Slashdot Mirror
Apple Threatens iTunes.co.uk Owner
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."
Post a picture of some hillbilly with a guitar, with the caption saying "I tunes my guitar!"
One thing I wanted to try once to piss off Microsoft was to get a picture of some swarthy Latino guy with his shirt off, and post a caption saying, "This is Amil. Isn't he hot?"
(think about it...)
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Thats why he was Porn Baron!!
Cybersquatting or intimidation?
Free Firefox news reader.
He knew it was going to be registered, if I went out and registered 'longhorn.co.uk' or something , then i'd expect to get taken to court. I appreciate that's a bad example though, before any one starts jumping up and down :)
RTFA, he registered it before Apple even thought about creating iTunes and he did use it to redirect to his search engine.
It's clear that he's been using Itunes for his online binary download product before Apple ripped him off and registered a copycat trademark. This means that the registration was made without due dilligence etc. etc. etc. Just because it isn't registered, doesn't mean a trademark isn't valid.
He should try to get the itunes trademark signed over.
I could have really used that kind of money... http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process= SunStore&cmdStartWebConfig_CP&familyCode=AMAZON25& baseSelected=2
... Mikerowesoft.com? (Was that it? Or did it have hyphens?)
nominet doesn't allow you to cybersquat and then sell your domain for money.
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
RFTA or visit the site. Seems like it's in use to me...
What is "hot amil"?
I worked out that it was "hot amil" but it has no meaning for me.
I think that Steve is not intending to pay anything. If the guy is indeed convicted of cybersquatting, he won't get a small fee. He will get nothing at all. If I were him, I would have tried to settle this a long time ago. Although in that case, Steve would have probably sued my ass anyway :)
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
This guy registered "itunes" before Apple did by one whole month and was using the site as well.
Jonathanjk.com
That said, regardless of who did what first, Apple's almost certainly going to argue that someone else having an "iTunes" domain name in a commercial space in a country where they're offering their product and store, and that person doing something with said domain that pertains to music, is obviously cause for confusion.
(I dare say it's more cause for confusion than Apple being called Apple and selling music, whilst at the same time the Beatles' music company is called Apple.)
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Domain Name:
itunes.co.uk
Registrant:
CyberBritain Group Ltd
Registrant's Address:
Lower Ground Floor
155 Armhurst Road
London
London
E8 2AW
GB
Registrant's Agent:
TUCOWS INC [Tag = TUCOWS-CA]
URL: http://www.opensrs.org
Relevant Dates:
Registered on: 07-Nov-2000
Renewal Date: 07-Nov-2006
Last updated: 21-Oct-2004
--
thats the whois info for the domain.That was registered way back in 2000 !!
fifteen jugglers, five believers
think about it
Unfortunately, no one can be told what my sig is...
Or have insider information from apple employees that were developing it before the product was publicly anounced.
I lost my father's business website, because at the time I was just an ignorant cyber-pup (aka, n00b), and eventually had to just register a new version of his company name, because we didn't have the capital for a legal battle.
After two years, we finally got it back because the squatter gave up on selling it to us and let the name expire. So, if you can't have the legal system kick a squatter's ass, let Father Time do it!
Electrons are free; it is moving them that becomes expensive.
Of course, if he registered before Apple for that purpose, then it's Apple that's causing confusion regarding his venture, not the other way around, and should be the ones to back down.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
If the date is after November 7, 2000, then yeah, he'd obviously have had to be psychic.
:)
whois database shows that it was
Registered on: 07-Nov-2000
and not after Nov 7.. so guess he is not psychic
fifteen jugglers, five believers
Why should he settle, two days after he registered the site he made use of it by forwarding it to a music search engine service at his CyberBritain site.
Benjamin Cohen registered the site FOUR YEARS before Apple even launched their UK itunes web site and he's been using it for legitimate business since 2000. How he can be accused of cybersquatting is ridiculous.
Apple should do the decent thing and if they are so desperate for the domain they should offer him a reasonable sum rather than employing the same bullying tactics Microsoft, East, et al have employed in the past.
At first glance, this would seem to be an abuse.
Here's the thing, though - the domain now points at a site that specifically talks about a program "for Apple's iTunes."
If the domain were used for something completely unrelated to Apple's program, I think Apple would be unreasonable for attacking the registration. However, the domain is instead being used to undermine Apple's specific trademark and as such is, I think, arguably fair game.
The Register article really errs in not even mentioning this aspect.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Hmm so Microsoft do this to poor old Mike Rowe, and it's yet another example of the nasty corporate behemouth, yet when Apple do the same thing to someone who registered the domain BEFORE it was a registered Apple trademark, and they're to be praised for their actions?
What's equally surprising is that it's not as if Apple haven't had their share of trademark issues with the record label of the same name owned by The Beatles.
So Microsoft and The Beatles bad, Apple good? How on earth did they achieve this demi-god status amongst everyone?
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
why are the so many people who are incapable of erading anything other than the subject of the article?
The only problem being that Apple themselves caused the confusion. Based the their story, Apple registered itunes on a restricted basis not to include music. Obviously their legal team knew they were screwed, but put it off for later. Then Apple tried in 2003 to add the music bit, which is still in progress.
Apple will likely convince the trendy users that someone stole their domain and win in the court of public opinion even though they don't have any rights. Sure Bono, Sean Penn, or some other outspoken celebrity idiot will offer their 2 expert cents about domain registration soon.
Why cut IT when your office space costs $3/sf? gibso
I'll never understand all of this copyright nonsense. Seriously.. So the guy registered itunes.co.uk and uses it for music related commerce. Who cares? The site is OBVIOUSLY not realted to Apple and any shmuck who thinks he's doing business with Apple Computers while at the site is retarded. Apple needs to get over it. Buy the man off. Give him 50,000 British pounds and I would bet my balls that he'd give up the domain. I mean, that would be more than he could possibly be getting from sales.
What is your penile percentile?
Apple shouldn't even be selling music as a result of their agreement with "APPLE music". (You know, the beatles' record label...)
Amayzing that they are now defending what they were then refuting.
It's kind of like MS ripping off windowed GUI and then pattenting their own. (Oops I just cited precedent...)
I checked this out while it was still news, before Slashdot ran the story. Then, the site featured a giant picture of the iPod front and center with "GET AN IPOD FREE!" Yup, another stupid scam page.
No, this guy is not innocent. Best case is that this guy is a lying weasel of a spammer who latched on to the domain name out of thousands. Worst case is he heard a rumor. Either way, once iTunes was publicly announced he clearly violated trademark law in deliberately causing confusion amongst consumers about what the website represented.
This guy is abusing Apple's trademark to harvest email addresses. Whether or not he got there before Apple registered the site is irrelevant because it *is* registered and he does not have a legitimate use for the name.
Also, Apple had been working on iTunes for some time before the registration date. Do you think a new product magically appears in a month? (Even thought it was based on SoundJam, it still represented many changes.)
What has happened is that the guy has realized he will lose, so he went crying to the media and changed the site a little so it isn't so clear a violation. Morons like you ate it up. In a few days, after he think he's milked the free publicity as much as he can risk, he'll sell out to Apple.
I hope he doesn't -- Apple would end up with his testicles in a jar. But he will. And he'll probably use the opportunity to cry more tears to the media.
Filing / First Use Date is What Really Counts ...
. htm
... that's before Nov-07-2000 - and according to the UK Patent Office website, the database updates weekly; perhaps it didn't back then, but my guess is he knew about Apple's intended use and/or pending TM application(s).
q ue sted=C&trademark=2249936
... 6-figure sum USD/GBP wouldn't surprise me.
The UK Patent Office - Trade marks - Database
http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/dbase/index
Filed Oct-24-2000
http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/tm/number?detailsre
Being that he's a millionaire, Apple's TM claims appear weak (my layman's opinion based upon my own experiences in domain name speculation), and he is determined to fight, Apple may eventually choose to settle for some decent size amount
Ron Bennett
if he had any genuiene intent at it would have been fair. corporations are no angels, but here apple seems to have a fair case here. i'd like similar cases to be handled well by the internic or anyone concerned. cybersquatting is unfair business, and more so for the people. itunes.co.uk would have been the logical choice for uk citizens. ipod was a hit, so would the itunes site be. i'd like to see the guy dragged bare arse after being tied to colin mcrae's car ;)
There was "e" and "i" everything. Frankly I'd find it amazing if someone somewhere wasn't using iTunes before Apple finally got round to it.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
You forget that if you are anti mac, or should I say, anti ipod/itunes, then you are EVIL!!!!
This whole thread is going to be filled with posts saying "this guy is cyber squatting and should be punished" and the fact that the registration for this site preceded macs trademarking of itunes will more than likely be ignored. Hmm I think we need a Fanboy moderation option...
That said, I bet he has seen a HUGE increase in traffic since the itunes started. And this case may cause even more traffic, so I'm guessing the owner is happy for now.
East Coast Brewers
but check out this great IT news site I found!!!
http://slashdot.co.uk/
He's going to lose the name, you'll see....
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
And if he had registered a couple of years earlier I'm sure noone would see any problem. The fact is he registered it *just* before trademarking, when he could easily have found out about it. On top of that it's been a while since I've seen a website that looks more like it's cybersquatting than itunes.co.uk does.
According to Quickquid's article, Apple applied for a patent on the 27th October. If you were a desperate businessman with your ears close to the ground and you heard an Apple executive mention "ITunes", what would you do?
If in four years the best use Cohen has for this domain name is to forward it to his advertisement coupons (which is now where it leads), I would say that Apple have some ground to get annoyed. Furthermore, although it would be difficult to prove that Cohen knew about their project when he registered the domain, he admits in the register's interview this may not be neccessary.
All Apple need do is stress that technologically illiterate people visiting www.itunes.co.uk could conceivably be deluded into thinking that these discount links are what they are advertising. Now call me a cynic, but I think they have a point.
Basically, prefixing "i" to the name of your site could result in letters/threats/court action from Apple's lawyers in much the same way as prefixing "easy" does from Easy.
I was going to post a reply to this but then decided that it was pointless... however after the third full stop changed my mind. perhaps it takes you to quickquid because your machine is infected with ad-aware and your constant searching for online £pound shops (a uk hobby where you can buy all manner of trash for you guessed it £1 ) means that your IE browser is now almost useless... or it could just be a forwarder?
And if you RTFP you would have noticed that I said "IF he is convicted...". I never said he was.
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
Well, come on, this guy knew Apple was going to register it.
Not unless he had inside information, or a crystal ball. iTunes 1.0 wasn't released until Jan 2001 - more than a year after he registered his domain.
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
D'oh! s/more than a year/several months/.
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
- The site that iTunes.co.uk points to is called QuickQuid.com. Cohen doesn't appear to have invested anything in building a business around the iTunes name.
- QuickQuid.com appears to be some kind of marketing/promotional business - i.e. they persuade people to sign up with them, in order to receive discounts, special offers, etc. In addition, QuickQuid.com displays adverts - presumably the more times those adverts are viewed/clicked on, the more advertising revenue QuickQuid.com receives. Hence, the more traffic to their site, the more people are likely to sign up and, hence, the more money the company will make.
- Apple own the iTunes trademark and have invested a lot of money in building a business around that name.
- The vast, vast majority of people who go to www.itunes.co.uk will do so in the expectation of finding the Apple iTunes service.
Now, it seems to me that there are two reasons the itunes.co.uk domain is of value to Cohen/QuickQuid.com:- It's a catchy name and would have been a good name for a company doing something related to music and the Internet. However, it appears that Cohen failed to register itunes as a trademark and, now that Apple have done so, he almost certainly can't. So, he's missed out on realising that potential.
- It brings traffic to the QuickQuid.com site because of people who are trying to reach Apple's iTunes service in the UK.
In other words, the domain would have hardly any value if it wasn't for the fact that Apple have spent millions promoting iTunes. Anyone who thinks that Apple should pay a lot of money for the domain because it's "valuable" is essentially saying that Apple should have to pay for something which is only valuable because of money Apple have invested in their trademark. That doesn't seem just to me.By capturing traffic to itunes.co.uk, QuickQuid.com is benefitting directly from Apple's marketing of iTunes - in essence, it's a parasite on Apple's marketing budget.
Finally, let's not forget that Apple have a duty to protect their trademark.
So, my judgement is as follows:
- Cohen should hand the itunes.co.uk domain over to Apple.
- Apple should pay Cohen £1,500 (approx $2,500) for costs involved in transferring the domain.
- My fee shall be apportioned as follows: Cohen shall pay 1% (£1,000) and Apple shal pay the other 99% (£99,000).
- The Clerk of the Court (aka CmdrTaco) shall book me on a six-week Caribbean cruise.
Case dismissed.D.
..is for Djudge.
I'll never understand all of this copyright nonsense.
The first thing you need to understand is that this is a question of a trademark, not a copyright.
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
iTunes was released by Apple in January 2001 and filed as a trademark in October 2000, before he registered his domain. iTunes.co.uk was registred in 1998, a long time before itunes.co.uk. It is however not clear whether it was owned by Apple before october 2000.
Given the huge Apple rumour mill, it is not impossible that the product name was even known a few months before the launch.
This is not clear and should be something for the lawyers. You seem to have just as much bias as Apple fans.
It's almost as bad as a computer company naming themselves after a famous record label.
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
I hope Ben wins, he registered the domain before Apple trademarked iTunes.
-- There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, And those who don't.
That sentence doesn't make sense. The DNS system isn't case sensitive. You must mean itunes.com was registered in 1998.
I prefer the First Come First Serve approach of domain name registration to this concept of trademarks carrying over to new markets. Too many companies got away with pissing on the internet for too many years and then were allowed to come in several years later and lay claim to a major stake in it. This only fostered a crappy presence on their part.
Competition will be spurred if we tell companies they have to look out for themselves in new arenas. Consumers suffer when corporations are allowed to cling to outdated paradigms too easily.
Normal cooperate greed, send lawyer to do work that has no legal base. Apple is no difference here.
Apple to Guy: "Your domain, left testicle, and right testicle. Choose any two."
let me guess who's side you'd be on then.
You Apple fanboys crack me up.
Apple are clearly in the wrong here. Face it, they're no better than MS.
the content of the site does not matter one bit. he could have anything on it and its still his. he is breaking no british laws at all and it is British courts it will end up in.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
WHAT? um... I guess i just dont understand trademark law what with things happening before they happen but only after they happen first.
The definition of squatting {in the traditional sense} is occupying a place that someone else has vacated. Under English law, the lions share of the rights associated with land and buildings belong with the occupier, as distinct from the owner -- a throwback to feudal times no doubt, but a valid protection measure against excesses of authority by absentee landlords. "An Englishman's Home is his Castle" -- and it's your home if you live there, regardless who owns the building or the land on which it stands. {As an aside, when I was buying my house, things were moving a bit slowly and I was technically homeless for one night. I spent that night in my new place. Legally, I was a squatter; but the only person in the world who could have got myself evicted without a court order, was me!}
..... Cohen could even possibly have their trademark invalidated! However, if I were Cohen, and the judge ruled in my favour and against Apple, I'd settle for a printout of the iTunes source code ..... with this document stapled to it .....
The practice of "cybersquatting" originally referred to re-registering expired domain names which used to have belonged to businesses, and linking them to sites with which the former registrant probably would not wish to be associated, in the hope that the former registrant will pay you not to do it {as opposed to just launching a DoS against your new host}.
Cohen registered the itunes.co.uk site before Apple even trademarked "iTunes" in the UK; so it's arguable that Apple are in the wrong
PS. I visited the itunes.co.uk site and it has an intrusive registration with a drop-down box for "gender" -- but only gives the options "male" and "female". Where's "other" when you need it?!
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Is it because of his surname? Why are the apple fan boys being hypocrites if this had been MS they would be sticking the boot in with visible pleasure.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
...and the fact that the registration for this site preceded macs trademarking of itunes...
Jesus, when will people get a clue and stop making this mistake? Mac is a product name Apple is the company.
This sig has been deprecated.
Apple.co.uk isn't the Mac company either,
The world would a much better place if people just used common sense. I went to the site and there's no reason why it should be called 'iTunes'. As a matter of fact, it is redirected to quickquid.com. In my humble opnion, the guy should just give/sell the domain to apple, which would make a lot more sense the itunes.co.uk being the iTunes site.
A good example of this is Kevin Karpenske, who donated the firefox.com domain to the mozilla foundation.
Parse error: parse error in /home/virtual/site9/fst/var/www/html/index.php on line 2667
THIS IS THE INTERNET. PLEASE PICK UP YOUR SERIOUS BUSINESS SUIT AT THE FRONT COUNTER.
What does intellectual property licensing have to do with adopting a central currency?
How do you get that it was registered in 1998? The WHOIS shows 11/7/00.
-- SegFault
"One day, some time ago, something important happened."
Firstly, Apple does not have a monopoly over all uses of the word "iTunes", if that were true then Microsoft could sue anyone that criticised Windows for trademark infringement.
A trademark is only infringed by someone that is using the trademark to cause confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the goods involved. That is clearly not the case here.
This is (yet another) case of a big company abusing the law to crush the little guy. The fact that it happens to be lovely cuddly Apple doesn't change that.
(PS. I am a Mac user, but just because I like some of their products doesn't mean I must defend their every action)
Instant Karma's gonna get you, Gonna knock you right on the head (John Lennon, 1970)
Under a Real Estate treatment, anyone could lawfully purchase an unregistered name, speculating that someone will come along later, decide that the name is useful for their purposes, and pay the going rate or walk. A name simply becomes an asset that can be sold and resold at a price the market will bear. The main difference would be that "a deal is a deal", meaning that when a registry sells a name, it's sold and not subject to litigation by others who missed the opportunity.
What we have with copyrights and domain names seems (using a Real Estate metaphor) more like someone lawfully buys some land, then Wal-Mart comes along and sues the buyer for the land because they planned to build a store there in 5 years. It's only a form of squatting if someone occupies land (or a domain name) without purchasing it lawfully. The place this argument fails to equate to copyright law and names would be the implicit assumption that ONLY Wal-Mart could build a store on your land, limiting who could buy the land later (effectively creating a monopoly).
The current system penalizes those who invest/speculate for the benefit of those who fail to exercise due diligence and can afford lawyers.
On a related note: Apple does not even own the apple.co.uk domain...
Not that its popular in India as yet, but would soon be!
This is not clear and should be something for the lawyers.
The interesting thing about Nominet's dispute resolution system is that there will be no lawyers involved (unless one of the parties chooses to use a lawyer as their representative). It's an informal sit around the table and work out the problems system, decided based more on the merits of the facts as presented than on arcane rules and regulation. You can't just win by sending in a good lawyer.
Thus Findlay Steele Associates got to keep their domain (worth seeing the disclaimer they've got on the front page!), and I see little reason Mr Cohen shouldn't keep it.
Incidentally, is this the sex.com guy? The name sounds familiar.
This is one of the most unabashadly biased and slanted articles I've ever read from the Register. Between the misplaced blind support of the self-described snot-nosed teen "Dotcom Millionaire" and the blatant ad hominem and non sequitur attacks on Apple ("Apple has so far refused to comment on the case. Although it is currently being investigated by the authorities for price fixing with its iTunes service, so it probably has its hands full."), I don't know how anyone can take this article seriously.
If one can successfully pull away all the spin and red herrings, here are the facts:
- Cohen registered "itunes.co.uk" on Nov. 7, 2000.
- Apple published the "iTunes" trademark in the Trade Marks Journal on Dec. 6, 2000, about a month later.
So Cohen had the site slightly before Apple trademarked the name. Seems like pretty coincidental timing. What did Cohen do with this site? He forwarded it to another online music site that he ran, with a totally different name. Why would he register a domain as obscure and nonsensical as "iTunes", but not go after the trademark itself, or market any products or services using the name? And how come the timing was so close?
It seems clear to me that Cohen knew what Apple was doing, and saw an opportunity to profit from Apple's marketing (by deceiving web surfers into accidentally stumbling onto his own service), or extorting money from Apple.
I hope this punk loses, and I wish the Register would grow a little backbone and show some objectivity.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
OK, most people don't RTFA. But at least take the time to read the /. summary please?
The summary and RTFA say "He registered ITunes.co.uk on Nov. 7 2000".
Now combined with your own statement:
"iTunes 1.0 wasn't released until Jan 2001"
Can you then explain to me how your math makes that "more than a year after he registered his domain"?
If you ask me... ok you haven't asked me but I'll tell you anyways! Apple decided to go ahead with the marketing of service. This means they spent hundreds if not thousands of hours developping a marketing plan and registering a TM. This company has been in the computer business for decades. They have been on the internet for a long time too. They already knew how the game worked. Why didn't they register the TM and the domain as soon as they put a name to their marketing plan? Can you say "incompetence" ? I agree it's a cruddy situation and you have someone that has nothing to do with Itunes profiting from the name, but this is what occurs when people don't look 5 inches past their noses.
It's not the destination that matters, but rather the journey.
May I use the "why isn't this modded 'funny'???" meme here please?
Why isn't this modded funny?
I would register itunes.co.kr, but only old people would go there.
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
In the article he registered it on 7 November 2000 and Apple registered it a month later as a trade mark on 6 December. I would have to concur with you, he likly had some good inside info here.
But this does not mean he should loose the domain. If Apple can show this was his purpose was to infringe then he should loose the domain but the burden of such proof should be on Apple. Apple would have to show how he gained this information.
He could have just conceived the same idea and acted on it faster in which case the domain should be his, and in fact may have a case the other way. It is possible am Apple marketing type saw this name as a new domain registration and decided to register it as a trade mark. In which case they owe this guy alot of money.
As you stated, if Apple could settle this for $100K they would be best advised to take it. Apple could loose big if they went to court and he had evidence of Apple taking his idea.
Related to Bram Cohen?
I got suspicious when I read about 'publication' date in the article. IAAL so I was interested in the filing date.
q ue sted=C&trademark=2249936
Apple filed for the trademark on 24 October 2000. This is before he filed for the domain - Nov. 7 2000.
http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/tm/number?detailsre
A trademark is registered as of the date of filing under 40 (3) of the UK Trademark Act.
http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/legal/tmact94.pdf.
Hmm.
Therefore from 24 October 2000 - only Apple can use the trademark in business. Date of publication is not relevant.
The legal situation is different from that given by the slanted Register article.
Anyone able to refute this without resorting to anonymous coward or unsubstantiated accusations.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
Apple applied for the trademark before this guy registered the domain. 2 weeks before to be precise. You should try RTFAing yourself, where A is Application.
I just got my domain name www.distortionfile.com a month ago. Since then, I got a ping from a whois service. Now, if who ever that was had the money to copyright DistortionFile, they could kick me off my own domain, right? If so, that's just bullshit. Excuse the language but first come first serve. Purchasing a domain name should mean you own the rights to that particular arrangment of the name. Regardless of copyright. IF who ever searched my name opens up distortionfile.net, I wouldn't try to sue them for having the same Idea as me. For shame...
Given the huge Apple rumour mill, it is not impossible that the product name was even known a few months before the launch.
INOLB to my knowledge, this means nothing. If Apple was going to launch it, the name should have been a 'Trade Secret' before the Trademark was applied for. If a trade secret is leaked, it's not a secret any more. The whole 'dibs' mentality does not apply here. If I found out that Apple was going to release an iGlass product and I registered the trademark before them, tough for them! Now if they made it a trade secret and prove that I had access to the info and was under some agreement to keep it under wraps they could try and nail me with something.
Personally I think this whole trademark crap is out of hand. Even more so when you have these brilliant marketing people coming up with simple schemes like put an 'i' in front of everything, or Micro$oft'$ brilliant 'Word' (at least they tried a bit with Outlook)
Apple has some good original idea's, but not always. Note how after Apple went after eMachines for their iMac clone (which was some what of a valid case) they go on to come out with an 'eMac', again, brilliant!
I think someone at Webster needs to claim prior art and end the madness.
Its the simplest best way to sell stuff in demand.
Why shouldn't domain names be any different? It someone buy's a domain name some trademark company forgot to buy, what's wrong with the market sorting it out?
There's nothing more hypocrital that corporate types who chose to make money by exploiting markets to demand the protections of govt & institutional regulations to protect themselves from other's exploiting markets.
Bugger Apple if they're unwilling to pay what the Yidd demands then fuck'em I say. They chose to exploit the market to make a profit then they should accept what the market deals out, IE what the Yidd demands, afterall it's his property.
Have you looked at the site?
His business name is "quickquid.com" -- he obviously got wind of Apple's TM registration and decided to squat hoping to sell/extort for big bucks. If this were a pesonal website, I'd probably be booing Apple for picking on little guys. But this site is A) Rubbish and B) not even close to anything to do with the word "iTunes"
One poster cited that Apple registered the trademark long before this manky twit put up that aweful site. I predict that Apple will win this one.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
I never really understood why cybersquatting was illegal. I mean, yeah, it was needed for some of those "poor brick-and-mortar" companies in the 90s, but I mean, c'mon. The Internet has been at least heard of by nearly everyone in the US for the last ten years. Definitely the last five. If a company hasn't registered their domain by now, they should look at changing their name to find a domain that fits them.
Apple's a big boy. They can buy the domain at a price. I would imagine it must be worth at least $50,000 since they are bring this to suit. It's going to cost them at least that much from here on out to settle this, no matter how reasonable the other party is at this point.
If the guy is asking for a ludicrous amount of money for the domain, all Apple has to do is tell people what he is charging and they won't look like some coersive force, trying to take away a domain simply by labeling someone a 'squatter'.
Apple can score points if:
They can convince the court the domain was already trademarked, by registration or by use, somewhere in the world prior to it coming online.
They can convince the court that the current owner used it in any way that was likely to be confusing and did not stop when asked.
They can convince the court he is holding the name for ransom.
This guy's best defense is that:
1) the name was not a trademark when it was registered
2) he's legitimately using it for unrelated businesses and does not intend to change this in the future
3) he's never used it on anything but unrelated businesses
4) the domain is not for sale, not to Apple, not to anyone else
Based on earlier comments in this thread, Apple seems likely to prevail on at least a few of these points.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
according to the BBC , Cohen was about to give it to Apple before he consulted his father.The Dad told him Apple didnt have a leg to stand upon and probably this case is going to be settled in the courts.
How many of us would have folded right away because we dont have the luxury of a house hold legal advisor?
Wanted : A Signature.
Prepare yourself for the next apple.slashdot story:
...just a prediction.
Apple goes after iTunes.ca cybersquatter.
Main Entry: loose
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): loosed; loosing
transitive senses
1 a : to let loose : RELEASE b : to free from restraint
2 : to make loose : UNTIE
3 : to cast loose : DETACH
4 : to let fly : DISCHARGE
5 : to make less rigid, tight, or strict : RELAX
intransitive senses : to let fly a missile (as an arrow) : FIRE
I can understand why he should "loose" the domain, but not why Apple should "loose" big...
Apple are VERY CAGY when it comes to trademarks, especially in the UK. This is because of the settlement agreement between Apple Computers and Apple Music (publishers of the Beatles) that there would be no contention between them. If there was to be contention, one or the other would have to give up the name.
...
I digress.
A few years ago, I owned a registered company name, Cyberdog Systems Ltd, in the UK. Apple were about to launch their Cyberdog document thingy, so I wrote and told them that I had prior rights to the name Cyberdog in the UK. (This is only slightly true as I didn't have a trademark, only a registered company name).
But I wanted either some money from Apple to walk away from my company, or written guarantee from Apple that there was no conflict of interest. I didn't want THEM coming after ME later, claiming I was trading on their reputation.
They didn't want to buy my company, but I have the letters from their legal department filed away somewhere. I was sending cheap letters by 2nd class post to their UK office, and receiving letters hand-delivered to my little house in the country.
Shame cyberdog never took off.
Ah, my moment of (nearly) being famous
And I've just bought a shiny iMac G5 and it's gorgeous!
That would be "Stephen Cohen", aka the "sex.com" guy
That's how long it takes the Trademark Journal to be published. People then have (I think) three months to object, but the trademark becomes effective as from that date of publication unless there is an objection made.
What if a trademarks expires and someone else then creates a domain name based on it? Could anyone complain?
It's clear in this case because the registry was on 2003/05/01
Come on people -- both of these guys ran out and grabbed this site and they just point to their flybynight sites. Is this really what the internet is about -- registering everything you can think of and pointing it at your piece of crap website?
This isn't some kid registering the site to talk about his favourite music store (that only recently started working in Canada ...)
That's some interesting math, especially since Apple applied for the iTunes patent two weeks before the domain was registered.
Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
According to the Wayback Machine, itunes.com wasn't used by Apple until mid 2003.
The trademark for iTunes
Word Mark
ITUNES
Goods and Services
IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer software for use in authoring, downloading, transmitting, receiving, editing, extracting, encoding, decoding, playing, storing and organizing audio data. FIRST USE: 20010109. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20010109
Mark Drawing Code
(1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number
76193469
Filing Date
January 9, 2001
Current Filing Basis
1A
Original Filing Basis
1A;44D
Published for Opposition
September 3, 2002
Registration Number
2653465
Registration Date
November 26, 2002
Owner
(REGISTRANT) Apple Computer, Inc. CORPORATION
CALIFORNIA 1 Infinite Loop Cupertino CALIFORNIA
95014
Attorney of Record
John C. Baum
Priority Date
October 24, 2000
Type of Mark
TRADEMARK
Register
PRINCIPAL-2(F)
Live/Dead Indicator
LIVE
He accepts.
Case closed. Move along.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
To register a domain with the intent of selling it back to another already established company or idea is just wrong.
Really? Is it "just wrong" to buy land with the intent of selling it? Is it wrong to buy currency with the intent of selling it again? Is it wrong to buy stocks with the intent of selling them?
People engage in market speculation all the time. Why should domain name speculation be any different? I don't see the problem.
--
AC
If he does have a bias maybe because the headline is misleading but arent they all....
Anyhow I'm not taking sides because I don't care one way or the other. I just want to see how this scenario plays out because it may set an interesting precedent for other similiar cases...
I don't think they should threaten him... Why not just offer an him a iPod and a Powerbook for the domain? This way everyone wins; Apple gets their domain, and the victom gets some sweet gear.
You can't fight big companies.
Vote for Pedro
Apple went after eMachines not because of the 'e' but because of the shape which was clearly copied from Apple's design: eMachines was trying to ride on their coattails. This case is an entirely different thing altogether, and I have to admit that this guy owns the domain, although he should put up a redirect for people looking for iTunes in the UK. I agree about Webster's, they should claim prior art on Word.
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
Shouldn't just about every word in the english be public domain though? They've certainly been around long enough so the whole idea of ownership of common words is completely stupid.
The Farewell Tour II
Actually, NeXT is the company name, since they took over Apple when the boys at Apple proved entirely incapable of producing a robust modern Operating System.
But the Apple name had better marketing value, and a whole pre-fab army of zealots up and running, so they stuck with that name.
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
Remember? 1999/2001 *everything* was i-music, e-bank, e-cards... you name it. That's *very* plausible that the guy just had an idea and got the domain, plain and simple as that.
Besides, come on, nothing to see here, Apple should just give him a i-pods (ops, another i-something), a powerbook (to avoid another i-something) and he gives the domain. Case closed. Move along.
This wouldn't be a problem if companies would just stop insisting that every product they make should have their own domain...
What's wrong with apple.com/itunes?
Je ne parle pas francais.
WTF is INOLB? If google only returns 15 results for your stupid abbreviation, here's a hint, don't use it, nobody knows what the fuck you're trying to say. noob.
Not that it is really relevant, but...
itunes.com was owned by "Esprit Engineering Corp." until around 2003-10-13, at which time it became owned by Apple.
Whois history courtesy of http://whois.sc/
two people can have the same trademark if they are in different business.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That's some interesting math
:-) (I caught the mistake and posted a correction a few minutes later, by the way.)
It's a new kind of math - you have to stay up all night without coffee and post when you're half asleep to comprehend it.
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
So? If he wasn't under an NDA he is in the clear, it's not his fault Apple leaks like a rusty bucket.
Interestingly apple.co.uk also doesn't have anything to do with Apple, but it does still look at least like a legit site. The real UK Apple site is at http://www.apple.com/uk/
itunes.co.jp is available. Anyone want to pitch in and get this bad boy with me?
Marklar Records doesn't sell musical Marklars, non-linear Marklars, or MIDI Marklars. When Marklar first got into a dispute with Marklar the line in the sand was "Marklar" as though anything remotely Marklar was part of Marklar's business. Only when Marklar became, in effect, a Marklar publisher, did it infringe Marklar's domain in any real sense. Before this happened Marklar was sued multiple times for things as insane as having Marklarish system Marklars. In general, it seems to me that Marklar has acted in good faith -- it did not set out to infringe on Marklar from the start, things just evolved this way.
Ahhh...now I understand.
good original idea's
"ideas".
So here is what a little thought and research shows.
-ThinkSecret, the preeminent Apple rumor site, shows no sign of iTunes rumors in the months surrounding release, including when Apple filed for the trademark. Do we really think that this guy follows Apple more than these guys?
-There is no sign that Apple has been asked by this guy to buy the domain. The squatting theory seems to hold little water in that regard
-This guy does have a legit music service, and has a note on the front page about the domain and the conflict with apple
-QuickQuid.com however, has only been around for a few months. CyberBritain.com the guys main website lists it as a new service.
-The Wayback machine has no archive of the site. This may be because it didn't point anywhere prior to August.
My view? The guy is a sleezeball, who probably registered the domain legitimately. I used to work for a small web company, and we had about half a dozen unused domain names - registered for half a dozen reasons, planned projects that never launched, etc. In 2000, it was 'i' everything. iTunes would have been a natural thought - hell APPLE registered itunes.com in '99, years before applying for a trademark, or launching the product.
Who should get the domain is a bit more of a fuzzy question. But no doubt that this guy has less than pure intentions with the name, now that apple has a same named service.
After all,
the Beatles have many prior art Tunes long before Apple computers were in production.
The guy got their first, it is his - if Apple (either company) wants it, they can pay him and buy it.
It's scary to think that companies in other countries can attempt to strong arm citizens half way around the world.
The practice of looking for possible names that large companies might use, then taking those names, and registering them in various domains in the hopes that at some time in the future the large company will be forced to pay a fee to recover their name is little more than cheap and nasty extortion. Given the hundreds of domains and variations, should cyber squatters be allowed recklessly to register iTunes or any other Apple product in all of these other domains around the world, and then be allowed to extort money from Apple, or from any other company thus damaged by these actions? It is not Apple's responsibility to prevent this, but the domain name registery and also the party attempting the extortion. The penalty for this type of extortion should be a revocation of all names registered by the cyber-squatter, pursuant to a complete audit of these registered names, and a search for any other examples of extortion perpetrated in the past by the squatter, and if such past practices are found, then global and permanent revocation of all registration rights going forward.