In a decision dated May 5, panellist John Swinson rejected Ive’s claim that he had trade mark rights in his name, stating: "The evidence provided indicates that the Complainant (and Apple Inc) do not promote the Complainant’s name as a brand or trade mark, and therefore do not use it in trade or commerce."
The case was filed in March over the domain names jonathan-ive.com, jonathanive.com, jony-ive.com and jonyive.com.
The sites are run by Harry Jones, who has no connection with Ive but claims to be a fan of the designer, who played a key role in the design of the iMac, Apple iBook, iPod and iPhone. Jones’s sites also carry a disclaimer saying it is not owned by or affiliated with Ive or Apple.
However, he has also offered to sell Apple the jonathanive.com site for $400,000.
Despite the finding, the panellist said he had some sympathy with Ive, who has two pending Community trade mark applications for his name: "A different result under this element could occur if or when the Complainant’s Community Trade Marks are registered, or if for instance Apple Inc, takes different steps in relation to the branding and use of Complainant’s personal name."
Ive may be able to file another UDRP case if and when his applications are registered.
In a separate UDRP decision, published on May 1, panellist Alistair Payne declined to transfer the domain name sirpeterscott.com.
Sir Peter Scott, vice-chancellor of Kingston University, sought the transfer from Howard Fredrics, a former university employee who has used the website to air grievances.
As in the Ive case, the panellist found that the complainant "has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish that he has common law trade mark rights in his name" and denied the complaint.
Court proceedings over the disputed domain name are pending.
The May issue of Managing IP includes an article looking at the emergence of high-profile business figures such as Steve Jobs and Martha Stewart as brands in their own right. It considers the pros and cons of protecting and enforcing their names as trade marks, and recommends action that in-house counsel should take.
