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.
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
> 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)
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?
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.
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.
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
I think the AIM in AIMster is rather related to AIM.
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...
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
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
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.....
AOL's hit list.
--
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
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
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...
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.
I guess all girls named Aimee should fear for their lives ... they're infringing on AOL's ownage of the word 'AIM'
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:[.]
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)?
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.
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.
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
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.