Yahoo Acquires Flicker.com

The whois record for Flicker.com was last updated a few weeks ago and Yahoo now owns the domain.

Fickr.com of course is one of Yahoo’s prime properties and the 31st most visited site on the net according to Alexa.

Surprisingly the domain Flicker.com is still resolving to the former owners site.

We asked the question in a post just about a year ago why Yahoo had not purchased Flicker.com.

The domain was also discussed in a blog post by TechCrunch last year as well.

The domain has a long checked past ever since Yahoo decided to go with the “web 2.0″ version rather than the correctly spelled domain.

DomainNameWire.com reported back in 2007 that the owners Flicker.com turned down a $600K offer from Yahoo to acquire the domain.

Comments

  1. says

    Qrong spelling in your post. You wrote it Fickr.com

    Fickr.com of course is one of Yahoo’s prime properties and the 31st most visited site on the net according to Alexa.

    - is that intentional? ^^

  2. curious says

    True of false?

    ACPA extends the Lanham Act to cover infringement of a “mark that was distinctive” or “famous… *at the time of registration of the domain name*”.

    flicker.com was registered as a domain name in 1998
    FLICKR was registered as trademark in 2005

    Does “registered” mean “first registered”? Does it include transferring to another registrar (i.e. pushing the domain)?

    There’s a typo in the Ashanti response.

  3. MHB says

    curios

    When it comes to domains and the law there is no right or wrong answer it seems

    Certainly WIPO panels have awarded domains that we originally registered prior to trademarks, some citing changes of ownership, some claiming that each renewal is another start of the “notice” period, while other have dismissed this and held for the domain owner.

    In theory you are correct however and I do believe the domain holder in this case received considerable financial compensation

  4. curious says

    cheers for that mhb.
    i’m just trying to see how any reputable tm attorney could see a legitimate claim under the acpa given these facts. perhaps if they had no clue how srs works?
    are there published cases that defined what “registered” means in under acpa 43(d)? i’ll have to take a look at those.
    unless i’m missing something obvious, a court would have to interpret the ebay seller’s sale and transfer of the domain to ashanti as the time the domain was “registered”, in order to give yahoo a legitimate acpa claim. the acpa is law, not policy. there are certain rules to statutory interpretation.
    surely i am missing something here.
    finnegan’s claim makes no sense.
    if it did, anyone could:
    1. pick some some existing high traffic, high value dictionary word domain (that could not be registered as a TM) that ends in “er”, and subtract the “e”
    2. register the resulting “web 2.0″ word as a domain and build a simple website
    3. register a trademark for the resulting “web 2.0″ word domain name
    4. sue the owner of the dictionary word domain under the acpa, forcing him to transfer his generic word domain to the plaintiff, or have it forfeited, as well as to potentially pay damages, fees and costs

  5. curious says

    the june 2010 story?
    i get “page not found”
    i searched on the techcrunch site by topic and author (it was same author as the story last year).
    not there.
    it’s in google’s cache. but the link google crawled is the same as your above.
    but no more story on techcrunch.
    not that i can see.
    maybe you have page cached in your browser?

Comment Policy:

TheDomains.com welcomes reader comments. Please follow these simple rules:

  • Stay on topic
  • Refrain from personal attacks
  • Avoid profanity
  • Links should be related to the topic of the post
  • No spamming. Listing domains, products, or services will get the comment deleted

We reserve the right to remove comments if we deem it necessary.

Join the Discussion