News Legal row over iTunes domain name

[GreatOldOne]

The legal wrangle over the iTunes.co.uk domain name has been simmering for some time, but it seems to have come to a head now that Nominet have handed the domain over to Apple. The beeb reports:

An internet entrepreneur is taking legal action against computer giant Apple over the iTunes domain name.

Benjamin Cohen, 22, registered itunes.co.uk in 2000, but earlier this month the UK domain name registry, Nominet, handed the name over to Apple.

Mr Cohen, of Hackney, east London, has applied to the High Court for a judicial review, saying Nominet is biased against small businesses.

But Nominet say legal experts found Mr Cohen was abusing his registration.

The body's judgement, dated the 10 March, states by offering to sell the domain name and by continuing to re-direct people from itunes.co.uk Mr Cohen is abusing his registration.

More here

I'm in two minds over this - on the one hand, why can Nominet just hand over a domain held by X to Y on the grounds of redirecting traffic? It's not illegal to do so, is it? On the other hand though, I'd be peeved to be redirected to a site that has nothing to do with iTunes. And it's only just started doing that, as before he had a music search service going on it.

I do believe that Cohen took the domain back in 2000 without any knowledge of Apples plans. Nobody knew what they where cooking up then - least of all a 17 year old kid. But it does sound as if there is some profiteering going on now...

[mclean007]

Yeah it's easy to see both sides of this one. I mean cybersquatting per se is an absolute disgrace - profiteering as you say. In this case, however, this guy has registered a domain in good faith, and Apple really should have looked into the availability of its chosen name on all the top level domains before deciding to create the iTunes brand. They could, for example, have called it iRipOffBritishPeople, which I'm sure isn't registered as a .co.uk

To be honest Apple should offer him a reasonable sum (in the region of a few thousand quid) for his domain. They'll end up spending way more than that in legal fees anyway.

[Meanmotion]

Originally Posted by mclean007

To be honest Apple should offer him a reasonable sum (in the region of a few thousand quid) for his domain. They'll end up spending way more than that in legal fees anyway.

I think he probably wants to hold out for more than that, and that's what is peeving Apple.

[fillip]

I don't personally feel there is anything wrong with profiteering by picking up domains that big multi-nationals want. If you think of it first then it's fair game, as this situation with Apple should've been, but obviously Nominet don't see it that way.

[DriftCarl]

I think its totally wrong of apple to do this. What theya re basically rulling is that Apple own anything starting with a lower case "i". so basically if someone registered iShop.co.uk and apple decided it wanted to sell junk and use the product "iShop" then they could just steal the domain name from someone.

It was up to Apple to do all its research to make sure the name they choose for the serivice has not been used. Its a shame this guy didnt make a proper service of iTunes.co.uk before apple made the service. he could of then sued apple for using his business name, I wonder how they would like that.

He did make a few mistakes by redirecting it to other places and maybe was a bit greedy by wanting more cash. but that offer by Apple tells me that they knew the domain wasnt legally theirs, so they used entrapment by offering a low price into gaining evidence that the owner wa domain name camping.

much like microsoft did against Mike Roe who registered mikeroesoft.com (or something)

[TheAnimus]

Originally Posted by DriftCarl

I think its totally wrong of apple to do this. What theya re basically rulling is that Apple own anything starting with a lower case "i". so basically if someone registered iShop.co.uk and apple decided it wanted to sell junk and use the product "iShop" then they could just steal the domain name from someone.

It was up to Apple to do all its research to make sure the name they choose for the serivice has not been used. Its a shame this guy didnt make a proper service of iTunes.co.uk before apple made the service. he could of then sued apple for using his business name, I wonder how they would like that.

He did make a few mistakes by redirecting it to other places and maybe was a bit greedy by wanting more cash. but that offer by Apple tells me that they knew the domain wasnt legally theirs, so they used entrapment by offering a low price into gaining evidence that the owner wa domain name camping.

much like microsoft did against Mike Roe who registered mikeroesoft.com (or something)

trademark laws scare me.

google are worried, because people are saying "oh google that!" in common language, thus nullifying their tradename (same idea you can't trade name 'the' because its in common language).

same way, if your a company called eToys, and have a big marketing campain, you don't want some place called eTonys's Toys taking your buisness, so you can rightly sue.

imo, he might of started out with a good service, but he ended up stealing hits from apple, and making money of them, serves him right, just like offering to sell it for x thousand would. For once i don't think apple have done anything wrong.

[Pezboy]

I don't think Google can ever lose it's trademark on that word. Even if it becomes common language, it's the trademark that gave rise to the phrase. A more apt example would be brand name uses for generic terms (because that's what this is) like Kleenex for tissue, or Xerox for copy. Google is a brand name term for "search." The word "the" existed before anyone ever put it in a proper title.

More on topic, is there any precedent for this sort of thing? Have squatters been stripped of their domains because they forwarded traffic somewhere else? And it can definitely be argued he is not a squatter since he registered it long before Apple launched the service. Perhaps what he's doing now is a smarmy, but can you blame him? He's trying to run an internet business and the only way you can do business on the Web is to increase traffic. He found a way using assets he had acquired long ago. That means increased traffic at no extra cost. Sounds like good business practice to me. And honestly, isn't this the most basic form of capitalism? He has something they want, and they have the means to purchase it. If they had bought it from him before they launched the service, they probably could have only spent a "few thousand quid." As time has progressed, the item has become more valuable.

[fillip]

Originally Posted by Pezboy

I don't think Google can ever lose it's trademark on that word. Even if it becomes common language, it's the trademark that gave rise to the phrase. A more apt example would be brand name uses for generic terms (because that's what this is) like Kleenex for tissue, or Xerox for copy. Google is a brand name term for "search." The word "the" existed before anyone ever put it in a proper title.

As far as i'm aware thats correct.

You can't hold a trademark over a common language word but a trademark can become a common language word and you would still retain the rights associated with the trademark - in the UK at least

[:: Phat ::]

I thought asking for mega bucks for a domain was pretty much legal suicide as far as a case went?

[mclean007]

Originally Posted by Meanmotion

I think he probably wants to hold out for more than that, and that's what is peeving Apple.

Then he's being greedy and deserves to be disposessed of the domain. He's not even running a proper business from it anyway - as has been pointed out he's using it to trap and forward traffic.

Mike Roe sold www.mikeroesoft.com to MS for and XBox, a stack of games and a thank you card from Billy Gates IIRC. That's more in the region of what I'd be looking for if I were this guy. I'd hold out for a G5, maybe a mini-mac, one of those lush 30" screens and a handful of 'pods for the family. Not bad for fifty quid or whatever it costs to register a domain, and I bet Apple would hand it over no worries with gratitude. If they've gone to the bother (and cost) of taking him to court over the matter then he must have been being stupidly greedy.

[DreamTheEndless]

Originally Posted by Pezboy

More on topic, is there any precedent for this sort of thing? Have squatters been stripped of their domains because they forwarded traffic somewhere else? And it can definitely be argued he is not a squatter since he registered it long before Apple launched the service. Perhaps what he's doing now is a smarmy, but can you blame him? He's trying to run an internet business and the only way you can do business on the Web is to increase traffic. He found a way using assets he had acquired long ago. That means increased traffic at no extra cost. Sounds like good business practice to me. And honestly, isn't this the most basic form of capitalism? He has something they want, and they have the means to purchase it. If they had bought it from him before they launched the service, they probably could have only spent a "few thousand quid." As time has progressed, the item has become more valuable.

http://www.nissan.com/

Check it out - very interesting. (Note - this is not the website of Nissan Motors.)

[infered101]

Originally Posted by DreamTheEndless

http://www.nissan.com/

Check it out - very interesting. (Note - this is not the website of Nissan Motors.)

So from that im guessing Nissan computers lost they appealed 9th district court said yes, nissan cars cross appealed court said no, then reversed decisions in nissan computers favor, nissan cars appealed again and court said no.

I got confused on that with all the yes no maybe so appeal appeal stuff.

[MrWillyWonka]

All the big companies seem to be very greedy at the moment, SONY, Nissan and Apple to name some

[Da Dego]

Originally Posted by infered101

So from that im guessing Nissan computers lost they appealed 9th district court said yes, nissan cars cross appealed court said no, then reversed decisions in nissan computers favor, nissan cars appealed again and court said no.

I got confused on that with all the yes no maybe so appeal appeal stuff.

That lawsuit scares me. $10mil for a small, family owned little company is a bullying tactic.

[Oclocker]

Originally Posted by mclean007

Then he's being greedy and deserves to be disposessed of the domain. He's not even running a proper business from it anyway - as has been pointed out he's using it to trap and forward traffic.

Mike Roe sold www.mikeroesoft.com to MS for and XBox, a stack of games and a thank you card from Billy Gates IIRC. That's more in the region of what I'd be looking for if I were this guy. I'd hold out for a G5, maybe a mini-mac, one of those lush 30" screens and a handful of 'pods for the family. Not bad for fifty quid or whatever it costs to register a domain, and I bet Apple would hand it over no worries with gratitude. If they've gone to the bother (and cost) of taking him to court over the matter then he must have been being stupidly greedy.

Its his property what he does with it or asks for it as payment is irrelevant as he owned it before Itunes existed. Apple are being bully boys as big corporations are thesedays. They would have known the domain was gone when they started itunes and no doubt realised they would get it for peanuts eventually.

As this is NOT cybersquatting Apple should pay what the guy wants or STFU..

Anyway I would argue that he has proof he thought up I-tunes first thenApple should surrender ALL domain names they have cybersquatted from this poor guy!!

[webbyman]

i don't think it should be his, it's proberly just 'angry' that it's worth loads now

i think this thread may have been posted before

edit: lol... it's a thread revival

[Da Dego]

Hahaha! I didn't even notice that! Yeah, it is, I guess. Still relevant, though!