4 ms·

After the domain was registered (and assuming no change in iTunes & App Store) - I'm curious to know who owns the right to the domain. And possibility of domain

After the domain was registered (and assuming no change in iTunes & App Store) - I'm curious to know who owns the right to the domain. And possibility of domain sale.

wilfra 14y ago
Apple would have no problem taking this away if they filed a WIPO claim. He clearly registered it in 'bad faith' (a legal term) and is willfully and purposely violating their trademark. I suspect though all they would have to do is ask and he'd hand it over - perhaps with a letter threatening legal action if he didn't immediately comply.
- VxJasonxV 14y ago
  Assuming that they don't just fix the problem (see my first-level comment), I do hope any response I see from them is tactful.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  >is willfully and purposely violating their trademark.// Go on. He's not trading using the Apple Computers trademark nor is their any confusion. There is nothing clear about his intention, there is no mens rea nor actus rea that can be established from the information in this thread AFAICT. Apple have no automatic right to everything bearing the name "Apple". They have no more right to the bogusapple.com domain than they have a right to a box of [fruit] apples from your local grocer. Will they get the domain if they wish it? Are mega-corps in control of the law in the USA? WIPO - they've erred before and will do so again I feel; they appear to have a presumption that the world belongs to corporations and don't have an interest in protecting the rights of citizens. Not unlike some governments it seems.
  - wilfra 14y ago
    The Apple in this domain refers to the trademarked Apple. He doesn't even attempt to hide that on the page, referring directly to the company himself. That is where the proof for willful trademark infringement comes from. If he had owned this domain for years and it was a blog about his favorite fruit, then he'd have a strong case to keep it. Given the way he's using it I doubt Apple would ever do anything more than ask him for the domain. But if he were to do something like put up a porn site or even run ads, they might be pissed off enough to sue him for the domain + damages - and they'd likely win.
    - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
      Use of a company name is not trademark infringement - trademarks indicate the origin of goods or services. Unless he's convincing anyone that what he's presenting is a service from Apple Computers then he's not infringing their trademark, wilfully or otherwise. Moreover reading the page [as it was presented to me] shows he's clearly not intending to infringe the mark with the content of the website either. IIRC he makes it clear that he/the page doesn't have an association with Apple Computers. If he puts up a porn site it will be even more obvious that he's not selling computers or consumer electronics. The actual ability to infringe Apple's marks would decrease hugely. Big name corps get special additional protections in some jurisdictions however that ignore things like the actualities of the situation. If they sue him they'd probably win regardless of the spirit of the particular statutes that apply. Do you think that these guys - http://www.usapple.org/ http://www.usapple.org/ - are infringing Apple's trademarks too?
      - wilfra 14y ago
        usapple.org is obviously not infringing. Apple is a tricky word because it's also generic. It's easier to discuss this when we're talking about an obvious trademark. See: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-disputes-21-squatter-domain-names/986 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-disputes-21-squa... Those domains and bogusapple.com, as it is used here, are identical - and they are frequently lost by their owners whenever the people who own the trademarks go after them. As DannyBee alluded to, when those corporations go up against deep pocketed squatters with good domain lawyers, they can sometimes be outsmarted and not get the domains. But the vast majority of the time they are successful.
        pbhjpbhj 14y ago
        >they are frequently lost by their owners whenever the people who own the trademarks go after them // People get scared by legal threats from massive corporations - that doesn't mean that proper legal process requires [or should require] that such domains are handed over.
        14y ago

After the domain was registered (and assuming no change in iTunes & App Store) - I'm curious to know who owns the right to the domain. And possibility of domain sale.

wilfra 14y ago

Apple would have no problem taking this away if they filed a WIPO claim. He clearly registered it in 'bad faith' (a legal term) and is willfully and purposely violating their trademark. I suspect though all they would have to do is ask and he'd hand it over - perhaps with a letter threatening legal action if he didn't immediately comply.

VxJasonxV 14y ago
Assuming that they don't just fix the problem (see my first-level comment), I do hope any response I see from them is tactful.
pbhjpbhj 14y ago
>is willfully and purposely violating their trademark.// Go on. He's not trading using the Apple Computers trademark nor is their any confusion. There is nothing clear about his intention, there is no mens rea nor actus rea that can be established from the information in this thread AFAICT. Apple have no automatic right to everything bearing the name "Apple". They have no more right to the bogusapple.com domain than they have a right to a box of [fruit] apples from your local grocer. Will they get the domain if they wish it? Are mega-corps in control of the law in the USA? WIPO - they've erred before and will do so again I feel; they appear to have a presumption that the world belongs to corporations and don't have an interest in protecting the rights of citizens. Not unlike some governments it seems.
- wilfra 14y ago
  The Apple in this domain refers to the trademarked Apple. He doesn't even attempt to hide that on the page, referring directly to the company himself. That is where the proof for willful trademark infringement comes from. If he had owned this domain for years and it was a blog about his favorite fruit, then he'd have a strong case to keep it. Given the way he's using it I doubt Apple would ever do anything more than ask him for the domain. But if he were to do something like put up a porn site or even run ads, they might be pissed off enough to sue him for the domain + damages - and they'd likely win.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    Use of a company name is not trademark infringement - trademarks indicate the origin of goods or services. Unless he's convincing anyone that what he's presenting is a service from Apple Computers then he's not infringing their trademark, wilfully or otherwise. Moreover reading the page [as it was presented to me] shows he's clearly not intending to infringe the mark with the content of the website either. IIRC he makes it clear that he/the page doesn't have an association with Apple Computers. If he puts up a porn site it will be even more obvious that he's not selling computers or consumer electronics. The actual ability to infringe Apple's marks would decrease hugely. Big name corps get special additional protections in some jurisdictions however that ignore things like the actualities of the situation. If they sue him they'd probably win regardless of the spirit of the particular statutes that apply. Do you think that these guys - http://www.usapple.org/ http://www.usapple.org/ - are infringing Apple's trademarks too?
    - wilfra 14y ago
      usapple.org is obviously not infringing. Apple is a tricky word because it's also generic. It's easier to discuss this when we're talking about an obvious trademark. See: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-disputes-21-squatter-domain-names/986 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-disputes-21-squa... Those domains and bogusapple.com, as it is used here, are identical - and they are frequently lost by their owners whenever the people who own the trademarks go after them. As DannyBee alluded to, when those corporations go up against deep pocketed squatters with good domain lawyers, they can sometimes be outsmarted and not get the domains. But the vast majority of the time they are successful.
      - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
        >they are frequently lost by their owners whenever the people who own the trademarks go after them // People get scared by legal threats from massive corporations - that doesn't mean that proper legal process requires [or should require] that such domains are handed over.
        14y ago