Problem With Getting a "Valuable" Brand Domain Name

Problem With Getting a “Valuable” Brand Domain Name

8

FacebookHome.comDuring a meeting yesterday, Facebook announced a new product dubbed “Facebook Home.” According to a TechCrunch article about the product launch, Facebook Home “replaces your standard Android’s homescreen with an immersive Facebook experience featuring full-screen photos, status updates, and notifications.

Like many domain investors likely did at around the same time of the news, I did a Whois search to see if Facebook had bought the FacebookHome.com domain name, and it appears that the company has owned it for quite some time. As Bill Hartzer points out in an article on his blog, the company did not secure several alternative extensions for this particular product.

I think it’s arguable about whether Facebook needs to buy alternative extensions like FacebookHome.net and FacebookHome.org. It’s unlikely that those domain names will get any traffic, even if the company decides to use its FacebookHome.com for more than a forwarder (it’s currently forwarding to Facebook.com/home). However, the company might want to have control over those domain names to prevent someone else from using them in a manner that harms the company’s brand or confuses people into think they are Facebook properties.

It is sometimes reported that a domain owner “hit the lottery” when a company brands a new product or service and the domain name that matches the product or service belongs to someone else. However, unlike a keyword domain name (à la iWatch.com in the case of a potential Apple iWatch product), a brand domain name (such as FacebookHome.com) may actually become a liability for the owner instead of a profit center.

Some people think they might be able to squeeze out some money for brand domain names, assuming the company would rather pay a few hundred or maybe even thousand dollars instead of paying for a UDRP. That may be true, especially if they want/need the domain name very soon. On the other hand, many companies value principle over all else, and they would rather file a lawsuit or a UDRP to discourage others from registering domain names with their branding.

A lawsuit can result in significant penalties, and even though a UDRP would not cost the domain owner anything if he or she chooses not to respond, it would leave a black mark on that person’s record, jeopardizing other domain holdings (others can cite previous UDRP losses in UDRP filings).

At the end of the day, while it might seem serendipitous that a company brands a product or service where you own that trademarked domain name, it’s more likely going to be a problem for the domain owner that will be a time and financial drain instead of a lucrative payout.


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 (8)

    Dean

    In a nutshell: your blog post makes the distinction between what may defined as cyber squatting and domain investing.

    April 5th, 2013 at 11:21 am

    Kevin

    There was a really interesting article in the New York Times this week discussing how mobile, tablets and apps are changing the way people search online now.

    It is definitely impacting domains in terms of search engine traffic and type-ins too.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/04/technology/as-web-search-goes-mobile-apps-chip-at-googles-lead.html?ref=global&_r=0

    April 5th, 2013 at 1:38 pm

    Steve

    Hey Eliott –

    As a regular reader who appreciates your attentiveness to grammar, spelling & proofreading, I strangely kept tripping up on the sentence:

    “However, when it’s a brand domain name and not a keyword domain name – ala iWatch.com in the case of a potential Apple iWatch product vs. FacebookHome.com, the domain name may actually become a liability for the owner instead of a profit center.”

    Maybe I’m just sleepy/tired? I did understand your point (…but credit that more to your “hit the lottery” lead-in).

    A small word shuffle suggestion:

    “However, unlike a keyword domain name (à la iWatch.com in the case of a potential Apple iWatch product), a brand domain name (such as FacebookHome.com) may actually become a liability for the owner instead of a profit center.”

    Kudos – for your exceptionally written blog!

    Steve

    April 5th, 2013 at 3:37 pm

      Elliot Silver

      I got tripped up, too :)

      I added the example after I had the sentence formulated, and it doesn’t read as well as it should.

      Thanks for the correction!

      April 5th, 2013 at 3:39 pm

      Poor Uncle

      Yup I agree. Elliot is an excellent writer and he cranks out articles like a machine. Very few typo or grammar errors if any.

      April 7th, 2013 at 12:00 am

    Steve

    Ahem … I meant ‘Elliot’

    April 5th, 2013 at 3:39 pm

    Adam

    Looks like someone else owned facebookhome.com before Facebook . wonder how that negotiation went down

    From Domaintools.com

    More, Brian domains@vreunlimitedinc.com
    VRE Unlimited
    7040 Avenida Encinas Suite 104
    PMB 300
    Carlsbad, California 92011
    United States
    +1.8776149101 Fax —

    April 5th, 2013 at 3:46 pm

    Scott

    If it hasn’t already happened, you may have just inspired the registration of countless names with products and an ‘i’ in front of them. I cannot wait until Apple wants iGasket.com from me! I’d love to be the guy who owns iToilet.com

    April 7th, 2013 at 5:59 pm

Leave a Reply

Name *

Mail *

Website