Not knowing UK trademark law, but based on US law and Apple's application predating the web registration, I can say what Mr. Cohen does with his site (give it a visit!) would provide enough of dillution and confusion in the marketplace to cause some kind injunctive recourse.

Remind me, when did iTunes launch? Cause his site seems to be a blatant misuse.

Quote

Engine Joe wrote:
Not knowing UK trademark law, but based on US law and Apple's application predating the web registration, I can say what Mr. Cohen does with his site (give it a visit!) would provide enough of dillution and confusion in the marketplace to cause some kind injunctive recourse.

the problem is that cyberbritan registered it legally and can do what it wants with the domain, see the article at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/06/apple_itunescouk_domain_dispute/

[quote="Lanthar"]Remind me, when did iTunes launch? Cause his site seems to be a blatant misuse.

Itunes launched in the U.S. April 28, 2003. But when iTunes first launched has nothing to do with this issue. Remember...we're dealing with the law in Britain, not the U.S.

Brad Gibson-Story Author

itunes.co.uk launched as an mp3 search engine in November 2000, iTunes launched in the USA in 2003 and in the UK in 2004. We were there first

Ben Cohen
cyberbritain

"itunes.co.uk launched as an mp3 search engine in November 2000, iTunes launched in the USA in 2003 and in the UK in 2004. We were there first

Ben Cohen
cyberbritain"

The iTunes Music Store launched in 2003. iTunes the program was around before 2003 as an mp3 player way back on Mac OS 9.

Anybody remember when they made the original iTunes?

So, what's your price?

Are you really making that much money from itunes.co.uk, or is it quickquim.com?

launched 1.0 - January 9, 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes)
so 2 months after us.

There is no price, we didn't want to sell and its not about money its the principle of the matter. However, if Apple made a serious offer we'd consider, this domain is not a core asset of the business, but it is one we legally registered and intend to keep.

QuickQuid.com makes money but not from the traffic that goes to itunes.co.uk, about 100 people have signed up to the site through the link. It forwards to that page because we have nothing else we're promoting at the moment.

Interesting that the site forwards to another site highlighting an iPod mini. Seems to be confusing to me...and I don't claim to be the smartest brain in the world, either.

Two things that seem to bolster Apple's argument:
1: the iPod mini listed above.

2: the professed millionaire at the end of the business justification for the David vs Goliath drama, list the business as a small business.

Honestly, seems like a bunch of whining to defend his position. Oh poor me...

"Ben",

You probably heard rumors that Apple was going to use the iTunes name for their music software product, which Apple applied for trademark in October 2000. The usual pre-MacWorld SF rumors. That led you to register it as quickly as you could in November. So the actual release date of the software has nothing to do with it. You know it. So don't go spreading your sad story around...

As you no doubt can guess, I hope Apple wins this one.

Is there anyway someone can check the AppleInsider/ThinkSecret/MacOSRumors/or their predecessors, etc to check when they first "rumored" the iTunes name?

Point #2 doesn't really bolster Apples argument. It is however interesting that the millionaire lists his business as a small business. The point being that he further attempts to make it sound that a big Company (Apple) is pulling something on his business.

The all reaks of what happens in car accidents when nothing of incidence happens. The victim fakes a hurt neck or back (your choice) and then decides to sue.

Makes you wonder who is getting taken advantage of here.

slash.dot it!

Apple had the program way before they had the store.

http://www.ipodlounge.com/articles_more.php?id=4280_0_8_0_C

Rumor sites talked about the program months before 2000.

iTunes music store may have been launched on April 28, 2003 ... but iTunes, as a product, was releases on January 9, 2001. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes)

He has a point ... it will be interesting to see how this one settles. But I expect he will add more to his "millions".

Mr. Cohen,

I looked at your site, and I'm not quite sure what product or service you provide that necesitates the iTunes domain. Furthermore, your site seems to be built around products including the iPod and iTunes which could cause confusion and dillution of Apple's brand.
However, you were there first.
I would suggest you make a deal with Apple, allowing for a link that would lead people to the correct iTMS, which would be a compromise.
Good luck and don't be too stubborn to accept something from Apple.

I looked at Ben's site and it's just a pointer to other sites (mostly quickquid.com). It's just like when you visit a site that hasn't been registered to anyone and it just has a bunch of links somewhat related to the name but doesn't do anything but link. Sounds like squatter to me. I hope Apple doesn't pay him a cent.

Knowing the Nominet Dispute Resolution Policy inside out I can safely say with utmost confidence that Apple will win this one hands down.

I just hope that Mr. Cohen will have the brains to settle this before this sets foot in court.

Everyone remember what happened with mikerowesoft.com? he settled out of court, got some cash, a new domain, and free advertisement from M$-- in other words, he played M$ for a bunch of fools

and only because he was this teenage kid trying to do something on the internet who happened to have the name Mike Rowe

The difference is that Mike Rowe offered a product, as far as i have seen, itunes.co.uk offers a place to get a plethora of spam emails. There is no hope other than Apple assuming control of itunes.co.uk

a quick question

with the internet, anyone can see when a patent is filed for on the same day it is filed, so who is to say that this wasnt registered because they lurked the patent office site. so, here is the question

Apple filed for patent on 27/10/2000. itunes.co.uk was registered on 7/11/2000. apple recieved the patent in january 2001. does the date a patent is filed mean anything?

TRO

Quote

Guest wrote:
itunes.co.uk launched as an mp3 search engine in November 2000, iTunes launched in the USA in 2003 and in the UK in 2004. We were there first

Ben Cohen
cyberbritain

something i just noticed... if this was released as an mp3 search engine (and still retains those qualities) is the site not illegal unless there is a payment function? if there is a payment function, when was it implemented? does the site even act as an mp3 search engine? every link points to quickquid.com, so why maintain that site?

there are so many questions, but they will all be answered for in some form of court... sorry, but itunes.co.uk will be apple's and Mr. Cohen will be SOL

TRO

The Cohens try to make it sound like Apple tried to pay them off because Apple thought they would lose. But it's more likely, Apple was just trying to be reasonable and offered to pay the Cohens the amount they spent to register the site for this year. No more than $100 - not even enough to buy the iPod that they're giving away on the site!!! That's why they couldn't accept.

… The Register takes another lunge at Aple …
I wonder how the “whiz kid� made his millions in the first place … other scams of this kind ?

Check out this article about the dotcom millionaire, Mr Benjamin Cohen

http://www.wessexscene.co.uk/article.php?sid=172

You will notice this paragraph:

"I realised the stupidity of what was going on, there was no concentration on key revenue streams, it was all about land grab and not about money. I decided that the only way there would be a future was to start to cut back."

Company by company, dotcom by dotcom, Cohen made his already small team redundant. He closed down skipmusic.com- a loss making music and mp3 portal, dotfamilies.com - a family safe search product and ceased development on a revision website, an mp3 software business, a cross communal website and numerous others.

On the offer, it was a lot more than $100 but we don't need to sell. I've not had the slightest interest in Apple before so its unlikely that we would have heard about itunes before we registered the name. Secondly, I was a dot.com millionaire but I'm not a millionaire now, it was all on paper. Thirdly, the ipod promotion was to prove a point and is not always displayed on the webpage. Fourthly, no the mp3 search engine was not illegal, see http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NEW/is_2000_Sept_18/ai_65282520

Seems like everytime something happens the press and some others are quick to make Apple out to be bad. I don't think this is the case.

I'm sure the company may need prodding on some issues like the iBook replacement, if I remember correctly. I think that the company tries to do well and has integrity. Though other issues like this, and the current British complaint that Apple is over charging for iTunes appear to be so silly (perhaps it's the record companies licenses that keep iTunes from blanketing the EU, huh?)

In looking over the posts, I can't say that many here are in favor of this millionaire and his claim. It's sad, I've known of others like him in my brief life.

1) there was no patent search on HM Patent Office Site then
2) The information was confidential to HM (Her Majesty's) staff at the time
3) The US trademark: 9th January 2001 USA Trademark applied for ITUNES by Apple Computer Inc for: 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

the issues are supposed to be about English trademark law not hearsay, and on the law cyberbritain has a case

Ben Cohen should have taken the out of court settlement

Much as I find it galling that Benjamin Cohen has snapped up the itunes.co.uk domain -- it would be nice of him to let Apple have it -- I do think some of the comments on this board are a little one-eyed. As some have said, it is essentially a legal issue.

Perhaps Apple would have been better off treating him nicely from the start, although that might not have made a difference. Benjamin's dad seems to have his head screwed on the right way.

Still, it is a pity for Apple users (who as customers have a stake in seeing Apple succeed) that something like this has come up to throw a spanner in the works in the UK.

I honestly can't see how people posting in this column can possibly defend the actions of Apple in this matter. Essentially what you are looking at is a big bullying corporation attempting to force another, smaller business out of action.

This is the sort of behaviour we have all come to expect from large corporations, but you shouldn't be defending it just because this corporation happens to be Apple. That's just outrageous!

You should be writing to Apple to say you disagree with their approach, not having a go at this bloke who bought the domain fair and square. When you all back Apple up when they do things like this, you are effectively giving them license to behave like MS thugs.

Remember, Apple can always register another domain name without any fuss, such as itunesmusic.co.uk or itunesstore.co.uk or itunesmusicstore.co.uk or ipoditunes.co.uk or itunesmusic.info or itunesstore.info....etc...etc...

umm im afraid you are wrong. all you americans are defending apple because they are apple. also we are dealing in good old BRITAIN here, not USA. the courts will (hopefully) not jump to apples side.

he registered the domain first, its his, LEGALLY, and there is absolutely nothing apple can do. its a farce that its even going to court. APPLE HAS NO RIGHT HERE.

the content of the site does not matter one bit. he could have anything on it and its still his. he is breaking no british laws at all.

so sod off apple...

How do you that Apple were not unreasonable? Strikes me that the Cohens were just as likely to have been unreasonable. No doubt the court case will settle it. Till then I think it is wiser not to jump to conclusions about either party.

John Crawford

Quote

Guest wrote:
I honestly can't see how people posting in this column can possibly defend the actions of Apple in this matter. Essentially what you are looking at is a big bullying corporation attempting to force another, smaller business out of action.

This is the sort of behaviour we have all come to expect from large corporations, but you shouldn't be defending it just because this corporation happens to be Apple. That's just outrageous!

You should be writing to Apple to say you disagree with their approach, not having a go at this bloke who bought the domain fair and square. When you all back Apple up when they do things like this, you are effectively giving them license to behave like MS thugs.

Remember, Apple can always register another domain name without any fuss, such as itunesmusic.co.uk or itunesstore.co.uk or itunesmusicstore.co.uk or ipoditunes.co.uk or itunesmusic.info or itunesstore.info....etc...etc...

Ben gave an interview to BBC Radio 5 Live this morning. He sounded like a guy who would sell his grandmother if the price was right, (although I guess she's probably not a core asset of the family). Made my skin crawl to be honest.

Quote

Guest wrote:
So, what's your price?

Are you really making that much money from itunes.co.uk, or is it quickquim.com?

quickquiD.com, learn how to spell names correctly!

If Apply wins then you might as well just give up your rights to everything right now! Why should anyone in the world automatically give in to a larg company? I for one will never shop from Apply again, they may not care because they have a lot of money to throw around intimidating people, but if that is how they want to waste their money, then so be it. I only shop/buy stock from socially responsible companies and of course now I have to add Apple to my list of companies that use greed as their primary goal. What a bunch of losers.
I don't really care about this cyberbritain guy, but no one should be bullied for/by big money.

Quote

Guest wrote:
"Ben",

You probably heard rumors that Apple was going to use the iTunes name for their music software product, which Apple applied for trademark in October 2000. The usual pre-MacWorld SF rumors. That led you to register it as quickly as you could in November. So the actual release date of the software has nothing to do with it. You know it. So don't go spreading your sad story around...

As you no doubt can guess, I hope Apple wins this one.

Is there anyway someone can check the AppleInsider/ThinkSecret/MacOSRumors/or their predecessors, etc to check when they first "rumored" the iTunes name?

I would never sell my grandma, either of them, I love them.
I'm sorry if I made your skin crawl but I didn't intend to.

On the rumours, can you just accept that its simply a case of honest concurent use, I've never used a mac, let alone owned one and I certainly wouldn't have visited a forum on macs unless this all happened.

It's really simple, we wanted something with the word tunes in it and picked itunes.co.uk as it was available. Remember there's another website using i-tunes.co.uk, that was registered before ours, and it sells music.

Ben

"How do you that Apple were not unreasonable? Strikes me that the Cohens were just as likely to have been unreasonable. No doubt the court case will settle it. Till then I think it is wiser not to jump to conclusions about either party."

Taking someone to court because they legally own something you want and tried to buy is unreasonable in my book.

"Listen, we'd like to buy this domain of you for our iTunes store. We are prepared to offer you a million zillion pounds for it,", say Apple.

"No thanks," says CyberBritain.

"Well then, I'll guess we'll have to discuss this... IN COURT!"

Sound reasonable to you?

Is this a phrase used in the Nominet procedure?

It's a trade mark lawyer's term of art from the "old act", (Trade Marks Act 1938), which survives only in a very narrow form, (in section 7), in the "new act", (Trade Marks Act 1994).

In neither case, however, is it a defence to trade mark infringement - it is simply an argument used by an applicant to overcome a Patent Office objection to registration of a trade mark.

If I was taking bets, my money would be on Apple.

Quote

Guest wrote:
"How do you that Apple were not unreasonable? Strikes me that the Cohens were just as likely to have been unreasonable. No doubt the court case will settle it. Till then I think it is wiser not to jump to conclusions about either party."

Taking someone to court because they legally own something you want and tried to buy is unreasonable in my book.

"Listen, we'd like to buy this domain of you for our iTunes store. We are prepared to offer you a million zillion pounds for it,", say Apple.

"No thanks," says CyberBritain.

"Well then, I'll guess we'll have to discuss this... IN COURT!"

Sound reasonable to you?

I agree a lot. Apple have no rights here at all, he owns the site and wants to hold on to it. Surely they cannot BULLY him to get it off him?

"Apple was later granted a restricted trademark on March 23, 2001."

"Apple inaugurated its iTunes music service in the U.S. on April 28, 2003."

So Apple registered a trademark and did nothing with it for years, preventing other organisations and individuals from selling goods with a name which makes absolute sense for a music product online. If anyone came along in the mean time and wanted to actually do something with the name then in the name of free trade they ought to have been allowed. It's the same as Microsoft, IBM and others taking out patents for ideas they don't use, just to stop anyone else getting a competetive advantage on them. The first to market should be the owners of the name.

Cohen has done nothing wrong and should not have the name taken from him. It's a similar situation to the katie.com farce, where an innocent domain owner had her property ruined by a publishing giant that refused to back down.


In any case, if Apple had squatted on all the available itunes, i-tunes etc domains as well as the trademark, which they could easily afford to do, then they would have avoided this. Not that I'm in favour of that of course.

Anyone who believes in free trade should stand up to any attempt to prevent, or extend the framework for prevention of, new entrants to a market. Even if you like their shiny white products.

Quote

Guest wrote:
umm im afraid you are wrong. all you americans are defending apple because they are apple. also we are dealing in good old BRITAIN here, not USA. the courts will (hopefully) not jump to apples side.

he registered the domain first, its his, LEGALLY, and there is absolutely nothing apple can do. its a farce that its even going to court. APPLE HAS NO RIGHT HERE.

the content of the site does not matter one bit. he could have anything on it and its still his. he is breaking no british laws at all.

so sod off apple...

I'm sorry but you're the one that doesn't seem to grasp the laws regarding this. How Ben will lose the case is two-fold:

• He is illegally infringing on an Apple trademark. Apple owns the use of the term itunes in relation to music with the UK. Ben can use this with Apples permission or not at all.

• He is not using the domain for a ligitimate purpose. Notwithstanding the above point Ben isn't actually doing anything useful with his domain other than to sell spam to visitors expecting iTunes. If he had a legitimate use for the domain (outside of Apples field of business) he may be entitled to keep it as he does legally own it. As he does not, and is only profiting from Apples success, he will not be allowed to continue it's operation.


The law in the UK regarding the internet, domain names and squatters are very similar - remember they've not been here too long.

Jay,
from England

apple don't have a trademark for itunes for music products, only for audio data files. They have applied for "iTunes Music Store" though although that would apply to a site caled itunesmusicstore.co.uk or similar.

If itunes.co.uk was used by cyberbritain before apple's trademark was granted as it was, then there is no need for apple's permission to use the name itunes.co.uk

What is on the site is irrelevant, i could register blahblahblah.co.uk and not put anything on it, or put a load of rubbish on it or anything else that is legal, it doesn't give the right for anyone else to have that domain. There are thousands which have never been used for anything, i.e. itunes.com itself was blank with a "register.com" coming soon message on it for two years.

QuickQuid.com has a strict privacy policy and does not spam anyone, saying that it does is a lie. Have you got spam from quickquid then?

Quote

Guest wrote:
[I'm sorry but you're the one that doesn't seem to grasp the laws regarding this. How Ben will lose the case is two-fold:

• He is illegally infringing on an Apple trademark. Apple owns the use of the term itunes in relation to music with the UK. Ben can use this with Apples permission or not at all.

• He is not using the domain for a ligitimate purpose. Notwithstanding the above point Ben isn't actually doing anything useful with his domain other than to sell spam to visitors expecting iTunes. If he had a legitimate use for the domain (outside of Apples field of business) he may be entitled to keep it as he does legally own it. As he does not, and is only profiting from Apples success, he will not be allowed to continue it's operation.


The law in the UK regarding the internet, domain names and squatters are very similar - remember they've not been here too long.

Jay,
from England

Hello, Jay, I am the person u quoted. Unfortunately u dont seem to see that apple has no business HARASSING Ben for the domain.
Heres a (very bad) metaphor:
Say you have a piece of blank paper (like an unbought domain), and you write on it Ford. Now the word ford has other meanings and can apply to other things than cars, rght? So does that give FORD the right to come along and DEMAND that you give them this piece of paper, and when you refuse they take you to court? Remember, you BOUGHT the paper (pretend you bought the paper before the ford company was made). You OWN the paper. Does FORD have the right to take it forcibly from you?

What Jay says about the law also applies in the US.

The reason why so many are upset with Ben is that he truly seems like a squatter given that his site doesn't really do anything. If he had been selling CDs or subscription music as a result of searches, then many would argue for him that he has a right to keep it, despite Apple having the trademark since they got it too late. In other words, Apple copied Ben. But this seems more to be a case of extortion - holding out for a big-time payoff later before giving Apple the use of its well-known and popular name. Apple is the one that made the name popular, why should Ben profit from that?

To the one who said Apple didn't do anything with the iTunes name for 2 years, that is wrong and you have no clue. iTunes was released as a software app in Jan 2001, so the trademark was continually in use way before 2003. Furthermore, give Apple credit that they did not trademark iTunes way before they released the software.

Anyone here know the story of katie.com? A website was bought and later a corporation used the name for one of its products. Same thing as happened here. I'd wager that any of the Apple apologists writing on this site would side with the site owner rather than the publisher of the book of the same name in that case. The ower of katie.com had her property ruined by the publisher's actions (she still can't use the site for its original purpose) and while that doesn't apply to itunes.co.uk the concept is the same - if you buy a website it should remain yours even if someone else later decides the name would be good for their product. It's not like Apple couldn't have found out that they didn't own the UK internet name before launching their own product in the same territory! The idiots!

What Jay writes is fairly well-established now in the Internet naming community.

Trademark owners have rights that come with having received the trademark - and those rights have simply been extended to website URLs. The legitimate use criteria has been the exception in the brick & mortar world to allow smaller entities to use names similar to the trademark and now it applies to the "virtual" world as well. So how well does Ben meet the legitimate use criteria?

Where were you when this was being hashed out during the dot.com boom?

I don't know about the katie.com case, but in this case, a very relevant decision was made by the UK government when it granted Apple the trademark for iTunes. It could've denied Apple the trademark on many grounds but obviously none of them were significantly met to cause a denial.

Go read through the process in which trademarks and registered trademarks are granted. Ben Cohen has a URL but not a trademark. Let him attempt to trademark iTunes in the UK today and see how far he gets!

Unless I have completely misunderstood, the Mr Cohen is not trying to trademark iTunes, just keep the domain name he bought.

Whether your pro Ben or pro Apple the fact of the matter is that Ben OWNS the domain name. Apple now wants to take his property away from him.

At the time of registration the word “Itunes� was not a trademark and because of the way Apple went about the process Ben could not see that there was a trademark pending, so there is no way Apple can prove ‘bad intent’ which I believe in the UK is the only way to take a domain away from someone that isn’t infringing on a pre-existing trademark, that is unless a document from Ben turns up that says something like “must remember to buy Itunes.co.uk in order to get shed loads of cash from apple when/if they have a product called Itunes�

Apple still can’t prove ‘bad intent’ as there is a clear link on the website in question to something to do with music.

Ben can’t take a payout from Apple as it will trap him in to giving up the domain and lose the payout, the argument goes like this:

Apple: Well can’t legally take the name from you so how about we buy it from you for X million pounds.

Ben: Ok then

Apple: AHa! See you were squatter all the time now we will sue you to get the money back and a whole lot more! Mwah! ha! ha!

Ben: Fiddle sticks, now I am bankrupt.

(Though his father would make sure there is a clause in the contact to insure this won’t happen should Ben sale)

The fact of the matter is that Apple messed up: buy the domains *before* you lunch the product (and trademark). Don’t try and bully people in to giving up what is legally theirs.

If Apple wins this case it will open the floodgates to 1000’s of other sites that for what ever reason own a domain that has something in its name that might ‘confuse’ people. It will be a disaster.

I myself had a similar case (in the UK) with a publisher and the surname of one of there authors. We owned the domain name; they then got a trademark on said name. They tried to get the domain name off us but we were having none of it: Our site was related to the author (it was a site about the author, who is dead) and we got there first (years in fact). I take some satisfaction in the fact that the publisher spent thousands of pounds to take the domain name and failed. If they had asked nicely then maybe it would have been different.

Maybe Apple should have asked Ben nicely….