itunes.co.uk is now apple's...

[bobby sands]

any one else think this is an injustice?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/25/cohen_itunes/

 

[Paullas]

nope... .........................

 

[domainscot]

nope i agree

 

[aquanuke]

Bah bloody domain squatters.

 

[bobby sands]

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

 

[aquanuke]

Its not a question of when he registered it but rather what he did with it.. besides the guys a twat.

 

[justahost]

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.

Ry

 

[meinthecorner]

Your right he did forward traffic to Napster for a period of 4 days in November 2004:

http://www.nominet.net/DisputeResolution/Decisions/Drs02223Itunes.html

*
n 14 October 2004, Mr Benjamin Cohen of the Respondent sent an email to Napster enquiring "Will you be running an affiliate programme for napster.co.uk as you do for napster.com? We have a lot of traffic for some legacy music domains that we own but no longer operate including itunes.co.uk (originally an MP3 search engine in 1999)" (reference: C2). Napster is a competitor of the Complainant that specialises in music download and the associated software download.

*
On 19 October 2004, Napster replied to Mr Benjamin Cohen, recommending contacting Commission Junction (who would be managing the affiliate programme for Napster). Mr Benjamin Cohen then sent an email to Napster enquiring "Would you be at all interested in the itunes.co.uk domain name. We own it and registered the name two years before Apple launched the ipod.", and Napster replied that they were not interested (reference: C2).

*
On 3 November 2004 itunes.co.uk started to redirect users to napster.co.uk (reference: R4). Following representations from the Complainant, this "redirection to Napster" was halted on 7 November 2004 (reference: R3). At this time, itunes.co.uk had about 4,000-5,000 unique visitors per day (reference: C8).

*
On 7 November 2004 itunes.co.uk started to redirect users to quickquid.com (reference: R4). This redirection is still in place.

*
On 15 November 2004 the Complainant offered to purchase the Domain Name for $5,000. The offer was refused (reference: C5).

*
On 17 November 2004 the Respondent offered to sell the Domain Name for £50,000. The offer was refused (reference: C5).

On 7 December 2004 the following interview took place (reference: C7):

Radio5 Live interviewer: "What do you use it [the Domain Name] for?".

Mr Benjamin Cohen: "Originally it was being used for cyberbritain's music search engine. That no longer exists. At the moment it just forwards to quickquid.com.".

Radio5 Live interviewer: "So you are not really using it.".

Mr Benjamin Cohen: "No. It's not a core part of my business...".

Radio5 Live interviewer: "You did not know Apple were going to launch.".

Mr Benjamin Cohen: "No. We had a generic domain name because......... company trade search of the word TUNES and when you search for a domain name you want to register it suggests alternatives, it often puts an I or an E before an A...".

 

[jonno]

intresting...

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)?

 

[texidriver]

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.

WRONG..... If I register www.nobbybob.com, I own it . FOREVER if I choose.

snooze you loose.

If you start a company called NobbyBob, tough. you don't get nobbybob.com
If you make a movie called "nobbybob", you have NO right to my domain.
If you get a trademark for the word "nobbybob" later, you do not get my domain.
Remember if you write a book you do not OWN the title. "The Bible"
Want to make a movie, see who has the "trademark" for KING KONG!


http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-0782.html

"The issue of whether renewal of a registration made in bad faith can convert a name originally registered in good faith to a name registered in bad faith was addressed head-on in Weatherall Green & Smith v. Everymedia.com, WIPO Case No. D2000-1528. The Panel in that case, like the Panel here, found no evidence that the original registration was obtained in bad faith. The Panel did find that the registration was renewed in bad faith and that at the time of the renewal the domain name was being used in bad faith. However, even with this evidence, the Panel did not find a violation of the UDRP"

 

[aquanuke]

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.

 

[texidriver]

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,

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0481.html

 

[SF]

Good read mate - Thanks for posting

 

[aquanuke]

"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.

 

[texidriver]

"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.

see:- http://www.nic.uk/DisputeResolution/Decisions/Drs02630Electricmotors.html