Probably being pedantic, but this is not buying Friendster to be precise, usually what is meant by that is that the company was bought.

In this case the domain Friendster.com was bought, and a trademark was conceded (a new different trademark), I don't know precisely the implications of the trademark though, I think it's a different trademark and you still cannot imply that you are a continuation of the previous trademark holder, it's just that you are given monopoly over that word as a trademark.

Now, is that different than buying "Friendster"? A really interesting legal question, I think it is, and I think it has relevant implications, I don't think you can for example restore the website as it was and pretend a continuation as you would if you bought the company.

▲

sikozu 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I think the distinction is warranted.

Honestly if the prior Friendster company itself was bought - including all the assets, codebase and historical documents (no user details) that would've been such an incredibly interesting read.

Buying the domain and getting the trademark is still cool, just not as cool.

	▲	TZubiri 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		fwiw, I think that subjectively it's roughly equivalent in this specific case. The domain name is a huge part of the brand, and is almost equivalent to the list of prior clients. I think that it will probably be fine if they compete in the same space of a social network, doesn't look like someone is going to go after them, the company that would have a claim against them is defunct, so even if they have a legal argument, who would raise the case? If the owners do so under their personal name it's even a weaker argument. So in practice, in this case, subjectively I believe that it's effectively very similar as buying the company.