Wow the logos are totally different
And I cannot see how people can confuse them
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 …
And I cannot see how people can confuse them
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.
No one will be confused by a TV service and a billing system having a similar name...
"Errr wayne, came err....WAYNE...I woz trying ta watch the latest TOWIE but allz I get is this bloody fing saying I owe dem money"
A web-based accounts management system versus a digital TV service?
What do they have in common other than they both use this internet thingie?
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.
"What do they have in common other than they both use this internet thingie?"
Well, as we know from patent applications this is the most important thing:
blah blah blah, stuff already known and often done, ON THE INTERNET/A MOBILE DEVICE = patent granted.
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.
Well not all Vax vacuums are properly Vaxes either since the founder died. Some of them cannot even suck up water!
Did DEC VAX suck? Well some Vax vacuums do!
I think you will find that their lawyers are NOT out of touch, by the simple observation that THEY WON THE CASE.
Correctly in my view. But not in YourView presumably.
Of course, that didn't stop the MIPS fanbois chanting "Nothing sucks like a VAX".
> VAX (computer) vs VAX (vacuum cleaner)
> Apple (record label) vs Apple (brand image consultancy) (both using the fruit as a logo)
And Total (telecomms company) v.s. Total (major oil company)
@James Hughes 1
My error - I meant out of touch judges, not lawyers as you stated.
>>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.
"I've never heard of Total"
I think they're a chain of filling stations. Usually significantly more expensive than all the other brands.
In the case of the Apple record label, vs Apple overpriced and underperforming computer maker, there was a settlement. Among other things, Apple (computer) agreed not to make musical instruments. An agreement they kept right up until they put high qualitysound into their PCs.
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.
One is for commercial communications, one is for consumer TV, one is pronounced "Yoorview" the other is pronounced "Uview". WTF is going on?!
YouView change their name you say? Wouldn't they lose all of their valuable brand recognition?
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.
In fairness on the SkyDrive one, Sky did once offer a consumer cloud storage product for its broadband customers. I don't remember what it was called, but it wouldn't have been unreasonable to call it SkyDrive. After all, it was a (virtual) Drive, from Sky, whereas SkyDrive isn't.
They pronouce differently, I still cannot see the issue, seems like lawyer crap.
As to Skydrive, isn't that a Murdoch thing?
I suppose this means that British Telecom and British Petroleum should go war - BP vs BT, clearly us poor dim punters are going to get confused and start trying to make calls using petrol pumps.
British Telecom and British Petroleum are in different fields of commercial endeavour. As well, use of the word "British" is a localisation, much like "<suburb> Car Repair Shop" and not able to be used to prevent other companies from including in their own names.
Next, people will get confused between Sky and Skype...
Oh, hang on -
How about 'YourTube'? I can't see any problems with that.
I would imagine several Aussie online beer distributors would have problems with that.
I hear that Nasa is suing Apple - because ISS sounds a bit like iOS
" I hear that Nasa is suing Apple - because ISS sounds a bit like iOS"
Don't be silly........
It's Apple suing NASA! :-)
You said Your View referring to "my" View. The correct answer was My View as in "your" View.
How about YewView ?
Does that only show 70's BBC content?
>>>>The £100m BT and TalkTalk-backed set-top box venture YouView™
Yet last week El Reg couldnt understand why the broadcasters had felt like they lost control of the platform to the ISPs...
Have you tried Total's contact page ? It goes all German down the bottom of the page if you are running NoScipt !
I always wondered what YouTube think of the YouView name. I.e.isn't YouView a way to view YouTube vids on your TV?
How about PooTube?
in new Name/Logo given the competition is around the corner
There's a figging R in YourView and not in YouView
I'm off to make pancakes with Cif, no Jif oh! balls if only they were still called the same thing!!
Trademarks don't need to be identical, just similar enough to allow confusion, to be in conflict. As you well know, because otherwise the planet would be covered in McDonalds hamburger joints.
Waiting for the lawyers of Total, the Filling Station and online oil selling company, to spot Total, the telecomms company, now that it's raised its head above the parapet.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017