or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple files claim to obtain iphone5.com domain
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple files claim to obtain iphone5.com domain

post #1 of 55
Thread Starter 
Apple has filed a claim with the World Intellectual Property Organization in an attempt to gain ownership of the domain iphone5.com, which is currently owned by another party.

Apple's filing, first reported by Fusible (via MacRumors), could be seen as evidence that Apple plans to name its next-generation iPhone the "iPhone 5." However, it could also simply just be an effort by Apple to avoid confusion among consumers who might think the domain is owned by or affiliated with the company.

With the release of the third-generation iPad in March, Apple chose to eschew its traditional numbering scheme, simply introducing the device as the "new iPad" rather than "iPad 3." That has led some to speculate that Apple could simply call its next iPhone the "new iPhone."

The iphone5.com website is currently a small forum with a handful of posts. The complaint can be found at the official WIPO site, where it is Case D2012-0951 and labeled "active."

WIPO


Apple has turned to WIPO to obtain other domains in the past, including ipods.com last July. Late last year, the company also sought to take down iphone4s.com and a handful of other domains that featured hardcore pornography.
post #2 of 55

Here We Go Again.png

 

I hope they don't just make it a redirect, but send people to a single-page site.

 

Like this one, but with the relevant subject matter. Aww, that site's down! Maybe people got intelligent enough to let it fall by the wayside. Hopefully the same will happen here.


Edited by Tallest Skil - 5/6/12 at 2:45pm

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #3 of 55

Lawmakers need to make it easier to take down domain squatters.

It is almost impossible to pick a name for a new business venture because every single domain name is taken and many of them are taking by domain squatters.

Need a "use it or lose it" policy.

post #4 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus View Post

Lawmakers need to make it easier to take down domain squatters.

It is almost impossible to pick a name for a new business venture because every single domain name is taken and many of them are taking by domain squatters.

Need a "use it or lose it" policy.

 It is fairly easy for a company like Apple to take down a website that incorporates its trademark. Apple will obtain this domain no problem. Where it is hard is if you come up with a new name for a business, and then look for it online to find somebody squatting on the name. If the other person thought of the business name before you, you are out of luck. 

post #5 of 55
Hmm, a domain name for last years iPhone. iOS surely is easy to use, but do these people think we all have a single digit IQ?
post #6 of 55

Don't you think someone at Apple would have thought it would be a good idea to buy up "iphone5.com", "iphone6.com", "iphone7.com", etc?

 

This is pretty basic stuff, folks.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #7 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Don't you think someone at Apple would have thought it would be a good idea to buy up "iphone5.com", "iphone6.com", "iphone7.com", etc?

 

This is pretty basic stuff, folks.

Yeah I agree...why didn't they think of this stuff before? 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #8 of 55

In other news, Apple has owned mammals.org for years and years. The iBex must be imminent!

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #9 of 55
I don't see why Apple should have a claim on this domain. The reality is that it is a bit like their patent battles....the owners of this site thought of the domain name first so they own it. They should sue Apple if Apple try to use their name idea.
post #10 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lerxt View Post

I don't see why Apple should have a claim on this domain. The reality is that it is a bit like their patent battles....the owners of this site thought of the domain name first so they own it. They should sue Apple if Apple try to use their name idea.

 

Seriously?  You can't see the problem with some teenager owning the domain name that's the same as a multi-national corporation?  

Can't think of any reason why that might be a problem?  

post #11 of 55

First come, first served.  I don't understand why you all think Apple has a right to this domain name.  If I buy nextcoolproduct.com.  Apple then decides to make a product called "next cool product", it gives them no right to try to claim my web site.  It makes no difference if it's some amazing web site or just a parked domain.  I got there first. If Apple wants it, they have to buy it from the party who owns it.  This is how the real world works.  You can't cry to mom and dad. 

[Forum Signature]  I have no signature.  [Forum Signature]

Reply

[Forum Signature]  I have no signature.  [Forum Signature]

Reply
post #12 of 55

Oh, and which preteen here wants to make the first "troll" claim on my comment?  Preemptive reply:  Grow up!

[Forum Signature]  I have no signature.  [Forum Signature]

Reply

[Forum Signature]  I have no signature.  [Forum Signature]

Reply
post #13 of 55

You need to get real. Just because you grab a domain name doesn't mean that you should keep it. If it is a extension of a company's product name then no your not going to keep it. Period. Now if you had a product on the market before the iphone came out then maybe you have a argument for keeping it (i.e. Ipad in china). 

post #14 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

Yeah I agree...why didn't they think of this stuff before? 

As soon as I get an interesting idea or name, I immediately buy the domain. I should run that division at Apple.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #15 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottleworks View Post

First come, first served.  I don't understand why you all think Apple has a right to this domain name.  If I buy nextcoolproduct.com.  Apple then decides to make a product called "next cool product", it gives them no right to try to claim my web site.  It makes no difference if it's some amazing web site or just a parked domain.  I got there first. If Apple wants it, they have to buy it from the party who owns it.  This is how the real world works.  You can't cry to mom and dad. 

 

This is not "how the real world works."  This is how children see the world.  

 

"First come first served" is an inherently childish, selfish concept.  It's right up there with "finders keepers."

post #16 of 55

It isn't a childish concept, it is the "free market" concept.  Childish is suggesting that because one player is bigger and richer than the other he should win out.

I would be very much in favor of those who register domains being prohibited from owning any domains themselves to avoid having a network solutions type of company squat on every word in the dictionary, however.

And I am not averse to a use it or lose it policy, if reasonable.  I have been waiting for Smack.com to become available for ten years.  

 

In ten years it has never done a single thing.  its just parked.  

post #17 of 55
Please it is a childish concept. This company is using apples intellectual property to make money when they haven't paid for use of the iPhone label from apple to begin with. That's a scam
post #18 of 55

If a teenager was smarter than the entire business development team at Apple (who clearly didn't think to buy it in advance), then no, I don't see a problem.  

post #19 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by echosonic View Post


And I am not averse to a use it or lose it policy, if reasonable.  I have been waiting for Smack.com to become available for ten years.  

In ten years it has never done a single thing.  its just parked.  

Just check the Whois for applesucks.com it has been registered since the 90s but no problem since there is no objectionable content posted there. So apple must not have liked the content on the iphone5 site. I was squatting on a domain since 1994 and finally sold it a few months ago but not to who I thought I would sell it to. I never posted any content under that URL so the archive was clean.

Edit: I forgot to mention I also started a Delaware corporation under the same name to protect it. I also have had half a dozen domains taken from me that I registered in the 90s but by the rightful owners. Back when you could actually delete a domain I even did that rather than fight it so the company seeking to take possession then had to go after the new owner who registered after I deleted it. In the beginning you did not have to pay for domain registration. In fact my original internic ID was among the first 100 issued.
Edited by mstone - 5/6/12 at 6:19pm

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #20 of 55

Some more information: 


Current registrar is "Fabulous.com LTD" and it was registered in 2008. Not sure why Apple didn't just pick them all up back then…

 

Screen Shot 2012-05-06 at 8.45.02 PM.png

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #21 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottleworks View Post

First come, first served.  I don't understand why you all think Apple has a right to this domain name.  If I buy nextcoolproduct.com.  Apple then decides to make a product called "next cool product", it gives them no right to try to claim my web site.  It makes no difference if it's some amazing web site or just a parked domain.  I got there first. If Apple wants it, they have to buy it from the party who owns it.  This is how the real world works.  You can't cry to mom and dad. 

 

It's called domain squatting. If Apple offers the owner 100$ for it, and they refuse, they'll take it by force at the domain registrant's expense.

 

Companies aren't always successful (see nissan.com ) because ... the domain may actually be someones's name (see also mike rowe soft ) but this is more of an exception. It's unlikely that someone has the last name of "iphone5"

 

The people that typically register these names are typosquatters that aren't part of their name just have rubbish pages full of ads and no content.

post #22 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa View Post

It's called domain squatting. If Apple offers the owner 100$ for it, and they refuse, they'll take it by force at the domain registrant's expense.

The minimum amount of the offer has to be equal to the cost of registration paid to date by the party holding the domain.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #23 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lerxt View Post

I don't see why Apple should have a claim on this domain. The reality is that it is a bit like their patent battles....the owners of this site thought of the domain name first so they own it. They should sue Apple if Apple try to use their name idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bottleworks View Post

First come, first served.  I don't understand why you all think Apple has a right to this domain name.  If I buy nextcoolproduct.com.  Apple then decides to make a product called "next cool product", it gives them no right to try to claim my web site.  It makes no difference if it's some amazing web site or just a parked domain.  I got there first. If Apple wants it, they have to buy it from the party who owns it.  This is how the real world works.  You can't cry to mom and dad. 

You really need to read up on trademark law before you go any further.

Let's say that someone else had gotten the cocacola.com trademark before Coke did. Should they be allowed to use it? Not according to trademark law. Coca-cola has a trademark on the name and any other use is infringing on their trademark. Once you have a trademark, you have the exclusive right to use the trademark for the markets that the trademark covers. For as well-known a trademark as iPhone or Coca-cola, it's extremely unlikely that anyone else is going to be able to get the trademark - even for a non-infringing market.

Apple has invested millions of dollars into creating value around the 'iPhone' trademark and WIPO, the USPTO and the courts have determined that it is unfair for someone else to be able to enrich themselves at Apple's expense due to the possibility of confusion.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #24 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Some more information: 


Current registrar is "Fabulous.com LTD" and it was registered in 2008. Not sure why Apple didn't just pick them all up back then…

 

Screen Shot 2012-05-06 at 8.45.02 PM.png

 

Isn't that the name of the domain name registrar?

The actual owner of the iphone5.com domain is hidden by a privacy service.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #25 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
Isn't that the name of the domain name registrar?

The actual owner of the iphone5.com domain is hidden by a privacy service.

 

Er… yes? lol.gif

 

I don't know anything about this, I don't like it at all, I want it changed. I don't understand who these companies are (GoDaddy, the one with a cow, etc.) that they can come in and somehow automatically own all URL names and you have to buy yours from them. I don't get it at all. 

 

We should be buying static IP addresses from the international repository of them or whatever. Then we create the name by which that IP is known.

 

And when's the world going to shift to IPv6, anyway? Aren't we out of v4 addresses?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #26 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Let's say that someone else had gotten the cocacola.com trademark before Coke did. Should they be allowed to use it? Not according to trademark law. Coca-cola has a trademark on the name and any other use is infringing on their trademark.

In the early days people were obtaining trademarks for global brands in obscure countries to legitimize their domain registrations. Coca cola for example may not have had a registered trademark in Ivory Coast. So people would obtain that tm and it would stand up legally but if they posted any content to the site that was in violation then the ownership could be revoked.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #27 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You really need to read up on trademark law before you go any further.
Let's say that someone else had gotten the cocacola.com trademark before Coke did. Should they be allowed to use it? Not according to trademark law. Coca-cola has a trademark on the name and any other use is infringing on their trademark. Once you have a trademark, you have the exclusive right to use the trademark for the markets that the trademark covers. For as well-known a trademark as iPhone or Coca-cola, it's extremely unlikely that anyone else is going to be able to get the trademark - even for a non-infringing market.
Apple has invested millions of dollars into creating value around the 'iPhone' trademark and WIPO, the USPTO and the courts have determined that it is unfair for someone else to be able to enrich themselves at Apple's expense due to the possibility of confusion.

Trademark laws are different. Owning a trademark does not give you the right to own the domain as well. What these cases comes to is whether the owner of the domain is using it to deceive and trick people into thinking the website is part of the trademark holder business.

I personally don't feel comfortable about corporations having the power to claim ownership by force for any domain that contain their product name. If anything they should pay for it the same way they pay for trademarks in other countries when they acquire them.
post #28 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Er… yes? lol.gif

I don't know anything about this, I don't like it at all, I want it changed. I don't understand who these companies are (GoDaddy, the one with a cow, etc.) that they can come in and somehow automatically own all URL names and you have to buy yours from them. I don't get it at all. 

We should be buying static IP addresses from the international repository of them or whatever. Then we create the name by which that IP is known.

And when's the world going to shift to IPv6, anyway? Aren't we out of v4 addresses?

You need to study up on how DNS works and no we are not out of ipv4. I just took possession of another class C from Cox. They are in short supply though so you need to justify your need for them ar Arin.

In addition the people who have control of the ipv4 classes will automatically have possession of the expanded ipv6 IPs under those classes so although there are more iPs the same people control them

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #29 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Don't you think someone at Apple would have thought it would be a good idea to buy up "iphone5.com", "iphone6.com", "iphone7.com", etc?

 

This is pretty basic stuff, folks.

 

Agreed. Also, www.iPhone5.com seems like a happy, harmless iPhone 5 rumors forum than some 'squatter.'

 

It's like Apple waking up one day, deciding to start its own insider chat forum for its customers, and deciding to call it....

post #30 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottleworks View Post

First come, first served.  I don't understand why you all think Apple has a right to this domain name.  If I buy nextcoolproduct.com.  Apple then decides to make a product called "next cool product", it gives them no right to try to claim my web site.  It makes no difference if it's some amazing web site or just a parked domain.  I got there first. If Apple wants it, they have to buy it from the party who owns it.  This is how the real world works.  You can't cry to mom and dad. 

Agreed.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bottleworks View Post

Oh, and which preteen here wants to make the first "troll" claim on my comment?  Preemptive reply:  Grow up!

Grow up.

post #31 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

This is not "how the real world works."  This is how children see the world.  

 

"First come first served" is an inherently childish, selfish concept.  It's right up there with "finders keepers."

 

Umm....  "inherently"? 'First come first served' (assuming it was done legally and legitimately, registered properly, put to use in good faith, etc) is the basis for a great deal of IP law.

 

'Finders keepers' also has legal standing in many instances, depending on circumstances (e.g., if the original owner does not turn up before some reasonable period of time elapses).

post #32 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottleworks View Post

First come, first served.  I don't understand why you all think Apple has a right to this domain name.  If I buy nextcoolproduct.com.  Apple then decides to make a product called "next cool product", it gives them no right to try to claim my web site.  It makes no difference if it's some amazing web site or just a parked domain.  I got there first. If Apple wants it, they have to buy it from the party who owns it.  This is how the real world works.  You can't cry to mom and dad. 

The first iPhone was unveiled on January 9, 2007.

iPhone5.com was registered 13 months later so Apple didn't happen to use a copyrighted name that this guy already owned the domain for, it was the other way around.

It was probably just the lowest available number after the word iphone.

 

The fact that Apple didn't register it would tell me that they aren't going to call it iphone 5.

However, it's still a copyrighted name so unless it was registered before the announcement of the iphone, Apple deserve the site.

They are just protecting what is theirs.

 

You know whoever registered iphone5.com just wanted Apple to buy it and make an easy buck.

post #33 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

 

You know whoever registered iphone5.com just wanted Apple to buy it and make an easy buck.

That worked for a while but doesn't any longer. It was a lot like Dodge City in the 1800s when people could get names for nada and hold up the company with the trademark. No more gunslinger and no more holdups, a new law came to town.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #34 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

You need to study up on how DNS works and no we are not out of ipv4. I just took possession of another class C from Cox. They are in short supply though so you need to justify your need for them ar Arin.
In addition the people who have control of the ipv4 classes will automatically have possession of the expanded ipv6 IPs under those classes so although there are more iPs the same people control them

IP4 actually is exhausted, as of Feb 2011. MS bought the last chunk for their Xboxes. Sure you can still buy them from Cox or some other telco, but exhausted they are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion
post #35 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottleworks View Post

First come, first served.  I don't understand why you all think Apple has a right to this domain name.  If I buy nextcoolproduct.com.  Apple then decides to make a product called "next cool product", it gives them no right to try to claim my web site.  It makes no difference if it's some amazing web site or just a parked domain.  I got there first. If Apple wants it, they have to buy it from the party who owns it.  This is how the real world works.  You can't cry to mom and dad. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bottleworks View Post

Oh, and which preteen here wants to make the first "troll" claim on my comment?  Preemptive reply:  Grow up!

 

Funny, when I read your first post I thought it was a preteen who wrote it. The "first come, first served" as pointed out already is the giveaway.

 

I hate domain squatters so I'll smile when Apple successfully gets this domain (which they will). Nothing wrong with coming up with some clever domain names and registering them hoping they're worth money down the road. But people who register domains that comprise obvious trademarks are a$$holes, IMO.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #36 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

 

Funny, when I read your first post I thought it was a preteen who wrote it. The "first come, first served" as pointed out already is the giveaway.

 

I hate domain squatters so I'll smile when Apple successfully gets this domain (which they will). Nothing wrong with coming up with some clever domain names and registering them hoping they're worth money down the road. But people who register domains that comprise obvious trademarks are a$$holes, IMO.

 

Son, do your homework first.  The domain name was registered before Apple had the trademark and the owner of the domain name is using the site for an online forum.  Now, go to sleep.  You're up way past bed time.

[Forum Signature]  I have no signature.  [Forum Signature]

Reply

[Forum Signature]  I have no signature.  [Forum Signature]

Reply
post #37 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottleworks View Post

Son, do your homework first.  The domain name was registered before Apple had the trademark and the owner of the domain name is using the site for an online forum.  Now, go to sleep.  You're up way past bed time.

I could be dumb, but didn't Apple have the iPhone trademark before 2008? Like, you know, in 2007 after it was announced and the spat with Cisco was resolved?
"You can converge a toaster and a refrigerator but, ya know, those things are probably not going to be pleasing to the user."
Reply
"You can converge a toaster and a refrigerator but, ya know, those things are probably not going to be pleasing to the user."
Reply
post #38 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottleworks View Post

First come, first served.  I don't understand why you all think Apple has a right to this domain name.  If I buy nextcoolproduct.com.  Apple then decides to make a product called "next cool product", it gives them no right to try to claim my web site.  It makes no difference if it's some amazing web site or just a parked domain.  I got there first. If Apple wants it, they have to buy it from the party who owns it.  This is how the real world works.  You can't cry to mom and dad. 

Okay - but then - if Apple wants to buy that domain from you - the sale price should be based not on what the value is to Apple but the value to you. What would you lose in revenue, marketing, etc if you lost a domain that you parked. And if your answer is, oh no,  if it is worth millions of dollars to Apple then they should pay - then you are right back to the only reason you claimed it is in order to gouge the company who has a stronger claim. 

 

a case such as iphone5 - unless it was registered prior to the original release of the iPhone - then it is a pretty weak argument that anyone but Apple is entitled to use it. If you did iPhoneFive.com perhaps Apple might have a harder time claiming that rights to that. 

 

a case where you actually have a product or a company etc - didn't Avaya have an iPhone prior to Apple using that name - where you have already invested time and money and have a product - then Apple (or whoever the company is) should have to pay more if they want to buy the rights from you. 

 

post #39 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Er… yes? lol.gif

 

I don't know anything about this, I don't like it at all, I want it changed. I don't understand who these companies are (GoDaddy, the one with a cow, etc.) that they can come in and somehow automatically own all URL names and you have to buy yours from them. I don't get it at all. 

 

We should be buying static IP addresses from the international repository of them or whatever. Then we create the name by which that IP is known.

 

And when's the world going to shift to IPv6, anyway? Aren't we out of v4 addresses?

IPv6 World Day II is next month so update your routers now and play World of Warcraft over the new Internet!  Be the first guy on your block with your very own /48!!!!  ;)

 

APNIC is completely out.  ARIN thinks they have enough to get through 2013, RIPE is running short along with the other RIRs and have scaled way back in the number and size of allocations assigned.  MS recently paid about millions ($11 per IP) in a bankruptcy auction from Nortel for their old blocks and still had to seek ARIN approval to keep them (justify need within current usage policy).  IPv6 to the homes is a must but seems like more of a 2013 target.  Apple's Airport base stations are pretty highly rated, btw.  Fortunately most of the junk on The Net is hosted in the US with bigger content delivery more regionalized.  I'll be quite happy when networks addresses are not a constrained resource for providers.  

 

On the previous stuff, IPs and domains are independent of one another.  But companies like GoDaddy are agents and service bundlers to make things easier for the smaller entities wanting to get in.  Seems like a bit of a slimy racket with them registering any name they can think of and then selling it at a premium + maintenance...  But good business is where you find it, right?  It's their ads I really can't stand.

 

Holders of trademarks and copyrights will win out; they just have to prove it.  The smart money is in guessing the name of a product not yet on the market where there's no priors like if I was smart enough to have owned "iBooks.com"

post #40 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MGLeet View Post


I could be dumb, but didn't Apple have the iPhone trademark before 2008? Like, you know, in 2007 after it was announced and the spat with Cisco was resolved?

 

I think that was with "IOS" and "iOS".  Apple paid.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple files claim to obtain iphone5.com domain