FleshLight affiliates becareful.

[Will76]

After making claims in the past that it is ok to use the name "fleshlight" in your url when promoting their affiliate program, they recently have been contacting affiliates and threatening to not pay them unless they transferred ownership of that domain to FleshLight.

One such case played out in this thread on GFY: which is now locked (Fleshlight is an advertiser there, big surprise).

In the past FNCash has said:

There was also some confusion about the use of fleshlight being in your domain name. To clarify, we are NOT stopping the use of fleshlight domain names, and any affiliate who has a site with the fleshlight name in it does NOT need to shut it down.

Source: GFY

So as recent as a couple years ago they were publicly stating it was ok to go register a domain name with fleshlight in it, spend your time and money promoting and seo that domain and when you get to the point where you making good money from it they suddenly change their minds. Not only do they change their mind that it is not ok to use "Fleshlight" in your domain but they want you to transfer ownership of *your* domain over to them, thus killing your revenue stream and all your hard work. On top of that, they hold your check hostage, and wont pay you monies owed until you complete the transfer of the domain to them and they want you to do immediately!

What do you think, bullshit or ok to pull this?

IMO, since they gave the ok to do this and have been accepting this traffic for years... and now they *claim* they need to protect their trademark all of a sudden, then a good compromise would have been to have the domain ownership transferred to FNCash. However, Fleshlight could have allowed the affiliate to leave his site in place, with his referral links on it so he could still get credit for the sales and not lose all of his hard work and time. After all, if they were only worried about protecting their trademark what I just mentioned would have been a good solution/compromise for everyone involved. Although it is very apparent that their object was more than just trademark protection but to eliminate paying a lot of affiliate sales.

Keep in mind this is the same company with a checkered past of having advertised on several of the biggest tube sites on the net from day one, when most of which will filled with stolen content. They finally addressed that subject a couple years back and claimed their policy would be changed to only advertising on tube sites that respond to dmca notices, ha like that makes much of a difference to the companies who's content is stolen and posted to these sites on a daily basis. Their ads also still fly on tube sites that contain bestiality and even worst content, as recent as of today.

Top notch stand up company. :2c:

[nickbaer]

I believe that putting someone else's name in a domain name is related to domain name cyber squatting. Trademarked or not.

Don't do it. The name doesn't belong to you. There are plenty of precedents.

I won such a case in 1999.

[Will76]

I believe that putting someone else's name in a domain name is related to domain name cyber squatting. Trademarked or not.

Don't do it. The name doesn't belong to you. There are plenty of precedents.

I won such a case in 1999.

you obviously either are clueless or didn't read what I posted. The affiliate program told their affiliates it was ok to do. That has absolutely nothing to do with "cyber squatting".

[HunkyLuke]

I agree with Nick on this one, its a company's right to protect its trademarked name. In this particular case, its unfortunate that their change in policy lead to some affiliates having to shut their trademark-infringement sites, but affiliates have to remember that decisions like this are done for a reason (usually legal).

And most importantly, affiliates have to remember that program owners are just that! They own the program, the trademarks, the products, etc and have the right at any time to change affiliate terms and conditions, especially when its done in order to protect their name.

As per your final comments about their ads running on sites with "bestiality and even worst content", I think you should bring the URLs directly to the attention of the company for them to take actions. I am sure that they would take swift action, but if they don't, then its time to start posting proof so that other affiliates can decide if they want to associate with FNCash. But without proof, that accusation is nothing more than slander.

cheers
Luke

[PFLJayden]

I agree with Nick on this one, its a company's right to protect its trademarked name. In this particular case, its unfortunate that their change in policy lead to some affiliates having to shut their trademark-infringement sites, but affiliates have to remember that decisions like this are done for a reason (usually legal).

And most importantly, affiliates have to remember that program owners are just that! They own the program, the trademarks, the products, etc and have the right at any time to change affiliate terms and conditions, especially when its done in order to protect their name.

As per your final comments about their ads running on sites with "bestiality and even worst content", I think you should bring the URLs directly to the attention of the company for them to take actions. I am sure that they would take swift action, but if they don't, then its time to start posting proof so that other affiliates can decide if they want to associate with FNCash. But without proof, that accusation is nothing more than slander.

cheers
Luke

It's everyone's right to protect their trademark. We are trademarked. We also copyright each and every one of our films. Even our brand names as well as our founder "stage names" are trademarked. We fight these very strongly. We have given leighway to some in the past with expressed written permission to where the discussion was communicated between us and he through emails. He then had to mail us a copy of the requests, we mailed him an approval letter.

Another incident was that a philipenes guy bought a domain with one of our director's stage name as the domain. We shared our trademark information with Godaddy, the domain was seized.

Another incident is one of our first studio lines was Sebastian Sloane Productions. Another company came out with a production studio which I will not name but was very similar. We spoke to the individual, again provided him with our trademark information and he handed us over the domain name and to be nice, we bought and paid for a domain for him - paid the first year and then transferred the domain from us to him. Due to his marketing already with the domain, we setup a forward. Later, we discovered he continued using that domain URL to promote himself, we quick redirected the domain to us.

If you owned the domain and were working on it such as HunkMoney.com, another guy came out with HunkMoney.net and ran it as an affiliate program, wouldn't that upset you? Wouldn't you want to fight that?

I do not believe they are doing anything wrong.

What they are doing is asking the domain owner to overturn it and they explain to the domain owner how they are violating either the trademark or TOS. If the owner does not overturn the domain, they have every right to keep the money which I believe would be legal and would cause the domain owner an inconvenience.

FN Cash / ILF is not a piece of crap company. They respect their affiliates, companies they sponsor, the models, etc. They will respect you as long as you respect them as any individual would want.

[Vendzilla]

What worked in the past don't always work in the present, I would be more concerned if an affiliate program didn't make changes as time went on

[nickbaer]

you obviously either are clueless or didn't read what I posted. The affiliate program told their affiliates it was ok to do. That has absolutely nothing to do with "cyber squatting".

I think there's the matter of evaluating the validity and credibility of WHO told affiliates that they could do WHAT with the company name in affiliate owned Domain Names... and then the underlying matter of using someone else's name as though it was yours in the first place.

As for the former, unless I had a signed contract, signed and dated by the CEO and their corporate counsel, I would't head out to "buy the Brooklyn Bridge" - I mean buy a Domain Name with someone else's name in it.

As for the latter, well, it just isn't legal, no matter WHO said it was - short of the CEO and legal counsel.

Typically, sales people will say anything, and dodge responsibility later.