Sign in / up

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

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    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
  2. Lyndon Hills
    Thumb Up

    Sub head

    was truly inspired!

    0 0
  3. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

    Re: Sub head

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

    0 0
  4. Anonymous Coward
    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
  5. Bassey

    Bizarre

    What an astonishingly common-sense ruling. Very dull.

    0 0
  6. Anonymous Coward
    Jobs Horns

    Does anyone care?

    His designs are all ugly anyway.

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

    0 0
  7. Anonymous Coward
    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
  8. Jodo Kast

    Sham Law

    Laws are written to protect companies only.

    0 0
  9. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Cybersquatters must die

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

    0 0
  10. Anonymous Coward
    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
  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oh Dear

    What a shame. Move on ...

    0 0
  12. Anonymous Coward
    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
  13. Mike Powers
    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
  14. Anonymous Coward
    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.

Other stories you might like