IBJNews

ChaCha sues Taiwanese company for trademark infringement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Carmel-based ChaCha Search Inc., operator of an online question-and-answer site, sued Taiwanese company HTC Corp. for trademark infringement over the planned introduction of a smart phone called the ChaCha, according to a filing in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis.

The company is asking the court for unspecified damages and seeks a preliminary injunction that would prevent HTC from using the name or trademark.

ChaCha has held a registered trademark in the United States since 2007.

HTC, based in Taoyuan, Taiwan, announced this month it plans to release the HTC ChaCha phone in Europe and Asia during the second quarter and in the United States later this year, according to the complaint.

The product is an Android-based smart phone that is due to ship this spring. Product promotions tout the phone's dedicated "Facebook button" that lets users add photos and videos to their Facebook page with "just one touch."

“HTC’s use of the entirety of the ChaCha mark in connection with the infringing phone is likely to cause consumers to mistakenly believe that there is an affiliation between ChaCha and the infringing phone,” ChaCha said in its complaint.

ChaCha, which registered its U.S. trademark in 2007, said it contacted HTC by letter about its concerns and the Taiwanese company “has yet to substantively respond.”

Fast-growing ChaCha landed $3 milion in venture capital last month that'll help the fast-growing company continue its expansion.

 





HTC officials didn’t immediately return messages for comment.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Furthermore...
    I heard that in return, Cuba sued ChaCha for stealing its original dance name.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT