About Us
 

Thank you for contacting Atlantis Solar and Wind. Our products are becoming very popular throughout the world and we will be in over 70 countries by the end of this year.

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. Our  presence  being  known  as  Atlantis  Solar  brand  name  in  over  70  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  70  countries  in  product  sales  and  growing  unbelievably  fast.  With energy cost and global governments focusing on 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, export expectations in 2012.

Headquarters now in Bonita Springs Florida USA

Atlantis Solar USA International
Environmentally Friendly Green Room

Corporate Name: Atlantis Solar and Wind LLC
Better known as "Atlantis Solar" World Wide

 

® International Registered Trade Marks and Patent Pending / 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 Patent Pending
   Atlantis Solar      ®
     ®
      
     ®
Every one is plugging in ®


 

FYI:

Please remember that our Name Atlantis Solar is an International Corporate Name, and International Federal (USPTO) Registered Trade Name, Trade Mark's, Patent Pending, 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 Tel: 916-226-9183 USA

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.


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

 
Every one is plugging in