IT.COM

question metanfts.io has been sold for $30,000 !

NameSilo
Watch

Saeid Nejati

AllMetaverse.coTop Member
Impact
788
Hello all!

MetaNFTs.io has been sold for $30,000 in Afternic in 2021/11/01

Does this mean Meta combinations domain are secure from TM ?
 
4
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
2
•••
Hello all!

MetaNFTs.io has been sold for $30,000 in Afternic in 2021/11/01

Does this mean Meta combinations domain are secure from TM ?

Trademarks based on popular dictionary words with multiple meanings are weak by definition. Metafb would be a violation but not metanft.

** I'm not a lawyer and probably don't know what I"m talking about.
 
2
•••
Hello all!

MetaNFTs.io has been sold for $30,000 in Afternic in 2021/11/01

Does this mean Meta combinations domain are secure from TM ?
I tried to drop some of my MetaXXXX domains in Godaddy auction, and it was refused due to "Potential TM infringement" but the same domains was accepted in Sedo Auction.
Also having a little blur on this.
 
0
•••
I tried to drop some of my MetaXXXX domains in Godaddy auction, and it was refused due to "Potential TM infringement" but the same domains was accepted in Sedo Auction.
Also having a little blur on this.
I applied some of my Meta + keyword combination domains in SquadHelp and one of them got approved yesterday.
Metaverse.com is also a Meta+keyword combination itself but their registration got hotter after facebook announced its ownership over Meta.com. It is like crypto.com which has been taken by paypal. So could we consider that all of crypto combinations have been trademarked ?
 
Last edited:
0
•••
1
•••
I applied some of my Meta + keyword combination domains in SquadHelp and one of them got approved yesterday.
Metaverse.com is also a Meta+keyword combination itself but their registration got hotter after facebook announced its ownership over Meta.com. It is like crypto.com which has been taken by paypal. So could we consider that all of crypto combinations have been trademarked ?
Totally right.

Who the heck is the fb team, to now claim the Ownership for all Meta keywords and domains??

Especially, as the meta universe shall be an open world....

But not regarding that, it's just silly to brand your company ... lets say alpha,
and now all websites with alpha at the beginning are illegitim or shall stop existing.

Also, did you see the statement on meta.company ?

They say, fb tried to Buy their domain, but they refused.

- They are still there.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
I tried to drop some of my MetaXXXX domains in Godaddy auction, and it was refused due to "Potential TM infringement" but the same domains was accepted in Sedo Auction.
Also having a little blur on this.
As people said, they won't own meta cause it's generic. 🌝

Good luck with that one...
 
0
•••
Totally right.

Who the heck is the fb team, that they could now claim the Ownership for all Meta keywords and domains??

Especially, as the meta universe shall be an open world....

But not regarding that, it's just silly to brand your company ... lets say alpha,
and now all websites with alpha at the beginning are illegitim or shall stop existing.

Also, did you see the statement on meta.company ?

They say, fb tried to Buy their domain, but they refused.

- They are still there.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/395376

I just looked that up and I can't find it. They own crypto.com?
yes
 
1
•••
That article is so misinformed it's laughable. They don't even have a trademark on the name meta from what they've written. Zuck does, registered in 2015 that predates the acquisition of Meta.org. It states in that article that MetaPC have been operating for a year...

The title of the article itself "There is already a company called Meta.". Yes there is, the one Zuck acquired over 5 years ago.

Also where can I find out that PayPal own crypto.com now? I can't find any news articles talking about that they own it.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
0
•••
That article is so misinformed it's laughable. They don't even have a trademark on the name meta from what they've written. Zuck does, registered in 2015 that predates the acquisition of Meta.org. It states in that article that MetaPC have been operating for a year...

The title of the article itself "There is already a company called Meta.". Yes there is, the one Zuck acquired over 5 years ago.

Also where can I find out that PayPal own crypto.com now? I can't find any news articles talking about that they own it.

Cheers
PayPal do not own Crypto.com.......
 
3
•••
Worth reg fee (if it was .com). People are crazy.
 
0
•••
That article is so misinformed it's laughable. They don't even have a trademark on the name meta from what they've written. Zuck does, registered in 2015 that predates the acquisition of Meta.org. It states in that article that MetaPC have been operating for a year...

The title of the article itself "There is already a company called Meta.". Yes there is, the one Zuck acquired over 5 years ago.

Also where can I find out that PayPal own crypto.com now? I can't find any news articles talking about that they own it.

Cheers
If any of what you say is true Zuck would have no reason to file a new trademark on October 28th 2021 with 17,000 words trying to obtain every single possible category and usage under it which I hope they reject or object.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
If any of what you say is true Zuck would have no reason to file a new trademark on October 28th 2021 with 17,000 words trying to obtain every single possible category and usage under it which I hope they reject or object.
I believe that the trademark that you are eluding to is this one. That's a registration for their logo.

When you say if any of it is true, I'll break it down in the hope that it explains what I'm saying and you can judge whether it's true or not I suppose...
They don't even have a trademark on the name meta from what they've written.
The article said this:

Zuck does, registered in 2015 that predates the acquisition of Meta.org.

Here's the registered and uncontested trademark on the word mark "META", owned by Zuck with TM Priority claimed from 12/11/2015 from their other Canadian registration of the same mark:
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86852664&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

So based on the fact that they have a registered trademark already for META (word mark) for class 42 and for goods and services including Providing temporary use of non-downloadable software for social networking, creating a virtual community and they're trying to register a logo for the same word (META) for the same class 42 and pretty much the same wording Providing temporary use of non-downloadable software [sic] namely, creating on-line virtual communities for registered users to organize groups and events, participate in discussions, and engage individually.

Other than someone contesting the logo's originality, I can't see a reason that this good/service wouldn't be accepted to be registered even if every other class was to be rejected cause they already own a registered trademark for the same goods/services... unless you can think of another reason that the whole registration would be rejected? During the application process USPTO may contest the wording which is subject to change throughout the application process, so bits can be reworded/removed to get the registration through.

The title of the article itself "There is already a company called Meta.". Yes there is, the one Zuck acquired over 5 years ago.
Here's an article about Chan/Zuck acquiring a company called Meta in January 2017. Previously called Sciencescape Inc. who's online presence on Meta.com alone existed since at least September 2015: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/23/chan-zuckerberg-initiative-meta/

It was Sciencescape Inc. that originally filed the META trademark in 2015 and because Chan/Zuck bought the company the IP sits with them now. Just like any company transfer, there's a hell of a lot of value and clout that comes along with the intellectual property.

So as far as I'm aware everything I said was true.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
That article is so misinformed it's laughable. They don't even have a trademark on the name meta from what they've written. Zuck does, registered in 2015 that predates the acquisition of Meta.org. It states in that article that MetaPC have been operating for a year...

The title of the article itself "There is already a company called Meta.". Yes there is, the one Zuck acquired over 5 years ago.

Also where can I find out that PayPal own crypto.com now? I can't find any news articles talking about that they own it.

Cheers
My apology I made a mistake for owning it by paypal but the concept remains fixed
 
1
•••
Up
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Back