Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Businesses The Almighty Buck Apple

Apple Threatens iTunes.co.uk Owner 354

Posted by timothy from the all-wide-eyed-innocence dept.
derxob writes "According to The Register, Apple has accused Benjamin Cohen, the 'dotcom millionare' of being a 'cybersquatter.' He registered ITunes.co.uk on Nov. 7 2000, and Apple trademarked ITunes on Dec. 8, 2000. They have taken him to the UK registry Nominet and are demanding that he give up the domain."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Threatens iTunes.co.uk Owner More

Apple Threatens iTunes.co.uk Owner

Comments Filter:
  • Post a picture of some hillbilly with a guitar, with the caption saying "I tunes my guitar!"

    One thing I wanted to try once to piss off Microsoft was to get a picture of some swarthy Latino guy with his shirt off, and post a caption saying, "This is Amil. Isn't he hot?"

    (think about it...)

    • He should try to get their trademark signed over!! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @05:21AM (#11030166)
      It's clear that he's been using Itunes for his online binary download product before Apple ripped him off and registered a copycat trademark. This means that the registration was made without due dilligence etc. etc. etc. Just because it isn't registered, doesn't mean a trademark isn't valid.

      He should try to get the itunes trademark signed over.

      • Re:He should try to get their trademark signed ove (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        On his own website, [quickquid.com] he acknowledges that Apple had applied for the trademark before he registered the domain:
        Apple Computer Inc applied for a trademark for the name "ITUNES" on the 27th October 2000.
        If anything, HIS registration was made without due diligence.
        • Proud To Be An Anonymous Coward.

      • Re:He should try to get their trademark signed ove (Score:5, Interesting)

        by GauteL ( 29207 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @07:22AM (#11030545)
        iTunes was released by Apple in January 2001 and filed as a trademark in October 2000, before he registered his domain. iTunes.co.uk was registred in 1998, a long time before itunes.co.uk. It is however not clear whether it was owned by Apple before october 2000.

        Given the huge Apple rumour mill, it is not impossible that the product name was even known a few months before the launch.

        This is not clear and should be something for the lawyers. You seem to have just as much bias as Apple fans.

        • Re:He should try to get their trademark signed ove (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          iTunes.co.uk was registred in 1998, a long time before itunes.co.uk. It is however not clear whether it was owned by Apple before october 2000.

          That sentence doesn't make sense. The DNS system isn't case sensitive. You must mean itunes.com was registered in 1998.

        • How do you get that it was registered in 1998? The WHOIS shows 11/7/00.

        • Re:He should try to get their trademark signed ove (Score:4, Informative)

          by julesh ( 229690 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @09:52AM (#11031283)
          This is not clear and should be something for the lawyers.

          The interesting thing about Nominet's dispute resolution system is that there will be no lawyers involved (unless one of the parties chooses to use a lawyer as their representative). It's an informal sit around the table and work out the problems system, decided based more on the merits of the facts as presented than on arcane rules and regulation. You can't just win by sending in a good lawyer.

          Thus Findlay Steele Associates [fsa.co.uk] got to keep their domain (worth seeing the disclaimer they've got on the front page!), and I see little reason Mr Cohen shouldn't keep it.

          Incidentally, is this the sex.com guy? The name sounds familiar.

        • Re:He should try to get their trademark signed ove (Score:5, Insightful)

          by WareW01f ( 18905 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @10:34AM (#11031615)
          Given the huge Apple rumour mill, it is not impossible that the product name was even known a few months before the launch.

          INOLB to my knowledge, this means nothing. If Apple was going to launch it, the name should have been a 'Trade Secret' before the Trademark was applied for. If a trade secret is leaked, it's not a secret any more. The whole 'dibs' mentality does not apply here. If I found out that Apple was going to release an iGlass product and I registered the trademark before them, tough for them! Now if they made it a trade secret and prove that I had access to the info and was under some agreement to keep it under wraps they could try and nail me with something.

          Personally I think this whole trademark crap is out of hand. Even more so when you have these brilliant marketing people coming up with simple schemes like put an 'i' in front of everything, or Micro$oft'$ brilliant 'Word' (at least they tried a bit with Outlook)

          Apple has some good original idea's, but not always. Note how after Apple went after eMachines for their iMac clone (which was some what of a valid case) they go on to come out with an 'eMac', again, brilliant!

          I think someone at Webster needs to claim prior art and end the madness.

  • So which is worse? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Phidoux ( 705500 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @05:16AM (#11030145) Homepage
    Cybersquatting or intimidation?

    • Re:So which is worse? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Palal ( 836081 )
      Apple had a similar problem with the 'iMac' trademark. Seems they need to get their act together and start registerring their trademarks before they release the product. But this doesn't even compare to Microsoft's hicup of forgetting to register hotmail.co.uk !!!

      • Re:So which is worse? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by miu ( 626917 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @05:27AM (#11030197) Homepage Journal
        You have to remember that this was early 2000 also, everything was still e-this and i-that, it is very possible that this guy came up with the name independent of any knowledge of Apple's music service.

        I'd think Apple would want to stay far far away from Trademark and name disputes wrt the music biz - doesn't Apple Records still have lawsuits going because Apple Computers violated their agreement to stay out of the music biz with that name?

        • "itunes" isn't "apple" eh:P?

          as far as i can tell msot of their ads on TV don't mention appy, just ipod + itunes = whatever ahd stuff. So maybe they are keeping "apple" out of it for the most part?
        • You have to remember that this was early 2000 also, everything was still e-this and i-that, it is very possible that this guy came up with the name independent of any knowledge of Apple's music service.

          RTFA - there was no Apple music service at the time.

          As a press release put out by Cohen makes clear,

          he registered the domain "itunes.co.uk" on 7 November 2000, and two days later made use of it by forwarding it to a music search engine service at his CyberBritain site.

          Apple, on the other hand, only had

          • Re:So which is worse? (Score:3, Insightful)

            by miu ( 626917 )
            Yeah I did read the article and I'm aware that there was no running iTunes service at that point, but there were registered domains (and probably rumors) - at that point it was very easy to do extensive domain listings (even for domains with no dns). Discovering domains registered to large companies and grabbing equivalent or similar names in other registries was actually a mini-industry for a short time.

            I'm giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, but it is entirely possible that he was aware that Apple

        • "I'd think Apple would want to stay far far away from Trademark and name disputes wrt the music biz - doesn't Apple Records still have lawsuits going because Apple Computers violated their agreement to stay out of the music biz with that name?"

          Apple Records doesn't sell musical instruments, non-linear editors, or MIDI devices. When Apple (Computer) first got into a dispute with Apple (Music) the line in the sand was "music" as though anything remotely musical was part of Apple (Music)'s business. Only when
      • " Seems they need to get their act together and start registerring their trademarks before they release the product"

        Erm, they did.

        They submitted their trademark application in October 2000. Before this guy started his site.

        Hell, he even admits that himself if you read his site!
      • Seems they need to get their act together and start registerring their trademarks before they release the product.

        They did. According to WikiPedia, iTunes 1.0 was released nearly a year after they registered the trademark.
    • Cybersquatting.

      Since it's a form of intimidation as well.

      I rate it right up there with SPAM.

      I'm sure Apple informally asked 'nicely' before embarking on this course of action.

      Going to the site itunes.co.uk you will see no mention of the iTunes used in the domain in the page heading or title.

    • How much business could Apple be loosing through misdirections to this site? Lets find out [alexa.com].

      Small traffic...

      Hmmmmmmm

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @05:19AM (#11030158)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:hmm... (Score:2, Funny)

      by rishistar ( 662278 )
      longhorn.....why that'd be a great name for a pr0n site!
    • He knew it was going to be registered, if I went out and registered 'longhorn.co.uk' or something , then i'd expect to get taken to court. I appreciate that's a bad example though, before any one starts jumping up and down :)

      Actually, I doubt you would be taken to court, or even approached by Microsoft at all. MS doesn't register their code-names for products (Windows ME a possible exception - the code-name was Millennium, they decided to stick with it for some reason). One reason is possibly due to the

  • Not a squatter (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @05:20AM (#11030160)
    RTFA, he registered it before Apple even thought about creating iTunes and he did use it to redirect to his search engine.
    • Yeah. Apple is in the wrong on this one. They shouldn't go around suing people for ex post facto trademark infringement.

    • Re:Not a squatter (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sulka ( 4250 ) <sulka@ i k i . fi> on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @05:54AM (#11030302) Homepage Journal
      Yeah, right.

      Please answer the following question: what made him think people would use the itunes domain address for searching his search engine in the first place? Has he advertised the domain name in public?

      If the only use for the domain has been to catch anyone who thinks there's an iTunes.co.uk service and he hasn't advertised any service under that name, it's quite clear he's been relying on someone launching a service with the name.

      I've seen a ton of sites being captured for the use of directing users to a "search engine". Most of these engines are either blatant marketing ploys or virus-spreading sites. If you've checked the Quick Quid site, you'll see it's mostly the former. If you sign up, you're allowing your address to be sold to third parties who may contact you with just about any means, including messages to your mobile!

      Exactly how is this service described with the name "iTunes"?
    • Surely you don't believe that Apple would come up with a concept, go through the process of OKing it, and trademarking it in less than 1 month and 1 day.

    • Doesn't really matter, does it? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Trillan ( 597339 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @06:09AM (#11030348) Homepage Journal

      I checked this out while it was still news, before Slashdot ran the story. Then, the site featured a giant picture of the iPod front and center with "GET AN IPOD FREE!" Yup, another stupid scam page.

      No, this guy is not innocent. Best case is that this guy is a lying weasel of a spammer who latched on to the domain name out of thousands. Worst case is he heard a rumor. Either way, once iTunes was publicly announced he clearly violated trademark law in deliberately causing confusion amongst consumers about what the website represented.

      This guy is abusing Apple's trademark to harvest email addresses. Whether or not he got there before Apple registered the site is irrelevant because it *is* registered and he does not have a legitimate use for the name.

      Also, Apple had been working on iTunes for some time before the registration date. Do you think a new product magically appears in a month? (Even thought it was based on SoundJam, it still represented many changes.)

      What has happened is that the guy has realized he will lose, so he went crying to the media and changed the site a little so it isn't so clear a violation. Morons like you ate it up. In a few days, after he think he's milked the free publicity as much as he can risk, he'll sell out to Apple.

      I hope he doesn't -- Apple would end up with his testicles in a jar. But he will. And he'll probably use the opportunity to cry more tears to the media.

      • Re:Doesn't really matter, does it? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by CaptainZapp ( 182233 ) * on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @06:50AM (#11030474) Homepage
        Also, Apple had been working on iTunes for some time before the registration date. Do you think a new product magically appears in a month? (Even thought it was based on SoundJam, it still represented many changes.)

        Not that I have sympathy for the guy (I really don't know enough about the whole issue), but if Apple worked on iTunes for years, knew that they would call it iTunes and didn't register the trademark during the development phase, then they are dumber then a dim light bulb for a billion $ company.

        • Not years... the deal seems to have been made around June 2000 (when they contacted Panic about "the future of Audion"). But yeah, I agree. Assuming they had a product name at that point, they should have grabbed the domain name.

          Maybe they were concerned about letting the cat out of the bag? Either way it was stupid, and I'd wager Apple's policy for that sort of thing changed immediately. A pretty safe bet, if you look at some of the domain names Apple's registered since.

        • then they are dumber then a dim light bulb for a billion $ company

          Not to mention the iEverything nomenclature is really stupid. Come on Woz, you can do better than that.
        • You never registered upcoming products when they are a secret. That would be the stupidest thing you could possibly do. You keep it a secret until you're ready to go public. Then you make your application. And it doesn't matter if they applied or not. If they can prove that they used the name internally before what's his name then he's screwed. iTunes 1.0 was basically a new skin on SoundJam by Casady and Greene. Granted it was missing features found in SoundJam but it still wasn't anything more than
    • : RTFA

      this is slashdot, we don't go for that sort of behavior

  • Does anyone remember... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ... Mikerowesoft.com? (Was that it? Or did it have hyphens?)

  • Read the article guys (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CrackedButter ( 646746 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @05:28AM (#11030201) Homepage Journal
    This guy registered "itunes" before Apple did by one whole month and was using the site as well.

    • I read the article. I also looked at the site yesterday, before he changed it -- it was an email harvesting site that offered a "free ipod" in exchange for a variety of personal information. There was no legitimate content on it, just that pathetic phishing attempt.

      Please explain how this is a legitimate use of iTunes that does not infringe on Apple's trademarks.

      Frankly, I'm surprised Apple's first call wasn't to police. Doesn't the UK have laws against online credit card fraud?

      If he doesn't back down

  • Who had an iTunes domain first? (Doesn't matter) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shag ( 3737 ) * on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @05:28AM (#11030204) Journal
    Hmmm... looks like the itunes.com domain in the US has been registered since 1998. I'm not sure, though, whether it's been Apple's possession all that time. If not, it might be interesting to look at exactly what date it came into Apple's possession. If the date is after November 7, 2000, then yeah, he'd obviously have had to be psychic.

    That said, regardless of who did what first, Apple's almost certainly going to argue that someone else having an "iTunes" domain name in a commercial space in a country where they're offering their product and store, and that person doing something with said domain that pertains to music, is obviously cause for confusion.

    (I dare say it's more cause for confusion than Apple being called Apple and selling music, whilst at the same time the Beatles' music company is called Apple.)

  • Dig deeper (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tm2b ( 42473 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @05:46AM (#11030283) Journal
    At first glance, this would seem to be an abuse.

    Here's the thing, though - the domain [itunes.co.uk] now points at a site [quickquid.com] that specifically talks about a program "for Apple's iTunes."

    If the domain were used for something completely unrelated to Apple's program, I think Apple would be unreasonable for attacking the registration. However, the domain is instead being used to undermine Apple's specific trademark and as such is, I think, arguably fair game.

    The Register article really errs in not even mentioning this aspect.

    • Re:Dig deeper (Score:3, Informative)

      by dustinbarbour ( 721795 )
      Wait wait wait.. Where do you see him selling a program "for Apple's iTunes"? I find "Apple" on the page only once and that is within this sentence: "Join today and not only get £5 free, but also a chance to win an Apple iPod with £50 worth of iTunes for free." Certainly giving away free iPods isn't a crime. So where is his infraction? On top of that, if he domain truly weas registered back in 2000 as a previous poster noted, I'd say Apple was screwed and that, if Apple wanted the domain, they s
      • Interesting. It's changed - Item number 1 on the site when I posted that listed "Apple's iTunes" right after Ebay [sic] and, IIRC, before CDWow.

    • Re:Dig deeper (Score:2, Informative)

      by goatan ( 673464 )
      If the domain were used for something completely unrelated to Apple's program, I think Apple would be unreasonable for attacking the registration.

      Apple are unreasonable because he registered it before apple even trademarked itunes if they hadn't have been so secret about they would have a leg to stand but they don't.

      However, the domain is instead being used to undermine Apple's specific trademark and as such is, I think, arguably fair game.

      it was originally a music search engine long before Apple's it

  • Pot. Kettle. Black. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gilesx ( 525831 ) * on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @05:49AM (#11030291)
    Hmm so Microsoft do this to poor old Mike Rowe, and it's yet another example of the nasty corporate behemouth, yet when Apple do the same thing to someone who registered the domain BEFORE it was a registered Apple trademark, and they're to be praised for their actions?

    What's equally surprising is that it's not as if Apple haven't had their share of trademark issues with the record label of the same name owned by The Beatles.

    So Microsoft and The Beatles bad, Apple good? How on earth did they achieve this demi-god status amongst everyone?

  • Filing / First Use Date is What Really Counts (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ron Bennett ( 14590 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @06:19AM (#11030378) Homepage
    Filing / First Use Date is What Really Counts ...

    The UK Patent Office - Trade marks - Database
    http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/dbase/index. htm

    Filed Oct-24-2000 ... that's before Nov-07-2000 - and according to the UK Patent Office website, the database updates weekly; perhaps it didn't back then, but my guess is he knew about Apple's intended use and/or pending TM application(s).

    http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/tm/number?detailsreq ue sted=C&trademark=2249936

    Being that he's a millionaire, Apple's TM claims appear weak (my layman's opinion based upon my own experiences in domain name speculation), and he is determined to fight, Apple may eventually choose to settle for some decent size amount ... 6-figure sum USD/GBP wouldn't surprise me.

    Ron Bennett
    • I doubt that this domain was registered with the INTENT of squating on it and hoping for a big pay off. Those were heady days for i/e business ideas. Like most of those ideas this one didn't go anywhere. The site probably languished for a few years and then came the iPod followed by iTunes. By this point I can see someone making the decision to hold on to a worthless domain to recoup the investment and then some. Maybe even profit on the draw of iTunes to push some mechandise or service (scam? I withho
    • He's not a millionaire.

      When he was a teenager, he (with assistance from his daddy) set up a Jewish community website. This was at the height of the Internet bubble. It was speculated that the website would be worth millions and, hence, that young Cohen was a millionaire. He was a media darling for a while - lots of newspaper articles and I think there was a TV program...

      I was part of the dot-com scene back then and some of the stuff we were doing was related to communities and content management, so thi

  • More Corporate Bully-Boy Tactics (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Basically, prefixing "i" to the name of your site could result in letters/threats/court action from Apple's lawyers in much the same way as prefixing "easy" does from Easy.

  • Summary Judgement (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Dodger ( 10689 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @07:07AM (#11030514) Homepage
    A few observations:
    • The site that iTunes.co.uk points to is called QuickQuid.com. Cohen doesn't appear to have invested anything in building a business around the iTunes name.
    • QuickQuid.com appears to be some kind of marketing/promotional business - i.e. they persuade people to sign up with them, in order to receive discounts, special offers, etc. In addition, QuickQuid.com displays adverts - presumably the more times those adverts are viewed/clicked on, the more advertising revenue QuickQuid.com receives. Hence, the more traffic to their site, the more people are likely to sign up and, hence, the more money the company will make.
    • Apple own the iTunes trademark and have invested a lot of money in building a business around that name.
    • The vast, vast majority of people who go to www.itunes.co.uk will do so in the expectation of finding the Apple iTunes service.
    Now, it seems to me that there are two reasons the itunes.co.uk domain is of value to Cohen/QuickQuid.com:
    1. It's a catchy name and would have been a good name for a company doing something related to music and the Internet. However, it appears that Cohen failed to register itunes as a trademark and, now that Apple have done so, he almost certainly can't. So, he's missed out on realising that potential.
    2. It brings traffic to the QuickQuid.com site because of people who are trying to reach Apple's iTunes service in the UK.
    In other words, the domain would have hardly any value if it wasn't for the fact that Apple have spent millions promoting iTunes. Anyone who thinks that Apple should pay a lot of money for the domain because it's "valuable" is essentially saying that Apple should have to pay for something which is only valuable because of money Apple have invested in their trademark. That doesn't seem just to me.

    By capturing traffic to itunes.co.uk, QuickQuid.com is benefitting directly from Apple's marketing of iTunes - in essence, it's a parasite on Apple's marketing budget.

    Finally, let's not forget that Apple have a duty to protect their trademark.

    So, my judgement is as follows:

    1. Cohen should hand the itunes.co.uk domain over to Apple.
    2. Apple should pay Cohen £1,500 (approx $2,500) for costs involved in transferring the domain.
    3. My fee shall be apportioned as follows: Cohen shall pay 1% (£1,000) and Apple shal pay the other 99% (£99,000).
    4. The Clerk of the Court (aka CmdrTaco) shall book me on a six-week Caribbean cruise.
    Case dismissed.


    D.
    ..is for Djudge.

  • It's almost as bad as a computer company naming themselves after a famous record label.

  • Before Trademarks became involved (Score:5, Insightful)

    by porkface ( 562081 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @07:37AM (#11030590) Journal
    I prefer the First Come First Serve approach of domain name registration to this concept of trademarks carrying over to new markets. Too many companies got away with pissing on the internet for too many years and then were allowed to come in several years later and lay claim to a major stake in it. This only fostered a crappy presence on their part.

    Competition will be spurred if we tell companies they have to look out for themselves in new arenas. Consumers suffer when corporations are allowed to cling to outdated paradigms too easily.

  • threats (Score:2, Funny)

    by Spezzer ( 101371 )
    Apple to Guy: "Your domain, left testicle, and right testicle. Choose any two."

  • Squatting (Score:4, Informative)

    by ajs318 ( 655362 ) <sd_resp2 @ e a r t h s h od.co.uk> on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @07:51AM (#11030631)
    The definition of squatting {in the traditional sense} is occupying a place that someone else has vacated. Under English law, the lions share of the rights associated with land and buildings belong with the occupier, as distinct from the owner -- a throwback to feudal times no doubt, but a valid protection measure against excesses of authority by absentee landlords. "An Englishman's Home is his Castle" -- and it's your home if you live there, regardless who owns the building or the land on which it stands. {As an aside, when I was buying my house, things were moving a bit slowly and I was technically homeless for one night. I spent that night in my new place. Legally, I was a squatter; but the only person in the world who could have got myself evicted without a court order, was me!}

    The practice of "cybersquatting" originally referred to re-registering expired domain names which used to have belonged to businesses, and linking them to sites with which the former registrant probably would not wish to be associated, in the hope that the former registrant will pay you not to do it {as opposed to just launching a DoS against your new host}.

    Cohen registered the itunes.co.uk site before Apple even trademarked "iTunes" in the UK; so it's arguable that Apple are in the wrong ..... Cohen could even possibly have their trademark invalidated! However, if I were Cohen, and the judge ruled in my favour and against Apple, I'd settle for a printout of the iTunes source code ..... with this document [opensource.org] stapled to it .....

    PS. I visited the itunes.co.uk [itunes.co.uk] site and it has an intrusive registration with a drop-down box for "gender" -- but only gives the options "male" and "female". Where's "other" when you need it?!

  • apple.co.uk (Score:2, Informative)

    by bobbagum ( 556152 )
    Apple.co.uk isn't the Mac company either,

  • Common sense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by franksp ( 570748 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @08:18AM (#11030743)
    The world would a much better place if people just used common sense. I went to the site and there's no reason why it should be called 'iTunes'. As a matter of fact, it is redirected to quickquid.com. In my humble opnion, the guy should just give/sell the domain to apple, which would make a lot more sense the itunes.co.uk being the iTunes site.

    A good example of this is Kevin Karpenske, who donated the firefox.com domain to the mozilla foundation.

  • Blatant British Slant (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kombat ( 93720 ) <kevin@swanweddingphotography.com> on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @09:53AM (#11031290)
    This is one of the most unabashadly biased and slanted articles I've ever read from the Register. Between the misplaced blind support of the self-described snot-nosed teen "Dotcom Millionaire" and the blatant ad hominem and non sequitur attacks on Apple ("Apple has so far refused to comment on the case. Although it is currently being investigated by the authorities for price fixing with its iTunes service, so it probably has its hands full."), I don't know how anyone can take this article seriously.

    If one can successfully pull away all the spin and red herrings, here are the facts:

    - Cohen registered "itunes.co.uk" on Nov. 7, 2000.
    - Apple published the "iTunes" trademark in the Trade Marks Journal on Dec. 6, 2000, about a month later.

    So Cohen had the site slightly before Apple trademarked the name. Seems like pretty coincidental timing. What did Cohen do with this site? He forwarded it to another online music site that he ran, with a totally different name. Why would he register a domain as obscure and nonsensical as "iTunes", but not go after the trademark itself, or market any products or services using the name? And how come the timing was so close?

    It seems clear to me that Cohen knew what Apple was doing, and saw an opportunity to profit from Apple's marketing (by deceiving web surfers into accidentally stumbling onto his own service), or extorting money from Apple.

    I hope this punk loses, and I wish the Register would grow a little backbone and show some objectivity.

    • Re:Blatant British Slant (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dusabre ( 176445 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @10:20AM (#11031505) Homepage
      Apple filed for the trademark on 24 October 2000. This is before he filed for the domain - Nov. 7 2000.

      http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/tm/number?detailsreq ue sted=C&trademark=2249936

      A trademark is registered as of the date of filing under 40 (3) of the UK Trademark Act.

      http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/legal/tmact94.pdf

      Therefore from 24 October 2000 - only Apple can use the trademark in business. Date of publication is not relevant.

      The legal situation is different from that given by the slanted Register article.

  • I would... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Kredal ( 566494 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @10:02AM (#11031370) Homepage Journal
    I would register itunes.co.kr, but only old people would go there.

  • The real state of the law and trademark date (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dusabre ( 176445 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @10:23AM (#11031526) Homepage
    I got suspicious when I read about 'publication' date in the article. IAAL so I was interested in the filing date.

    Apple filed for the trademark on 24 October 2000. This is before he filed for the domain - Nov. 7 2000.

    http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/tm/number?detailsreq ue sted=C&trademark=2249936

    A trademark is registered as of the date of filing under 40 (3) of the UK Trademark Act.

    http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/legal/tmact94.pdf.

    Hmm.

    Therefore from 24 October 2000 - only Apple can use the trademark in business. Date of publication is not relevant.

    The legal situation is different from that given by the slanted Register article.

  • He's a Friggin' Squatter (Score:3, Insightful)

    by catdevnull ( 531283 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @11:13AM (#11031966)
    Have you looked at the site?

    His business name is "quickquid.com" -- he obviously got wind of Apple's TM registration and decided to squat hoping to sell/extort for big bucks. If this were a pesonal website, I'd probably be booing Apple for picking on little guys. But this site is A) Rubbish and B) not even close to anything to do with the word "iTunes"

    One poster cited that Apple registered the trademark long before this manky twit put up that aweful site. I predict that Apple will win this one.

  • iTunes.ca is next (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sophrosyne ( 630428 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @11:58AM (#11032471) Homepage
    Prepare yourself for the next apple.slashdot story:
    Apple goes after iTunes.ca [itunes.ca] cybersquatter.
    ...just a prediction.

  • On deck -- itunes.ca (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Titusdot Groan ( 468949 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @12:27PM (#11032812) Journal
    Next on the agenda -- the squatter at itunes.ca [itunes.ca].

    It's clear in this case because the registry was on 2003/05/01

    Come on people -- both of these guys ran out and grabbed this site and they just point to their flybynight sites. Is this really what the internet is about -- registering everything you can think of and pointing it at your piece of crap website?

    This isn't some kid registering the site to talk about his favourite music store (that only recently started working in Canada ...)

  • Pay Attention to Trademark Filing :: see below (Score:3, Informative)

    by tyrione ( 134248 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @01:22PM (#11033455) Homepage

    The trademark for iTunes

    Word Mark
    ITUNES

    Goods and Services
    IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer software for use in authoring, downloading, transmitting, receiving, editing, extracting, encoding, decoding, playing, storing and organizing audio data. FIRST USE: 20010109. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20010109

    Mark Drawing Code
    (1) TYPED DRAWING

    Serial Number
    76193469

    Filing Date
    January 9, 2001

    Current Filing Basis
    1A

    Original Filing Basis
    1A;44D

    Published for Opposition
    September 3, 2002

    Registration Number
    2653465

    Registration Date
    November 26, 2002

    Owner
    (REGISTRANT) Apple Computer, Inc. CORPORATION
    CALIFORNIA 1 Infinite Loop Cupertino CALIFORNIA
    95014

    Attorney of Record
    John C. Baum

    Priority Date
    October 24, 2000

    Type of Mark
    TRADEMARK

    Register
    PRINCIPAL-2(F)

    Live/Dead Indicator
    LIVE

  • Research (Score:4, Insightful)

    by erikharrison ( 633719 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @04:36AM (#11040226)
    So here is what a little thought and research shows.

    -ThinkSecret, the preeminent Apple rumor site, shows no sign of iTunes rumors in the months surrounding release, including when Apple filed for the trademark. Do we really think that this guy follows Apple more than these guys?

    -There is no sign that Apple has been asked by this guy to buy the domain. The squatting theory seems to hold little water in that regard

    -This guy does have a legit music service, and has a note on the front page about the domain and the conflict with apple

    -QuickQuid.com however, has only been around for a few months. CyberBritain.com the guys main website lists it as a new service.

    -The Wayback machine has no archive of the site. This may be because it didn't point anywhere prior to August.

    My view? The guy is a sleezeball, who probably registered the domain legitimately. I used to work for a small web company, and we had about half a dozen unused domain names - registered for half a dozen reasons, planned projects that never launched, etc. In 2000, it was 'i' everything. iTunes would have been a natural thought - hell APPLE registered itunes.com in '99, years before applying for a trademark, or launching the product.

    Who should get the domain is a bit more of a fuzzy question. But no doubt that this guy has less than pure intentions with the name, now that apple has a same named service.

Slashdot Top Deals

...though his invention worked superbly -- his theory was a crock of sewage from beginning to end. -- Vernor Vinge, "The Peace War"

Close