domain Appraisal: FacebookGuide.com and FacebookTips.org

[FindWeb]

Hi,

I'm interested in any views on what the domain names FacebookGuide.com and FacebookTips.org might be worth.

In case it is helpful, Market Samurai indicates that the monthly exact match Google searches are approximately:

1,000 per month for 'facebook guide'; and
2,900 per month for 'facebook tips'.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[4pm]

please search this thread for other FB domains appraisals

in the meantime you may want to read the following (or search google for more on this topic):

http://www.thedomains.com/2013/04/1...ldings-loses-21-facebook-domains-in-one-udrp/


*

 

[FindWeb]

Hi 4pm, thanks for your quick response. Good points you make.

Interestingly, in the case you referred to the guy just conceded and the Panel was merely affirming a lock on the domains (with no opposition to test the assertions).

Prior to registering the urls, I did a bit of digging regarding trademark references, and found this useful guide by Harvard law school: hxxp://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm [haven't been a member long enough to post links]

Not domain name specific, but I thought the brand 'Facebook" is analogous to the 'New Kids on the Block' name. That is, it is impossible to actually refer to Facebook / New Kids on the Block unless referring to it by name.

And there are notable active sites that have the full Facebook brand in their url - eg allfacebook.com.

With that said, this uncertainty will no doubt affect the value of the domain names.

 

[EricW]

Referring to and using Facebook in your domain are two different things. You could use socialmediaguide.com instead and avoid the IP problems.

 

[gilescoley]

Drop the name ASAP, its a TM

 

[ProSence]

Yes, the thing is TM issue..

 

[FindWeb]

Thanks to all those who replied.

The consensus seems to be that the trademark issues would deter domainers from finding any value in the domain names and that holding on to them isn't worth the hassle.

Still, it seems that facebook are a bit selective in their targets by letting allfacebook.com and insidefacebook.com continue. Perhaps it is because they are run by large companies that can afford to make facebook argue the case; or perhaps they are tolerated by facebook because they provide good promotion of what facebook is up to.

 

[Theydon]

Take the advice

 

[Kate]

Plenty of people are cybersquatting, often out of ignorance and without any malicious intentions.
Just because they are, doesn't seem they are safe, and that it's safe to follow their example.

More to the point, why do you think this domain has value, why would someone want to buy your domains in particular and not just pick another available domain ?

 

[FindWeb]

Plenty of people are cybersquatting, often out of ignorance and without any malicious intentions.
Just because they are, doesn't seem they are safe, and that it's safe to follow their example.

More to the point, why do you think this domain has value, why would someone want to buy your domains in particular and not just pick another available domain ?

I take it as a given that the domains would have low resale value for domainers, noting the response so far in this thread. Presumably this is due to the perceived risk of losing the domain under the Anti-Cybersquatting and Protection Act, or other trademark infringement action.

As for whether it would be legitimate to actually use these domains for a site providing unofficial facebook commentary, this is an entirely different question. To the extent that they could be used legitimately, then there could be some value in the names (due to brand-ability and keyword match), just not for those who would only buy for the purpose of selling at a profit (due to the anti-cybersquatting laws).

In terms of what uses of a domain that contains a trademark might actually be legitimate (eg fair comment) versus illegitimate (buying just for resale at a profit), see the analysis and cases referred to here:
hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Protection_Act

To give a real world example, allfacebook.com and insidefacebook.com are active sites providing facebook commentary. They seem to be maintained by WebMediaBrands Inc, which is a publicly listed company. While it appears that they may fall within the 'fair comment' usage of the trademark, it is quite possible that Facebook has simply not elected to enforce their rights in respect of these domain names (for whatever reason).

Take the advice

I will be - but mainly because I've moved on to other projects and can't be bothered developing the sites I originally envisaged.

Part of my reason for keeping posting on this appraisal thread was to try and understand the reasoning why including a trademark in a domain name is such a bad thing - in order to understand where the advice was coming from.

Anyway, that's probably enough from me for now. Thanks for the replies - much appreciated.

 

[Kate]

Indeed, usage (development) can tip the balance in your favor.
But these domains are not developed, they are parked for sale.
They even show sponsored links that might constitute TM infringement = more ammo to be used against you.
So you cannot claim usage rights or legitimate interest to justify ownership of these TM domains.

 

[johname]

Part of my reason for keeping posting on this appraisal thread was to try and understand the reasoning why including a trademark in a domain name is such a bad thing

Its best to look at it in the most simple terms.

That the tm holder can take your domain away from you at any time.

Why put untold time developing it if it can be taken away. (reason not to develop)

Why purchase it from you if it can be taken away. (reason not to hold it as a reseller)


Only own this if you have a burning desire to build a fan site with no motivation to make a penny and your willing to abandon the project if ever giving a C&D notification.

(in other words dont think of these names as holding any value)

http://www.thedomains.com/2013/04/1...ldings-loses-21-facebook-domains-in-one-udrp/

 

[MrBlueSky]

http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/1/4290490/facebook-typosquatting-lawsuit-damages-cybersquatters

 

[FindWeb]

Indeed, usage (development) can tip the balance in your favor.
But these domains are not developed, they are parked for sale.
They even show sponsored links that might constitute TM infringement = more ammo to be used against you.
So you cannot claim usage rights or legitimate interest to justify ownership of these TM domains.

I think you're right - having elected not to develop the sites, the correct course of action is to drop them rather than try to on sell.

Its best to look at it in the most simple terms.

That the tm holder can take your domain away from you at any time.

Why put untold time developing it if it can be taken away. (reason not to develop)

Why purchase it from you if it can be taken away. (reason not to hold it as a reseller)

Only own this if you have a burning desire to build a fan site with no motivation to make a penny and your willing to abandon the project if ever giving a C&D notification.

(in other words dont think of these names as holding any value)

That's a good way to analyse the value proposition - the threat of action and the need to defend it. For large companies (eg WebMediaBrands Inc, who run allfacebook.com and insidefacebook.com) this may not be a concern, but it would be for everyone else.

Thanks again for the comments - appreciate the detail. I'll be taking the advice.

 

[medsites]

I owned before buyfacebookstock.com and receive a TM email from facebook, my advice is drop these domain names.