Apple wins iTunes cybersquatting battle

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.

Andy McCue of Silicon.com reported from London.

[Thomas, David]

Checked the link, its cybersquatting

Simply a redirect to their shop. An obvious ploy, if not after the
fact. The trademark exists and they should have taken the
money.

Should Have Taken The Money

Yeah... Why do they want the name so bad anyway? It has nothing to do with them. It is obviously trademarked.

I agree... they should have taken the money.

http://allwaysmusic.modblog.com/

---

[catchall]

not quite right

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.

[newsfan]

interesting

definitely an interesting article

[Thomas, David]

Checked the link, its cybersquatting

Simply a redirect to their shop. An obvious ploy, if not after the
fact. The trademark exists and they should have taken the
money.

Should Have Taken The Money

Yeah... Why do they want the name so bad anyway? It has nothing to do with them. It is obviously trademarked.

I agree... they should have taken the money.

http://allwaysmusic.modblog.com/

---

[catchall]

not quite right

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.

[newsfan]

interesting

definitely an interesting article

[unknown unknown]

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.

[t8]

I agree

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.

[muntz]

not so fast

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.

[Thomas, David]

Simple answer

If they REALLY wanted the name, and USE it for REAL, then they
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"?

[unknown unknown]

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.

[t8]

I agree

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.

[muntz]

not so fast

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.

[Thomas, David]

Simple answer

If they REALLY wanted the name, and USE it for REAL, then they
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"?

[mortis9]

all too obvious

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....

apple really sucks

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.

[mortis9]

all too obvious

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....

apple really sucks

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.

[Thomas, David]

Takes longer to TradeMark than Register. THINK!

Take that into account, and go to the site.

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.

Lateral

I went to apple.com and I couldn't see any apples or iTunes for sale.

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.

[Thomas, David]

Takes longer to TradeMark than Register. THINK!

Take that into account, and go to the site.

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.

Lateral

I went to apple.com and I couldn't see any apples or iTunes for sale.

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.