Slashdot Mirror
Aimster Loses Domain to AOL
mduell writes "The National Arbitration Forum (NAF) decided that the "AIM" in Aimster violates America Online's trademark and that Aimster must relinquish several Internet domain names with "AIM" in them to AOL." Just another in a long series of cases that prove that if you have a trademark, you have the right to any domain name that contains those letters in that order. I don't like it any more then you do.
What about Aim toothpast?
And I was so close to releasing the first beta of my new instant messenger... imAIMsmallanimals.
Guess I'll have to continue with my AI-based program which automatically defends you against bogus lawsuits... notgoingtogAOL.
Aw crap...
Your analogies are worse.
Client-Server Instant Messenging is to P2P Instant Messenging as Chicken Buckets are to Watches and Clocks? Good luck on the GRE.
True, they cannot trademark "AIM" in any context, but they do have rights over the use of AIM as an acronym for AOL "Instant Messenger." Since AIMster was clearly using it as such an acronym, their use is infringing.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Obviously not. AOL is not claiming that they own the word "AIM," only that they own the use of the acronym AIM as an acronym for "AOL Instant Messenger." As the NRA would presumably not be using it in that context, they would be uninfringing. However, as AIMster is clearly using it as an acronym for AOL's trademarked system, it is indeed infringing.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Those sites exist essentially because Microsoft lets them. As soon as they start saying bad things about Windows (maybe XP will suck donkey balls) I can see MS stopping them. Now you tell me, if you were running xp-enthusiast.org and MS served you cease and desist papers or threatened to sue, would you fight it? I doubt it.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
> Microsoft owns the trademark on "Windows".
no, they don't. In fact, they made a very big deal about that several years ago.
however, if someone tried to market "Microsoftster Windows," they'd have exactly the same problems that aimsterhas . . .
hawkj
--
$you = new YOU;
$you = new YOU;
honk() if $you->love(perl)
CmdrTaco....While I agree that in several cases trademark holders are being given special and upfair treatmeat regarding domains that may or may not refer to a trademark. However, in the case of aimster it doesn't take a genious to figure out that the AIM portion of those domain names referes directly to AOL Instant Messenger. I'm all for protecting the rightfull owners of domain names but really, AIM being random characters? Hardly. Paul.
Yes, it's quite clear that you do not understand patents and trademarks. Why did you feel the need to post to slashdot to tell us, though? Nobody here cares that you don't understand this stuff. If it bothers you that much, go learn how patents and trademarks work.
So the solution for them is to just drop the A.
;)
Then they make it work with ANY IM client - AIM, ICQ, Jabber, Yahoo, MSN, etc... (Jabber would probably be a good start here - port the existing infrastructure to a jabber-based model, then plug in other IMs at will =)
Of course, I'm sleep-deprived and running solely on caffeine, so this probably is a really, really stupid idea, since it sounds cool to me
They'll just have to rename... how about:
acclaimster
claimster
disclaimster
exclaimster
proclaimster
reclaimster
Argue against the original issue, not your own exaggerations of it.
What is Aimster? Is it anything to do with AOL Instant Messenger? If so, then they *are* using the "aim" part to play on AOL Instant Messenger, and diluting the market value of the brand. Or is the name a coincidence?
Sheep? Here? No fucking way!
Does this mean they will also go after Licq.org ICQ.org and other related domains?
No, because your product would not compete with Windows XP itself, in fact, it would require one to use it in order for your product to be successful.
AIMster is a product similar to AIM. If it were an add-on to integrate your Buddies in a LDAP enviromnent or whatever, I doubt AOL would've cared much.
I would take it to court...To hell with NAF
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I work for a non-profit organization called the AIM Institute. We have a web site at www.aiminstitute.org. Should I be worried that AOL can apropriate my company's domain name?
Whoa - hang on there. 2600 is being sued by Ford, not by GM, and the suit is on the grounds of trademark tarnishment of the Ford name, not on the basis of trademark infringement of "general motors". They are two very different issues.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
That would be great - if you could just drive off everyone who thinks that ".com" == "Internet", then the rest of us could have it back for what we originally used it for. Oops, except now you have to get ".biz" too...
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
You know, I don't use Aimster or anything, but up to this point, I had thought that the reason they had that name was that they were a subsidiary of the division of AOL that did the instant messaging thing. It took me completely by surprise to find that they weren't, and I would think AOL would have sued them already for the confusing nature of the use of "AIM" in that context.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Kind of a double-standard here? It's okay if the site in question just bitches about a company, but not if they make money?
No double-standard, its called free speech.
Trademarks can't be infringed upon for commercial use (which is what AIMster is doing) -- that's the whole pointof a trademark -- to keep your MARK in TRADE distinct from others' use of marks in trade. To prevent commercial confusion.
Using a trademark to offer criticism (as in Burger King saying "McDonald's hamburgers have 50% less beef") is perfectly legit.
Saying "fuck General Motors" is a grayer area, because by itself it isn't offering much criticism (although it could be equally argued that it doesn't run much risk of confusing consumers, either -- who would think GM would sell products under that slogan?)
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Wow. If that's true then this is really really upsetting. However, several news stories have indicated otherwise. These could have easily been misinformed reporters. Someone else in this thread said that he used to work for aimster, and that it was named Aimster because you could target who you shared with.
Truth is, we'll never know. All meanings were probably intentional. It's just not as scary as it would be if AOL went after meatloaf.com, and we shouldn't suggest that it is.
--
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Aimster was named after AIM because it incorporates your AOL Instant Messenger buddy list. This is a pretty clear use of a trademarked term, and it *is* trying to indicate that they're related.
AOL is completely whithin their rights, and if they didn't defend themselves than they could easily lose the ability to defend themselves in the future.
The real news story is that the otherwise legally on-top-of-it Aimster team let this slip.
--
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
The company claims that its named after Aimee, the founders daughter. A lot of people here think thats bs, she used to go by Madeline and just changed her name so AOL would have a harder time suing them.
But what if her middle name is Aimee?
Here's a "what if?" :
/etc/resolv.conf.
:-)
What if everyone out there who thinks large corporations stealing others' domain names is crap, and who runs a nameserver, decides to tell AOL to piss off, and put in DNS pointers to aimster's site for www.aimster.com anyway? There's no law that says I *have* to listen to the root nameservers.
Then, anyone who wanted to see the uncorporatized Internet could just stick on of these namservers in their
Couldn't we use OpenNIC to do something like this?
Yeah, I know, it's far to idealistic to think enough people would do this for it to actually work, but I find it a neat idea in theory anyway.
-Wintermute
while(true) { karma--; }
__________________________________________________ ___
rooooar
Reading all the CdrTaco backflap about AIMster being related to AIM and therefore vulnerable, it's amusing to me that while I and others here can see, and reluctantly agree with, the decision that AIMster does infringe on the trademark, we all think that fuckgeneralmotors.com should remain under independent control.
Kind of a double-standard here? It's okay if the site in question just bitches about a company, but not if they make money?
Kevin Fox
--
Kevin Fox
Haven't we had enough of these sorts of stories fer chrissakes. If I went into biz selling a cola drink in red cans named Cokester how long do you think I'd be around? At least Etoy had some justification to it. This one is pathetic.
It reminds me of the old MASH series where Hawkeye goes beserk when served liver and fish for the n100th time in a row, and incites a riot with the refrain "We want something else!"
Well Taco Leader, "We want something else!" "We want something else!" "We want something else!" "We want something else!" "We want something else!" "We want something else!" "We want something else!" "We want something else!" "We want something else!" "We want something else!" "We want something else!" "We want something else!" "We want something else!" "We want something else!" "We want something else!" "We want something else!" "We want something else!"
Well "AIM" is the full acronym of their software, so you'd probably have to have a full Windows title, like "windows95" or "windowsxp". However this does mean that if I were to create a domain called "windowsxpfixes.com" that had a list of tweaks or fixes to Windows XP (assuming of course it doesn't run perfectly out of the box) that MS could snatch my domain.
That sounds pretty scary. It might even mean that if I created a domain called "xpenhancer.com" to sell a multiple-desktop tool for Microsoft Windows XP, Microsoft could legally take the domain away.
Note that nothing here says that Aimster claimed to be made by the same people who made AOL Instant Messenger. The mere fact that the name incoporated the name of related software was enough.
This ruling could have huge ranging implications. Think of how many computer fan websites there are out there that use the name of the product in them. www.matroxusers.com, www.amdzone.com, www.voodooextreme.com, www.geforcefaq.com... Since these are normally fan sites it's in the best interest of the companies with the related trademarks to ket the fans express themselves, but what if company XXX comes out with a crappy product and XXXtweak.com trashes it in a review?
This is pretty scary stuff. In the past it seems to me that most of the domain names taken from someone were non-commercial ones that often were squatting on the name. But now what can you do? If you have a domain name that insults a company, they can take it. If you make a product designed for use with another product they can take your name. If you don't make a product at all and you're careless they can take it. Who is safe? I can see it in the news tomorrow:
What happens when one company holds a trademark on a name which is a substring of another company's trademark?
-jfedor
wow, isn't that a handy coincidence. And isn't it a coincidence that she wasn't called Aimee until she became "The Aimster Girl". Aimee was only her second name.
...IIRC Sun already trademarked '.'. Therefore, all you renegade website will have to pony up to Sun for your unauthorised use of their clearly valid trademark.
Why is it clearly valid? Because they got to it first, that's why.
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
FC Closer
I think the AIM in AIMster is rather related to AIM.
spoo
This is what happens when you let the rabid banshees, er, lawyers get into the works.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Yeah right. If that is so, how come at the O'Reilly P2P conference back in February the "Aimster" representative wasted 20 minutes of all the attendees time explaning that "Aimster" was the nickname of a little girl called "Amy" that he wanted the product to please. His explanation for this was so long and weird that he came across as some sort of pervert, and managed to piss off everybody expecting something interesting from the discussion.
If you are going to lie, then at least stick to your story...
I suggest someone register and publicize the domain "bad-aim" and see if AOL wants that one too :)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Female Prison Rape in NY
Ooops, "reclaims" has those 3 letters in sequence... I take my comment back.
AIM is notorious for being proprietary, controlling, and locking competitors out. It may be a fun statement to trade music over TimeWarner/AOL's network, but they can and will lock your software out. It's a medium that AIMster doesn't control, and only AOL does. That's why smart elitist cyberpunks boycott AIM.
Besides, AIM is so stupid in the first place that it's a mediocre way of trading MP3's. It's centralized, which creates the above issues. Also, what happens when someone "warns" you for trading MP3's? Or AOL deletes your account for it. This is not a true peer-to-peer network.
Does anybody else see the RIAA and MPAA pulling the strings behind this decision?
No, because the NRA would be promoting firearm safety, which, rather obviously, has nothing to do with instant messaging.
Of course, a bullet delivered to the brain does send a message - almost instantaneously - but I certainly don't want to be the recipient, and the connection is nebulous at best, don't you think?
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
Wrong.. You would not have a case because they have the money, and you don't.
heh.. mslinux would be allowed to exist. If someone does hold a trademark over linux, have they signed RedHat, Debian, etc. etc. etc. the ability to use that trademark? Otherwise it's already publically available as it's not been fought for. Redhat in particular is quite well known, and *may* be infringing. Of course, I don't know the particulars behind the trademark. I do know that the FreeBSD group has been forced to stand up for their trademark 'FreeBSD'. So... If MSFreeBSD came around they'd have some trouble. They can use the source, but not the name.
Rod Taylor
AOL and AAA both have the letter "A" in , after all. People might get confused.
the url for gaim is www.marko.net/gaim so I don't think this would apply
Obviously not. Microsoft has no claim over the "win" in WinZip because they are not CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR products.
One is an operating system, the other is a file utility.
The whole "big-bad-companies-taking-domains" occurs where there is intent to dilute the company's trademark by offering a confusingly similar product or service.
If I wrote an operating system and called it WinBest or WinAwesome then Microsoft *might* have a case to come after me.
-----
Does this mean the X can claim the domain name XBOX??? That has it's name in it twice...
Absolutely. I have a friend who works for one of the very popular MS certification emulator program, companies. And a few years ago they had a product called "NT-Cert" or osmething like that, and they were served cease and desist papers to remove NT from their product name or else they'd be sued.
They chose to remove the NT from their product name and rename their two products something like "Workstation-Cert" and "Server-Cert."
Does this mean that MS would have won a long an drawn out legal battle? Who knows.
But in essence they did win since they could afford such a battle, and my friend's company could not.
Ignore Alien Orders
You guys and gals don't seem to get it. You guys are all "Well, how about claim.com or iaimtoplease.com or aimhigh.com" -- I don't like it, but AOL isn't simply attacking anyone with AIM in their name. That's not the case.The A-I-M in AIMster REALLY DOES stand for "AOL Instant Messanger," and I think you all know it. That name belongs to AOL. It isn't a matter of having the same three letters in the same order -- that's not the issue. Using someone else's product name is. Is it cool to go after some harmless band of programmers? No, but thinking AOL is goin' after them just because they happen to have some letters in their name is just ignorant. It works with AIM and the name was chosen to communicate that.
In related news in a raid similar to the one that occupied Alcatraz Island, the American Indian Movement (AIM) siezed control of the building at American Online controlling the AIM instant messaging service on the grounds that the service violated the trademark intellectual property of the American Indian Movement and was also indirectly biggoted against American Indians everywhere.....
Of course! It all makes sense now.
In related news, Linus Torvalds -- creator of the UNIX-look-alike LINUX operating system -- surprised the computer industry today by announcing that "LINUX" is not a clever play of his name and UNIX. In fact, LINUX is XUNIL written backwards, which actually stands for "eXtensible Ultra-cool Network-ready Infrastructure for Lofties".
He then went on to file suit against Microsoft, for their use of the abbreviation XP in their yet-to-be-released new operating system Windows XP. Torwalds was quoted saying: "In today's cut-throat computer market, you have to lure your potential customers by using a kewl name for your software. However, by calling their new OS 'Windows XP', they have clearly violated my intellectual property rights on abbreviating words that start with the letters 'ex' using a capital 'X'. Intellectual property rights are the basis of all civilazation and I will not tolerate this blatant barbary."
As trustworthy sources say, "Windows XP" does, in fact, stay for "Windows Experience".
Microsoft could not be reached for comment, but an anonymous Redmont Drone cried: "This is sooo Un-American. I mean, this guy isn't even from here, he's from Finland. Finland, of all places! I want my Solitaire."
Microsoft stock were down on the news.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Next up, the Air Force, for their "Aim High" slogon.
This should be target for AOL, because 1) the word AIM is in there, and 2) they are apparently high if they think they own the English word aim.
By their logic, if I trademark ".com", I own the internet, right? I think I'd better start getting those nastygrams out to MS, Network Solutions and Oracle. That should be a good start...
Ready....
Point....
Fire!
Or are Ready and Fire (and maybe Point) already claimed?
He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
AOL's hit list.
--
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Advanced Idea Mechanics. If I spent 20 years reading comics, I at least can pontificate.
So I guess the archery website www.aimandfire.com is next to go, no? They are shamelessly infringing on AOL, obviously.
If there were a program or web site called "Aim High", say for the Army or Marines, that had registered the domain www.aimhigh.com, AOL would instantly have rights to that domain? I am not quite sure that this is the case, although that is what this article implies. Com'on, I don't like this copyright crap either, but let's not tell more than the facts.
I own the trademark on "ASHD", and have substantive proof that I have written those letters in that order at least once between 1980 and 1990. Therefore, slASHDot.org has been infringing on my prior art. You will be hearing from my lawyer shortly.
// zyqqh
obviously, AOL is trying to confuse consumers
who want to find aimster into reaching them
instead. this is what trademark law is intended
to prevent.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Aimster is sort of an add-on to the AIM client. What does the "Aim" in "Aimster" refer to? Isn't "Aimster" directly dirived from "AIM"? It's clear to me that they were infringing the trademark.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Microsoft owns the trademark on "Windows".
So basically what were saying here is that any product name of the form Win* can have its domain taken by Microsoft.
This is not good.
Note to WinTrolls: (For once, I am simply using Microsoft as an example, and not deriding them.)
--
there is a significant possibility for confusion
My ass.
Anybody who would bother reading anything related to Aimster beyond reading its name (read: 99% of the people who know about it) would know that Aimster != AOL != AIM. To me, this is just another classic example of a large corporation bullying around the little guy.
---
Check in...(OK!) Check out...(OK!)
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Didn't at one point, the author come out and say that Aimster was named after his daughter Aimee? And that she was going to be doing a photo shoot? I swear I saw an article on /. about that...
John Deep named it after his daughter (or a long used nickname for her). Something about the french word for love. Or something like that.
Or French saying 'Je t'AIMe' should also be sued! I can't believe those bastards have been violating AOL patents in impunity all that time!
A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait).
In related news, Microsoft is suing Sprint because Microsoft owns the trademark to "NT".
it was named after Aimee Deep. So the question is, will she change her name?
now if we only trademarked '.com' ... or just 'com' in general, no site would be safe...
cept /. :P
Runnin' On Empty
aimingfromtheclocktower.com
aimiablegrandmasinunderwear.net
aimlesslawsuits.org
suckaimeanbusiness.com
---------
Launch all sig
First, on their site they always call it "Aimster", not "AIMster". And "aim" is a dictionary word. Now that might not be enough in itself, but they have little bulls eyes all over the place. Cause it's *Aim*ster, ha, punny.
I guess all girls named Aimee should fear for their lives ... they're infringing on AOL's ownage of the word 'AIM'
What about gaim? Are they next?
These cases seem so ludicrous. I still don't understand how a company can take a three letter word out of a dictionary and patent it so no one else can use it.
Just wait 'til Linus gets pissed at all the world and starts snatching all the domains with "linux" in it... He does own the copywrite.
"I've seen plays that were more exciting than this.
"I've seen plays that were more exciting than this.
Honest to god... Plays!" Homer Simpson
Any (Marvel) comic fans will know that AIM really stands for "Advance Idea Maniacs", a evil high-tech organisation (no, not M$) hell bend on world domaination. Wait, now that I think about it AOL sounds more and more like a front for them, never mind then.
====
Codeala - Just another mindless drone
I figured that you were talking out of your arse before.
--
--
--
--
When can I copyright the idea of patents?
When can I trademark the word 'copyright'?
Or what about patenting the word 'trademark'? Yeah, that's a wicked joke. Must remember to bring that one up next time I'm debating IP.
Fuck you motherfucker.
--
--
--
--
....Aimee Deep. Aimee Deep is the daughter of the boss @ Aimster, and the girl on Aimster.com. See this MSNBC article for more info.
...and that's all there is to it.
Okay, so because AIM is a trademark, everything that has that prefix can be commandeered by AOL? So what's next, let's see, Apple should then own AppleRecords.com, AppleOrchard.com, AppleSauce.com, ...
Wait, there's more, what about GIF, does this mean Andover.Net's doomed with its GIFWorks site, or the GIFBot site, etc. etc...
And everyone's favorite... Windows... can you imagine how many domains have Windows on them (lessee, WindowsPC, WindowsComputing.com, WindowsMag.com, etc. etc.)...
Egads, what's next, they'll sue me if my name just happens to infringe on their trademark?
I think I'll go ahead and trademark each letter of the alphabet. That way, whenever any new site comes up, I can say that they are infringing on MY trademark. AOL would in fact be infringing on three of them. Damn bastards, I'm gonna get 'em. Hmmm... Slashdot, that's 7, but you're infringing on one of them twice. Better put that trademark on numbers too, otherwise kuro5hin might get off a bit easy.
Looks like the founder, Johnny Deep, even stole his name from that actor guy.
Sorry...I'll just go back to sipping my Piet Depsi.
Evil is the money of root.
At least nobody owns the rights to the C programming language...It would suck if every domain that contained the word "C" was now off limits
I would now like to announce my new trademark ... of the letter 'R.' I guess everyone needs to turn over all domains that have the letter 'R' in it ... looks like I now own micRosoft.com then eh?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Yes, that is the essence of a trademark. You can enforce that trademark when it is used with regard to a particular service or business. And it develops that Aimster is a service very similar in some respects (even compatible with) AOL's AIM. It's not just about "confusion," but about implied endorsement and the value of the brand.
I am thinking A1 steak sauce should now sue AOL.
Why? AOL doesn't make steak sauce.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
And how exactly would this work? I would agree that we have too many lawyers in America today, and the law is too byzantine and obscure so that they are more necessary, but do you really think it is possible for human beings to implement a legal system of any kind with nobody at all performing such a function?
No matter how clear and simple the law is, if there is a procedure for administering it (such as our network of hearings and trials) then someone will have to advise plaintiffs and defendants on how to adhere to that procedure, since most of us won't know all the ins and outs.
And even the clearest law may not be understood by everybody. Lots of people seem inclined to interpret the law one way when they are the aggrieved party but another way when they are being sued. It's the job of a lawyer to explain these folks' true position to them, so they can avoid going to trial and getting whacked because they didn't understand the situation (or, alternately, so they can sue for just compensation which they might not have realized could be theirs).
This doesn't mean we need a system like we have, but try to be realistic. When Shakespeare wrote "first, we kill all the lawyers" those characters were planning a revolution; this was recognition that lawyers are a linchpin in the rule of law, and the first step in subverting that rule of law would have to be to get rid of them.
Of course, I suppose we could try anarchy, but I don't think that would work too well with our population and our level of technology. One day all those wunnerful feedback mechanisms that drive the invisible hand of the market would overshoot and we'd end up living in caves again. So, have you some other idea? Just wondering...
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
And of course we all know that (as they actually argued in court) the chain restaurant Hooters refers to the sound made by their owl mascot.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
I'm sorta wondering why AOL hasn't sued the makers of PowerAIM and PowerTools for AOL.
Maybe because they're 'very friendly' toward AOL, giving their hosts free licenses and ripping off users to give them features everyone that doesn't use AOL already has...
Oooooh well... Looks like AOL-sponsored companies are free from that.
Do you like German cars?
So would this happen if the entity using the domain name was in another country? Do United States companies own the internet (or at least the most popular TLDs)?
Why not claim immunity from the violation as by using AIMster as a parody?
WWJD?
JWRTFM!
So.? Would you guys, like sue me, if I took slasher dot org?
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
who'd they send to the conference? it was probably johnny, who doesn't even know anyone named amy (or any of the variant spellings).
i really doubt he could con anyone else in the office into doing a presentation like that... perhaps rik, but it doesn't sound like something he'd do.
as a side note, you'll notice that one thing that aimster is definitely lacking is consistency. the whole dev team has probably dropped several times as much code as gets used.
I worked at aimster for a few months before deciding they weren't going anywhere (read: yes, i know why it's named what it's named). The reason for "AIM"ster is that you were "AIM"ing for only your buddies. Any semblance to AOL's product offering is entirely coincidental. The fact that aimster (supposedly) integrates with IM products is a happy side note as well.
In the case that you weren't aware, aimster is a p2p app that was supposedly designed to integrate well with IM infrastructure (i say supposedly because, well, i know how the previous version worked =), and allow you to only share files with your buddies. The versions i worked on were rather lackluster, and the file sharing didn't work for most people most of the time. I can't speak for the new version, as it was released after i left the company.
Much as i dislike aimster, i think johnny had a good idea, and he was willing to support me to do the reverse engineering of AIM's OFT (AIM File Transfer) in an open manner. We have a partial implementation of it in libfaim, but nobody really cares enough to finish it up.
Although the service's founder originally claimed that it was inspired by his daughter, Madeline's, Instant Messaging software, we were later told that his daughter is named Aimee, and that she is the one who programmed it. It was also named after her. We also learned that she looks cute in a bikini. http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,43441-1,00.ht ml
Surely they can't be prevented from using a girl's name!
What about the "ster?" Does Napster have a claim as well? I would think they have more right to it than AOL since it has one more character...
What ever happened to this?
/. (wasn't a story, but a reply to one) that some guy registered this, AOL caught wind of it like 2 days later, and it was gone, off the root servers.
I remember reading on
I wonder what would happen if I got f-aol.com ?
You know, you guys don't have any right to complain about the spreading of FUD when you do it so often yourselves. AOL wouldn't have any right to the domain www.aimtokill.com as long as nobody was offering instant-messenger stuff there. You know that.
I agree that this is stupid, as long as Aimster has notices in reasonably conspicuous places to the effect that they are not affiliated with AOL, they should get to keep the domains. The name Aimster is not meant to confuse people into thinking its an officially AOL-endorsed product but its a clever (well, maybe not that clever) play on words that both lets people know its a file-sharing service and that it works with AIM.
However, just because this case is stupid doesn't give you the right to spread FUD, so keep quiet!
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
There is more involved here than just similarity of names. In this case, you have a product that is closely related to the trademark holder's product, and there is a significant possibility for confusion. That's probably why they lost.
If "Aimster" was a device for hunters or a water pistol, AOL would have much less of a claim and probably would have lost this one.
I thought Aimster was named after the creator's daughter, Aimee? I saw it in the last wired, I think. I couldn't find the same article on the web, but I found a related article. http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,43441,00.html
Ok, what if your site was called www.iaimtoplease.com and you specialized in a personal escort service. Personally i think that would pretty helarious if AOL thought that THAT site was violating thier use of aim. A new feature on upcoming versions of AIM?? Heh, send your buddy a escort...
The answer to your next question will be 'not likely'.
...at Aim toothpaste! Those leeches have been getting rich off AOL's trademarked name for a long time now!
AIM THIS!
-----------------------
-----------------------
Stay in school, kids! Peace out, Dubya
Yes, Aimster does say that he (the creator) did get the idea from his daughter while she was using her AOL Instant Messanger and the fact that YES the name is derived from that but come on! The reason behind having such laws is so that other people won't infringe upon the value of your company's name or product.
This would involve name like calling your software "Microsoft Perl 2000". That would imply that the company (in this case Microsoft) either supports the use of the name (and endorses it) or has created it itself. When this is not true the law is needed.
Aimster and AIM are not competing products nor are the two companies involved competing at any level. People will not invest in Aimster because it has a name similar to AOL, in fact the web site (last time I was there) even mentioned that there was absolutly no relation between the two businesses.
This is sad, it really is. How much does a large company need to push? Hell, Archie Comics thinks that they own the rights to the name Veronica. I'm just glad my name hasn't been in a comic book or closely resembling any corporation.
- Cuyler
Who patented 'TM'?
a real master of the english language, we have here.
never gets anyone anywhere
Neither does swearing my arse off.
You need to relax.
The "court" found that AIMster was "confusingly similar" to Aol Instant Messanger, and that AIMster somehow devalued the "brand" of instant messanger. That Aimster "is anything to do with" instant messanger is not the legal standard, I'm not at all confused about the diffrent products, I doubt that you are confusaed about witch one does what. Maby these arbitrators are just confused when anything involves a computer or the internet, maby they think were too dumb to know the diffrence. Besides this sets a horrible precidence, AIMster enhances Aol Instant Messanger allowing file transfer, it should be allowed to express that that is what it infact does. Now that AOL owns the word AIM, can I not have a domain name like www.trueaim.com, www.aimtrue.com, www.aim-for-the-heart.com, www.aimright.com? plus all there .org, .net, .co.uk, .whatever derivitives?
Hey does AOL also own the simpler IM so i cant register the domain name www.IM-not-online.com , www.IMagine.com, www.IM-not-fond-of-aol.com and www.IM-not-using-AIM-anymore.com? Hell can AOL ban all other online messaging services from describing themselves as "instant messaging" as I IMagine they would love to do.
IM convinced this is a precident that AIMs at the heart of online freedom and blowes a large hole in it.
What's next, are idots like this panel going to shutdown an autosalvage operation like www.fordparts.com.
Are they going to give all domain names like www.applefritter.com and www.lowendmac.com over to apple computer? Would Apple Computer rember that they once almost lost there name to the beatles "Apple Records" and have the decency to give them back? sosueme.
The problem here is that the name Aimster refers to something associated with AIM. If they were talking about archery there wouldn't be the issue there is now.
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
If the reasonable standard is "AOL users might get confused", I think we're all in trouble of losing our domains. Mine, for example, has letters and dots and thus could cause confusion.
A.
Of course the burden of proof would be upon your shoulders. It would be interesting to see AOL/Time Warner forced to turn over those names because you were the first to print the term AOL, which I believe would make you the original copyright owner.
Then again since you have not done anything about it for such a long time. As well as the fact that AOL has more than likely approached you many times to sell you their service. I would have to suppose that you would not have much of a case.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Does this mean the next time I go for target practice I owe AOL $$$ so I can work on my AIM?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
I found this article very interesting, given the fact that I'm going through the exact same thing with AOL over a domain that I own. I currently own EnhanceAOL.com. It redirects to my site, where I sell software that enhances the AOL client software. I have received a letter from their Intellectual Property lawyers essentially saying "Give us the domain or else!" I have yet to respond to their demands, but considering I don't have the money to take on a billion-dollar corporation, I don't see too many options in my situation. I personally think it's stupid that any trademarked letters found in a domain name can be essentially hijacked by the owner of the trademark. Government needs to find a way to more vigorously regulate the actions of giant corps such as AOL and Microsoft. In the meantime, I'll be forking over my domain name to AOL so they can sit on it and marvel at their own magnificence as they claim rights to every domain containing the three sequential letters a-o-l and a-i-m. (If anyone would like to offer any free legal advise, email me - IgniteSoftware@aol.com)
I thought trademark protection was protected in cases where the mark is derived from a person's name, no?
This is one of the few cases where arbitration yields less fair results than going to court. Next time, I hope they find better representation.