.tv Vans.tv sells for $5,000

[discovernow]

I sold Vans.tv for $5,000. It has a $500 premium. Not an "earth shattering" price but a good ROI.

 

[DnEbook]

How does every thread turn into this nonsense. The thread was a reported sale by the thread starter. Nothing more, nothing less. Pretty sure Jim was not looking for validation.

Congrats on the sale.

Agreed

Too much bullshit by the same people , day in day out IT"S BORING

 

[discovernow]

Unless the investor owns one name then that isn't the ROI. Taking the good and forgetting the bad isn't how a return is calculated. Note again I'm not saying the OP has lost money overall, but I do not think there is money to be made hanging on to names of this quality with $500 renewals, do you think that is a profitable strategy?

I'm not interested in nit picking arguments with you, just real debate, do you think names like this was $500 renewals are genuinely profitable for .tv investors? Should this be held up as good example or is it just that 1 in 50 sale where the other 49 lose?

Snoop, again read what I said this time:

Snoop do you know anything about investing? Let's say you buy 10 names and take a loss of $10,000K when you sell 7 of those names. However, when you sell the other 3 and you make a profit of $50,000 for the year? What is your profit? Hint: $40,000. ($50,000-$10,000) Do you understand this Snoop?

 

[snoop]

I don't know his personal finances, and I am discussing the topic and the roi on the topic Vans.tv. That was Vans.tv ROI. Unless Jim posts every name, every sale and all ppc revenue I have no idea is overall ROI.

There was no nitpicking just pure fact.

The question isn't specific to Jim, again the question was,

"Do you think names like this with $500 renewals are genuinely profitable for .tv investors? Should this be held up as good example or is it just that 1 in 50 sale where the other 49 lose?"

If you aren't willing to give any opinion on that question then we'll just keep going around in circles.

---------- Post added at 10:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 PM ----------

Snoop,

You have to be F-ing kidding - right???
Does DN Journal report how much each owner of each and every top 100 domain Sales of the year actually have invested in their entire portfolios...

or do they report the sales price?

Come on!

Usually you have a debatable topic, and sometimes even make sense...but WTF are you crashing this thread for today?

You got a hard-on for Jim? Pm him, but otherwise please STFU!

The bottom line is 5K for Vans.tv is a great F-ing sale!

If a post is laced with profanities, odd sexual comments and exclamation/question marks after every third word that is not something the most people would take seriously.

 

[StargateCapital]

nice work jim!

rl

 

[atypical]

The question isn't specific to Jim, again the question was,

"Do you think names like this with $500 renewals are genuinely profitable for .tv investors? Should this be held up as good example or is it just that 1 in 50 sale where the other 49 lose?"

If you aren't willing to give any opinion on that question then we'll just keep going around in circles.

---------- Post added at 10:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 PM ----------



If a post is laced with profanities, odd sexual comments and exclamation/question marks after every third word that is not something the most people would take seriously.

I don't know. I sort of like it. Sometimes you just gotta say, WTF!

Other times, a simple "Congratulations" would do just fine.

 

[RPK]

Congrats!!!

 

[equity78]

Snoop the point I commented on was the topic of the thread, now you have entered this new wrinkle 20 posts in.

First I am not sure why you entered it, its your perogative and staying on point has never been your strong suit. Saying whatever suits your agenda that is your strong suit. Again IMO

Now to your question, did you just want to make something up to take away from a successful sale ?

I have never believed in owning 50 premiums, I have always advised (for whatever my opinion is worth) not to own a lot of premiums. So to this straw man arguement here seems a little off IMO. The op never stated to invest in 50 premiums at $500 or more. I doubt anyone here except maybe for Rhee or Antonis even owns 50 premium renewal .tv.

So if you would like agreement that regging 50 $500 .tv is foolish, then you and I agree. I don't think that's wise.

 

[crymeariver]

Snoop, Equity 78 is right. You have crashed the thread with another point entirely. People are congratulating Jim on one sale that he chose to make public. There was no hinting that everyone should go buy legacy premiums.

Your question is totally separate to the point at hand as witnessed by the quick congrats from everyone else.

Just for once Snoop, put aside your brilliant intellect and let people in this forum announce a sale without you putting a downer on it.

Its not that difficult really.

Congrats Jim on a nice ROI..... There, I said it.

 

[freedom30]

If a post is laced with profanities, odd sexual comments and exclamation/question marks after every third word that is not something the most people would take seriously.

...but the problem here is that you do not take ANY of the investors here seriously. You cringe when their .tv name makes a good sale and rather than congratulate the seller, give him a back-hander and basically make a fool of yourself once again.

Manners and common courtesy are not in your vocabulary, which is precisely why I find you so amusing, Quixote, and find it hard to take you seriously. :lol:

---------- Post added at 06:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:26 AM ----------

To suggest this is an example of .tv being profitable for people is a real stretch, he sold it for 2.5 times the reg fees paid, and to an enduser...

So he sold it at a profit...like that's a bad thing!

Your logic appears a bit convoluted, like one's quest for the return of the 20th century, old man.

 

[discovernow]

Hey guys thanks for the congrats. I really should ignore "snoop" because I really believe he has other issues going on in his life.

 

[DU]

Sometimes holding generic Trademarks pays off! WooHoo.

But then according to Snoops... typo .com are even better!

Excellent thread...

In all seriousness. Good ROI on this LONE domain.. which, incidentally, is all that we're supposed to be talking about.

WTF?! Tell myself to STFU! Stop F-ing crashing!

Okay.. okay....

Congrats!

 

[discovernow]

Sometimes holding generic Trademarks pays off! WooHoo.

But then according to Snoops... typo .com are even better!

Excellent thread...

In all seriousness. Good ROI on this LONE domain.. which, incidentally, is all that we're supposed to be talking about.

WTF?! Tell myself to STFU! Stop F-ing crashing!

Okay.. okay....

Congrats!

Vans since it's a automobile as well, there is no trademark on it. I am happy though on ROI.

 

[DU]

Vans since it's a automobile as well, there is no trademark on it. I am happy though on ROI.

I was kidding and why I called it a "generic".

If it is the shoe.. it could become a good site for them. They are a very visual-active brand.

Could be a man-in-mac with lollipops going online I guess.

 

[snoop]

Vans since it's a automobile as well, there is no trademark on it.

The term is trademarked for selling footwear and clothing online. Would need to be careful with parking it, not that it is relevant now that it is sold to them,

Word Mark VANS
Goods and Services IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: On-line retail store services and in-store retail store services all featuring clothing and footwear. FIRST USE: 19770601. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19770601
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 77892951
Filing Date December 14, 2009
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition May 11, 2010
Registration Number 3824638
Registration Date July 27, 2010
Owner (REGISTRANT) Vans, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 6550 Katella Ave. Cypress CALIFORNIA 93630
Prior Registrations 3740055;3742510;AND OTHERS
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)

 

[johname]

congrats on the sale, did they mention anything about why they wanted it?

 

[domainacrobat]

Congrats on a great sale!

Regardless of who bought it, who has a TM on what, how much you spent registering it; making money on any domain is great.

I am happy for you.

 

[discovernow]

congrats on the sale, did they mention anything about why they wanted it?

They did not except the guy who bought the name was buying it for a client of there. I guess we will see when it's developed.

 

[hullswingerscom]

congrats

 

[jwdomain]

sweet. great sale.
I think we all have to be very aware that developers are now buying dot tv's, and they may be willing to pay WAY more than we might otherwise expect.

 

[gr8trfoo]

I have to commend the Vans people for not simply trying to "steal" the name via UDRP. Perhaps if the price had been much more that would have been their next move. Unless they have in-house counsel 5k is probably right around the threshold of total cost to file. But they did the right thing and bought the name fair and square.

 

[slumdog]

van.tv is available @1.2k premium

btw congrats !

 

[discovernow]

I have to commend the Vans people for not simply trying to "steal" the name via UDRP. Perhaps if the price had been much more that would have been their next move. Unless they have in-house counsel 5k is probably right around the threshold of total cost to file. But they did the right thing and bought the name fair and square.

Fin,

I am still not sure if the Vans people bought the name from me. It's under whois privacy. I guess we will find out when it's developed.

 

[GoneWalkabout]

Jim

Nice sale, congrats.

It's VF Corporation that own it.

And one of their many brands.... VANS

 

[discovernow]

Jimbo,

Where do you see VF own it. All I see is whois privacy?

---------- Post added at 01:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 PM ----------

Jimbo,

I saw the DNS at whois privacy to show ns1.vfc.com and ns2.vfc.com
Therefore, that is where it confirms it's tied into the Vans company. That is great, I though that was the case and it's great to see an end user buying it.

 

[lzy]

A case of trademark protection but nonetheless, a good sale.

Congrats.