James Delahunty
5 Aug 2005 14:06
The dispute between Apple and CyberBritain's Benjamin Cohen continues as the High Court has rejected an application for a Judicial Review into the ownership of the iTunes.co.uk domain name which was first registered by Cohen in November 2000. Originally Apple accused Cohen of being a "cybersquatter" and took him to UK registry Nominet looking for ownership of the domain name. Cohen registered the itunes.co.uk domain name on 7th November 2000, whereas Apple were only had the trademark for "iTunes" published in the Trade Marks Journal on 6th December 2000.
Cohen made use of the domain by forwarding it to a music search engine service at his CyberBritain site. Apple had offered a small sum of money (about $5000) for the domain, which Cohen rejected. Cohen then reportedly attempted to sell the domain name to Apple's rivals Napster, but the offer was rejected. Nominet ruled that the name registration was abusive and gave the rights to the iTunes.co.uk domain to Apple. In March, Cohen announced that he applied to the High Court for a judicial review of his dispute with Apple over the address.
Today Nominet announced that Cohen's call for a Judicial Review had been rejected. "The judge noted that the application was flawed in several respects, being both late and unnecessary given the right of appeal which forms part of Nominet's Dispute Resolution Service, which Mr Cohen had failed to use," said Nominet in a statement. In a statement Edward Phillips, Nominet's solicitor said: "I am pleased that the judge has rejected Mr Cohen's case at the first possible opportunity, which leaves no doubt that it was without merit. We will now be looking at recovering our costs of defending this unnecessary action."
If Cohen does not apply for an oral hearting within seven days, the matter will be considered closed. "CyberBritain is considering its options together with its legal team. It is currently reviewing the decision and is strongly considering making an application for an oral hearing", he told The Register. "We refute Nominet's allegation that it was an unnecessary action and hope that in the case of an oral hearing being pursued, the inherent unfairness of Nominet's dispute resolution service becomes apparent."
Source:
The Register