Apple Computer has won a legal dispute to force a U.K. company it accused of cybersquatting to hand over the domain ownership for the iTunes.co.uk Web address.
Apple issued proceedings against CyberBritain in December of last year through domain registrar Nominet UK, claiming that ownership of the domain should be transferred to Apple because it holds the iTunes trademark.
CyberBritain CEO Benjamin Cohen accused Apple of bullying tactics and said he had registered the iTunes.co.uk domain a month before Apple's trademark application was published, back in December 2000, and some three years before its online music download service launched.
Cohen maintains that his motives for registering the domain were innocent and that he turned down a cash offer from Apple for the domain, as it could have been interpreted as intent to profit from Apple's trademark.
But the Nominet dispute resolution service has ruled in favor of Apple, ordering CyberBritain to hand over the iTunes.co.uk domain.
Cohen said he is currently considering his next move, which may be an appeal either directly to Nominet or to Britain's High Court. Until the appeal, Cohen said he will continue to use the domain as a redirect to his own company's shopping Web site.
It was registered before Apple's trademark was published. So no, the trademark did not exist. However, it was( or at least became ) an 'obvious ploy', so they should have taken anything offered and simply walked away.
It was registered before Apple's trademark was published. So no, the trademark did not exist. However, it was( or at least became ) an 'obvious ploy', so they should have taken anything offered and simply walked away.
Registered before Apple's trademark was published...
When the site was registered Apple didn't have any legal claim to it. This is setting a bad precident in my opinion. One can register a domain name, and after the fact a large company can come along and trademark the name and force one give up legally aquired domain name under guise of cybersquatting.
This cannot be fair. It means that your domain name is not safe, even if it were safe when you registered it. Again big business and money talks louder than justice.
I'd agree with you if the squatter in question was going to create something new with the domain name. Such as some kind of device that might work with a computer or a guitar for example. But that isn't the case.
At the moment I'd like to buy a domain name for the company I am starting, but someone has been sitting on it for the last 5 years in the hopes of making money off of someone like myself. Is this fair?
bottom-line, the owner of the itunes.co.uk site obviously lost his or her chance to bring to market something called iTunes. They cannot do anything with that name and not appear to be up to no good at this point.
Registered before Apple's trademark was published...
When the site was registered Apple didn't have any legal claim to it. This is setting a bad precident in my opinion. One can register a domain name, and after the fact a large company can come along and trademark the name and force one give up legally aquired domain name under guise of cybersquatting.
This cannot be fair. It means that your domain name is not safe, even if it were safe when you registered it. Again big business and money talks louder than justice.
I'd agree with you if the squatter in question was going to create something new with the domain name. Such as some kind of device that might work with a computer or a guitar for example. But that isn't the case.
At the moment I'd like to buy a domain name for the company I am starting, but someone has been sitting on it for the last 5 years in the hopes of making money off of someone like myself. Is this fair?
bottom-line, the owner of the itunes.co.uk site obviously lost his or her chance to bring to market something called iTunes. They cannot do anything with that name and not appear to be up to no good at this point.
this is trademark infringement, hands down. he obviously had a heads up about the copyright prior to publishing, and he was holding out for a better offer. i'm rather glad they make this illegal. it's a friggin redirect to his site that sells mp3 players.. funny....
big companies will always extort the little guys - this is totally wrong and is totally unfair. Is apple to be the only company to sell music online? next they will sue microsoft for their music store... an then they will claim that they invented music itself.
just goes to prove the fact that apple sucks, and linux is the future, and theres no hope for apple since pretty soon everyone will be selling music online again - and hopefully directly once google figures it out.
register at www.boycott-apple.com and show your support for the little guys ou there.
this is trademark infringement, hands down. he obviously had a heads up about the copyright prior to publishing, and he was holding out for a better offer. i'm rather glad they make this illegal. it's a friggin redirect to his site that sells mp3 players.. funny....
big companies will always extort the little guys - this is totally wrong and is totally unfair. Is apple to be the only company to sell music online? next they will sue microsoft for their music store... an then they will claim that they invented music itself.
just goes to prove the fact that apple sucks, and linux is the future, and theres no hope for apple since pretty soon everyone will be selling music online again - and hopefully directly once google figures it out.
register at www.boycott-apple.com and show your support for the little guys ou there.
Notice that they do not have a single product named iTunes.
For those of you "crying" about the little guy, either you are totally lacking any brain cells to form a real thought, or you are just pissed off that someone cracked down on cybersquatting. I really don't get it.
Bottom-line, even if they never wanted to use that name for a product, then they could have easily copyrighted it or trademarked. Why didn't they? Was it because Apple had already applied for it?
Notice that they do not have a single product named iTunes.
For those of you "crying" about the little guy, either you are totally lacking any brain cells to form a real thought, or you are just pissed off that someone cracked down on cybersquatting. I really don't get it.
Bottom-line, even if they never wanted to use that name for a product, then they could have easily copyrighted it or trademarked. Why didn't they? Was it because Apple had already applied for it?
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
fact. The trademark exists and they should have taken the
money.
I agree... they should have taken the money.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://allwaysmusic.modblog.com/" target="_newWindow">http://allwaysmusic.modblog.com/</a>
---
However, it was( or at least became ) an 'obvious ploy', so they should have taken anything offered and simply walked away.
fact. The trademark exists and they should have taken the
money.
I agree... they should have taken the money.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://allwaysmusic.modblog.com/" target="_newWindow">http://allwaysmusic.modblog.com/</a>
---
However, it was( or at least became ) an 'obvious ploy', so they should have taken anything offered and simply walked away.
something new with the domain name. Such as some kind of
device that might work with a computer or a guitar for example.
But that isn't the case.
At the moment I'd like to buy a domain name for the company I
am starting, but someone has been sitting on it for the last 5
years in the hopes of making money off of someone like myself.
Is this fair?
bottom-line, the owner of the itunes.co.uk site obviously lost his
or her chance to bring to market something called iTunes. They
cannot do anything with that name and not appear to be up to
no good at this point.
would have trademarked the name.
It takes a LOT LONGER to trademark a name than register.
It's cyber squatting, plain and simple. Do they have ANY kind of
product called "iTunes"?
something new with the domain name. Such as some kind of
device that might work with a computer or a guitar for example.
But that isn't the case.
At the moment I'd like to buy a domain name for the company I
am starting, but someone has been sitting on it for the last 5
years in the hopes of making money off of someone like myself.
Is this fair?
bottom-line, the owner of the itunes.co.uk site obviously lost his
or her chance to bring to market something called iTunes. They
cannot do anything with that name and not appear to be up to
no good at this point.
would have trademarked the name.
It takes a LOT LONGER to trademark a name than register.
It's cyber squatting, plain and simple. Do they have ANY kind of
product called "iTunes"?
just goes to prove the fact that apple sucks, and linux is the future, and theres no hope for apple since pretty soon everyone will be selling music online again - and hopefully directly once google figures it out.
register at www.boycott-apple.com and show your support for the little guys ou there.
just goes to prove the fact that apple sucks, and linux is the future, and theres no hope for apple since pretty soon everyone will be selling music online again - and hopefully directly once google figures it out.
register at www.boycott-apple.com and show your support for the little guys ou there.
Notice that they do not have a single product named iTunes.
For those of you "crying" about the little guy, either you are
totally lacking any brain cells to form a real thought, or you are
just pissed off that someone cracked down on cybersquatting. I
really don't get it.
Bottom-line, even if they never wanted to use that name for a
product, then they could have easily copyrighted it or
trademarked. Why didn't they? Was it because Apple had
already applied for it?
Think people, just think once in a little while.
I went to davidthomas.com and blow me they didn't sell a single David Thomas.
I wonder how many eBays got sold last year?
It's funny how Apple Computers have left apple.co.uk alone isn't it? They don't seem to sell apples either, evil, dirty, cyber-squatters.
Irony is dead, it seems.
Notice that they do not have a single product named iTunes.
For those of you "crying" about the little guy, either you are
totally lacking any brain cells to form a real thought, or you are
just pissed off that someone cracked down on cybersquatting. I
really don't get it.
Bottom-line, even if they never wanted to use that name for a
product, then they could have easily copyrighted it or
trademarked. Why didn't they? Was it because Apple had
already applied for it?
Think people, just think once in a little while.
I went to davidthomas.com and blow me they didn't sell a single David Thomas.
I wonder how many eBays got sold last year?
It's funny how Apple Computers have left apple.co.uk alone isn't it? They don't seem to sell apples either, evil, dirty, cyber-squatters.
Irony is dead, it seems.