Quantcast

Porn Company Vivid Threatens Legal Action Over HTC’s New Smartphone

Says HTC Vivid is a trademark violation

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:
Porn Company Vivid Threatens Legal Action Over HTC’s New Smartphone
[ Technology]

The brand new HTC Vivid smartphone boasts a dual-core processor, a 4.5 inch super LCD display and 4G LTE. And according to a high-profile porn producer, it’s a trademark violation.

Vivid Entertainment Group, the U.S. porn studio that brought you the Kim Kardashian sex tape, has sent a cease a desist letter to HTC. It claims that their new phone infringes upon their trademark. According to TMZ, Vivid thinks that customers could get confused and “think Vivid is behind the phone.”

Apparently, the letter threatens a lawsuit if HTC doesn’t change the name of their device by Monday, November 21st.

This isn’t the first time that HTC has come under fire for trademark infringement. Earlier this year, their Facebook-enabled phone the HTC ChaCha drew the ire of ChaCha Inc, the company that provides real-time answers to queries via text and internet search.

TheVerge has received a response from HTC regarding the issue:

We are reviewing the complaint and don’t expect to have any further comment until it is resolved.

So there. The complaint is real, and is something that HTC is probably going to have to take seriously. I mean, who wants a giant porn producer riding their ass?

Porn Company Vivid Threatens Legal Action Over HTC’s New Smartphone
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • http://www.PlacesToEatOkay.com Steven

    Well they do have a valid claim. I mean what if HTC came out with the HTC Apple? While Apple doesn’t have a product called Apple, it’s still would be their trademarked name being used for a product. I seriously doubt that many would put two and two together and expect their phone to come with porn or created in partnership with Vivid because it was called the HTC Vivid, but it still infringes on their trademark. To be honest tho, when I saw the HTC Vivid in commercials the thought never came to mind that, wow, I guess Vivid is in the cell phone business now. I mean wouldn’t you expect the phone to look like a c[..]k or a p[...]y if Vivid did make a phone?

    • Jamie

      @Steven,
      As far as i know you are correct about the infringement if HTC named A phone Apple. The point here that they are both in the same industry an could be confused.

      Pron and phones are completely different areas and consumers should not make the connection therefor there is no infringement. Ask yourself how often do you see queues of fanboys lining up at the fruit market where the sign says “Apples for sale”. Even Apple users are not that stupid (or are they)

      • http://www.TheOkayNetwork.com Steven

        Well what happens if Vivid enters the phone market? Not necessarily with a phone, but what about with an app or an aftermarket skin for the phone? Listen, it’s still gonna be one hell of an argument and so I guess we’ll just have to read on as the case develops in court.

  • http://www.staceyclermont.com stacey

    I have an idea!? Since every adjective and proper noun has been trademarked why don’t we start naming things with binary code!

    • http://www.TheOkayNetwork.com Steven

      There’s a difference between saying, for example, that a TV has vivid color and amazing picture than the product actually being called a trademarked name of a company (or named after an already existing product name that’s been trademarked). Still due to trademark laws Vivid has to argue that there is legitimate confusion between a product named Vivid and their company named Vivid, especially since the cell phone industry isn’t in the same product category as a porn producing company. If this was two porn companies and one had created a Vivid Vibrator then you could easily argue the case. I just find it ironic that Sasha Grey (who has worked for Vivid) got a lot of bad press for reading to children around the same time that Vivid filed this lawsuit against HTC. Perhaps they are simply filing the lawsuit as a PR stunt.