Thank you for contacting Atlantis Solar and Wind Middle East & Africa. Our products are becoming very popular throughout the world and we will be in over 80 countries by the end of this year, with the help of our strategic associate partners worldwide.
Since 1988, we have catapulted from its status as an unknown start-up businesses to one of the most reputable, visible and trustworthy names in technology integration, wind energy and solar technology, known today as Atlantis Solar and Wind with our worldwide known Trade Mark as Atlantis Solar.
Our Atlantis Solar name started in 2004 as a major brand name, and today we are one of the largest exporters and processors / producers of solar technology products from eastern Asia to the South Atlantic.
Our ability to control the entire production chain on high technology, wind, solar and electronics manufacturing coupled with our strong presence in large International regions allows us to optimize our cost structure, have a faster reaction to market requirements and improve customer satisfaction.
Stringent quality control of our products makes us very competitive in the world markets. Our products are manufactured with USA, Japanese, Korean and China parts in Atlantis Solar USA manufacturing facilities in the United States and now Asia. Our presence being known as Atlantis Solar brand name in over 80 countries today and growing.
Our Atlantis Solar brand name products are growing very fast in today’s world markets, we projected in 2008 export to 20 countries. Today we are working with over 80 countries in product sales and growing unbelievably fast. With increasing energy cost, Atlantis Solar continually researches and designs energy efficient technology helping the reduction of Global Warming to help reduce our worlds continued ozone deterioration and fuel cost.
Atlantis Solar will excel in manufacturing demand worldwide with our state of the art technology, energy efficient top quality products, and export expectations in 2015; making us a global leader, with our state of the art environmentally intelligent green technology.
Our world depends on you to provide the most environmentally friendly products, helping preserve nature, reduce energy cost, and most of all, Quality, Cost and Affordability.
Corporate Name: Atlantis Solar and Wind LLC - Better known as "Atlantis Solar ® " World Wide
® International Registered Trade Marks and Patents / Names ™ / Copy Rights ©
© Atlantis Solar Internet Site Content is Registered with the United States Library of Congress Internationally
Atlantis Solar Triple Thermal Solar Air Conditioner Patented with 2 Patents in The United States and International
Please remember that our Name Atlantis Solar is an International Corporate Name, and International Federal (USPTO) Registered Trade Name, Trade Mark's, Patents, Logo's and Copy Rights.
When writing negative derogatory information, please very clear that this information does not pertain in any way to Atlantis Solar and Wind LLC and or our Corporate Trade Marks and Names / Copyrights.
All that utilize our Corporate name, trademarks, copyrights under the Name Atlantis Solar in the energy business, are infringing on our rights, therefore causing damage to our Atlantis Solar name internationally.
Atlantis Solar has all rights to file infringement suites for loss of business.
Atlantis Solar Trade Names, Marks, and Copyrights are categorized under environmentally friendly energy products under Federal Law.
For those utilizing our Atlantis Solar name with out contracts, are committing Infringement and Fraud under Federal and State Laws, and will be dealt with appropriately.
It is best to contact Atlantis Solar and Wind LLC USA / Atlantis Solar direct before continuing to utilize our good name.
Atlantis Solar Middle East & Africa Tel: +962-6-5604101 Jordan
Derogatory information published, gives Atlantis Solar all legal rights to prossecute
Libel laws apply to web
Two recent USA court decisions considered the Internet as a medium for defaming individuals and whether the laws that restrict damaging communication in print apply in the same manner to the worldwide web.
By David Canton
Two recent USA court decisions considered the Internet as a medium for defaming individuals and whether the laws that restrict damaging communication in print apply in the same manner to the worldwide web. The courts sent a clear message the same defamation laws apply to Internet communications as to printed messages. Individuals should think twice about posting something derogatory about another.
Case law has defined defamation as a comment that "tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society." Libel and slander are other commonly used terms for defamation.
In the first case of Vaquero Energy Ltd. and Robert N. Waldner v. Weir, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench analyzed the defamation of individuals and corporate entities online. Messages were posted in an Internet chat room, which used highly derogatory language to describe the second plaintiff, who was the president and CEO of the plaintiff company The court heard computer forensic evidence, which enabled the plaintiff to establish the identity of the person responsible for the postings. The defendant denied having sent the messages and attempted to put forth the possibility someone had stolen his Internet protocol address or used his computer to send the defamatory messages.
The court found against the defendant. The award for damages totaled $50,000 for both plaintiffs, as well as $25,000 in punitive damages. The second decision involved a claim brought as a result of the Washington Post publishing three defamatory articles on its website and in its newspaper. In this case of Bangoura v. Washington Post et al, the Ontario Superior Court found those who publish via the Internet are aware of the global reach of the net.
The legal enforcement against the publishing of derogatory information on the Internet is not just a USA phenomenon. In Bangoura, the court referred to a recent decision in Australia.
The case of Dow Jones & Company Inc. v. Gutnick, a U.S.-based corporation published material on the Internet that allegedly defamed Mr. Gutnick. The publication over the Internet was accessed by the High Court of Australia and was a major factor in persuading the court that it had jurisdiction over the matter.
The court emphasized those who make information accessible by a particular method do so knowing the reach that their information may have. Specifically, the court commented: "those who post information on the worldwide web do so knowing the information they make available is available to all and sundry without any geographic restriction."
Individuals who use the Internet as a conduit to communicate are not aiming to reach a small audience. In USA, the court stressed e-mails are easy to send and can be done anonymously so the recipient has no way of determining the motive behind the message and cannot discount comments.
Internet messages are also instantaneous and distributed worldwide, allowing irrevocable damage to occur to the person's reputation before the target is even aware. The award of punitive damages is a clear indication of how serious the courts view using the Internet as a weapon to defame someone.
Copyright Laws International
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes The nature of the copyrighted work.
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.
The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.
The safest course is to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, you should consider avoiding the use of copyrighted material unless you are confident that the doctrine of fair use would apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine whether a particular use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
FL-102, Reviewed June 2012 http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Trade Mark Laws International What constitutes trademark infringement?
If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. 1114, 1125. The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961).
So, for example, the use of an identical mark on the same product would clearly constitute infringement. If I manufacture and sell computers using the mark "Apple," my use of that mark will likely cause confusion among consumers, since they may be misled into thinking that the computers are made by Apple Computer, Inc. Using a very similar mark on the same product may also give rise to a claim of infringement, if the marks are close enough in sound, appearance, or meaning so as to cause confusion. So, for example, "Applet" computers may be off-limits; perhaps also "Apricot." On the other end of the spectrum, using the same term on a completely unrelated product will not likely give rise to an infringement claim. Thus, Apple Computer and Apple Records can peacefully co-exist, since consumers are not likely to think that the computers are being made by the record company, or vice versa.
Between the two ends of the spectrum lie many close cases, in which the courts will apply the factors listed above. So, for example, where the marks are similar and the products are also similar, it will be difficult to determine whether consumer confusion is likely. In one case, the owners of the mark "Slickcraft" used the mark in connection with the sale of boats used for general family recreation. They brought an infringement action against a company that used the mark "Sleekcraft" in connection with the sale of high-speed performance boats. Because the two types of boats served substantially different markets, the court concluded that the products were related but not identical. However, after examining many of the factors listed above, the court concluded that the use of Sleekcraft was likely to cause confusion among consumers. AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979). http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/index.jsp