Dynadot

question Celebs and domains

NameSilo
Watch

4moola

Established Member
Impact
0
Hey guys. So I googled up a bit and came over this thread: "Selling Celebrity Domains" posted on NamePros on 6/9/2018

While I'm far from being some expert in the subject, common sense tells me that registering first names only can't possibly be a matter of cybersquatting.

Now about the first names that I recently registered:

Media worldwide wrote about somebody registering the domain name lilibetdiana.com on the same day Meghan Markle and Prince Harry welcomed their daughter. There is an obvious problem with that: .com stands for commercial. Lilibet Diana is not an insurance company, dentist office, repair shop or anything else commercial: it’s a baby name, a personal name.

Thus the only appropriate domain for a baby name is β€˜.name’

Wikipedia: β€œThe domain β€˜.name’ is a generic top-level domain (gTLD) in the Domain Name System of the Internet. It is intended for use by individuals for representation of their personal name, nicknames, screen names, pseudonyms, or other types of identification labels.”

VeriSign: "A .name Domain Name Is As Unique As You"

So I registered the only domain names that would make sense to be associated with a baby name:

Lilibet.name
LilibetDiana.name

Now I'm sure that a domain name for a baby is not quite common, so what are your thoughts?

Thanks.
 
0
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Only 34 reported .name sales since 2006 and nearly all of them arent peoples names.......

Not good odds.....get a refund, if you can.
 
4
•••
Hopefully you can get a refund.

Brad
 
2
•••
Please don't go this route. This is cybersquatting.
 
3
•••
First names can be contested as trademark brands.

eg;

Kylie Jenner vs Kylie Minogue (Kylie.com).

A young billionaire vs an established multi-millionaire who has been using her own first name as a brand for over 30 years.

It's not something you want to defend unless you can afford to.

And I'm sure your first name isn't Lilibet ;)
 
Last edited:
2
•••
I'm sure your first name isn't Lilibet

Even if his name is Lilibet, he clearly showed his true intention. And once posted in internet, can't be erased.
 
0
•••
First names can be contested as trademark brands.

eg;

Kylie Jenner vs Kylie Minogue (Kylie.com).

A young billionaire vs an established multi-millionaire who has been using her own first name as a brand for over 30 years.

It's not something you want to defend unless you can afford to.

And I'm sure your first name isn't Lilibet ;)

That was a Trademark battle which involved the USPTO and Minogue didn't win.
Anybody can register a common first name domain name say for a son, daughter or niece to come. Your point is utter nonsense ...
 
0
•••
Please don't go this route. This is cybersquatting.

You obviously don't understand basic facts: I'm talking about FIRST NAMES! Say some Bill registers Bill.com and some Diana secures Diana.com. Now according to your (total lack of) logic: how many millions of Bill's and Diana's worldwide can sue the two who registered first? There wouldn't be enough lawyers on the planet ... :xf.grin:
 
0
•••
That was a Trademark battle which involved the USPTO and Minogue didn't win.
Anybody can register a common first name domain name say for a son, daughter or niece to come. Your point is utter nonsense ...

I can't understand why you have asked for peoples thoughts if you are only going to get all defensive about it.
 
3
•••
I'm talking about FIRST NAMES! Say some Bill registers Bill.com and some Diana secures Diana.com. Now according to your (total lack of) logic: how many millions of Bill's and Diana's worldwide can sue the two who registered first?

By golly, that's brilliant!

I mean, yeah, what POSSIBLE evidence could anyone produce which would suggest that these names were registered to target a specific individual, rather than anyone else who might just happen to have the same names?

It's genius, 4moola! You are well on the way to fame and riches with this scheme that is utterly impossible to show was in any way related to any of countless individuals by that name!

Screen Shot 2021-06-29 at 9.48.10 AM.png
 
6
•••
There is an obvious problem with that: .com stands for commercial.
.com is well past being just for "commercial websites".
.net was intended for network infrastructure.

There is really no need to take things so literally. .com is known worldwide by people as a way of getting to a website, it isn't more complicated than that.

We may wish it to be different, but it's not. If it were I'd be a very rich man.
 
3
•••
I don't normally read the mail but the below came up in my news feed and thought it was relevant to this thread

LiliDiana.com was registered on May 31 and Lilibetdiana.com was registered on day of Lili's birth - June 4


"Sussexes' spokesman told Telegraph websites were bought 'to protect against the exploitation of the name once it was later chosen and shared"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-DID-buy-Lilibetdiana-com-approved-Queen.html

Nice to see they prioritised the .com and also looks like they will be quite aggressive in protecting the name
 
1
•••
By golly, that's brilliant!

I mean, yeah, what POSSIBLE evidence could anyone produce which would suggest that these names were registered to target a specific individual, rather than anyone else who might just happen to have the same names?

It's genius, 4moola! You are well on the way to fame and riches with this scheme that is utterly impossible to show was in any way related to any of countless individuals by that name!

Show attachment 194198

well, while I'm a genius indeed -- among others I have more intellectual properties than you have years of school (hint: I'm not talking domain names, Sherlock) -- you seem to be quite the opposite. Hey, I didn't know that OLIGO-Cortez has a twin sista called John ...
 
0
•••
0
•••
0
•••
0
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back