IT.COM

discuss Libra domains. Fingers crossed!

NameSilo
Watch

FirstDomainer.com

Established Member
Impact
175
Purchased 3 two word libra .COM domains today. What are your thoughts and suggestions? Well, fingers crossed !!
 
0
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
0
•••
1
•••
1
•••
Last edited:
1
•••
Just regged : Libra//mobile//wallet ## calibra//mobile//wallet in KING
 
0
•••
If the domain is going to be used just for news related to the coin then it's not really infringing on the trademark class of the coin. (I'm certainly not 100% on that)

But the moment someone uses a "Libra" domain to market a product in the same class (pretty much ANYTHING digital), then there most definitely *IS* a trademark infraction.

Obviously the Libra Foundation (/Facebook/whoever runs Libra) can choose not to enforce it's very legal trademark .. but it's completely up to them .. and very unlikely they will ever allow anyone they do not give specific permission to to create a "LibraWallet" or "LibraApp" etc.

If you think Facebook and other major companies behind Libra are not going to actively enforce their trademark sooner than later then I've got prime swampland to sell you in Florida! lol


That being said .. they very likely won't come after inactive domains, and instead focus their attention on those actually using the names actively. Which means that while you might not get sued .. any end-user who wants to use the name who buys the domain from you will very likely get sued the second they put their product out there in a way that makes them money (even if it's a free product running ads). Most developers know this and as such will never buy "Libra" domains.

So yes .. they are likely relatively safe to hold as inactive domains in a portfolio (although not necessarily officially 100% safe) ... but if you have almost no chance of selling the domain .. then what's the point of owning it in the first place? That's the real problem with trademark type domains ...
 
Last edited:
1
•••
If the domain is going to be used just for news related to the coin then it's not really infringing on the trademark class of the coin. (I'm certainly not 100% on that)

But the moment someone uses a "Libra" domain to market a product in the same class (pretty much ANYTHING digital), then there most definitely *IS* a trademark infraction.

Obviously the Libra Foundation (/Facebook/whoever runs Libra) can choose not to enforce it's very legal trademark .. but it's completely up to them .. and very unlikely they will ever allow anyone they do not give specific permission to to create a "LibraWallet" or "LibraApp" etc.

If you think Facebook and other major companies behind Libra are not going to actively enforce their trademark sooner than later then I've got prime swampland to sell you in Florida! lol


That being said .. they very likely won't come after inactive domains, and instead focus their attention on those actually using the names actively. Which means that while you might not get sued .. any end-user who wants to use the name who buys the domain from you will very likely get sued the second they put their product out there in a way that makes them money (even if it's a free product running ads). Most developers know this and as such will never buy "Libra" domains.

So yes .. they are likely relatively safe to hold as inactive domains in a portfolio (although not necessarily officially 100% safe) ... but if you have almost no chance of selling the domain .. then what's the point of owning it in the first place? That's the real problem with trademark type domains ...

The Creators of Libra have publicly acknowledged and and encourage the use of Libra related websites that focus on promoting the coin and on it's development. What they are against are people who pretend to be direct creators trying to sell people fake coins etc. You're going to be shocked how many Libra related websites and innovations spring up and how many domain name sales will happen.
 
4
•••
The Creators of Libra have publicly acknowledged and and encourage the use of Libra related websites that focus on promoting the coin and on it's development. What they are against are people who pretend to be direct creators trying to sell people fake coins etc. You're going to be shocked how many Libra related websites and innovations spring up and how many domain name sales will happen.

Well said!

I think the nay-sayers are the one's who didn't register a good libra domain in time tbh
 
4
•••
Well said!

I think the nay-sayers are the one's who didn't register a good libra domain in time tbh
I agree. I had that same thought. I think if they owned LibraWallet.com or LiobraCasino.com, they wouldn't be so outspoken against it.
 
1
•••
If the domain is going to be used just for news related to the coin then it's not really infringing on the trademark class of the coin. (I'm certainly not 100% on that)

But the moment someone uses a "Libra" domain to market a product in the same class (pretty much ANYTHING digital), then there most definitely *IS* a trademark infraction.

Obviously the Libra Foundation (/Facebook/whoever runs Libra) can choose not to enforce it's very legal trademark .. but it's completely up to them .. and very unlikely they will ever allow anyone they do not give specific permission to to create a "LibraWallet" or "LibraApp" etc.

If you think Facebook and other major companies behind Libra are not going to actively enforce their trademark sooner than later then I've got prime swampland to sell you in Florida! lol


That being said .. they very likely won't come after inactive domains, and instead focus their attention on those actually using the names actively. Which means that while you might not get sued .. any end-user who wants to use the name who buys the domain from you will very likely get sued the second they put their product out there in a way that makes them money (even if it's a free product running ads). Most developers know this and as such will never buy "Libra" domains.

So yes .. they are likely relatively safe to hold as inactive domains in a portfolio (although not necessarily officially 100% safe) ... but if you have almost no chance of selling the domain .. then what's the point of owning it in the first place? That's the real problem with trademark type domains ...
Thanks for your views on this.

What do you say about the lead engineer promoting developed 3rd party websites with the term Libra? How would you explain his promotions of domains with the term?

https://twitter.com/davidmarcus/status/1146090206904250374
 
2
•••
Thanks for your views on this.

What do you say about the lead engineer promoting developed 3rd party websites with the term Libra? How would you explain his promotions of domains with the term?

https://twitter.com/davidmarcus/status/1146090206904250374
He is not just promoting those sites...but by asking all his followers publicly if they have built one? This is without question encouraging everyone to participate in doing the same. It's almost like how developers can create apps for wordpress or apple or android. The difference being you are allowed to use the term Libra.
 
2
•••
i suggest you take the time to visit the Libra website before making sweeping statements. If you go there you you will see organizations not affiliated with the Libra association using Libra in there interaction with the Libra team.

This is one. They are creating a Libra education platform. They are NOT part of the Libra team

https://community.libra.org/u/edulibra/summary

Here is there website
Notice the domain name?

edulibra.org - education platform on libra blockchain
 
3
•••
It should also be noted that Facebook, although they kickstarted the project, does not control or govern the currency. Yet, they branded their startup company with the term Libra in it, called CaLIBRA.....
 
1
•••
What do you say about the lead engineer promoting developed 3rd party websites with the term Libra? How would you explain his promotions of domains with the term?
https://twitter.com/davidmarcus/status/1146090206904250374

Very simple answer .. he's a tech guy who doesn't know about trademarks. On top of that, he has ZERO authority on the matter.

Specifically since the Libra Foundation isn't even really set up yet. Rest assured when they do, they will have a legal department.

Above that .. there are still legal fights on if they can even use the trademark world wide .. there are several strong conflicting trademarks they need to address. Don't count out a final name change just yet (although they do have the $$$ to buy their way out).

Again .. trademarks are mainly "usage" based .. so if you have inactive domains you're definitely safe for a while .. but no serious startup will ever end up with Libra in their name unless they get direct permission from the Libra Foundation (AND any other potential Libra trademark holders).

Particularly if the Libra Foundation settles with the other global trademark holders, any other company that has Libra in the name will need to get authorisation fromthe Libra Foundation AND all the other trademark holders.


i suggest you take the time to visit the Libra website before making sweeping statements. If you go there you you will see organizations not affiliated with the Libra association using Libra in there interaction with the Libra team.

This is one. They are creating a Libra education platform. They are NOT part of the Libra team

https://community.libra.org/u/edulibra/summary

Here is there website
Notice the domain name?

edulibra.org - education platform on libra blockchain

There are open source and virtually pre-concept .. quite a ways off from having anything made. If you look at the dialog you'll see quite clearly it's just a couple of guys with an idea. Less than basic.


At the end of the day, because most people don't understand trademarks, there will be plenty of Libra sales between domainers at the start .. hopefully you get lucky and sell for more than you buy ... but the end user sales will be very sparse .. even less so after (IF) Libra gets going.
 
1
•••
Very simple answer .. he's a tech guy who doesn't know about trademarks. On top of that, he has ZERO authority on the matter.

Specifically since the Libra Foundation isn't even really set up yet. Rest assured when they do, they will have a legal department.

Above that .. there are still legal fights on if they can even use the trademark world wide .. there are several strong conflicting trademarks they need to address. Don't count out a final name change just yet (although they do have the $$$ to buy their way out).

Again .. trademarks are mainly "usage" based .. so if you have inactive domains you're definitely safe for a while .. but no serious startup will ever end up with Libra in their name unless they get direct permission from the Libra Foundation (AND any other potential Libra trademark holders).

Particularly if the Libra Foundation settles with the other global trademark holders, any other company that has Libra in the name will need to get authorisation fromthe Libra Foundation AND all the other trademark holders.




There are open source and virtually pre-concept .. quite a ways off from having anything made. If you look at the dialog you'll see quite clearly it's just a couple of guys with an idea. Less than basic.


At the end of the day, because most people don't understand trademarks, there will be plenty of Libra sales between domainers at the start .. hopefully you get lucky and sell for more than you buy ... but the end user sales will be very sparse .. even less so after (IF) Libra gets going.
I agree with your premise that there is still alot to be settled. The dust needs to settle to see where everything stands.There are many unknowns.

Knowing that, it is premature to label domainers that invest in 'Libra' domains as "cybersquatting" and/or trying to sell the domains to Facebook. Not only is this untrue, but it puts ALL domain investors on the defensive when looking from the outside.
 
1
•••
I'm just trying to understand this whole Libramania. When I hear some partners talking about being careful getting " Libra related domains" because of possible future trademark infringement etc...I ask myself: Does this mean that the LIBRA FOUNDATION might POSSIBLY" trademark the name LIBRA. Is that what is going on over here? If so, can the name LIBRA be trademarked? Isn't LIBRA an astrologicalL sign in the zodiac that exists I believe 2,000 years before this FB Libra project and that is used billion of times around the world or the future issues could be just about using the name Libra + Stable coin terminologies? Any light???
 
0
•••
I'm just trying to understand this whole Libramania. When I hear some partners talking about being careful getting " Libra related domains" because of possible future trademark infringement etc...I ask myself: Does this mean that the LIBRA FOUNDATION might POSSIBLY" trademark the name LIBRA. Is that what is going on over here? If so, can the name LIBRA be trademarked? Isn't LIBRA an astrologicalL sign in the zodiac that exists I believe 2,000 years before this FB Libra project and that is used billion of times around the world or the future issues could be just about using the name Libra + Stable coin terminologies? Any light???
The Libra Foundation has recently filed a Trademark application for the term 'Libra'. It is unknown if it will be granted or the extent of contention it will receive. The TM application may end up being a contentious issue with the regulatory agencies and law makers that are questioning the Libra roll out.
 
1
•••
... it is premature to label domainers that invest in 'Libra' domains as "cybersquatting" and/or trying to sell the domains to Facebook.

I never said that! ;)

If domainers were buying to sell directly to Facebook (or Libra Foundation) then YES 100% indeed they would be cybersquatting.

That being said .. I'm presuming most domainers have been buying domains with the intention of selling to 3rd party developers. Essentially people who make tools/apps for Libra after it comes out.

Much like there are several Bitcoin related companies. The difference here is that Bitcoin isn't owned by anyone, and as such there is no active trademark on "Bitcoin" (and more importantly, nobody who would ever enforce their exclusive rights to use "Bitcoin"), so anyone can have BitcoinWallet or LottoBitcoin, etc.

For Libra it's the complete opposite .. it will be controlled by the Libra Foundation, which is essentially ~18 of the most vigourous trademark defenders on the planet. There is absolutely ZERO chance that they will allow any random company to call themselves LibraLotto or anything like that!


I suppose in trying to be transparent they might let some things slide .. but rest assured .. anything that will make serious money on the backs of Libra will be defended against ... which means that no end-user will ever pay "big money" for any Libra domain because they'll never be able to make any money with it.


When I hear some partners talking about being careful getting " Libra related domains" because of possible future trademark infringement etc...I ask myself: Does this mean that the LIBRA FOUNDATION might POSSIBLY" trademark the name LIBRA. Is that what is going on over here? If so, can the name LIBRA be trademarked? Isn't LIBRA an astrologicalL sign in the zodiac that exists I believe 2,000 years before this FB Libra project and that is used billion of times around the world or the future issues could be just about using the name Libra + Stable coin terminologies? Any light???

You really need to do some research on Trademarks.

First of all .. Facebook purchased the US trademark rights to "Libra" (from an existing company who changed their name) in the specific trademark class(es) (I'm assuming "Software" and/or "Financial Services") .. presumably to pass on to the Libra Foundation when officially established.

Yes .. single generic words are 100% trademarkable in trademark classes where they are not generic industry terms/words. (You couldn't trademark "Orange" in the food sector, but you can trademark "Orange" in the financial sector).

Since "Libra" has no inherent industry definition within Software and/or Finance, then it is definitely something a company could use as a trademark.

In fact .. there already are other companies using the Libra mark in similar categories (which is what's going to make this messy going forward as in theory any new company wanting to use Libra in software and/or Finance would need approval from all existing holders).



I really advise everyone to learn more about trademarks .. most assumptions at NamePros range from wrong to extremely wrong.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
The Libra Foundation has recently filed a Trademark application for the term 'Libra'. It is unknown if it will be granted or the extent of contention it will receive. The TM application may end up being a contentious issue with the regulatory agencies and law makers that are questioning the Libra roll out.

What, Really??? Wow. I hope they won't get it. That way we all will be seating on top of gold mines with all those Libra domains we have registered. Thank you @Internet.Domains. Great info👍
 
1
•••
What, Really??? Wow. I hope they won't get it. That way we all will be seating on top of gold mines with all those Libra domains we have registered. Thank you @Internet.Domains. Great info👍

If they don't get it .. they will use a different name. There is 0% chance those combined companies would ever launch something so potentially powerful without first securing TM rights.

At the moment Libra domains aren't worth much.

If they do get the trademark Libra domains will be worth less.
If they don't get the trademark Libra domains will be worthless.
(Note the lack of a space between Worth+Less if they don't get it)
 
2
•••
I never said that! ;)

If domainers were buying to sell directly to Facebook (or Libra Foundation) then YES 100% indeed they would be cybersquatting.

That being said .. I'm presuming most domainers have been buying domains with the intention of selling to 3rd party developers. Essentially people who make tools/apps for Libra after it comes out.

Much like there are several Bitcoin related companies. The difference here is that Bitcoin isn't owned by anyone, and as such there is no active trademark on "Bitcoin" (and more importantly, nobody who would ever enforce their exclusive rights to use "Bitcoin"), so anyone can have BitcoinWallet or LottoBitcoin, etc.

For Libra it's the complete opposite .. it will be controlled by the Libra Foundation, which is essentially ~18 of the most vigourous trademark defenders on the planet. There is absolutely ZERO chance that they will allow any random company to call themselves LibraLotto or anything like that!


I suppose in trying to be transparent they might let some things slide .. but rest assured .. anything that will make serious money on the backs of Libra will be defended against ... which means that no end-user will ever pay "big money" for any Libra domain because they'll never be able to make any money with it.




You really need to do some research on Trademarks.

First of all .. Facebook purchased the US trademark rights to "Libra" (from an existing company who changed their name) in the specific trademark class(es) (I'm assuming "Software" and/or "Financial Services") .. presumably to pass on to the Libra Foundation when officially established.

Yes .. single generic words are 100% trademarkable in trademark classes where they are not generic industry terms/words. (You couldn't trademark "Orange" in the food sector, but you can trademark "Orange" in the financial sector).

Since "Libra" has no inherent industry definition within Software and/or Finance, then it is definitely something a company could use as a trademark.

In fact .. there already are other companies using the Libra mark in similar categories (which is what's going to make this messy going forward as in theory any new company wanting to use Libra in software and/or Finance would need approval from all existing holders).



I really advice everyone to learn more about trademarks .. most assumptions at NamePros range from wrong to extremely wrong.

@Ategy. Thank you. You just dropped some very good informations that I wasn't aware of 👍
 
0
•••
I never said that! ;)

If domainers were buying to sell directly to Facebook (or Libra Foundation) then YES 100% indeed they would be cybersquatting.

That being said .. I'm presuming most domainers have been buying domains with the intention of selling to 3rd party developers. Essentially people who make tools/apps for Libra after it comes out.

Much like there are several Bitcoin related companies. The difference here is that Bitcoin isn't owned by anyone, and as such there is no active trademark on "Bitcoin", so anyone can have BitcoinWallet or LottoBitcoin, etc.

For Libra it's the complete opposite .. it will be controlled by the Libra Foundation, which is essentially ~18 of the most vigourous trademark defenders on the planet. There is absolutely ZERO chance that they will allow any random company to call themselves LibraLotto or anything like that!


I suppose in trying to be transparent they might let some things slide .. but rest assured .. anything that will make serious money on the backs of Libra will be defended against ... which means that no end-user will ever pay "big money" for any Libra domain because they'll never be able to make any money with it.




You really need to do some research on Trademarks.

First of all .. Facebook purchased the US trademark rights to "Libra" (from an existing company who changed their name) in the specific trademark class(es) (I'm assuming "Software" and/or "Financial Services") .. presumably to pass on to the Libra Foundation when officially established.

Yes .. single generic words are 100% trademarkable in trademark classes where they are not generic industry terms/words. (You couldn't trademark "Orange" in the food sector, but you can trademark "Orange" in the financial sector).

Since "Libra" has no inherent industry definition within Software and/or Finance, then it is definitely something a company could use as a trademark.

In fact .. there already are other companies using the Libra mark in similar categories (which is what's going to make this messy going forward as in theory any new company wanting to use Libra in software and/or Finance would need approval from all existing holders).



I really advice everyone to learn more about trademarks .. most assumptions at NamePros range from wrong to extremely wrong.
Yes, Trademark knowledge is helpful when domain investing. When examining the TM that Facebook purchased there is an important detail to understand.

The TM is for a TAX company.

https://www.theblockcrypto.com/2019...wn-tax-company-for-its-secret-crypto-project/

Again, I agree there are many legal issues to be settled, and because of this it is premature to label 'libra' investors as TM violators. In fact, it is absolutely wrong to do so if one has TM knowledge.
 
2
•••
if a libra domain is generic in nature its not a tm issue

for example libraslots just sold and it doesnt refer to fb libra, so im quite sure its safe from a fb tm issue

but if u have libracoins or libratokens thats another story as it is referring directly to the fb products

I have Libraology.com which i feel is quite generic as it can refer to the astrology niche

also LibraEmpowers.com

this saying can relate to the astrology niche of Libra as well but can cross over to fb Libra with little tm issues even though its mentioned in the Libra whitepaper as it doesnt refer to a fb tm product , it only generalizes
 
0
•••
@artstar Libraslots/com got sold? Do you know for how much it was sold? The reason asking is because I own LIBRASLOT/COM
 
1
•••
@artstar Libraslots/com got sold? Do you know for how much it was sold? The reason asking is because I own LIBRASLOT/COM
look under libra showcase thread. no info just that it sold lately.
 
1
•••
Back