YouView loses YourView trademark fight, may have to pick new name The £100m BT and TalkTalk-backed set-top box venture YouView™ may be forced to change its name after losing a trademark scrap today against Cheltenham-based telecomms provider Total. The latter had registered the trademark Your View™ for its billing platform – which it advertises here – before BT and TalkTalk had registered …
I actually think the Judge in this case is right - I think you have to consider the context of the companies and the trademark in this case.
YourView is provided by total - a company thats been trading for 15 years according to their website. Regardless of whether YourView is their only product or not they are entitled to their trademark. They provide services to the communications industry. And that is the crucial point imho. BT and TalkTalk also do the same and are jointly providing YouView. So, given they all operate in the same sector its fair to assume that some confusion could potentially arise.
As the Judge pointed out, if they had searched a little harder they would have seen the YourView already in registration and should have considered
a) finding a new name
b) buying up the rights to the name
I don't always agree with some trademark stuff, but this looks like a case when examined from the right point of view to be fairly valid especially when two Giants are late to the table trying to use might over right.
What I would say though, is how much damage has been done so far? I'd imagine that the publicity for Total far outweighs any loss. So other than YouView not being allowed to call it YouView anymore plus paying for the legal costs its probably all square.
But we are all entitled to an opinion, but its the one from the Judge that counts.
This post has been deleted by its author
What do they have in common other than they both use this internet thingie?"
Lawyers thinking there's a moneymaking opportunity (for lawyers) here?
VAX (computer) vs VAX (vacuum cleaner)
Apple (record label) vs Apple (brand image consultancy) (both using the fruit as a logo)
No precedents at all then.
Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) allowed VAX brand on vacuum cleaners because there was no obvious confusion between vacuum cleaners and mini computers.
In this case, I've never heard of Total, not a big brand, and there product cannot be confused with nation wide PVR hardware.
Just getting their 15 mins of fame with the help of out of touch lawyers.
>>Apple (record label) vs Apple (brand image consultancy) (both using the fruit as a logo)
>>No precedents at all then.
Yes, thanks for providing two excellent examples of one company who had to kowtow to the other regarding trademarks. The VAX one someone's already explained. With regards to Apple, Apple Inc was taken to court multiple times by Apple Corp regarding the name, several agreements were signed, which Apple Corp has used to subsequently go to court to get Apple Inc to stick to their side of the bargain. Apple Corp could have very easily simply stopped Apple Inc from using "Apple" full stop, as was their legal right.
Even though YouView is a waste of space, I really can't see how it's possible to confuse the two utterly different products.
It's clear to me that Total are just a bunch of money-grabbing no-hopers looking for some extra cash and publicity for a product that nobody knows of.
What a waste of time and money for everyone this fiasco is - as is me writing this email.
Completely different services that no-one who could read would confuse, similar to the nonsensical decision against SkyDrive. Maybe people are thick enough to mix them up, and maybe golf courses across the world are infested with golfists wearing pipes of Pringles rather than diabolical jumpers.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
