Get your catchy domain at it.com

UDRP Meta domains: UDRP targeted 33 domains in 9 countries!

Dynadot

News

Hand-picked News
Impact
2,702
Meta, Inc., operators of the umbrella corporation running Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, have filed a UDRP targeting 33 “meta domains.”

The number is not extreme as we’ve seen similar UDRPs in the past targeting dozens of domains en masse. What’s different in this case is the multiple Respondents from all over the world – a total of 20 Respondents from 9 countries...
Read More
 

Kingslayer

Top Contributor
Impact
7,021
It was obvious it was coming. I said it would happen last year, just after Facebook's 'Meta' rebrand announcement.

Facebook had no problem paying $50k+ for domains that were registered before they rebranded because clearly people wasn't people trying to make money off Facebook's name as they were not called 'Meta' yet.

Any 'meta' domains registered after the 28th October 2021 though, they could come after you if you have a domain asset that they want, it is also why I've avoided going after 'meta' domains in the aftermarket after the rebrand, there is always that risk.
 
Last edited:

capybara

capybara
Impact
1,629
the disputed domain names resolved to websites impersonating the Complainant, particularly by prominently using the Complainant’s META trademark and its official company logo

Bad, bad Meta! Attacking innocent people who were merely impersonating them using the official company logo. Surely all domain investors now must tremble in fear because it happened. (not)

come after you if you have a domain asset that they want
Did you even look at the names in question? metaslaunch.international... who could seriously want trash like that? Thats not an "asset they want", but obvious gross violations of the trademark which they could not ignore. Please don't be so dramatic over cases which have nothing to do with domain investors conducting their business in a proper manner.
 

kor

Established Member
Impact
96
Judging by the domains, this is a purely intimidating step. All those names are completely garbage.

Knowing that people usually will only look at the headline and not read the details, it will succeed in creating fear in the market.

In my opinion, it is more critical that they are directly justified and the domain names are transferred just because "meta" is in it.
 

FolioTeam

AMDB.tv
Impact
6,656
Meta, Inc., operators of the umbrella corporation running Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, have filed a UDRP targeting 33 “meta domains.”

The number is not extreme as we’ve seen similar UDRPs in the past targeting dozens of domains en masse. What’s different in this case is the multiple Respondents from all over the world – a total of 20 Respondents from 9 countries...
Read More
Wow. I wouldn't register any of those names. I guess a lot of people went on a registration spree after October last year.
 

FolioTeam

AMDB.tv
Impact
6,656
Bad, bad Meta! Attacking innocent people who were merely impersonating them using the official company logo. Surely all domain investors now must tremble in fear because it happened. (not)


Did you even look at the names in question? metaslaunch.international... who could seriously want trash like that? Thats not an "asset they want", but obvious gross violations of the trademark which they could not ignore. Please don't be so dramatic over cases which have nothing to do with domain investors conducting their business in a proper manner.
Have you seen many of the names on the metaverse thread that 'domain investors' registered last October and are still currently registering?

I don't see Kingslayer's comment as being overly dramatic. Meta might come after names that were clearly registered after they rebranded (and that are related to their products and services) even if they are 'unwanted' names like metaoculusquestglasses.abc. It's called brand protection.
 
Last edited:

capybara

capybara
Impact
1,629
According to the provided documents in the case file (Annex 3 to the Complaint), the disputed domain names resolved to websites impersonating the Complainant, particularly by prominently using the Complainant’s META trademark and its official company logo. By doing so, the websites associated to the disputed domain names provided for a look and feel as if they were operated by the Complainant itself.

The case file further indicates that some of the disputed domain names have been used for fraudulent activities targeting the Complainant’s users, particularly by offering certain advance-fee schemes for “meta coins”, a fictious crypto currency allegedly offered in connection with the Complainant and its online platform. This is indicated by various online reports on fraudulent activities as regards some of the disputed domain names (Annex 14 to the Complaint).

There is a vast difference between impersonating & conducting fraudulent activities and merely owning a name including "meta". Proclaiming "Meta Platforms Inc. is coming after registrants of domains with 'meta' if there is an asset they want' basing on this case is an example of pretty hardcore drama.
 

1Darko

Top Contributor
Impact
6,711
It was obvious it was coming. I said it would happen last year, just after Facebook's 'Meta' rebrand announcement.

Facebook had no problem paying $50k+ for domains that were registered before they rebranded because clearly people wasn't people trying to make money off Facebook's name as they were not called 'Meta' yet.

Any 'meta' domains registered after the 28th October 2021 though, they could come after you if you have a domain asset that they want, it is also why I've avoided going after 'meta' domains in the aftermarket after the rebrand, there is always that risk.
In Slovenia there was a small shop operating on the domain m/e/t/a/./s/i form 2005 on. This year they rebranded to a much longer meta domain and the original domain is no longer resolving. The new owner of the domain is a company in France. I hope they where smart enough to check in the 50k :xf.smile:
 

Kingslayer

Top Contributor
Impact
7,021
There is a vast difference between impersonating & conducting fraudulent activities and merely owning a name including "meta". Proclaiming "Meta Platforms Inc. is coming after registrants of domains with 'meta' if there is an asset they want' basing on this case is an example of pretty hardcore drama.

They have trademarked the term 'meta' with a long list of goods and services that will cover any average and above domain name that they don't already have and render it 'trademark infringement', especially if you owned the domain after 28th October 2021, if you owned the domain before that date, you have a strong case there was no intention to infringe on the 'Meta' brand.

They are making that word their own, in the same way 'Apple' and 'Amazon' have (generic dictionary words).

The time is over where they are going to give domain investors a blank cheque for a random 'meta' domain name in .co, if they want your asset, they may try and buy it if your price is reasonable, but if your price is inflated to a ridiculous amount, they will probably send you a threatening letter, if that still doesn't work they will probably go the UDRP route and chances are they will win.
 
Last edited:

capybara

capybara
Impact
1,629
If you visit USPTO website and enter "meta" you will see that there are countless trademark applications including "meta" filed after the Facebook->Meta rebrand. Some of them are filed by very big companies (e.g. Metamobility – Hyundai) who are probably using qualified lawyers.

Is there any evidence Meta Platforms Inc. trying to oppose all or even any of these? Just because they trademarked 'meta' as a single word does not create a situation where the extremely generic 'meta' becomes completely off-limits for anyone.

And while people register legal entities, launch services and products and apply for trademark registrations with 'meta' in their names yet there you are claiming Meta Platforms Inc. is going to take away domain names just because they have 'meta'. Why spread FUD?
 

FolioTeam

AMDB.tv
Impact
6,656
If you visit USPTO website and enter "meta" you will see that there are countless trademark applications including "meta" filed after the Facebook->Meta rebrand. Some of them are filed by very big companies (e.g. Metamobility – Hyundai) who are probably using qualified lawyers.

Is there any evidence Meta Platforms Inc. trying to oppose all or even any of these? Just because they trademarked 'meta' as a single word does not create a situation where the extremely generic 'meta' becomes completely off-limits for anyone.

And while people register legal entities, launch services and products and apply for trademark registrations with 'meta' in their names yet there you are claiming Meta Platforms Inc. is going to take away domain names just because they have 'meta'. Why spread FUD?
Meta is not going to go after metacars or metamobility. Because, I don't think they make cars yet (correct me if I am wrong).

If Meta decides to go into car production tomorrow and tries to apply for the trademark with their meta name, Hyundai can contest that application because it will infringe on their metamobility name. (This is ignoring the scenario where they purchase the trademark off Hyundai)

While Meta's trademark was initially limited during the name change last year, they have gone ahead to buy up prior businesses and their trademarks in tow, which frankly I think is a dangerous move for the metaverse space.

It's not a good idea to have a monopoly like 'Oasis' a la Ready Player One in the nascent metaverse ecosystem. That's just too much power for one company.
 
Impact
5,969
According to the provided documents in the case file (Annex 3 to the Complaint), the disputed domain names resolved to websites impersonating the Complainant, particularly by prominently using the Complainant’s META trademark and its official company logo. By doing so, the websites associated to the disputed domain names provided for a look and feel as if they were operated by the Complainant itself.

Source: https://domaingang.com/domain-law/meta-domains-udrp-targeted-33-domains-in-9-countries/

1 of the website:
1659206460466.png
 
Last edited:

honestbobby

Established Member
Impact
259
It was obvious it was coming. I said it would happen last year, just after Facebook's 'Meta' rebrand announcement.

Facebook had no problem paying $50k+ for domains that were registered before they rebranded because clearly people wasn't people trying to make money off Facebook's name as they were not called 'Meta' yet.

Any 'meta' domains registered after the 28th October 2021 though, they could come after you if you have a domain asset that they want, it is also why I've avoided going after 'meta' domains in the aftermarket after the rebrand, there is always that risk.
Are you sure of date? I mean if someone has registered it on 26th...its safe in yours view?
 

iTesla

Established Member
Impact
265
This is more a case of impersonating the Meta and the content on those website rather than domain related, they will probably take the domains so those who registered them does not conduce such business in the future, by impersonating Meta and profiting out it.
If Meta aka FB would be interested in the domain names we hold I think there would be allot of such cases already.
I personally would do the same just to protect my biz, allot of copy cats and lazy grabbers in the field, lurking for easy income.
 
biix
Top down