For Sale Solo.ca

[linkman]

Taking PMed offers on Solo.ca.

Great generic name with steady traffic and revenue. Brings in around 5,000 type-in visitors a month and between $200 - $400 a month in revenue. Last month was a solid month bringing in just over $400 and 6,500 visitors.

PM me for any details or interest.

 

[Belzibut]

Did you hear anything from solo mobile? What price range you looking for?

Wrong forum btw domain sales are here: http://www.dnforum.com/f356/

 

[linkman]

Did you hear anything from solo mobile? What price range you looking for?

Wrong forum btw domain sales are here: http://www.dnforum.com/f356/

I had an email a couple years ago that was responded to with no further contact.

I'm aware I put this in the wrong forum, I asked Admin to move it.

 

[fwdtech]

PM sent

 

[FormerDnForumer]

I had an email a couple years ago that was responded to with no further contact.
.

What was the nature of the email? A threatening letter or a letter of interest to buy? This would seem to be crucial if one was considering buying this name, especially when you are directly infringing on their TM via your ppc.

(I just noticed that you changed the page. Hmmm)

 

[msn]

Caveat Emptor.

 

[victornumber]

was this name a search engine before or a parked page because right now it says it is a search engine but the history said it was a parked page featuring mobile phones

 

[Belzibut]

It was parked featuring mobile phone until yesterday. You didn't reply about the price range.

Thx.

David

 

[victornumber]

don't think I would get it because "solo" is trademarked. If it was just a search engine with that kind of revenue, I might get it but if it was parked page with mobile ads, then I'm hesitant.

 

[Belzibut]

I didn't think you could actually trademark a domain without owning it but seems like these guys did it for solo.ca

http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-cipo/t...36&extension=0&startingDocumentIndexOnPage=21

 

[RazorNF]

I didn't think you could actually trademark a domain without owning it but seems like these guys did it for solo.ca

http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-cipo/t...36&extension=0&startingDocumentIndexOnPage=21

Now that is interesting... how did this trademark application get approved or even go unopposed when they didn't even own the domain name.

 

[DomainSpace]

Now that is interesting... how did this trademark application get approved or even go unopposed when they didn't even own the domain name.

Not that hard depending. I know personally of 2 cases one I owned and one my buddy owned. The person that wanted mine went and registered a trademark (got approved) but has no legs to stand on because my date was prior to his date but even though they have my name nobody contacted me you have to look up the trademark journals when they are published to find out.

The case of solo.ca - the domain holder has owned this name since 2000/12/04 and the trademark was dated - 2007-02-15 ... They will have a harder time getting it unless solo.ca has parking revenue from mobile phones or/and solo was active prior to the date of registration and you could show confusion in the marketplace.

Best advice my lawyer gave me - Trademarks come down to goods & services so as long as you are not causing confession based on what you have offered and have registered it in good faith you will stand a good chance on holding on to it.

Good name and my opinion would be to contact the Canadian Trademark people and ask them what's required to have that mark removed since they have never owned the domain or rights to that...or the cheaper root just don't use it for anything mobile. Personally put up a solo porn page that should get a offer going.

Good Luck and the above information is just my experience not legal advice.

Cheers.

 

[linkman]

Not that hard depending. I know personally of 2 cases one I owned and one my buddy owned. The person that wanted mine went and registered a trademark (got approved) but has no legs to stand on because my date was prior to his date but even though they have my name nobody contacted me you have to look up the trademark journals when they are published to find out.

The case of solo.ca - the domain holder has owned this name since 2000/12/04 and the trademark was dated - 2007-02-15 ... They will have a harder time getting it unless solo.ca has parking revenue from mobile phones or/and solo was active prior to the date of registration and you could show confusion in the marketplace.

Best advice my lawyer gave me - Trademarks come down to goods & services so as long as you are not causing confession based on what you have offered and have registered it in good faith you will stand a good chance on holding on to it.

Good name and my opinion would be to contact the Canadian Trademark people and ask them what's required to have that mark removed since they have never owned the domain or rights to that...or the cheaper root just don't use it for anything mobile. Personally put up a solo porn page that should get a offer going.

Good Luck and the above information is just my experience not legal advice.

Cheers.

I wasn't aware of the actual mark until yesterday when I member pointed out to me in a PM. Hence the reason I changed the parked page over.

Unfortuantely the only thing that can be done about the mark would have been to file a trademark opposition but since I didn't realize they had trademarked it until yesterday that time has come and gone.

 

[Belzibut]

3rd time, do you have a price range in mind?

Thanks.

 

[linkman]

3rd time, do you have a price range in mind?

Thanks.

Considering offers above $20k

 

[Belzibut]

Thanks. Good luck.

 

[msn]

Good luck indeed. The use by the trade mark holder is from 1999, with three existing trade marks, plus the URL trade mark, in addition to the fact there was some notice to the registrant some time ago. Add on the fact they can simply send a letter to your parking service to turn off the revenue stream and 20K cents might be a better price.

Not that hard depending. I know personally of 2 cases one I owned and one my buddy owned. The person that wanted mine went and registered a trademark (got approved) but has no legs to stand on because my date was prior to his date but even though they have my name nobody contacted me you have to look up the trademark journals when they are published to find out.

There is no requirement to contact you.

The case of solo.ca - the domain holder has owned this name since 2000/12/04 and the trademark was dated - 2007-02-15 ... They will have a harder time getting it unless solo.ca has parking revenue from mobile phones or/and solo was active prior to the date of registration and you could show confusion in the marketplace.

There are 71 parking pages in the last few years, so "Solo Mobile" sticks out pretty clearly.

Best advice my lawyer gave me - Trademarks come down to goods & services so as long as you are not causing confession based on what you have offered and have registered it in good faith you will stand a good chance on holding on to it.

We looked at this closely: first use is earlier than the registration, and the parking clearly relied upon the mark.

Good name and my opinion would be to contact the Canadian Trademark people and ask them what's required to have that mark removed since they have never owned the domain or rights to that...or the cheaper root just don't use it for anything mobile. Personally put up a solo porn page that should get a offer going.

Good Luck and the above information is just my experience not legal advice.

Cheers.

It is a bit late for all that: it is far cheaper - around $7K - to fight a registration of a trade mark while it is still under consideration. In this case, it is on top of three related marks, so it is way beyond this.

But do be careful here with "put up a solo porn page" since they have already shown the registrant some sort of notice, which means they would see such a move as actionable.

 

[DomainsInc]

I still don't get why it would get approved when they don't even own the name. Seems like a way names could be jacked.

 

[msn]

It was very easy to have approved because they already had three existing trade mark registrations, and CIRA is not in any way an official agency.

Even when you would fight off a claim at CIRA, you have no right to advertise the URL!

If they came along after the fact it could very well be construed as trying to hijack things, but this is more or less firming up their position which was already established.

The bottom line is this is no longer going to make money for him and now he is looking for a buyer based on an impossible circumstance. Although he could possibly have gotten that "$20K" value in early 2007, both the market is different now and the intrinsic value of the registration is gone. If anything, it may now simply be a legal liability.

Luckily he has squeezed the lemon to get plenty of PPC money until now, so he is not empty-handed.-

 

[fwdtech]

Good luck indeed. The use by the trade mark holder is from 1999, with three existing trade marks, plus the URL trade mark

The first trade-mark was actually registered in 1987 (# 328791 ).

If they took screenshots of the site with links to competitors' sites, then they would have a strong case in a challenge.