And lo on Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:14:01 +0100, Ross <rli### [at] speakeasynet>  
did spake, saying:

> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
> news:op.tyjfwfzyc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
>> And lo on Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:33:40 +0100, scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> did
>> spake, saying:
>>
>> > Say for instance I bought www.nokia.com long before Nokia realised  
>> they
>> > needed a website.  Do they have any right to force me to give-up that
>> > domain name, just because they are a huge multi-national company, or  
>> is
>> > it just tough luck and they have to pay me whatever it will take?
>> >
>> > Would it make any difference if I ran a small company called 'Nokia
>> > Gizmos' or something that nobody had every heard of?  Do they have  
>> more
>> > right to it than be just because they are a bigger well-known
>> > multi-national company?
>>
>> You're heading into trademark land. Remember Apple, the two  were
>> operating in different spheres hence no problem.
>
> Until Apple went into music, right? I thought that is when the Apple -vs-
> Apple started.

Yep, the original agreement was that Apple (computers) had nothing to do  
with music and thus couldn't be confused with Apple (records), and lo iPod  
and iTunes were created which reignited the argument.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message