news Facebook owner is behind $60MM Meta name rights deal

[DomainNameFlow]

So now what for "Meta" domain holders?!

https://www.reuters.com/business/me...hind-60-mln-deal-meta-name-rights-2021-12-13/

Can Zuck & company claim or restrict any/all Meta related domains now?

 

[MadAboutDomains]

The more companies they buy up that already have IP in the name, the tighter grip they have on the trading name. They have deep pockets to do it so I don't blame them.

 

[jhm]

Due to the influence that they have, I just wouldn't touch a Meta domain, unless my existing company was "Meta something" before they announced their rebrand. You can probably trade Meta stuff today, but long term as they grow, or have a further grip on their "Meta" agenda, its short lived profit. Some have said "you can't ever totally own such a generic term"...well, I don't know. I just wouldn't go there, IMO

 

[silentg]

They're buying companies that hold Trademarks for Meta Domains so they can claim they own the word META. Even if they don't have the rights, their lawyers will hound you.

perfect example of companies they went after but the owners refused to sell:
Meta.Company
meta.inc

 

[jhm]

They're buying companies that hold Trademarks for Meta Domains so they can claim they own the word META. Even if they don't have the rights, their lawyers will hound you.

perfect example of companies they went after but the owners refused to sell:
Meta.Company
meta.inc

The dude that owns the first domain (I don't want to call him out, nothing personal, but I'll say it), he just wasn't happy with the offer they made. Facebook are capable of buying him out with a million dollar offer, and if he got it he'd say yes in a heartbeat (its just they didn't offer that). Somewhere down the line Facebook will be thinking we'll get there, whether he sells it to someone else, they'll keep an eye on it and buy it from someone who's actually looking to do a deal a bit more professionally and negotiate, than putting a post out there about them being the devil. IMO

 

[silentg]

We'll just have wait and see if Meta Company is a case like nissan.com (If they refuse to sell it Facebook).

As long as the current owner owns it then there's no problem. Once they sell then new owner will have a headache.

 

[jhm]

We'll just have wait and see if Meta Company is a case like nissan.com (If they refuse to sell it Facebook).

As long as the current owner owns it then there's no problem. Once they sell then new owner will have a headache.

In time

 

[Andreas B.]

To me its actually the opposite:

The more meta (called) companies or domains Meta Inc. own, the more valuable becomes the rest.

This is my point of view.

 

[jhm]

To me its actually the opposite:

The more meta (called) companies or domains Meta Inc. own, the more valuable becomes the rest.

This is my point of view.

It certainly makes the term more popular, resulting in some form of recognition. Fair point

 

[nametrekker]

Facebook paid 60 million USD to the holding bank company in South Dakota for the META naming/trademark rights.
FB also apparently created a shell company in Delaware called Beige __ LLC? for the assignment of 11 more META trademarks, including METABOOK on November 1, 2021
Assignment of META trademark from a small company in Toronto called Sciencescape
Can we estimate a spend of 150-200 million usd for all these TM META assignments?

Have you seen FB's own TM filing for META on October 28 in multiple classes?
Comprise over 150 product and service offerings.

I don't believe FB will go after all META___ domains. But possibly those that signify reg. via bad faith, and what entails is anyone's guess. MetaFace? MetaOculus? Yes, MetaGram? MetaInstagram? yes

There have been several single word META word tm filings on uspto within the last 6 weeks, with many citing prior use, such as one called METAChurch or Meta Church.

I expect Meta (FB) will file oppos to many META marks and acquire a few more. Small companies owning marks such as METAVR, METACOIN, METAChat or whatever may receive unexpected windfalls via requests for assignments

 

[Bob Hawkes]

There are a lot of meta TM and applications globally - e.g. this search shows 6650. While some are recent, the majority are years old.

Given that meta is also a dictionary word (although I think only since the 1980's), and is part of the name of many existing businesses and organizations (about 6300 active listings according to OpenCorporates).

It would seem an incredible job, even for someone with as deep pockets as FB/Meta, to acquire all existing TM rights. Some seem to have nothing to do with what FB plans for Meta, so my guess is they will be strategic in seeking businesses operating on the name that would overlap with their long term plan. I have no inside information, but suspect priority in trying to seize names would be those in similar category, and those that seemed registered arguably in bad faith.

On the other hand, as @nametrekker pointed out above, their TM application is way longer than any I have ever read and seems to want to lay claim to essentially any use. What will be awarded though, will be interesting. I suspect many existing companies will file objections.

Bob

 

[topros]

There are a lot of meta TM and applications globally - e.g. this search shows 6650. While some are recent, the majority are years old.

Given that meta is also a dictionary word (although I think only since the 1980's), and is part of the name of many existing businesses and organizations (about 6300 active listings according to OpenCorporates).

It would seem an incredible job, even for someone with as deep pockets as FB/Meta, to acquire all existing TM rights. Some seem to have nothing to do with what FB plans for Meta, so my guess is they will be strategic in seeking businesses operating on the name that would overlap with their long term plan. I have no inside information, but suspect priority in trying to seize names would be those in similar category, and those that seemed registered arguably in bad faith.

On the other hand, as @nametrekker pointed out above, their TM application is way longer than any I have ever read and seems to want to lay claim to essentially any use. What will be awarded though, will be interesting. I suspect many existing companies will file objections.

Bob

its mean Domain "Meta" name still save to reg/buy ?

 

[Bob Hawkes]

Its complex and I think no simple answer.
If one is thinking FB meta that seems problematic, moreso now.
If one view as meta generic word with several meanings seems fine.
Can meta also be abbreviation for metaverse?
No easy answers.

 

[nametrekker]

I agree, Bob.
FB/Meta most likely will attempt to acquire registered marks in classes, especially just the one word Meta, in classes and areas that the company plans to enter soon and/or within the next 10 years: Healthcare? Cloud? Robotics? Dao? NFT? TELECARE? Telepresence, Media/Stream, etc. Also FB/Meta will file UDRPs vs owners of domains they deem were regged in bad faith and/or could dilute their brand. Also I'll bet Fb/Meta will file a few oppos on TTAB for single word Meta marks filed after their announcement to rebrand as META if the marks correspond with specific fb/META CORE offerings: chat, messaging, photosharing, Xr, Vr, Ar....

some meta tm owners may get windfalls; other meta applicants may face legal headaches...

 

[DomainNameFlow]

There are a lot of meta TM and applications globally - e.g. this search shows 6650. While some are recent, the majority are years old.

Given that meta is also a dictionary word (although I think only since the 1980's), and is part of the name of many existing businesses and organizations (about 6300 active listings according to OpenCorporates).

It would seem an incredible job, even for someone with as deep pockets as FB/Meta, to acquire all existing TM rights. Some seem to have nothing to do with what FB plans for Meta, so my guess is they will be strategic in seeking businesses operating on the name that would overlap with their long term plan. I have no inside information, but suspect priority in trying to seize names would be those in similar category, and those that seemed registered arguably in bad faith.

On the other hand, as @nametrekker pointed out above, their TM application is way longer than any I have ever read and seems to want to lay claim to essentially any use. What will be awarded though, will be interesting. I suspect many existing companies will file objections.

Bob

Thanks Bob.
I guess most people who registered Meta related domains before fb rebranding did so assuming it is a dictionary word and short name representing something related to a Metaverse and/or its vertical . Specially after huge sale of Metaverse.io, things even got more excited and meta domaining craze just shot to moon.
But then suddenly this zuck-shmucks want to steal all spotlight and claim everything by rebranding and acquiring IPs related to Meta...
no doubt they have been voted the number 1 worst company of the year
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/meta-facebook-worst-company-of-the-year-yahoo-finance-165345819.html

 

[Bob Hawkes]

Just because FB says they are going to be called meta, does not mean they instantly own rights to all things meta.

Many, many meta companies were going strong long before Zuckerberg heard of the metaverse, probably. For example, MetaLab (they build interfaces - some of their clients include Google, Apple, Slack, Uber, Patreon and a bunch of small startups) has been in business for 15 years. Clearly they work in an area that now FB is interested in. I can't see any justification that FB should be able to secure Meta TM clauses in areas of interfaces because of this.

Most seem to use meta in the sense (as used in metaverse) of a prefix meaning more comprehensive or beyond. As such, the strength of the term is it makes sense with almost anything. By the way, academics use the term much more with an entirely different self-referential meaning.

FB either has to pay a truly astronomical amount buying up companies like MetaLab and hundreds of others, and perhaps the news starting this thread means they plan to do exactly that, or they could take the Alphabet route, or at least my understanding of what Alphabet did.

More than a thousand companies around the world were using Alphabet in some way in their name. I do not recall hearing of Google going on a big acquisition kick or sending lawyers against the established companies. They simply felt the Google Alphabet everyone would recognize as different than all the other alphabet companies. That is not to say they would not oppose registrations in bad faith.

Nothing in this is legal advice, of course!

Bob