» We just switched LeWeb to LeWeb.co because it’s cool

We just switched LeWeb to LeWeb.co because it’s cool

LeWeb is now at LeWeb.co which is quickly becoming the default and coolest extension for startups as well as Twitter (t.co) or Google using it. And you can talk to the team behind .co too, meet Juan Calle, the CEO, he’s very cool. And the good news is that the name you want is generally available… Oh and yeah, .co is also a partner of LeWeb this year and you know what? We’re really fortunate that we get to work with cool folks that support us. LeWeb London is sold out on partnerships for weeks now (you can still buy a pass, though)…!


  • http://www.romainsimon.net/ Romain

    The few domains I tried were already cybersquatted  :(

  • http://twitter.com/maktig MAK @ MAKTIG.vc

     Can you be more specific about the names and the cybersquatting? If they were cybersquatted, you could easily win them via UDRP.

  • http://twitter.com/didlybom Olivier Lebra


  • http://twitter.com/Domainsville Domainsville
  • http://www.loiclemeur.com/ Loic Le Meur

    Hey “Domainsville” yeah I don’t deny having tried to get LeWeb.com and I agree it doesn’t seem that I did it the best possible way and I’m happy to dicuss and learn.

    Where we will, however, never agree, is that it’s “right” that an empty page with google ads on it can squat for life a domain used by a brand like ours for good reasons. I get the “I got it first” part and understand it, but I think it’s a real shame and frankly, a pain for the whole industry.
    No question some people make a business out of it, but it’s a pain.

  • http://twitter.com/uk_domain_names Edwin Hayward

    “Cybersquatting (also known as domain squatting), according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else.” (Wikipedia)

    Most commonly, the definition above tends to be narrowed to focus on “invented” brands (Microsoft, Twitter, GoDaddy) rather than straightforward generics since the latter can have perfectly legitimate uses in multiple TM classes even if a TM has already been issued for one specific class.

    On the other hand, the act of owning, stockpiling and selling domain names in and of itself has NEVER been considered cybersquatting, except by the most lazy/sensationalistic of media reports, where the intent has been to provoke a strong reaction.

    Since your conference didn’t exist at the time the owner of the .com registered LeWeb.com (which seems a perfectly obvious and GENERIC way to describe the web in French, btw) he’d have literally had to be psychic to “infringe” on your trademark (which didn’t exist back then)

    The annual value of the aftermarket trade in domain names has been estimated anywhere from the high $hundred million to a billion dollars. There are several industry publications, tradeshows and conferences dedicated exclusively to the domain industry, and thousands of companies that collectively own tens of millions of generic domains. The industry had front page coverage in the sadly defunct Business 2.0, and extensive coverage in Forbes, Fortune, the WSJ etc etc. Tens of thousands of end-user sales are tracked each year by http://www.dnjournal.com/ and they’re by all accounts just the tip of the iceberg as most transactions go unreported.

    In other words, it’s not some kind of a shady fly-by-night concept even though *you* may not personally have come across it before, except peripherally.

    See also http://www.webmastering.co.uk/domain-names/the-myth-of-the-domain-name-queue-of-one/

    It’s interesting that you’ve chosen to rebrand from ..net to .co because that will undoubtedly lead to increased confusion with the .com as most onlookers will assume that “LeWeb.co” is an accidental typo.

    Indeed, Overstock.com spent a fortune rebranding to O.co then beat a hasty retreat when they discovered that 8 out of every 13 people who tried to visit their site ended up typing O.com http://domainincite.com/o-co-loses-61-of-its-traffic-to-o-com/

    Given the high profile of your conference, it would be fantastic if you would just take a few moments to dig a little deeper then tone down your anti-domain investor rhetoric. The .com domain owner is not the bad guy in this scenario. If anything, you are for pursuing him via UDRP for an obviously impossible action (infringing on your TM *before* it existed)

  • Anonymous


    Loic, your “error” was to select LeWeb as name of your event when the
    .com was not available and without previously negotiate the purchase.

    It’s crazy that a geek like you did not had in mind that have the .com of your future brand is critical.

    With all due respect the second part of your comment is simply absurd:

    This guy own a domain for many years and because you decided to use the
    term as the name of your event you think you should now be the owner of
    the name?
    It’s the inverse! And the UDRP you lost is the better proof of that fact.

    Any domain owner can use his domains the way he wants. I am sure you
    also own some names that do not resolve or that are parked or “Under
    construction” or showing Google ads or …

    You have yourself a domain parked for 4 years in GoDaddy and I found one based on 2 trademarks older than the registration date…

    So before pest again others best think it twice.

  • http://www.ricksblog.com/ Rick Schwartz

    This is a can of worms for more reasons than I can list.
    Juan threw the domain industry under the bus giving him many millions a year for a $30 a year customer that many believe tried to Reverse Domain Hijack the .com counterpart.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IBEVIPJBV4734OWYVSDUER7FKA Krellion

    “Any domain owner can use his domains the way he wants”

    But perhaps it should not be so. Domains were created to be developed. The uniqueness of each domain means, without oversight, there is no other market so favorable to sellers.

    If I’m willing to pay more than anyone else for a parked domain, I should get to buy it. Without having to beat all other bids by a factor of ten or more. I should not have to suffer having the value of my name or idea extracted on top of the value of the domain.

  • Anonymous

    Krellion wake up!

    We live in a competitive world. You have no more rights in this domain I can have (while is not based on a trademark).
    People register names for many reasons and until now the rule is they do not have any obligation to develop a domain within a time frame.

    Everyone would like to own the best domains and these resources are unique so things happen naturally, the first to register/buy a domain get it! Domain registration/purchase is not free and cost an annual fee to keep ownership, you have no obligation to do it now. But don’t come few years later pesting because someone has been faster than you and invested money to secure it.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IBEVIPJBV4734OWYVSDUER7FKA Krellion

    The problem is that people who want to start a business may have to run the ‘domain speculator gauntlet’.

    In most markets, speculators are kept in check by the supply of alternative options. It does not matter if speculator is charging silly price for a piece of land – there will be a good alternative.

    But a business may already have named itself, or an entreprenuer may have fallen in love with a particular name for his idea. Seeking an alternative can be difficult or demoralising.

    The ‘free for all’ rules that work well in most markets, do not work well in the domain market because the seller has a monopoly of sorts over each name. He can exploit the buyer who may have an unusually strong desire for a particular name, making that buyer pay a much higher price than would be the case in an efficiently functioning market (where simply beating all other bidders would be good enough).

  • http://davezan.com/ Dave Zan

    “Domains were created to be developed.”

    Citation please?

    “I should get to buy it”

    Whether you “should” depends if you and the domain owner agree on a price. You don’t dictate that solely.

  • http://davezan.com/ Dave Zan

    “Seeking an alternative can be difficult or demoralising.”

    It can indeed. But only if you limit yourself to just one or so options, considering others exist.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IBEVIPJBV4734OWYVSDUER7FKA Krellion

    Perhaps it wasn’t entirely accurate, but the spirit of what I said must be correct. Domains certainly weren’t created for the benefit of speculators.
    And therefore if there must be speculation, domains should be released to the highest bidder, without the high bidder being required to pay a premium that captures some of the value of his name or idea.

  • Anonymous

    “Perhaps it wasn’t entirely accurate, but the spirit of what I said must be correct. Domains certainly weren’t created for the benefit of speculators.

    And therefore if there must be speculation, domains should be released to the highest bidder, without the high bidder being required to pay a premium that captures some of the value of his name or idea.”

    Well, land certainly weren’t created for the benefit of speculators either. Yet, they get speculated, traded, etc., with no one thankfully forced to agree to any price dictated by some other party without some material basis for it.

    I’m rather lost on what you suggested on the 2nd paragraph. If a domain’s in auction where you bid $100 while another person bids maybe $1000, who do you suppose is going to win? Sorry, I’m rather lost on the not required to pay a premium thing. (I’m probably just dense tonight, hehe…)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IBEVIPJBV4734OWYVSDUER7FKA Krellion

    Arguably there is a greater intent that domains be put to some useful purpose than there is with land. But also, the land market is much
    more liquid. If I can’t get the piece of land I want, it’s likely that by
    waiting or increasing the budget a bit, an alternative will be found.

    Consequently, I don’t have to pay more for a plot of land
    just because I have a good idea for it. But this is what a domain buyer may be
    forced to do. There may be one domain that suits my idea significantly better
    than any other, or maybe I’ve already named my business in a certain way.
    Domain seller can take advantage of my particular circumstances and set a price
    that may be significantly higher than the domain’s inherent value.

    So what I believe is that if a domain is never likely to be
    worth much more than $100 to anyone else, then even if I’m willing to pay
    $5000, the price should be nearer $100 than $5000.

  • Anonymous

    “So what I believe is that if a domain is never likely to be worth much more than $100 to anyone else, then even if I’m willing to pay $5000, the price should be nearer $100 than $5000.”

    A catch there, though, is how does one arguably, reasonably determine how much “worth” that domain is. You may think that domain’s worth $100, while the domain’s owner may believe it’s worth $1000 or more.

    Not only how to measure that, but who as well. Of course, there are some 3rd parties who can appraise, yet no one’s required to believe their assessment.

    Thus, it essentially goes back to what I said: it depends on what value both the buyer and the seller agree on. Not really that different from land other than the devil in the details.

    (Now where is that Rambo video about working for something you want…)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IBEVIPJBV4734OWYVSDUER7FKA Krellion

    I use a combination of market knowledge, Estibot, and previous offers. If a domain has been owned for many years with no offer above $100, then an asking price above $1000 is probably too high.

    Cost of replacement is also key. The price of a domain should not be too much higher than the cost to replace it with a domain of similar quality. This is the metric by which the prices of some domainers are clearly outrageous – asking prices of tens or even hundreds times the cost of replacement are not unusual.