|
Apple wins iTunes.co.uk domain
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 16 March, 2005
In an absolutely amazing decision, Apple has won the rights to the iTunes.co.uk domain, despite the fact that its owner Benjamin Cohen registered it years before Apple ever had the iTunes music service. AfterDawn reported that Apple had accused Cohen of cyber squatting, even though he registered the domain on 7th November 2000 whereas Apple were only had the trademark for "iTunes" published ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Senior Member
|
18. March 2005 @ 05:56 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I won't be buying an Apple iPod (any flavor) today or next year or ever.
Same here...was going to, but not after reading this.
Quote:
I'd be scared to death to accidentally drop an iPod. *Poof*! $350 (Can.$) out the window.
Yeah and you know the funny thing is....there are countless of other players out there, that are just as good. If not better.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
|
18. March 2005 @ 07:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
Apple shmapple....just give they guy his money FFS!
|
|
ByteMstr
Newbie
|
18. March 2005 @ 08:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
Something fishy is going on, just a couple of examples from the last few weeks.
- A guy called Romeo Maggi was to keep his domain Maggi.com with WIPO but a local court hands it over to Nestle;
- A woman whose first name and her business name is Milka is ordered by a local french court to hand over Milka.fr to Kraft foods;
and now this.
EFF and WIPO should work together to ensure the proper legal environment for domain names:
legitimate interest +
not in bad faith
equals: you keep the domain.
Here big corporations are leaning on small town court judges to give them their way. Scr*w the little guy that has legitimate interest. Big Business = Big Bucks = Always comes out on top.
|
Junior Member
|
18. March 2005 @ 09:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
That is a slap in the face, it really is! I don't see how apple can just come and Debo a domain name that does not belong to them. Money or no money. Right is right and wrong is wrong.
|
Senior Member
|
18. March 2005 @ 10:10 |
Link to this message
|
Thought you might like to see this:
Quote:
The logic that will no doubt be strenuously put forward by intellectual property lawyers is that if someone with a similar domain to a (subsequent) well-known service then uses the knock-on effect to benefit financially, then they are guilty of using that registration abusively, and the domain should be handed over.
This is a dangerous logic however. If a company builds, say, a pedestrian shopping centre and subsequently causes the price of commercial properties in that area to rocket, that company is not entitled to take over those properties just because they have benefitted.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/15/itunes_domain_case/
|
|
Quadratic
Senior Member
|
18. March 2005 @ 13:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
I don't understand the suing part. I think they should've attempted to at least buy out the domain. It would've been a lot cheaper...
|
Senior Member
|
18. March 2005 @ 19:16 |
Link to this message
|
Very true Quad...but this is what they probably did, lord knows why they did this...
Quote:
I bet that Apple paid well over the $50K for lawyer fees.
|
Member
|
19. March 2005 @ 04:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
I would absolutely agree about Apple's corporate greed, etc. But I also hate cyber-squatters, and that's what this guy was, plain and simple. I have no respect for cyber-squatters whatsoever, and it actually makes me happy when they aren't able to get a profit for hording domain names they had no intention of using.
|
|
roninsig
Newbie
|
19. March 2005 @ 16:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
Boo Boo Apple greed is a powerful thing and absolute greed is thy name. What has happened to people? People are no longer what is important
|
|
Motomatt
Senior Member
|
20. March 2005 @ 19:57 |
Link to this message
|
It's rediculous.. He ownes the domain name and they still take it ? So fucking what if he sits on the name.. Thats his buisness what he does with what he bought. He did nothing more than what everyone else in the free world does with houses,cars,computers.. You buy and sell to make money.. This is the same deal as the Mikerowesoft.com domain. Microsoft sued the kid.. Gave him a few free classes to there IT school and 500 bucks for the name.. It's really sad.. As far as I am concerned crapple is right up there with the RIAA. It's sad what this world has come to. Really sad when companys just sue and take what isn't theirs because they have more money. Thats not justice.. Thats just plain stealing. You can't justify what Crapple did to this man any way you look at it.. Its just wrong..
|
|
richieb69
Newbie
|
21. March 2005 @ 00:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
It is highly likely that this domain was registered with the intention of cybersquatting. This insidious practice was much debated a few years ago when people had been bulk registering company names (and individual names) prior to the company achieving an online presence. Then they would approach the company and offer the sale of the domain name. I would personally feel quite peeved if wishing to register my own name of www.Bartholomew-Blinkenthorpe.co.uk (name changed to protect the guilty) only to find some guy called Roger McDodge had preregistered it hoping that i would wish to pay him handsomely for it.
Does anyone know if he was ever using the domain name actively as a website? What is there now is certainly not an active use of www.itunes.co.uk.
Personally i wouldn't buy an ipod. They are quite expensive and i would be assured of dropping it down a loo or accidentally sitting on it requiring hospital assistance for removal! (long story, please don't ask ;) ). I'm quite happy with my 256MB MP3 player with crackly radio reception. At least that's made by a local company called HaiKai Electronics or something (well, local if you live in China or somewhere like it!).
|
|
indienemo
Account closed as per user's own request
|
21. March 2005 @ 04:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
bow down or be crushed by the corperate muscle
|
|
indienemo
Account closed as per user's own request
|
21. March 2005 @ 04:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
|
indienemo
Account closed as per user's own request
|
21. March 2005 @ 04:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
|
indienemo
Account closed as per user's own request
|
21. March 2005 @ 04:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sorry... browser error...
NOTE TO MODS: PLEASE DELETE THOSE POSTS
|
|
Motomatt
Senior Member
|
21. March 2005 @ 05:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
It shouldn't matter what he does.. Sit on it.. play with it.. stick it up his ass.. He paid for it. It's his to do what he wants with it.. If the company wants it they are gonna have to pay his price. If they dont want to pay his price they dont have to.
I see lots of car dealers squating on cars.. I dont get to sue them because I think the price is to high? Although it would be nice.. To bad my last name isn't porshe or something.. I could possibly have a chance at winning if I got the same judge! F U crapple...
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
21. March 2005 @ 08:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
do you know who owned the apple trademark 1st & it wasn't the co-founders of apple computers but the beatles. the apple founders had to get the ok from the beatles to use the name but on the condition of not selling music. whether that agreement has changed or not i don't know but do remember both parties were in court back in the late 80's to 90's about something
|
|
Quadratic
Senior Member
|
22. March 2005 @ 05:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
I don't see the point in suing someone for cyber-squatting anyway. It's just something people like to cry about because they didn't get to it first.
|
Senior Member
|
22. March 2005 @ 05:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yeah! Someone needs to pass them a box of Kleenex!
"From now on we are poison to you Spider-man...Thats why we call ourselves... VENOM"
 |
|
indienemo
Account closed as per user's own request
|
22. March 2005 @ 06:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think cybersquatting is a pain in the ass, but theres nothing you can do about it really.
"Life is like a box of chocolates, whenever it comes to me all that is left is toffee logs" - Me.
------------------------------------------------------
PC: Athlon 64 X2 4200+ @ 2.4Ghz, 2GB DDR2, X850 PE GFX.
GC: Viper GC w. Cobra bios 1.2
X360: Kreon 1.0 Drive, Softmodded console
 |
|
ByteMstr
Newbie
|
22. March 2005 @ 09:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
Cybersquatting isn't really an issue in this case:
- he registered it years before Apple ever had the iTunes music service;
- in fact, he registered the domain on 7th NOVEMBER 2000 whereas Apple were only had the trademark for "iTunes" published in the Trade Marks Journal on 6th DECEMBER 2000.
Something really fishy is going on lately, obvious cases where people use their own last name lose their domain. Same thing here, it wasn't a trademark at the time so he should sue Apple for using his name and for reverse domain hijacking. If I was him, I'd contact the EFF.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
shineeyy
Suspended permanently
|
22. August 2009 @ 06:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
spam edited by ddp
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. August 2009 @ 13:10
|
