NuVision sues Panasonic for trademark infringement
By Darren Murph 
posted Oct 23rd 2007 3:53PM
posted Oct 23rd 2007 3:53PM
Although the casual HDTV fan may not be entirely familiar with NuVision's "High Definition Living" trademark, a recently filed lawsuit is likely to bring you up to speed. The Arizona-based display maker purports that its slogan has been in use since the company's inception in 2005, and now that it has finally received registration of the mark this month, it's targeting Panasonic for infringement. If you'll recall, Panny launched its "Living in High Definition" program earlier this year, which NuVision has taken serious issue with. According to its CEO, Panasonic has "knowingly and willfully infringed upon its mark," and another company exec even stated that the alleged culprit "believes that it is so large that the law does not apply to it and that it can copy [NuVision's] trademark with impunity." And considering that the aforementioned program is slated to run until March of next year, we highly doubt Panasonic is anxious to just ditch the slogan and move on.
I hope NuVision loses. NuVision sells through "proprietary" VARs in the AV market. Try finding their product in a Best Buy or other e-Tailer. The average "joe" will find Panasonic products far more diverse, of same if not superior quality and much cheaper.
"Hey Bob, are you living in High Definition?"
"No Steve. Our variable-rate mortgage just defaulted and we have to move in with Sue's folks till the taxpayers bail us out."
So, because you disagree with their business model means they do not deserve the protection of the law?
Filed in Texas?
Cool,
another company that does relatively nothing but sit on some copy-rights/patents waiting for a large firm to infringe upon them.
We need more of these!
apparently they are a legit company that sells HD-TVs, but i'll believe it when i actually hear of them/ see one.
Wow. Just try googling NuVision. Or, if your achy fingers can manage it, try "nuvision.com". Hell, while you're going crazy on this wide web of ours, try looking into the 65" DeepBlack LCD HDTV they've got. But, I suppose they just make HDTVs to pass the time between lawsuits.
I did go to Nuvision.com, thats how i knew they were a legit company that actually sells something.
What i am referring to as "seeing" is to see them with my own eyes. Just because something is on the internet does not make it magically exist. Plenty of companies make prototypes, have a functioning website, and never make/ship jack-squat.
OMG!!!
http://www.brokennewz.com/displaystory.asp_Q_storyid_E_1027hungdeath
Tell your friends!
Variations on a theme... its like when House on Haunted Hill sued The Haunting of Hill House for defiling it's good name
This constant copyrighting of consonants by you Americans is really going to screw up my game of Scrabble.
If you do a search you'll see that there are quiet a few other business out there with name Nuvision. Since they have only been around for 2 years, I wonder if they are infringing on someone else's trademark.
Yes, there are other NuVision companies. Looks like we have a vision corrections clinic; that makes sense. Oh, a Federal Credit Union and a mortgage broker. I can definitely see how NuVision the HDTV company infringes upon their trademarks. Totally.
In order to infringe upon someone else's trademark then you have to be in the same industry. There are plenty of companies with the same or similar names, but if they are not in the same industry then logically they could not be confused for each other. Since they could not be confused for each other then no infringement takes place.
I could start an ice cream shop named Panasonic. Would you buy my ice cream simply because another company by the same name makes cool HDTVs?
I'm not a lawyer ( so I don't what the law say in regards ) but I think there is quite a long history of companies perusing infringment cases against similar named business not selling the same product. My favorite being the US Olympic committee who goes after people all the time, I remember them going a Dry Cleaner because customers would get confused ???
"The U.S.O.C. was granted the rights to the term ''Olympic'' by a 1950 act of Congress, which was followed by the 1978 Amateur Sports Act. That act was later renamed the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act of 1999, after the Republican senator from Alaska who has been such a staunch supporter of amateur and women's sports. The Stevens act gave the U.S.O.C. the exclusive rights to the word ''Olympic'' or even derivatives like ''Olympiad.''
The act also forbids people to glom on to various Olympic symbols, most particularly the interlocking five rings, so familiar, so attractive, so tempting. "
From: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E2D61F3FF933A1575BC0A9629C8B63&sec
Trademark infringement is pretty liberal in peoples interpretation of what is "infringing", for example, even if your in different industries, you can't lift someones logo wholesale. With that said, nothing is to say that Panasonic is guilty, and this is a sticky situation where NuVision is going to have to prove that not only is the TM infringing, it had it first, which should be tough because it's not a registered TM, and they will have to prove it was purposely done to be awarded any sort of punitive damages.
I think it's kind of bogus really.
If it is meant to confuse buyers then I agree. If it's actually the SAME slogan, then I agree. But simply using a similar phrase to describe the same situation is not what the laws are designed to protect. That's like saying if one company claims to be fast all other companies must claim to be quick, or rapid.
I think similar slogans actually help the consumers. It's sort of a way of saying. "hey look, we, in a similar way to NuVision, sell you the HD way of life as well, but in a slightly different way.