iCharge Should Buy iCharge.com | iCharge Payment Processing
101 Domain

iCharge Should Buy iCharge.com

18

TechCrunch ran an article today about a European company called iCharge which accepts credit card payments through an attachable smartphone accessory. The article compared it to Twitter founder Jack Dorsey’s company, Square, which I previously wrote about.

I am not going to analyze the company’s product or services since that isn’t my forte and I haven’t tried it out, but I would suggest they buy an important domain name for this international company. At the moment, iCharge uses iCharge.net for its Internet presence. This might not be a problem with for some companies, but inevitably, people will type in iCharge.com, which happens to be for sale via Sedo for $10,000 EUR (not an affiliate link).

When publishers such as TechCrunch refer to the company as iCharge, people will generally assume the will be found on the .com. This is especially true for multi-national companies that operate in many different markets. As a company that will rely on trust since it’s dealing with payment processing, iCharge should not give another company the opportunity to swoop in and buy iCharge.com. If that happens, they will have no control over that generic domain name.

In my opinion, the price for iCharge.com is fair, especially considering the .net company is positioning itself to become a big player in the field. Now would be the best time to buy the domain name, before the company increases its value.


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 (18)

    Damir Tankovic

    U are spot on iCharge Should Buy iCharge.com but will they ?

    February 11th, 2010 at 1:02 pm

      Elliot

      @ Damir

      The thing is that at roughly $15k, it’s a gamble for someone else to buy it with the hopes the company is a big success and will get traffic as a result. If they fail, or if the company is acquired and drops the name, it’s hardly worth that $15k.

      The company can get itself a good price to avoid traffic loss.

      February 11th, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    Morgan

    I completely agree with you – and for $15,000 iCharge.com is a steal!!

    February 11th, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    UDRPtalk

    Hi Elliott,

    I’m curious how you arrived at the conclusion that iCharge is generic for “charge” when iPhone is not generic for “phone”?

    -UDRPtalk

    February 11th, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    Elliot

    @ UDRP Talk

    I think i or e before a commonly used word would be defensible, as i is frequently used in place of “Internet” or “Interactive” and e is frequently used in place of “Electronic.”

    I would bet iCharge.com was registered well before the iCharge service and would be defensible, and I believe iPhone.com would have been defensible had Apple gone the legal route instead of paying a huge sum of money for it.

    I have no legal background whatsoever, so it’s just my own opinion.

    February 11th, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    UDRPtalk

    Hi Elliot,

    It would be defensible as long as the owner doesn’t sell the domain to another unrelated party.

    Once the domain is sold, then the rights “reset” the the sale date.

    Also, what you are saying makes sense for at least “e”, however “i” doesn’t seem to be going the way of generic.

    Even CNN’s iReport is a Registered USPTO TM.

    Can you think of any “i” examples that would support your thoughts?

    -UDRPtalk

    February 11th, 2010 at 6:44 pm

    Elliot

    @ YDRP

    I’m at a cocktail party, so no, but can you name a couple UDRP transfers for domain names that have the letter “I” in front of generic .com names like iContact.com oe iPhone.com?

    February 11th, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    Elliot

    Either way, the company can pay what amounts to $14k or so, or they can not buy it, hope it sells to someone else so they can spend $5-7k in a toss-up UDRP. This assumes they later realize that they are losing traffic to the .com and need to take the legal route.

    February 11th, 2010 at 6:52 pm

    UDRPtalk

    Hi Elliot,

    I-BILL.COM: http://www.udrpsearch.com/naf/146944

    -UDRPtalk

    February 11th, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    Elliot

    Any others? There are a whole lot more i names that are still owned by people where they were registered long after the generic name.

    Again, I’m no legal expert nor do I claim to be, but I don’t usually see “I” domains transferred unless they come in front of a non generic brand name.

    February 11th, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    UDRPtalk

    iReport, iPhone, iBill, and even iMail (Ari Goldberger’s former employer) are all USPTO TM’s

    February 11th, 2010 at 7:20 pm

    Marc J. Randazza

    Elliot,

    I think that you may misunderstand the legal meaning of the word “generic.”

    February 11th, 2010 at 11:48 pm

      Elliot

      @ Marc

      I’ve never claimed to be an expert in the legal field :)

      February 11th, 2010 at 11:51 pm

    Marc J. Randazza

    No, you did not. And, it is not uncommon for those in the domainer sphere to have a misguided understanding of the concept of what “generic” means — in a trademark sense.

    If the word equals the genus, then it very well may be generic. Lawyers.com, Hotels.com, these have been ruled to be generic. I personally don’t agree … since “Lawyers.com” is only one place on the web, isn’t it?

    Nevertheless, this should help illuminate the subject a bit. “iCharge” could be a lot of things. My initial impression would be that it has something to do with charging your iPhone.

    February 11th, 2010 at 11:55 pm

    Elliot

    @ Marc

    If Hotels.com was not considered generic, wouldn’t the TM owners be able to claim that BostonHotels.com or LuxuryHotels.com were infringing even though they are descriptive (assuming BostonHotels.com isn’t developed)? Again, I have absolutely no legal background.

    Back to the point of my post. Do you think that iCharge would be better off buying iCharge,com, or should they allow some other company the opportunity to buy it and do what they wish with it?

    February 12th, 2010 at 12:11 am

    Jeff

    To answer your question Elliot yes they should should get name off Sedo. Avoid the hassles of time, lost traffic possible to the .com and branding.

    Now this TM issue is getting a bit silly, the pannels and these so called experts. Its the netbook trademark issues and such a general refrence. FreeCreditReport issues and etc.

    These are scary times for generic .com owners, geo owners and domainers in general going forward.

    February 12th, 2010 at 12:29 am

    Anunt

    If i were the owner of icharge.net company, i would definately buy icharge.com

    February 12th, 2010 at 1:47 am

    Marc J. Randazza

    @ Elliot,

    If Hotels.com was not considered generic, wouldn’t the TM owners be able to claim that BostonHotels.com or LuxuryHotels.com were infringing even though they are descriptive (assuming BostonHotels.com isn’t developed)?

    I don’t think so. They would still have had a very weak mark, that would have ended at its precise contours.

    Back to the point of my post. Do you think that iCharge would be better off buying iCharge,com, or should they allow some other company the opportunity to buy it and do what they wish with it?

    Business decision for them – not a legal question. Some other company could buy it, but that does not mean that they would be able to do anything they wish with it.

    February 12th, 2010 at 3:45 am

Leave a Reply

Name *

Mail *

Website