Hi, what are you looking for?
This case against Starbucks reminds us to brush up on ADA compliance
Can you manage a digital PR strategy on your own?
Is a resume by ChatGPT worth charging for, or too good to be true?
Did you know influencer marketing is actually centuries old?
Mortuary workers denied overtime pay despite working the hours
Study: How do we feel about paying for our social media?
Meet Chatwise, the social media app that gives its creators equity
Reddit user? Here’s a Tweetdeck-esque browser app for you
Meta Oversight Board calls for less ambiguous nudity guidelines
Loophole allowed anyone to bypass Facebook 2FA, Meta confirms
Maybe you don’t know or maybe you do, but Redfin owns Real Estate 2.0 – each and every character, trademarked ®. Which is why when reading this article on Realtor.org featuring our very own Teresa Boardman, I nearly fell out of my chair. The article even goes on to mention our other superstar Daniel Rothamel the Real Estate Zebra, and Agent Genius friend Jeff Turner, but absolutely no mention of Redfin anywhere. I’m just sayin…
REALTOR®
Home prices remain steady, as inventory remains limited, according to Redfin who notes that this winter, we will see a slowdown in the market.
Recently, Redfin launched a new tool to educate homeowners on the pricing process, but the company has now been sued by CoreLogic for violating...
Redfins "Home Price Tool" seeks to empower consumers by giving them more than an automated home value and offering interactivity so homeowners are better...
Home buyers in the market right now are drawn by low prices and interest rates, but express concern over low inventory levels.
Teresa Boardman
February 23, 2008 at 5:11 am
oh so now I am your Teresa Boardman, go figure. 🙂 just kidding, you know I love you all.
Benjamin Bach
February 23, 2008 at 5:21 am
and we all love you !
Benn Rosales
February 23, 2008 at 10:32 am
Teresa, yeah, I’m claiming you today, tomorrow tho, I disavow all knowledge of your existence- this message will self destruct as soon as it rolls off the front page.
All kidding aside, I’m proud, and I mean that in the complete sense of the word to have you here- and Benjamin too.
Ines
February 23, 2008 at 10:41 am
To tell you the truth, I’m ecstatic about Teresa, Daniel and Jeff Turner……don’t care about the rest. It’s great when the good guys get the recognition they deserve!
Ines
February 23, 2008 at 10:53 am
Oh…..and Dustin too! CONGRATS guys!
Jonathan Dalton
February 23, 2008 at 11:20 am
Trademarks aren’t important to NAR. 🙂
Teresa Boardman
February 23, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Oh Benn you are so kind. 🙂
Daniel Rothamel
February 23, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Benn,
This is an incredible observation. It would be interesting to see if anything comes of it. Although, I would expect this coming from someone like yourself who probably has a bit more experience with NAR trademark issues than others. 😉
Since Glen is going to be at Bloodhound Unchained, perhaps we could get an NAR representative to go there and discuss.
Never mind, if Glen, Greg and NAR are in the same room at the same time, I think it might tear a hole in the universe.
Jim Cronin
February 23, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Teresa is mine.
Benn Rosales
February 23, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Jim, which one, she has three personalities ya know… maybe more.
Linda Davis
February 23, 2008 at 3:07 pm
There are 12 Jeff Turners so I’m not surprised one of them got a mention.
Jim Cronin
February 23, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Wouldn’t that be ‘dontcha know’? when speaking of our highness?
Benn Rosales
February 23, 2008 at 3:33 pm
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.
jaybird
February 23, 2008 at 8:24 pm
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.
jason
February 23, 2008 at 9:51 pm
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?
Benn Rosales
February 23, 2008 at 10:26 pm
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.
Mack in Atlanta
February 24, 2008 at 6:51 am
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.
Bob
February 24, 2008 at 10:50 am
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.
Benn Rosales
February 24, 2008 at 12:41 pm
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…
Benn Rosales
February 24, 2008 at 12:49 pm
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.
Bob Wilson
February 24, 2008 at 5:27 pm
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.