DISQUS

Joel Burslem · 3 years ago

Nice detective work guys! I'm going to update my post on the subject with your findings.

Love the new look by the way.

sellsius° · 3 years ago

joel - thanks! while researching some juicy stories, we still have not had time to finalize the header image, etc......

-rudy°

Larry Cragun · 3 years ago

Is the president of RedFin audacious or stupid:? I vote the S word.

Christine · 3 years ago

Wow.. I am thinking that Redfin is going to feel a bit stupid today. Those big bully's trying to rough up the "new kid"... Tsk.. Tsk..

Kevin · 3 years ago

Great work! Somebody didn't do their homework...

Roberta Murphy · 3 years ago

With a newer, improved version, perhaps I could market and/or register Real Estate 2.1--and let some competitor pick up on the 2.2 and 2.3 versions. You get the idea.

Talk about painting a target on yourself!

Chris Guldi · 3 years ago

You guys are great at finding out where something first appeared. Did Redfin even coin the phrase “Real Estate 2.0″? Google has about 101,000 results for the term.

Jim Lee · 3 years ago

Even if Redfin has applied for a patent I don't beleive it will be granted because it's too generic and in common usage already.

That's one of the reasons NAR couldn't trademark "MLS", it was already in common usage before anyone thought of it.

I may change my blog to www.RealEstate2.0124555.com. NOT. ;-)

REBlogGirl · 3 years ago

Great work guys. I was completely appalled at RedFin for their actions. First, whether the post was good or bad they should have been pleased that Real Estate 2.0 took the time to make a critique of their service. What's that saying- any news is good news. We get slammed on blogs all the time and all it does is let us know where we need to improve. If you are not willing to listen to the criticism and improve your product you don't belong in this business! Secondly, trade marketing a term so generic/obvious and going after a "small-fish" like RE 2.0 are the works of a petty company that is struggling to keep its head above water. Thirdly, from an ethical stand point, going after someone for a violation of a trademark you don't even have, makes me question their other business practices. This was nothing more than a case study in corporate confusion. Who is running RedFin anyway? Cheech and Chong?

sellsius° · 3 years ago

Hi REBlog Girl
We think it was a matter of having a layman doing a job meant for a lawyer. A lawyer would have wrote the letter properly. Unfortunately, it was not cleared with legal & the person who sent the letter did not realize he was using a legal term of art "registered". We just felt bad for blogger 2.0 & wanted to set the record straight.
Thanks for commenting.

Carson · 2 years ago

Why would they even attempt to claim such a broad term in the first place...

Club Penguin Cheats · 1 month ago

You guys are great at finding out where something first appeared. Did Redfin even coin the phrase “Real Estate 2.0″? Google has about 101,000 results for the term.

jfsellsius · 1 month ago

Right. Don't think they coined the phrase. Google could prove that.