PetaPixel

Yahoo Finally Takes Control of Flicker.com Domain Name

Yahoo Finally Takes Control of Flicker.com Domain Name flickerFive years after acquiring the photo sharing service Flickr, Yahoo has finally obtained ownership of the domain name Flicker.com.

One of the common characteristics of Web 2.0 companies is the use of misspelled words in their name, since the correctly spelled words are typically too pricey for a bootstrapped web startup to purchase early on.

Flickr was one such company, settling for the now ubiquitous name after being unable to purchase Flicker.com.

As you might expect, the enormous popularity of Flickr has led to an absurd amount of traffic for Flicker.com, as people often type in the domain name either as a typo or being ignorant of the “correct” spelling”.

Yahoo Finally Takes Control of Flicker.com Domain Name flickertrafficJust how much traffic, you might ask? Check out the screenshot to the right, showing the traffic detail box shown on the landing page.

The website receives nearly 4 million visits per year from people looking to visit Flickr, and claims to have about $1.2 million in advertising potential per year based on that traffic alone. While the claims do seem a bit iffy, the domain name is clearly valuable despite having no content.

Flicker.com was acquired by Hong Kong business Ashanti for $55,000 in 2006. Back in 2007, Yahoo reportedly offered the owners $600,000, but was turned down.

Yahoo then filed a lawsuit against Ashanti for cybersquatting, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, dilution, and unfair competition. The case was dismissed last week by Yahoo after the parties came to some sort of agreement.

How much do you think Yahoo paid for the domain name in the end?

(via TechCrunch)


 
 
  • http://www.ramsaymacfarlane.com Ramsay

    I reckon it won't have been all that much… $400,000 maybe since the lawsuit had been filed already? another interesting case though, if the settlement wasn't reached out of court, who would have won?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Faizal-Rahman/619335545 Faizal Rahman

    I owned faizalr.com. Should I buy faizaler.com too? LOL

  • http://twitter.com/Jonathan360 Jonathan Nafarrete

    Flicker.com guys would have probably won. Few reasons. Flickr.com was registered in 2003 and Flicker.com was registered in 1998. Yahoo! already made an offer previously. Flicker.com was not misleading or displaying ads to competing sites of Flickr. Done deal. Probably got more than $600k

  • QuBe

    Three things come to mind…

    “Flickr” has now been well established as a brand – the quirky spelling helped to that end. (at least it made me memorize it, because it was so infuriatingly odd.)
    I suppose getting 'flicker' will help collect errant traffic, but if Yahoo wants to rebrand they should do it gradually.

    Secondly, if I met the guy who turned down $600K I'd slap him in the face with giant herring. (I'm not rolling in money, so I find such avarice offensive.) I'm just sayin'…

    Third, beyond all this, wouldn't it make far more sense for a photo sharing site to be called “Clickr” or “Clicker”? Shouldn't the name “Flickr” or “Flicker” be a movie site?

  • JIM

    true it would have been a tough case to win for yahoo since TM infringement is based on the same law that trolls use : FIRST

  • Baby Neyo

    hi
    am Jackson.
    Am a Cameroonian
    and i will love to be your friend
    please contact me on my email address baby.neyo@yahoo.com

  • ASHUTOSH

    yes i also satisfy to your view about flicker.