Comments on: Yahoo Acquires Flicker.com

By: indu

indu — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 08:41:52 +0000

resgister is trade mark of resulting

By: Picture This: Yahoo Finally Takes Control Of Flicker.com For Flickr | TechShadez

Mon, 05 Jul 2010 15:05:43 +0000

[...] The Domains first reported that the WHOIS record has changed, and we’ve since confirmed with Yahoo that they did take control of the domain. “The FLICKER.COM domain has been transferred to Yahoo!,” a spokesperson told us but declined to say anything further. Earlier today, Domain Name Wire reported that a lawsuit settlement gave Yahoo the domain. Back in 2007, Yahoo supposedly offered the owners of Flicker.com $600,000 for the domain, which they supposedly turned down. [...]

By: curious

curious — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:31:43 +0000

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?

By: MHB

MHB — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:06:43 +0000

Curious

I just clicked on the TechCrunch link and got the same story with a ton of comments

By: curious

curious — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 07:57:55 +0000

the techcrunch story seems to have disappeared.

By: curious

curious — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:25:33 +0000

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

By: Flicker.comドメイン、ついにYahooのものに。そして今明かされる「E」なしドメイン名の歴史

Flicker.comドメイン、ついにYahooのものに。そして今明かされる「E」なしドメイン名の歴史 — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 01:54:21 +0000

[...] Yahooによる取得については、まずWHOISのデータに変更があったことが報告され、そしてTechCrunchでは本件をYahooに確認した。Yahooのスポークスマンは「FLICKER.COMのドメインはYahooにトランスファーされました」と述べたが、利用予定などの詳細については話してくれなかった。これに先立ってDomain Name Wireにも、法的手段によってYahooがドメイン名を取得した旨が報じられていた。2007年にはYahooがFlicker.comのオーナーに対して60万ドルを提示して拒否されたという話が流れていた。 [...]

By: MHB

MHB — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:49:39 +0000

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

By: Das zwingende flickr-»e« « Domainblog

Das zwingende flickr-»e« « Domainblog — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:44:40 +0000

[...] seitens Yahoo! über US$ 600.000,– ausgeschlagen. Welcher Preis jetzt gezahlt wurde ist unklar, Mike Berkins Anfrage wurde mit »no command« [...]

By: curious

curious — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 04:04:49 +0000

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.