GoDaddy

domains MetaFB.net sells for $30,000 at Sedo regged last month

NameSilo

equity78

Top Member
TheDomains Staff
TLDInvestors.com
Impact
25,287
The Meta train refuses to slowdown. MetaFB.net sold today for $30,000 at Sedo. Interestingly it was parked at DAN. The domain name was registered a little more than a month ago, 9/21/21 at GoDaddy. Congrats to the seller. MetaDating.net was registered at Dynadot two weeks ago and sold for $35,000 today at Sedo. I am surprised these nets are getting these prices on new handregs .io and .ai … [Read more...]
 

karamakate

Restricted (15-30%)
Impact
185
agreed!
Meta names are ok (but must be aware of the financial ones related to MetaBank)

but meta is wide open to use

keyword +FB. Is no no

Why are you so afraid of TM?!
They're not going to throw you out the window!

META and BANK words are dictionary words, anyone can use them for any purpose.
Moreover, "metabank" only has TM in the banking services niche within the US borders.

FB can be an acronym for something else and mean something else.
I don't think anyone who has invested 30k in metafb.net would be too stupid to not know these details.
Even so, the buyer and seller are satisfied.

Unwind a little...
 

DomainBarracksRob

Top Contributor
Impact
6,658
I do not believe that Facebook would buy such rubbish domains, even if they do have deep pockets. Metafb.net - what an awful name.

I'm happy to eat my words if I am wrong.


Which word would you like to start chewing on first lol :-P

Go look at the metaverse thread for your answer. Cat's out the bag
 
Last edited:
Which word would you like to start chewing on first lol :-P

Go look at the metaverse thread for your answer. Cat's out the bag
Not enough information yet, but I am getting hungry and will gladly be proven wrong later. Then you have my permission to point and laugh with glee. :wtf:
 

DomainBarracksRob

Top Contributor
Impact
6,658
Why are you so afraid of TM?!
They're not going to throw you out the window!

META and BANK words are dictionary words, anyone can use them for any purpose.
Moreover, "metabank" only has TM in the banking services niche within the US borders.

FB can be an acronym for something else and mean something else.
I don't think anyone who has invested 30k in metafb.net would be too stupid to not know these details.
Even so, the buyer and seller are satisfied.

Unwind a little...


I never said I was afraid of anything.

Your saying what I already said in regards to the metabank

You're confused on what I'm saying.
(FB can be used with certain things yes, but "FBsocialapp. com.net -whatever, NO) I don't need you to explain how TMs work. I already know.Thanks
Please sit down
 
Last edited:

Reddstagg

The-Billionaire.com
Impact
2,669
@Red..I heard it through the grapevine from a friend of a friends dog that only 10% of all cases go the whole UDRP route...I may be wrong and perhaps someone can correct me...I'm sure they will. It gets interesting with the Apple vs Apple TM dispute or Nissan vs Nissan...good reference points

Rgrds,

Redd
 
@Red..I heard it through the grapevine from a friend of a friends dog that only 10% of all cases go the whole UDRP route...I may be wrong and perhaps someone can correct me...I'm sure they will. It gets interesting with the Apple vs Apple TM dispute or Nissan vs Nissan...good reference points

Rgrds,

Redd
Those cases are genuine businesses that operate under the name though instead of random domainers regging domains to piggyback off a new brand in this case FB's well publicised new brand.

Facebook have a trademark for Meta and will I'm sure protect it to the full extent of what is possible. It all depends on how overt and obvious the infringement is.
 
Last edited:

Reddstagg

The-Billionaire.com
Impact
2,669
Those cases are genuine businesses that operate under the name though instead of random domainers regging domains to piggyback off their FB's new brand.

Facebook have a trademark for Meta and will I'm sure protect it to the full extent of what is possible. It all depends on how overt and obvious the infringement is.

I appreciate the feedback.

However, it is all about the category of business and even the global location of two businesses who may have similar names. A gym company in California called Red Kettle selling gym equipment would have no issue with a cafe in Russia selling tea and cakes who may also be called red kettle. Possible, but unlikely...a UDRP would more than likely not succeed if the categories of the TM are so wide apart.
 
I appreciate the feedback.

However, it is all about the category of business and even the global location of two businesses who may have similar names. A gym company in California called Red Kettle selling gym equipment would have no issue with a cafe in Russia selling tea and cakes who may also be called red kettle. Possible, but unlikely...a UDRP would more than likely not succeed if the categories of the TM are so wide apart.
Indeed all of these things matter, that's for certain. If you're just selling a domain that's not bad faith in itself, but you're going to be afforded less protection than someone who's using the meta name in trade and have got a trademark for it.

My worry is that, as always in cases such as these, everyone hopes to profit and there's people out there persuading people to invest in stuff and trying to concoct one size fits all excuses about why everyone's not going to be subject to potential litigation. They have a trademark, more than one, since 2015... All of this business about them not owning the metaverse that others are saying or some other 🐎💩 is just people desperate to sell an excuse for why they won't be able to protect their brand. If there's one thing I'm certain of it's that they will protect it.
 

Reddstagg

The-Billionaire.com
Impact
2,669
Indeed all of these things matter, that's for certain. If you're just selling a domain that's not bad faith in itself, but you're going to be afforded less protection than someone who's using the meta name in trade and have got a trademark for it.

My worry is that, as always in cases such as these, everyone hopes to profit and there's people out there persuading people to invest in stuff and trying to concoct one size fits all excuses about why everyone's not going to be subject to potential litigation. They have a trademark, more than one, since 2015... All of this business about them not owning the metaverse that others are saying or some other 🐎💩 is just people desperate to sell an excuse for why they won't be able to protect their brand. If there's one thing I'm certain of it's that they will protect it.

I'd imagine they will analyze the data and work out which ones will likely cause them any bother. I think that names such as 'meta.stripeyhorsepajamas' will not cause them any sleepless nights. They have billions so I guess they can afford to just buy brand protection domains even at a slightly inflated price but I'm sure they may consider UDRP if it is more financially viable. Let the Domainer be aware I guess. The possibility exists even if you are not aware of it and ignorance is not a defence in law.

Redd
 
Last edited:
Top