On Sun, 30 May 1999 21:24:58 -0700, "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >That's not quite the complete story William. The issue was exactly >"aol.com.br". Yes, that is what it was about....I don't think I implied or stated otherwise. I made a one line quote from the article about a portion of the ruling, nothing more. >Personally, I applaud the ruling. AOL should have moved >faster. The Brazilian company would have lost on US soil, rightly so. I don't agree with the "rightly so" part however, but you are right they would have lost, however wrong that ruling might have been. >But the fact that the distinction between aol.com.br and aol.com is >being enforced by a trademark signatory is very interesting. It could, >with other circumstancial evidence, help to enforce a distinction >between TLDs, in the trademark front. Heretofore, the problem has been >getting the courts to recognise the AOL.COM and AOL.NET can be >different. That was my point in bringing it up. It could lead to an interesting twist on this whole trademark issue.... -- William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] General Manager, DSo Internet Services Fax:(209) 671-7934
