Jets.com bought for $375,000

**Vijaya** · 09-19-2009, 07:12 AM

Today Jets.com has been reported as being sold by sedo.com

I think that's are very good price.

**DomainsInc** · 09-19-2009, 08:09 AM

I wonder if the sports team bought it.

**Acro** · 09-20-2009, 03:18 PM

Whoever sold it made some nice cash. I wonder how much Greg (Fearless) sold it for in 2004.

**EJS** · 09-20-2009, 03:20 PM

Wonder if the NY Jets-related PPC ads could put it at risk?

**hugegrowth** · 09-20-2009, 03:20 PM

You could argue it's a low price, considering the aircraft market for private jets. Even for football, that's less than what many football players make in one year.

**Acro** · 09-20-2009, 03:23 PM

It's definitely 1/4 to 1/5 the price of a real jet

Elliot, jets.com used to broker flights according to http://web.archive.org/web/200801200.../www.jets.com/ so I don't think the temporary sedo page will be an issue per the Dolphins incident. It's all a matter of long term use.

**EJS** · 09-20-2009, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Acro

It's definitely 1/4 to 1/5 the price of a real jet

Elliot, jets.com used to broker flights according to http://web.archive.org/web/200801200.../www.jets.com/ so I don't think the temporary sedo page will be an issue per the Dolphins incident. It's all a matter of long term use.

I've seen UDRP filings citing usage, but I don't remember seeing anything that refers specifically to "long term" use, and likewise, I don't remember seeing a defense stating that it was only infringing for a short time

. IMO, how would someone determine the length of time that defines "long term?" Also, what's to say someone would hypothetically only show football-related PPC links on football Sundays during the season? Would that be long term or short term?

**Acro** · 09-20-2009, 03:37 PM

We'll have to wait and see who bought it. If it's the Jets, the use is obvious

I also found a notice at the WIPO for jets.com that was dropped in 2000.
But my hunch is that this was a sale including other assets. I foresee this to be a purchase with airplanes (jets) in mind.

**Stian** · 09-20-2009, 03:38 PM

Their original asking price was $1,250,000 USD back in July.

**Acro** · 09-20-2009, 03:39 PM

That would had made more sense. Where was it listed at?

**FormerDnForumer** · 09-20-2009, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by EJS

I've seen UDRP filings citing usage, but I don't remember seeing anything that refers specifically to "long term" use, and likewise, I don't remember seeing a defense stating that it was only infringing for a short time

. IMO, how would someone determine the length of time that defines "long term?" Also, what's to say someone would hypothetically only show football-related PPC links on football Sundays during the season? Would that be long term or short term?

Exactly right. It doesn't have to be long term use at all. This is a major faux pas on sedo's part.

**loudbeats.com** · 09-20-2009, 07:13 PM

how would this look:

NY.Jets.com or Private.Jets.com / Military.Jets.com / Fighter.Jets.com / AirForce.Jets.com / TypesOf.Jets.com / PicturesOf.Jets.com (highly searched terms as per google search)

**seanboy** · 09-20-2009, 07:17 PM

meh..

I'm a Bears fan.

**David G** · 09-20-2009, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by Acro

It's all a matter of long term use.

Really? I am fairly certain the length of the TM infringement is totally irrelevant. IMO, all that matters (unlerss it was proven beyond the control of the registrant) is its use on the date the attorney does the screen capture to prepare the case, and/or date complaint was filed..

**Acro** · 09-20-2009, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by trader

Really? I am fairly certain the length of the TM infringement is totally irrelevant. IMO, all that matters (unlerss it was proven beyond the control of the registrant) is its use on the date the attorney does the screen capture to prepare the case, and/or date complaint was filed..

Regardless of what many people think, lawyers are not stiff-collared robots and justice isn't blind.

**Stian** · 09-21-2009, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by Acro

That would had made more sense. Where was it listed at?

Christian Kalled offered it for sale in one of his e-mails.

**talas** · 09-21-2009, 03:02 AM

Should it be broked to NY Jets?

**David G** · 09-21-2009, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Acro

Regardless of what many people think, lawyers are not stiff-collared robots and justice isn't blind.

I have little idea what you mean by that and stick to what I said that the length of the TM infringement does not matter as far as legalities go.

**stewie** · 09-21-2009, 09:31 AM

nice sale, what's the cost of a new or even used Jet??? LOL

**EJS** · 09-21-2009, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Acro

Regardless of what many people think, lawyers are not stiff-collared robots and justice isn't blind.

No kidding, but if the Jets wanted it and didn't want to pay $375k for it, what would prevent them from taking a screenshot, paying $1,500 for another UDRP and having their attorney cite bad faith? In fact, the NFL filed a UDRP for Dolphins.com and Jets.com back in 2000. It would seem like something they'd do, especially in light of the NFL now owning Dolphins.com.

Either way, it seems pretty strange that anyone would allow Jets.com to show football-related advertising - no matter whose fault it was. Even if the name made a couple hundred dollars in the interim, why would they even take the risk with so little to gain?