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."
Cybersquatting or intimidation?
Free Firefox news reader.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
This guy registered itunes.co.uk. iTunes is an Apple product.
Mike Rowe registered a site with his own name. I wouldn't feel the same way if Apple was trying to get the domain eyetunes.co.uk.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.