TAKE THE MONEY. SHUT UP. INVEST IN MORE DOMAINS.

Good grief. That domain would maybe sell for $4k-$15k at auction…

I don’t know what I’m reading here, i’m very confused because I think I’m reading a complaint from a seller that he got “jipped” or something and should have received more for that domain. What’s he looking for? A down payment on a house next to Bill Gates?

There are about 10,000 active domainers who would have gladly sold that domain for $250k and snuck off into the darkness to figure out what to do with the cash.

You are on target, Mikey.

Just to add to the comments of Alan, he is spot on. I think its is simply awesome you got $250K for your domain and an unregistered trademark.

I like Alan says I’m very happy to report on success stories where ever they come from and have nothing but respect for the, IMHO, excellent deal you made.

For myself and many of the readers here, we just wished you were as happy with the deal as we would be.

For the record (since you stated you did not know thedomains.com even existed today) this website is one of the most popular respected blogs in the domain community.

It is a blog where highly educated and upstanding investors in the domain industry (not the cyber squatters and obvious trademark infringers) come to chat so although the common perception of domain resellers may very well be negative you are actually chatting with some of the most respected people who in this industry who spend millions collectively each and every year to try and protect domain names for ALL small business.

With that said you are also speaking with people who absolutely love success stories – whether that is a $200 sale, $250,000 sale or $10 million sale. Domains, apples or aliens – does not matter.

Cartoonz is dead on with a lot of his points but I think at this point we all need to move on. Some of your comments just negate the entire point you tried to make with your post and I fear most (including myself) are confused by many of the arguments you make. Not to say you do not see them as valid but in terms of logical arguments the incorporation of demanding or assuming or at least stating that its “right” to know who the buyer is and then comment on how higher price COULD be warranted is exactly the bad apple of the story which dismisses any love for your tale whatsoever. Are you asking for more money – no, but the mere suggestion of it is enough.

Your last post

“But if we even had an INKLING of who it was, things might have been different. Not necessarily more money, but likely a less contentious negotiating session, because our biggest concern was having competition using our old name more than anything else”

You stated the lawyer was identified as previously working for NBCU (1 inkling)
You offered a $50,000 discount if they took a no-compete clause and they passed (2 inkling)
How many other buyers could you list for this term who would not sign a no-compete clause with a $250,000 checkbook (3 inkling)

I wish you the best of luck in any battle you decide to wage with NBCU and just know that to all the readers of this blog today you will be known as the guy who claimed to have created SYFY.

Whether that claim is true – who knows – but in terms of publicity on a Monday you’re not doing that bad.

Seeya – must leave this post and move on ….best of luck.

And yes, that word predates 1998, but remember, I am not talking about the actual creation of the word or any version of it. I’m talking about its specific usage as a variant spelling for “sci-fi.”

CARTOONZ: I’m sorry, but what people were focusing on was a DOMAIN sale, saying, “Wow, that’s way too much for a domain name” and the like, when that is not the case at all.

The discussion was over a trademark sale. Call it unregistered or whatever makes you feel better, but the simple fact is, you can’t compare a typical domain resale to a trademark sale. They are two different animals completely.

I am not going to keep repeating myself. If you cannot read the things that I say, and in the context that I provide it, I will stop saying it. I am doing everything I can to try and respond directly to questions and thoughts and such, and think about each one carefully.

The ONLY issue we have right now with NBCU at this moment is the claim that they created a brand and that it did not exist before. Everything else was talked about as just other discussion, and to bring up a point that I think has been something on the mind of people for a long time: People should be allowed to know exactly who it is they’re dealing with.

There’s no easy solution to it, but I’m sure a lot of you would like the same thing when dealing with domain sales and the like. Or maybe not.

Either way, it’s an opinion that I expressed, and if you disagree with it, I respect that. I am not looking for more money, just the truth. But there were a lot of comments being made here based on an inaccurate presentation of facts, and I wanted to make sure that the accurate take was presented. It’s not expected that people will change their mind, as I’m with you: The deal was struck, I signed the dotted line, and that’s that.

The discussion of money, however, came up in the column, like I have already said before (and saying now for the final time in this thread): We wanted to show that we are not asking for much, especially since we could’ve probably had grounds to demand for more. We’re not. We feel the value of the brand was probably worth closer to $2.5 million, but I feel that $2.25 million of that value comes in being acknowledged of the creator of a brand I did in fact create, whether I currently own it or not.

There really is nothing more or nothing less to it.

Wasn’t it obvious who it likely really was at that point? If it wasn’t, you must not have really looked at the deal very objectively at the time.

I was approached by a company calling itself New Fizz Corp. As soon as the offer was officially made, my attorney (and even I) scoured everywhere to find out who these people were, searching the Internet, corporate records, you name it.

All we knew is that they bought other domain names, and a lot of them, and likely were either a broker, or a site that would acquire names either with an established intent or possibly even a buyer.

By the way, based on the coverage that happened in March, there is now a Wikipedia entry on New Fizz Corp., that now identifies them as a company that represents media companies in making purchases, to help shield the fact that it is a major corporation looking to make an acquisition online, and it cites specifically the NBCU purchase of Syfy.

When their lawyer became involved, a background check revealed that he was an attorney who, AMONG OTHER PEOPLE, represented NBCU in the past. He also represented other companies, and other purchases and the like. So there was nothing evident in any way that this was NBCU. We felt it might be, because they maintained a major sci-fi property, but we were completely in the dark.

None of us knew who it was until March when we read the story in the New York Times.

Does that make me naive? Maybe it does. But if we even had an INKLING of who it was, things might have been different. Not necessarily more money, but likely a less contentious negotiating session, because our biggest concern was having competition using our old name more than anything else.

And who would imagine that someone wanted to buy a name that you created to rename a network after? I think the list of people that has happened to is very small. Hell, I might be the only one on it.

But the bottom line is that you negotiated and closed on a price that was obviously acceptable to you. You can’t go back later and cry foul because the buyer didn’t tell you they had more money than you supposed they had.

Once again, that is NOT what we’re crying foul about. If I was doing that, I wouldn’t have phrased the column as an open letter to Michael Engleman, who was never even INVOLVED In the negotiations, as far as I knew. New Fizz represented Dave Howe, the network’s president, from what I understood.

The reason why Mr. Engleman was singled out is because he was the one talking about CREATING the Syfy name, and “COINING” it, thus the crux of the actual column.

Creation credit, unless there’s an actual dispute, does not need to be spelled out in a legal document. If someone created something, and there’s no doubt that I had the Syfy name before NBCU, and they felt I owned the marks, as they “overpaid” for a “worthless domain” as it’s been described, then proper credit should be given. That’s what the whooole thing is about.

As for your dismay over creative credit, the term SyFy arguably predated your use of it by many accounts anyway. The domain name SyFy.com was registered by a different party as early as 1999.

Keep making this claim all you want, but for the LAST TIME (and I’m seriously not repeating myself again), SyFy World was created, without dispute, in August 1998. Period. The actual launch date was Aug. 13, 1998. I know that, because we celebrate the anniversary every year, and celebrated 10 years last year.

By what you provided here, the registration of syfy.com took place AFTER the founding of SyFy World. You don’t provide a month, but if it was registered around or after February 1999, then it was registered after SyFy World had not only fully launched, but already had its first big break: We became a spoiler site and was put on the map with our coverage of “Earth: Final Conflict.” Our visitors in January 1999 went from maybe 20 to 25 a day, to 4,000 a day (these are not uniques, these are just visitors — some could be repeats). But it was a significant jump, and we were getting some recognition.

I will not continue to discuss who owned the marks. We were never, ever challenged for the marks. We never found any other reference to the words in anything close to the context we used it in. And unless you can present to me anything that shows it predates Aug. 13, 1998, then we’ll talk.

But I will not continue to defend my ownership of the mark through last February. You have stated TWICE that syfy.com predated me, first using 2000, then using 1999 (if there was a domain purchase in 1999, it wasn’t first used until 2000 based on cache versions in that domain). Even if 1999 is accepted (I don’t seem to have the same type of access to historical purchases as you do), it still does NOT predate my public usage of it.

Period.

NBC-Universal is claiming credit of re branding its own platform to SyFy solely because SciFi is a generic term and indistinguishable. Their use of the SyFy mark and reason for changing to that term is completely different than what you claimed common law rights to

In what way? We used “Syfy” as an alternate spelling of “sci-fi.” We used it to brand our platform, which yes, was a Web-based news outlet, but still enough to common law or not be challenged if they tried to use it for their television and Web platform while not trying to acquire it from us.

I’m well aware of why NBCU was interested in it. The same reason why I was interested in creating it: I didn’t want to use other people’s trademarks, like “Sta Trek.” I wanted to create my own.

None of that is in dispute.

so yes they did create their own branding and rightfully so. I don’t see where they made any claim to be the first to ever utter “SyFy”, just that they created a new brand for themselves using that term. Perhaps it is just semantics, but I can completely see their position.

Read the most recent article from Variety quoting Michael Engleman, where it talks about how he “created” the actual name (not the branding protocol), and also how he “coined” the term.

THAT is the issue we have. We aren’t claiming that we created their branding strategy, just their name. And in those stories in Variety and Fortune, they are not talking about the branding strategy — they are talking SPECIFICALLY about the name.

They decided to re brand. They chose to re brand as SyFy. They are not using it for the same purpose as you may have, they created a new brand for themselves.

OK, so I am going to create a new brand of pens, and I’m going to call it Coca-Cola. Let me know how far I’ll get with that.

Just because they graciously paid you off to assure a clear and uncontested TM process on the term does not mean that you created their vision or brand and your continuous blathering about that makes no sense to the rest of the world outside of your community.

I don’t understand why you are being so rude. People don’t have a good opinion of domain resellers, but I always try to reserve judgment of anyone until I have a chance to interact.

You’re not helping that opinion.

I have answered your concerns, you have expressed your opinion. If there are any other questions specifically, I’ll be happy to answer them. However, I will not continue to debate my position or my opinion, especially since I have better things to do, and that some of you are just being a bit nasty (blathering?)

I also will correct anything misfactual that you present (it seems that facts are not something really important here … there are nothing but inaccuracies all over the place here, and even when they are corrected, the inaccurate statements just get repeated and repeated).

Also, whether or not it’s something only of interest to my “community,” one thing to note: I didn’t ask for anything to be written here. Until I received a message from the writer of this article, I had no idea this blog even existed.

I am not trying to push into your community. I was pulled into it with myth and inaccuracies.

That is what everyone here is focusing on, exactly. It doesn’t matter who you did the deal with, the fact is that you cut the deal that you were willing to accept.

Now, you are crying that it wasn’t enough and that somehow it would have been 10x the amount you had already accepted SOLELY because of who the buyer is? Sour grapes. If you’re that upset about it, perhaps you should look in the mirror as you were the one that accepted 250k. Exactly who did you think was spending that kind of money? Wasn’t it obvious who it likely really was at that point? If it wasn’t, you must not have really looked at the deal very objectively at the time.

But the bottom line is that you negotiated and closed on a price that was obviously acceptable to you. You can’t go back later and cry foul because the buyer didn’t tell you they had more money than you supposed they had. That makes no sense. You accepted the deal. You even gave them the price, according to your statements. They accepted YOUR OFFER to sell at that price. Again, whining now that it somehow wasn’t fair just seems silly

As for your dismay over creative credit, the term SyFy arguably predated your use of it by many accounts anyway. The domain name SyFy.com was registered by a different party as early as 1999.

NBC-Universal is claiming credit of re branding its own platform to SyFy solely because SciFi is a generic term and indistinguishable. Their use of the SyFy mark and reason for changing to that term is completely different than what you claimed common law rights to, so yes they did create their own branding and rightfully so. I don’t see where they made any claim to be the first to ever utter “SyFy”, just that they created a new brand for themselves using that term. Perhaps it is just semantics, but I can completely see their position.

They decided to re brand. They chose to re brand as SyFy. They are not using it for the same purpose as you may have, they created a new brand for themselves. Just because they graciously paid you off to assure a clear and uncontested TM process on the term does not mean that you created their vision or brand and your continuous blathering about that makes no sense to the rest of the world outside of your community.

I’m pretty sure there some polish science fiction jokes long before 1998

http://www.thewrap.com/blog-entry/2136

peace