Discussion in 'Domain Name Disputes' started by bobby sands, Nov 25, 2005.
any one else think this is an injustice?
nope i agree
Bah bloody domain squatters.
but didn't he register it way before apple had even thought of itunes? i thought he regged it for another idea and apple just bullied him out of it because they could? maybe i'm wrong but if that is the case that is pretty unfair... IMHO
Its not a question of when he registered it but rather what he did with it.. besides the guys a twat.
He may be a twat - but IF (I don't know the exact dates) he registered the domain before Apple started up iTunes, why was he made to hand it over?
If the law was right, Apple would of had to give him shed loads of money for using the iTunes name surely?
If this case is anything to go by, people will stop buying domain names incase they think of a domain they like and some big name company uses it, sues the ass of the little guy for the name.
I got to admit if it is Apple having a go due to the amount of money they have and the big legal eagles, and the guy did buy the domain name *without* knowing that Apple were going to start iTunes then it does indeed stink.
I believe that the domain name was forwarded to Napster, a competitor of Apple iTunes' service, after Apple had launched their service. Whether he'd initially registered the domain name entirely in good faith, or not, by using it in a way that could cause confusion to users of Apple's iTunes service, by directing the traffic [of the domain name] to a competitor of Apple's iTunes service, I believe he may have fallen fowl of both 3(a)(i)(A) and 3(a)(i)(C) of the DRS Policy.
Just because you registered a domain name prior to another party making use of a similar or identical term, you don't have the right to ride on the back of that service by using your domain name for that purpose.
Read the case and see if he did the above. I've forgotten the exact details.
Your right he did forward traffic to Napster for a period of 4 days in November 2004:
i have a large UK car retail store's .com domain (they have the .co.uk) currently parked at sedo.
from what i hear (from an insider) the store is going international soon so the theory is they will need the .com domain.
will parking the domain with sedo (in effect forwarding the domain name traffic to the companies competitors advertising with sedo) have any come down should they want to persue legal action (like it did in this case)?
How could we know? We don't know what the domain name you have is. We also don't know whether the other party have a registered trademark and we don't know what the advertising links on display are for.
If it's carsforsale.com and they have carsforsale.co.uk, it's pretty descriptive. If it's a name that is distinctly them, and they can prove they have a registered trademark or a common law trademark, you might have a problem.
To give the smallest amount of information and expect an answer on this is unrealistic.
Why are you talking about .com's ?
If you own nobbybob.co.uk that does not mean you own nobbybob the product.
So you have no right to sell nobbybob the product on your nobbybob.co.uk site. And if you tried to you would get threats of legal action and the domain taken away by a DRS.
So you have no right to sell nobbybob the product on your nobbybob.co.uk site. And if you tried to you would get threats of legal action and the domain taken away by a DRS.[/QUOTE]
Porsche lost this one,
Good read mate - Thanks for posting
"The disputed domain names are <porsche-buy.com> and <porschebuy.com>"
What dont you understand? We are talking about .CO.UK DOMAINS and NOMINET.
What has anything you've said have to do with this thread.
I didn't start this thread.
"i have a large UK car retail store's .com domain "
"If it's carsforsale.com and they have carsforsale.co.uk,"
"If you own nobbybob.co.uk that does not mean you own nobbybob the product."
I didn't say this, I said whoever owns nobbybob the product doesn't automatically reach back and own the .com/.co.uk domains.
Separate names with a comma.