back to article iPod designer's private nature costs him jonathanive.com

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 …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward

Circumstances change?

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.

0
0
Thumb Up

Sub head

was truly inspired!

0
0
(Written by Reg staff)

Re: Sub head

Ladies and gents, my colleague Mr Matt Dupuy, puntard extraordinaire.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Stalker?

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"!

0
0

Bizarre

What an astonishingly common-sense ruling. Very dull.

0
0
Jobs Horns

Does anyone care?

His designs are all ugly anyway.

@anon 'Stalker'? - more likely, he registered them to sell.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

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.

0
0

Sham Law

Laws are written to protect companies only.

0
0
Thumb Down

Cybersquatters must die

Cybersquatters are filthy, lazy vermin. Death to them all, cowering little retards

0
0
Jobs Horns

Next step

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...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Oh Dear

What a shame. Move on ...

0
0
Happy

@Sarah

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".

0
0
Gates Horns

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.

0
0
Jobs Horns

Who?

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

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums