For example, if Tesla.com was running automotive content, it would give Tesla Motors a strong argument that Tesla.com is confusingly similar to their own.
This happens sometimes with parked domains because the ads come through a feed from an ad network. These networks have some basic keyword targeting, so a generic domain owner can accidentally run ads for the exact company they are trying to not infringe on.
It's nonsensical because there is nothing wrong with owning that domain (from multiple perspectives) and most importantly the ownership predates Teslas use of the name by a long time (and a short time is all you need). So unless the owner is trying to compete in an area similar to Tesla's trademarks it's a non starter.
UDRP won't get you a name unless certain conditions are met and even then there are ways to hold onto the name (you can file federal lawsuits for example) if there is enough money involved.
In the end this becomes a battle of nerves as well as gambling as to what the fold price will be of both parties before they walk.
The truth though is tesla.com is what I call a bastard domain. As a result of the fact that Tesla is effectively the only buyer of the name (because any new use they'd have established broad rights by their popularity let's say) it would be hard for a new buyer to justify purchasing the domain for as high of a price as Tesla would pay for it.
> He just can't say as much because it would have made it easier for Tesla to argue he's squatting
Has nothing to do with it. There is allegedly an NDA is the reason. Once the sale is done you can say whatever you want there is no action the buyer can take. Price if high enough might end up in some other document though.
> NP: Do you advise startups on domain name acquisitions? If so, can you share some of your common recommendations?
> Jason: I do this often, and the conversation is usually “fake it until you make it.” So, there is no problem being TeslaMotors.com forever. Obviously the car and people who make the car are the most important aspect of the success of that company.
> However, if the person with Tesla.com decides they want to buy a nice condo or house, sure, it’s a great idea to spend $500k or $1m buying that name. If the person with Tesla.com waits too long, they miss the opportunity to take 10% of the purchase price in stock (or some kicker like that). They also risk pissing off the management team at a startup, who will eventually realize, “well, our cars are the best in the world and this domain name is not essential.”
A couple years ago I sold fullscreen.com for not much. 15 years ago I had applied for a trademark, but was refused, the USPTO said it was a generic computer term. They mailed me a photocopied computer dictionary with the term full-screen highlighted. I wondered about windows, but gave up there. I used the name briefly for a software product: screensaver & wallpaper 1-click installer.
Then a couple years a ago, a new fullscreen had somehow gotten the trademark. They said that I should sell the name because they had a trademark. Not being very clever, I sold it. I'd even been using the name again selling apps -- but my first use with the apps was a little after this new fullscreen got their trademark.
Maybe I screwed up -- but it felt to me like whoever had the money for lawyers was going to win a battle like that.
Yup, that 250 million deal went down about a week after I relented. :( I'm just a programmer dude. I need to get some legal help, obviously. Lawyers just make my skin crawl though. I look forward to the day we have replaced most of their function with neural nets.
It is not about the word, it is about whether it is descriptive. For example, you cannot protect "soap" as a trademark for soap, but you can protect "soap" as a trademark for everything else.
He is not a squatter. Stop with the arbitrary use of squatter for anyone who owns a domain and isn't willing to give it to a company which didn't even exist at the time of original registration.
Separately buying and selling domains is a legitimate business (and there are companies that do this on the stock exchanges).
Squatter dates back to a few cases in the 90's where tech guys held their companies names ransome or certain people tried to register unique trademarks with the clear intention of holding out for large sums of money.
Nothing gives Tesla the god given right to just get that name because they are Tesla (in these particular circumstances).
I've had teslabox.com since 2003... Someone was sending certified mail to the pobox I had - I only checked the box every six months so I never got their letter. The sender had to have gotten that address from whois. I got a free domain from Google, transferred, anonymize, and closed the pobox last November.
Noticed recently that an Asian manufacturer registered teslabox.net, for their Tesla Model S accessory. Maybe someone wanted to buy my domain.
28 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 57.0 ms ] threadFor example, if Tesla.com was running automotive content, it would give Tesla Motors a strong argument that Tesla.com is confusingly similar to their own.
This happens sometimes with parked domains because the ads come through a feed from an ad network. These networks have some basic keyword targeting, so a generic domain owner can accidentally run ads for the exact company they are trying to not infringe on.
UDRP won't get you a name unless certain conditions are met and even then there are ways to hold onto the name (you can file federal lawsuits for example) if there is enough money involved.
In the end this becomes a battle of nerves as well as gambling as to what the fold price will be of both parties before they walk.
The truth though is tesla.com is what I call a bastard domain. As a result of the fact that Tesla is effectively the only buyer of the name (because any new use they'd have established broad rights by their popularity let's say) it would be hard for a new buyer to justify purchasing the domain for as high of a price as Tesla would pay for it.
Read: Tesla finally offered enough money. He just can't say as much because it would have made it easier for Tesla to argue he's squatting.
That quote from Jason Calacanis is horribly butchered, too.
Has nothing to do with it. There is allegedly an NDA is the reason. Once the sale is done you can say whatever you want there is no action the buyer can take. Price if high enough might end up in some other document though.
It sounds like the subject is the owner of Tesla.com:
> If [Bob] decides they want to buy a nice condo or house, sure, it’s a great idea [for Bob] to spend $500k or $1m buying that name.
If you click through to the full quote you can see clearly that the subject is the purchaser of the domain.
> NP: Do you advise startups on domain name acquisitions? If so, can you share some of your common recommendations?
> Jason: I do this often, and the conversation is usually “fake it until you make it.” So, there is no problem being TeslaMotors.com forever. Obviously the car and people who make the car are the most important aspect of the success of that company.
> However, if the person with Tesla.com decides they want to buy a nice condo or house, sure, it’s a great idea to spend $500k or $1m buying that name. If the person with Tesla.com waits too long, they miss the opportunity to take 10% of the purchase price in stock (or some kicker like that). They also risk pissing off the management team at a startup, who will eventually realize, “well, our cars are the best in the world and this domain name is not essential.”
Then a couple years a ago, a new fullscreen had somehow gotten the trademark. They said that I should sell the name because they had a trademark. Not being very clever, I sold it. I'd even been using the name again selling apps -- but my first use with the apps was a little after this new fullscreen got their trademark.
Maybe I screwed up -- but it felt to me like whoever had the money for lawyers was going to win a battle like that.
Who is "they"?
Very litigious. They are the same group behind the fine bros trying to trademark the word "React"
http://superfame.com/post/fine-brothers-copyright-react-trad...
http://venturebeat.com/2016/02/01/youtubes-fine-bros-face-le...
and notorious for taking down videos or claiming copyright google h3 productions and fullscreen.
I wonder when they will make the full switch?
Separately buying and selling domains is a legitimate business (and there are companies that do this on the stock exchanges).
Squatter dates back to a few cases in the 90's where tech guys held their companies names ransome or certain people tried to register unique trademarks with the clear intention of holding out for large sums of money.
Nothing gives Tesla the god given right to just get that name because they are Tesla (in these particular circumstances).
Noticed recently that an Asian manufacturer registered teslabox.net, for their Tesla Model S accessory. Maybe someone wanted to buy my domain.