Good thing to

What a dumbsh*t!! He could've gotten $5000, but now that greedy bum got nothing but some legal bills. Total loser!!!

Every once in a while the good guys win.

Quote

geoduck wrote:
Every once in a while the good guys win.

Except in this case of course! I think you'll find that Mr Cohen registered this domain some 13 months before the first version of iTunes was launched, let alone the iTMS. This case has been badly reported in the States, which as usual, only reports one side of an argument.

Yes Apple had released the iMac (1999) and Steve was it's iCEO (in this case i stood for interim) but other than that I don't think that they used the 'i' moniker for anything else. www.itunes.co.uk initially was set-up as a links site for all things to do with computer based music - mp3 software downloads, where to get mp3's from, reviews etc. Only when Apple got shirty and threatened legal action - in 2003, just before iTMS was being mooted - did this all blow up. It was during the dispute that it was pointed to Napster's site I guess out of spite.

Yes, I think Mr Cohen was daft trying to get more cash out of Apple but I also think that Apple played the villain in this affair - they could have made a better offer initially and come to a more amicable solution. As it is, they've appeared heavy handed and dare I say it, very Redmond like!

The name of his company, considering the type of business the man is engaged in, is a disgrace to his country …

You also have to think of the fact that Cohen wasn't acutally using the site for anything shortly after. He had the webpage send you to Napsters website, which is why the courts considered it an "abusive registration". Sure, he might have gotten it before Apple did, but linking it to one of their main competetiors, ecspecially after Apple tried to make a deal and you pretty much quadruple that (yes, it's actually more), and then point your site to a competitors website, that can be considered abusive.

Disappointed by this result.

I've registered some domain names - what's the point if a company registers my domain name as a trademark, then demands my domain? Am I being "obusive" if I say $5000 dollars isn't enough for all the effort, goodwill and business I might already be attracting to that domain?

Appears he lost the case due to not following the process at Nominet, and it was dressed up as "an obtrusive registration". What, he registered a name before Apple? Boo hoo. It's called business advantage, if you're not fast - you're last. Unless you've got big pockets.

The "cult" thing was a little naieve I think. But Apple users are a bit "other worldly", you have to admit.

Agree with Matwyn, Apple are the villian of this - and Nominet aren't much better.

A sad day for the small businessman/web freedoms.

Quote

Guest wrote:
You also have to think of the fact that Cohen wasn't acutally using the site for anything shortly after. He had the webpage send you to Napsters website, which is why the courts considered it an "abusive registration". Sure, he might have gotten it before Apple did, but linking it to one of their main competetiors, ecspecially after Apple tried to make a deal and you pretty much quadruple that (yes, it's actually more), and then point your site to a competitors website, that can be considered abusive.

So you're not allowed to own a domain that's a bit like an trademark and doesn't sing the praises of the trademark holder's product? Byebye ebaysucks, googlewatch and the rest.

And as for the money - it's called capitalism. If the owner's of ebaysucks.com are offered $1 for the domain - they have to take it?

Fact: Cohen set up itunes.uk first.

Fact: Apple acknowledged this by offering him $5,000 for the domain.

Fact: Cohen didn't think that $5,000 was sufficient.

Fact: he was in his rights to do so.

Fact: he was a complete idiot to, after turning down the offer and demanding ten times the money and having the demand rejected, point the domain to Apple's then #1 competitor. I'd say that this action is what lost him the domain. I'd go so far as to say that if he'd not done that, he'd have the domain today, unless he and Apple came to an agreement for transfering the domain for a sum larger than $5,000 but smaller than $50,000. Pointing the domain to Napster was all the evidence Apple needed to demonstrate that he was, in fact, cybersquatting and out for a big payday. He was a complete imbecile to have done that, and richly deserves the result.

He could also challange the trademark if he can prove that he had the domain name before iTunes was registered. This can be done upto 7 years after a trademark is granted. If he could get the rights to the iTunes trademark, imagine what that would be worth to apple.