Can anyone explain why it was such a problem with Little Mix having the same name as a charity anyway?

I for one had never heard of the Rhythmix charity until this whole thing happened, if anything the group has caused more awareness. They COULD have gone onto become some sort of representation for the charity and do some work for them, etc, boosting the group and the charity's image together.

Charities usually rely on donations and can't afford too much expense, so why threaten legal action against a young girl group because of the name? That must cost a fair bit of money, doing something which isn't very charitable!

The charity is specifically music-based, so there was a real possibility of confusion.

I also think Rhythmix sounds alot like the eurythmics

Although most people had never even heard of that charity, and probably never would have.

The group is also music-based.

I think the charity helps people get into music. That is what this group were trying to do. This makes it even more laughable, attacking the group for trying to achieve what the charity was set up for!

And still may not have if the whole 'name change' thing didn't happen. So the premise of the argument is flawed.

It wasn't the Eurythmics complaining about the name though.

As I said in the OP, the group and the charity could have worked together using the same name, helping BOTH to prosper. They quite clearly have similar interests.

The charity basicly wanted to throw all their toys out of its pram and cause a stinker .. Thugs !

why don't they have a slightly different name each week?

Yes but you also said that the group had given them more awareness and whilst to a certain extent that was true from the minute they appeared with the name, I would guess most of the publicity the charity got was after the name change decision.

Oh heavens, I can't believe some of the comments on here!!! Rhythmics is a charity based in Brighton that has been going for 12 years. They work with children with learning difficulties and underprivileged children giving them the opportunity to make music and learn about music. They arrange performances by the kids and publish CD's of the performances.

The confusion arose because Simco decided to go for a europe wide copyright on the name 'Rhythmix' and were taking steps to stop the charity carrying out some of their activities under that name. Rhythmix the charity have a copyright on the name, but only for educational purposes - a far cheaper option for them as a charity, and one that they thought would cover them.

...and when you consider that for the last 12 years the charity has been doing stirling work helping people, does it really matter whether a few people on DS have heard of them or not???

Well said.

I can't actually believe that there are people who think a manufactured girl band who haven't been around five minutes and won't be heard of in a year's time should be able to use the name of a chairty that has been in existence for 12 years, just because they appear on a popular TV show.

What a disgusting thing to say! What would you do if a charity you supported and believed in was being forced to stop a lot of what it does because some major corporation didn't want them using the name that they have worked hard to establish and build a reputation with? Would you consider it thuggish that they did the only thing they can that's free - get in touch with the press?? Of course not, how absolutely rediculous.

Some people's attitude really makes me wonder what the world is coming to.

IU would of thought it would have given the charity more publicity.

As I pointed out earlier, only when they changed the name not before.

I didn't say the charity had to bow down at all, but they could have worked with the group for promotional purposes. Maybe the girls could have worn their logo or something or the charity become the one the X Factor finalists raises money for, etc.

A little non-profit promotion for the charity eh? Why not?

Rhythmix or Little Mix - both are sh*t - name wise and talent wise.

The charity tried to work with Simco. They called them about it and were told that someone would get back to them shortly. A week later, they got a solicitors letter telling them they must stop using their name.

Simco wasn't playing nice, so the charity had no choice byt to change tactics.

The bad guys here are Simco. Who threatens charities with legal action, just because they want their name? It was shameful.

I prefer Little Mix anyway but still bit stupid getting them to change it in the first place IMO

Is this even important? The new name is fine. They are not going to be changing it back. Just decide whether you want to support them or not and leave it at that.

I got the impression it was the other way round. If what you are saying is remotely true, I think they shoupd scrap X Factor and replace it with a fairer show. Easier said than done though.

The name itself is not that imprtant but the way a name change came about is!

I wasn't complaining about the name or saying they should change it back, just asking about WHY it happened as was it right. Quite a difference really!

The charity put out a press release a couple of weeks ago (long before the girls changed their name and this came up on the show) and said that the first they heard about the whole situation was when they got a solicitors letter ordering them to stop operating under that name, because Simco had applied for a trademark on it across all of Europe.

The charity responded by contacting Simco and the representative said they would hold off and look in to the situation. But the next contact they got was another solicitors letter telling them to back down.

Seeing as they weren't getting any co-operation, they changed tactics, released this information and looked for support against Simco. Simco, obviously realising that the publicity of trying to strangle a charity would not be good, finally backed down completely.

Chances are whomever the charity spoke to in Simco was a nobody and they just brushed them off and the legal team had no idea anyone even complained. Classic case of the left arm not knowing what the right arm is doing. When the bad publicity started, Simon probably stepped in himself and ordered them to end the situation before it ruined their image. Consequently, the easiest legal route was just to tell the girls to change their name. Easy, clean and requires no work on behalf of Simco employees.

That's just a guess, of course. But knowing how many organisations work, I think it's a likely one.

I agree. Good on the charity for sticking to their guns.