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:
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.
Well, you know absolutely nothing, at least. Thanks for insulting people before doing your homework.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB
I think that was with "IOS" and "iOS". Apple paid.
But the next iPhone won't be called iPhone 5 right TS? So it really doesn't matter right?
Having what to do with this? Apple wants this domain because its property is in the title. The iPhone 5 was released last October. Of course it matters that they have all possible links to their device.
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.
You should take your own advice. They got the domain long after the iPhone laucnhed (and after it was a success generating a huge amount of online buzz). By the time they got the domain people already were talking about the iPhone 3 (or 3G as it turned out to be called). As menti9oned, the only reason they got iphone5.com is probably because 3 and 4 were taken.
And there's no way they could have decided years ago they needed a discussion forum for an un-announced product. They got the domain purely on the hope they could sell it to Apple at some future date.
Oh, and while you were typing your fail-troll insult I was actually putting my two kids to sleep.
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 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.
In this case, I don’t see anything for sale on the website. I don’t even see ads. There is a disclaimer clearly distinguishing the proprietor from Apple. The site looks directed to news/discussion, which is highly favored by the First Amendment. I understand that the UDRP is friendly to corporate trademark holders, but it’s far from an open-and-shut case. And the linked article says that Apple won the domains of the adult websites but purchased others (whose content was not described), including iphone4.com.
I don’t think you meant to say “any other use” because certainly that is not true. U.S. trademark law protects uses in commerce (which you go on to discuss). Even then are fair uses, although that doesn’t seem to be relevant here. For cybersquatting cases like these, content and context are key. May I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute-Resolution_Policy (or http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Protection_Act.
In this case, I don’t see anything for sale on the website. I don’t even see ads. There is a disclaimer clearly distinguishing the proprietor from Apple. The site looks directed to news/discussion, which is highly favored by the First Amendment. I understand that the UDRP is friendly to corporate trademark holders, but it’s far from an open-and-shut case. And the linked article says that Apple won the domains of the adult websites but purchased others (whose content was not described), including iphone4.com.
Trademark law is very different. Arguing first amendment rights to overcome a charge of trademark infringement is not going to get you very far.
And trademark law and domain name issues, the rules are somewhat looser than you might think. For example, if you try to make a car with the name 'Coca-cola' and have the name in swirly red text, you're probably not going to get away with it - even though Coca-cola's trademark registration does not cover automobiles. Some brands are just too widely recognized to be allowed for ANY use.
Trademark law is very different. Arguing first amendment rights to overcome a charge of trademark infringement is not going to get you very far.
The First Amendment is inextricably intertwined with trademark law. While the Commerce Clause provides federal authority to regulate trademarks—a form of speech—the First Amendment provides the counterbalance. But you are correct in that the argument would most likely be “noncommercial use.”
And trademark law and domain name issues, the rules are somewhat looser than you might think. For example, if you try to make a car with the name 'Coca-cola' and have the name in swirly red text, you're probably not going to get away with it - even though Coca-cola's trademark registration does not cover automobiles. Some brands are just too widely recognized to be allowed for ANY use.
Now you are discussing trademark dilution (by blurring). You are right again, the car maker would probably not get away with it. But that is still a commercial use (well, the sale of the branded car; I assume you don’t mean an art project or something). One of my points was that you should not be saying “any use” because that is inaccurate. In your post, you used a Coca-Cola trademark, and now so have I. We were allowed to do this at least because the use was not a use in commerce. Theoretically, a website proprietor could do the same, even in a domain name.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
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
That is from IANA. Some RIRs still have IPs to give and down stream providers (Cox, AT&T, Time Warner, Verizon, etc) have room as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottleworks
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.
Well, you know absolutely nothing, at least. Thanks for insulting people before doing your homework.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB
I think that was with "IOS" and "iOS". Apple paid.
Nope, it was "iPhone". February 2007, they got it settled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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…
But the next iPhone won't be called iPhone 5 right TS? So it really doesn't matter right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad
But the next iPhone won't be called iPhone 5 right TS? So it really doesn't matter right?
Having what to do with this? Apple wants this domain because its property is in the title. The iPhone 5 was released last October. Of course it matters that they have all possible links to their device.
Actually, it does. As long as people are referring to something by a given name, there's a risk of confusion - even if Apple doesn't use that name.
For example, you couldn't call a product "iPad 3" even though Apple isn't using that name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Nope, it was "iPhone". February 2007, they got it settled.
Good stuff. I was only aware of http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/07/iphone-os-4-renamed-ios-gets-1500-new-features/
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Actually, it does. As long as people are referring to something by a given name, there's a risk of confusion - even if Apple doesn't use that name.
For example, you couldn't call a product "iPad 3" even though Apple isn't using that name.
I happen to agree with you...i was just poking fun at TS because he has been so adamant the the next iPhone will not be called iPhone 5.
Apple should defend it's product name from domain name hijacking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottleworks
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.
You should take your own advice. They got the domain long after the iPhone laucnhed (and after it was a success generating a huge amount of online buzz). By the time they got the domain people already were talking about the iPhone 3 (or 3G as it turned out to be called). As menti9oned, the only reason they got iphone5.com is probably because 3 and 4 were taken.
And there's no way they could have decided years ago they needed a discussion forum for an un-announced product. They got the domain purely on the hope they could sell it to Apple at some future date.
Oh, and while you were typing your fail-troll insult I was actually putting my two kids to sleep.
MGLeet is right, they settled out of court, Feb 2007:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/02/21/cisco_and_apple_settle_iphone_trademark_dispute.html
In this case, I don’t see anything for sale on the website. I don’t even see ads. There is a disclaimer clearly distinguishing the proprietor from Apple. The site looks directed to news/discussion, which is highly favored by the First Amendment. I understand that the UDRP is friendly to corporate trademark holders, but it’s far from an open-and-shut case. And the linked article says that Apple won the domains of the adult websites but purchased others (whose content was not described), including iphone4.com.
Looking at the domain record, iphone5.com was registered in 2008, well after Apple introduced and purchased the trademark from Cisco.
However, if the domain name was registered before any trademarks, then Apple should pay.
Trademark law is very different. Arguing first amendment rights to overcome a charge of trademark infringement is not going to get you very far.
And trademark law and domain name issues, the rules are somewhat looser than you might think. For example, if you try to make a car with the name 'Coca-cola' and have the name in swirly red text, you're probably not going to get away with it - even though Coca-cola's trademark registration does not cover automobiles. Some brands are just too widely recognized to be allowed for ANY use.
Props man