On the surface it seems that Motorola is playing the bully and should be smacked.
But why did the writer reg motorazr??? It would be a very strange name to choose unless they had some knowledge of Motorola's plans...
Very simple. It was registered in bad faith.
On top of that, their whois record is completely broken.
We didn't register the domain in bad faith. Bad faith is like trying to make money out motorola or running a scam from the site. We didn't do either. Regarding the whois, that's caused either by the registrar or Motorola had a hand in it. The registrar sent us an email stating all the info in the whois was deleted by someone.
If you're claiming bad faith - what's your definition? And where on the site can you point that out?.
And accentnepal - we had no idea what Motorola's plans were. I don't think they even knew. Otherwise they would have trademarked motorazr and bought the domain name from the get go.
Are you guys aware they don't even own the mark RAZR?!..
I think the whois is just a product of how it's fed from onlinenic.com, it looks OK here. http://www.onlinenic.com/english/whois.php..
Welcome, looklisting, to the discussion. I am sure that you understand that those who are posting here are just interested bystanders - we can do nothing towards helping your case and our opinions do not, in the end, matter at all.
I am curious as to what meaning or purpose you saw in the name when you bought it. But be aware that anything you post here could make it to the arbitration. Things you say on namepros could hurt, but are not likely to help...
Good luck defending that domain name. I'm not optimistic.
Worse comes to worse, duke it out in Court. And you'd better stop mentioning.
About it here as this could hurt the "case"...
If facts are on your side, you will win imho. They have no legal right to take it away from you just because they are motorola. For all we know, they came across your website and decided "hey, that would be cool" and are now trying to steal it from you. If they were wise, they would send you a very generous offer for the domain name to avoid embarrassment. I think you got a strong case. Please keep us posted and I hope for once the small guy chalks up a win!.
As for not talking about it in public forums, I say the more the better but let the facts do the talking...
I think you have a good case- I would certainly pursue both the dates of the trademarks, and also the idea that they may have, in fact, found the name 'motorazr' on your site. One for the lawyers certainly, but if it was me in your situation, I wouldn't give up on this...
That should definitely happen. IMO, you have stated that you regsitered the domain in a fair manner so it should be yours. Some of the the people keep questioning your judgement but they need to take your word for it...
I was in this position with microsoft a couple of months ago. not good at all.
I wish you good luck..
I don't see how this could be reasonably called a reverse hijack it is clear that the domain relates to an established product and is in no way generic. This is clearly a case of squatting, I'm sorry. Whether or not Motorola has an established TM on Razr is beyond the beyond (it would only apply if we were talking about Razr.com...the addendum of Moto (widely used in their advertising) is more than enough to cue off the panel on this one.) Good luck..
I think it's going to come down to the exact time their razr came out and time of reg of domain. If after the fact?????..
RocketFly is right on the money. No question this is a Brand and Product specific domain name. Unless this domain name was created before the concept of the "Razr" you may have a case. If not, I agree. Your going to lose this, and to be honest, what other function would this domain name have other then to redirect traffic or be a parked page? Sorry, I'm not buying it...
I do not understand all the posts talking about facts. I wanted to restrain from posting as I expressed my opinion already. But some posters just do not get it.
Look at this fact:.
As per their own post: Now the registration info: On top of that, their meta: Now, get on it and it's squatting at it's best.
Seems like a perfect case of squatting to me and the fact that they are trying to get sympathy and garner support from the net community only makes it worse. The owner of this domain will find himself losing... And he can claim reverse domain hijacking all he wants, but that doesn't make it so. He should have taken the $1,500 and moved on. Not only is he infringing on their TM, he's actually infringing on two of their TMs.
I agree with gamehouse completely. Their meta tags alone show bad faith. And with the placement of their ads, they might as well not had any to begin with, which may have given them a leg to stand on.....
Cast another vote in the typosquatting column (regged in bad faith).
At first I thought the motivation for posting this was to put forth your motivation for regging it in the first place, thus your claim to have regged it in good faith. "Motor AriZona Racing" or something similar may have been viable enough to try for a decent settlement, but I agree those META tags are the kiss of death - you're obviously trying to profit from their brand and products...
Typical domain squatter is one that buys domains to sell for a jacked up price...this is not the case. We're not interested in selling or otherwise. This isn't about getting sympathy like many of you have claimed. WE DONT BUY AND SELL DOMAINS LIKE 99% OF THE MEMBERS IN THIS FORUM. I've been a member of this forum since 2003 - trace back and see if I've bought or sold a single domain name to any members...
I agree with what has been said above. I don't think these guys will have no chance of winning back this case. Initially I had thought otherwise but following the above mentioned compelling evidence there is no doubt the WIPO decision will boil down to squatting. This guy should have taken the 1.5k and move on! It's bad that he will lose it!..
You're wrong - we don't care about the $1500 like many of you. We rather come out swinging - whether win or lose...
You need to rethink your definition of cybersquatting... Buying and selling domains != squatting. Squatting comes into play when dealing with TM names. You registered a domain that incorporates 2 TMs, Motorola and Razr. It doesn't matter that the Razr TM hadn't been filed when you registered the domain, because it was being used in commerce and therefore is afforded TM protection. You use the terms Motorola and Razr in your site, which shows a bad faith attempt to profit off of the TMs of Motorola.
And yes, it appears like you are trying to gain sympathy by putting the story on your site about how your small site is being bullied by a large corporation. You violated their TM and now you are upset because they are coming after you. You have no rights to the name and I'll bet anyone that you lose...
Obvious squat, stories such as this are bad for the industry. Looklisting clearly has no idea what he is talking about...
We can basically argue 'til we're black and blue this thing's typosquatting or.
Reverse domain hijacking or what have you. But ultimately a dispute resolution.
Provider (especially if handled through Court) will decide.
Just because the facts appear to be on your side doesn't mean the judge will.
See it that way as well...
Bad faith is not necessarily tied to buying or selling. It is tied to "registration or use". whether that use is parking for income, ad sales (even on a forum), or pointing to a competitor of the TM holder.
Also, as previously stated, a TM doesn't have to be filed to be valid if it has been used in commerce. To win, it would likely have to be shown that the registration was before the name was ever used publicly at all, even if before official public release of the product.
There is a very slight chance this could be used in good faith if the registrant/user was an authorized dealer or had permission. I just don't see that as the case here based on the facts presented. I see little chance that it could be proven as generic or that the registrant knew nothing about the product we all know it relates to when registered. Some companies let people get away with this type thing, and others don't. That's the chance you take if you risk registering names of other company's products...
To tell you the truth, I think Motorola is going to have their way, unfortunately. You would have a stronger case if you didn't have Motorola content on the site. If your business name was "Motorazr" and would sell paper goods, then they wouldn't stand a chance. But this is not the case.
You probably were better off taking the 1.5k. Goodluck with the WIPO!..
You guys keep referencing that motorola owns the trademark RAZR - show me? As far as I can find in USPTO.gov - they don't OWN IT!.
6 78226414 2899459 RAZR 2 TARR LIVE.
7 78226395 2855961 RAZR TARR LIVE.
Word Mark RAZR.
Goods and Services IC 012. US 019 021 023 031 035 044. G & S: TIRES; ATV TIRES. FIRST USE: 19961200. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19961200.
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING.
Design Search Code.
Serial Number 78226395.
Filing Date March 17, 2003.
Current Filing Basis 1A.
Original Filing Basis 1A.
Published for Opposition November 11, 2003.
Registration Number 2855961.
Registration Date June 22, 2004.
Owner (REGISTRANT) CHENG SHIN RUBBER USA, INC. CORPORATION GEORGIA 545 OLD PEACHTREE ROAD SUWANEE GEORGIA 300242935.
Attorney of Record Thomas J. Moore.
Type of Mark TRADEMARK.
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE..
Here are the facts straight from the US Trademark office website FAQ They own the Trademark whether they have registered it or not. The TM was filed June 28, 2005. They may have had an unregistered TM well before that.
Also see this: Also, note the description appears to be virtually identical to this TM, possibly indicating they have either purchased rights or have joint ownership with the company that makes Razor scooters which seems to own this one:..
Moved to legal issues.
I'll be interested to see when Motorola will win this one (Note "when" , not "if" ). Not trying to be a Debbie-Downer, but if the owner wanted a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing, he/she should have gone with an attorney. He/she missed major points at issue, and countered instead with a lay-opinion on TM rights and unless the panelist(s) take pity on a weak response and invent some reason to let it stay where it is, this case is, , over.
Mark and Dave (Adoptable and Zaan) are all over this one.
Why doesn't everyone just do what Microsoft does. If they won't give it too you. Buy it from them.
They should have gotten all there extensions before the phone was released. Mind you he will probably lose seeing as how he is advertising Moto Razr content on his site.
Hopefully that's not too late for those intimately involved with the registrant..
If Motorola caught on to this, they've potentially got more books to throw.
At times like these I wish I remember that decision where posting details in an.
Online site resulted in handing the domain name over to the complainant...
I like the replies on NP.. at least most of you guys have some brains behind your thinking.
I read the comments on his page and came up with this as a response:.
To you, your "swinging" looks like a fist fight. To us, you "swinging" looks like your hand, limply swinging into your chest...
In what way is a third party's commercial use of MotoRazr.com "fair" or "legitimate" use in the eyes of the court? In no way shape or form is this close to generic or legitimate. Are there some fights worth fighting? Yes. Is this one of them? Absolutely not. I'm sorry, but you are wasting your time fighting this. A close study of recent WIPO/UDRP decisions shows that the panel will have no trouble deciding this one. Your arguments would only hold water if you were talking about Moto.com or Razr.com the combination of the two clearly points in one direction: "the Panel orders that the domain name <motorazr.com> be transferred to the Complainant "..
Hey dude, you'd better off fix the whois ASAP. They can report it to ICANN and snap it in a few weeks...
Just a clean fact is that one of the things they have is Hello Moto. Which is on the razor which my come into play.
NOt sure if has been satted yet I haven't read whole thread...
Besides all the other posts on this, look at this guy's sig. If that doesn't scream cybersquatter I don't know what else does...