Jonathan Ive, designer of the iMac, iPod and iPhone, has lost a claim for domain names carrying his name because his name is not a trade mark and because he shuns publicity. His name is not used enough in commerce to be protected, an arbitrator has ruled. Ive has applied for European Community trade marks but they have not yet …
Whilst I can see that there is an element of Mr Jones looking to make money from the domain name by selling it to Apple, if he is actively using it/them in a way whereby the domain name is relevant to the site contents, then how can Mr Ive registering a TradeMark 4 or more years after the event be grounds to have the domains taken away from Mr Jones. (I know that is a lot of Mr's but I'm trying to stay polite here).
What Apple appear to be doing is a reverse of the normal 'squatting' whereby they are creating a Trademark to steal ownership of an existing domain and can be no more acceptable than creating a website to take advantage of an existing trademark.
If I were Mr Jones, I would lodge a protest about the Trademark request as it infringes his websites and could cause confusion.
was truly inspired!
Re: Sub head
Ladies and gents, my colleague Mr Matt Dupuy, puntard extraordinaire.
I be more than a bit concerned with a complete stranger registering not one but FOUR domains in my name, "carrying news about and praise for Ive"!
What an astonishingly common-sense ruling. Very dull.
Does anyone care?
His designs are all ugly anyway.
@anon 'Stalker'? - more likely, he registered them to sell.
Six of one...
On the one hand, I dislike the traditional cyber-squatters immensely and enjoy hearing of cases where they're forced to hand over domains they've registered with no intention of using nor have genuine need for.
However, in this instance, it appears that Apple are the ones trying to be a bit heavy-handed, so I also want this Jones bloke to "stick it to da man" and tell Apple to shove their demand up their iArse.
Laws are written to protect companies only.
Cybersquatters must die
Cybersquatters are filthy, lazy vermin. Death to them all, cowering little retards
OK, expect the next step for Apple or whoever to stump up the money for the domain (Jobs can't afford it as he's only on a $1/year salary).
Following which, the site contents will disappear at Ive's request only to be replaced by ten more similar websites in it's place...
What a shame. Move on ...
Ok Sarah you know I luv ya and would happily have your cyber babies. But I've gotta call a penalty kick for the gratuitous over use of the *tard naming convention when you wrote "puntard".
They shouldn't have tried to settle
Rhetoric about "cyber-squatting" is meaningless, because Apple already offered money for the domain names. By offering money, Apple has declared that they're okay with the situation. At this point they're just haggling over the price.
Until this article I did not know who this guy was and I still don't care, his designs look like a 5-year old's
- Review Reg man looks through a Glass, darkly: Google's toy ploy or killer tech specs?
- MEN WANTED to satisfy town full of yearning BRAZILIAN HOTNESS
- +Comment 'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder
- Nokia: Read our Maps, Samsung – we're HERE for the Gear
- Apple tried to get a ban on Galaxy, judge said: NO, NO, NO