Intel 'flexes its muscles' in name game

The chip giant has contacted numerous firms, all of which use the word "Intel" in their name, and threatened legal action.

Networking company Intelnet Communications is among those to have been contacted. A spokeswoman for the company claimed to know of at least 10 other firms and said: "This is just a case of Intel trying to bully any company that isn't substantial enough to put up a fight."

Intel is accusing the companies of "passing off" - trading on the brand of a more famous rival. Interpretation of this law depends not on proving ill intentions by the accused, but rather on proving there is confusion in the marketplace with the result that Intel suffers damage from the existence of these firms.

Companies contacted range from a custom PC manufacturer to a telecoms consultancy and even a business which installs security TV cameras. Intel is also trying to force a personnel company to change its name.

Simon Stokes, partner at law firm Tarlo Lyons, said: "Intel will have to prove it is losing business, or that consumers think these companies are its subsidiaries. If they are not trading in the same area this will be very difficult."

silicon.com has contacted a number of other companies who have been approached by Intel. None of them are willing to go on the record for fear of further reprisals from Intel's lawyers. One MD, who wished to remain anonymous, said: "We have been around since 1984 - long before Intel can sensibly say it had a recognised brand in the UK. We have never traded under its name or ever suggested any links with it. To have a letter like this is incredibly worrying and very damaging."

silicon.com has obtained an example copy of the letter sent by Intel's lawyers, Eversheds. It suggests the addressee change both trading and web domain names within seven days, or face legal action.

Intel says it has a right to protect its intellectual property. Graham Palmer, UK PR manager for Intel, said: "We have written to number of UK companies who we feel are guilty of passing off. This is part of a worldwide programme to seek and resolve issues where our brand is threatened."

Legal expert Stokes added: "This is a large US corporation flexing its legal muscles. Companies are right to protect their brands, but they must do it intelligently, against firms that really are damaging to them."