matter which trademark office is going to register the name the law is universal and any trademark office will do the steps as mentioned above.

Cheers

 

[BoraMurdar]

@Nico@FMA
I know, but the whole thing is ridiculous because the "Sky" and the "Skype" is not the same. I find it more ridiculous that Sky could actually trademark the word Sky in the first place if the law is the same for everyone... I read that citizens of EU could be confused by the word Skype as Sky Pee and by that think that it was the Sky's ownership. Skype is pronounced like type and not like sky pee.

About a year ago, reading the newspapers I was shocked. Apparently some woman (somewhere, cannot remember) washed her cat, and put it in the microwave to dry it. Cat's destiny can be presupposed, but that woman sued the company for not clarifying in it's sheet book that animals are not supposed to be dried in the microwaves... Guess what. That woman won the case.

 

[Nico@FMA]

@Nico@FMA
I know, but the whole thing is ridiculous because the "Sky" and the "Skype" is not the same. I find it more ridiculous that Sky could actually trademark the word Sky in the first place if the law is the same for everyone... I read that citizens of EU could be confused by the word Skype as Sky Pee and by that think that it was the Sky's ownership. Skype is pronounced like type and not like sky pee.

About a year ago, reading the newspapers I was shocked. Apparently some woman (somewhere, cannot remember) washed her cat, and put it in the microwave to dry it. Cat's destiny can be presupposed, but that woman sued the company for not clarifying in it's sheet book that animals are not supposed to be dried in the microwaves... Guess what. That woman won the case.

Yeah i do remember that about the microwave and the woman did get a huge amount of dollars (50 million or so)
But regarding the trademark this law has been made long long time ago, and trademark names have always seniority.
The whole thing is that you can register any name you like. So if you want to register wukkadudda then this name has seniority and any name like: Wukka or Dudda or a mix of that that looks very similar is just not allowed and the trademark holder can sue the crap out of you.
Imagine you own the name "ford" and i would register "forti" and we are also in the same sector & industry segment then you can sue the living jeepers out of me. Its just not done this is a law we signed up for many years ago when the trademark office got mature.
And yes i agree some laws are ridiculous but i think that the claim itself is not ridiculous as by law skype should never have been given the opportunity to register such name. What i do find crazy is that so many years later Sky is able to sue them while they did not use the legal 3 months dispute time in 2004 when Skype did register. And by law due to the fact they did not dispute the name back then they automatically lose seniority claim towards skype.
After all the trademark holder Sky has been contacted back then that Skype was pending for register.
So it boggles my mind that a court or even a lawyer would take the case and process it because legally there should be no case.
But ill guess that additional laws that have been made later sort of side line a clear seniority law which is literally the reason why a trade mark office has been founded in the first place.

 

[Dima007]

As they changed SkyDrive to OneDrive

 

[jamescv7]

In a field of such business, of course they want a uniqueness and no one wanted to cause conflict from each representation however the problem is by process of trademark:

If conditions are meet then the logo and name are already copyrighted so analyzing there should be no problem because they have different category, as word 'Sky' which existed simply a word logo where 'Skype' has a cloud logo and approve to be copyright.

Well due to this, money can change everything around even its a pretty not so minor issue.

 

[BoraMurdar]

Yeah i do remember that about the microwave and the woman did get a huge amount of dollars (50 million or so)
But regarding the trademark this law has been made long long time ago, and trademark names have always seniority.
The whole thing is that you can register any name you like. So if you want to register wukkadudda then this name has seniority and any name like: Wukka or Dudda or a mix of that that looks very similar is just not allowed and the trademark holder can sue the crap out of you.
Imagine you own the name "ford" and i would register "forti" and we are also in the same sector & industry segment then you can sue the living jeepers out of me. Its just not done this is a law we signed up for many years ago when the trademark office got mature.
And yes i agree some laws are ridiculous but i think that the claim itself is not ridiculous as by law skype should never have been given the opportunity to register such name. What i do find crazy is that so many years later Sky is able to sue them while they did not use the legal 3 months dispute time in 2004 when Skype did register. And by law due to the fact they did not dispute the name back then they automatically lose seniority claim towards skype.
After all the trademark holder Sky has been contacted back then that Skype was pending for register.
So it boggles my mind that a court or even a lawyer would take the case and process it because legally there should be no case.
But ill guess that additional laws that have been made later sort of side line a clear seniority law which is literally the reason why a trade mark office has been founded in the first place.

I know Nico but, whoever bring that law to life must be very stupid. So before Apple, I am certain there were some company distributing apples with the specific apple-mumbojumbo name. Therefore, that company should sue Apple and try make them change their name?
Microsoft is a giant, and I think Sky is just trying to milk their way. I agree that if you trademark a name, no one can use that name for it's own. But only if the names are the same or ridiculously similar, which is not the case here.

 

[Nico@FMA]

I know Nico but, whoever bring that law to life must be very stupid. So before Apple, I am certain there were some company distributing apples with the specific apple-mumbojumbo name. Therefore, that company should sue Apple and try make them change their name?
Microsoft is a giant, and I think Sky is just trying to milk their way. I agree that if you trademark a name, no one can use that name for it's own. But only if the names are the same or ridiculously similar, which is not the case here.

Yeah you have a valid point here and i am not disputing that as everything you said is on par with what i said, but again laws are funny things, specially because there are lawyers who made a art out of interpreting the law to their needs.
I mean in the end of the day if a law says you cannot "curse" then you just cannot curse period.
Yet there are those who come around and say: Well you cannot curse BUT you have freedom of speech so if in this context then you can....
Really? wtf... see my point.

 

[BoraMurdar]

Yeah you have a valid point here and i am not disputing that as everything you said is on par with what i said, but again laws are funny things, specially because there are lawyers who made a art out of interpreting the law to their needs.
I mean in the end of the day if a law says you cannot "curse" then you just cannot curse period.
Yet there are those who come around and say: Well you cannot curse BUT you have freedom of speech so if in this context then you can....
Really? wtf... see my point.

Yep There are many stupid laws out there, I mean, my world is roughly in medicine but when I see some laws and rights made, its easy to conclude that some medical laws and rights were written by bunch of guys who don't have any connection with medicine at all.
Cheers bro!