If the big guys want your domain name - they'll take it!

simonm · #1 (**permalink**) 05-31-2005, 06:26 AM

Have a look at what apple has done in 'taking' the domain name www.itunes.co.uk that apparently has been owned by Benjamin Cohen for the last few years.

http://networks.silicon.com/webwatch...9130809,00.htm

1st registered 07-Nov-2000, updated to Apple 02-May-2005

Along the lines of 'miserable failure' that points to George Bush, I propose domain thief

Simon

wrmineo · #2 (**permalink**) 05-31-2005, 08:48 AM

HAD this domain name been registered and created AFTER the launching of iTune, I'd have no sympathy for the owner as this would be a flagrant attempt at squatting and copyright infringement. HOWEVER, this certainly does NOT seem to be the case.

I hope Apple pays through the core on this case. Furhtermore, his registrar should be held liable too.

In the mean time, both companies should be exposed and boycotted for their actions, IMO. I find the actions of Nominet cowardice and unethical to put it midly.

Is this a possible issue that could be raised with ICANN?

cspelts · #3 (**permalink**) 05-31-2005, 07:54 PM

It doesn't appear that he developed a site to go with the domain - if he had, it might be a different story.

supernatural_247 · #4 (**permalink**) 06-10-2005, 02:11 AM

omg, this is totally insane!! He doesn't even have to have a site on that domain. If he owns it, he owns it. period. end of story. The question is, how on earth was Apple able to just take it? this sounds completely illegal... another example of how the bug guys are trying to take over the world. no wonder we have terrorists...

DIRTYDISCO · #5 (**permalink**) 06-16-2005, 12:39 PM

Its a shame for the guy didn't have a website developed none the less apple should pay him what the domain is worth regardless

he should chalange them

abacusdesk · #6 (**permalink**) 06-17-2005, 02:51 AM

Well can't this issue be raised with ICANN, I don't think it would help. ICANN works hand in hand with US Gov.

Ethicaly this guy should be paid.

Regards

Manu Mayank

www.abacusdesk.com

nottheusual1 · #7 (**permalink**) 06-17-2005, 02:24 PM

It is also unethical for registrars to own domain names for speculative reasons, but it is becoming a common practice.

ICANN is quickly becoming "YOUCANNT, but THEYCANN".

Vote with your money - that is all "they" care about, anyway.

freehits · #8 (**permalink**) 07-17-2005, 09:58 PM

It is awful,
If someone owns a beachfront lot with no house I suppose I can take it cause I like the beach too?

Property is property, squatting is just better anticipation. All cases are theft for me. I owned and still own some Basketball players names, I am a fan, So I have a right to them.

when does it stop is my questions.

If I own Shaquilleoneal.comm, then hell sue me and take it.

If I own Shaq.com hell sue me and take it.

If I own Shaqoneal.com hell take it.

If I own 32oneal.com hell sue me and take it.....
So where does it end? How much right does a name give you?

Property is first come first serve. If You name a city Shaqonealville, Fl he doesnt get rewarded the city.

First come first serve is the only way to remove the opinion from the law required here.

I dont like any legel theft, and it seems the less rich seem to always lose, which is a strong giveaway to what truly motivates this "justice".

nottheusual1 · #9 (**permalink**) 07-18-2005, 10:34 AM

property rights with trademark and copyrights (in this case, although property rights aren't what they used to be, either).

i-tunes (incorrectly represented here to avoid litigation in the future <<chuckle>>) is a registered trademark and copyrighted by Apple Computer, Inc. Their contention probably was that the domain wasn't supporting a viable business entity and any future use would **probably** be in violation of existing laws, and that the domain name was aquired in a purely speculative (read squatters) move.

Their point will be that they already "own" the name in the most legal of senses and that the domain owner had no tangible or "legal" interest in the name, beyond owning the domain name for speculative purposes, that would not be a violation of trademark/copyright laws, so why should they have to buy something they already own the only executable rights to?

A domain name is only a method for identification of a "property", not the actual property, itself, which being the content and technology of the implementation, is covered by copyright laws, too.

The question is whether or not a domain name is truly tangible property exclusive of the context of trademark and copyright laws. Current case law says nope, it isn't - it is the confluence of laws based on rights of ownership (copyrights and trademarks) versus posession (squatting).

Honestly, the guy made a risky investment that didn't work out. It's like not owning your mineral rights and hoping the coal company doesn't find a vein under your property when they are just a 1/4 mile down the road. And you thought $200 an acre was such a good deal.........

:not_the_usual1
[you decide]

freehits · #10 (**permalink**) 07-18-2005, 03:22 PM

If im a speculative land owner its called just that.

If I do the same with a domain property its given the bad term of "Squatting", and its looked down upon.

If you use the domain to pretend you have an association with the product name, or you are a competitor using it to mislead surfers then perhaps you should lose the name.

But If I am a music fan who own www.madonna.com and im not using it to sell licensed merchandise, then I had it first, and she can have madonna.net.

This is why .net and .info exists.

If I build my house on the best part of miami beach, you need to build next door on the .NET beach.

freehits · #11 (**permalink**) 07-18-2005, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nottheusual1

Their point will be that they already "own" the name in the most legal of senses and that the domain owner had no tangible or "legal" interest in the name,

For me, he has 100% legal interest in the name, simply by buying somethig offered for sale first.
Perhaps he should in turn sue the registrar, since they offered something for sale to him that Apple says they owned at the time?

nottheusual1 · #12 (**permalink**) 07-19-2005, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoptoo

Perhaps he should in turn sue the registrar, since they offered something for sale to him that Apple says they owned at the time?

I don't think that anyone had enough forethought for that one - it was sooooo "wild west" when things first opened up, and we've never seen much legal "congruence" from any of the gov agencies involved that I don't think anybody thought the whole mess through.

An associate of mine involved in the very early domain name politics swears that nobody cared - they all thought that the courts would be the best place to let it get figured out because if the original domain name policy body had got involved, we'd still be waiting on results!!

Problemo is that the registrars have taken a position that they don't want their "money-cow" milked by anybody else, so it almost seems as if they don't care - bigger $$ always seems to win. And that is simply because bigger $$ has more attorneys to sue their butts, so the little guy has little voice.

BTW - Apple never claimed ownership of the domain, just the rights to use the domain name. I still think that if the original owner had been doing something besides speculating, he'd have had much firmer ground to stand on and the registrar would have thought twice before transfering the domain name. It can't be considered a "tangible asset" if you don't own the rights to use it.

maxseo · #13 (**permalink**) 07-20-2005, 07:48 PM

I think we all should change our signatures for as long as it takes