Apple Threatens iTunes.co.uk Owner

[groog]

derxob writes "According to The Register, Apple has accused Benjamin Cohen, the 'dotcom millionare' of being a 'cybersquatter.' He registered ITunes.co.uk on Nov. 7 2000, and Apple trademarked ITunes on Dec. 8, 2000. They have taken him to the UK registry Nominet and are demanding that he give up the domain."


Quite an interesting discussion about this at Slashdot
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/04/12/08/0042207.shtml?tid=95&tid=98&tid=3

 

[Ringr]

Thats retarded, he should be able to keep it.
I hate big stupid rich companies/people

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Thats retarded, he should be able to keep it.
I hate big stupid rich companies/people

Yeah, rich people suck </sarcasm>

Seriously, without knowing anything about it, how are you able to decide that "he should be able to keep it".

-Allan

 

[viciouscircle]

He registered ITunes.co.uk on Nov. 7 2000,
Apple trademarked ITunes on Dec. 8, 2000.

i say the domain should remain his. seeing as the term wasnt trademarked when he registered the domain.

 

[The Equivocate]

Do you believe him when he said he hadn't heard about Apple coming out with iTunes, seeing as though it was registered the day before? And I don't know if this is how TM works, but would the 8th be the day they filed, or the day they actually got TM status? Wouldn't they have filed for it, making it public, and then he registered the name?

 

[Qwert]

ipod.com itunes.co.uk, theres a difference there...

Big companies suck, except Wal-Mart because all their crap is cheeper.

Oh they are making something called iTunes. Well did they TM it before he regged it? If not he should keep it, if yes then he should have to give it up.

 

[omnia]

Interesting thing here is the article quotes the publication date of the TM and not the lodgement date (which is about 2 weeks earlier than the domain registration). Under UK law the TM once approved becomes effective from the lodgement date. QED.

 

[jberryhill]

Interesting thing here is the article quotes the publication date of the TM and not the lodgement date (which is about 2 weeks earlier than the domain registration). Under UK law the TM once approved becomes effective from the lodgement date. QED.

Give the man a cigar.

------
http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/tm/text

2249936 ITUNES WO 24.10.2000
----------

Domain Name:
itunes.co.uk
Registrant:
CyberBritain Group Ltd
Relevant Dates:
Registered on: 07-Nov-2000

--------

The TM lodgement date is October 24, 2000. The domain name was registered November 7, 2000.

This is reminiscent of the "GMAIL" ITU applications filed in the USPTO on the day that Google announced the gmail service.

Coincidences do happen, but sometimes they are not purely coincidental. Nominet will sort it out based on the evidence made available to them.

 

[jeter4982]

i dont know all the rules, but i think he should keep it, assuming he got it before it was trademarked

 

[will7]

Do you believe him when he said he hadn't heard about Apple coming out with iTunes, seeing as though it was registered the day before? And I don't know if this is how TM works, but would the 8th be the day they filed, or the day they actually got TM status? Wouldn't they have filed for it, making it public, and then he registered the name?

I think you'll find it was actually a MONTH and a day before. I say he should be able to keep it. At the end of the day, it's not like he'll ever challenge Apple.

Apple are just using their status to overule "minors" - to them, that is. But heck, we just gotta accept, that the majority of times, the bigger companies WILL beat us - and there's nothing we can do about it!

 

[Dave_Z]

But heck, we just gotta accept, that the majority of times, the bigger companies WILL beat us - and there's nothing we can do about it!

Only if you feel you don't have the time, money, and sincere belief it's a cause
worth fighting for.

If there's a will, there's a way...

 

[will7]

Time? It would be years before a smaller company would win.

Money? Millions, possibly Billions to fight it.

Sincere Belief? At the end of the day, I have much more important things to do with my life than worry about this.

 

[vimkar]

Time? It would be years before a smaller company would win.

Money? Millions, possibly Billions to fight it.

Sincere Belief? At the end of the day, I have much more important things to do with my life than worry about this.

well you're right(from a smaller company point of view...)
but on this planet , there are so many cases when a simple man fought against something much bigger than him , believed in his cause , won and the most important , changed everything.... *<|

 

[True_Snake]

This thread in the "Industry News" section is on the same subject. It has a link to an article on this matter too.

http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=58861




True_Snake

 

[will7]

Indeed vimkar. But also, one has to consider what one will earn if one wins the competition. In this case, the guy is only going to earn a domain name.

Also, Apple have used "i" before many of their products before (iMac, iPod etc), and so could probably sue (and win) him for using their product branding or something lol.

 

[matrics]

sue him for using the letter "i" as in "the 9th letter in the alphabet"???? :lol:

 

[Acroplex]

Seems that Ben is not so kosher.

 

[Badger]

If they go the whole hog, basic prerequisites such as the respondents previous track record will be taken into account i.e. does the respondent hold any other names that have been subject to a dispute, how many names held are developed sites - and I guess the burden of proof will lie in probabilities rather than beyond all doubt.

My guess is, he (and his attornies) will have a fierce job on their hands keeping the name if they go through adjudication/appeal/civil court.

jm $0.02

 

[Ringr]

Yeah, rich people suck </sarcasm>

Seriously, without knowing anything about it, how are you able to decide that "he should be able to keep it".

-Allan

Thanks for the flame o_o

 

[will7]

Although it might have looked so, I wasn't flaming you. I was merely saying that without knowing the full details of the account, how can you judge whether or not he should be able to keep it?

Anyway, apologies if it came out like a flame, but it wasn't intended as one.