Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by Wildie

i find that rather funny the last word

---------- Post added at 00:25 ---------- Previous post was at 00:15 ----------

has this been posted http://www.out-law.com/page-9345

I found this paragraph content the MOST interesting

"Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, the UK's privacy regulator, spoke.

He said that companies had to make sure they followed simple, clear guidelines, or risked losing their customers."

Virgin Media take note! DON'T BREAK THE LAW.

Every broadband customer you lose due to the possibility of Phorm webwise you can times by three your losses . Phone, TV and broadband.

Please clarify your position now! Remember that BT will not lose as much as you stand to, per customer.

My next campaign will be the lack of choice for optical services. Is it time for local optical unbundling. VM gives no choice to consumers? ... maybe?

Interesting fact - Ertugrul's sister is a Financial Times journalist. (FT is one of the companies that have been linked to Phorm)

[mark777]

Originally Posted by Peter N

Interesting fact - Ertugrul's sister is a Financial Times journalist. (FT is one of the companies that have been linked to Phorm)

That's a good find.

When Alex posted this (below) we had a really good hunt for confirmation, but couldn't find anything.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post9072.html

[tdadyslexia]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

BT seem to be incapable of hosting anything on their internal systems, particularly systems that gather marketing and personal information from their customers.

Yep your write

From PlusNet PLC Service Status Email.

Important information for customers connecting on the West Kensington exchange.

You may be aware that your broadband connection currently goes through the West Kensington exchange. Unfortunately this exchange is due to close within the next few months and BT are going to move your connections over to the Fulham exchange.

It's expected that during the connection move you may see lower than normal speeds, these may also continue once the exchange migration has completed. This is because you may be further from the new exchange than you were from the old one and therefore not able to get as good a connection.

The migration of accounts over to the Fulham exchange will start on Thursday 14th August and is expected to complete no later than the 31st December.

If you do encounter severe connection problems during or after the migration please contact our faults team as normal.

Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience this may cause.

Geeeeeeeeeee what next?

[popper]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Google Phorm.

Looks what's top... its not Phorm.

heres another interesting information tool to be used as you see fit , alas they dont allow you to break it down to each pageview hit, only the top domain but its a start.

http://www.cubestat.com/www.phorm.com
"Website Worth: $10,034.58

Daily Pageviews: 4,582

Daily Ads Revenue: $13.75
"


http://www.cubestat.com/www.beta.bt.com
"Website Worth: $791,133.12

Daily Pageviews: 361,248

Daily Ads Revenue: $1,083.74
"

LOL 4/1 Redeemed so far
http://www.kindlyfoxtrotoscar.com/?a...ominee&nID=456

have people been slacking lately

[tdadyslexia]

I See that Virgin Media still has the Phorm Spin on it!

See Phorm & Webwise & See Questions and answers.

---------- Post added at 04:40 ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 ----------

Google Webwise / Phorm.

Looks what's top... its not Phorm.

---------- Post added at 05:18 ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 ----------

Google Webwise.

Looks what's top... its not Phorm.

[Rchivist]

I see one or two changes on the Phorm site.

Their name/logo now bears the TM moniker - it didn't used to - does this mean they have now registered the name or the logo? (see earlier discussions which we needn't repeat about the provenance of both their name and logo - very similar to an existing name and logo of the totally unconnected and highly reputable Phorm Design in South Yorkshire)

I remember someone checked before on that and they weren't registered. Anyone know how to check that out?


Their site bears a copyright notice dated 2008 saying "All rights reserved. Copyright 2008 Phorm Inc."
I wonder which rights those are?

[dav]

Originally Posted by R Jones

I see one or two changes on the Phorm site.

<snip>


Their site bears a copyright notice dated 2008 saying "All rights reserved. Copyright 2008 Phorm Inc."I wonder which rights those are?

I can't believe they fail to see the irony of that statement

So it's one rule for them...

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by R Jones

I remember someone checked before on that and they weren't registered. Anyone know how to check that out?

The Phorm name is registered, if not the logo...

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/madridEU?madridEUnum=U00000931311

But it was the Webwise name that was more problematic...

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/domestic?domesticnum=2478179

No, still 'advertised'.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

The Phorm name is registered, if not the logo...

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/madridEU?madridEUnum=U00000931311

But it was the Webwise name that was more problematic...

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/domestic?domesticnum=2478179

No, still 'advertised'.

Thanks - I see the graphic of the mark shown on
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/madridEU?madridEUnum=U00000931311
is NOT the actual mark they use. So still no clarity on that then. Obviously they have had difficulty registering the actual design of their website Phorm mark presumably on account of difficulty in establishing that it is their intellectual property owing to it's remarkable similarity to the UK design companies mark.

Not wanting to start a lengthy discussion on this - just checking out whether there had been any progress on the matter. Obviously a company about to enter deep water on discussion of intellectual property rights of website owners, would need to occupy the moral and legal high ground when it came to their own logo and trademark as used on their own website.

Questions for Phorm - I'd prefer it if they were only answered by an official Phorm representative, so we don't end up going round and round again.

Have you made any contact with Phorm Design of S Yorkshire, regarding copyright issues and registration issues relating to the logo and name Phorm?

Are you making, or have you made, any payments to them for the use of that logo design and name?

Is the Phorm logo used on your site, protected or in any way registered as your own intellectual property? Or can I use it myself for a product I might wish to develop for my commercial advantage?

Is the name Webwise a registered trademark belonging to Phorm Inc ?

With regard to the very brief copyright notice on your site, exactly what rights do you "reserve" with regard to the content of your site? Which particular legislation or rights do you claim with respect to your intellectual content?

May I make print copies of your website content and use them for my commercial advantage?
May I make temporary electronic copies and use them for my commercial advantage?
May I create derivative works based on your website content, for my own commercial advantage?
May I use your domain name, and plant cookies on other people's machines, which purport to come from the phorm.com domain, again for my commercial advantage?

Just to let you know, I have asked BT Retail a number of questions about the copyright issues around the www.bt.com website, but they haven't felt able to reply yet as I imagine they are seeking/obtaining legal advice/counsel/ on the matter.

The questions won't go away, either in the USA or the EU so best to work out some answers.

Originally Posted by R Jones

I see one or two changes on the Phorm site.

Their name/logo now bears the TM moniker - it didn't used to - does this mean they have now registered the name or the logo? (see earlier discussions which we needn't repeat about the provenance of both their name and logo - very similar to an existing name and logo of the totally unconnected and highly reputable Phorm Design in South Yorkshire)

I remember someone checked before on that and they weren't registered. Anyone know how to check that out?


Their site bears a copyright notice dated 2008 saying "All rights reserved. Copyright 2008 Phorm Inc."
I wonder which rights those are?

Intellectual Property Office.

This is also where anyone interested in website copyright issues should be looking.

[Frank Rizzo]

Anyone can put the TM next to a logo - that doesn't have to be registered.

What you can not do is to put the ® symbol next to your logo unless you have registered the logo (and it has been accepted) by the trademark office.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo

Anyone can put the TM next to a logo - that doesn't have to be registered.

What you can not do is to put the ® symbol next to your logo unless you have registered the logo (and it has been accepted) by the trademark office.

Thanks - Frank Rizzo - that clarifies.
Looks like the actual logo that Phorm use on their publicity and website is still in legal limbo then, whereas the Trademark they registered is a different design altogether in a plain serif text and I'm not sure I've seen that one in use on any phorm literature or publicity.

Although I wouldn't advocate anyone using the unregistered logo as they might be stepping on the pre-existing moral claim of Phorm Design, S Yorkshire, to a virtually identical design which incorporates a copyright symbol.

I suppose it would be an awkward question for Phorm Inc to answer if it came up say, in a Parliamentary committee from a well briefed MP or Peer, as part of a series of questions about Phorm's attitude to copyright and intellectual property. "Now then Mr Ertugrul, you have indicated to us that you respect other people's intellectual property. Perhaps you could just tell us a little bit about the logo of your own company and how you developed it...?"

Still, I'm sure all that is sorted out now, after all it was first raised months ago. I'm sure an appropriate amount of restitution will have been made to Phorm Design in Sheffield. After all a reputable company would act pretty quickly in those circumstances to put things right. They couldn't afford the bad publicity.

And BT/Virgin Media/TalkTalk-CarPhone Warehouse would only want to work with reputable companies as partners.

So only the Phorm website copyright questions still in need of resolution then... (preferably by Phorm). Just so the rest of us with websites know what the position is. If Phorm are concerned about their website copyright, maybe they could make common cause with us to ensure it is robustly protected by the courts and regulators. In case anyone comes along to rip us off.

BTW FR - is there a blog or update site anywhere that gives us updates on your own situation vis a vis BT and Webwise? - of course we wish you every success.

[AlexanderHanff]

[QUOTE=HamsterWheel;34619807]

Originally Posted by SelfProtection

Sorry to repeat myself, but the huge votes in favour of all the AGM resolutions PROVE that the vast majority of shareholders are happy with the management team.

No it doesn't at all, or are you trying to suggest that the vast majority of shareholders were present at the AGM? If you are then you very very mistaken.

Alexander Hanff
(Catching up from page 918)

[BetBlowWhistler]

Originally Posted by mark777

Good spot though Wildie.
EDIT: Tescos btw.

Thanks

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...l#post34620396