Apple wins iTunes Domain Battle - UK firm to Fight Decision


CyberBritain's CEO and former dot-com teenage millioaire Benjamin Cohen has lost the latest battle in his fight to keep HIS domain.

Interesting that this VNU article brings out the 'cult' word! It is also covered by silicon here.

This is the second high profile domain lost this week, in my opinion, wrongly.

A French court has ordered fashion designer Milka Budimir to hand over her website to the Kraft Foods company, which owns the Milka chocolate brand. Judges said the US giant Kraft Foods was entitled to the website because it had owned the brand long before Mrs Budimir, 58, was born

I have been through this domain dispute nightmare - it is not easy and the little guy doesn't win very often.


and Stelios wanted everything easy

It seems as a lot of those companies seem to think they own everything. I remember Stelios Haji-Ioannou went after everything that had easy at the beginning. He wasn't too keen on the website of an ex-girlfriend of mine ;-)

I'm surprised that he's manag

I'm surprised that he's managed to hold onto the domain for so long. Unless Cohen is going to claim that he owns any form of trademark relating to "iTunes", then I should have thought it was a clear issue of trademark violation.

Timing may be crucial here

It may be the timing as mentioned above. Of course in the eurotrash case here it clearly states:

The Panel concludes that Respondent has successfully rebutted this contention. Respondent has shown that, before any notice to him of the dispute, he had used the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of his services to a substantial range of customers in the United States of America and elsewhere. Respondent has provided cogent and corroborated reasons for his adoption of the domain name and of his continued use of it in the bona fide conduct of his business. The Policy does not aim to adjudicate between genuine conflicting interests. The Policy modifies the Justinian principle of "qui prior est tempore, potior est iure" – "first in time, first in right" - only where there is clear and unjustifiable misappropriation of Complainant's mark.

This was a three person panel in the eurotrash case and I thought Mr. Cohen could have used this as precedent - others have.

Apparently so.

Sounds like there could have been a little insider information there.

I'm not surprised... the Decision

Given that the domain was registered after Apples trademark application went in - and that Napster was approached in an attempt to sell the domain.

Doesn't mention that in the articles

The silicon one mentions:

Cohen accused Apple of bullying tactics and said he had registered the domain a month before Apple's trademark application was published back in December 2000 and some three years before its online music download service launched.

So there is a difference between "trademark applicaton was published" and when the application went in?