Dan.com
Dynadot Dynadot

Centauri

Established Member
Impact
97
Hey,


so as some people over in the Metaverse Thread claim, that meta (keyword) .com domains have no future, as
a) "everybody" seems to fear legal prosecution by Meta Platforms Inc., or
b) if Meta Inc. won't come along and buy them, domainers will have to re-reg the domains in an infinite loop,

I have thought about going a little bit more into detail here. - If you are interested.


First of all: I encourage and challenge anybody, who says Meta Platforms Inc. is hunting for meta (keyword) domains,
to put this statement to the test.


Post at least one case, in which Meta Platforms Inc. got his hands onto a meta (keyword) domain!
With the only exemption: No meta (keyword) domains, which are clearly a TM infringement, like for example:
Meta Inc. bought (had to buy) the TM rights for metabank/pay; so if someone would now come along and reg. a domain like metapay1.com,
he will be eaten for lunch ;)



So, it is just so easy to put rumors into the world, that meta domains are in big danger and no one can or will do anything with them -
metagaming.com or metanews.com are clear proof of the opposite!
(in addition to the many more meta websites out there).
(btw at least for what I know, they were just developed after rebranding)

So, it's up to you to believe the pessimists and get frightened by no reasons (no trials/ cases, they can provide),
let others trash-talk about meta domains and decrease their legitimacy / attraction,
or do some research and see that meta keyword domains are eligible to be run, owned, developed and traded.


Thanks
Centauri
 
Last edited:
13 0
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Metagaming.com - registered 2002
Metanews.com - registered 1997

Owning one of these names and establishing legitimate rights in them is different to just buying them and offering them for sale.

it looks like Meta Platforms have just gone after obvious fraud/impersonation attempts by owners so far in UDRPs from what I can see.

I'd argue that unless it's a really good name then it's not worth having anyway, they're not flying off the shelves. But developing a site, maybe establish some IP rights in your country, that would be my recommendation if you want to guarantee to keep it if came to jousting.

What meta names have you got? Intrigued...
 
Last edited:

Centauri

Established Member
Impact
97
Metagaming.com - registered 2002
Metanews.com - registered 1997

Owning one of these names and establishing legitimate rights in them is different to just buying them and offering them for sale.

it looks like Meta Platforms have just gone after obvious fraud/impersonation attempts by owners so far in UDRPs from what I can see.

I'd argue that unless it's a really good name then it's not worth having anyway, they're not flying off the shelves. But developing a site, maybe establish some IP rights in your country, that would be my recommendation if you want to guarantee to keep it if came to jousting.

What meta names have you got? Intrigued...
Yep, I see it in a similar way.

I had a look at those (laughable) domains, meta inc. send some udrp's out for.

Things like metaslunch.international

(this is really nothing to be concerned about).

The most important question is what would they do with domains like
(just as example; not my names)
meta/shopping/com or meta/market/com,
if these domains would had been sold and purchased after rebranding
(for resell or, reg. end-user, commercial usage)?
I suppose these names were also first registered before fb name change.

This is important to know, as we will know for sure if a good meta + keyword won't be touched by meta inc.

And as it seems, it won't / wouldn't,
otherwise we a) would have already heard about it or b) meta inc. (would) have tried to buy all available and good meta names before off. rebranding.


As for my names, I don't want to disclose them for now,
but there is nothing special.
Just a few meta + some adjectives or nouns, in .com.
 

Surya Giri Kurniawan

Established Member
Impact
264
Trade Mark is a way to protect Brand, but it is not the way to exclusively buy the monopoly rights of a word. Meta Inc. doesn't understand at all about the concept of Trade Mark. Having Trade Mark in Meta doesn't means other people have no rights to use Meta. It is not a Monopoly game. As long as it is not intended to ruin their Brand, others still have the same rights to register domains with Meta.

Don't make somebody who is foolish and not understand others right make people scare because they own big money. Even I have no domains with Meta, still see that Meta Inc. has infringed others right to own domains with meta, metaverse.

Meta Inc. is not the only company have rights to Metaverse. Even Sandbox, Decentraland, and Upland have a business in Metaverse earlier than Meta Inc. Meta Inc. just a beginner in Metaverse, and they already think they are the owner of Metaverse.

We must put back the use of Trade Mark to the right purpose. Don't let people who don't know about what Trade Mark is, have a monopoly rights on keywords. There are a lot people have business in Metaverse, there are a lot of people and companies already have names with Meta. Trade Mark is not a Monopoly games.

For Example, if Hotel.com has the Trade Mark in Hotel, doesn't mean I have no rights to open a new Hotel this day. It doesn't mean that I as the former Manager of some Hotels can't have new business to sell Hotel services.

In the future, there will be a lot of people will make income from selling Upland, Decentraland, and Sandbox land parcels. I also have a plan to do it. I and a lot of people have already sold Metaverse Avatars, collected wearable NFT from Upland for selling. And it is no relation with Meta Inc. which have even no product in Metaverse now. I already bought collections of wearable NFT Baseball costumes in Upland. And I have the rights to offer them through a website. I offered some Metaverse Avatars in Opensea.com. It is not Meta Inc. business, and no relation with Meta Inc.

superme_share_16458290 (6).png


superme_share_16471483.png
 
Last edited:

Kass

Established Member
Impact
368
meta primarily means super, not some universe, meta universe (in short).
e.g. meta grass = cannabis :xf.smile:
 
Meta Inc. has infringed others right to own domains with meta, metaverse.
Eh? Explain...

For Example, if Hotel.com has the Trade Mark in Hotel, doesn't mean I have no rights to open a new Hotel this day.
Not even close to be similar example. Hotel is not trademarkable because it describes the goods and services in the industry that they are in. Meta IS trademarked.

Don't let people who don't know about what Trade Mark is, have a monopoly rights on keywords.
No offence but this seems like you are describing yourself.
 
Last edited:
Impact
37,683
The "meta" term had been used for many years in fields like video games. Facebook did not even create the term metaverse, never mind being the first to use it.

With that said, Facebook is a massive company and can bully people regardless of the merits of a case.

Brad
 
Last edited:

iTesla

Established Member
Impact
416
The real problem is not really TM related to Meta inc, the issue I see I described in other thread long time ago, problem is simple because of Meta inc, many websites will be associated automatically with Meta inc, when Suckerberg rebranded to meta, he knew that this move will create self made traffic, I call it "lazy move" when something is already known for long time, it's like when Godaddy bought Dan same case.
In short Meta+keyword domains may create traffic/association with meta inc, I would go more with verse, metaverse or MV domains just to skip this meta association.
 

Andreas B.

Established Member
Impact
424
The real problem is not really TM related to Meta inc, the issue I see I described in other thread long time ago, problem is simple because of Meta inc, many websites will be associated automatically with Meta inc, when Suckerberg rebranded to meta, he knew that this move will create self made traffic, I call it "lazy move" when something is already known for long time, it's like when Godaddy bought Dan same case.
In short Meta+keyword domains may create traffic/association with meta inc, I would go more with verse, metaverse or MV domains just to skip this meta association.
just that the url with 'metaverse' + keyword is too long...

I think you can go with xxx + verse or simply mv + xxx, but honestly,
once the metaverse will become an every day term,
it'll be also ok to go with meta + xxx.

As people will seek for shortings; instead of having to say the full term each time.
e.g.
metaverse/shopping/com or
meta/shopping/com

I cannot imagine that for many years a very successful website can have like 15-20 letters in its url;
it may better go with 10-12.

just my opinion...
 
once the metaverse will become an every day term
It's never going to happen. People don't want to live in a VR world like a cyborg. Such delusion.
 

Andreas B.

Established Member
Impact
424
It's never going to happen. People don't want to live in a VR world like a cyborg. Such delusion.
yes,
for sure not 24/7 or like 80% of your working time.

But to some degree, I am sure metaverse applications will become real.

Just look at the web3 craze, all things that have to do with nfts, play2earn, blockchain etc. are all things related to the term 'metaverse'.

It is not just about Virtual / Immersive Reality.
 
yes,
for sure not 24/7 or like 80% of your working time.

But to some degree, I am sure metaverse applications will become real.

Just look at the web3 craze, all things that have to do with nfts, play2earn, blockchain etc. are all things related to the term 'metaverse'.

It is not just about Virtual / Immersive Reality.
I apologise for my prior bluntness.

However... This web3 stuff isn't popular by any stretch. VR is basically a dead duck too. Blockchain is a fad that showed promise and now it's just dull, boring, regulated, pointless.

Also people didn't care about AR.

NFTs quickly lost their shine once people realised that it's just a big scam full of people pretending to make money.

Xyz... Basically no traction.

Zuckerborg's vision for the metaverse got ripped to shreds because it was infantile. Just cause he has no connection to the real world doesn't mean that normal people won't.
 
Last edited:

Andreas B.

Established Member
Impact
424
I apologise for my prior bluntness.

However... This web3 stuff isn't popular by any stretch. VR is basically a dead duck too. Blockchain is a fad that showed promise and now it's just dull, boring, regulated, pointless.

Also people didn't care about AR.
blockchain has his max. distribution and potential as decentralized one, that's true.

unfort. some coins are going this route -
but not all.

especially not Btc.
and some others like monero.

I am quite sure, that we are going to see a big rallye sometime soon...

(many cryptos already grew like 100%+ from their last rock bottom).

yep, I agree that VR is only a tiny niche of enthusiasts, that like to check-in into imaginery worlds...

tech. development may give a better experience in future.

to me VR was always just a part of metaverse, and not the one part that will bring this all forward.

I am keen to see what AR will bring us...
 
Metaverse was just a promise that will never be fulfilled to raise the share prices of big companies. Nothing more.
 

karmaco

Top Contributor
Impact
10,980
Hey,


so as some people over in the Metaverse Thread claim, that meta (keyword) .com domains have no future, as
a) "everybody" seems to fear legal prosecution by Meta Platforms Inc., or
b) if Meta Inc. won't come along and buy them, domainers will have to re-reg the domains in an infinite loop,

I have thought about going a little bit more into detail here. - If you are interested.


First of all: I encourage and challenge anybody, who says Meta Platforms Inc. is hunting for meta (keyword) domains,
to put this statement to the test.


Post at least one case, in which Meta Platforms Inc. got his hands onto a meta (keyword) domain!
With the only exemption: No meta (keyword) domains, which are clearly a TM infringement, like for example:
Meta Inc. bought (had to buy) the TM rights for metabank/pay; so if someone would now come along and reg. a domain like metapay1.com,
he will be eaten for lunch ;)



So, it is just so easy to put rumors into the world, that meta domains are in big danger and no one can or will do anything with them -
metagaming.com or metanews.com are clear proof of the opposite!
(in addition to the many more meta websites out there).
(btw at least for what I know, they were just developed after rebranding)

So, it's up to you to believe the pessimists and get frightened by no reasons (no trials/ cases, they can provide),
let others trash-talk about meta domains and decrease their legitimacy / attraction,
or do some research and see that meta keyword domains are eligible to be run, owned, developed and traded.


Thanks
Centauri
If the “pessimists” are so wrong why are you scared to name your meta names?

You have been here one entire month and being a know it all instead of learning from others is not a good approach.

Its been almost 11 months since there was a substantial meta sale, people are dropping their meta names like flies and begging people to buy but you do you since you know better.

Other Meta holders, anything aged before 2016 is safe as long as you don’t approach FB to buy. Good Luck to all.
 
Last edited:

Surya Giri Kurniawan

Established Member
Impact
264
Eh? Explain...


Not even close to be similar example. Hotel is not trademarkable because it describes the goods and services in the industry that they are in. Meta IS trademarked.


No offence but this seems like you are describing yourself.
So if you are so smart in Trademark Law, let us hear what is Trade Mark by your own word. Why you think Meta Inc. can have rights to block others from registering domains with Meta and Metaverse keyword? How about Sandbox, Upland, and Decentraland, can they still have metaverse business or must close their business? I'll wait to smile for your answer, and I am not offence too..
 
So if you are so smart in Trademark Law, let us hear what is Trade Mark by your own word. Why you think Meta Inc. can have rights to block others from registering domains with Meta and Metaverse keyword? How about Sandbox, Upland, and Decentraland, can they still have metaverse business or must close their business? I'll wait to smile for your answer, and I am not offence too..
You gave an example of something that cannot be trademarked for hotels, the example was just wrong. I could, however, trademark "Hotel" for a biscuit brand, or cheese and take action against other biscuit and 🧀 brands.

Meta can take the necessary steps to protect their intellectual property. It's that simple. Their intellectual property protects them in the countries that they trade and have registered IP. Each day that goes by their position is strengthened, their bank of IP expands and the things they trade under with the name Meta increases.

I haven't said that they can block people. Their case for being able to take action depends entirely on the circumstances surrounding such actions.
 

Surya Giri Kurniawan

Established Member
Impact
264
You gave an example of something that cannot be trademarked for hotels, the example was just wrong. I could, however, trademark "Hotel" for a biscuit brand, or cheese and take action against other biscuit and 🧀 brands.

Meta can take the necessary steps to protect their intellectual property. It's that simple. Their intellectual property protects them in the countries that they trade and have registered IP. Each day that goes by their position is strengthened, their bank of IP expands and the things they trade under with the name Meta increases.

I haven't said that they can block people. Their case for being able to take action depends entirely on the circumstances surrounding such actions.
So you thought that Meta Inc. is the company that own intelectual property of Metaverse? Meta Inc. just a beginner if you are not understand. And even not proofed yet that their Metaverse will be success. Sandbox and Decentraland are the pioners of Metaverse.. Land parcels at Decentraland have arise from 100$ a parcel into xxxxx $ a parcel, even some one have paid 450,000 $ to be a neighbour of Snoopy Dogg in Sandbox. And you are still don't know about Sandbox and Decentraland, and thought that Meta Inc. Is the pioneer in Metaverse..

How a beginner can have rights to control Metaverse, and fells that Metaverse is their intelectual property?

You act like know everything, but it says in other direction..

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortun...eal-estate-snoop-dogg-celebrity-neighbor/amp/
 
Last edited:
So you thought that Meta Inc. is the company that own intelectual property of Metaverse? Meta Inc. just a beginner if you are not understand. And even not proofed yet that their Metaverse will be success. Sandbox and Decentraland are the pioners of Metaverse.. Land parcels at Decentraland have arise from 100$ a parcel into xxxxx $ a parcel, even some one have paid 450,000 $ to be a neighbour of Snoopy Dogg in Sandbox. And you are still don't know about Sandbox and Decentraland, and thought that Meta Inc. Is the pioneer in Metaverse..

How a beginner can have rights to control Metaverse, and fells that Metaverse is their intelectual property?

You act like know everything, but it says in other direction..

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortun...eal-estate-snoop-dogg-celebrity-neighbor/amp/
We're talking about the word META, not metaverse. The entire thread is about meta, the word and the trademark.

I haven't even said the word metaverse.

As for the ridiculous link, that's another example, like NFTs where we're all expected to believe the "celebrities" and "influencers" have some love for something that they don't. It's just for a pay day. It's not popular, it's not anything... It's just a fantasy.
 
Last edited:

Surya Giri Kurniawan

Established Member
Impact
264
We're talking about the word META, not metaverse. The entire thread is about meta, the word and the trademark.

I haven't even said the word metaverse.

As for the ridiculous link, that's another example, like NFTs where we're all expected to believe the "celebrities" and "influencers" have some love for something that they don't. It's just for a pay day. It's not popular, it's not anything... It's just a fantasy.

Meta is even wider from Metaverse.. There is Metaphysical, Metaverse, Metadata, I have to smile aloud to see your opinion... So what is your concept? Can Meta Inc. sue Metadata domains, Metaphysic domains? I am finish with you, no benefit to discuss more..
 
Last edited:
Meta is even wider from Metaverse.. There is Metaphysical, Metaverse, Metadata, I have to smile aloud to see your opinion... So what is your concept? Can Meta Inc. sue Metadata domains, Metaphysic domains? I am finish with you, no benefit to discuss more..
Please tell me where I said that. You may be similing, but I'm frowning at your lack of comprehension.

Which bit of meta can protect their mark to the extent that they have recognised protection are you failing to grasp?
 
Last edited:

Surya Giri Kurniawan

Established Member
Impact
264
Please tell me where I said that. You may be similing, but I'm frowning at your lack of comprehension.

Which bit of meta can protect their mark to the extent that they have recognised protection are you failing to grasp?
Ha ha..
 
If you think the following is true, you're thick and ignorant:

Meta have zero legal protection afforded to them over the mark META.

If you believe the following to be true you live in reality:

Meta have the ability to defend their registered trademark META.



Of course it's nuanced and depends on the circumstances. I said this earlier in the thread.

I might agree with you about metadata, metaphysical, metaverse if you had asked me the question or if I had explicitly said those examples are /are not registrable. But that isn't really the discussion we're having here, those are exceptions in this discussion because we're discussing Meta keyword names. See the original post.
 
Last edited:

Centauri

Established Member
Impact
97
If the “pessimists” are so wrong why are you scared to name your meta names?

You have been here one entire month and being a know it all instead of learning from others is not a good approach.

Its been almost 11 months since there was a substantial meta sale, people are dropping their meta names like flies and begging people to buy but you do you since you know better.

Other Meta holders, anything aged before 2016 is safe as long as you don’t approach FB to buy. Good Luck to all.
Hey,

1) a month or ten years... -
Why you think I should just take it, when trash talking starts about meta names, from which I think they are legitimate to use (in general)?!

You are eligible to have your opinion,
I have mine,
and I am not teaching any one.

This is why I have created this thread,.so we can rather discuss via real argumemts, than to spam the off. Metaverse thread.

2) what I see is, that some holders of (only) metaverse + keyword domains like to bash and trash meta + keyword domains.
I don't know why; maybe to have a better standing on the market
(btw I also hold some metaverse + keyword domains).

3) I haven't seen anyone begging for buys/sales;
just recently I've seen a domainer here at namepros listing his metaverse keyword domains for a low price each...

And: no one here has posted or fact checked any cases, in which meta platforms inc. seized / got his hands on
Good meta + keyword (com/net/org) domains.

But this was the actual purpose of this thread.

So don't blame me 😉
 
Last edited: