Splitting Hairs with Flippa

[N-A]

Over the years, I’ve pointed out several instances where Flippa has allowed questionable domain names to be a part of their featured auctions; there is no need to scour their entire listing to point out the rest as it’s commonly known that the place is plagued with them already.

Though, to be fair on Flippa, many of the other marketplaces don’t do a very good job at vetting trademark domains as well (with the exception of Sedo's automatic system). However, unlike other marketplaces, Flippa charges a listing fee for any domain that is added. This can be anywhere from $9 to $326(+/-) with the use of upgrades.

I would expect with a listing fee, especially with an upgrade to include a picture in the listing, that Flippa would take the time to vet submissions to ensure a successful sale is possible to take place as they would also receive a commission on top of the listing fee.

If not for that reason mentioned, to prevent what I'm about to discuss.

There’s an auction running on Flippa now which just so happens to be Forbes.bio. Okay, we can argue left and right that it’s not a trademark and this and that it's not "because of what's right of the dot" (I've heard many times before). But, the fact of the matter is: It is a trademark, remarkably so when the seller uses Forbes’ logo in conjunction with their listing – an upgrade on its own.

With such a "proactive" Marketplace Integrity Team, one would think these types of listings wouldn't seep through the cracks. Though, it appears to be a frequent sighting these days. Have you given up, @FlippaDomains ?

More importantly, why should sellers continue to use a marketplace that, when it comes down to it, doesn't have their seller's best interest in mind?

 

[S-B]

If anything, I would say using the word featured is misleading to many buyers on the website. Many of them don't understand that Flippa isn't backing the domain or website with their reputation.

Though, Flippa does recommend domains in Editor's Choice and we all know what a joke that is.

SalmonJerky.com? Anyone? Bueller?

 

[loredan]

Right now I see whosexu.com and pussy.host standing next to Locations.com in the featured section ... what a joke this is ... pussy.host ? wtf is this? lol

 

[N-A]

Right now I see whosexu.com and pussy.host standing next to Locations.com in the featured section ... what a joke this is ... pussy.host ? wtf is this? lol

Like I said, seller's best interest isn't in mind at Flippa. That's not wrong, as business is business, but accepting this filth as featured is Flippa not keeping any of their seller's best interest in mind as it detracts buyers from flipping around page to page in my opinion; thus all sellers are ultimately losing out.

 

[N-A]

It's obvious with the lack of response from @FlippaDomains regarding TM domains seeping into the featured listing that they have neither their buyer's or seller's best interest at mind.

Why I bring the buyer into the equation is because they may be unsuspecting to know that they are purchasing a trademark domain, or, the repercussions they may face from doing so. But, that's ok, Flippa gets their cut.

Here are two more domains that passed the Marketplace Integrity Team's review at Flippa and made it to the featured listing's slider for domains:

• playstationvr.net
• playstation4pro.com

I wonder how much Flippa took from the seller to get there? I bet they don't even care; they're in it for the listing fee and 10% at the end - for themselves in other words. It's not like Sony doesn't protect their Playstation mark anyway... right?

 

[MasterOfMyDomains]

Is this normal?

https://flippa.com/6968104-site-mak...knowledge-or-exp-required-newbie-friendly-biz

 

[N-A]

Is this normal?

https://flippa.com/6968104-site-mak...knowledge-or-exp-required-newbie-friendly-biz

That's a website, and as far as I know, @FlippaDomains has no control over that division, except to pass word. That doesn't go to say that website listings don't affect domain sales; some users, like myself, (used to) look at both areas for domains.

This gripe, however, is with the domain division of Flippa - something that Kevin surely has more control over, but so far, refuses to respond or take action.

 

[Micklepickle]

Wow…that’s pretty bad. The only thing really surprising about the Forbes listing is that they’d allow the seller to use the likeness of the Forbes LLC logo. Pretty sad on Flippa’s part.

As for the name itself, nothing to say that its breaking any trademark laws from what I can tell (upon quick review), and the biggest saving grace would be the inclusion of the dot bio. In fact if they had a business with product/service, its appears through a quick TESS search that Forbes Bio would be available, again assuming its biology and not biography related. Without wasting my time and digging deeper, Forbes LLC has many many angles covered with numerous trademarks, primarily business related.

I hope the buyer does their due diligence, before bidding. Flippa should be in better control for the funds they charge in listing domains, and charging a premium fee. The seller shouldn’t have been allowed to use the font so commonly associated with Forbes LLC products.

Cheap marketing ploy by the seller.

 

[FlippaDomains]

They're not allowed, @David Walker and I'll address it further when I have the time. Thanks for reporting them, and you and anyone else should at any time to [email protected]

 

[N-A]

They're not allowed, @David Walker and I'll address it further when I have the time. Thanks for reporting them, and you and anyone else should at any time to [email protected]

Thank you for your response, though as dry as it is now. I hope it will have more subsistence at a later date (hopefully sooner than later).

I will continue to point these domains out as they come along to buyers (and potential sellers) in public on namePros in this thread as it creates transparency about the issues concerning trademark infringement in the domain industry. This is specifically so when dealing with a marketplace that is seemingly lax in regards to trademarks at this time.

Had all of these reports gone through Flippa, the problem wouldn't have been solved, just a Band-Aid applied to Flippa. It's only until Flippa (and other marketplaces) get behind seriously enforcing the removal of trademark domain names (much like namePros actively does) that the problem will be [somewhat] solved.

If you would like, I will send in an email containing a new thread post as they come along. But, I don't see this as my job and will do it out of courtesy if you desire. Flippa employs people to do this; they should take their jobs seriously or someone else should be found to replace them (but hey, I'm not here to tell you how to run your business).

While posting, I've come across a two more domains for you to handle in the morning that somehow became "promoted":

• iPhoneJetBlack.com
• iPhone7JetBlack.com

 

[Cristi Marin]

And there are so so many TMs domains. You can spot them just by doing a quick search
for let's say top 10 TMs and you'll have a bunch of domains.

 

[N-A]

And there are so so many TMs domains. You can spot them just by doing a quick search
for let's say top 10 TMs and you'll have a bunch of domains.

True, but as I've already pointed out, the marketplace is already littered with them and there has been no resolution to this as of yet (awaiting a response from @FlippaDomains). It's more concerning when this trash is pushed right in front of buyer's faces on two fronts as: 1) they would buy it without thinking that it's wrong, and 2) it discourages other potential buyers (and even sellers) from using Flippa.

I've already given up on Flippa. It's full of garbage, the BIN system is flawed, acceptance of bids, etc., etc. The auction house tried to reinvent the wheel and failed, miserably.

I just found it amusing that they allowed forbes.bio to pass through to being featured with the inclusion of a prominent and well-known trademark with its logo as an image. I must add for those unaware of how Flippa works, the last time I had an image in a featured listing, it had to be emailed in (and reviewed) prior to being accepted for my listing. I'm unsure if that's how it still works, but if it does, it amazes me that this one got through...

With the other provided examples of trademarks, Flippa's featured marketplace comprises of 3.3% trademarked domains in just their domain division (and that was a quick glance for the obvious). I would assume, as payments are being made to become more than just a listing, that number would be nearer to (if not) 0%.

Is someone on vacation Kevin? That must be it. It'd explain a lot right now.

 

[FlippaDomains]

Hi David.

I will continue to point these domains out as they come along to buyers (and potential sellers) in public on amePros in this thread as it creates transparency about the issues concerning trademark infringement in the domain industry. This is specifically so when dealing with a marketplace that is seemingly lax in regards to trademarks at this time.

That's fine, and we'll do a better job of automating the exclusion of these. I'd also ask that you please call out other marketplaces as you see fit. It's my goal to eradicate these from *our* marketplace; I couldn't agree with you more on how it looks, the poor representation it suggests, as well as the fact that we should be not allowing these to be listed (or marketed to buyers) in the first place.

There is an automated tool in place to curb these at the door, and it's obvious it's not catching some. "iPhone" was in there at one point, for example, so I will check to see if there's a reason it slipped through.

Had all of these reports gone through Flippa, the problem wouldn't have been solved, just a Band-Aid applied to Flippa. It's only until Flippa (and other marketplaces) get behind seriously enforcing the removal of trademark domain names (much like namePros actively does) that the problem will be [somewhat] solved.

Band-aid, how? Is removing the listing and placing the keyword in the blacklisted bucket a band-aid? That's how we approach, or should be. If it's not happening, it's a failure of process, of which I'll ensure improves.

If you would like, I will send in an email containing a new thread post as they come along. But, I don't see this as my job and will do it out of courtesy if you desire.

You're welcome to do what you wish, though my hope is that our team can be better at spotting and removing (and ideally, disallowing) before they are reported by the public.

the BIN system is flawed

If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, we recently fixed that:
flippa.com/blog/domains-changes-to-bin-process

The auction house tried to reinvent the wheel and failed, miserably.

I'd appreciate more of your feedback, I do value it.

I'm unsure if that's how it still works, but if it does, it amazes me that this one got through...

It shouldn't have.

Flippa's featured marketplace comprises of 3.3% trademarked domains in just their domain division

Can you provide where / how you can to this figure? Would appreciate it.

 

[Micklepickle]

Good job sourcing out some of the culprits, while helping Flippa recognize a fault in their system.

Unfortunately (and fortunately) trademark issues aren't as cut and dry as most believe. It really depends on the registered TM or service mark in conjunction with goods and/or services. This is the foundation of potential TM violations.

Don't get me wrong, there are some very cut and dry cases of infringement, while others fall into the grey zone, and yet others are wide open for use. Its much more than recognising a name and claiming it be a trademark infringement.

 

[FlippaDomains]

Good job sourcing out some of the culprits, while helping Flippa recognize a fault in their system.

Unfortunately (and fortunately) trademark issues aren't as cut and dry as most believe. It really depends on the registered TM or service mark in conjunction with goods and/or services. This is the foundation of potential TM violations.

Don't get me wrong, there are some very cut and dry cases of infringement, while others fall into the grey zone, and yet others are wide open for use. Its much more than recognising a name and claiming it be a trademark infringement.

Agreed. And understand where I'm coming from, we can do better automating the prevention of some terms from appearing at all. That said, it will create false positives (i.e. someone listing JasonForbes.com - just a random dude's name) so in these instances it is easier to remove after they post rather than stop things at the gate that might be unrelated to a TM.

Before anyone asks or wonders, we *do* refund anyone in full who has paid for listings/promotional costs of a TM'd domain.

 

[Abdullah Abdullah]

They're not allowed, @David Walker and I'll address it further when I have the time. Thanks for reporting them, and you and anyone else should at any time to [email protected]

Hi Kevin,

I always used to report trademark domains and most of the time received a reply that the item has been removed. However, last time I ever reported something, more than a year, I was told that the listing cannot be removed and will nly be removed if complaint is.received from the trademark owner.

After that day, I stopped reporting any trademarked names I see on Flippa.

 

[N-A]

That's fine, and we'll do a better job of automating the exclusion of these. I'd also ask that you please call out other marketplaces as you see fit. It's my goal to eradicate these from *our* marketplace; I couldn't agree with you more on how it looks, the poor representation it suggests, as well as the fact that we should be not allowing these to be listed (or marketed to buyers) in the first place.

As stated in the original post, not all marketplaces do their job at protecting trademark holder's rights, whether that be through an automated or manual process. I do give Sedo credit as an example as they reject questionable names out the door. I also state that namePros actively enforces the trademark rule. Within mere hours (or minutes, depending on who is online) a TM domain listed for auction and/or sale on namePros is removed after being reported; I can't say the same for Flippa.

I brought this to your attention on Monday and Forbes.bio (and possibly others) is still an active auction, though, hidden from search.

Band-aid, how? Is removing the listing and placing the keyword in the blacklisted bucket a band-aid? That's how we approach, or should be. If it's not happening, it's a failure of process, of which I'll ensure improves.

The current process obviously failed. By deleting these names like you have for years as reported by @Abdullah Abdullah, you never really fixed the problem. Where are the new guidelines for members? Are they visible? Are they understandable? Are there tools to detect keyword phrases? Would these tools reject and warn a member of a domain containing a string and put the domain addition up for manual review? Do you have legal counsel to guide you in deciding what a TM is and isn't (and why I ask that is because of Domain Holding's auction of TrumpPence.com which relates to that of HillaryKaine.com's split legal opinions by lawyers)?

In most cases, all you've done was apply a Band-Aid. How about some surgery this time?

You're welcome to do what you wish, though my hope is that our team can be better at spotting and removing (and ideally, disallowing) before they are reported by the public.

It seemed as if you didn't want me to bring this to light, and rather, report them individually to Flippa. That, however, is not in my job description as a consumer. I only want a better marketplace that is free of trash so it attracts more buyers and sellers continue to release good domains, which in turn only draws in more buyers. So we can all make more money, right?

If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, we recently fixed that:
flippa.com/blog/domains-changes-to-bin-process

Didn't know about the BIN acceptance. That only shows how much I've been out of the loop on Flippa. How about "accepting bids"? A bid should never have to be accepted. Who does that? Vet your members, hold accountability to bidders, and "accept" shouldn't be a problem.

I'd appreciate more of your feedback, I do value it.

Maybe the wrong thread for that. I'm here to report Flippa's disregard to the rightful trademark holders here. Sorry, I got off topic and went on an unrelated tangent (that still requires attention I may add) earlier.

It shouldn't have.

It did, and somebody clearly didn't do their job. That logo was clear to spot by anyone born even in 2000 (though, I doubt you have 16-year-old summer interns doing this job).

Can you provide where / how you can to this figure? Would appreciate it.

Easy, at the time, there were 150 "promoted" domains. I gave you an example of 5 violations, hence 5/150=0.033~, stating that 3.3% of your promoted listings are trademarks, a remarkably high number to say the least.

Doing a more thorough search (still seeing the original reported domains minus forbes.bio), I see 9 out of 140 domains listed (one would only assume that other listings had expired between now).

9/140 = 0.0642

Your marketplace grew from consisting of "only" 3.3% trademarks to 6.42% overnight.

PS, here are two more freebies: mcatsimulation.com & mcat.tips - The MCAT is a registered trademark.

Counts retrieved from https://flippa.com/domains/promoted on September 22, 2016

 

[FlippaDomains]

Counts retrieved from https://flippa.com/domains/promoted on September 22, 2016

Thank you, I'm going to get these removed and will be back at some point to explain what we're doing moving forward to ensure they are stopped at the gate.

 

[N-A]

Thank you, I'm going to get these removed and will be back at some point to explain what we're doing moving forward to ensure they are stopped at the gate.

Thank you.

Please keep in mind my total count of 9 included the obvious (iPhone and Forbes for example as previously mentioned), marks unfamiliar to most (like the MCAT exam), as well as the ambiguous marks, which have been upheld, such as the unauthorized usage of Trump's protected name in a domain, which I must add, Flippa didn't care about the buyer's interest in the case of TrumpPence.com with the lack of a notice that it's in the grey area of trademark domain name (from the previously cited law sources). But hey, Flippa got $1873.4 from the sale, so why care about the buyer that paid $18K? (Luckily for Flippa, it went to Trump instead of an investor though)

 

[N-A]

On the subject of Trump from my previous post though...

@FlippaDomains, it would have been surprising if the broker involved in the TrumpPence.com sale had been brokering other "questionable" domains as well. To my amusement, it appears as if Flippa allows their official brokers to, well, broker anything. I looked into Devoir Funches' listings (the Domain Holdings / Flippa affiliated broker behind the aforementioned domain) and found MakeAmericaGreatAgain.com. Luckily this time, the auction ended without a winner.

However, it's still listed for sale by offer.

Cybersquatting (also known as domain squatting), according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, is registering, trafficking in, or using an Internet domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price.

Does Flippa not see a problem with this?

Word Mark MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Goods and Services IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: Bumper stickers; decorative decals for vehicle windows; stickers; advertising signs of papers; advertising signs of cardboard; placards and banners of paper or cardboard; printed publications, namely, pamphlets providing information regarding Donald J. Trump as a political candidate; posters; pens. FIRST USE: 20150412. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20150412
IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Clothing, namely, sweatshirts, T-shirts, tank tops, long sleeve shirts; headwear, namely, caps and hats; baby clothing, namely, one piece garments; children's clothing, namely, t-shirts. FIRST USE: 20150412. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20150412

IC 026. US 037 039 040 042 050. G & S: Campaign buttons. FIRST USE: 20150412. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20150412

IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: Political campaign services, namely, promoting public awareness of Donald J. Trump as a candidate for public office; providing online information regarding political issues and the 2016 presidential election; retail and online retail store services in connection with campaign related goods; providing a website that features Donald J. Trump views on political issues. FIRST USE: 20150412. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20150412

IC 036. US 100 101 102. G & S: Political campaign services, namely, fundraising in the field of politics. FIRST USE: 20150522. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20150522

IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: On-line journals, namely, blogs featuring information about Donald J. Trump, namely, as it relates to politics and political campaigning; providing a website featuring non-downloadable videos and photographs in the field of politics and political campaigning. FIRST USE: 20150522. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20150522

IC 045. US 100 101. G & S: Online social networking services in the field of politics and political campaigning provided via a website. FIRST USE: 20150422. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20150422

Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 86724115
Filing Date August 13, 2015
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition February 23, 2016
Registration Number 5020556
Registration Date August 16, 2016
Owner (REGISTRANT) DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC. NON-PROFIT CORPORATION VIRGINIA 725 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK NEW YORK 10022
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record Patrice P. Jean
Prior Registrations 4773272
Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

 

[Micklepickle]

Hey David,

I was just curious to know how long you've been active in Intellectual Property Law?

 

[N-A]

Hey David,

I was just curious to know how long you've been active in Intellectual Property Law?

Long enough in this industry to distinguish between a trademark or not, but no law degree.

Is this question an ad hominem in disguise?

 

[N-A]

@Micklepickle, Just some additional information behind the slogan "Make America Great Again" besides the trademark that backs my claim of MakeAmericaGreatAgain.com with the current trademark, as seen above in its entirety.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_America_Great_Again

Pay close attention to the second paragraph ignoring the fact that it's been previously used in other presidential elections:

Trump applied to trademark the slogan in 2012,[8][9] and used it during his 2016 presidential campaign, particularly by wearing hats bearing the phrase.[10]

Take note that the trademark application wasn't filed until 2015, but, that doesn't mean it wasn't in use prior to that.

Here's a nice article by Michael Berkens that better explains how it's a borderline trademark domain. I'd like to point out the following snippet that would be more concerning to a potential buyer than anything though:

Over the years Donald Trump has filed 58 UDRP winning all but two, so he is certainly as a businessman quite aware of domain names.

Source: TheDomains

This, of course, Flippa omitted. Of course, buyers should do their due diligence prior to a purchase, but, Flippa should have also made the public aware of its lawful usage, especially since it went up during the time of elections. They bet on a naïve bidder to come along and swoop it up.

All three elements of a UDRP have been met in my opinion. I'd like to hear from other legal sources if they are inclined to chime in as well:

A complainant in a UDRP proceeding must establish three elements to succeed:

• 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".

Source: Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute-Resolution_Policy
This is just one more easy UDRP for Trump to add to his numbers if he wants, which is exactly why it's a bad bet for anyone moving forward. But, Flippa continues to broker it.

And as a side note, @Shane Bellone is called out for being unethical because he went behind a "broker's" back to get the best deal for his client (though, as in that thread, I defend him)? Where are the ethics, if at all, in this industry? Come on. Even big business like Flippa lack ethics. The example of Shane lacking ethics is petty, and comes nowhere close to what Flippa has done, and continues to do.

 

[N-A]

@FlippaDomains, you seemed to have missed a domain in your quest for mass-removal of trademarked domains. The name in question is realtorsapps.com. Although there are a select few businesspeople belonging to the National Association of Realtors(R) that are able to own and utilize this name, there is no notice for potential buyers that may be outside of the NAR and have no previous knowledge of the proper trademark usage of "realtor". As the listing stands, the pitch can push a buyer into believing it's the right investment for them.

It's misleading to buyers without a proper notice, and due to that, should be reviewed for deletion as well.

 

[N-A]

Oh man Kevin,

After this entire thread where I specifically point out two domains containing Sony's Playstation mark, between the time that I had lunch and dinner, I came home to find playstation4slim.com among the promoted. How can this happen?

I am seriously in utter disbelief that you care @FlippaDomains. Did anyone read the memo at Flippa?