Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Files Claim to Seize iPhone4S.com and Related Domains from Porn Operators
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I see your point, but apple needs to prove when they copyrighted the name iphone4s because if they registered the name before they came out with the product, then who has more rights?
It doesn't look like Apple owns "ipad.com" either. That just takes you to an empty site, announcing it's coming soon.
You mean that those sites I went to WEREN'T Apple sites?! I just thought Apple was providing a little entertainment before I could order.
Of course, I probably should have realized something was wrong after the second hour.
Of course, I probably should have realized something was wrong after the second hour.
Apple does not want their corporate name associated with porn, so they are buying domains or in this case they sue to protect their image. Perfectly understandable too me! However, some of the domain names are suspect and one has to wonder if Apple will gain control of the websites just to shut them down. Not sure I agree with this philosophy, but it's their business, not mine.
Last edited:
And that is open for debate. Apple knew what they want to name their phones a long time ahead and could have registered that domain a long time ago. It is probably already taken but if I feel like it, I can register iphone5.com, iphone5.org, iphone6.com, etc. and I should have the right to use it to my discretion. Apple has the same rights and this is a first come first serve service. Porn business might not be the most liked business but people invest money and expect returns. Buying or registering popular domains is a key feature of their business. For this reason, I absolutely disagree with what Apple is doing. These sites do not mislead the customer or try to sell them an Android hand set. They just use clever domains to attract business - probably customized in layout for the Retina Display.
To be clear, I am not in the porn business, and frankly have no opinion on if it is good or bad. Replace "porn site" with "custom cases producer site" and you see the problem with it. A case producer would thrive having that domain to sell his custom cases. There would be no doubt that it relates to the phone but that he does not want to miss-inform customers telling he is affiliated with Apple in any other way than building cases fitting to the phone. Even though people might find that rather unfair, the principle is the same. Once you register a site first, you should have the right to it and use it the way you want as long as you don't try phishing i.e. building up a fake apple.com site and fraudulently get login & password or CC info.
They should probably exclude the playboy app available to an iphone/pad near you then.
http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/playboy/id340150554?mt=8
Or is this so lame as to not be considered porn?
Well, if Apple went after a small family cafe due to having an apple on their logo, what more with these domain names.
Apple, apple, apple, JK Rowling and Sony were one step ahead of everyone. Registering Pottermore and all of its versions before anyone can get it.
I can confirm that for the first time on the macrumors website this is not a rumor
it actually works
it actually works
Apple might consider snapping up iPhone5.com, iPhone5S.com, iPhone6.com, etc. while they're at it.
Might come in handy some day.
Might come in handy some day.
ha, wow, I'm sorry, but this is pretty hilarious... I feel bad for innocent folk who've gone to some of the more safe domain names, only to get a big surprise...!
Nissan
It is because of the Nissan lawsuit that I refuse to ever buy a car from the auto manufacturer. Not impressed at all.
It is because of the Nissan lawsuit that I refuse to ever buy a car from the auto manufacturer. Not impressed at all.
You know it is illegal to infringe on a Trademark, right?
They absolutely mislead the user. A lot of users are not Internet savvy. If they type "iPhone4s.com" into their browser...what do you think they expect to see?
People can register domains - but if they register using someone else's brand/trademark then they are infringing. They are using Apples global brand presence to attract traffic to their sites.
Apple are merely exercising their duties in going after them.
When a domain name has no meaning/relevance to the content or products and services on the site...this is classed as being registered in bad faith under UDRP.
Apple will win - and rightly so.
And for those saying "This costs a lot"...it does not, compared to traditional litigation. It will cost Apple no more than $10K to reclaim them all.
I always wonder why Apple still doesn't own apple.co.uk. It's a legitimate website so they wouldn't have any grounds to challenge ownership, but I wonder what discussions it's ever had with the owners and if any offers have been made.
I bet 99% of the bandwidth usage of www.apple.co.uk is people going there in error; I seem to remember a couple of years back a company called something like UTube.com suffering a virtual DOS from people trying to get to YouTube.
I bet 99% of the bandwidth usage of www.apple.co.uk is people going there in error; I seem to remember a couple of years back a company called something like UTube.com suffering a virtual DOS from people trying to get to YouTube.
Trademark law is complicated. But the basic premise is to provide brand protection for companies. When a company trademarks a word or a mark, it has exclusive use of that word or mark to identify their product. Others cannot use the same word or mark to identify their own product, if their use would prove "confusingly similar" to the public.
Really, the very guts of trademark law is to protect the public from being misled as to the source of goods. If it says "Apple" on the box, and there's a computer in the box, but it isn't from that company in Cupertino, the public has been misled.
One test of "confusingly similar" is how similar the products are. But there are many other aspects to that test, and I gather it's the most ambiguous aspect of trademark law.
You cannot use a word or phrase that INCLUDES a trademark if it would prove confusingly similar. I would imagine that any term that includes "iphone" would be confusingly similar, so iphone5, iphone6, etc. would be off-limits, at least if it has something to do with mobile phones.
I think they would have more trouble proving that a porn site is trying to confuse the public into thinking that source of their porn product is Apple Computer.
That said, this isn't an action under trademark law. It's an action under the UDRP, which is a POLICY of ICANN that registries have agreed to conform to. While the UDRP does aim to conform with trademark laws around the world, it has additional provisions that go beyond trademark law. One particularly broad provision is the prohibition against registering a domain in "bad faith".
"bad faith" could mean somebody registering a company or brand name with intent to re-sell the domain to the company. It could also mean a competitor intending to prevent the company from registering a domain using their own trademarked term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDRP
BTW, iphone5, iphone6, etc. are already registered. Some are held through a privacy service, others are registered to large domain resellers that can probably absorb the potential legal costs. They will probably get some money if they are not greedy.
I have some experience with a "clean" transaction in this regard. Many years ago, I was the original registrant of the live.net domain. I used it for an outdoor webcam. A few years later I got an unsolicited offer $28,000 for the domain. I was a bit surprised at the price, but the transaction went through, and the new owner used it for about a year showing live webcams at ski resorts and travel information.
About a year later, I was checking on the cam (I was still feeding my cam onto one of the new owner's pages) and got redirected to a Microsoft site. I called the owner to report that his domain had been "hijacked", LOL.
I don't know how much Microsoft paid him, or if he knew something was in the works a year in advance...
Really, the very guts of trademark law is to protect the public from being misled as to the source of goods. If it says "Apple" on the box, and there's a computer in the box, but it isn't from that company in Cupertino, the public has been misled.
One test of "confusingly similar" is how similar the products are. But there are many other aspects to that test, and I gather it's the most ambiguous aspect of trademark law.
You cannot use a word or phrase that INCLUDES a trademark if it would prove confusingly similar. I would imagine that any term that includes "iphone" would be confusingly similar, so iphone5, iphone6, etc. would be off-limits, at least if it has something to do with mobile phones.
I think they would have more trouble proving that a porn site is trying to confuse the public into thinking that source of their porn product is Apple Computer.
That said, this isn't an action under trademark law. It's an action under the UDRP, which is a POLICY of ICANN that registries have agreed to conform to. While the UDRP does aim to conform with trademark laws around the world, it has additional provisions that go beyond trademark law. One particularly broad provision is the prohibition against registering a domain in "bad faith".
"bad faith" could mean somebody registering a company or brand name with intent to re-sell the domain to the company. It could also mean a competitor intending to prevent the company from registering a domain using their own trademarked term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDRP
BTW, iphone5, iphone6, etc. are already registered. Some are held through a privacy service, others are registered to large domain resellers that can probably absorb the potential legal costs. They will probably get some money if they are not greedy.
I have some experience with a "clean" transaction in this regard. Many years ago, I was the original registrant of the live.net domain. I used it for an outdoor webcam. A few years later I got an unsolicited offer $28,000 for the domain. I was a bit surprised at the price, but the transaction went through, and the new owner used it for about a year showing live webcams at ski resorts and travel information.
About a year later, I was checking on the cam (I was still feeding my cam onto one of the new owner's pages) and got redirected to a Microsoft site. I called the owner to report that his domain had been "hijacked", LOL.
I don't know how much Microsoft paid him, or if he knew something was in the works a year in advance...
Last edited:
I could add the ones with "cam" in the name as understandable but the others are crystal clear what they are for.
Porn for the iPhone4S. Does not take a genius to figure that out.
They pay a small administrative fee (a couple thousand dollars) to ICANN to review the case. If they win, they get the domains and transfer to their registrar where they then pay normal yearly registration fees. The previous owner gets nothing.
If you're referring to already-registered domains that Apple acquires outside of the UDRP... Yes, they pay the domain owner. If a domain isn't available to register, you can always try to buy it from the owner, and there are many places that list domains available for sale. If you are interested in a domain for development and it is parked, you should ALWAYS attempt to buy it! Yes, it may cost you a few bucks one-time but can be worth it.
It doesn't have to be that expensive. I recently paid $500 for Peepr.com which I am developing, and sold stockclub.com, which I wasn't using also for $500, both through SEDO.
(No, Peepr.com is NOT going to be porno, LOL!)