Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : USAB - USABancShares.com -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Tomatohead who wrote (1917)	8/24/1999 12:37:00 PM
From: Tom Borst	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2419

CNBC.com has received your e-mail. cnbc.com We appreciate the time you have taken to correspond with us. Due to the volume of e-mail we receive, we will do our best to reply within two to three business days of receipt of your e-mail. Thank you CNBC loyal sponsor (USAB), has been wronged by US Bank! Please forward to Joe Kernen or David Faber! Hot Internet news story is brewing in the Federal court! Minneapolis Star-Tribune Sets David Against Goliath. This will be a landmark case for Internet URL's and name similarity! In this case the wronged are USAB and the shareholders that have been affected financially, by this unnecessary and frivolous lawsuit. Is US Bank, a seventy-seven billion-dollar multi-state bank holding company afraid of an up and coming powerhouse? Is there warrant and true cause for concern in the likeness of names? Are potential US Bank customers mistakenly confusing the two? I truly feel the federal judge deciding this case will perceive the differences as you and I perceive them. Whether small in nature or otherwise, These names are different! "USABanc.com" (approved by all regulatory agencies and with trademark pending) was substantially different from "US Bank" or "usbank.com as their URL. If based on nothing but common sense, USABanc.com has no K, an A, and a .com - ten letters, not 6. It's not even close. Despite having offered FDIC insured products since April, US Bank waited until July 29th to file this suit. <<<U.S District Court Civil Docket, US District Court for the District of Minnesota, (Minneapolis) 0:99cv1149 US Bancorp, et al v. Usabanc.com, Inc, et al Docket As Of Thursday, July 29, 1999 at 6:09:00 PM Last retrieved on Friday, July 30, 1999>>> And even more suprising, is they then filed for an "emergency" hearing to seek a restraining order, since such orders usually require an extraordinary and immediate harm. USAB was served notice that a hearing would be held on the matter on August 16th, the day USAB launched it's new website! US BANK's attempt at 'handcuffing' USAB with these charges of infringing on their trademark rights (i.e. the similarity in names) is, in my view, a horrific attempt at causing unwarranted harm to the future of USABanc's business. marketwatch.newsalert.com marketwatch.newsalert.com marketwatch.newsalert.com marketwatch.newsalert.com