Itunes.co.uk Owner Ordered To Give Up Domain

[MacBytes]

Category: Apple Software
Link: Itunes.co.uk Owner Ordered To Give Up Domain (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050315164942)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

[Fender2112]

hmmm... this is a good one. It's his domain. He pays for it. He should be able to do what he wants. But redirecting visitors to Napster site?

Alot this: http://www.whitehouse.net/

[SpaceMagic]

How dare they. He got it. He should be allowed to keep it. I'm going to bring out a product called MacRumors and demand this site be taken down :D because I own a product like 4 years after this site was set up - i have the right!

[narco]

Yeah, everything would have checked out for him, but the fact that it redirects to a site that advertises Napster, then he gets what he deserves.

Fishes,
narco.

[zellin]

He registered the name 4 years before the iTunes Music Store. Not iTunes. Gets what he deserves.

[clayj]

Sorry, but while I don't like it when a corporation stomps all over an individual, he really didn't have a leg to stand on. He registered "itunes.co.uk", but he apparently didn't have a company of his own called "itunes", and his name is not "itunes". If either of those were true, THEN I'd say the name was his to keep. Since they weren't, it doesn't really matter when he registered the name; he was cybersquatting.

[clayj]

How dare they. He got it. He should be allowed to keep it. I'm going to bring out a product called MacRumors and demand this site be taken down :D because I own a product like 4 years after this site was set up - i have the right!Actually, there I would disagree. It's one thing to buy a name and then just sit on it; but if the person who registered the name then proceeded to use it legitimately and you came along later, I would side with that person.

For example, if a girl named Julia Roberts (but not the actress) registered "juliaroberts.com" and set up a web site about herself, her hobbies, etc., and then the actress came along and tried to seize the domain name, I would side with the girl; it's her name, too, and she registered and used it first.

[dsharits]

Actually, there I would disagree. It's one thing to buy a name and then just sit on it; but if the person who registered the name then proceeded to use it legitimately and you came along later, I would side with that person.

For example, if a girl named Julia Roberts (but not the actress) registered "juliaroberts.com" and set up a web site about herself, her hobbies, etc., and then the actress came along and tried to seize the domain name, I would side with the girl; it's her name, too, and she registered and used it first.
I totally agree. He had no rights to the name, but used it to also advertise a competiting product, which made this even more fair and legal. He deserved it 100%.

[clayj]

The best example I know of of a big company going after a domain name that someone else registered and is using legitimately is Nissan. There's a computer retailer in North Carolina whose last name is Nissan, and he registered and has been using nissan.com (http://www.nissan.com/) for a LONG time. So what does Nissan, the car company, do? They sue him, claiming that their claim to the name is stronger than his. Doesn't matter that his name is ALSO Nissan, and that he registered the name first... all they care about is getting the shortest domain name possible.

I totally back Mr. Nissan on this... screw the car company. (It's for this reason, among others, that I will never ever consider buying a Nissan or Infiniti automobile.)

[24C]

Totally agree with the ruling, he definitely shot himself in the foot because he had no legitimate use for the name. I hope he loses his appeal. AFAIR he's got a couple of other dubious domains.
Likewise if there hadn't been sportsmen, actors and celebrities with a similar name to mine, I'd have got a more personal dotcom to trade under.

[Applespider]

If he'd been running his own music business with advice on producing, making music, he'd likely have got to keep it. But with just a redirection off to Napster, it was an abusive registration that would confuse consumers on arrival.

IIRC, he had registered lots of domains back then but has only kept the few where another major business might have some claim to it. I think it's called 'tough'!

[Bendit]

Apple has no right to the domain. It would be fair if itunes.co.uk was forced to change its content to something non-commercial or unrelated to music.

The owner registered itunes.co.uk before anyone even knew what itunes was. Even we, the Mac fanatics only learned of iTunes (the application). The application was introduced in Jan 2001 (MacWorld), he registered the domain in Nov of 2000.

[backspinner]

I bet that the iTunes name was not very original to this person in Nov 2000. Maybe he had inside information?

[AlmostThere]

Now the imposter has been ousted, the rest of the world can continue to enjoy the genuine, high quality Apple download store at itunes.org ;)

[Savage Henry]

hmmm... this is a good one. It's his domain. He pays for it. He should be able to do what he wants. But redirecting visitors to Napster site?

Alot this: http://www.whitehouse.net/

My favourite is when PwC Consulting wanted to change their global business name to 'Monday' and set up the site www.introducingmonday.com (now defunct) to help explain the concept, amounting to a juicy £75m of pre-launchhype. But then they forgot to register www.introducingmonday.co.uk (http://www.introducingmonday.co.uk) ... some japesters took the domain and to this day still insults PwC.

PwC are still called Pwc .... I don't think Apple wants to risk stuff like that. Funny though it is.

[dsharits]

My favourite is when PwC Consulting wanted to change their global business name to 'Monday' and set up the site www.introducingmonday.com (now defunct) to help explain the concept, amounting to a juicy £75m of pre-launchhype. But then they forgot to register www.introducingmonday.co.uk (http://www.introducingmonday.co.uk) ... some japesters took the domain and to this day still insults PwC.

PwC are still called Pwc .... I don't think Apple wants to risk stuff like that. Funny though it is.
That is hilarious!!!!