web analytics
BODIS

Smart sale of Flowers.mobi has Domainers scratching their heads in amazement

The much publicized acquisition of Flowers.mobi by Rick Schwartz for $200,000 in 2006 isn’t quite as big, as the news of its sale at TRAFFIC South Beach for a mere $6,500.

Some domainers haven’t smelled the roses yet.

In just 4 years, the domain Flowers.mobi depreciated 96.75% by being sold for $6,500 to a guy that signs off as “Anunt” on various blogs.

In his own words, Anunt stated:

Yup…i’m the idiot that bid $6,500 for flowers.mobi

Did i get a good price??? Better than paying $200k…LOL

LOL…go ahead and laugh at me…no problem!!!

Don’t know what the hell i’m going to do with it…

Probably plant a seed…and wait 5 years until flowers bloom…LOL

What Anunt didn’t realize is that Rick Schwartz is laughing all the way to the bank.

By selling Flowers.mobi at this price, Rick Schwartz will be getting a hefty cut off his record earnings this year, when tax season arrives in March.

In other words, the $193,500 loss will be counted against the profit from the large sales that Rick Schwartz achieved in 2010.

With “Flowers” being a trademark and in direct competition with Flowers.com, Rick Schwartz is essentially dropping a dead weight and immediately gains great financial relief.

Once again, you can’t fool the Domain King.


Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Copyright © 2020 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.

Comments

31 Responses to “Smart sale of Flowers.mobi has Domainers scratching their heads in amazement”
  1. cONfUSEd? says:

    Hate to spill da beans, but did a little pokin around and it turns out that the infamous Mr “Anunt” is just an anagram for “An Nut” and really Mr Kings alter ego. So essentially Mr King just did his usual flummoxing and sold the domain back to himself.

  2. Lucius "Guns" Fabrice says:

    cONfUSEd? – Somehow I can’t picture Rick saying “LOL” three times in the same paragraph, so I seriously doubt that’s the case.

  3. A lot of losing trades get rationalized away as “tax loss selling”.

    Now that I think about it, in the case of domain names it might not even work. Hard to say depending on jurisdiction and structure of the entity.

    By way of example, in Canada, losses of this type can only be carried forward to offset future capital gains. But if an entity routinely sells domain names, they may be deemed “in the business of selling domain names”, and thus their profits from sales would be deemed earnings, or income instead of capital gains.

    You wouldn’t be able to use this type of loss to offset other gains if they those gains were being treated as income.

  4. Lucius "Guns" Fabrice says:

    Mark, the type of loss vs. gain works fine in the US, particularly when an entity routinely buys and sells domain names.

    While one cannot utilize an absolute loss – it does get carried forward if that were the case – the overall earnings would be lowered by a substantial loss such as this one.

    Capital gains would be imposed on the total, thus lowering the absolute amount of tax. It’s all about Schedule C 😀

  5. cONfUSEd? says:

    Confucious Say: Man who cut self while shaving, lose face.

  6. tricolorro says:

    “With “Flowers” being a trademark… ”

    I see your still smoking that illegal stuff.

    🙂

  7. DTalk says:

    @ cONfUSEd? ….Hahahahhahaha…

    …Confucious also say: ‘Man that saves face with tax loss buys very expensive face’.

  8. Anunt says:

    Lucius, you guys are funny as hell at domaingang…keep up the good work!

    Is that pic of monkeys a coincidence…or did you guys know that my avatar pic is a monkey?

    LOL…keep up the good work, Lucius!

  9. Lucius "Guns" Fabrice says:

    Tric – There’s no smoke without fire.mobi 😀 Or something like that.

    DTalk – Nobody can avoid death and taxes but taxes at least can be lowered 😉

    Anunt – Long time, no see 😀 Of course the choice of picture was intentional. Nothing is coincidental in the land of Domaining!

  10. Francois says:

    He bought domaining history, this has no price!

  11. chris says:

    i just think in life its good to take a step sideways sometimes, also good to take a step back.
    every countries tax laws are different and sometimes taking a loss is a good thing in the bigger picture.

    Francois was right ‘he has a slice of domaining history’

    @Anunt……. cool monkey she looks familiar (tell my mum to come home) 😛

  12. Obangi says:

    Annut,
    I thought your avatar was a reaction shot of Don King, when he found out how much you paid for Flowers.mobi

  13. Henry says:

    I do not see at all the trademark being a problem! Have you done a trademark search on the word flowers? There are 1,458 live trademarks and there are many trademarks with the word “flowers” so the new owner can trademark it as Flowers.mobi and get the trademark!

  14. Henry says:

    Also I see that Flowers.com is 1-800-Flowers which owns the trademark 1-800-flowers. The Flowers.net is another company and also Flowers.org. So all would have problems with a trademark on the word “flowers” which they are not having.

  15. Lucius "Guns" Fabrice says:

    Henry – What the new owner can or cannot do with regards to trademarks is irrelevant; what is relevant, however, is that “flowers” is a registered mark. The mere existence of one such mark – let alone 1500 – is a valid basis to file a UDRP.

  16. Henry says:

    Lucius,
    I do not agree with you! The word “flowers” in the http://www.uspto.gov search has many trademarks and would not work in the UDRP basis as there are to many Flowers websites like Flowers.com, .net and .org owned by three companies. Also can you give me the trademark registered number so I can look it up.

  17. tricolorro says:

    “‘…flowers” is a registered mark'”

    Only in your imagination, Lucius.

    Please see this report:

    “Marijuana can cause brain damage

    New ground-breaking research shows long-term, heavy cannabis use causes significant brain abnormalities resulting in psychotic symptoms and memory loss equivalent to that of patients with a mild traumatic brain injury.”

    http://snurl.com/brain-damage

  18. The very first few words my Engineering economies professor said was
    if you lose loose less, if gain gain maximum.

    One of the few things I remember from my Engineering.

    Looks like Rick know how to apply that in Real Life.

    .mobi is gone – Just Gain on the Taxes..

  19. Lucius "Guns" Fabrice says:

    Henry – You can’t expect me to do your homework now, seriously?

    Tric – Unfortunately I don’t partake in the recreational use of the aforementioned shrub.

    DoD – While the woman’s heart is an abyss, the man’s brain is a bottomless pit.

  20. It’s hard to imagine Ricky making a mistake and selling a domain like that at a loss. If he did I don’t think he would ever admit it and let othes spculate that of course he knows something we don’t, like .mobi is going to go away and die, since it’s parents should have used protecting in the first place…

    The idea that someone would sell at a loss to get a tax break is unlikly or even crazy in my opinion. You can donate to a charity and keep your domain. Granted there may be limits on donations, but if Rick is going his own taxes I would be surprised, and a good tax person can suggest many options without losing money like that.

    My feeling is that someone realized that it’s a losing investment and just wanted to unload it, but I would think they could have gotten more than that for it. After all, there is a domainer born every minute… 🙂

  21. Lucius "Guns" Fabrice says:

    But Chris, the fact remains that it was purchased for $200,000 and was sold for $6,500 – so intentions aside, the tax benefits are there 😉

  22. I have read so much negative comments regarding domaining by Anunt (esp against Rick Schwartz). I couldn’t understand why he bid over $6,000 for this domain if he is so much negative against domaining.

  23. Henry says:

    Lucius,

    Why is giving me a trademark registration number my homework? You are the one that is saying that there is a trademark on the word flowers which is no were to be found on http://www.uspto.gov search!

    You are the one that really needs to get serious about your facts.

    So I do not think there is any trademark at all for the word “flowers”. I really do not know were you got that one from but when you make a post please have the facts ready to prove what you are posting PLEASE!!.

  24. Lucius "Guns" Fabrice says:

    Henry – Hey now buddy, don’t turn your panties into a g-string! Looks like you have some issues with self control.

    Try to calm down and then come back to talk about trademarks and the like.

  25. Anunt says:

    if there is a sale going on for over 95% OFF the original price…off course, i’m going to jump on it…easy money!!!

    Downside maximum risk…i lose $6,500…no big deal
    Upside potential…huge…very huge!!!

  26. M. Menius says:

    No company could successfully claim exclusive trademark rights to the generic word “flowers” when that is their source of commerce. More specifically, Flowers.com could never successfully take Flowers.xxx via UDRP or Federal court.

  27. Lucius "Guns" Fabrice says:

    Anunt – I like the way you’re thinking 😀 A win-win situation for buyer and seller.

    M.Menius – That’s wrong, unfortunately. For the same class, e.g. sale of flowers, the tm holders and owners of a primary TLD can most definitely attempt to gain a secondary TLD (in this case, .mobi) if it were competitors in the same field. Try starting apple.gr as a computer store and see what I mean.

  28. coberver says:

    200K WAS high back then for …flowers?
    Maybe for an important keyword, it would have been acceptable, at best.

    anunt, i think you bought a big lemon.

  29. Jason says:

    its too bad really. Had 1800flowers gotten the domain in the first place they could of created a first class site that might of helped mobi gain some ground. i spent 10k on landrush mobi’s and didn’t have the sense to sell them right away. could of turned them into 100k judging by similar sales at the time but no…

  30. Yester says:

    More than a great deal Anunt!!! To all no-sayers/domainers: expect the unexpected. Will the smartphone be bigger than the PC? History (2000) will repeat itself…guaranteed.

  31. Ms Domainer says:

    *

    I believe that M.Menius is correct, at least in U.S. trademark law.

    “Flowers” could be trademarked to sell software (like Apple is trademarked to sell computers), but not to sell flowers.

    Flowers is a pure generic term and when it’s used as a descriptive term for the business, then arguing for and defending a trademark could prove to be problematic (if not nearly impossible).

    Of course, one never knows what a UDRP panel would decide…so erratic lately!

    Apple uses a generic word for its brand, but if they were selling apples (instead of computers), then Apple probably would not have been granted a trademark.

    According to Domain Name News, “One cannot obtain a figurative trademark, for example, in ‘Cars’ to sell automobiles and seek to ‘recover’ the domain cars.com because the dominant element of the mark is ‘cars’. A Panel considering such a claim would effectively recognize a trademark right that is prohibited by law.”

    For more, see http://www.domainnamenews.com/featured/continued-expansion-trademarks-cyberspace/4757

    So, apparently, trying to claim the TLD in a descriptive (and generic) domain as part of the trademark application will not fly either.

    *

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available