Cybersquatter Ordered To Give Up iTunes.co.uk

DigitumDei writes "Originally reported on Slashdot last year when Apple accused Benjamin Cohen of being a cybersquatter, the UK Internet registry has now ordered Cohen to give up the domain to Apple. Nominet ruled that Cohen had made an "abusive registration," and that he "is using the domain name in a way which has confused people or businesses into believing that the domain name is registered to, operated or authorized by, or otherwise connected with the complainant."

Comments

Re:What's the big deal?

[rokzy]

yeah and if a guy steals your bank info that's fair play too - he worked harder at getting it than you worked at protecting it so he really deserves the money more than you do.

let's just get rid of all anti-fraud laws and let 'the market' decide!

Re:What's the big deal?

[vandon]

And that's why none of use would ever get hired as an domain name arbitrator.

Re:What's the big deal?

[vandon]

You didn't do your research....
Apple has been awarded control of the domain iTunes.co.uk, even though it was registered before the Mac maker announced its online music service.

This would be the person that stole your identity suing you because you made him bounce a bad check.

How long?

[BoomerSooner]

How far in advance before Apple had the trademark did he get the domain?

Re:How long?

[xpccx]

The linked /. story says:

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

Re:How long?

[Ayaress]

Apple registered itunes.com in August 1998, though. Over two years before Cohen's domain.

Re:How long?

[tomhudson]

Apple registered itunes.com in August 1998, though. Over two years before Cohen's domain.

Right, and they sat on it for 2 years before they did anything. It's not like they (Apple) used every domain they ever registered.

So why didn't Apple register itunes.co.uk?

And how long before we see a http://www.taubmansucks.com/-type site, but saying itunessucks.co.uk? (They can't use itunessucks.com - that's already taken - registered December 22nd of last year). Mind you, itunesreallysucks.com IS available as of midnight. So, any takers?

Re:How long?

[Sv-Manowar]

Registering the domain shouldn't stand up in the cybersquatting cause. They only got the trademark after him.

Although he could have done something better with the domain to avoid as much trouble.

How is this confusing people?

[offensiveweapon]

Personally, I don't see how having some cheap pyramid-esque scheme up equates to "using the domain name in a way which has confused people or businesses into believing that the domain name is registered to, operated or authorized by, or otherwise connected with the complainant."

There's nothing that even remotely connects to Apple...even the digital music player the site promotes as a freebie isn't an iPod!

The Stupid People

[TheSeventh]

It's all about the stupid people isn't it? People get confused between his site and Apple's. People can't tell the difference between Napster and iTunes. What's the difference anyway? If they can't tell the difference between the two, they won't know what they are buying anyway, and won't be able to use their iPod or anything else because they can't understand that either.

Back in the day, computers were only for people who could understand them or who could take the time to learn how to use them. Today, computer and software makers want every Tom, Dick, and Idiot to buy their crap, and therefore everything they make is geared toward the lowest common denominator of human existence.

It won't be long before every website that starts with the letter i will be taken over by Apple, because people will get confused if it doesn't.

There are only a few people with my name, but I own the domain name for it. If one of those other people become famous, does that mean they can take over my site because people will get confused? Does it make me a cyber squatter to register a name that someday some company may choose to use as a product name, and therefore claim rights to? If I want your domain name, can I just market some product under that name, and then claim that I should own it?

The lesson to learn here: Deep pockets and expensive lawyers are all you really need in life.

Re:The Stupid People

[killa62]

Who the hell modded this parent down?
Oh wait, I forgot, Steve Jobs reads slashdot.

Re:The Stupid People

[MoneyT]

If you use or build on the domain, no it doesn't. But consider this guy registerd the domain after Apple applied for the iTunes patent and years after they registered iTunes.com Furthermore, there's nothing at the domain name except redirects. He's clearly sitting on the name, using it's likeness to generate traffic.

Re:The Stupid People

[pete6677]

It won't be long before every website that starts with the letter i will be taken over by Apple, because people will get confused if it doesn't.

This is a fairly extreme exaggeration, even for Slashdot. It's a bit ridiculous to claim that Apple is going to start shutting down sites like infinity.com (whoever owns that). There's a big difference between owning a domain name that just happens to become some company's product name some day and buying a domain right after a company publically announces a new product by that name. And it's not like the process of taking someone's domain name is instantaneous, right after a corporation sends a letter. This case has been going through hearings for about a year now, the purpose being that the registrant is entitled to the site unless it can be proven that he/she took it maliciously as it was in this case. This is hardly a situation where some company victimized the little guy with their expensive lawyers.

Re:The Stupid People

[corporatemutantninja]

I think a more fair analogy would be: what if you waited until somebody got famous who had a name that wasn't anything like yours, then bought a domain name with their name and used it to sell vi@gra?

It's not like this guy's name is "Padraic iTunes" and he's been using the site to post pictures of his kid, iPaddy. He's obviously just a parasite on Apple's marketing efforts.

In lots of these domain fights it's easy to side with the little guy, but this is pretty blatant squatting. Rather than use a simple formula like "corporation == bad, unknown person == good" let's try using our brains a little on a case-by-case basis.

Re:The Stupid People

[Wordsmith]

Yeah, but he still got it before apple. Why should this guy be penalized just for recognizing apple missed the boat and trying to make a buck off it? Apple was careless.

Re:The Stupid People

[MoneyT]

Because by law, you can't make money using someone elses namesake. If he recognized that Apple missed the boat on something, then he knows Apple has an interest in it, and registering the name to make a buck on it is registration in bad faith.

Looks pretty junk to me

[BeerCat]

OK, so if the original owner of itunes.co.uk had their site doing something music related but different from Apple's offering, then it would probably be Apple that had slipped up.

However, a quick look at the site www.itunes.co.uk shows not one, but two redirects,
from http://www.cyberbritain.com/itunes
to iGetGifts.com earn Points for making purchases online: Get paid to use free stuff. Quick Quid: Go shopping with iGetGifts.com today. Earn at book shops (books), bet, betting, fashion, food, cds, music, dvds, film, games, electrical, entertainment, insurance, finance, travel and various other online retailers

If it's not cybersquatting, then it is, at the very least, trading on the reputation of another organisation.


Still, it could be worse. The Food Standards Agancy and Financial Services Authority are both UK government run, but only one gets the http://www.fsa.gov.uk/

Re:Looks pretty junk to me

[amichalo]

Still, it could be worse. The Food Standards Agancy and Financial Services Authority are both UK government run, but only one gets the http://www.fsa.gov.uk/

But both may have their respective www.FoodStandarsAgency.gov.uk and www.FinancialServicesAuthority.gov.uk sites if they wish.

"itunes" on the other hand is a brand name - it isn't short for anything - and like you said, this guy is certainly using their reputation and marketing dollars for his own gain.

Re:All your domains belong to Corporate America

[Anonymous Coward]

yes. all your domains are belong to US.

Read the whole discussion

[Ixitar]

Apple applied for the trademark on October 24, 2000.

itunes.com.au

[BenJamin.G]

Now I wonder how they will go with itunes.com.au. Which seems to of been registered for quite a while.

These stories always piss me off

[frizop]

I don't understand why domain names are not treated like ownership of property. I feel it should be mine to do what I feel fit. If I buy a domain, it should be mine to do whatever (legal) activity I feel fit. I look at this as yet another story of the little guy getting pushed over by the big company because he can't possibly defend himself against such a large company, and they have a team of lawyers coming up with all sorts of reason's why "it should belong to them" even though, before the conception of it, they should have spent the $5 (per year!) to register it.

Re:These stories always piss me off

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there's two reasons:

1. Domain main names are not property.
2. iTunes is a trademark.

Put simply, this phisher is playing off surfers trying to use someone else's trademark as a domain name. Not complicated.

Re:These stories always piss me off

[CrackerJack9]

with an open mind, follow me on this one...i have a sole proprietership with a long name. the acronym for this name (4 letters) has been registered to a company using a p.o. box in taiwan. the site, as it is now, is completely useless and irrelevant to the domain name.

In order for me to do what iTunes did, I would have to pay over a grand in lawyer's fees to have my case heard.

My only other option would be to pay them around $1300 (proving they are only 'squatting' it for profit in potential resale--also against ICANN's guidelines.

So spend a grand and gamble on my case being upheld, or just pay these guys to continue in their infesting of the internet.

Seriously, is it so hard to see that these types of things are worse than spammers and the like? At least spam can be deleted or blocked, these people are using valuable resources indefinitely (what cybersquatter doesn't use domain locking)....so before you think this is just a case of corporate guy vs. little guy, think of a few other situations that might happen to exist in this place called the internet

Re:These stories always piss me off

[nacturation]

My only other option would be to pay them around $1300 (proving they are only 'squatting' it for profit in potential resale--also against ICANN's guidelines.

It doesn't prove that they're squatting. What if I went there and registered a junk domain name such as www.n3sd92k1jhde82jdcmbzo30.com and put it up for sale, asking $2000? And what if you bought it because, for some reason unfathomable, you decided that you must have it? Does that prove I was simply squatting on the domain name? Or does squatting only apply for "good" domain names being sold?

Besides, by my understanding a 4 letter domain name isn't by default squatting unless a registered trademark exists and the current owner of the domain name is looking to profit directly or indirectly from the trademark.

Re:These stories always piss me off

[CrackerJack9]

I never said it was default. What i was saying is that they were in violation of ICANN's policies. Please go read the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy before you type about something you obviously don't understand.

Re:These stories always piss me off

[CrackerJack9]

It doesn't prove that they're squatting

The part you quoted was never meant to prove it, but take a look at the UDRP and see if "selling for profit" is one of the criteria.

And what if you bought it because, for some reason unfathomable, you decided that you must have it?

I wouldn't be able to buy it because you already own it, so you said in your example.
Enter the UDRP. The reason unfathomable? Well, it's my business's name...is that unfathomable to you?

Does that prove I was simply squatting on the domain name?

Owning a domain name does not prove you are squatting...google for a definition, then if you actually saw this site you might understand.

Or does squatting only apply for "good" domain names being sold?

Again, please find yourself a definition of cyber-squatting and read the UDRP

Besides, by my understanding a 4 letter domain name isn't by default squatting unless a registered trademark exists and the current owner of the domain name is looking to profit directly or indirectly from the trademark

Use an open mind and scrounge up some intelligence, read the UDRP and ICANN's stance/definition of cyber-squatting and legitamate use for domain names...you might also want to check out how many other short domain names are used by cyber-squatters...they tended to buy those up a while ago to sell for profit (read the UDRP if you think that is a good reason to retain ownership of a disputed domain name).

Re:These stories always piss me off

[nacturation]

Please go read the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy before you type about something you obviously don't understand.

Care to state which section is being violated? First off, you never stated that you have the 4 letter acronym trademarked -- only that you have a sole proprietorship. So unless you left this important bit of information out of your post, UDRP doesn't apply as it doesn't satisfy the criteria under section 4(a)(i). The fact that the party intends to profit from this domain is irrelevant to UDRP unless you can demonstrate that if affects your trademark, if indeed you have one and that all three criteria under 4(a) are met.

Now perhaps there's a different ICANN policy to which you're referring, in which case I'd be interested to know.

Re:These stories always piss me off

[nacturation]

The part you quoted was never meant to prove it, but take a look at the UDRP and see if "selling for profit" is one of the criteria.

Why don't you read it? For your benefit (emphasis mine):

4. a. Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that

(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present.

Enter the UDRP. The reason unfathomable? Well, it's my business's name...is that unfathomable to you?

So what? Have you trademarked the 4 letter acronym of your business's name? If you haven't, then you have no rights to that domain according to section 4(a) as you need to prove that all three of those conditions have been met.

Again, please find yourself a definition of cyber-squatting and read the UDRP. Use an open mind and scrounge up some intelligence, read the UDRP and ICANN's stance/definition of cyber-squatting and legitamate use for domain names...

Well, I've read up on UDRP and you're wrong. Unless you're leaving out the crucially vital tidbit that you have a trademark for your company name's 4 letter acronym, the rest of it doesn't matter. The Internic UDRP FAQ confirms this (emphasis mine):

In such cases, - commonly called "cybersquatting" - a holder of trademark rights initiates the administrative procedure by filing a complaint with an approved dispute-resolution service provider. In order to have the domain name transferred or cancelled, the trademark holder must establish (1) that he has a legally recognized trademark in a name that is identical or confusingly similar to the domain name; (2) that the current registrant of the domain name has no legitimate rights in the name; and (3) that there has been some evidence of bad faith or abuse.

you might also want to check out how many other short domain names are used by cyber-squatters...they tended to buy those up a while ago to sell for profit

And popularity proves what, exactly? Show me the ICANN policy which states that if I purchase a domain name in good faith, have violated no trademarks in doing so, and wish to sell it, that I'm in violation of said policy.

In everything I've read, cybersquatting only applies when a trademark violation occurs. Just tell me that you've trademarked your company name's 4 letter acronym which matches this domain name in question and I will fully agree that UDRP applies and that you have a case. Otherwise, I don't think it's I who needs to scrounge up intelligence.

Re:These stories always piss me off

[CrackerJack9]

You were never one of the smart kids, were you?

Since it is a sole proprietership utilizing my family name, I'm not required to file for a fictisious business name.

If you read your own response, you'll see they mention the words, "service mark". Now, what do you think that might be?

The second I do business as that name, it becomes legally recognizable. Perhaps a more well-rounded education in the matters of the world would suite you well, my friend.

Re:These stories always piss me off

[nacturation]

The second I do business as that name, it becomes legally recognizable.

You still haven't stated whether or not you claim a mark in the 4 letter acronym of your business name. However, given that you're such a smart, well-rounded kid who's clearly wise in the ways of the world, I'll just figure you do. And if so, as I said in my last post, then you may indeed have a case.

Re:These stories always piss me off

[CrackerJack9]

Yes, doing business with that 4 letter name, I would by default, have a service mark of it. If you can make a check out to it, and I can cash said check...it's pretty legally recognizable.

That being said in more depth than before, the point was never of whether or not I had a case. It's that I (the little guy) can't get this cyber-squatter (read: big guy) to stop without paying a huge lawyer's bill. It is similar to this case (article), but the roles are reversed, and the little guy still loses...

Re:What's the big deal?

[Ayaress]

He registered it before they trademarked iTunes, not before they announced it. Furthur, he registered it over two years after Apple registered itunes.com (link is to whois data).

Re:All your domains belong to Corporate America

[commodoresloat]

No; just the ones that are blatant attempts to capitalize on the popularity of one of their trademarks.

This article...

[SillyWilly]

This article seems to suggest that the battle isn't completely lost.

Cybersquatters are the scum of the Earth

[joetheappleguy]

And right up there with Spammers in my opinion.

You have to be a born Devil's Advocate to think that cybersquatting is a legitimate activity. The sole reason these %$#$ers register a popular product's name or every possible mispelled variation of those names is to catch the unwary and attempt to separate them from their money.

Why do you think that slahdot.org, slasdot.org & slshdot.org all have such a strangely familiar name and all lead to a bogus "search the web" sites? Coincidence, right?

Good on the UK court system for taking away the iTunes.co.uk domain away from that low life and I hope it sets a precedent that helps to rid the web of more squatters. We're not talking about someone registering "Romance.com" and making a profit from a legitimate foresight, we're talking about the act of a premeditated parasite.

apple.co.uk

[Anonymous Coward]

Next they will go after apple.co.uk.

They could but...

[BeerCat]

Sure they could. But they don't. After the Sudan 1 scare here in the UK, I tried fsa.gov.uk, only to find it was the wrong one (should have gone to "food.gov.uk").

The point I was (half) making was that sometimes it's hard to spot any intelligence in government, when two arms both go for the same abbreviation at around the same time.

I'll get me coat.

Very familiar now

[Aldric]

Apple are now offcially litigious bastards in my book. They'll just have to share the title with the other litigious bastards. I wonder how long before they start claiming to own KDE and Gnome.