subject: The Stig Unmasked But How Can Companies Protect Their Corporate Property? [print this page] The long running saga of who lies behind the helmet of The Stig was finally revealed today after the BBC lost their High Court battle to protect the secret identity of one of their top assets. The victors in the case, publishers Harper Collins claim it is "a victory for free speech", arguing that the man behind the mask has an important tale to tell. But what does this say about the rights of the BBC, who have spent time, money and knowhow in creating an engaging character who they can use to sell their product worldwide? Should the BBC have the right to protect what is essentially their intellectual property from an aggressive attempt to make money from their creation?
The high profile nature of the case adds to the interest, but this it a matter that businesses have to deal with on a daily basis. It is often the case that once companies create an effective brand or marketing strategy, it is copied or manipulated by competitors who are looking to get their slice of the pie.
A similar case earlier in the year saw Sky TV forced to sell their Sports package for a cheaper rate to broadcasters who will then undercut their prices. Sky argued that as it was their money and expertise that helped to create their most money making prospect, The Premier League, that they should be entitled to protect their property from other companies looking to cash in. Again, they were unsuccessful and are now forced to sell their prized asset to their competitors.
So how do you tell the difference between a monopoly and protecting your corporate property?
It would certainly seem that the law is against companies who try to protect their brand in court, which certainly delivers a negative message to businesses who build an innovative and strong brand. It would seem to offer very little protection to businesses who try to protect their interests against companies who would wish to cash in on their efforts.
Some would argue that this action protects the customer, but if this is at the expense of penalising companies that use their resources to produce innovative and exciting brands, then surely this harms the customer in the long run.
