Comments on: Realtor.org in Hot Water? http://agbeat.com/editorials/realtors/realtororg-in-hot-water/ News, insights, tools, and inspiration for business owners and professionals Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:13:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Bob Wilson http://agbeat.com/editorials/realtors/realtororg-in-hot-water/#comment-4854 Bob Wilson Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:27:34 +0000 http://agentgenius.com/?p=1290#comment-4854 Benn, no doubt that the omission was deliberate and goes to support the case that it is an indefensible mark. NAR would love to see Redfin take them on over this. I don't think Redfin would do it as the mark is not worth what it would cost them to defend it, unless they believe it would be a fair trade for the PR. Benn, no doubt that the omission was deliberate and goes to support the case that it is an indefensible mark. NAR would love to see Redfin take them on over this. I don’t think Redfin would do it as the mark is not worth what it would cost them to defend it, unless they believe it would be a fair trade for the PR.

]]> By: Benn Rosales http://agbeat.com/editorials/realtors/realtororg-in-hot-water/#comment-4849 Benn Rosales Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:49:57 +0000 http://agentgenius.com/?p=1290#comment-4849 Also, I haven't seen the actual magazine, there may be a note in it about the trademark and no one has actually said it's a violation. My larger point was Redfin didn't even get a mention and they actually own the trademark. Also, I haven’t seen the actual magazine, there may be a note in it about the trademark and no one has actually said it’s a violation. My larger point was Redfin didn’t even get a mention and they actually own the trademark.

]]> By: Benn Rosales http://agbeat.com/editorials/realtors/realtororg-in-hot-water/#comment-4847 Benn Rosales Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:41:37 +0000 http://agentgenius.com/?p=1290#comment-4847 Bob, I agree in that I do not believe Redfin should have ever been allowed to trademark it, but they (Redfin) actually do persue it. I provided in the post a link to an actual c&d from Redfin legal. How it would turn out if actually pursued in court, who knows, you may be right. None the less, I think think the whole issue of trademark and the NAR is notable, but in the long/short of things, is it really has no bearing on any of our daily lives. Unless this misstep gives Redfin another year of publicity off the backs of the rest of the association- then it becomes a problem regardless of the outcome. Big bad NAR against little ol'Redfin... Bob, I agree in that I do not believe Redfin should have ever been allowed to trademark it, but they (Redfin) actually do persue it. I provided in the post a link to an actual c&d from Redfin legal. How it would turn out if actually pursued in court, who knows, you may be right. None the less, I think think the whole issue of trademark and the NAR is notable, but in the long/short of things, is it really has no bearing on any of our daily lives. Unless this misstep gives Redfin another year of publicity off the backs of the rest of the association- then it becomes a problem regardless of the outcome. Big bad NAR against little ol’Redfin…

]]> By: Bob http://agbeat.com/editorials/realtors/realtororg-in-hot-water/#comment-4845 Bob Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:50:54 +0000 http://agentgenius.com/?p=1290#comment-4845 The trademark issue regarding real estate 2.0 is laughable. If anyone had challenged it during the the publication period, it would never have been granted. The USPTO has long been criticized for granting marks that can't be successfully defended. Redfin has not done anything notable to protect the mark and it would be lost the minute someone wants to spend the money to challenge it. The trademark issue regarding real estate 2.0 is laughable. If anyone had challenged it during the the publication period, it would never have been granted. The USPTO has long been criticized for granting marks that can’t be successfully defended. Redfin has not done anything notable to protect the mark and it would be lost the minute someone wants to spend the money to challenge it.

]]> By: Mack in Atlanta http://agbeat.com/editorials/realtors/realtororg-in-hot-water/#comment-4836 Mack in Atlanta Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:51:42 +0000 http://agentgenius.com/?p=1290#comment-4836 Has anyone else noticed a trend by NAR. In this article it is the use if the term Real Estate 2.0 and they want to prohibit REALTORS from using the term MLS in any URL of the agents sites. BTW, MLS is owned by Major League Soccer. Just another observation. Has anyone else noticed a trend by NAR. In this article it is the use if the term Real Estate 2.0 and they want to prohibit REALTORS from using the term MLS in any URL of the agents sites. BTW, MLS is owned by Major League Soccer. Just another observation.

]]> By: Benn Rosales http://agbeat.com/editorials/realtors/realtororg-in-hot-water/#comment-4793 Benn Rosales Sun, 24 Feb 2008 04:26:55 +0000 http://agentgenius.com/?p=1290#comment-4793 Jason, it's set to distribute for March in print, that way if you're ever referencing the mag you won't find the march issue in February. Jason, it’s set to distribute for March in print, that way if you’re ever referencing the mag you won’t find the march issue in February.

]]> By: jason http://agbeat.com/editorials/realtors/realtororg-in-hot-water/#comment-4791 jason Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:51:27 +0000 http://agentgenius.com/?p=1290#comment-4791 This is the second time I've seen this ®EALTOR.org page referenced today - which says "This article was published on: 03/01/2008" - yet I haven't noticed this article before, or any other blogs mentioning it. Maybe I missed it back on January 3rd (or is this March 1st?), but I think I would have noticed this article - or someone I subscribe to - would have blogged about it. Is the publish date weird on the R®.org site? This is the second time I’ve seen this ®EALTOR.org page referenced today – which says “This article was published on: 03/01/2008″ – yet I haven’t noticed this article before, or any other blogs mentioning it. Maybe I missed it back on January 3rd (or is this March 1st?), but I think I would have noticed this article – or someone I subscribe to – would have blogged about it. Is the publish date weird on the R®.org site?

]]> By: jaybird http://agbeat.com/editorials/realtors/realtororg-in-hot-water/#comment-4789 jaybird Sun, 24 Feb 2008 02:24:13 +0000 http://agentgenius.com/?p=1290#comment-4789 The observation is hilarious! I can't believe I'm going to miss unchained (new baby due that week). I'll listen to the CDs though. The observation is hilarious! I can’t believe I’m going to miss unchained (new baby due that week). I’ll listen to the CDs though.

]]> By: Benn Rosales http://agbeat.com/editorials/realtors/realtororg-in-hot-water/#comment-4777 Benn Rosales Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:33:37 +0000 http://agentgenius.com/?p=1290#comment-4777 Well, that's the problem, which accent are we speaking to when discussing the Queen? I think I heard her curse Lani out in Tibetan the other day over the phone, 5 minutes later she called back and finished singing Lani a lullaby in German. It really is hard to keep up. That's the T mystique- you just never know. I think I want the T in the red hat. Well, that’s the problem, which accent are we speaking to when discussing the Queen? I think I heard her curse Lani out in Tibetan the other day over the phone, 5 minutes later she called back and finished singing Lani a lullaby in German. It really is hard to keep up. That’s the T mystique- you just never know.

I think I want the T in the red hat.

]]> By: Jim Cronin http://agbeat.com/editorials/realtors/realtororg-in-hot-water/#comment-4776 Jim Cronin Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:11:46 +0000 http://agentgenius.com/?p=1290#comment-4776 Wouldn't that be 'dontcha know'? when speaking of our highness? Wouldn’t that be ‘dontcha know’? when speaking of our highness?

]]>