4 ms·

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 w

by 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.
    - wilfra 14y ago
      So if I own ggoogle.com you think I should be able to keep that domain and serve ads on it and profit from all of that traffic that is trying to find Google? Google should not be able to take that domain away from me? That's an interesting viewpoint, but not one supported by the law.
      - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
        Ha-ha-ha. Ggoogle is typo squatting. There's nothing inherently wrong with you using that domain but serving ads or having a search engine there would be most likely trademark infringements. If you had similar livery to Google then you'd probably be 'passing off' (in the legal sense). Personally I find nothing morally or legally wrong as long as you make it clear that the origin of the domain content is not Google Inc. and that you don't use the domain commercially (in the copyright law sense of commercial). Perhaps you can explain how a non-commercial use of that domain harms Google and indicate which laws prevent such a use. Google wisely own ggoogle. There are live examples of similar named sites: moogle, agoogle are domain-squatted, foogle hosts a business, etc..
DannyBee 14y ago
To put this gently: You don't know what you are talking about. Nothing here has anything to do with trademark infringement. Period. I started to write a longer post detailing all the legalities involved here, but it's simply not necessary. Additionally, in every WIPO appeal i've been involved that bears any similarity to this case, where WIPO ruled in favor of the claimant, it was overturned on appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction.
- wilfra 14y ago
  If it was necessary to file an appeal clearly there is some truth to what I said - or WIPO would never issue a decision that needed to be overturned. As for the appeals process itself, yet it is a loophole that you can file an appeal in front of any podunk judge that will hear the case, whether or not he's ever even been on the internet or knows what a domain name is - and if that judge finds in your favor, you get to keep the domain. Again, that doesn't make what I said untrue.
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    Your logic is simply broken. WIPO makes 3000+ UDRP decisions a year. Some will be right, some will be wrong. This is just reality. It has nothing to do with whether "there is some truth to what you said". Correlation does not imply causation.
    - wilfra 14y ago
      If you appeal a WIPO decision in front of some judge who doesn't know a thing about the internet and that judge rules in your favor, you have not just proven WIPO made a mistake - but that is how you are choosing to interpret his decision. You're clearly a typo-squatter or somebody who otherwise traffics in TM domains, so I'm never going to get you to agree with me on this, and that is fine, we don't need to agree. But your personal attacks are unnecessary.
      - DannyBee 14y ago
        Yes, I traffic in thousands of TM domains. It's not that i'm a corporate IP lawyer who has dealt with a lot of these situations before (only on the fighting typo-squatters side, hilariously enough), and so my view is more nuanced than yours. Instead, i'm just a typo squatter. You caught me.

by wilfra 14y ago

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.
  - wilfra 14y ago
    So if I own ggoogle.com you think I should be able to keep that domain and serve ads on it and profit from all of that traffic that is trying to find Google? Google should not be able to take that domain away from me? That's an interesting viewpoint, but not one supported by the law.
    - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
      Ha-ha-ha. Ggoogle is typo squatting. There's nothing inherently wrong with you using that domain but serving ads or having a search engine there would be most likely trademark infringements. If you had similar livery to Google then you'd probably be 'passing off' (in the legal sense). Personally I find nothing morally or legally wrong as long as you make it clear that the origin of the domain content is not Google Inc. and that you don't use the domain commercially (in the copyright law sense of commercial). Perhaps you can explain how a non-commercial use of that domain harms Google and indicate which laws prevent such a use. Google wisely own ggoogle. There are live examples of similar named sites: moogle, agoogle are domain-squatted, foogle hosts a business, etc..

DannyBee 14y ago

To put this gently: You don't know what you are talking about. Nothing here has anything to do with trademark infringement. Period. I started to write a longer post detailing all the legalities involved here, but it's simply not necessary. Additionally, in every WIPO appeal i've been involved that bears any similarity to this case, where WIPO ruled in favor of the claimant, it was overturned on appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction.

wilfra 14y ago
If it was necessary to file an appeal clearly there is some truth to what I said - or WIPO would never issue a decision that needed to be overturned. As for the appeals process itself, yet it is a loophole that you can file an appeal in front of any podunk judge that will hear the case, whether or not he's ever even been on the internet or knows what a domain name is - and if that judge finds in your favor, you get to keep the domain. Again, that doesn't make what I said untrue.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  Your logic is simply broken. WIPO makes 3000+ UDRP decisions a year. Some will be right, some will be wrong. This is just reality. It has nothing to do with whether "there is some truth to what you said". Correlation does not imply causation.
  - wilfra 14y ago
    If you appeal a WIPO decision in front of some judge who doesn't know a thing about the internet and that judge rules in your favor, you have not just proven WIPO made a mistake - but that is how you are choosing to interpret his decision. You're clearly a typo-squatter or somebody who otherwise traffics in TM domains, so I'm never going to get you to agree with me on this, and that is fine, we don't need to agree. But your personal attacks are unnecessary.
    - DannyBee 14y ago
      Yes, I traffic in thousands of TM domains. It's not that i'm a corporate IP lawyer who has dealt with a lot of these situations before (only on the fighting typo-squatters side, hilariously enough), and so my view is more nuanced than yours. Instead, i'm just a typo squatter. You caught me.