AOL Threatens Peng, Demands Domain Handover 219
nutznboltz writes "According to the Peng project website AOL has sent them a cease-and-desist letter claiming that Peng, a GPLed software project is commerically exploiting AOL and has until Oct 15th to hand over the pengaol.com domain name." Update: 10/12 17:45 GMT by T : As several readers have pointed out, the domain name in question is actually pengaol.org, rather than pengaol.com.
Well, he should've not done this (Score:4, Insightful)
The domain they should have bought (Score:2, Interesting)
Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. AOLSucks.com [aolsucks.com] wouldn't have the impact without "aol" being part of the domain name. They successfully defended the domain under the auspices of fair use.
Just because the letters aol are part of your domain name doesn't give AOL the right to stomp down on your ass - even if the subject of your site is related to AOL.
If you're up to something infringing on their trademark like trying to make money off their good name, then yeah you're violating their mark. But this doesn't.
IANAL, but you should get one. They're really not all that expensive. Stand up to the bully. Tell AOL to fuck off.
Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
The real question is "Why was AOL in the domain name?" Was it because they wanted to relate their product to AOL? Yes. That's why they're in the wrong. It's not as if they set up a domain years ago for a product called Paola, and then AOL came along and said "Hey! AOL is in there!" It's not like when Gateway 2000 stole gateway.com from it's legit owner.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
If AOL wanted to provide Linux users with their software, they would. If AOL wanted to allow users to dial up to their OSP without using the AOL interface, they would. But they don't.
AOL is an Online Service Provider, not an ISP. They make part of their income off of fleecing companies and convincing them to join up. Anything that allows the end-user to avoid seeing the companies that have joined up, is effectively removing some of the selling power that AOL has.
On top of AOL's aims to provide a specific user experience, and get funding from various companies based on the number of eyes that will see their content, AOL is also required to defend their trademark--otherwise they will lose the right to defend their trademark, and it will become a term that lapses into common usage, thus usable in ways that AOL would not like.
AOLSucks is fine, it's a commentary site. It's non-competitive with AOL, and does not deny that AOL is a trademark. Pengaol is a violation of AOL's rights. Sucks, but it's true.
-Sara
Re:Well, he should've not done this (Score:1, Informative)
AOL needs to lose this. (Score:1)
Just like Telephones... If you sell a service, then you should have the right to access it using whatever platform YOU choose.
We really, really, need to get back to a flatly "first sale" world. Not just for books, but for everything. Soon, no doubt, we'll be seeing everything from washing machines to toasters laying propriatary ties at our feet.
BUY A THING -- OWN A THING.
OWN A THING -- DO WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT TO WITH IT.
PERIOD.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, he should've not done this (Score:2)
Slashdot Threatens every site on the web (Score:4, Funny)
Corporate America at its best... (Score:2, Redundant)
They're not too bright if they don't realize that it has the potential to expand their business.... All it does is give people using OS's other than Win/Mac the opportunity to use their absolutely trustworthy and splendid service (/sarcasm). They still have to pay AOL for it. Peng's not making a profit on it. How is this harmful to AOL again?
Oh wait. On the "About Peng" page, it says it's a "reverse ingeneering" [sic] of AOL's technology, so it must be evil.
Re:Corporate America at its best... (Score:1)
I'm not a finance major or anything, but I would say that losing money, because people no longer are using the bloated software, is harmful.
That said, I still like what peng is doing, if AOL is going to be too lazy to get software created for linux, then its their own damn fault something like this is available.
Re:Corporate America at its best... (Score:1)
.org not .com (Score:3, Informative)
Correction: (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Correction: (Score:2)
I agree with a previous poster [slashdot.org], Pengaol.org should aquire themselves a lawyer, and perhaps even counter-sue AOL for needless abuse, harassment, etc.
Re:Correction: (Score:2, Funny)
Not wanting to be offensive, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
pengdialer.org is available as a domain. Why would you specifically use someone else's trademark in your name, knowing that companies with money will persue a change?
Re:Not wanting to be offensive, but... (Score:2)
As AC above said:
O.K. In this instance, I can see there not being a problem. However, when you do associate your product with something that someone else has trademarked, then I don't see a problem with them defending their trademark.
Re:Not wanting to be offensive, but... (Score:3, Informative)
Hmmm (Score:3, Informative)
STEPHANE GUTH (PENGAOL-DOM)
3 Rue Des Vergers
BLIESBRUCK,57200
FR
Domain Name: PENGAOL.ORG
Administrative Contact:
GUTH, STEPHANE (SGM450) birdyisme@AOL.COM
3 Rue Des Vergers
BLIESBRUCK, 57200
FR
+33387022871
Technical Contact:
Departement Noms de domaine (CP1146-ORG) internic@AMEN.FR
AMEN.FR - Agence des Medias Numeriques
12/14, rond-point des Champs-elysees
PARIS
FRANCE
+33 1 46 51 95 60
Fax- +33 1 46 51 95 60
Record expires on 30-Jun-2003.
Record created on 30-Jun-2001.
Database last updated on 12-Oct-2002 13:39:17 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
PARIS.AMEN.FR 217.174.192.229
NS2.AMEN.FR 195.154.205.4
I'd suggest that Peng move to the domain [fuckaol.org] and tell AOL what they really think.
BTW, seeing as Peng is French, are there any Nazi references or links on AOL? Let's hope not for AOL's sake.
Re:Hmmm (Score:1)
Uh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uh (Score:1)
Re:Uh (Score:2)
Re:Uh (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it is. Therefore it's illegal for me to market my company "Another Old Look" (which sells faux antiques) as "AOL."
On the other hand, it does not prevent me from using their trademark to refer to them, as in the ISP help page, http://www.sample.com/help/former_aol_users which explains the Internet to people who have only used AOL.
Just as there is no trademark infringement if an auto parts manufacturer sells decorative wheel covers designed for Cadillacs and calls them "Roulette Wheel Covers for Cadillac," there is no trademark infringement for someone who provides accessories for AOL mentioning that fact. They're not claiming to be AOL, they're describing a context.
Re:Uh (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually... that instance would be okay because the two companies are completely unrelated.
AOL is just an acromyn, but only when used in the right context references American Online.
Re:Uh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh Please... (Score:2)
Toyotas (or parts), do you need to get permission
from Toyota to name your dealership
Bob's Toyotas of Smalltown?
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
PENG, which I didn't know about until just now, appears to be the ultimate solution. It makes AOL exactly the same as every other dial-up ISP. No bloated software to load, and it works in linux!
I can see why aol is pissed though. Because of PENG there is at least one person out there who isn't seeing their ads and is probably getting better transfer rates because there isn't a crapload of software hogging the cpu and bandwith(with ads). So that's money lost for AOL. Admittedly it isn't much money lost. I mean how many people use linux and AOL? Two totally seperate groups of people.
Hopefully it will encourage AOL to not force its users to load a giant ad-laden piece of software to connect, or at least to re-compile that bloated piece of software for linux.
Nah, I don't think they're that intelligent.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
I never thought I'd see Windows and "super lite" in the same sentence. DUN is probably just as bloated, it just loads with Windows and can't be removed (like IE), so it seems fast and light. At least it doesn't put ads on your screen like AOL.
Re:Wow (Score:2, Informative)
Silly Thing to Expect To Get Away With (Score:4, Informative)
AOL has dallied with Linux dialers in the past, getting, I believe, at least one to beta. They've probably done the math and decided the costs of supporting Linux as an AOL client are more than the revenue they'd take in.
Under U.S. law, anyone who has registered a trademark must be seen to defend their rights to that trademark against infringers, or risk losing the trademakr altogether via a court decision that the trademarked language or art has lapsed into general usage. Years ago, Xerox went after use of the word "xerox" (which they'd trademarked) to refer generically to any copier. Even ran TV commercials telling people not to say "please xerox this".
Marketing a product that combines duplication of a proprietary product's functionality with an infringement of that product's copyright is tantamount to inviting a cease and desist order.
If you don't like this, at least realize that your real target isn't AOL but trademark law.
Re:Silly Thing to Expect To Get Away...Correcction (Score:2)
Make the next to last paragraph read "...infringement of that product's trademark is tantamount...." (replacing "copyright" with "trademark".)
Rats:-)
Re:Silly Thing to Expect To Get Away With (Score:2)
Sure, they make money from the ads, but they also make money by channeling all those millions of users to businesses who pay AOL for the privilege.
Tech support is simply a cost of business. They need to retain their proprietary software and their proprietary dialer to maintain the lock on their customer base.
As for the "average computer literacy of AOL users"...well, who really knows, eh? They have put together a pretty slick piece of software, though, especially if you think the goal should be to increase use of computers rather than increase knowledge about computers.
Yes. Ease of Use Doesn't Diminish Brain Power (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
The irony about moves like this is that AOL, in trying to destroy Peng, has instead just brought it to the attention of thousands of people just like you. Instead of helping a few users get around AOL's bloated interface, it can now help hundreds. Plus, since it's open-source, I think it's probably a safe assumption that it is here to stay - even if AOL's pressure scares the author into stopping his work on the program, the source is still out there, and now thousands of Slashdot-readers know about it and are interested in it.
Yet another example of how (surprise, surprise) big companies like AOL Just Don't Get It.
Remember Streambox Ripper (Score:2)
I don't hack into your company so please don't advertise into my home.
Sleezy Law Firm? (Score:5, Insightful)
Note the last sentence. It sounds to me like it's not AOL initiating this, but in fact a sleezy law firm looking to create themselves some from by finding people to sue. They're probably hoping that peng will not comply, and thus generate themselves a juicy law suit.
Re:Sleezy Law Firm? (Score:2, Insightful)
From this AOL suit [observers.net] back in 2000 (from a different firm), I notice much more detail in the threat, including legal references. In particular, it seems strange that a reputable firm would simply use "Re:AOL" as the subject of the corresponence.
Re:Sleezy Law Firm? (Score:3, Informative)
No, Arent Fox probably does represent AOL Time Warner. This doesn't, of course, preclude that they are a sleazy law firm, but then again, most law firms can probably be described as sleazy.
Arent Fox is a pretty major law firm. I recognize the name from various Apple rumors sites - Arent Fox is the law firm Apple uses to go after the rumors sites when they break an NDA.
In this case, it's very likely that Arent Fox is retained by AOL Time Warner to pursue any and all copyright infringement cases they find. They are likely given a wide jurisdiction to act in AOL's behalf, up to the point of filing a law suit against a party. IANAL (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express), but I believe this is fairly standard in agency law.
What you describe is common in Germany, from what I understand, where any lawyer can go after a party, without having any kind of agency relationship with the offended party. (I vaguely remember a case involving SuSE of this type, I believe.) I don't believe that this type of action is legal in the US. I believe you have to be retained in an agency relationship with a party before you are able to pursue legal action.
Re:Sleezy Law Firm? (Score:2)
(Note: IANYAL. This is not legal advice.)
In the letter [apinc.org], they refer to AOL as their "client" and say that they "represent AOL" in these matters. They can't do that if AOL isn't really their client. If it turns out that AOL is in fact not their client, Peng will have a cause of action against Arent Fox. But Arent Fox aren't that stupid; I'm pretty sure they're actually retained by AOL.
Here's my guess: AOL has retained Arent Fox to defend their trademarks, etc., and to send out nastygrams demanding compliance. "We will advise AOL of its available remedies" (which is what the letter says, very different from "they will inform AOL of their action") doesn't mean "We'll go tell on you," but rather, "we will give legal advice to our client about what actions our client should take."
So it's probably not AOL directly initiating this, but it's not some fee-finding trademark-chaser who's going to show up at AOL's door with a possible suit. AOL has almost certainly asked them to find people to sue (or, at least, to find people to send nastygrams to); they're not doing it on their own.
Re:Sleezy Law Firm? (Score:2)
Steven*
*Who has nothing to do with Arent Fox except that he knows their reputation.
Actually, no (Score:2)
Come on AOL, (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Come on AOL, (Score:1)
Like AOL really wants everyone to have access to its own proprietary protocols.
Re:Come on AOL, (Score:1)
Re:Come on AOL, (Score:1)
Re:Come on AOL, (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe, AOL is using this as a tactic to start talks about a settlement. The settlement could involve AOL acquiring peng like they did with Nullsoft, Netscape, ICQ, etc. Let someone else build the idea, and once it's proven, buy the company and incorporate it. This saves AOL the burden of spending on R&D, but gives them a new market.
Re:Come on AOL, (Score:2)
why not? worked for microsoft *groans as his karma is mercilessly slaughtered for mentioning it*
Come on Slashdotters! (Score:2)
GAIM? You mean the program whpse name is the addition to the acronym AIM standing for (AOL Instant Messenger) of the letter G standing for GNOME or GTK toolkit or whatever? A program which depends on a protocol written by AOL and whose logins exchanges are mediated by AOL's servers? Now it happens that AOL has one of the IM networks with enough people to make it a useful communications medium, so it is reasonable to ask that they make it available to others, but.... they're still the ones who made the network happen. There are many important things to debate about whether such networks should open and publicly available, but just because a company built a private one doesn't mean they're a bad guy.
Here's an analogy:
If I built a private road, I would feel free to tell a small trucking project that I didn't want it using my roads, for reasons including maintenance, liability, effect on the people who live by my road, etc. Even a "nice" trucking project. I might build a private road even though I believe roads should generally be public, simply because a public road is a more complicated and slower endeavour.
So take the debate back where it belongs:
I'm all for an intelligent conversation about these terms and conditions.
Not only that, but even if they were a simple bad guy, why would you call them names if you know your side will have to work with them at some point? It's just counterproductive.
Re:Come on Slashdotters! (Score:2)
So many to sue... (Score:3, Funny)
It looks like they better start suing, they've got a lot of others using their trademark.
Re:So many to sue... (Score:2)
Here are the culprits. (Score:5, Informative)
Why not drop them a line [mailto].
Re:Here are the culprits. (Score:1)
Re:Here are the culprits. (Score:2)
Re:Here are the culprits. (Score:2)
Re:Here are the culprits. (Score:2)
Re:Here are the culprits. (Score:2)
Interesting. Somebody re-posted my e-mail. Quite flattering. :)
Re:Here are the culprits. (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.arentfox.com/cgi-bin/bioEditor.pl [arentfox.com]
Re:Here are the culprits. (Score:2)
So you don't like what these lawyers are doing, therefore you want us to
Re:Here are the culprits. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot - Challenge (Score:1, Funny)
In the meantime, they also have forums [arentfox.com]. Not that I'm suggesting anything [goatse.cx].
Re:Slashdot - Challenge (Score:2)
"SLASHDOT OWNZ J00"
"I lost my penis"
or
"We buy excess seafood"
Truly noble and mature, fellow
They didn't look at the site (Score:5, Informative)
Besides it seems that Peng's development came into a halt somewhere in August. This news is in the first page in French- "Peng ne sera plus maintenu" 03.08.2002. So, the claims come a little out of sight and rather harsh. Again, we see that lawyers are also bad readers, love to shoot first, blindly and stupidly.
arguments over names (Score:3, Insightful)
The domain "micro$oft.com" is not in any way confusable with the domain "microsoft.com". They are different. You have to push different keys on the keyboard to get to these sites.
Now, if some buisness were to have a link to the "micro$oft.com" domain and say "Click here to get to MICROSOFT!" then THEY should get a C&D letter. NOT the owners of the "micro$oft.com" domain.
Any other use of litigation regarding particular choices of domain names is an abuse, and should be stopped.
Download While You Still Can (Score:3, Informative)
http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/peng
http://unc.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/penga
Re:Download While You Still Can (Score:1)
Legal Fund (EFF?) (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps a legal fund of some sort could be set up. It'll certainly get 20 bucks from me.
I will save you some time... (Score:1)
AH HA HA
Nice one!
how about rotflmaol.org (Score:1)
Important Message From AOL (Score:3, Funny)
Shame (Score:2, Informative)
I don't see how AOL are being harmed by this, since you still need to be signed up with them. Hopefully they'll keep the project going in spite of this harassment.
Re:Shame (Score:2)
Because you aren't seeing all the ads and customized content on the front page.
While we're suing (Score:1)
Arent Fox sues Pengaol (Score:1)
The Fox TV channel sues Arent Fox....
Three months later....
The Mexican government sues the FOX TV broadcast company for profiting from their president's name......
Ahh, shuks
One more for the "Suppressed" directory (Score:4, Insightful)
aebpr22.zip* eBookReader (old verson)/
TiVo MPEG/
ASPI Me (backdate to 1998)/ PanoTools/ WINE with DX/
Blizzard Jackboots/ peng1.04.tar.gz WMA crack (v7)/
Broadcast 2000/ skie/ Xolox/
DeCSS/ Streambox VCR 3.1b/ xp-stuff/
[user@host Suppressed]$
When will these idiots learn that attempts to suppress software only result in wider distribution. I hadn't heard of Peng until today: now I'm preserving a copy.
reverse engineering ? (Score:2, Informative)
they have a line that says,
"This program includes a reverse ingeenering of the Aol's protocol. "
Arent Fox guys must be drooling over that statement licking their DMCA plate.
Re:reverse engineering ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Section 1201(f) (Score:3, Informative)
You are allowed to revese engineer under the DMCA in order to create interoperable software, I believe.
True, under the letter of the law: 17 USC 1201(f) [cornell.edu]. But good luck proving in court that your "means are necessary to achieve such interoperability".
Re:reverse engineering ? (Score:2, Insightful)
The D-M-C what ?
They're in France anyway, and is reverse engineering is legal here, period.
(dunno how the EUCD is going to affect this, though...)
They took my domain also (Score:5, Informative)
I also had an a-o-l domain name. "EnhanceAOL.com" was my site before I got a cease and desist from Arent Fox claiming that I was diluting their trademark. My site was an aol add-on site - software that actually improved upon their client software (hence the term 'enhance aol'. They don't look at the "content" of your site. They don't care if your trying to save the poor starving children of the world. If you have "aol" somewhere in your domain, they're going to take it.
Don't believe me? I found this site: search.wipo.int [wipo.int] which lists at least some of the AOL domains that have been repo-ed by AOL -- If anyone knows of a better source please post because I know there's been more.
Re:They took my domain also (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of these are also DENIALS of AOLs petitions. This usually seems to be the case when WIPO finds that the allegedly infringing domain has is actually being used for something. Under the WIPO guidlines, AOLs attempt to take your domain should have been denied. Trademark infringement is actually another matter, though. WIPO considers possible infrigement, but infrigement alone shouldn't get the complaintant's request approved.
Just out of curiosity, did you ever end up going before WIPO? How did things pan out?
Re:They took my domain also (Score:3, Informative)
I had just started advertising the domain for less than a months time before I got my first 'cease and desist'. I ignored them hoping they'd go away, but got another one about a month later. I wasn't about to risk lawsuit from a multi-billion dollar corporation, so I called Arent Fox and told them they could have it if they refunded the 2 year registration fee. They did, and I did. I didn't know as much back then as I do now, but I'm not sure if handling the situation differently would have resulted in any different outcome.
pengaol.org = 0.0.0.0? (Score:1)
Could be worse... (Score:3, Informative)
This program includes a reverse ingeenering of the Aol's protocol.
Hopefully everyone still remembers the fit DigitalConvergence threw over their ColonCat's protocol being reverse engineered. AOL isn't telling them to stop developing their software, just to stop using AOL in their domain name - that's understandable. By having AOL in the domain name, it makes it appear there is a similarity, endorsement or affiliation.
As for www.aolsucks.com, that's a sight voicing an OPINION about AOL, NOT offering a product or service. For example, I could register www.dellsucks.com (or maybe someone already has, this is just an example) to share my personal opinion about Dell computers. However, if I started www.upgradeyourdell.com - I'm sure Dell would be none too pleased and I WOULD be infringing their trademark.
eBay has a similar Improper Trademark Usage policy regarding auction titles [ebay.com]. If, for example, you're selling generic 9v batteries, you cannot use a title like "Lot of 12 9v Batteries like Energizer, Duracell".
So what? (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Cease and Desist == Publicity for your enemies (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely AOL would have to give the domain back (Score:2)
Go Peng! (but ...) (Score:3, Insightful)
but really AOL is always going to try to fight reverse-engineering attempts of their proprietary protocols. face it, they suck.
With all the alternative ISPs out there, why would anyone subject themselves to AOL for connectivity? My guess is many families have had their AOL accounts for a while now, and more educated children of those households attempt to cope with the lameness by using this cool dialer.
I'd say there will come a time when people will have to bite the bullet and give up those AOL screennames. They suck at broadband, they're heavily tied into dial-up, they spam the crap out of you, and shove content down your throat all the while confining you to their obnoxious sandbox and screwing-up your network settings. They do everything in their power to abstract the Internet back into AOL. I find that eeevuuuhl.
I for one have been using EarthLink for years on a slew of operating systems, starting from dial-up up to DSL (over 2 1/2 years now), and it's always been a breeze. They'll send you a CD that'll handle the whole sign-up and installation process, or you can just get an account on-line within minutes [earthlink.net], and at the end of the web-based process they'll show you a secure page with your username, password, dial-up number, mail and dns settings with which you can manually configure your OS. And BAM you're done. That's $22/month vs $25/month. And if you are craving spoon-fed content, you can always access your account's "start page [earthlink.net]". Note that each earthlink account actually comes with uhh i think 7 additional accounts or was it 8 additional? forgot. Each account has its own e-mail box, home page address (10MB quota, not bad) (http://home.earthlink.net/~youraccount), and start page. Oh, also the EarthLink DSL account also gives you .. uh .. i think 20 hours of free modem dial-up access, so you can get on-line while travelling through hotels and what-not. They *will* bill your ass if you go over 20 hours though. careful.
Anyway this was just an example of what i find to be a really good nationwide alternative to AOL, but there are other local ISPs all over the place. I'd stay away from local phone companies for DSL service, and go thru a re-seller of their service instead. Phone companies might give you connectivity but they won't give you nearly as many "on-line" perks as other true ISPs will, make sure you comparison-shop. For example verizon assigns you some obnoxious cryptic email address when you get their DSL package. *lame*.
Also keep in mind that any time a local phone company advertises their DSL service to you, i'm pretty sure there has to be at least one other company that offers you similar service, typically with more features for about the same price albeit potentially slightly different service terms. I know EarthLink is pretty-much everywhere, but you have other companies such as speakeasy dsl or something that offer cool plans for gamers.
DSLReports.com [dslreports.com] is always a good place to look for competitive offerings from various providers in your area.
There are other reasons (Score:2, Informative)
In addition to that it was a fast, reliable and cost effective service. I hate the dialer as much as the next
I have now moved and have an excellent ADSL connection but for six months AOL was the best solution by far.
Re:There are other reasons (Score:2)
oh yah that must have been tough, yeah i heard AOL has had some pretty aggressive service plans throughout Europe to work around per-minute charges limitations the local telco monopolies were imposing to their dial-up users. I have a few friends in France who had an unlimited dial-up line thru AOL, then i heard that whole thing sorta bit AOL in the arse as costs were too elevated. You've got any background on that whole deal?
President Bush sued. (Score:3, Funny)
The President has refused any major comment on the issue but was quoted by a reliable inside source as mumbling something about "...modifying the draft, we need more lawyers and 40-something chairman to drop on Iraq".
Bargainbeanies.com - U.S. Court of Appeals (Score:3, Insightful)
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-961090.html?tag=cd_
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with five trademarks - in the U.S. alone [uspto.gov] (please check). This could be any acronym or initialism - including the famous International Trade Centre (ITC) or International Monetary Fund (IMF).
You can legally use any word, words or initials to start a new business without registering a trademark - providing you are not passing off, of course. Take for example the word 'apple'. It is legally used by thousands of businesses - large and small all over the world. Indeed, it is impossible that they all register themselves as trademarks - they are bound to conflict with many others, being confusingly similar. In my local phone book alone, there are at least five using this word - two garages (seems not connected), a car centre, fruit growers and a decorating firm.
The authorities hide the simple solution to this conflict. From correspondence with them and their response, I believe them corrupt. Why? For a start, trademark holders do not own the vast majority of domains - it is obvious that something is needed to replace the registered trademark symbol - a new TLD of
To see major findings please visit WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] - not associated with UN WIPO.org. Although I use the initials WIPO, it is obvious to even the 'crooks' in UN WIPO that this site not associated with them. Same as is obvious to those at AOL that pengaol.org is not associated with them.
Re:Did AOL initiate this? (Score:4, Informative)
E-Commerce Transactions
Following are representative e-commerce and telecommunications transactions handled by Arent Fox attorneys:
AOL Legal and AOL Business Affairs. Represented AOL Legal and AOL Business Affairs in a multi-year, multi-million dollar strategic marketing alliance to offer Network Solutions= (NSI) domain name registration and value-added services globally across America Online, Inc. brands. Network Solutions= services will be available through co-branded sites across AOL, AOL.COM, CompuServe, Netscape Netcenter, Digital City, ICQ, and Spinner/Winamp, including the international services, making it easier and more convenient than ever for businesses and consumers to create an online presence.
Re:But they speak french. (Score:3, Interesting)
Shouldn't the Lawyer send the letter in French?