Apple buying names

[soggyindo]

does anyone know if big companies - let's say apple - use employees to buy their names - like on the sly, pretending it is a personal deal?

or do they do it openly (ie. declare that the offer is from them)?

obviously if it's from a big company it would affect pricing, so...

 

[ablaye]

Umm... Where did you get that?
I don't think a big corporation like Apple would do something like this.

 

[soggyindo]

let's say it's hypothetical...

i agree you wouldn't think so - but if any big company said who they were first, surely the prices go way up...

 

[ablaye]

i can't talk about details...probably nothing...

i agree you wouldn't think so - but if any big company said who they were first, surely the prices go way up...

Na. If they suspected that you were messing with their copyrighted names, they would just threaten to sue to make you give up the domain name.
If it's for a domain name they really want, I don't think they would misrepresent themselves.

 

[soggyindo]

cool, thanks for the feedback. if anyone else has dealt with them, maybe they could shoot me a PM?

 

[labrocca]

Many buyers are fairly secretive about their clients especially if it's a major corporation. It may not be an employee but it could be an agent such as a lawyer or a broker.

 

[soggyindo]

that's a good point, it's more likely to be a broker or lawyer.

has anyone dealt with a 'private person', only to find their name suddenly developed by a big company?

 

[maryjoe]

have you?

 

[Just_Dave]

I you suspect it's a big corporation, just push your luck a little more. It won't hurt if they want it.

but if you find a domain you sold is developed by a big company, SO WHAT? Just ask yourself if you were happy with the sale at the time. If yes, then you should still be happy. If no, then move on because there's nothing you can do.

But to answer your question, I reckon they would keep who they were or who they're working for / on behalf of private. They don't want some idiot thinking "they have loads of money, it won't make any difference to them if I charge them 10x more".

 

[plaggypig]

Large organisations employ people to manage their domains - I know that the BBC does this, because they publish all of their policies.

But if they wanted to buy a domain then they'd probably go through a broker/lawyer. I suppose depending on the circumstances the broker/lawyer may keep his clients identity anonymous.

 

[Tribulatio]

Re Apple specifically: being the owner of a name which I suspect they might be tempted to use for some future product (just my guess!), I remember having checked names of some of their products, e.g. macbook.com, and I discovered with some surprise that they are owned by individuals, not by Apple - apparently, they didn't even bother to get them back. Of course, they own some other names (e.g. iphone.com), but they seem to have been less concerned that some other companies to get all names related to their products. Unless, of course, there is a background I am not aware of.

 

[owntype]

Godaddy bought a domain off me in 2007. They covered their identity with another email extension at beginning to test my asking price range, then disappeared for a while. I knew it's Godaddy after doing some research work. They reached me again after a few weeks with their real identity and we close a deal smoothly.

BBC reached me for one of my .com domain last year, they sent me an email then gave me a call and explained directly that the call is from BBC and they are interested in acquiring the domain.

 

[Fka200]

I actually heard a story while at the lobby after domainfest with a company contacting someone that registered a domain pretending to be a potential buyer and not using their company name in negotiations. It was a call made directly using the who-is number on a domain that was reg'd 1 week before and definitely potential trademark issues. A week after the phone call, C&D letter.

 

[spikedo]

Mariott bought a domain from me through a person who turned out to be a broker.

 

[gazzip]

I would expect many of them to use someone else to aquire the domain...chances are most domainers would put the price up if they knew it was someone HUGE like Google, Microsoft, CNN etc making the offer, they would probably expect that too.

I know of a domain purchased by Google last year, if I can find the previous owners email address again I'll drop him a line and ask him how they approached him.


.

 

[labrocca]

has anyone dealt with a 'private person', only to find their name suddenly developed by a big company?

That private person can be a broker. Certainly they are not obligated to the seller to give out information.

 

[HuntingMoon]

we have sold names to safeway and m$ via trout zimmer (broker/agent). it is a smart move for large corp's to utilize a third party...

 

[AdoptableDomains]

I've had several companies hide or try to hide their identity in a negotiation. They have a valid point that sometimes prices skyrocket when big pockets are detected. I would do the same if I were in the same position. It's called negotiation.

I once sold a domain to a nondescript small sounding company using email on a "stealth" domain. Only after agreeing to a sale price and processing the transfer did I find out the shell LLC company I negotiated with was owned by Proctor & Gamble.

 

[DomainTalker]

Trouble is, if you are approached by a Law Firm, acting on behalf of a 'client', with an innocent initial enquiry as to whether a domain is for sale, then, it might be they are setting you up for a 'bad faith use' UDRP.....ie if you quote a price, then, later, you find the fact you are willing to trade the domain is used against you.


When I received one of these enquiries on an LLL domain, I replied with lots of 'good faith use' stuff I was putting the name to, and how I had never really thought of selling it, but, I may - possibly - be persuaded to let it go, if 'you could tell me what use your client would put the name to, and what proposal your client may have in mind...'


...Never heard from them again....ie no grounds for 'bad faith use'....I'm sure it was laying the groundwork for a reverse hijack attempt...


So, be careful.

.