You Say Hulu. I Say Lulu. Let’s Take the Thing to Court.

The New York Times writes of the previously covered Hulu v Lulu domain dispute, and says: Lulu logoNBC Universal and the News Corporation can’t seem to catch a break when it comes to a name for their new video-sharing service. At first, a name was not a priority. The companies, saying they were fed up with piracy of their movies and television programs on YouTube, unveiled plans for the Web site in March and simply called the venture “New Site.” A formal name would come later. That antiseptic moniker bored reporters and bloggers, who make up their own name: “YouTube Killer.” Catchy, but much too aggressive, the two companies warned. The article goes on to say: In the lawsuit, Lulu’s founder, Bob Young, accused the media giants of unfair competition and cyberpiracy. “Widespread consumer confusion will occur and Lulu will be irreparably harmed,” Mr. Young said in the complaint. Robert Thompson, a professor of media and popular culture at Syracuse University, is not so sure consumers will be confused by the two names. He is sure that he does not like the name Hulu, saying, “The communication revolution is finally here and its name is Hulu? Seriously? Mr. Young has experience playing the underdog in a corporate spat. Before Lulu, he was chief executive of Red Hat, a software publisher that tried to challenge Microsoft’s dominant position in the late 1990s. The article concludes noting that both sites are experiencing a surge in traffic . For the full article in the New York Times, see