# CBC.COM is for sale.



## Esdiel (Jan 22, 2021)

*Does anyone think CBC will ever go for the .COM, or know whether they've tried in the past?*

Below is a bit of info I was able to find which may be helpful.

Archive.org shows that CBC has been using CBC.ca since at least October 31st, 1996, however, they apparently went online in 1995 for the first time, "becoming Canada's first news website":



> https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/your-public-broadcaster/history




As for CBC.COM, it "appears" as though it was only registered for the first time on August 10, 2000, according to whois and archive.org. If nobody owned CBC.com before this date, it naturally leads one to assume CBC didn't have much interest in it at the time.

Of course it's always possible the .COM was unavailable when CBC decided to go with the .CA but I doubt they tried too hard to acquire it (at that time), especially given the previous owner (if he/she ever existed) must have let it drop at some point (as per the whois registration date).

What do you guys think, and/or have you ever heard anything about CBC wanting the .COM?


----------



## Esdiel (Jan 22, 2021)

* Below is the oldest capture for CBC.ca on archive.org (from Oct 31, 1996). *

I thought you guys might be interested in seeing what Canada's first news website looked like in its infancy:



> https://web.archive.org/web/19961031095442/http://www.cbc.ca/


----------



## DomainRecap (Jan 22, 2021)

I'm pretty sure that an LLL with key letters like that was registered prior to 2000, but like they say in the movies, records from back then were probably lost in a fire and are incomplete at best. 

Based on my internal timeline, I would bet on 1995-97 for a realistic registration date, with 1996 getting the best odds. 

I just did some quick research and the estimated time of the LAST LLL.com hand-registration was in January of 2000 (probably some crap one like XZQ.com), so definitely CBC.com didn't stick around even close to that long.

I was there when TSX bought TSE.com (before that crone Barbara Stymiest bowed down and gave it to the Japanese) and I think it was 1995 or 96, and I'm sure we bought it from someone.


----------



## Esdiel (Jan 25, 2021)

DomainRecap said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that an LLL with key letters like that was registered prior to 2000, but like they say in the movies, records from back then were probably lost in a fire and are incomplete at best.
> 
> Based on my internal timeline, I would bet on 1995-97 for a realistic registration date, with 1996 getting the best odds.
> 
> ...




Thanks DR. Very interesting... but an internal timeline based on memory is questionable evidence... Even recent eye-witness testimony has been proven to be very unreliable far too often... lol... but I see your point and you're probably right.

It's still possible CBC passed on it once upon a time, as it turns out they actually launched their first "experimental web service" in 1993, according to this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBC.ca

I also assume you saw this same article about when the last LLL dotcoms were taken: 



> "From an investor's standpoint, not all letters are created equal. While the first LLL .com was registered in 1985, there were still plenty of available three-letter .com domains until 2000—fifteen years later. The reason: some of the letter combinations were unappealing, due to the lack of obvious acronym, or because when forcibly created into a brand, the visuals of it looked strange."
> 
> https://uniregistry.com/blog/post/the-story-and-appeal-of-lll-com-domains




Something tells me the owner of CBC.com has been waiting for CBC to come get it one day, and/or that CBC has enquired before (and the owner probably blew the deal and CBC never looked back). The owner is Korean (apparently) and has had the same static website since 2007, and nothing much before that.


* The domain is also listed on Sedo with an asking price of 2 million USD:*





https://sedo.com/search/details/?pa...Parking&utm_campaign=template&utm_source=3032


----------



## domains (Jan 26, 2021)

The government gives the CBC so much money, they can probably easily afford it.


----------



## Esdiel (Jan 26, 2021)

domains said:
			
		

> The government gives the CBC so much money, they can probably easily afford it.



Good point. lol 

I was thinking more about how our government has spent hundreds of billions on covid relief, and how it's far from clear where all that money is going.... so no one would probably notice (or be that upset) if they dropped a million to buy the .COM lol. At least they would be able to explain where that money went and have something to show for it. 

The minimum offer you can submit on Sedo is also only 3K USD... so I'm betting CBC could probably work them down to six figures, maybe even five figures. 

In any event, I get the feeling CBC doesn't care too much for the .com, and I definitely don't think they would ever use the .COM over the .CA, but it would be interesting to learn if there's any history there.


----------



## rlm__ (Jan 27, 2021)

Esdiel said:
			
		

> The minimum offer you can submit on Sedo is also only 3K USD... so I'm betting CBC could probably work them down to six figures, maybe even five figures.



I'd be stunned if it sold for 5 figures, it would take a pretty desperate seller to go that low.  I'd bet they've already turned down $100K offers.


----------



## DomainRecap (Jan 27, 2021)

If CBC really wanted it, a quick UDRP would probably solve the problem. Although panelists are not supposed to take into consideration the price of a domain, most do and just one look at the massive $2,000,000 price tag would be enough infer bad-faith targeting towards the TV network (which has been around since 1936) - hell targeting has been inferred at $10K. 

To me, that says CBC doesn't care a bit about the .COM, and as their entire mandate is to support Canadian news, that's a very logical stance to make.


----------



## FM__ (Jan 27, 2021)

While I'm not a lawyer (Zak, where are you?), I don't see this as a slam-dunk UDRP. Where's the infringement criteria being met, the bad faith. Granted, the current "website" is really just an image, but it certainly is not misleading, like it is in most actual "slam-dunk" cases.

*UDRP Criteria:*
* The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
* The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
* The domain name has been registered and the domain name is being used in "bad faith".


----------



## DomainRecap (Jan 27, 2021)

FM said:
			
		

> While I'm not a lawyer (Zak, where are you?), I don't see this as a slam-dunk UDRP. Where's the infringement criteria being met, the bad faith.



While I don't necessarily agree with it, "asking $2,000,000 for a domain you registered that matches a well-known TM from 1936" is extremely likely to infer bad faith registration by a large portion of the IPO panelists. There is definitely precedent on this for generic acronyms that are also famous TMs, but only in cases where the price tag more than suggests that a "certain client" is being actively targeted. 

It's not a 100% slam dunk, but of you get the right panelist(s) it definitely is.


----------



## aactive (Jan 27, 2021)

DomainRecap said:
			
		

> While I don't necessarily agree with it, "asking $2,000,000 for a domain you registered that matches a well-known TM from 1936" is extremely likely to infer bad faith registration by a large portion of the IPO panelists. There is definitely precedent on this for generic acronyms that are also famous TMs, but only in cases where the price tag more than suggests that a "certain client" is being actively targeted.
> 
> It's not a 100% slam dunk, but of you get the right panelist(s) it definitely is.


 
Plus "The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;" This could very well be an issue also.


----------



## DomainRecap (Jan 27, 2021)

aactive said:
			
		

> Plus "The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;" This could very well be an issue also.



That one is a slam dunk, but with more generic domains, the bad faith registration requirement has to show that the registrant actively targeted a TM holder, and that's where the price tag comes in. It's pretty easy to draw the connection.


----------



## rlm__ (Jan 27, 2021)

I don't agree, its been well documented in UDRPs that LLL domains are generic investment quality domains.  If there is no infringement and no contact by the owner to the trademark owner, then they are in pretty good shape.  Furthermore, they can show from sales data that the price may be high but is within range of past sales of LLL domains.  Furthermore, any domainer would recognize those particular letters as being premium, not to mention ending in a "c", all further backing the high price.  Furthermore, the asking price is an asking price.  Some people automatically set a high ask and are willing to negotiate.  One could argue it is almost expected for domain purchases, so that is just a starting point at $2M.


----------



## Spex (Jan 27, 2021)

Would probably be a TM issue but if I had the cash, I'd buy this just to make a satire news site. Imagine something like the Beaverton (or the Onion) sitting on CBC.com?


----------



## DomainRecap (Jan 27, 2021)

rlm said:
			
		

> I don't agree, its been well documented in UDRPs that LLL domains are generic investment quality domains.



That's true if there isn't a major 3-letter TM sitting out there for almost 100 years, and other large entities have successfully won UDRPs - it really comes down to how well-known the 3-letter entity is (IBM has won several TM challenges) and if the panelists recognize that notoriety. 

One that did lose by a hair was ABC in Australia when they went after ABC.net - I think the panel was undecided but ultimately the network was not well known enough in NA to transfer the domain, and I don't think CBC has that problem, as Americans know it's "our PBS". 

And setting a price that is out of whack with similar domain sales does have UDRP precedent if it is viewed as targeting a certain buyer. I don't agree with panelists disputing prices (which is a different can of worms) but when even nice LLLs are going for low to -mid 6-figures (sometimes high 5-figures) and this guy has a $2M price tag on a well-known LLL TM, it's not hard to connect the dots and cite precedent. 

I still say that if CBC wants the domain, their existing 85-year old TM and the $2,000.000 price tag give them a good chance at winning, but I also believe they don't care a whit about the .COM, or they would either buy it or litigate it. Hell, the CBC probably spent $2 million last year on toilet paper they didn't even receive.


----------



## rlm__ (Jan 27, 2021)

DomainRecap said:
			
		

> Hell, the CBC probably spent $2 million last year on toilet paper they didn't even receive.



Lol


----------



## DomainRecap (Jan 27, 2021)

That's an old story when I used to work for the government during summer - one year I was assigned to the head guy in charge of security and we had to go through various items to see if suppliers were screwing us.

And they were - garbage bags in 1000's were regularly in the 800's, huge toilet paper crates were partially empty and filled with corrugated cardboard, etc., etc., etc.. It was insane and virtually ever company that supplies to the government is scamming, some bigger than others.  

So my $2 million overage on the CBC is probably lower than reality.


----------

