Neowin.net - Apple Threatens Owner of iTunes Domain

Apple Threatens Owner of iTunes Domain

Posted by malebolgia on 08 December 2004 - 15:50 · 90 comments & 2348 views

Apple has taken steps to take ownership of the iTunes.co.uk domain name from its current owner, with the company formally complaining to Nominet, the UK domain name registrar, that it is entitled to the domain. According to a report on The Register, Apple has been attempting to claim the domain from its current owner, Benjamin Cohen, since November, when its solicitors began sending Cohen letters requesting that he turn over the domain to them.

The site currently forwards to a music search engine at Cohen's CyberBritain site. However, it appears that Apple may have little chance of gaining ownership of the domain without buying it from Cohen, as it was registered on 7 November 2000 – over a month before Apple applied for the trade mark on iTunes. Cohen claimed that he had no idea that Apple was intending to build an iTunes service at the time of his registration.

News source: eWeek

B]Features:[/B]

· The best PC performance: Choose between a silent running mode or the best graphics performance settings and the wizard automatically adjusts all performance metrics (clocks, voltages, fan speeds, bus speeds, etc.) to get the best options for the hardware in the system.
· Improved dynamic overclocking: Provides on-the-fly overclocking and BIOS configuration within an easy-to-use Windows interface that is streamlined and simplified for better user understanding.
· Benchmarking wizard: See how your PC configuration stacks up against synthetic benchmarks before and after adjusting system parameters.
· Saved system profiles: Save, import, and export custom overclocking or BIOS profiles. Assign profiles to favorite programs for automatic application. A safety "watchdog" checks temperature and steps system down if failure could occur.
· GPU overclocking: Overclocking of GeForce FX and GeForce 6 Series GPUs is supported in concert with system overclocking, temperature monitoring, and system profiles.
· System troubleshooting: An automated reporting tool captures all needed information to help you determine when problems may be happening to the system, and helps you troubleshoot.
· Improved system monitoring: Temperatures, voltages, and bus speeds are now available as an “always-on-top” window with a transparency option so that it is visible at all times.
· Voltage and bus speed monitoring: Track actual motherboard voltages, GPU clocks, bus speeds, and CPU core speed to ensure safe and correct settings.
· Temperature and fan speed monitoring: Real-time monitoring of CPU, GPU and system temperatures helps prevent hardware damage. nTune supports dual-CPU and SLI multi-GPU systems.
· Dynamically adjustable voltages and fan speeds: Adjust motherboard voltage levels without a reboot, as well as dynamically control fan speeds.
· Dynamically adjustable memory timings: Change critical memory timings without rebooting and without entering the BIOS.

Hide additional information

About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: vet

malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline

Total votes: 0

Bookmark on del.icio.us

Advertisement

(2 replies) #1 Posted by Mathiasdm on 08 Dec 2004 - 15:55: Apple applied for the trademark in October. They got it in november or december (if I'm correct).
Get your facts straight.
They have a good chance at gaining ownership of the domain.

(2 replies) #2 Posted by chorpeac on 08 Dec 2004 - 15:57: Awesome, that guy is one lucky man. It's like winning the lottery.

#3 Posted by RobertH on 08 Dec 2004 - 16:01: They should buy it too, i mean come on, they are a big company and makes LOTS of £££ - Clearley he didnt register it for this purpose so Apple should treat it like any other transaction and pay fairly for it if they want it - not demand it.

(1 reply) #4 Posted by Hills420 on 08 Dec 2004 - 16:10: Apple NEEDS that address so I'm sure they will pay a hefty price

(6 replies) #5 Posted by Homer™ on 08 Dec 2004 - 16:15: I hope they take that domain off him, I wouldn't mind if it forwarded to something half decent, but fowarding to that pile of crap? That's just a waste of a domain which Apple should really have.

#6 Posted by ssvegeta384 on 08 Dec 2004 - 16:24: HAHAHA, yet another company claiming ownership of something made before their time.

(1 reply) #7 Posted by aristotle-dude on 08 Dec 2004 - 16:40: There is also itunes.ca. itunes.com does redirect to Apple.com though.

#8 Posted by Max™ on 08 Dec 2004 - 16:49: Apple should have purchased the domain way back, even when they just thought of the name 'iTunes'. Tough luck Apple.

(4 replies) #9 Posted by Devil Fish on 08 Dec 2004 - 16:55: Ben Cohen has no reason to hand over the domain. He purchased it fair and square before anyone here knew what iTunes was, or apple themselves had received the "limited" patent for the name, and a year before attributing this to a music product.

This is quite clearly a big multi-national trying to bully someone into giving them what they want.

Cock-off apple!

(12 replies) #10 Posted by angrybrit on 08 Dec 2004 - 16:57: I hope Apple wins this.

GO GO Apple!!!

(1 reply) #11 Posted by Devil Fish on 08 Dec 2004 - 17:02

QUOTE

I hope Apple wins this.

GO GO Apple!!!

#11.1 Posted by angrybrit on 08 Dec 2004 - 17:45: *snipped* - Useless comments

Last edited by 52 on 09 Dec 2004 - 02:47

(2 replies) #12 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 08 Dec 2004 - 17:25

QUOTE

it was registered on 7 November 2000 – over a month before Apple applied for the trade mark on iTunes

It's taken them 3 years to decide that they want a website? Please. They should have taken the issue up at the time. It is unfair to demand ownership over a website registered before they even applied for the trademark purely because they built up a big business around the brand.

I can see a case for forcing them to change the content (which clearly plays off the trademark), but no way that Apple should gain control over the domain.

#12.1 Posted by mrbester on 08 Dec 2004 - 18:01

QUOTE

I can see a case for forcing them to change the content (which clearly plays off the trademark)

Actually, no there isn't even a case for that. iTunes.co.uk was set up for the express purpose of music searching and purchasing. That's what it did and what it still does. Coincidentally, Apple has a similar product, but iTunes.co.uk has been doing this for 4 years. Prior art and all that. If anything, Ben should sue Apple for nicking his idea.

#12.2 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 08 Dec 2004 - 21:46

QUOTE

Coincidentally, Apple has a similar product, but iTunes.co.uk has been doing this for 4 years.

Well, if it's been used as it is currently then you are right. I have made the assumption that they have changed what was displayed on the site, as online music purchasing wasn't possible back then but is now shown on the site. I openly accept I may be wrong, but it was the assumption I made.

Either way, the site content is atrocious; if they were to put some effort in then they could probably make some real money from the site... currently it looks like it was designed in 1997. Still, Apple is being very cheeky - saying that, Apple legal is always cheeky and overprotective. They certainly aren't winning any fans.

(1 reply) #13 Posted by Inplode on 08 Dec 2004 - 17:38: money talks and BULLSH*T walks

apple needs to pay up of shut up if they need the Domain that bad then shell out the cash

#14 Posted by Mx² on 08 Dec 2004 - 17:57: That guy probably now is getting a LOT of hits lol

#15 Posted by Ava3ar on 08 Dec 2004 - 18:59: i can see it being Slashdotted soon, hehe

#16 Posted by Unplugged on 08 Dec 2004 - 19:05: I would demand an extra $5000 dollers in "Admin" for every letter I have to shred.

I dont have a problem with legal domain disputes but companys who start up a new project then find their domain already taken and try s***ing on the little guy just piss me off.

They should just offer to purchase the domain for a nice figure.

#17 Posted by markyp23 on 08 Dec 2004 - 19:27: Apple definately need to pay up. I hope for Cohen its a large, large number

(1 reply) #18 Posted by AshMan on 08 Dec 2004 - 19:28: This reminds me of WINDOWS95.COM Anyone remember that?

#19 Posted by iMike on 08 Dec 2004 - 19:35: People named Ben Cohen always cause trouble I guess

(Ben Cohen is also the activist co-founder of Ben & Jerry's ice cream)

Apple will have to pay up for this one I suspect.

#20 Posted by mayamaniac on 08 Dec 2004 - 19:52: it cost pennies for big companies to register domain names. I don't get why they dont register all the .com, .net, .uk, etc, before they released iTunes, at least the major domains. It would've saved them all the hassle later.

#21 Posted by iampedro on 08 Dec 2004 - 20:04: Apply should shell out some cash to this person.

#22 Posted by CaKeY on 08 Dec 2004 - 20:08: Heck, that guy should sue Apple for stealing his idea!

(1 reply) #23 Posted by Raum on 08 Dec 2004 - 20:19: Can someone fill me in on .co.uk? Is that just the UK version of .com (Which wouldnt make much sense to me considering what .com i sfor) or is it their country extension, like .tk?

#24 Posted by doubledragonxz on 08 Dec 2004 - 20:38: I just remembered the Apple Corp vs Appel Comp case looks like its a loser for Apple again, in both cases they looked out of their senses.

(1 reply) #25 Posted by Galbi on 08 Dec 2004 - 21:16: I hate it when these companies think they own the internet.

#26 Posted by moeburn on 08 Dec 2004 - 21:21: He should completely ignore apple, and auction off the website publicly. Thats when apple starts payin.

#27 Posted by Phillip on 08 Dec 2004 - 21:57: Apple doesn't even own www.Apple.co.uk!

#28 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 08 Dec 2004 - 21:59: Whatever happens, I hope this guy makes a load of money off the domain, he's already swimming in free press.

#29 Posted by tiger2k on 08 Dec 2004 - 22:03: Hmm, reminds me of what happened with that guy that registered a domain that sounded like microsoft.com. Registering names that could be pontential future products/company/service name is paying up. Maybe i should start registering some names now.

dam longhorn.com is taken

#30 Posted by mrp04 on 08 Dec 2004 - 22:57: even if longhorn.com wasnt taken and you took it, microsoft wont pay you a penny for it, its not going to be called longhorn when it comes out

#31 Posted by TrevorB on 08 Dec 2004 - 23:25: Pull a microsoft, fight a clearly stupid and pointless court battle until the guy just gives up because he can't take microsofts stupity

(2 replies) #32 Posted by Qarth on 09 Dec 2004 - 02:23: Apple just p***ed me off. I hope they go down is a ball of fire.

(3 replies) #33 Posted by jagedEdge on 09 Dec 2004 - 02:45: Why do they even care about this domain? They have itunes.com. I never even thought they would need itunes.co.uk. I mean, who seriously thinks about typing in .co.uk before .com?

(3 replies) #34 Posted by Garry on 09 Dec 2004 - 03:03: Hmm, I used to work in the domains department for a large ISP here in the UK. Given past experiences and knowing the Nominet dispute policy like the back of my hand, I'd have to say that Apple will win this one hands down, without a fight since:

1. The term iTunes had been popularised and used by Apple previous to the itunes.co.uk domain being registered. The term does NOT have to be an official trademark in order for this to be taken into consideration in the Nominet mediation process.

2. The term iTunes has since (and was very quickly) registered as a trademark in the UK.

3. The domain owner is using the domain in what Nominet call "bad faith." The domain name itself forwards to another website which has no real reason to use the term "itunes" in it's address and, at the time the complaint was made, there was an image of an iPod mini and an iPod competition on the website. This would consitute "bad faith."

It all comes down to common sense really. Would it be in Joe Average's best interest for Apple to own itunes.co.uk or for ownership to remain as it is. To those of you saying "The guy paid for the domain, it's free to do what he wants with it." you're wrong. The guy purchased the domain name under the Nominet terms and conditions of use. Apple are saying that he has broken these terms and conditions and the Nominet Dispute Procedure will force a decision to be made as to whether he has or not.

It would be my guess - having dealt with a number of disputes through work (including the famous scoobydoo.co.uk dispute) that Apple will win this one without appeal. Although it should be noted that Apple Computer does not own apple.co.uk (yet...)

(1 reply) #35 Posted by supersaiyanjericho on 09 Dec 2004 - 03:14: anyone remember the mikerowesoft incident?

#36 Posted by speedy_86 on 09 Dec 2004 - 06:46: I think Apple is wrong here. I really like Apple and would havo bough a Powerbook...if I could afford it.
But in my opinion Apple should sit down with this Cohen guy and talk and negotiate (thats what lawyers are for basicaly, not just for litigations and such).

But

If Apple offers him an acceptable amount of money and he refuses well it would be his fault.

#37 Posted by aboi on 09 Dec 2004 - 08:22: thats right stand up for your rights. dont be like dat mike row kid

#38 Posted by Hekx on 09 Dec 2004 - 10:44: IMO, Apple should offer cash or a nice cheque.
Brute force won't get them anywhere except the local media.

#39 Posted by uceboyx on 09 Dec 2004 - 13:33: Apple should offer him a new iPod or the newest stuff they got
lol

#40 Posted by S7R1K3R on 09 Dec 2004 - 15:10: or at least offer him a job at apple with a contract so he can't get fired thats what i would ask for or alot of money

#41 Posted by Divide Overflow on 09 Dec 2004 - 17:14: What's wrong with cybersquatting? If the guy registered the domain first, I say either Apple should buy the domain from him, or let him have it. Like it was said before, if Apple believed iTunes would be a possible name for their service, they should have registered it sooner. Instead, this guy got in on the deal first. It's not like this is some 15 person company with not a lot of cash on hand. Besides, if Apple is such a forward thinking company, they should have anticipated a cybersquatter moving in on a domain name.

#42 Posted by REM2000 on 09 Dec 2004 - 19:49: everything apple is, is image. They push this with all of their products. (Which is no bad thing). Apple should offer something generious so that everything can end up friendly. Trying to force the domain off someone is just gonna mark there good image.

#43 Posted by aristotle-dude on 09 Dec 2004 - 20:17: Apple should get this domain and the cybersquatter should gratefully accept double the normal price of a domain registration as more than fair compensation. It would be a finders fee. Anything significantly more would be extortion since this guy obviously knew he was going to lose it to Apple eventually. If the UK has similar laws to Canada and the US, this will be an open and shut case as those two countries alway rule in favor or the trademark owner.

Really, this guy should not be fighting it but rather offer to turn it over for a small fee. There really is no need for all this hoopla.

(1 reply) #44 Posted by gameguy on 09 Dec 2004 - 20:28

It seems everyone has their dates mixed up.

QUOTE

Benjamin Cohen, ... said on Wednesday he registered itunes.co.uk during the dotcom boom in November, 2000, and wouldn't give it up without a fight.
He said Apple applied to trademark "iTunes" in October 2000, but that the application wasn't made public until December.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=7030050

Apple applied for the trademark, he found out about it, and grabbed the domain a month after Apple applied for the TM, but a month before the trademark was granted. It's as simple as that. The domain should be given to Apple because they applied for the TM before he even cared about the domain.

#44.1 Posted by doubledragonxz on 09 Dec 2004 - 22:36: In the same article it is stated that :

"He said Apple applied to trademark "iTunes" in October 2000, but that the application wasn't made public until December."

Now the real issue here is wheather he knew Apple was applying for this trademark before he registered the domain or not. So far there has been no light showing any indication on this crucial piece of data.

#45 Posted by waz on 12 Dec 2004 - 01:41: Anyone remember the case of prince.com? when the USA tennis company tried to take what was legally the UK companies domain? This one is obviously different (the UK Prince company was a registered trademark in the UK, real company etc.), but I think they should've sorted this out before they launched iTunes in the UK, they've had long enough!

Another example of the Americans thinking they own the internet....

[1]

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Scroll to the Top