Featured Domains

TrueName by donuts. Make a name for yourself

Michael Gleissner ordered to pay Apple £38,085 in trademark dispute

UK IPO determined revocation proceedings were initiated for ulterior purpose.

Michael Gleissner, whose companies have filed a number of questionable trademarks, has been ordered by UK’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to pay Apple £38,085 as a result of a dispute.

Three Gleissner-connected companies filed to revoke 68 Apple trademarks covering terms such as iPhone and iPad. Apple argued that the cancellation petitions should be struck as an abuse of process.

Apple said that the cancellation proceedings were prompted by Apple’s defense in another action a Gleissner company brought. Bigfoot Internet Ventures Pte. Ltd filed to revoke Apple’s “Sherlock” trademark for non-use.

The IPO agreed, with a panelist writing, “I am satisfied that the real purpose of the revocation applications is to coerce Apple to surrender or assign its SHERLOCK registrations…”

and “I find that the applications for revocation were brought for an ulterior purpose without which these proceedings would not have been commenced.”

The IPO Registrar has now ordered Gleissner and three of his connected firms to pay a total of £38,085 to cover costs associated with the dispute. He can appeal the decision.

(Hat tip: George Kirikos)

DomainAgents. What should you sell your domain for? Read our Domain Market Report Now. Sponsored.

Get Our Newsletter

Stay up-to-date with the latest analysis and news about the domain name industry by joining our mailing list.

No spam, unsubscribe anytime.

Reader Interactions


    Leave a Comment

  1. JohnUK says

    The “Judgement” of the IPO makes interesting reading but also reminds me that the whole “system” IS geared to being biased, it appears anyway, to large Corporates to the detriment of the “man on the street” . Even the IPO said to me ” whether you are granted a Trade Mark may be dependent on how hard you persist” !! . In other words if you are a large company you can often get a trade mark that the ordinary person would not be granted. For this reason I side with Michael Gleissner despite his losing this application/hearing.

Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News
%d bloggers like this: