domains Meta.Company accuses Facebook of stealing Meta name and livelihood

[Lox]

Meta.Company

For the last three months, Facebook lawyers have been hounding us to sell our name to them. We refused their offer on multiple bases. Namely, the low offer wouldn’t cover the costs of changing our name, and we insisted on knowing the client and intent, which they did not want to disclose.

At least two law firms were involved: One in the USA that requested our trademark and domains (Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton), and the other in Europe aggressively contacting trying to get us to sell our domain registrations (Hogan Lovells).

On October 20th, 2021, during a phone call with Facebook attorneys, we declined their low offer and maintained our requirements. At this point, we presumed it was Facebook and identified them on the call. The attorney representing Facebook declared they would respect our existing right and registration.

On October 28th, 2021, Facebook decided to commit trademark infringement and call themselves “Meta”.

They couldn’t buy us, so they tried to bury us by force of media. We shouldn't be surprised by these actions — from a company that continually says one thing and does another. Facebook and its operating officers are deceitful and acting in bad faith, not only towards us, but to all of humanity.

read more

 

[DOMAIN ILLUMINATI]

... they are not a real company and created handles on the back of FB’s rebrand.

According to BIZAPEDIA, they are very well an active and therefore a "real" company (Chicago Illinois) and their registered company name is META LLC since more than 8 years.

BIZAPEDIA | META LLC
https://www.bizapedia.com/il/meta-llc.html

It is their business how or if they use their social media channels - this doesn't make them an "unreal" company.

They simply own a domain name that another active and "real" company wants.

 

[BRANDERX]

It's interesting that the major brandable marketplaces are actively listing Meta names. We know they try to avoid TM names, but looks like they don't see it the way some of us do, in terms of acceptable use of Meta. Interesting times really..

 

[MadAboutDomains]

It's interesting that the major brandable marketplaces are actively listing Meta names. We know they try to avoid TM names, but looks like they don't see it the way some of us do, in terms of acceptable use of Meta. Interesting times really..

Someone said that GoDaddy are preventing people from listing meta names. Is that correct?

 

[BRANDERX]

Someone said that GoDaddy are preventing people from listing meta names. Is that correct?

I have no idea if they tried, but you'll definitely find premium listings with a "Meta" search.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Meta or Metaverse is not Facebook properties. If one appoint a brilliant lawyer, Facebook will not win any case related to Meta or Metaverse.

Slight diagreement. Meta is registered for their registered good and services in the USA and Canada... so if you avoid anything to do with that then you might be alright.

 

[namescan]

I have no idea if they tried, but you'll definitely find premium listings with a "Meta" search.

Who needs Godaddy? Plenty places to lookup meta availability.

 

[BRANDERX]

Who needs Godaddy? Plenty places to lookup meta availability.

He asked about GoDaddy.. But thanks for the reminder

 

[jideofor]

Load of rubbish in my opinion. Checking out the site nothing is on it, checking out the companies social media handles (Twitter/Insta/Facebook) they only started posting on them 1st November, Archive.org shows nothing on the 'so called' meta.company as a business.

could it be the OP is the one behind it? lol

 

[bmugford]

I actually saw someone post this on my FB feed -

 

[bmugford]

That's been up on their site for at least a few days I would say.

Someone asked them on twitter what exactly they do and meta.company replied that they're looking forward to revealing what their product is.... from that information we can work out that they haven't even traded using the name yet. So their TM is 5 years old, they have no protection for the name because they haven't traded under it and they admitted it online !!

Under these circumstances they'd have the claim to USPTO excusable non use, which from what I've read on their site is seldom granted.

What a bunch of characters.

The notable thing though is I barely use FB, and only have a handful of personal contacts on there, and that was from someone outside the domain world that posted it.

Brad

 

[DOMAIN ILLUMINATI]

Here is a complete screenshot of their domain name's (meta.company) website:

The last line says "Copyright © 2021 Meta, LLC."

Not meant as reference to their TM ("METACOMPANY") but to their company's name (META, LLC).

 

[DOMAIN ILLUMINATI]

Who says that FACEEBOOK INC META PLATFORMS INC doesn't have millions to spend on a domain name?
Also, who says millions?
The price of this domain name can be lower / higher.

The possibility that one day META PLATFORMS INC will have a meeting with META LLC in the metaverse to battle or to settle a deal is real.

May META win! *

* In case these both META companies will have a battle, only one of both META companies will win - but in case they will have a deal, both META companies will win (win / win).

 

[Lox]

could it be the OP is the one behind it? lol

Nope
I will not sell Meta names until at least 2025.

Regards

 

[AstoundingDesigns]

Meh. They will get paid off, it will just take forever. Next!

 

[karmaco]

I find it amazing this many domainers who sell domains for money/profit are on FB side on this. The monopolistic beast is not entitled to anything they want. Maybe since you think Meta Company is in the wrong you should turn your Meta names over to Zuck no questions or money asked.

They put in there psychotically long trademark application only 11 days ago. They don’t have a trademark they have an application.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

That is in category 35 and 42 marketing and software ONLY. Plus the in use is meaningless as their in use started oh 2 weeks ago. Not enough to claim Meta as their property.Therefore the long winded application.

Their long winded application is for their logo that was indeed released 2 weeks ago, and it is very comprehensive I must admit.

I'm not glossing over the fact that trademarks are registered for specific goods and services, that is a given. But try to start a business using the name Meta now for biscuits and you'll be fine, but that's not where the value is in registering a Meta domain lies.

Their registered mark is pretty clear and pretty good protection for what they want to achieve:

computer networking services, namely, creating on-line virtual communities for registered users to organize groups and events, participate in discussions, and engage individually and in groups in scientific, social, business and community networking;

Some people on here are going as far as to say that META is so generic that their latest application for their logo should be out right rejected. Because it is large? Because they just applied for it? I'm not sure what their reasoning is, but I have already mused about how they will get at least the bare minimum of what they already have registered through for their logo sans any other opposition about the originality of the design because they already own the rights to the IP for the META name in their previous trademark.

Trademarks can be used as an intent to use in trade, that explains why their logo application is so comprehensive, they are they're anticipating how their mark will be used, as is advised when you register a trademark and of course they won't get anything through that has already been registered, because it will be opposed. However the rest will get through if unopposed by existing trademark holders and businesses.

I suppose you want the meta trademarks that predate these to go bye bye too for FB? People are just not going to lay down and die for FB like this company did and they shouldn’t. Its not their word. Its generic. I expect lawsuits and objections to this madness.

My response is that I can only point you to this post from @jberryhill.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

I feel like they just feel bummed Facebook didn't end up buying this dumb domain name (with that shitty ext) at the obviously outrageous price they were asking for.

Agreed. And they clearly don't know how to search for trademarks.

 

[DOMAIN ILLUMINATI]

Even it has 7 letters, the TLD .company is definitely a meaningful generic extension which can make total sense as we can see here for instance.

 

[DOMAIN ILLUMINATI]

It is even a full word while ."com" is not even a half one ... lowl (laughing owl)

 

[DOMAIN ILLUMINATI]

And in comparison to the domain name m**ac*****y.com the domain name meta.company is state of the art - in other words, the most modern way how to create a web address out of the keywords "meta" and "company".

 

[Robert27]

Their long winded application is for their logo that was indeed released 2 weeks ago, and it is very comprehensive I must admit.

I'm not glossing over the fact that trademarks are registered for specific goods and services, that is a given. But try to start a business using the name Meta now for biscuits and you'll be fine, but that's not where the value is in registering a Meta domain lies.

Their registered mark is pretty clear and pretty good protection for what they want to achieve:


Some people on here are going as far as to say that META is so generic that their latest application for their logo should be out right rejected. Because it is large? Because they just applied for it? I'm not sure what their reasoning is, but I have already mused about how they will get at least the bare minimum of what they already have registered through for their logo sans any other opposition about the originality of the design because they already own the rights to the IP for the META name in their previous trademark.

Trademarks can be used as an intent to use in trade, that explains why their logo application is so comprehensive, they are they're anticipating how their mark will be used, as is advised when you register a trademark and of course they won't get anything through that has already been registered, because it will be opposed. However the rest will get through if unopposed by existing trademark holders and businesses.


My response is that I can only point you to this post from @jberryhill.

Thank you for all the information and details you provide. Much appreciated.

I have a question - the TM is for USA and Canada I understand ? If so do you think that owners of Meta domains bought outside of USA / Canada could potentially have no problems using the Meta + keyword domains? Perhaps even saying on a sales page of a Meta +keyword domain something along the lines of : This domain is sold on the understanding that it's use will not infringe on registered Trademarks. I am not a lawyer or solicitor so I have probably got this all wrong but is there something in it?

 

[Reallybigidea.com]

Libra Holo and now Meta.. so this word is trademarked now as google?

 

[dande]

Even Zuck confirms in his video that he knows Meta from Greek language...

Now, I have a "Meta" name that means PostSmart in Greek. Feeling like a champ

 

[AboGamil]

Exactly, that's why they made offers (according to the report) to the OWNER of this domain name.

I think the owner of the greed domain owns it because Facebook is the one who wants the name

 

[DOMAIN ILLUMINATI]

A company/domain owner having a meltdown because Meta's offer isn't going to make their dreams come true.

But wait - isn't the status quo just one thing while the (unknown) future is another?