In addition to assistive technology and adaptive equipment, the ATEC Lab offers on-site staff to assist students with scanning, testing, and assistive technology use as needed. For further information, contact the Lab Manager at atec.access@austin.utexas.edu or 512-232-2842.

If Kurzweil 3000 is an approved accommodation through D&A, submit a request for the software through the Kurzweil 3000 Request Form. You will receive an email in 1-3 business days with instructions on how to register for an account and information on the various ways to use Kurzweil.

Atec Download

Download Zip 🔥 https://urlca.com/2yGAEw 🔥

The HathiTrust is a large digital library bringing together materials from Google Books, the Internet Archive, libraries at HathiTrust partner institutions (including the UT Libraries), and other commercial digitization projects.

The UT Library system has an extensive collection of online resources including articles, ebooks, maps, streaming audio and video, and more. You may still use Interlibrary Loan to place requests for ebooks and electronic copies of articles and book chapters. Requests for physical items are suspended.

How the process works:

After you submit your book list, we work with publishers to get digital formats of the texts. Not all texts are going to be available from the publishers. If we are unable to get a digital version from the publisher, you will be contacted to bring in the physical copy of the book/course packet for us to scan. To scan a book, we have to cut the spine off of the book. This process cannot be done on library-loaned books, rented books, or borrowed books. After we cut and scan the books, we will send the books to be re-bound. After we get the books back, you will be notified to pick up your physical copy. *NOTE: Any re-bound copy cannot be sold because it has been modified.

What happens when your digital books are ready?

You will receive your texts, in an accessible format that will work with Kurzweil, through a secure UT Box link. This link will be active for only 30 days during which time you will need to download and save your books on a personal drive.

**TIP: A good practice is to check your booklist at the University Coop listing before the semester begins and submit the request as soon as possible. The ATEC Lab fulfills all print accessibility requests for D&A students and we get very busy at the beginning of the semester. You can get your books faster by sending in your request before the semester begins. After the semester begins and you purchase your books, send in your receipt(s) and we will release your books through a UT Box link. NOTE: Proof of purchase is required to release your books. A picture or screenshot of a completed order will work as proof of purchase.

The University of Texas Libraries offer reference and research assistance, access to accessible electronic material, and accessible workstations. Information on Library Services For Users With Disabilities is available here: You may use Interlibrary Loan to place requests for ebooks and electronic copies of articles and book chapters.

Google Keep Digital notetaking option

Features: Create voice memos as reminders, lists, and add photos.

Cost: Free

Compatibility: Android and iOS mobile operating systems, and is part of the Google Docs suite

This matter was tried to the bench. At the close of Plaintiff's case this Court orally granted defendant's motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). The Court now details the reasons for that ruling.

Plaintiff Atec, Inc., is a Texas corporation; Defendant Aerospatiale Societe Nationale Industrielle, S.A. is a French corporation. Both produce electronic testing equipment used for various purposes in the aviation industry. In 1978 Aerospatiale registered the mark "ATEC" for use on its equipment.[1] Subsequently, Atec attempted to register the mark "ATEC" and was refused because of Aerospatiale's priority. On Atec's petition, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (hereinafter "TTAB") cancelled Aerospatiale's registration.[2] Aerospatiale did not appeal the cancellation, and Atec registered its mark.[3] Atec filed this action after Aerospatiale used the disputed mark in an American aviation magazine and installed a system bearing the mark in Miami.[4] We have no cause to address the question of whether Aerospatiale, which had been in negotiation with Atec, had reason to think it had Atec's permission to use the disputed mark in the United States.

These factors are not to be applied mechanically. The list is not exhaustive, and other factors may be considered. Conan Properties, Inc. v. Conans Pizza, Inc., 752 F.2d 145, 149 (5th Cir.1985). No one factor is dispositive, and the weight attached to each factor will vary from case to case. Marathon Mfg. Co. v. Enerlite Products Corp., 767 F.2d 214, 218 (5th Cir.1985). A plaintiff may prevail on the question of likelihood of confusion although he is not supported by a majority of the factors. Armco, Inc. v. Armco Burglar Alarm Co., Inc., 693 F.2d 1155, 1159 (5th Cir.1982). The weight to be given to the various factors is a matter for the factfinder, and as long as it appears that all relevant proffered evidence was considered and that no impermissible inferences were drawn from that evidence, the factfinder's determination will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. Falcon Rice Mill, Inc. v. Community Rice Mill, Inc., 725 F.2d 336, 345 n. 9 (5th Cir.1984).

It is only for the sake of thoroughness that we reproduce the marks pictorially: the important point of similarity is the use of the four letters a t e c in that order, and we attach no significance whatever to the visual comparison of the three marks.[6] We are confident that our confessedly philistine indifference to the subtleties of graphic design is shared by almost everyone. We cannot imagine anyone not a connoisseur of graphic design distinguishing the two companies' marks on visual grounds, but we have no problem imagining an uninformed someone assuming that "atec" as depicted in Plaintiff's marks has something to do with "atec" as illustrated in Defendant's mark. We stress that this factor, as we understand it, assesses similarity with no regard whatever for the buyer's likely degree of sophistication, which will be considered infra. Clearly this factor weighs in Atec's favor.

It seems to the Court that these two factors cannot be considered separately. Similarity of products, unlike similarity of marks, cannot be assessed in a vacuum, but only with reference to the expertise of the purchaser; and here there is enough evidence to tilt the scales in Aerospatiale's favor.

The only Aerospatiale product involved in this lawsuit, the atec 5000, is an extremely expensive item, costing between two and five million dollars, one of Atec's witnesses, Don Dean, a member of Atec's board of directors (II-40-24).[7] The essential function of the atec 5000 is to test the software involved in the functioning of a jet aircraft. It would appear that Atec's products, most of which are priced in the tens of thousands of dollars, and none anywhere in the neighborhood of the atec 5000's price,[8] do, to some degree, overlap the atec 5000 in function, in that their scope is not confined to testing purely mechanical components but includes testing some of the electronic readouts that monitor jet engine performance (I-102-23). Nevertheless, it appears to the Court that there is, in general, a substantial difference between the functions of Atec's products and those of the atec 5000: the former are for the most part employed to monitor the mechanical performance of propulsion systems, the latter exists solely to test software. This is, of course, a crude formulation, a layman's formulation, of what could no doubt be expanded to a treatise: but what is important is not how the Court perceives the differences, but how potential purchasers would. And this Court simply cannot believe that a corporation would shell out several million dollars for an atec 5000 without being minutely informed as to the precise capabilities of that system, which are not paralleled by any product *414 made by Atec (testimony of Atec CEO Jerome Maxwell.[9]

At trial counsel for Aerospatiale reminded Don Dean that in 1988 he had averred under oath that "[f]or each fiscal year from 1981 to the present, Atec's revenues have been derived in excess of ninety-five percent from federal government contracts" (II-32-11). CEO Maxwell testified at trial that the figure was more like fifty percent, but he did not explain the discrepancy between that assessment and the fact that over a four-year periodfrom 1987 through 1990Atec's gross revenues amounted to over thirty million dollars, of which only about $41,000 stemmed from sales of test equipment to commercial airlines (I-165-3; I-158-3).[10] Aerospatiale, on the other hand, does no military business at all in this country. The disjunction between Atec's purchasers and Aerospatiale's may not be complete, but it is not far from it.

The Court cannot attach much significance to this factor. In light of our remarks supra about the expertise of those who purchase systems like the atec 5000, the fact that Atec and Aerospatiale advertise in the same journals, if indeed that is the case, seems of slight importance.

The trial record is devoid of any indication that Aerospatiale intended to cut into Atec's business by employing the "ATEC" mark, which, we note, Aerospatiale has used since the 1960s, and which it owns in France.

Finally we reach what is perhaps the weightiest of the Oreck factors in assessing the likelihood of confusion: has Atec produced evidence showing instances of actual buyer confusion? More pointedly put, has Atec produced evidence of a single sale lost to Aerospatiale because of the "ATEC" mark?

Don Dean testified that Atec has never lost a sale to an Aerospatiale product bearing the Atec mark (II-43-18). Robert Johnson, a former employee of Atec who handled between ten and twenty thousand phone inquiries between 1977 and 1990, estimated that he had received perhaps 1500 calls from persons seeking information about other companies named Atec and there are several, in widely diverse businesses[11] but only five or so calls that had anything to do with Aerospatiale or the atec 5000 (II-84-25). Such a drop in the bucket will not support a finding of actual confusion. Nor has Atec produced any evidence whatever that anyone ever purchased any Aerospatiale system in the mistaken belief that Aerospatiale was affiliated with Atec. 152ee80cbc

maybe i don 39;t wanna get married mp3 download

download xbox game bar powershell

download app random video call