News Apple finally wins itunes.co.uk

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/11/28/apple_itunes_domain/

 

the big boys win again in a nominet case - rather predicable.

 

Cheeky sod versus big money business. Both c&*ts in their own way so best solution should've been he keeps the domain (cause he got it first) but can't profit on it (because the name is a trademark) that way they both lose.

 

i'm dissapointed with the outcome of this case... Apple should've made sure all the domain name it wanted where free, or for sale before registering the trademark. They offered ben cohen $5000 for the name, a sum I would say was pitifull compared with the ammount of money it would then make from the site. Big companies should not be able to bully smaller ones just because they have a bigger legal department. But am I surprised with this outcome?? not at all... In fact, I feel like ranting.... <goes off to write nasty email to nominet>

 

IMO if you own something its yours, simple as. you can do with it what you like.

taking away something that you dont own is theft. which is what apple/nominet should be charged with.

 

Ben Cohen got what he deserved to be perfectly honest.

He registered the domain before Apple even came up with the name iTunes.
He decided to point it at Napster - a competitor of Apple in the music market.
He tried to extort more money out of Apple for the domain (they suggested $5000, he demanded £50,000)
He lost the case.

Can't see anything wrong with the decision made against him.

 

if a big company like that approached me i'd just say i'll sell it to you for x.amount of thousend or million I mean $5000 is quite alot anyway so I would of snapped that up right away

 

The way I see it is this isn't a "David vs. Goliath" case, Apple 'deserves' the domain, let me explain.

In a ideal world domain names and trademarks would be separate, you got there first, the domain is yours. However the problem is domain names are just too easy to register, squatt and then extort. If there was a first-come-first-serve blanket rule in regards to domain names, the internet would no longer be a viable commercial market, for example Sony would refuse to pay $50million for sony.com and probably would of lost interest in the internet.

What became visible in the iTunes case is that there is a link between trademarks and domain names. Ben Cohen apparently registered the domain before iTunes was even announced, however he didn't register it as a trademark and as a result the iTunes.co.uk domain ownership could be disputed. He was lucky to be offered $5k.

Moral of the story? If you want to keep a domain, register it as a trademark. If someone else already has it registered, understand there is a risk that it might be taken away from you.

 

Uncool in concept, but he tried to abuse his position. If he hadn't done that I'd be much more upset by this.

 

How would one go about doing that?

 

ok let me put this to all you people saying he deserved his name to be taken away.

what if this happend with bit-tech?

what if some large international company decided to launch a new product line under that name? then after seeing that bit-tech already owned this domain they contacted nominet and stole it?

now please raise your hand if you would be seeking nominets and the company concerned blood.

would any of us be saying that £5000 is fair compensation? I dont think i would be saying £50,000 would be fair compensation for the staff!

does bit-tech have a trade mark? would bit-tech even be able to get one if it doesnt have one? there are certain conditions that you have to fulfil to get a trade mark-
(the uk patent office says)

"To be registrable your trade mark must be:

distinctive for the goods or services which you are applying to register it for,

not deceptive, or contrary to law or morality,

not similar or identical to any earlier marks for the same or similar goods or services"

 

Since bit-tech has a .net, it wouldn't be Nominet. Try WIPO or ICANN. Apple didn't "steal" itunes.co.uk from Ben Cohen anyway, they went through the proper channels and were declared the legal owners. In the case of bit-tech vs big corporation I'm sure that bit would have more chance of winning as they have a legitimate business here.

For a company/site like bit-tech, of course that wouldn't be anywhere near the compensation they'd need. For someone like Ben Cohen who wasn't even really using the domain and probably never would've done, it was a more than generous first offer - shame he tried to extort 10 times as much and then diverted the domain to a competitor.

bit-tech doesn't have a trademark, and I'm sure they could get one if they really wanted. Someone owns "BIT TECHNOLOGY" btw, which is pretty close.

 

There are many ways of registering a trade mark. But the best/easiest way is using a specialist 3rd party who will search existing trade marks to make sure the one you want isn't taken, then they'll legally register it in the UK. That usually costs about £500 iirc. However if you want one recognised throughout the EU the price jumps to something like £2000+. If you're serious, the safest thing to do is register and EU/US trade mark, which costs roughly £3000.

 

Bit-tech looks like a serious outfit with full-time staff. I'm sure they've probably protected themselves by registering a trademark, or at the very least registered with Company House. That will give them quite a lot of protection if they were ever sued for bit-tech.net because as Quack already stated, they have a legitimate purpose.

 

I had a look for a trademark, couldn't find one. I'm pretty sure they've registered with Companies House though. Possibly in Scotland.

 

why the heck does our society agree with KASH IS KING
if you have money, you can pretty much do anything. We are studying it in our advanced government class here across the pond, and its just stupid how a few people with money can just annihilate those that dont....

 

In this particular case, it doesn't matter how much more money Apple has than Cohen. They had more right to have the name than he did. He could've fought the decision, he still would've lost.