5 ms·

Tesla Motors Acquires Tesla.com: We Speak with the Seller

54 points by gist 11y ago

witty_username 11y ago
Isn't a UDRP for Tesla.com nonsensical because Tesla.com isn't similar to Teslamotors.com?
- vvanders 11y ago
  The UDRP was for Tesla Industries not Telsa Motors as per the article.
- underwater 11y ago
  The post says the UDRP was for teslaind.com, not teslamotors.com.
- CyrusL 11y ago
  It can depend on the usage of Tesla.com . For example, if Tesla.com was running automotive content, it would give Tesla Motors a strong argument that Tesla.com is confusingly similar to their own. This happens sometimes with parked domains because the ads come through a feed from an ad network. These networks have some basic keyword targeting, so a generic domain owner can accidentally run ads for the exact company they are trying to not infringe on.
- gist 11y ago
  It's nonsensical because there is nothing wrong with owning that domain (from multiple perspectives) and most importantly the ownership predates Teslas use of the name by a long time (and a short time is all you need). So unless the owner is trying to compete in an area similar to Tesla's trademarks it's a non starter. UDRP won't get you a name unless certain conditions are met and even then there are ways to hold onto the name (you can file federal lawsuits for example) if there is enough money involved. In the end this becomes a battle of nerves as well as gambling as to what the fold price will be of both parties before they walk. The truth though is tesla.com is what I call a bastard domain. As a result of the fact that Tesla is effectively the only buyer of the name (because any new use they'd have established broad rights by their popularity let's say) it would be hard for a new buyer to justify purchasing the domain for as high of a price as Tesla would pay for it.
underwater 11y ago
> Basically, I realized that I would never have the time to use the domain in a productive manner. Read: Tesla finally offered enough money. He just can't say as much because it would have made it easier for Tesla to argue he's squatting. That quote from Jason Calacanis is horribly butchered, too.
- gist 11y ago
  > He just can't say as much because it would have made it easier for Tesla to argue he's squatting Has nothing to do with it. There is allegedly an NDA is the reason. Once the sale is done you can say whatever you want there is no action the buyer can take. Price if high enough might end up in some other document though.
  - underwater 11y ago
    That makes more sense.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Can you explain what is butchered about the quote?
  - underwater 11y ago
    > If the person with Tesla.com decides they want to buy a nice condo or house, sure, it’s a great idea to spend $500k or $1m buying that name. It sounds like the subject is the owner of Tesla.com: > If [Bob] decides they want to buy a nice condo or house, sure, it’s a great idea [for Bob] to spend $500k or $1m buying that name. If you click through to the full quote you can see clearly that the subject is the purchaser of the domain.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      Isn't the problem in Calacanis' phrasing? They didn't butcher the quote, they failed to clarify the intended meaning.
codecamper 11y ago
A couple years ago I sold fullscreen.com for not much. 15 years ago I had applied for a trademark, but was refused, the USPTO said it was a generic computer term. They mailed me a photocopied computer dictionary with the term full-screen highlighted. I wondered about windows, but gave up there. I used the name briefly for a software product: screensaver & wallpaper 1-click installer. Then a couple years a ago, a new fullscreen had somehow gotten the trademark. They said that I should sell the name because they had a trademark. Not being very clever, I sold it. I'd even been using the name again selling apps -- but my first use with the apps was a little after this new fullscreen got their trademark. Maybe I screwed up -- but it felt to me like whoever had the money for lawyers was going to win a battle like that.
- gist 11y ago
  > They said that I should sell the name because they had a trademark Who is "they"?
  - scardine 11y ago
    I don't know back then, currently "they" are: $ whois fullscreen.com | grep Registrant Registry Registrant ID: Not Available From Registry Registrant Name: DNS Admin Registrant Organization: Fullscreen, Inc Registrant Street: 12180 Millennium Drive Registrant City: Los Angeles Registrant State/Province: California Registrant Postal Code: 90094 Registrant Country: US Registrant Phone: +1.3107409530 Registrant Phone Ext: Registrant Fax: Registrant Fax Ext: Registrant Email: devops@fullscreen.net
  - goeric 11y ago
    One of the largest MCNs (YouTube networks). They're owned by AT&T and Chernin Group now.
    - codecamper 11y ago
      Yup, that 250 million deal went down about a week after I relented. :( I'm just a programmer dude. I need to get some legal help, obviously. Lawyers just make my skin crawl though. I look forward to the day we have replaced most of their function with neural nets.
mrtron 11y ago
tesla.com is a better primary domain than teslamotors.com, as they have the powerwall available as well as autos. I wonder when they will make the full switch?
floodyberry- 11y ago
A squatter selling a domain name is "news"?
- ashmud 11y ago
  Not as interesting as the nissan.com story, I take it.
- gist 11y ago
  He is not a squatter. Stop with the arbitrary use of squatter for anyone who owns a domain and isn't willing to give it to a company which didn't even exist at the time of original registration. Separately buying and selling domains is a legitimate business (and there are companies that do this on the stock exchanges). Squatter dates back to a few cases in the 90's where tech guys held their companies names ransome or certain people tried to register unique trademarks with the clear intention of holding out for large sums of money. Nothing gives Tesla the god given right to just get that name because they are Tesla (in these particular circumstances).
mrbill 11y ago
I hope he got lots of money AND a Tesla vehicle.
- dashoffset 11y ago
  I believe that if I got paid $1M I would not spend part of it buying a Tesla. But if I got $100k AND a Tesla I wouldn't sell the vehicle.
teslabox 11y ago
I've had teslabox.com since 2003... Someone was sending certified mail to the pobox I had - I only checked the box every six months so I never got their letter. The sender had to have gotten that address from whois. I got a free domain from Google, transferred, anonymize, and closed the pobox last November. Noticed recently that an Asian manufacturer registered teslabox.net, for their Tesla Model S accessory. Maybe someone wanted to buy my domain.
rahimzayid 11y ago
If u type in tesla.com right now it will lead you to teslamotors.com, i don't understand why they want to purchase tesla.com
- tonyferguson742 11y ago
  Agree. I m still trying to figure out why tesla would spend time and effort on this matter.

54 points by gist 11y ago

witty_username 11y ago

Isn't a UDRP for Tesla.com nonsensical because Tesla.com isn't similar to Teslamotors.com?

vvanders 11y ago
The UDRP was for Tesla Industries not Telsa Motors as per the article.
underwater 11y ago
The post says the UDRP was for teslaind.com, not teslamotors.com.
CyrusL 11y ago
It can depend on the usage of Tesla.com . For example, if Tesla.com was running automotive content, it would give Tesla Motors a strong argument that Tesla.com is confusingly similar to their own. This happens sometimes with parked domains because the ads come through a feed from an ad network. These networks have some basic keyword targeting, so a generic domain owner can accidentally run ads for the exact company they are trying to not infringe on.
gist 11y ago
It's nonsensical because there is nothing wrong with owning that domain (from multiple perspectives) and most importantly the ownership predates Teslas use of the name by a long time (and a short time is all you need). So unless the owner is trying to compete in an area similar to Tesla's trademarks it's a non starter. UDRP won't get you a name unless certain conditions are met and even then there are ways to hold onto the name (you can file federal lawsuits for example) if there is enough money involved. In the end this becomes a battle of nerves as well as gambling as to what the fold price will be of both parties before they walk. The truth though is tesla.com is what I call a bastard domain. As a result of the fact that Tesla is effectively the only buyer of the name (because any new use they'd have established broad rights by their popularity let's say) it would be hard for a new buyer to justify purchasing the domain for as high of a price as Tesla would pay for it.

underwater 11y ago

> Basically, I realized that I would never have the time to use the domain in a productive manner. Read: Tesla finally offered enough money. He just can't say as much because it would have made it easier for Tesla to argue he's squatting. That quote from Jason Calacanis is horribly butchered, too.

gist 11y ago
> He just can't say as much because it would have made it easier for Tesla to argue he's squatting Has nothing to do with it. There is allegedly an NDA is the reason. Once the sale is done you can say whatever you want there is no action the buyer can take. Price if high enough might end up in some other document though.
- underwater 11y ago
  That makes more sense.
maxerickson 11y ago
Can you explain what is butchered about the quote?
- underwater 11y ago
  > If the person with Tesla.com decides they want to buy a nice condo or house, sure, it’s a great idea to spend $500k or $1m buying that name. It sounds like the subject is the owner of Tesla.com: > If [Bob] decides they want to buy a nice condo or house, sure, it’s a great idea [for Bob] to spend $500k or $1m buying that name. If you click through to the full quote you can see clearly that the subject is the purchaser of the domain.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Isn't the problem in Calacanis' phrasing? They didn't butcher the quote, they failed to clarify the intended meaning.

codecamper 11y ago

A couple years ago I sold fullscreen.com for not much. 15 years ago I had applied for a trademark, but was refused, the USPTO said it was a generic computer term. They mailed me a photocopied computer dictionary with the term full-screen highlighted. I wondered about windows, but gave up there. I used the name briefly for a software product: screensaver & wallpaper 1-click installer. Then a couple years a ago, a new fullscreen had somehow gotten the trademark. They said that I should sell the name because they had a trademark. Not being very clever, I sold it. I'd even been using the name again selling apps -- but my first use with the apps was a little after this new fullscreen got their trademark. Maybe I screwed up -- but it felt to me like whoever had the money for lawyers was going to win a battle like that.

gist 11y ago
> They said that I should sell the name because they had a trademark Who is "they"?
- scardine 11y ago
  I don't know back then, currently "they" are: $ whois fullscreen.com | grep Registrant Registry Registrant ID: Not Available From Registry Registrant Name: DNS Admin Registrant Organization: Fullscreen, Inc Registrant Street: 12180 Millennium Drive Registrant City: Los Angeles Registrant State/Province: California Registrant Postal Code: 90094 Registrant Country: US Registrant Phone: +1.3107409530 Registrant Phone Ext: Registrant Fax: Registrant Fax Ext: Registrant Email: devops@fullscreen.net
- goeric 11y ago
  One of the largest MCNs (YouTube networks). They're owned by AT&T and Chernin Group now.
  - codecamper 11y ago
    Yup, that 250 million deal went down about a week after I relented. :( I'm just a programmer dude. I need to get some legal help, obviously. Lawyers just make my skin crawl though. I look forward to the day we have replaced most of their function with neural nets.

mrtron 11y ago

tesla.com is a better primary domain than teslamotors.com, as they have the powerwall available as well as autos. I wonder when they will make the full switch?

floodyberry- 11y ago

A squatter selling a domain name is "news"?

ashmud 11y ago
Not as interesting as the nissan.com story, I take it.
gist 11y ago
He is not a squatter. Stop with the arbitrary use of squatter for anyone who owns a domain and isn't willing to give it to a company which didn't even exist at the time of original registration. Separately buying and selling domains is a legitimate business (and there are companies that do this on the stock exchanges). Squatter dates back to a few cases in the 90's where tech guys held their companies names ransome or certain people tried to register unique trademarks with the clear intention of holding out for large sums of money. Nothing gives Tesla the god given right to just get that name because they are Tesla (in these particular circumstances).

mrbill 11y ago

I hope he got lots of money AND a Tesla vehicle.

dashoffset 11y ago
I believe that if I got paid $1M I would not spend part of it buying a Tesla. But if I got $100k AND a Tesla I wouldn't sell the vehicle.

teslabox 11y ago

I've had teslabox.com since 2003... Someone was sending certified mail to the pobox I had - I only checked the box every six months so I never got their letter. The sender had to have gotten that address from whois. I got a free domain from Google, transferred, anonymize, and closed the pobox last November. Noticed recently that an Asian manufacturer registered teslabox.net, for their Tesla Model S accessory. Maybe someone wanted to buy my domain.

rahimzayid 11y ago

If u type in tesla.com right now it will lead you to teslamotors.com, i don't understand why they want to purchase tesla.com

tonyferguson742 11y ago
Agree. I m still trying to figure out why tesla would spend time and effort on this matter.