Seeking opinions on asking price for rare 2-word organic dot-com

[mimiy2k]

Hi All,

A potential buyer has requested that I have an appraisal done for BlockbusterPhotos.com. (I also have BlockbusterImages.com). In my experience, domain appraisals are meaningless except to newbie buyers. I feel that the opinions of veteran DN Forum members as to value, along with real sale comps, would be of much greater value. (I am surprised that a Domain Broker would be dependent on a sketchy domain appraisal but that is who has asked me to have this done).

Please jump in with what you feel my asking price should be. I would really appreciate it!

As a side note, these are only available because we found and are going to use an even better one for our stock photo business.

Thanks all!
Mimi

 

[dcristo]

This is a popular domain scam, they have no interest in your domain, they just want you to pay for the appraisal.

 

[Vincent]

I had same letter. The emailer claimed to be a domain investor and that he would buy my domain if id have it appraised. I told him no. I offer that he broker my domain to and I will pay him 20%. But I don't want to waste money on scammed appraisal company that he recommended. From then on, I never received any more similar email.

 

[mimiy2k]

Oh my, you are both SO right! I just entered "domain buyer scam" in Google and, at scams.com there are several identically worded letters to the email i received! I also tried to go to the website in the "buyers" email address buy-domain-hosting.com and it resolves to a sketchy looking hosting review site. I then did a WHOIS on that domain and of course it is privately registered via godaddy. I then ran a trace on the IP and it resolves in Russia.

Thank God for this forum, the first place I turned to! You guys ROCK!! Maybe, Santa will be good to me and send me a real buyer.

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond!

Best,
Mimi

---------- Post added at 12:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 AM ----------

I have just learned this is a scam to bait domain sellers to pay for bogus appraisals. :-(

I'd still be interested in anyone's thoughts on an asking price I should place on this domain, though.

Thanks all!
Mimi

 

[David G]

Sorry, since it potentialy may be a trademark violation I can't see value to a serious buyer.

 

[mimiy2k]

I checked with a trademark attorney and since Blockbuster does not sell stock photos, there is no issue. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of businesses with Blockbuster in the name. The issue you mention only legitimately arises when two businesses are in the same business line and there is risk of trademark confusion. But I really appreciate your taking the time to provide meaningful input! It is sincerely appreciated.

Mimi

 

[David G]

Surprised the attorney would give an opinion. It actually makes little if any difference as far as them filing a federal court lawsuit or wipo case goes since they can easily do that (especially the lawsuit) regardless of it's usage and based simply on the fact the name contains their trademark word, not to mention the fact they are involved in images and photos to a degeee as far as their publishing and marketing goes but that is a gray area but still does not preclude litigation. P.S. Why was your other Blockbuster thread closed?

 

[mimiy2k]

Hi there,

Those are good questions for me to ask the attorney. Thank you for the thoughtful input! you are certainly right that anyone can sue anyone for anything! :-(
I think the attorney meant that what their product is and what my product is (why I registered this domain) are not the same products. It is about what we each are selling not about how we each advertise, but still your points are worth following up on!

I did not know my other thread closed. :-( Did I break a DN Forum rule with two posts? They were similar but intended differently.

I don't think I'm having a good day. :-(

Okay, that's too many frowns! Mimi

---------- Post added at 01:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:42 PM ----------

Oh, I remember now something else the attorney said: When it's a made-up name like Kleenex, Exxon or Coca-cola, there is a trademark issue with using it at all. When it's a dictionary word ("descriptive" in legal terms), use is considered too widespread for any one business to contend that they own the trademark for all purposes, products and industries. The rule then becomes: are they selling the same type of product "creating liklihood of confusion" whereby a consumer thinks they are ordering a pizza from Pizza Hut and land on a website called Pizza's Hut thinking that they are one and the same (both selling pizza). So Pizza's Hut is "unjustly enriched" because it traded on its "confusingly similar" name and in essence duped the customer as to whom they were doing business.

That's how it was explained to me if that helps.

 

[katherine]

Why was your other Blockbuster thread closed?

Must be because it was a dupe.

More to the point, if there is a possible TM issue, this will restrict the potential of the domain. And the prospects of a sale.
Who wants to buy and develop a domain that could be seized down the road.

 

[mimiy2k]

Good point, David. Perception is everything!

---------- Post added at 02:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 PM ----------

Oops, I mean Katherine!