Slashdot Mirror
AOL Threatens Peng, Demands Domain Handover
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.
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?
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
"Arent Fox asks us as a first step, to suppress every reference to the Aol brand name and logo, and after another (rather sinuous) argument, to hand over the pengaol.org domain name. We have to comply and answer before october 14th, or they will inform Aol of their action."
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.
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.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Actually, I really don't think it would be illegal if you were in a completely different product arena. Basically, if there's no likelihood of confusion, it's less likely that you'll get in trouble. In the pengaol case though, I think there would be a likelood of confusion, but there probably wouldn't be for "Another Old Look" calling itself AOL. (Though you could probably get a lawyer to argue anything.)
Photos of bits of the past hiding in the present: afiler.com
If you're going to hit them, do some REAL damage and check out this Perl driven bio page:
http://www.arentfox.com/cgi-bin/bioEditor.pl
$0.02 (CDN)
Except for one thing. It allows the user to connect to AOL, bypassing AOL's software, bypassing AOL's control over their Online Service. It removes advertising, AOL's content, and other parts of the AOL user experience that AOL wants to provide.
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