"Are Geodomains Worth Less in Light of UDRP Decision?" | DomainInvesting.com
Neustar Domain Names

“Are Geodomains Worth Less in Light of UDRP Decision?”

9

Shortly after Mike Berkens posted his article about the Hayward.com UDRP decision going against the domain owner, I received an email asking me, “are Geodomains Worth Less in Light of the Hayward.com UDRP Decision“? In my opinion, the quick answer is that city .com names are almost certainly not worth less and some general (non-legal) feedback is below.

Just like almost every other dictionary word/term has a corresponding trademark owned by a company, geographic locations also share their meaning with companies that have marks. For instance, an apple is a fruit and a generic term, but Apple is also a trademarked brand owned by a computer company. In the case of Hayward.com, Hayward is a city in the state of California, but it is also a term used by a pool company.

If I owned Apple.com, I could certainly sell apple juice, apple pies, and apples. However, if I started selling computer parts, cell phones, or even music, Apple Computer would probably sue me or file a UDRP. Unfortunately for the owner of Hayward.com, when he parked it, the name allegedly had “links offering or leading to pages with links offering goods or services that are competitive with the goods and services offered by Complainant under its HAYWARD Trademark.”

In light of this alone, I really don’t think city .com domain name values are impacted. I can only think of a few that are parked right now, and for the most part, the parked domain names are only parked while awaiting development. I don’t think a lack of development should be construed as bad faith, although a number of UDRP cases have determined that non development and non use can be a strike against the domain owner.

In my opinion, this decision is poor since PPC pages can accidentally show advertising that may infringe on another company’s mark, but I don’t think that necessarily means it was done in bad faith. I know the owner owns other geodomain names, and I don’t believe he intended to monetize it based on another company’s trademark. I do think this case should make geodomain owners cognizant of the fact that parking can put their domain names at greater risk, but I don’t believe it impacts the value (just try buying some city .com names and see the responses you get if you send a low ball offer).

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention one thing that really bothers me in this decision. According to the discussion from the panelists:

Respondent purchased the domain name <hayward.com> for USD$20,000 and was attempting to sell it for at least USD$100,000.  These figures would seem to indicate that Respondent saw some value in this domain name for reasons other than its existence as the name of the city of Hayward, California – with a population of only about 150,000 people, according to the city’s website at http://user.govoutreach.com/hayward/faq.php?cid=10774 – and for purposes other than as a PPC parking page (which, in the normal course, would not be expected to earn a return to justify such a rich investment).

I paid a lot more than $20,000 for a smaller city .com domain name. In fact, I bought and/or sold 4 geodomain names for over $50,000 (two of them for significantly more) in the last 18 months. There is considerable value in geodomain names, especially when they are developed. My primary concern is that these UDRP panelists made an opinion that does not appear to be based on facts or public comparables.

Would I have paid $20,000 for Hayward.com for a city website? Probably. In fact, I sold a comparable California city .com domain name (just under 150,000 residents) for over $65,000. Similarly, my company owns Burbank.com and I previously turned down a cash offer of over $110,000 for it, and Burbank, California is a city with just over 100,000 residents.

I don’t see how UDRP panelists can say that the owner could not expect to return the rich investment of $20,000 for Hayward.com, and more importantly, I don’t think it’s appropriate for panelists to make valuation estimations. In this case, it seems to me that their valuation of city .com domain names is flawed.


About The Author: Elliot Silver is an Internet entrepreneur and publisher of DomainInvesting.com. Elliot is also the founder and President of Top Notch Domains, LLC, a company that has sold seven figures worth of domain names in the last five years. Please read the DomainInvesting.com Terms of Use page for additional information about the publisher, website comment policy, disclosures, and conflicts of interest.


Reach out to Elliot: Twitter | | Facebook | Email

Comments (9)

    Dwayne

    Hey E,

    I’ve got a question about Geos in general. I own a pure geo of a town in Canada (xxxx.ca for example) but am getting nowhere because all the geo-related sites for that area sitting on crappy names like “myxxxx.ca”, “goxxxx.ca” or my favorite (not) “xxxxCanada.ca”

    How could I make a good case for the pure term rather than these long winded cheap imitations?

    February 10th, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    Larry

    Hayward was lost to a private company but the concern is government looking to secure its names online.

    Google Place Pages are also a concern for traditional geos IMHO.

    Dwayne all pure .ca geos in Canada are registry reserved for municipalities.

    February 10th, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    Elliot

    @ Larry

    I believe some precedent was set in the Barcelona.com federal case. Likewise, the city of Salinas, CA lost a UDRP case against CityofSalinas.com http://www.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/97076.htm

    Finally, there was the LomaLinda.com case, discussed here:

    http://www.domaininvesting.com/geographic-names-are-not-subject-to-trademark-protection-09122

    The panelist said, “Geographic Names Are Not Subject to Trademark Protection”

    February 10th, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    Larry

    Agreed though not sure govt needs to rely on TM law..

    February 10th, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    BullS

    Just wait…the govt is going to regulate the domain industry.

    One domain per human being.

    February 10th, 2010 at 7:18 pm

    Josh

    What he paid and what value the name had in todays market should have had no bearing on the case, very sad to read this happened.

    February 10th, 2010 at 8:12 pm

    owen frager

    Actually Apple is a bad example because for years they were entangled in litigation with The Beatles Apple Records, which is why the Beatles wouldn’t distribute their tunes on iTunes until recently.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

    February 10th, 2010 at 8:37 pm

    Dwayne

    @ Larry

    Yes, but the geo I have is of a town that was recently amalgamated with other nearby towns. People from the area and tourists still call it by it’s common name and not the long winded regional name

    February 11th, 2010 at 10:02 am

Leave a Reply

Name *

Mail *

Website