FleshLight affiliates becareful.

[EmporerEJ]

Personally, I think it's more about their trademark, and the dilution of the trademark. Sounds like they hired a good IP lawyer, as well as good marketing people.
They've also been very litigious in the arena of any flashlight shaped (And the REALLY stretch the term "flashlight shaped.") personal Jack off device.

Again, the IP attorney working their "patent" in this regard.
The future is about owning, and suing for IP rights.

This is nothing new.......it's just the industry eating its own now, instead of some outside company like Acacia.

Ask AEBN.

[Rcourt64]

Attachment 466

[will76]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Personally, I think it's more about their trademark, and the dilution of the trademark. Sounds like they hired a good IP lawyer, as well as good marketing people.
They've also been very litigious in the arena of any flashlight shaped (And the REALLY stretch the term "flashlight shaped.") personal Jack off device.

Again, the IP attorney working their "patent" in this regard.
The future is about owning, and suing for IP rights.

This is nothing new.......it's just the industry eating its own now, instead of some outside company like Acacia.

Ask AEBN.

Simply put, you are 100% wrong. If this was about "protecting their trademark" then 1. they wouldn't have been allowing affiliates to do this for 6 years, having given them permission to do so. 2. they could have taken ownership of the domain, but left the site up so the affiliate could still make sales from the traffic.

Not to mention by publicly stating that affiliates could do this several years ago and allowing it, I am pretty sure they would have no case now if they tried to sue those affiliates for trademark violations.

This was simply Fleshlight not wanting to pay out on sales that they felt they could still make themselves if they removed the affiliate (site/domain) from the equation.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by will76

Simply put, you are 100% wrong. If this was about "protecting their trademark" then 1. they wouldn't have been allowing affiliates to do this for 6 years, having given them permission to do so. 2. they could have taken ownership of the domain, but left the site up so the affiliate could still make sales from the traffic.

Not to mention by publicly stating that affiliates could do this several years ago and allowing it, I am pretty sure they would have no case now if they tried to sue those affiliates for trademark violations.

This was simply Fleshlight not wanting to pay out on sales that they felt they could still make themselves if they removed the affiliate (site/domain) from the equation.

Well, I'm not 100% wrong.
They might be doing what you say, I don't know. I don't have an insight into their minds, nor would I defend them, if I did.
But I am right about them being litigious, and winning. And I'm afraid you're wrong on the trademark thing.
They can assert their trademark rights at any time. And regardless of "what they did in the past," they can stop it tomorrow.
I'll bet they'll even get away at snatching people's commissions. "Right," and "Wrong," got nothing to do with it.