Aimster Loses Domain to AOL 169
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.
Who else? (Score:1)
Well that kills my project (Score:1)
Guess I'll have to continue with my AI-based program which automatically defends you against bogus lawsuits... notgoingtogAOL.
Aw crap...
Re:I don't see what's wrong (Score:1)
Client-Server Instant Messenging is to P2P Instant Messenging as Chicken Buckets are to Watches and Clocks? Good luck on the GRE.
Re:Except that Aimster is infringing... (Score:2)
Re:Can't use the word "AIM?" (Score:2)
Re:WinZip? (Score:1)
Re:WinZip? (Score:2)
> 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
No sympathy for Aimster, cept for their lost money (Score:3)
--
$you = new YOU;
Hardly random letters (Score:1)
Re:AIM is found in the dictionary! (Score:2)
Re:AIM for your buddies (Score:4)
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
Re:AOL reclaims aimster domain (Score:2)
acclaimster
claimster
disclaimster
exclaimster
proclaimster
reclaimster
Re:I see something wrong (Score:1)
Re:I see something wrong (Score:2)
Argue against the original issue, not your own exaggerations of it.
I don't see what's wrong (Score:3)
Re:Company names? (Score:1)
Licq, etcetera (Score:1)
Re:WinZip? (Score:1)
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.
Why would they consent to arbitration ? (Score:1)
Re:Why would they consent to arbitration ? (Score:1)
Company names? (Score:1)
Re:Double /. standard? (Score:1)
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!
Re:Quick, someone trademark .com! (Score:1)
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!
Re:FUD alert (Score:2)
--
Re:Company names? (Score:1)
Does the institute have anything to with AOL Instant Messenger? If yes, then you should be worried. Somehow I doubt it, though.
Look, it's one thing that Taco made the dumb comment that this "prove[s] that if you have a trademark, you have the right to any domain name that contains those letters in that order." Yeah, how does it prove this? Where in this case do you see AOL going after all the domains which contain the string "aim" that aren't related to AOL's AIM product?
Like I said, it's one thing for Taco to make that dumb comment. What's really sad is to see all the sheep here who believe it.
Cheers,
Re:Double /. standard? (Score:3)
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?)
---------------------------------------------
Re:Except that Aimster is infringing... (Score:1)
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.
--
Except that Aimster is infringing... (Score:5)
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.
--
what if Aimee is her MIDDLE NAME? (Score:1)
But what if her middle name is Aimee?
Time to fork DNS? (Score:5)
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 [unrated.net] 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
Re:Except that Aimster is infringing... (Score:1)
__________________________________________________ ___
Re:AIM for your buddies (Score:2)
while(true) { karma--; }
__________________________________________________ ___
Double /. standard? (Score:2)
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
--
Re:Double /. standard? (Score:2)
Actually, Apple Records sued Apple Computer around 1982 and they reached a settlement that involved an undisclosed sum paid to Apple Records and an agreement that Apple Computer wouldn't venture into the music industry. This is why they had to license Roland's MIDI samples instead of making their own, and were later drawn back into court when they started advocating quicktime and other music-related products.
As I understand it they did reach another settlement, but this was certainly a pair with a history of litigation.
Kevin Fox
--
XXX Copies Trademark, looses domain. Duh. (Score:2)
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!"
Re:WinZip? (Score:5)
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 [matroxusers.com], www.amdzone.com [amdzone.com], www.voodooextreme.com [voodooextreme.com], www.geforcefaq.com [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:
Which raises an interesting question (Score:2)
-jfedor
Re:Ahem, Taco... (Score:1)
Sorry, won't work... (Score:1)
Why is it clearly valid? Because they got to it first, that's why.
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
Ahem, Taco... (Score:2)
Re:Licq, etcetera (Score:1)
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
In related news... (Score:1)
AOL toothpaste? (Score:1)
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.
Re:AIM for your buddies (Score:2)
If you are going to lie, then at least stick to your story...
Bad Aim (Score:1)
Re:Wrong (Score:1)
AOL reclaims aimster domain (Score:1)
They should have expected this, and more (Score:1)
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.
Guilty (Score:1)
Re:Guilty (Score:1)
read any
Picture for a moment that these groups might DISLIKE Aimster for some reason, I don't know. Using all the resources at their disposal, they could use their clout to have other groups go after them.
Could they force the IRS to audit them? I doubt it, but it's not unthinkable that some large groups have some control behind the scenes here.
Re:Can't use the word "AIM?" (Score:1)
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?
Re:I don't see what's wrong (Score:3)
If I opened a business and merely appended "ster" to the end of an established corporate name marketing similar or identical product(s), would that be okay?
"KFCster," selling chicken?
"BKster," selling burgers?
"Jifster," selling peanut butter?
I didn't think so.
Re:Time to fork DNS? (Score:2)
For something like this to work, you'd have to convince an ISP to switch their root servers, so the users could use such a nameserver without having to deal with some shaky server out in God knows where.
--
Re:Perhaps you should look into this... (Score:1)
Re:No sympathy for Aimster, cept for their lost mo (Score:1)
Re:I don't see what's wrong (Score:1)
"KFCster," selling watches and clocks
"BKster," selling computers
"Jifster," chatting software
(for example)
None of these are competition and are not in the same industry as the products whose names they are similar to. In addition, none of these acronyms or product names are also english words. "Aim" is a word. Look it up.
The only way that Aimster is in competition with AOL is the fact that AOL is now AOL/Time Warner, one of the "record companies" being sued by Aimster.
All things considered, this is a really poor decision, and I think the NAF is not as neutral as is believed.
Next AOL will sue the AAA (Score:2)
Re:Gaim? (Score:2)
Re:WinZip? (Score:1)
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.
-----
Losing your Domain name. (Score:1)
Re:WinZip? (Score:2)
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.
It's NOT just three letters! (Score:1)
Re:Time to fork DNS? (Score:2)
Claim your namespace.
AIM service siezed by American Indian Movement (Score:2)
Re:AIM for your buddies (Score:1)
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.
Next up... (Score:1)
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.
Quick, someone trademark .com! (Score:1)
Firing Squad (Score:1)
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
Re:Except that Aimster is infringing... (Score:3)
[aim] (v. i.) To point or direct a missile weapon, or a weapon which propels as missile, towards an object or spot with the intent of hitting it; as, to aim at a fox, or at a target. (v. i.) To direct the indention or purpose; to attempt the accomplishment of a purpose; to try to gain; to endeavor; -- followed by at, or by an infinitive; as, to aim at distinction; to aim to do well. (v. i.) To guess or conjecture.
Hit list (Score:3)
--
Re:AIM is really owned by ... (Score:1)
Right on target... (Score:1)
So... (Score:1)
Re:AIM service siezed by American Indian Movement (Score:1)
--
FAIR WARNING (Score:2)
This is going to confuse consumers (Score:1)
who want to find aimster into reaching them
instead. this is what trademark law is intended
to prevent.
Trademark infringement. (Score:1)
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Re:Double /. standard? (Score:2)
In a way, you're right. Under fair use you can often violate IP for critical purposes but generally not for profit. The fair use doctrine does not apply to trademarks (only to copyrights) but are you surprised many of us like the fair use doctrine?
Plus, the fuckgeneralmotors.com domain is being fought by Ford, not General Motors, so that is sort of a different issue.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
WinZip? (Score:4)
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.)
--
Re:significant possibility of confusion (Score:2)
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!)
His Daughter? (Score:1)
Wrong (Score:2)
Re:Wrong (Score:2)
Re:I thought it was named after his daughter (Score:2)
Re:I don't see what's wrong (Score:2)
"KFCster," selling bbq sauce "BKster," selling ketchup "Jifster," selling jams (for example)
as I understand it, Aimster is a program that allows for trading of mp3's over the aim network, hence the name. There could probably even be reasonable grounds for napster to sue. (now that would be hilarious to see. They might actually *win* a lawsuit)
---
Yes (Score:2)
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.
Nice concept, what have you in mind re: execution? (Score:3)
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...
Re:Yes (Score:3)
Whether the owner of a trademark can stop others from using it depends on such factors as:
Any more questions?
Ri-ight (Score:5)
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.
A Question (Score:2)
AIM for your buddies (Score:5)
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.
Re:I don't see what's wrong (Score:2)
In the NAF decision, Peter Michaelson wrote: "These domain names were intentionally selected
Similarity? Instant Messenging products with Buddies called AIM and AIMster? I don't see any similarity at all...
Of course the typical AOL user would be confused between Aimster and AIM. AOL has every right to go after them. (Inasmuch as corporations have rights, which is a whole other issue...)
--
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
Re:Double /. standard? (Score:4)
Hit the nail on the head with that one. The fuckgeneralmotors case is free speech. The aimster case is someone taking advantage of someone else's name to help their own product.
--
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
FUD alert (Score:5)
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!
Re:I don't see what's wrong (Score:4)
Yeah, like THAT'S hard to do.
significant possibility of confusion (Score:4)
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.
Re:Double /. standard? (Score:2)
This is why AoL needn't fear Aim toothpaste coming after them, as they don't make internet software. This is also how we have Apple Computers' mark [apple.com] side by side with Apple Records. [applecorp.com]
This is really sad. (Score:3)
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
Perhaps you should look into this... (Score:2)
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.
Hunting (Score:3)