• Home
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Awards
  • Privacy Policy
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS
TheDomains.com

Yahoo Acquires Flicker.com

June 14, 2010 by Michael Berkens

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.

Filed Under: Domains

About Michael Berkens

Michael Berkens, Esq. is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheDomains.com. Michael is also the co-founder of Worldwide Media Inc. which sold around 70K domain to Godaddy.com in December 2015 and now owns around 8K domain names . Michael was also one of the 5 Judges selected for the the Verisign 30th Anniversary .Com contest.

« Our Picks From The SnapNames Monthly Showcase Auction Ending Tuesday
Here’s Some Good Advice: Let Go, Your Lego Domains »

Comments

  1. Jon Kimball says

    June 14, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    Very smart move by Yahoo. Any idea what they paid?

  2. Dom says

    June 14, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    Didn’t Sahar and/or his company own Flicker.com? Did they end up selling it or was there litigation involved?

  3. Jon Kimball says

    June 14, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    I should stipulate that it was a “very smart move” only if they didn’t overpay based on the metrics.

  4. Brian Null says

    June 14, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    wow, nice scoop MHB… certainly have to wonder what the final tally was 🙂

  5. MHB says

    June 14, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    I was given a “no comment” regarding price, I assume there is a NDA associated with the transaction

  6. Aron - Symbolics.com says

    June 14, 2010 at 5:22 pm

    Cool bit of news.
    Great find.

    I bet they paid a hefty amount for it.

    That’s what “Cute” branding will do for you…
    You’ll end up paying more than if you’d have bought the name in the first place.

    Aron

  7. todaro says

    June 14, 2010 at 7:05 pm

    so would flucker be a misspell of flicker or fuc*er. sometimes the internet can be confusing.

  8. MHB says

    June 14, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    TechCrunch has now picked up the story:

    http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/14/flickr-flicker/

  9. Afif says

    June 15, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    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? ^^

  10. Afif says

    June 15, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    Darn, I misspelled wrong my self. lol..

  11. alexsi says

    June 15, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    Wow! Very smart idea yahoo.

  12. curious says

    June 16, 2010 at 12:04 am

    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.

  13. MHB says

    June 16, 2010 at 9:49 am

    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

  14. curious says

    June 17, 2010 at 3:25 am

    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

  15. curious says

    June 20, 2010 at 3:57 am

    the techcrunch story seems to have disappeared.

  16. MHB says

    June 20, 2010 at 5:06 am

    Curious

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

  17. curious says

    June 24, 2010 at 3:31 am

    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?

  18. indu says

    September 1, 2010 at 4:41 am

    resgister is trade mark of resulting


Recent Articles

  • Sedo weekly domain name sales led by ThisAV.com
  • CentralNic 2022 gross revenue of about USD728 million
  • Is The Rock going into politics? A couple domain name registrations point in that direction

Recent Comments

  • Charles on What is a fair sales commission rate?
  • zakaria on What is a fair sales commission rate?
  • Steve on What is a fair sales commission rate?
  • Steve on ChatGPT.net sells for $8,900 at DAN.com
  • Snoopy on What is a fair sales commission rate?

Categories

Archives

Copyright ©2022 TheDomains.com — Published by Worldwide Media, Inc. — Site by Nuts and Bolts Media