Apple.co.uk

[Rob_F]

Of course you are right, Invincible. You always are.

- Rob

 

[js1]

You'd have to be pretty thick or desperate to sell it for anything less than six-figures if everything is as it appears.

i.e.

1. The original registrant is the same as the current one.

2. The domain has been in use since it was first registered back in Jan 1996, and the business behind the site is and always has been genuine.

3. There isn't any unknown pieces of the picture that that might affect your position in a negative way E.g. you have been calling/writing to them every two months since 2001 trying to sell it them for offers over 10 million.

Don't get too greedy. Let then come to you, don't approach them. I think they will come, eventually – if they haven't already approached you.

I'd also suggest that you request that this thread be deleted as it could/might be used against you. It certainly won't help.

- Rob

Agree with Alien, great points...

 

[invincible]

appleagency - Last Activity: 01-03-2012 11:15:19 AM (Thursday morning).

Is anyone else going to bother rewriting what's already been posted, just in a different form, or is the general consensus that everything has now been covered?

I think this would be a good thread to bookmark and revisit at various points in the future (assuming it's still here).

 

[Jambo]

appleagency - Last Activity: 01-03-2012 11:15:19 AM (Thursday morning).

Is anyone else going to bother rewriting what's already been posted, just in a different form, or is the general consensus that everything has now been covered?

I think this would be a good thread to bookmark and revisit at various points in the future (assuming it's still here).

Just one more from me.....

You'd have to be pretty thick or desperate to sell it for anything less than six-figures if everything is as it appears.

Not sure I agree with that. Apple do have a history of pissing money about but I really think the OP will struggle to sell to anyone other than Apple Inc. I mentioned earlier Apple have applied for a European Community trademark in almost every class. To put that in to perspective that's classes:

01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45

And covers almost every industry. The domain can only be sold to someone (other than Apple) operating in an industry that isn't covered and has no glimmer of overlapping in to an industry that is.

As it stands I don't think not having the domain is costing Apple too much so I'm not sure they'd pay 6 figures for it, especially if they've not made ANY offers for it to this point. (maybe they have but not that we know of)

It looks like Apple are just waiting for the OP to make a mistake.

I don't think he could sell the business as a whole as the domain is registered to the OP personally so if he is self employed he is just going to be selling assets. The domain is then exposed to legal challenge under any of the registered classes (that's if the registrations are accepted of course). Any non Apple Inc buyer is taking a MASSIVE risk and I think the only thing keeping the domain with the OP is that he registered before any relevant trademark was/would be registered.

So I just think if Apple don't necessarily need it, it's not doing them any harm and is unlikely to fall in to the hands of anyone else, why pay 6 figures for it? I guess crazier things have happened. Just look at The Beatles (Apple Corps) case.....

 

[invincible]

Just one more from me.....

I accept everything you said that I have snipped.

It looks like Apple are just waiting for the OP to make a mistake.

Maybe, but they have never had any reason to believe that he would given his 14+ years of legitimate use so I feel it is more likely that they simply don't care very much. Of course if he turned it into a computer sales site then I'm sure they'd change their mind very quickly (I'd be interested to look at a copy of the web server logs, if there are any, and compare them to Apple's IP ranges in the ARIN database to see if they ever visit the site).

I don't think he could sell the business as a whole as the domain is registered to the OP personally so if he is self employed he is just going to be selling assets.

Even though the domain name is registered to an individual, there's enough evidence to demonstrate that it has been used by Apple Agency since at least 1998. Based on this I cannot see a problem with it being transferred to Apple Agency Limited (which appears to be the name of the company on face value if you look up "apple agency limited" on Google). Then the company could be sold in whole or in part if the shareholders so wished.

The domain is then exposed to legal challenge under any of the registered classes (that's if the registrations are accepted of course). Any non Apple Inc buyer is taking a MASSIVE risk and I think the only thing keeping the domain with the OP is that he registered before any relevant trademark was/would be registered.

Yes, hence why only an existing entity with rights to use "Apple" in trade (i.e. the two obvious) could realistically obtain it or someone acquiring Apple Agency itself (imho).

So I just think if Apple don't necessarily need it, it's not doing them any harm and is unlikely to fall in to the hands of anyone else, why pay 6 figures for it? I guess crazier things have happened. Just look at The Beatles (Apple Corps) case.....

Those two had much more money to fling at each other.

 

[Jambo]

Even though the domain name is registered to an individual, there's enough evidence to demonstrate that it has been used by Apple Agency since at least 1998. Based on this I cannot see a problem with it being transferred to Apple Agency Limited (which appears to be the name of the company on face value if you look up "apple agency limited" on Google). Then the company could be sold in whole or in part if the shareholders so wished.

I think there is even a risk there unless it is done before any of that list of classes is registered. I expect class 42 might cover some of the work they carry out at Apple Agency and it would be a transfer of an asset from one legal entity to another, the owner is no longer the same. Perhaps Nominet may take the view that there is no bad faith as it is a change of business structure (or something) but if it went to court it may be a different story. I think the registration date would no longer be a factor in any case and the limited companies acquisition date would become the date in question

It would definitely be an interesting case. Have you ever seen any disputes that have arisen out of a transfer from an individual to a limited company they represent? I actually have a similar situation where I have a domain I believe to be stuck in my company. Although it didn't when I registered it the domain now includes a trademark and I think if I transfer it to myself or a new company I am opening I will probably lose it.

 

[invincible]

I think there is even a risk there unless it is done before any of that list of classes is registered. I expect class 42 might cover some of the work they carry out at Apple Agency and it would be a transfer of an asset from one legal entity to another, the owner is no longer the same. Perhaps Nominet may take the view that there is no bad faith as it is a change of business structure (or something) but if it went to court it may be a different story. I think the registration date would no longer be a factor in any case and the limited companies acquisition date would become the date in question

It would definitely be an interesting case. Have you ever seen any disputes that have arisen out of a transfer from an individual to a limited company they represent? I actually have a similar situation where I have a domain I believe to be stuck in my company. Although it didn't when I registered it the domain now includes a trademark and I think if I transfer it to myself or a new company I am opening I will probably lose it.

Okay, it's an interesting one to explore. So to recap I am proposing that the individual registrant should consider transferring apple.co.uk into the name of Apple Agency Limited (which without me checking Companies House, appears to be the name of the entity that trades through the web site). I assume the individual registrant is closely connected with Apple Agency Limited (again without checking, I cannot confirm this). If the transfer was made and everything else carried on as it is now, with Apple Agency Limited operating with its current directors, shareholders and staff, doing the same kind of trade, what has really changed? In my view nothing, other than an administrative tidy up. The domain name remains the instrument being used with the trade that Apple Agency Limited does business in. How a domain name is used matters in respect of a dispute, rather than who uses it.

One step beyond the above would be for the directors and shareholders to change, such as if a sale of Apple Agency Limited occurred. If that occurred, perhaps because the agency was acquired by a bigger competitor in the normal course of business, then again nothing has really changed as long as the domain name is still used in the manner it has always been. That would be up to the new owner to ensure because the prior owner would hopefully be sipping mojitos (or having the much needed op and then sipping mojitos) on a beach into the sunset, for example.

I don't see why any court or the DRS would find the above transfers, which would be done in the normal course of business, abusive given no change of use would be occurring. I'd still suggest taking legal advice but on the face of it I don't see a problem. IANAL though!

I don't recall any DRS cases as a result of a simple change of ownership but where the use of the domain name was also not changed. In respect of this situation, if the current individual registrant happens to be a director and a shareholder in Apple Agency Limited then I'd suggest that the link is so close that they could be considered one and the same. As I've previously mentioned there is evidence of 14+ years of Apple Agency trading with the domain name in its present form which would work in favour of the business.

I'd have thought that selling the limited company with its goodwill together with the domain name to a larger agency, for example, might be a good option if the two obvious "Apples" didn't express much interest. If I was in the market for such a company, buying one that had legitimate interest in the apple.co.uk domain name would certainly catch my attention (even removing my "domainer" hat). Of course I'd take decent legal advice.

Why don't you take legal advice for your situation. Without knowing all the facts it is difficult to comment.

 

[Jambo]

If the transfer was made and everything else carried on as it is now, with Apple Agency Limited operating with its current directors, shareholders and staff, doing the same kind of trade, what has really changed?

The legal owner of the domain name has changed. I know what you are saying but look at this scenario. Let's say Apple Inc have their community trademark application registered on Monday.

Then on Tuesday the OP transfers the apple.co.uk domain to Apple Agency Ltd.

I believe Apple Inc will then accuse Apple Agency Ltd of infringing their trademark in class 42 as it was registered earlier than Apple Agency Ltd's acquisition of apple.co.uk. I think the OP being a director of Apple Agency Ltd will bear no influence as both are separate legal entities.

I'm just saying class 42 for the sake of the example as it includes "graphic design for the compilation of web pages on the Internet" so they may argue that's what the illustrations are being used for. But they may find a more appropriate infringement. They actually do already have a trademark registered covering class 42.

Why don't you take legal advice for your situation. Without knowing all the facts it is difficult to comment.

Yes, I am seeking further legal advice on my situation but it's quite complicated. I'm looking at challenging the trademark that was registered too and made an interesting discovery tonight. Unfortunately I don't have Apple's legal budget though.

 

[invincible]

The legal owner of the domain name has changed. I know what you are saying but look at this scenario. Let's say Apple Inc have their community trademark application registered on Monday.

Then on Tuesday the OP transfers the apple.co.uk domain to Apple Agency Ltd.

I believe Apple Inc will then accuse Apple Agency Ltd of infringing their trademark in class 42 as it was registered earlier than Apple Agency Ltd's acquisition of apple.co.uk. I think the OP being a director of Apple Agency Ltd will bear no influence as both are separate legal entities.

A very quick search of Google finds Apple Agency Limited's incorporation date being within 1997. Without going through pages of evidence, let's presume that there is plenty of evidence from the incorporation date demonstrating Apple Agency Limited's use of the apple.co.uk domain name as it is being used now. That is despite the individual, who I am presuming is heavily connected with Apple Agency Limited, being the actual registrant. A change of registrant will not wipe out that prior usage by Apple Agency Limited. The current registrant could, hypothetically, be at deaths door or retiring, so could elect to transfer the domain name to another individual (e.g. partner) involved with Apple Agency Limited. Again the usage doesn't change, therefore I don't believe just a registrant change would "reset" things and present a case of trade mark infringement. In my opinion this is no different to the existing registrant deciding to roll the domain name into a limited company because it isn't unusual, or unfair, for any sole trader to decide to do that whilst remaining involved in the same course of business. Sole traders convert over to LTD's all the time.

I could probably dig out plenty of examples of trade marks granted on terms where a similar domain name had been registered and put to genuine use prior. If the use doesn't change I don't believe that an existing registrant can suddenly find themselves with a business they cannot sell as a going concern just because it is associated with a domain name that is similar to trade marks registered after its inception.

 

[Jambo]

A very quick search of Google finds Apple Agency Limited's incorporation date being within 1997. Without going through pages of evidence, let's presume that there is plenty of evidence from the incorporation date demonstrating Apple Agency Limited's use of the apple.co.uk domain name as it is being used now. That is despite the individual, who I am presuming is heavily connected with Apple Agency Limited, being the actual registrant. A change of registrant will not wipe out that prior usage by Apple Agency Limited. The current registrant could, hypothetically, be at deaths door or retiring, so could elect to transfer the domain name to another individual (e.g. partner) involved with Apple Agency Limited. Again the usage doesn't change, therefore I don't believe just a registrant change would "reset" things and present a case of trade mark infringement. In my opinion this is no different to the existing registrant deciding to roll the domain name into a limited company because it isn't unusual, or unfair, for any sole trader to decide to do that whilst remaining involved in the same course of business. Sole traders convert over to LTD's all the time.

I could probably dig out plenty of examples of trade marks granted on terms where a similar domain name had been registered and put to genuine use prior. If the use doesn't change I don't believe that an existing registrant can suddenly find themselves with a business they cannot sell as a going concern just because it is associated with a domain name that is similar to trade marks registered after its inception.

I'm not sure that the company having used the domain is relevant. It doesn't own the domain. To be stuck with a business they can't sell (along with the domain) would be the (unfortunate) fault of the domain owner. They should have transferred it to the company much earlier if they wanted it to be an asset of the company.

Maybe they would get away with it since it is clear Apple Inc is not in the business of commissioning illustrations but I think it is pretty risky and could get messy. Who knows what tricks their legal team have been cooking up?!

 

[invincible]

I'm not sure that the company having used the domain is relevant. It doesn't own the domain.

I think the opposite and consider it very relevant. What if one company licensed the use of a domain name from another company and then eventually decided to buy the registration? Based on your reasoning, if a trade mark had been granted in between, they couldn't. That would be legally ridiculous. In respect of apple.co.uk and Apple Agency Ltd, effectively the domain name is being licensed from the individual registrant by the LTD.

To be stuck with a business they can't sell (along with the domain) would be the (unfortunate) fault of the domain owner. They should have transferred it to the company much earlier if they wanted it to be an asset of the company.

I don't think "fault" comes into it. Assets and business get acquired in the normal course of business. If there wasn't ever a LTD and the individual registrant was simply running a "trading as" design agency business called, for example, John Smith t/a Apple Agency, there is nothing to prevent him deciding to "sell" the business to another individual. He should be able to do so without prejudice. Therefore if Peter Jones buys "Apple Agency" from John Smith, the registrant would become Peter Jones t/a Apple Agency. In doing that there's no change to the use of the domain name. Despite the change of registrant I don't believe the case for trade mark infringement is "reset" otherwise registrants wouldn't be able to sell their existing online businesses if someone else had come along in the meantime and gained a trademark in a matching category.

Maybe they would get away with it since it is clear Apple Inc is not in the business of commissioning illustrations but I think it is pretty risky and could get messy. Who knows what tricks their legal team have been cooking up?!

Your argument appears to be based around your belief that if a change of registrant occurs, the case for trade mark infringement is "reset". I believe the case would be based on change of use, not change of registrant, even if a trade mark existed that pre-dated the change of registrant.

 

[anthony]

The registrant details have been changed recently ...

http://who.is/domain_archive-uk/apple.co.uk/

Given that the company itself is still active, looks as is the Director has tired of waiting for an approach via the company itself and is now hoping he'll be approached as an individual. Can you imagine the frustration of no offer over all those years, no surprise that he's changed the reg status to see if Apple might bite.

 

[invincible]

Given that the company itself is still active, looks as is the Director has tired of waiting for an approach via the company itself and is now hoping he'll be approached as an individual. Can you imagine the frustration of no offer over all those years, no surprise that he's changed the reg status to see if Apple might bite.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that because all he has done is remove the t/a and opt his address out of the WHOIS. In respect of removing the t/a I am not sure if it is legally possible to be "John Smith t/a Whatever Design Ltd". It is possible to be "John Smith t/a Whatever Design" but, imho, not "Whatever Design Ltd". In respect of a limited company "Whatever Design Ltd" is an independent legal entity and cannot be a t/a vehicle. All IMHO. I may be wrong.

Him being able to opt the address out of the WHOIS, as an IND registrant, came about as a result of the removal of the t/a. He wouldn't have been able to do that if he hadn't changed to an IND. Ironically the domain name is still being used "for trade" so I don't think he is actually entitled to opt the address out of the WHOIS.

 

[anthony]

There are people among us that look for and report domains whose registration details infringe Nominets T&C's. Nominet then write to the registrant before suspending and ultimately deleting names that aren't brought into line. Perhaps that was the reason.

In which case I suggest someone may have pointed out the anomaly to Nominet, prompting the registrant to correct the whois. The company was only registered in 1997, so he seems to have been the registrant from the prenom era.

 

[invincible]

In which case I suggest someone may have pointed out the anomaly to Nominet, prompting the registrant to correct the whois. The company was only registered in 1997, so he seems to have been the registrant from the prenom era.

Maybe he simply made a hosting change at Fasthosts (note the tag change from FASTHOSTS to LIVEDOMAINS - both are Fasthosts Internet Ltd tags - which might have occurred as part of a hosting product change) and at the same time decided he'd like to opt his address out of the WHOIS. I don't think this has anything to do with signalling anything because the contact details are still on the web site. I doubt he's anything like a "professional registrant", therefore WHOIS details could have been changed with little thought behind them.

 

[Jambo]

I think the opposite and consider it very relevant. What if one company licensed the use of a domain name from another company and then eventually decided to buy the registration? Based on your reasoning, if a trade mark had been granted in between, they couldn't. That would be legally ridiculous. In respect of apple.co.uk and Apple Agency Ltd, effectively the domain name is being licensed from the individual registrant by the LTD.

Yeah I think if you are using the mark in commerce then you would have rights. My concern was that the company may already be infringing on Apple Inc's trademark. But it looks like this was not the case as Apple would have taken legal action whilst the domain was owned by the company which we now know was the case quite recently.

It's interesting to see that in the whois archive the registrant is the individual and not the Ltd company. I wonder what difference that makes if any.

Anyway it's a really complicated case which has MELTED my brain! I'll defo keep an eye on it!

 

[eddieb]

Also consider making a list of other potential suitors because it doesn't matter who you sell the domain name to as long as you are happy with your return. Apple Computer may not be interested at a price that suits you.

Here's another suitor to start you off with: http://www.applecorpsltd.com/

I would approach these first, then approach Apple Inc

 

[Bailey]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread - but lets not doubt that the Apple reference we all know so well (no not the bloody fruit) would indeed love to just add this to their holding - just as a common sense redirect, if nothing more.

Asking Apple inc if they would indeed be interested is likely to get a "polite - How much?" response. So ball stays firmly in your court on this one.

Do Keep us updated

On some of the comments regarding ownership details. (From Company to an individual ownership) I believe "from my own experience that transfering the domain and therefore rights of ownership comes down to a number of elements and isn't necessarily the can of worms that some portray. Most of the obvious questions just roll/role out from common-sense, particularly if someone has held a directorship

 

[newbie]

Mmm.. Lovely domain... I'd be nervous though, one wrong move and a DRS may hit the mat. With unlimited budget for experts and appeals etc... I'd be nervous but a nice name!

 

[anderow]

Mmm.. Lovely domain... I'd be nervous though, one wrong move and a DRS may hit the mat. With unlimited budget for experts and appeals etc... I'd be nervous but a nice name!

Indeed.
I think it's a bit of a poison chalice this name.
Apple may buy it, on the other hand they may not be interested, or if they are annoyed they will get their lawyers involved...which could be very expensive indeed for the seller.