- 18K views
- 159 replies
- 1 point
Purchased 3 two word libra .COM domains today. What are your thoughts and suggestions? Well, fingers crossed !!
look under libra showcase thread. no info just that it sold lately.
When examining the TM that Facebook purchased there is an important detail to understand.
The TM is for a TAX company.
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.
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
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
If you are correct in saying the TM (Tax) that Facebook bought covers cryptocurrency, then please explain why the Libra Foundation filed an application for specifically cryptocurrency?No .. the company was NOT a tax company .. it was a SOFTWARE company that happened to make Tax Software! There is a HUGE difference.. if it was a tax (accounting) firm, then the trademarks would not be compatible (unless that accounting firm also sold software). So the trademark(s) of the compnay was likely in classes 9 and/or 42 .. which encompasses almost everything digital in nature.
The possible bonus with it being tax software is that they might also have trademark rights in financial services categories .. which might then cover gambling depending on how gambling is regulated in various jurisdictions.
Again .. trademarks are USAGE based .. the apply to how you use them .. and more specifically you are protected for the entirety of the classes of that usage.
So the company that they bought the trademark from had protection in software classes .. that means that Facebook now owns the American trademark for the term "Libra" when it comes to EVERYTHING within the specific trademark classes (essentially anything software related).
Again .. trademarks are USAGE based. My guess is that Astrology falls in an Entertainment related trademark class. So there is no conflict there for you to use Libra for an Astrology site ... but that goes back to .. who the heck is going to pay any serious money to buy a Libra astrology domain. Buying Libra astrology isn't a bad idea because of trademark problems .. it's a bad idea because you simply won't have a good probability to sell the domains at a high profit .. but to be clear .. you can own and develop all the astrology sites you want with the word Libra in it!
As for gambling .. that's a bit trickier ... they might or might not be safe. I'm thinking there could also be some issues as there might or might not be overlaps in trademark classes.
But again .. Libra+Gambling domains would be most valued by potential developers who would want to build on top of the Libra blockchain .. which would certainly be a violation the moment they were using software as a bridge to connect to the blockchain.
In the end, due to the heavy digital aspect of "online" gambling, chances are the Libra lawyers could very easily find something ... although to be clear .. it could potentially be possible to have some random gambling website completely unrelated to crypto or software and actually be safe .. AS LONG AS .. there is no hinting that the website focuses on gambling with Libra crypto.
At the end of the day you can use any Libra domain you want as long as it doesn't interfere in whatever classes Libra Crypto covers.
But that's my point .. in theory almost all Libra domains will be safe ... AS LONG AS they aren't used in any way related to the cryptocurrency .. which means that while you are legally safe holding an inactive domain ... no end user with trademark knowledge is ever going to use Libra in their own tradeamrk .. and therefore will never develop a Libra domain .. and therefore never buy a Libra domain ... thereby making most Libra domains effectively worthless unless they were already good domains to begin with.
For example .. LibraCasino actually makes for a good Casino brand (completely unrelated to Libra crypto), so YES .. it's a good domain.
Libraology and LibraEmpowers are domains with no significant potential end users .. so I'm sorry to say they are not very good domains outside the context of what will likely be a massive awareness campaign surrounding Libra crypto. HOWEVER ... that said .. if someone just wants to make a fan page or news site about Libra .. then they are possibly safe. A lot depends on if/how they make money .. and how extreme the Libra Foundation will be at protecting their brand. While in theory even selling advertisements on a website isn't allowed, they might only go after companies actively selling products and services.
It's still too early to say anything more specifically .. but at the end of the day .. Libra domains just aren't worth the bother in my opinion .. unless they make for a good brand in something completely unrelated already.
If you are correct in saying the TM (Tax) that Facebook bought covers cryptocurrency,
Likely because they want to expand and/or clarify and/or strengthen their newly acquired trademark... then please explain why the Libra Foundation filed an application for specifically cryptocurrency?
I'm thinking with big companies trademarks, trademarks are like patents .. where they try to include sooooo much information, that ultimately their patent covers everything. That's a big issue in the patent industry is that many patents are too broad and too powerful .. but because they got through the initial process, the company can make a lot of $$$ licencing things they really should not have been able to patent in the first place.My point is the Facebook TM does not cover most usage and that is why the Libra Association filed a much more detailed and lengthy application.
They will obviously pass along the TM to the Libra Foundation when the time comes .. it doesn't really change anything.In addition, Facebook does not own or control the cryptocurrency so having a TM in that class seems mute.
Below is the first paragraph of the TM that Facebook bought. For clarity, this is not the Libra Foundation's newly filed application. The point I am making is that the TM does NOT mean all software, it specifically mentions TAX software. It is a long stretch to overlap TAX software to include everything under the cryptocurrency umbrella.Again .. that is not what I said .. they acquired the trademark from a company that likely had their trademark in one or both of the digital product trademark classes (9 and 42 I think). Since cryptocurrency is effectively a digital product, then it is recognised as being in the same trademark class. Whether Facebook is using it for crypto or any other software it doesn't matter.
Likely because they want to expand and/or clarify and/or strengthen their newly acquired trademark.
What you don't seem to understand is that "cryptocurrency" is not a trademark class. There are about 50 trademark classes and cryptocurrency likely falls into a few depending on what's being done.
With the case of Libra, the Libra Foundation will be intermediaries of financial transactions .. so beyond "Digital Products"/"Software", they will likely also be operating within financial services trademark classes.
Other cryptocurrencies that are completely decentralised would probably not fall unto that category.
I'm am no expert and just have general broad knowledge .. so I can't say for sure which trademark classes are in play.
I'm thinking with big companies trademarks, trademarks are like patents .. where they try to include sooooo much information, that ultimately their patent covers everything. That's a big issue in the patent industry is that many patents are too broad and too powerful .. but because they got through the initial process, the company can make a lot of $$$ licencing things they really should not have been able to patent in the first place.
To make things simple .. let's say you have a software platform you call Red Cake. Then in theory you are protected for "Red Cake" ... but if you were smart you'd try to trademark "Cake", so that way you would be protected for Anything+Cake. This sort of thing might or might not pass .. but big companies surely know the best tricks (certain trademark/patent offices are known to be less strict than others for example).
Then when giving a description you get as detailed as possible to cover as many trademark classes as possible which in turn strengthens your rights and protections across a broader spectrum of potential competition.
In this case they are likely trying to establish and protect usage in the financial services class (#36 I think) .. and very likely others.
ALSO .. remember that they only bought the patent in the USA as far as I know. With domains, international trademark coverage is often outright assumed in UDRP cases ... but remember that the Libra trademark is about more than just domains .. so they will likely have to do multiple registrations all over the world. Each one will be different depending on the requirements and more importantly, depending on potential existing trademarks in each location.
At the end of the day .. if they use Libra for "crypto", and say there's a bank called "Libra" in a country .. but the back management doesn't really see or understand that Libra is actually infringing on their trademark, after a certain amount of time, there isn't anything they can do about it if they didn't contest the trademark in the first few years as Libra establishes itself. I'm thinking that's what Facebook hopes will happen with most of the other trademark holders around the world (although some will certainly contest .. and from there anything can happen .. although FB might just money their way through it all)
They will obviously pass along the TM to the Libra Foundation when the time comes .. it doesn't really change anything.
Yes, all things are possible. This is all new and unprecedented territory. For that reason there remains a risk as well as an opportunity. Only time will tell.(if indeed they do stick with "Libra" as the name).
Maybe we could get @jberryhill to give us the exact rules if an existing trademark in a class covers the entire class or just the specific sub-descriptors (sub-classes?)?
All that said .. establishing TM rights on a global scale for what they are hoping to be a planet-wide digital currency is a monstrous undertaking.
There's some irony when a lawyer call's a person a "dumb schmuck."
You come with a great wealth of knowledge, but you really need to work on your delivery....says the guy who suggested there was some area of ambiguity around the IRS having completely limited 1031 exchanges to real property.
Don't worry. You can laugh at me from the balcony of your mansion when you get rich from these names.
Facebook and the Libra Association will decide if the community can use and build websites and other innovations that includes the term Libra.
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
You come with a great wealth of knowledge, but you really need to work on your delivery.
You probably meant the Libra Association's lawyers as Facebook does not own, control or govern the cryptocurrency called Libra.If you think I'm unpleasant, wait until people start hearing from Facebook's lawyers. They aren't going to show up at Namepros and offer their thoughts for free.
You probably meant the Libra Association's lawyers as Facebook does not own, control or govern the cryptocurrency called Libra.
Before they enforce a TM they need to be granted the TM. What they are proposing is somewhat ambiguous as it competes with FIAT currency. There are legal challenges all around them from governments all over the world. It is certainly possible their claim is denied.They are the same lawyers.
Fenwick and West, the firm identified in the application I linked above, is also the primary firm that handles Facebook's corporate matters.
What they are proposing is somewhat ambiguous as it competes with FIAT currency. There are legal challenges all around them from governments all over the world. It is certainly possible their claim is denied.
Before they enforce a TM they need to be granted the TM.
Whether or not "governments all over the world" don't like cryptocurrency has NOTHING to do with whether they will establish trademark rights in the name of a set of products and services offered under that name.
In the US, for example, cannabis is still illegal under federal criminal law. But...
Word Mark CANNABISNOW
Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Magazine publishing; Publication of on-line magazines; On-line journals, namely, blogs featuring cannabis; Providing on-line publications in the nature of magazines in the field of cannabis; Providing on-line digital publications in the nature of magazines in the field of cannabis via the Internet; Providing a website featuring blogs and non-downloadable publications in the nature of magazines in the field(s) of cannabis; Publication of magazines; Publication of electronic magazines; Publishing of web magazines. FIRST USE: 20101100. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20101100
Registration Number 5792413
If what you are saying is that governments will somehow prevent or stop the actual use of LIBRA as a cryptocurrency, then obviously the domain names corresponding to a non-existent and unusable service are as worthless as the elaborate initial steps they have taken to securing international trademark rights.
I mean, duh, what good are domain names that relate to a service that doesn't exist?
But the whole "granted a TM" paradigm, which you seem to believe matters, is precisely at the heart of why so many domain registrants end up wasting money on domain names with no value, and potential liabilities.
If you think a registered trademark is required to win a UDRP or to bring a cybersquatting action, then you really don't understand the first thing about trademarks in the US (or English commonwealth countries).
This statement here:
..is simply wrong.
In fact, it is the FIRST question in the WIPO Overview of panel views on common UDRP issues - the UDRP FAQ, if you like:
1.1 What type of trademark rights are encompassed by the expression “trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights” in UDRP paragraph 4(a)(i)?
1.1.1 The term “trademark or service mark” as used in UDRP paragraph 4(a)(i) encompasses both registered and unregistered (sometimes referred to as common law) marks.
No one needs to "grant" anyone common law trademark rights.