“Apple has won a legal dispute to force a UK firm it accused of cybersquatting to hand over the domain ownership for the iTunes.co.uk web address. Apple issued proceedings against CyberBritain in December last year through the UK domain registration authority Nominet, claiming ownership of the domain should be transferred to Apple because it holds the iTunes trademark,’ Andy McCue reports for Silicon.com.
“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’s trademark application was published back in December 2000 and some three years before its online music download service launched,” McCue reports. “Cohen said he is currently considering his next move, which may be an appeal either directly to Nominet or to the High Court. Until the appeal Cohen maintains he will continue to use iTunes.co.uk as a redirect to his own company’s shopping website.”
Full article here.
Oh…
Good news for Apple, terrible news for people’s rights to domains that they registered before the big guys came along and used the name.
This sucks.
It only sucks if the guy had been using the site for legit purposes. As it is, it’s nothing more than a redirect to a page that does not even contain the word iTunes in it.
It’s squatting. And it should be illegal to squat and hold a URL hostage for big money.
But explain this to me?
How is it squatting, if he registered it before Apple decided to use the name for themselves?
I don’t know what constitutes cybersquatting. What I would liken it to is the people who see an unheard of deal on, say, a video card at ChumpUSA and buy 10-15 of them so they can sell them on eBay at a huge profit. They had no legit reason to purchase a mass quantity other than to make a buck. Are they are smart capitalists, opportunists, or squatters? As they used to say on the Miller Lite commercials, “you make the call”! My 2/100ths of a buck.
Gary
iTunes wasn’t out but iMac certainly was. He thought iMac, hmmmmm. Then he squatted on every iName he could think of.
If that is not cybersquatting I don’t know what is.
iTunes hadn’t been delivered yet, but was announced in the US prior to the UK domain being registered. The guy was speculating iTunes would become international. I think if the guy had been using the domain for something other than a redirecter, he’d have a chance.
This might come as a bit of a shock to Mac fans but occasionally Apple products, and the names of these products, leak before the actual unveiling.
Earthshaking, I know.
All your domains are belong to us.
If anyone is a cybersquatter it’s this guy. Don’t have any sympathy for him.
If you want to see an interesting debate about the whole thing have a read of this thread:
http://www.macworld.com/forums/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=newsthread&Number=278537&page=0&view=collapsed
David
Sorry the link didn’t work
search MacWorld.com for
Apple tangles with owner of itunes.co.uk
David
If you copy and paste it it works just fine.
I think squatting, cyber- or otherwise, is when you register and attempt to retain the name of a product, but you don’t actually produce that product. It does not exist. You can claim that you are holding the idea of the product for a certain amount of time, but if, say, three years go by and you are apparently no closer to having anything besides a name, you are probably squatting.
I have heard (important clarifier; I have no idea if it’s true) that there’s a guy who, 20 years ago, trademarked the names New Jersey Jets and New Jersey Giants. Supposedly the NFL has flirted with the idea of changing the names of one of its New York teams, both of which play in New Jersey (similar to what the NBA and NHL have done). But every time they approach this guy to buy the rights from him, he demands a hundred zillion dollars and then the NFL drops the idea for awhile. So is this an urban legend, or is this guy the king of squatters?
Gary: The problem with squatting is that squatters hold unique URLs which no one else can use. They then charge outrageous sums of money, often on a lease plan instead of selling outright. They are the highwaymen of the 21st century — or the trolls running the toll bridge, if you will.
Whereas someone buying an item cheap and selling it at exorbitant prices may be unethical, still it does not have the long-term crippling effects on companies and organizations which cannot use obviously related URLs without paying extragent fees to people who are not doing anything with the URLs except using them as a get-rich-quick scheme. This is not only unethical, it also diverts a lot of money into the hands of people who have too much time on their hands and are not producing anything worthwhile for society — and takes the money from companies and organizations (charities, sometimes) that are doing things much more worthwhile.
All your base base base…..