.com Just SOLD CryptoCorp .com for $16.5k

[MR PACKER]

Held it since 2000. Maybe sold it too early, but good luck to the new owner.

Still pretty happy with the sale after hand registering it years ago.

 

[lambo.com]

Interesting that you would bring that up, but not at all.
I always prefer a "No Thanks" but if someone feels I'm not worth responding to, I understand. We are all busy - HDAX.com was a nice sale!

bro, you came here and trolled my acquisition with your FUD.

Sorry I didn't get back to you. Not sure I'm ready to spotlight it like that (the sale).

FWIW, I think your videos have lots of value and people will learn lots from them. Keep doing your thing.

 

[Josh R]

bro, you came here and trolled my acquisition with your FUD.

Sorry I didn't get back to you. Not sure I'm ready to spotlight it like that (the sale).

FWIW, I think your videos have lots of value and people will learn lots from them. Keep doing your thing.

I appreciate that.
I wasn't intending to troll your acquisition so I apologize. To be clear, I personally think Crypto/Co and Crypto/Corp are both great names. Difficult for anyone to disagree with that.

MarketingStrategies.com is a cool name btw..I sold MarketingStrategy.com last year.

 

[Haykay2005]

I appreciate that.
I wasn't intending to troll your acquisition so I apologize. To be clear, I personally think Crypto/Co and Crypto/Corp are both great names. Difficult for anyone to disagree with that.

MarketingStrategies.com is a cool name btw..I sold MarketingStrategy.com last year.

Marketingstrategy for how much?

 

[Josh R]

Marketingstrategy for how much?

14.5K

 

[Haykay2005]

14.5K

Wow. Nice one

 

[gilescoley]

Lots of factors to consider with trademarks. For example how generic is the term?... Does the current registrants ownership pre-date the TM?....TM Description/Use etc etc.

I totally agree

unfortunately, the TM was filed in 2015 though, before the name was purchased and the TM is also in the Crypto field

Its something everyone needs to check before buying names, even more so when spending a decent amount on it.

 

[lambo.com]

I totally agree

The TM was filed in 2015 though, long before the name was purchased and the TM is also in the Crypto field

Its something everyone needs to check before buying names, even more so when spending a decent amount on it.

Hello

 

[Ravinder Verma]

congratulations great sale...!!!

 

[promxy_peters]

Wow! That's long mehn... A big Congrats!

 

[Cdomains]

Long hold!!

Too bad you could not hold out for more.

Great sale!

 

[Foskaay]

congrats

 

[urljunky]

Great sale and great purchase! Congrats to both parties.

 

[4better]

A 5 figure sale like that is a remarkable one. Although, it could perhaps be sold for a much higher value later on, I'm one of those who would not hesitate to let go of that domain for the said amount. Simply put, I need cash on hand.

 

[namemarket]

not sure why the congrats to buyer. I did not research this issue myself but if it's correct (as stated by member gilescoley) that a third party has a trademark on the words in 2015, it means this domain can not be used in the crypto area by the new buyer or high risk loss of both domain plus potential monetary damages, thus making the domain name basically worthless as a cryptocurrency name, imo.

 

[lambo.com]

not sure why the congrats to buyer. I did not research this issue myself but if it's correct (as stated by member gilescoley) that a third party has a trademark on the words in 2015, it means this domain can not be used in the crypto area by the new buyer or high risk loss of both domain plus potential monetary damages, thus making the domain name basically worthless as a cryptocurrency name, imo.

it doesn't mean that. Your understanding is too simplistic and black/white. Maybe refrain next time from meddling and talking for the sake of talking.

this is not a thread for your to engage in unneccessary fears and speculation. If you are out of your depth and irrelevant to a successful transaction between two parties on NP, keep the perspective.

 

[namemarket]

actually trademark law is mostly black and white. A pre-existing trademark with a newly purchased domain being used in the same category is a clear violation and usually an open and shut victory for the TM owner. IS THAT INCORRECT? P.S. I was not the first to refer to this and doubt if I would have been the first to chime-in about it..

 

[lambo.com]

actually trademark law is mostly black and white. A pre-existing trademark with a newly purchased domain being used in the same category is a clear violation and usually an open and shut victory for the TM owner. IS THAT INCORRECT? P.S. I was not the first to refer to this and doubt if I would have been the first to chime-in about it..

Yes it is incorrect. You can't on the one hand say black and white then use 'usually'. Anyway you don't command my respect enough to warrant any further discussion or debate with you. Focus on your own business and notice your own instincts to meddle.

 

[namemarket]

A purpose of getting a trademark is to stop others from using the TM term in the same TM category. It is in fact black and white. If that was not the case there would not be much purpose in getting a trademark.

P.S. Until you posted your reply to me I did not know you were the buyer and never read the entire thread until now. There's not much to be gained from reading it all (beyond seeing all the congrats) since the law is so clear on this type of TM issue (which was first raised by some other members in the thread).

 

[lambo.com]

A purpose of getting a trademark is to stop others from using the TM term in the same TM category. It is in fact black and white. If that was not the case there would not be much purpose in getting a trademark.

P.S. Until you posted your reply to me I did not know you were the buyer and never read the entire thread until now. There's not much to be gained from reading it all (beyond seeing all the congrats) since the law is so clear on this type of TM issue (which was first raised by some other members in the thread).

People like you miss out on knowledge because you don't ask questions and assume you have all the answers.

 

[namemarket]

Sorry but the way it was stated by milescoley and others members (which facts I have not verified myself) means it's a very clear trademark violation if used in same category. What questions can be addressed to make it NOT a trademark violation? If there are any valid issues I can't think of questions which can somehow overrule basic trademark laws.

 

[lambo.com]

Sorry but the way it was stated by milescoley and others members (which facts I have not verified myself) means it's a very clear trademark violation if used in same category. What questions can be addressed to make it NOT a trademark violation? If there are any valid issues I can't think of questions which can somehow overrule basic trademark laws.

Nasty

 

[karmaco]

Not sure why the TM is being brought up. The name was registered long before that. If handled properly there is zero wrong here. Some of you just sound like bitter novices.

 

[namerav]

Who holds CryptoFirm? Could be next big sale.

 

[BRANDERX]

The domain is such a good domain & the sale was really nice.

Hope you sell it for a million bucks @MarketingStrategies.com

You better get CryptoFirm as well..

 

[urljunky]

Just Google Crypto corp and you will see that it is obviously not an issue. You cant TM a generic term and then try to inforce it on everyone that uses that name. Crypto is a generic word that has been in use for crypto for a long time. If someone TM crypto and was using it for a car or a skateboard then yes it would be enforceable. Just like apple. if they were selling apples they wouldn't be able to enforce the TM on other people selling apples, but computers they have it sewed up.
MTC