advice Peoples names as domain names yay or nay?

[iLawless]

I've tried searching the forums for this, but don't know the right terms to use so haven't found any results. What is the rule when it comes to buying and selling domains of a persons real name? E.g. JohnSmith.com. I see a stack of them in auctions and I've picked up a few that have come in a group of domains. I can't seem to find any rule. It feels like theres something not right with it, but at the same time, if my FirstLastname.com became available and I had the money spare, I'd jump on it. I got in early and registered both of my kids names for when they're older.

So, say JohnSmith.com did come up in an expired auction and I happened to secure it for $10; is there an issue with me listing it for say $2500 because there are a lot of John Smiths and surely one of them will pay for it. If so, there must be an invisible line in the sand; e.g. if I tried to sell JohnTravolta.com, i'd most likely be sued. Without giving it away, I have one domain of the John Smith variety and one of the celebrity variety, except the celebrity one is their birth name, not their celebrity name.

Is this actually a niche that some operate in? Is it safe? Or is it best to avoid?

Any advice and tips would be greatly appreciated. Also doing a poll.

 

[gilescoley]

Total waste of money, there are much easier names to sell. It can also lead to trouble for you as well, why risk it?

 

[The CEO]

The best to sell and to invest is on the persons first name.

 

[iLawless]

Total waste of money, there are much easier names to sell. It can also lead to trouble for you as well, why risk it?

That's exactly why I asked, to see if there was risk. I have a few that came collaterally so I've been wondering if I just throw them away. Thanks for your answer.

 

[iLawless]

The best to sell and to invest is on the persons first name.

Makes sense. Much tougher game I imagine, like dictionary.com's. Harder game - bigger reward. Thanks

 

[Name Trader]

I've been down that rabbithole. It's a waste of time and money. 1) There are too many combinations 2) Most people are not even interested in owning any domains, not even their own names. For example. I have my own first/last name (and the various abbreviations/spellings). They're are all totally worthless. I could drop them all today and register them again in 2 years if I could find a use for them. The first and last names separately are mid $xx,xxx values.

 

[equity78]

A complicated hodge podge of all kinds of decisions. Some have made money (OliverStone.com) others UDRP, it's all over the place in Celebrity Domains.

Usage matters, soliciting a celebrity matters. Probably not worth getting involved.

https://tldinvestors.com/category/celebrity-domains

 

[tonyk2000]

For example. I have my own first/last name (and the various abbreviations/spellings). They're are all totally worthless. I could drop them all today and register them again in 2 years if I could find a use for them.

I'd guess that you'll be able to register them again after 4-5 years only. If you drop these, HugeDomains will grab them... and drop after 4-5 years, after not selling in 4 figures range (or any range).

As for poll content, John Travolta is not good because a famous person may claim (unregistered or registered) TM rights to this words combination, including cases of pseudonyms or pen names. And, the fact that other persons may share the same FirstLast names would be irrelevant...

 

[Name Trader]

I'd guess that you'll be able to register them again after 4-5 years only. If you drop these, HugeDomains will grab them... and drop after 4-5 years, after not selling in 4 figures range (or any range).

Yeah. I forgot about the HD factor. But I see them dropping a huge amount of firstlastname.com domains every day in their droplist domains from their own portfolios, at $10 a pop. So that puts the approx price level on firstlastname.com domains. RegFee So, surprised to see they still think this is a viable business model.

 

[tonyk2000]

Ops, I was mistaken. HugeDomains drops FirstLastname .coms after 6-8 years it seems... I just checked pendingdelete lists - within the next few days, the following will be released for example, all were regged by hugedomains in 2012-2014, and remained unsold -

allenmarsh.com
angeljames.com
danielallison.com
harryandrews.com
joannhill.com
karensanchez.com
neilwarner.com
reginawright.com
rosemarykelly.com

 

[Name Trader]

oooh? Maybe I should keep all my variations of my firstlastname.com

 

[Kris A]

Firstname - Yay
Lastname - Yay
FirstnameLastname - Nay

 

[MysteryUser.com]

I’ll give you guys a potential tip. Look to get firstname.com or lastname.com of some of the non english speaking countries

My girlfriend is kazakh, and I got her firstname.com so I’m sure a lot more are available. Do your research and you might hit it big if some rich person from these countries wants their own name as a domain - esp as some of these emerging markets tend to like vanity.

 

[Joe N]

I think it's a bit of a gray area that you can work within. I would avoid celebrity names, of course, and make sure you only buy very popular firstlast name combinations.

 

[Bob Hawkes]

I debated between the last two vote choices in the poll. I do not encourage it.

As already noted, a first name alone, that could apply to a huge number of people or be a brand, is a great idea. Similarly a last name, unless very unique, is fine. But don''t handle FirstLast in my opinion.

Sure some have sold, but with so many possibilities in domain names why go there?

A specific FirstLast is in my opinion ethically the same as a TM name, even if legally it is not necessarily the same (I presume a complex issue).

Bob

 

[Joe N]

Interesting to see that so many people advise against FirstLast name combinations for ethical reasons.

I'd be curious to know how a popular FirstLast name domain is worse, ethically, than a generic brand name that is already in use by multiple companies. We always say the latter makes for a great domain investment. Why not the former?

 

[Bob Hawkes]

We always say the latter makes for a great domain investment. Why not the former?

Perhaps I have a simplistic view, Joe, (and I agree with you that they can be similar) but to me FirstLast only has any value (or almost any) because that person has had accomplishments and/or fame to make it worthwhile.

However, it could be argued that a generic word has inherent value independent of what any company has done with it, so it is not as clear to me that you are benefitting improperly from other's work. If a common generic word ha been used by 500 businesses, that is a sign that the word is associated with positive characteristics, and the word and its inherent worth predates any of those businesses. That is what makes it okay to me.

The worth in the person's name only starts with that person. Now I know you favour the JohnSmith sort of general names, and I realize my argument breaks down for them, but it is a slippery slope.

Bob

 

[jazzdoit]

New member here, just my 2 cents.

I own lastname.com for my own name, and I found it cute, as I can use first-at-last.com and awe people ("Is that really your email? Maybe you meant firstlast-at-gmail.com?").

But I wouldn't buy other's last name unless they're famous. Yes, john-at-smith.com is cute. Yes, his wife can have jane-at-smith.com. No, probably they'll never buy smith.com because they'd rather get johnsmith-at-gmail.com instead of shelling out $XXX+.

 

[bmugford]

It depends.

Super popular name combos that don't target any one specific person I don't have much issue with. Your example JohnSmith.com sold for $5634 on NJ because of the potential tens of thousands of end users for one like that.

These type of domains are extremely valuable to the right end user when it comes to personal branding fields like design, real estate, etc. There is also a vanity aspect owning this kind of name over the thousands of other people who share it.

They do sell, but getting the right balance is challenging.

Brad

 

[Joe N]

Perhaps I have a simplistic view, Joe, (and I agree with you that they can be similar) but to me FirstLast only has any value (or almost any) because that person has had accomplishments and/or fame to make it worthwhile.

However, it could be argued that a generic word has inherent value independent of what any company has done with it, so it is not as clear to me that you are benefitting improperly from other's work. If a common generic word ha been used by 500 businesses, that is a sign that the word is associated with positive characteristics, and the word and its inherent worth predates any of those businesses. That is what makes it okay to me.

The worth in the person's name only starts with that person. Now I know you favour the JohnSmith sort of general names, and I realize my argument breaks down for them, but it is a slippery slope.

Bob

When it comes to more unique name combinations (where one person with that name stands out above the rest) then I totally agree with you. But like @bmugford said, it's all about striking the right balance of finding a name combo that is both:

• popular enough to be desirable; and
• generic enough that it doesn't allude to one specific person

I would also argue that business names are just as personal to the business owners as those FirstLast name combinations are to the individuals who share the name. A generic name is a generic name, whether it belongs to a person, organization, or product.

In my mind there's really no difference. As long as you're not taking actions that violate USPTO regulations, it all falls under the larger "domainers as cyber-squatters" argument.

 

[Joe N]

On a side note, I might be a little biased/defensive because I sold Tyler/Jones dot com a couple years back.

 

[Rich]

I'm not sure I've ever owned any, only one that ever caught my eye was johndoe.com I've always liked the sound of "Warby Parker" but just read that's a combination of two characters created by the novelist Jack Kerouac. Wiki has a list of companies named after people, and the majority of them are first, last, or initials. I've always liked first or last myself, more last than first. Seems to be easier to find last names on a budget than first names, maybe the luck of the draw.

 

[lock]

You really need a business plan for every domain let alone going this route to defend yourself could go as far as to impersonate and accused of misrepresenting or ruining credibility just parking.

 

[dombastic]

Yes, john-at-smith.com is cute. Yes, his wife can have jane-at-smith.com. No, probably they'll never buy smith.com because they'd rather get johnsmith-at-gmail.com instead of shelling out $XXX+.

Because it is more than $XXX and this discussion is 20 years late.

 

[Malnasi Bela]

@Darryl Lopes