Doug Lung /
07.08.2010 12:00AM
MDTV Existed Before Mobile DTV!

Go to the ATSC web page and you will see the "MDTV" logo prominently displaced on the left side. The logo was established to identify devices capable of receiving ATSC A/153 compliant mobile DTV broadcasts. I've used "MDTV" to refer to ATSC A/153 mobile DTV since ATSC introduced the logo, but from now on will be using "Mobile DTV" instead. Last week I was informed that ATSC wasn't the first to use "MDTV" and that "MDTV" is trademarked by Paul Argen of MDTV Medical News Now, Inc. and has been in use since 1998, long before ATSC Mobile DTV was contemplated.

One consolation for broadcasters transmitting or planning to transmit "A/153 MDTV" is that this topic is generating enough interest in the press that Mr. Argen said it was confusing his viewers.

You can view the original MDTV's programming on 4u2c.tv.



Comments
Post New Comment
If you are already a member, or would like to receive email alerts as new comments are
made, please login or register.

Enter the code shown above:

(Note: If you cannot read the numbers in the above
image, reload the page to generate a new one.)

1.
Posted by: Brian Smith
Thu, 07-08-2010 - 10:21PM Report Comment
Argen says that MDTV viewers are confused? What about their TV Broadcast Station Clients? Mobile Digital, Internet, and www.MDTVNews.com syndicates? All of the above operate in the Mobile DTV Space (or will).... The TE Attorney got it.... so the ATSC should get it right.....ON MARCH 21 2010 the United States Trademark Attorney Rejected the ATSC application ...... but yet the ATSC still uses the mark on its web site. Sounds like the owner of the MDTV registered mark can get all the ATSC revenue, profits and more associated with this usage... MDTV and people at Medical News Now are from a great group of TV Stations and the people are nice and .... ATSC should either try to work with them and not confuse the market place. It' s now July and Federal opinion letter was written in March..... Wake up ATSC.... get a mark going without conflict. Here is what the US Trademark attorney wrote "Registration Refused-Likelihood of Confusion The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the applicant's mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods and services, so resembles the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2655243 and 3081061 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. Full Link of report at the USPTO is below http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/PA_TOWUserInterface/OpenServletWindow?serialNumber=77897540&scanDate=2010032153991&DocDesc=Offc+Action+Outgoing&docType=OOA&currentPage=1&rowNum=1&rowCount=5&formattedDate=21-Mar-2010
2.
Posted by: Brian Smith
Fri, 07-09-2010 - 1:09PM Report Comment
They should just refer to this as mobile TV




Wednesday 9:02AM
Analysts: TV Regs 'Not as Dire as We Thought'
We feel the negatives are known and are a lot more comfortable recommending the space.


 
Featured Articles
Discover TV Technology