Trademark domains are being sold on Flippa, all the time.
Sounds remarkably ironic that Flippa – the Australian marketplace for trading domains and web sites – is hosting a guest post by Zak Muscovitch on trademark and copyright matters.
Time and again we pointed out to Flippa support that they are allowing blatant trademark violations to be listed for sale at Flippa.com
After our first few reports of such listings, Flippa started to respond with a standard cookie-cutter reply:
“In regards to the listing that you have reported, if we receive a DMCA notice from Facebook, we will cancel and remove the listing immediately. The listing may be reinstated if the seller lodges a Counter-DMCA notice disputing the claimed infringement.”
Unfortunately, it’s not only famous marks such as Facebook, iPhone or Microsoft that are being violated by sellers on Flippa.
In its latest sales newsletter, under the headline “Top Sales Last 14 Days“, Flippa lists the domain name MrBetfair.co.uk as one of the highest sales on its marketplace. The domain was sold for $45,000 according to its listing, which – conveniently – hid the URL during the auction.
The sale of MrBetfair.co.uk is a mockery of the established web site Betfair.co.uk and Betfair.com; the latter enterprise possesses BOTH a British trademark for “Betfair” as can be seen at the British Intellectual Property Office and another at the USPTO in the USA.
In our opinion, the article by Mr. Zak Muscovitch – an established IP attorney by all means – is thus being used as “smoke and mirrors” by Flippa – giving the impression that somehow Flippa polices its marketplace for trademark violations; in fact, Flippa issues the above standard disclaimer claiming they aren’t responsible for these user-submitted listings.
The problem with this type of thinking is that once a trademark holder finds out about their intellectual property being traded on Flippa, they might pursue extensive damages from Flippa for allowing such domain listings in the first place.
When Flippa users report such obvious trademark violations, Flippa should react proactively, removing them from its marketplace.
We would welcome the expert opinion of Mr. Zak Muscovitch on this subject.
How is this any different than the guy trying to sell legaladvice.org via mediaoptions, and domaining.com homepage, when it has a prior udrp, and pending legal action stated by the udrp complaintant
Ron – As far as I know the UDRP was lost by the complainant. Stay on the subject please.
I think you have to get a grip on reality here. Having a trademark doesn’t mean anybody else can’t use the name… For example, MrBetFair might be used as event or party-planning business and ‘BetFair’ does not hold a trademark within these and many many more categories.
Scone – Did you actually check the trademark links, their classes and what the infringing domain is used for? In case you’re too lazy to check, here’s a hint: they are all about placing bets and online gambling. So the guy who sold MrBetfair.co.uk on Flippa (click on the link) clearly infringes on the “Betfair” mark.
Any other questions?
[long winded personal attack from fake email address scone_underworld@yahoo.com and Australian IP 124.180.201.1 removed]
I guess Flippa started sending their drones. Truth hurts much?
It could be that Flippa have no clue and don’t even understand what they are mumbling about.
Kate – Flippa needs to “man up”.
Sites like Flippa are playing a numbers game. They expect that 99% of users will not have the funds to file a lawsuit for contributory or vicarious trademark infringement, which is likely true. It isn’t that they are ignorant of these types of claim, but rather they are taking a measured risk with regards to them.
There are no smoke and mirrors here. The post from Zac has received some great feedback from our users and highlights the importance of checking for potential trademark violations as part of your due diligence as a buyer.
Outside of that, it goes a long way to illustrate that most of your personal rulings of “blatant trademark violations” are not as clear-cut as you seem to think. Another terrific example is Kurtzman Carson Consultants readying to use iPhone4Settlement.com for their massive class action against Apple – more legal professionals who do not subscribe to your unqualified definition of trademark breach.
Not sure about Scone (we have no problem using our real names here) but agree with his/her notion that now may be a good time to “man up” yourself with some of your own reflection on this.
Ron – be assured that we remove listings from the Flippa marketplace if we become aware of a UDRP being in progress.
Andrew – It’s sad seeing that even after the backlash Flippa receives on its own marketplace after Zak’s guest post, you believe that Flippa can continue acting irresponsibly with regards to trademark listings.
Regarding the “smoke and mirrors” it’s a reference to the way the guest post was intended, versus the end result. Of course Zak’s responses are professional and take a stab at Flippa indirectly. Sorry to have put the guy on the spot; I’m sure he was not aware of how Flippa permits this. Disclosure, anyone?
Don’t miss this opportunity to come clean and get rid of the trademark listings on Flippa once and for all!
The tm violations listed at Flippa have nothing to do with class action lawsuits so please don’t try to bend this to suit your agenda. We are talking about SALES of domains and web sites; as you may not be aware of the iphone4settlement.com particulars, the court decision permitted exactly that registration.
Start by removing the “facebook”, “iphone” and “microsoft” listings from Flippa and then perhaps we will re-evaluate you as a serious company.
Andrew – I applaud Flippa’s motion to protect their own “Flippa” mark, as seen here. That’s a lesson to be learned.
However, you need to display the same courtesy to other trademark holders. You are one notch from being a marvelous company, so why ruin it by allowing trademark infringing scum at your marketplace? I seriously think you should reconsider.
Thanks Lucius.
If there was a clear black and white distinction on this there may be something we could look at doing. Given there isn’t (see DN Attorney’s comment on this http://flippa.com/blog/guest-post-the-dn-attorney-on-copyright-and-trademark/#comment-22049), we do the next best thing and respond immediately to formal process (such as DMCAs/UDRPs) regardless of the merits of the associated claims. Our CEO has stated as much on the post: http://flippa.com/blog/guest-post-the-dn-attorney-on-copyright-and-trademark/#comment-22058
Outside of that, we do our best to ensure both buyers and sellers go into any transactions armed with as much information and knowledge as possible to make a decision for themselves – hence blog posts such as the one from DN Attorney.