Flippa.com - The domain and web site aftermarket from Down Under is notorious for allowing tm domains to be sold.
Flippa.com, the domain and web site auction house Down Under, continues to allow trademark violations on its marketplace.
Not content with iPhone and Apple trademarks, Flippa goes full house this Friday with a listing that clearly violates one of the famous Microsoft trademarks.
MicrosoftFeed.com is presented by its seller at Flippa as “A top quality Microsoft focused web site“. The web site is not simply a blog, as it’s monetized with claimed revenue in excess of $2,500 per month.
With Microsoft notoriously protective of their brand – once, they went after a fella by the name of Mike Rowe and his MikeRoweSoft.com domain – it’s ridiculous that this domain is allowed to be listed for sale by Flippa.
It’s evident that Flippa is lacking the motivation to remove offending listings from its marketplace, unlike other venues such as DNForum, eBay, Sedo and Afternic that police the type of domains listed for sale.
Copyright © 2024 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.
This has an $11,000 bid at Flippa???
How does anyone believe any of the ‘sales’ activity at Flippa??
That site is a joke.
Lucius – His site says “MicrosoftFeed is a Microsoft focused blog where we are highlighting different Microsoft related news, events, products, softwares and activities.” so it is not fair to necessarily call it infringing since it appears to be fair use. In addition, he has a disclaimer at the bottom of the site.
David – Fair use with a famous mark? Please don’t start this all over again. But let’s not waste our time here, I have contacted Microsoft, let them decide.
I just saw a site there which was netflixcanada.net
Even if it were a case of “fair use” – which only applies to providing e.g. parts of a movie, this requires explicit permission. In this case, any notion of “fair use” ends at the point of profiteering: ad revenue, sale of the domain etc. The seller is in Pakistan, so who cares about laws, right?
Lucius – Please explain why his site requires explicit permission from Microsoft.
What name are you suggesting he call his site if not “MicrosoftFeed”?
David – Let me reverse the question, please tell us why it doesn’t require explicit permission. According to you, fair use means the absolute freedom to utilize and monetize someone else’s trademark – or am I reading you wrong?
Lucius – The question is fine without it being reversed. It seems that the only reason you want to reverse it is because you don’t have an answer.
You stated that they need explicit permission, and I would like to know how you came to conclude that?
Also, what name are you suggesting he call his site if not “MicrosoftFeed” which seems very fitting for what his site does?
You enjoy playing devil’s advocate, David? Because per your own admission, you are neither a lawyer or an IP attorney.
Please stop leaving the notion that it’s ok to take a famous mark, append a “news”, “feed”, “blog” etc. to it and declare “fair use”.
I’ve already explained why this isn’t fair use.
As of what to call the site, I suggest AliRazaFeed.com – per the name of the Pakistani seller.
Why do I need to be a IP lawyer in order to disagree with you?
You have admitted that you aren’t an IP lawyer, so why the double standard?
I never said it’s always ok. I’m saying that it’s not always infringing to include a trademark string within a domain name (ie. MicrosoftSucks.com, MicrosoftBlows.com, IHateMicrosoft.com, etc.).
Your latest arguments don’t hold any water. This is not a protest site about Microsoft, it’s an article repository monetized and on sale. Try selling a *sucks site and see if you can get away with it, once the party involved with the “protest” finds out.
If you have the slightest interest in law, other than that of a hobbyist commentator you’d realize that aside from being annoying, you’re inaccurate.
Anyone believing this microsoft domain sale isn’t breaking any laws is an idiot..
more :
https://flippa.com/2697382-tap-into-the-growing-netflix-market-with-this-proven-earner-no-work
Remember the urdp against the lexus site that refered buyers to lexus dealers ….. the site owner won the case
@Holidays – Good point. It was actually a court case, and you are correct that the domain owner prevailed despite their using “Lexus” within their domain names:
http://www.thedomains.com/2010/07/11/federal-court-rules-against-toyota-in-domain-case-buy-a-lexus-
com-buyorleaselexus-com/
The domains involved were:
Buy-A-Lexus.com
BuyOrLeaseLexus.com
That’s apples and oranges, David.
But get this….both domains are now in the hands of a legal firm representing Toyota.
I guess that seals it for your arguments.
Lucius – Who cares if Toyota bought the domains afterward?
The court already ruled they are not infringing which is all that matters.
David – you continue throwing in random pseudo-facts. First, Toyota did not buy the domains, its owner let them expire. I wonder why.
Second, the decisions of a prior UDRP don’t establish the status of every future case that “appears” to be similar. I wish that were the case.
Third: While I am not familiar with the Lexus case, it’s the exception to the rule, not the rule.
Lastly, the case with the Microsoft domain could not stand a chance if it reached the Federal Court: the owner is in Pakistan and there is no implicit relationship with Microsoft, e.g. the owner isn’t a Microsoft dealer.
Please refrain from posting “wisdom” when you clearly lack the background to provide qualified facts.