domain Pet.co

$1X,XXX

Ty

I really like this domain!

I think XXXX to right end-user IMO

There is an obvious end user, who also has a pretty strong TM for the term.

Brad

coco77 said:

I really like this domain!

I think XXXX to right end-user IMO

Click to expand...

I would not sell this below 5 figures...if i have to hold 5 years even

Rizwan Razzaq said:

I would not sell this below 5 figures...if i have to hold 5 years even

Click to expand...

After some quick digging there is an active TM for PetCo. Dunno if someone wants to compete with throwing so much money towards this domain, knowing there is TM issues.

My first few domains I thought were gold were all TM hehe. Was my very first lesson in the domain industry. Lol

The word in question is pet not Petco.
A vocabulary word.

Still very similiar with the co. It'd be risky imo.

Salvatore Giannone said:

The word in question is pet not Petco.
A vocabulary word.

Click to expand...

If you plan on it being a store related to pets. There is a TM problem there.

coco77 said:

After some quick digging there is an active TM for PetCo. Dunno if someone wants to compete with throwing so much money towards this domain, knowing there is TM issues.

My first few domains I thought were gold were all TM hehe. Was my very first lesson in the domain industry. Lol

Click to expand...

Extensions are not usually if ever used as part of the TM process the extension is .co the difference between petco and pet.co are astronomical
Reseller Value: $15,000 End-User: $65,000 Hobbiest: $18,000

Daniel Owens said:

Extensions are not usually if ever used as part of the TM process the extension is .co the difference between petco and pet.co are astronomical
Reseller Value: $15,000 End-User: $65,000 Hobbiest: $18,000

Click to expand...

So I guess, in your opinion, ex. gooogle.com is fine? (Cybersquatting) They are different.
Or petco.shop or petco.store would still be legal? And no TM Issues?

I had GearBest.shop and .store when i first started. Thought they were worth gold as that is a HUGE e-commerce store.

Just saying somebody who wants to get into that industry ....will think twice or more before spending 65k as you say.

Just saying it how it is. My opinions on this topic stops here.

coco77 said:

So I guess, in your opinion, ex. gooogle.com is fine? (Cybersquatting) They are different.
Or petco.shop or petco.store would still be legal? And no TM Issues?

I had GearBest.shop and .store when i first started. Thought they were worth gold as that is a HUGE e-commerce store.

Just saying somebody who wants to get into that industry ....will think twice or more before spending 65k as you say.

Just saying it how it is. My opinions on this topic stops here.

Click to expand...

No, those would not be ok but .co is the extension not the domain. Pet.extension of anything is not TM or cybersquatting.

COrrect. Pun intended.

Someone could theoretically open a pet store at that domain name legally it seems. I like it the domain

Edit: I’m wrong. Tes.co lost their domain name in wipo dispute

Nice name and if I own this name than I set bin $30,000 at least.

excellent name..

Very nice

For your reference, there was a real case simillar to your situation. The domain is tes.co, and the result is that the complainant (i.e. the trademark owner Tesco) won and the domain was ordered to be transferred to the complainant. (http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=DCO2013-0017)

Extension does matter because the Panel considers name and extension as a whole. So your pet.co is trademarked. If you would like to sell the domain to Petco, you are doing in bad faith and it is cybersquatting and illegal. However, there should be no problem if you use the name in ways other than animal supplies business.

henrypcyeung said:

For your reference, there was a real case simillar to your situation. The domain is tes.co, and the result is that the complainant (i.e. the trademark owner Tesco) won and the domain was ordered to be transferred to the complainant. (http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=DCO2013-0017)

Extension does matter because the Panel considers name and extension as a whole. So your pet.co is trademarked. If you would like to sell the domain to Petco, you are doing in bad faith and it is cybersquatting and illegal. However, there should be no problem if you use the name in ways other than animal supplies business.

Click to expand...

But 'pet' is a dictionary word while tes.co is a clear domain hack so your argument is invalid. The user should not call themselves Petco and they'll be good I assume.

Jay Ha said:

But 'pet' is a dictionary word while tes.co is a clear domain hack so your argument is invalid. The user should not call themselves Petco and they'll be good I assume.

Click to expand...

Micro.soft micro is also a dictionary word

I have a feeling if someone made a pet store called pet.co it might be a problem. Imagine the logo with a tiny period between pet and co


Maybe it all depends whether you’re a pet supply business or not? If not, pet.co is probably ok

domainguy50 said:

Micro.soft micro is also a dictionary word

I have a feeling if someone made a pet store called pet.co it might be a problem. Imagine the logo with a tiny period between pet and co


Maybe it all depends whether you’re a pet supply business or not? If not, pet.co is probably ok

Click to expand...

True there might be some limitation on the use of advertising material so I'd say they can just lose the 'co' thing in their logos/ads/marketing material. An expert advice is surely needed since there are conflicting opinions here.

Jay Ha said:

But 'pet' is a dictionary word while tes.co is a clear domain hack so your argument is invalid. The user should not call themselves Petco and they'll be good I assume.

Click to expand...

The panels consider confusion similarity (i.e. comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the trademark to assess whether the trademark is recognizable within the domain name). Regardless of dictionary word or not, pet.co has exactly the same textual components of Petco. So based on confusion similarity, despite only dictionary words, domain hacks like face.book and snap.chat have legal issues as well.

I agree your point that should not sell the name as "Petco" to avoid legal issues.


A reference of how the panels judge disputed domain names:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0

coco77 said:

So I guess, in your opinion, ex. gooogle.com is fine? (Cybersquatting) They are different.
Or petco.shop or petco.store would still be legal? And no TM Issues?

Click to expand...

You completely misunderstand what he is saying.
pet.shop is fine. petco.shop isnt. There is a BIG difference. PETCo does not own the TM to "PET". .co is just a TLD. PETCO can't sue the owner of pet.com just as much as he can't sue the owner of pet.co.

NOW if the owner of pet.co tried to pass themselves off as being the PETCO company, then there would be issues.