PDA

View Full Version : Domain name issue, Apple and Microsoft



sillydog701
7th December 2004, 10:35 AM
According to this The Mac Observer report (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/12/06.5.shtml), Apple's legal counsel has written Benjamin Cohen, CEO of a small British Company, demanding the domain name ( itunes.co.uk ) be turned over to Apple. Unfactual statement removed by moderator.

This just reminds me of the Mike Rowe case early this year. A quick recap of the story, Mike Rowe was a 17-year-old student. He called his own company MikeRoweSoft Design (with domain name MikeRoweSoft.com). Microsoft said they own it, Unfactual statement removed by moderator.. Thanks to the bad publicity generated over internet community, Microsoft was later apologised.

screenshot of the original MikeRoweSoft website (http://ant.sillydog.org/blog/pix/screenshot_mikerowesoft00.jpg)

Apple failed to persuade Mr Cohen, Apple filed for a domain authority proceeding on November 30 with Nominet.

Let's wait for the outcome of this case.

So this is a common business practice for big companies? Write a (usually strong worded) letter demanding whatever they want. Life is simple, as long as you can afford good lawyers and you can take over whatever you want.

iSlayer
7th December 2004, 10:41 AM
yep its common practice.

you can understand why though.
especially with itunes.co.uk

iTunes a trademark.
when people go to itunes.co.uk they naturally expect to be seeing an apple site.

its not fair but you can see why it happens.

mjankor
7th December 2004, 10:54 AM
And when the site www.itunes.co.uk is just a dodgy front end for quickquid.com I really hope Apple win this one.

Microsofts claim against Mike Rowe was just lame. Using the iTunes name to push some other companies products is just lame too.

sillydog701
7th December 2004, 10:55 AM
itunes.co.uk was registered before "iTunes" being registered in the UK.

iSlayer
7th December 2004, 10:56 AM
so.
itunes has been arounf for years in the US.

sillydog701
7th December 2004, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by islayer@Dec 7 2004, 10:56 AM
itunes has been arounf for years in the US.
US does not rule the world.

markh
7th December 2004, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by sillydog701@Dec 7 2004, 10:58 AM
US does not rule the world.
I think the US would disagree with that ;-)

iSlayer
7th December 2004, 11:19 AM
i disagree with that :)
the us control the world

Phillip
7th December 2004, 11:22 AM
Apple UK can't even get apple.co.uk.

I think both Microsoft's and Apple's cases are both right cause companies spend money promoting their brand, they don't want some people getting confused.

sillydog701
7th December 2004, 11:30 AM
Re: US controls the world,

Perhaps in the UK and even in the Australia. Sadly, not many countries in the world are brave enough not to give US a ****.

Re: the domain name issue,
Confusing itunes.co.uk with Apple's trademark is a valid point. As for Microsoft case, all Microsoft users can't spell Microsoft correctly?

Just wonder who would spell Microsoft.com as MikeRoweSoft.com.

markh
7th December 2004, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by sillydog701@Dec 7 2004, 11:30 AM
Re: US controls the world,

Perhaps in the UK and even in the Australia. Sadly, not many countries in the world are brave enough not to give US a ****.

Just wait until the FTA kicks in on Jan 1....We'll find out what is really like to get f**k'd over by the US

the_OM
7th December 2004, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by markh@Dec 7 2004, 11:33 AM
Just wait until the FTA kicks in on Jan 1....We'll find out what is really like to get f**k'd over by the US
You voted Labor at the last election didn't you?
btw which union do you belong to?

markh
7th December 2004, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by the_OM@Dec 7 2004, 01:36 PM
You voted Labor at the last election didn't you?
btw which union do you belong to?
LOL.. I didnt vote for anyone ;-) And i dont belng to a "union" (Being an IT contractor)

sillydog701
7th December 2004, 03:59 PM
The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/06/apple_itunescouk_domain_dispute/) provides something more interesting,

the owner happens to be one Benjamin Cohen, the "dotcom millionaire" of lore, whose father is a solicitor, and Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on.

itunes.co.uk was registered by Cohen on 7th November 2000,
Apple filed for a domain dispute on 30th November 2004,
Apple, on the other hand, only had trademark for "iTunes" published in the Trade Marks Journal on 6 December 2000. It was granted a limited trademark that did not cover music products on 23 March 2001, and eventually went live with its iTunes offering in June this year - four years after Ben Cohen first registered iTunes.co.uk. Cohen claims he had no idea that Apple was planning to build an iTunes service, and that he has been using it legitimately all that time.

As for the poor Mike Rowe, his compensation was only a trip to Redmond, Wash., an XBox game system plus a special subscription to MSDN. (reference (http://ant.sillydog.org/blog/000061.html))

Currawong
7th December 2004, 05:56 PM
Sillydog, since I'm sure you, along with everyone else here, aren't interested in getting AppleTalk sued for liabel, I've modified your original post. :)

sillydog701
10th December 2004, 01:49 AM
Times Online (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075-1393739,00.html) (.co.uk) reported following...
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Times Online")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yet, more than 30 lawyers&#39; letters later, with all sorts of legal threats, Mr Cohen is still holding out for the right to use the domain he registered in 2000. Apple&#39;s legal attempt to prove he is a cybersquatter, by offering him cash to sell the domain name, has been refused (and besides which, if he were to sell a domain, surely a fair market price would not be unreasonable?).[/b][/quote]
Then, Apple&#39;s lawyers would try to accuse Mr Cohen for attempting to sell the domain to Apple for a large cash settlement?

Same sorts of the threats and tactics as what Microsoft&#39;s lawyers did to a high school boy, Mike Rowe.

Also from the same article (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075-1393739,00.html),
... the week before, the company was heavily criticised for refusing to sell the charity single Do They Know It&#39;s Christmas? at price agreed by other online music retailers. Although Apple pledged to make good the difference in price to the charity, cynical rivals saw it as a cheap stunt to undercut them and thus boost its market share of this rapidly developing business.

Dear Benjamin Cohen, please don&#39;t settle for just an iPod plus ADC membership subscription (as Apple&#39;s version of Xbox + MSDN subscription.)

sillydog701
10th December 2004, 02:08 AM
Other links:
eWeek: “Apple Threatens Owner of iTunes Domain (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1737460,00.asp)” (8th Dec 2004)
The Register: “Apple threatens iTunes.co.uk owner (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/06/apple_itunescouk_domain_dispute/)” (6th Dec 2004)

My personal comment, a good community should allow discussions and opinions, not just praising.

AusMac
10th December 2004, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by Phillip@Dec 7 2004, 11:22 AM
Apple UK can&#39;t even get apple.co.uk. I think both Microsoft&#39;s and Apple&#39;s cases are both right cause companies spend money promoting their brand, they don&#39;t want some people getting confused.

nope, do you know how may Roilex watch brands there are? or Buloiva or Omeega?
not forgetting the Seeko or the Chitizen.

yeah I know, you bought three of them before you realised some bastard was ripping you off.

Kudos to Mike Rowe .. well done mate

Apple are no better .. I mean, I like their product .. but I don&#39;t like their lawyers.

it is all bulldust.

Currently looking for God and seeing if he wants to push the issue about the apple.
or maybe i should ask Paul Mcartney?
Maybe Granny Smith and all her relatives plus all the nurserymen who grafted her apple, should have a case to argue.

zefi
10th December 2004, 09:38 AM
Since I&#39;m a law student I am going to rush to the defence of these apparently &#39;bully-type&#39; lawyers.

First, we didn&#39;t make the law - we practice it. All of these apparently dirty tactics are legitimate and are common practice. That&#39;s not to say that I don&#39;t think they are reprehensible. But, trust me, out of court harassment and threats are a lot better than actually being dragged to court.

We have incredibly pressure from our &#39;clients&#39; to get things done as quickly and as painlessly as possible. We don&#39;t get paid unless we do our job and we have to make a living some how. I am no expert on trademark law, but I think its much more complex than just who registered first. I am not even sure if a domain name is legally recognised as a trademark either. So there may be some scope for argument there.

These are issues that demonstrate the antiquity of the law in regard to technology. I hope it is resolved justly and fairly, however. Apple lawyers please give the guy a fair deal, don&#39;t be stingy.

iSlayer
10th December 2004, 09:44 AM
do you believe the guy bought the domain for the fact that it was well known?

if thats the case then he should be forced to hand it over.

sillydog701
10th December 2004, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by zefi@Dec 10 2004, 09:38 AM
First, we didn&#39;t make the law - we practice it. All of these apparently dirty tactics are legitimate and are common practice.
Thanks for the information.

So lawyers are allowed to threaten people? Am I allowed to threaten lawyers back? Or am I allowed to sue lawyers who threatened me?

iSlayer
10th December 2004, 10:21 AM
i say all go&#39;s
a threats not going to hurt anyone :)

sillydog701
10th December 2004, 10:25 AM
I shall learn to write strong worded letters for the sack of defending myself.

napes
10th December 2004, 10:30 AM
If Apple haven&#39;t planned ahead sufficiently to secure the domains they need, then good on the guy for pre-empting or simply getting there first. The fact that the US Government hasn&#39;t (or can&#39;t?) register www.whitehouse.com (which is an adult content website BTW and was recently in the news for just this issue) in my mind supports the idea big companies don&#39;t have the right to assume that they have special rights to domain names just because they ARE big companies. The web and domain registering is a fairly level playing field in that respect - everyone is equal, and if people make a few bucks from being quick or smart, well done. If Coke.com popped up as being registerable, I wouldn&#39;t have any moral dilemma registering it ;)

thomas
10th December 2004, 11:42 AM
maybe the guy should have made it www.eyetunes.co.uk......or would apple have demande that one as well :P

AusMac
10th December 2004, 11:43 AM
All of these apparently dirty tactics are legitimate and are common practice. I say there should be a law against the pretence that anything is legitimate.

napes
10th December 2004, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by AusMac@Dec 10 2004, 11:43 AM
I say there should be a law against the pretence that anything is legitimate.
nicely put AusMac :D

markh
10th December 2004, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by sillydog701@Dec 10 2004, 02:08 AM
My personal comment, a good community should allow discussions and opinions, not just praising.
here here.. seems sometimes there is a lack of this around here..

zefi
10th December 2004, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by sillydog701@Dec 10 2004, 10:19 AM
Thanks for the information.

So lawyers are allowed to threaten people? Am I allowed to threaten lawyers back? Or am I allowed to sue lawyers who threatened me?
You are indeed allowed to sue lawyers or complain to the professional association that governs the behaviours of lawyers. If you feel you are getting the rough end of the stick, contact (in Queensland) the Queensland Law Society, ask for a copy of their professional rules, lodge a complaint if you feel you need to.

Now, I think it depends on what you mean by threaten. Obviously you can threaten legal action with a nasty letter, or you can threaten someone with physical violence which is illegal (it is assault). So lawyers, are allowed within ethical boundaries to pursue their client&#39;s wishes - but I agree sometimes lawyers do unethical things. And unless you complain/take them court (or have them disbarred) we&#39;d never know about it.

So be vigilant and smart.

kit
15th December 2004, 05:58 PM
My US&#036;0.015194:

I think this guy, like so many billions of cyber-squatters on the internet, are benefiting from the success of others, which is horribly unethical. The guy didn&#39;t pick the domain name because it was associated with him personally, he, like so many others, registered it for hits, which with QuickQuid.com gets him money. Even better, his redirection goes to the Music section, meaning people who are duped into giving him money are probably going to somewhere that&#39;s in some way related to what they want, thus will click on, thus will earn the guy MORE money.

The guy was never going to accept money from Apple - he&#39;s not paying for the domain name just to sell it for a huge price, he&#39;s KEEPING it to continue making money. And the thing is, the longer he holds out, the longer the court case is in the media, the more hits this guy GETS, the more money he makes.


The guy is a scoundrel. Go get &#39;im Apple.




It&#39;s somewhat different to MikeRoweSoft though. That guy had an honest claim to that domain. Obviously, he picked his Software production name for the huge media conglomerate, as a subtle pun. However, he wasn&#39;t getting any hits from unwitting third parties (as in the case of itunes.co.uk); he was just having a laugh. I can see why Microsoft saw him as cutting in on their turf, especially in that he was producing software, but they shouldn&#39;t have bothered with court if they realised the guy wasn&#39;t going to go making software called Windowes or something, where he&#39;d be directly capitalising on the name (and the intellectual property it stands for).

Madeleine
15th December 2004, 06:44 PM
MY &#036;.02 American:

Well Said Kit B)

Mike Rowe was funny
itunes.uk is no joke.

p996911turbo
15th December 2004, 07:20 PM
My 1.59 Yen:

I&#39;m with Madeline and kit, itunes.co.uk isn&#39;t acceptable, mikerowesoft.com is fine.

sillydog701
16th March 2005, 11:49 PM
Apple won the iTunes.co.uk domain name battle, according to silicon.com (http://networks.silicon.com/webwatch/0,39024667,39128714,00.htm):

CyberBritain CEO and former dot-com teenage millionaire Benjamin Cohen accused Apple of bullying tactics and said he had registered the iTunes.co.uk domain a month before Apple&#39;s trademark application was published back in December 2000 and some three years before its online music download service launched.

Cohen maintains his motives for registering the domain were innocent and that he turned down a cash offer from Apple for the domain as it could have been interpreted as intent to profit from Apple&#39;s trademark.

Mr Cohen is considering an appeal either to Nominet or the High Court.

sillydog701
30th March 2005, 12:01 AM
Follow-up:
From iTunes.co.uk Owner to Appeal Domain Order to High Court (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2005/03/28.3.shtml) (The Mac Observer):

The owner of the Web domain itunes.co.uk has decided to appeal a ruling to Britain&#39;s High Court after being ordered to turn over the address to Apple Computer last week.

Also more information about Apple&#39;s trademark in the UK.

Apple applied for a trademark for the name iTunes on October 27. It was not until December 6 that the application was published in the Trade Marks Journal, some four weeks after Mr. Cohen&#39;s company began using the domain. Apple was later granted a restricted trademark on March 23, 2001, which didn&#39;t include the use of the phrase &#39;iTunes&#39; for music products.

On April 16, 2003, Apple applied for a trademark for the name &#39;iTunes Music Store&#39;, but has yet to be granted rights. It wasn&#39;t until June of last year that Apple launched its British iTunes online music service.

Apple inaugurated its iTunes music service in the U.S. on April 28, 2003.

Insanely
30th March 2005, 03:46 PM
Should have taken the money.

sikosis
30th March 2005, 04:46 PM
I don&#39;t see why Apple didn&#39;t use urls like:-

apple.co.uk/itunes or itunes.apple.co.uk

They don&#39;t own ipod.co.uk but they own ipod.com

domain madness ...