IT.COM

information Razer Upgrades from RazerZone.com to Razer.com: Legal Battle Revealed

Spaceship Spaceship
A leading lifestyle brand for gamers, Razer, has been one of the most popular companies on Crunchbase over the past few years. Having raised a total of $175 million in funding including a $50 million round in May 2017, the company has grown in popularity and now boasts a user base of around 35 million.

Razer managed to acquire the @Razer username for popular social networks such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. However, the company's domain name was the longer RazerZone.com. Until recently, the shorter Razer.com was owned by a Chinese individual with the domain name being used for many years to host a website containing glassware.

Based on our research, it looks as though Razer may have made an attempt to acquire Razer.com via the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre. According to a report from West.cn (China), Razer unsuccessfully tried to acquire the domain by filing a dispute.

In another report on a Chinese forum, it shows that Razer made a 100,000 CNY offer for the domain (around $15,000) in March 2015, before the owner eventually responded with a price of 1.5 million CNY (around $225,000). According to the report, the asking price eventually dropped to 800,000 CNY ($120,000).

It seems that after hearing this price, Razer filed a failed dispute with the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre. The company seems to have initially filed a URS dispute, which failed due to the fact that the URS dispute system doesn't apply to .COM domain names.

Razer went on to file UDRP, which was approved and subsequently resolved in January 2016. According to the report, the domain name was due to be transferred to Razer with the following comment from the panel (translated into English):
...the Group of Experts ruled that Complainant's complaint was established and disputed domain name <razer.com> was transferred to Complainant Razer (Asia-Pacific) Pte Ltd

As a side note, it is concerning, that UDRP case number HK-1500822 isn't available to view on the ADNDRC website.

According to Archive.org, Razer.com hosted the glassware company's website up until September 2017, but on September 16th 2017, a new message was displayed along with several images that weren't archived, unfortunately. Roughly translated, the message reads:

Razer.com, the domain name of this site, is defending its rights through the judicial process. The following is an HK-1500822 Hong Kong arbitration award.

As of November 2017, DomainIQ shows the domain name moved into the possession of Razer (Asia-Pacific) Pte. Ltd, and currently forwards to RazerZone.com.

The transfer of Razer.com to Razer (Asia-Pacific) Pte. Ltd coincides with the company's IPO, in which they raised a total of $500 million.

Thanks to @GeorgeK for his help with this article.
 
Last edited:
13
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Greedy company.They have the money to pay but decided to take a short cut.I'm disappointed with companies like these.They grew big and expect to pay peanut for another man's asset.
 
8
•••
I'm surprised the previous registrant wasn't able to better defend himself? ...What did he do wrong? :S
 
1
•••
Agreed with @Skyvisum This should have been a RDNH ruling imo! Too bad for the original registrant of Razer.com
 
3
•••
What a shame. Add Razer to the list of companies that I'll choose not to interact with as a consumer.
 
5
•••
I can only speculate that the domain may have been used for parking, and was displaying ads related to the RazerZone use in commerce.

If the site was pulled and was discussing a legal battle, and the aforementioned statement was the only content, it just might be that the Razer glass company had taken down their website and parked it previous to the UDRP.

This is one of the major points that I have seen override domain ownership that predates a TM.

If you are parked and not demonstrating any use before a UDRP is filed then it puts you in bad spot for demonstrating use and avoiding a 'bad faith' finding.

Terrible decision for the domain owner, but if you are caught unprepared then this will happen every time - and companies know that now.

Domain owners should know this too, stop parking your valuable property with ads unless it's generic and tailored to avoid TM collision/violation.
 
1
•••
What a shame. Add Razer to the list of companies that I'll choose not to interact with as a consumer.
Wow, you got an incredible portfolio. Yhea...sad how such companies decide to do business, I personally have a Razer headset, it's my 2nd but I'll probably move to philips or sony next year.
 
4
•••
I can only speculate that the domain may have been used for parking, and was displaying ads related to the RazerZone use in commerce.

If the site was pulled and was discussing a legal battle, and the aforementioned statement was the only content, it just might be that the Razer glass company had taken down their website and parked it previous to the UDRP.

This is one of the major points that I have seen override domain ownership that predates a TM.

If you are parked and not demonstrating any use before a UDRP is filed then it puts you in bad spot for demonstrating use and avoiding a 'bad faith' finding.

Terrible decision for the domain owner, but if you are caught unprepared then this will happen every time - and companies know that now.

Domain owners should know this too, stop parking your valuable property with ads unless it's generic and tailored to avoid TM collision/violation.

No parking involved as far as I can tell
 
4
•••
No parking involved as far as I can tell

Bizarre. Looking forward to reading this brief.

Great post James, please update when you come across additional info.
 
0
•••
5
•••
Wow, you got an incredible portfolio. Yhea...sad how such companies decide to do business, I personally have a Razer headset, it's my 2nd but I'll probably move to philips or sony next year.
Thanks. Trying to build it one name at a time :)
 
3
•••
Not clear why the respondent lost the UDRP.
 
1
•••
Interesting article, good info!
 
0
•••
0
•••
I can only speculate that the domain may have been used for parking, and was displaying ads related to the RazerZone use in commerce.

If the site was pulled and was discussing a legal battle, and the aforementioned statement was the only content, it just might be that the Razer glass company had taken down their website and parked it previous to the UDRP.

This is one of the major points that I have seen override domain ownership that predates a TM.

If you are parked and not demonstrating any use before a UDRP is filed then it puts you in bad spot for demonstrating use and avoiding a 'bad faith' finding.

Terrible decision for the domain owner, but if you are caught unprepared then this will happen every time - and companies know that now.

Domain owners should know this too, stop parking your valuable property with ads unless it's generic and tailored to avoid TM collision/violation.

If I own a car and put it in a garage etc and choose to store this car in a garage etc the car would still be mine this day, next year next century etc etc

Just because I done want to use this car every single day does not make this car someone else's property just because they want to buy this car more than I want to sell it eg I refuse to sell it etc

More and more we are seeing no not being no and it will only get worse

Many of us have been about either in the domain name industry or were able to buy a domain name at the start of the domain name industry etc if we either knew about domain names or not etc

But people who were not born until all the good domains were acquired cheaply if not initially for free etc dont like the fact that they can't have everything as sometimes the best version of what they want is owned by someone else and is most definitely Not for sale at any price

And they just can't get their head around it the fact that someone already owns something they want but can't have so they have to resort to other measures

The udrp process should be scrapped as it's being used to take digital property from its rightful owners

The udrp process is effectively a way to get a person what isn't theirs from someone who doesn't want to sell

Oh and so is using lawyers to open past bankruptcy 's etc to get what isn't for sale

Modern society
 
1
•••
should be

With UDRP proceedings, what 'should be' is addressed in the working groups that are held in order to perfect the process.

Using parking links to justify bad faith, and invalidate fair use, is a tactic complainants have in their arsenal.

Domain owners need to be aware of this, and defend themselves by being aware of existing TMs and taking a 'good faith' strategy to avoid confusion.

I don't know if this was the reason for the decision, but typically links to 'similar products' and creation of confusion are reasons why a responding domain owner would lose the domain when the domain was owned before a TM exists and had actual use.

Looking forward to reading the brief.
 
0
•••
IMO, UDRP should be scrapped.
 
0
•••
0
•••
Common sense lol much preferred
 
0
•••
The udrp process should be scrapped as it's being used to take digital property from its rightful owners

The udrp process is effectively a way to get a person what isn't theirs from someone who doesn't want to sell

Lol...
You are only thinking from domainer's point of view. Just try to think from Trademark owner's point of view. I am not talking Razer.com but in general, most UDRP cases are won by the Complainant and if you read those decisions, you will come to the conclusion that most of the times Respondent register domain names which are clearly abusive.

John Berryhill has given a nice explanation here:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/another-udrp-win-by-abdulbasit-com-with-howard-neu.1049114/

I'm not to sure about "usually" in that context. Much of the time they get a domain name that they didn't actually want, but which was perceived to be used for typosquatting, counterfeiting, phishing, etc..

Take a look at the recent pending case list at WIPO, for example:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/casesx/list.jsp?prefix=D&year=2017&seq_min=2200&seq_max=2399

It's "round up domains month" for BASF, and pretty obviously BASF is going to win all 6 of them.

But how do you think these cases are going to go:

D2017-2229 yahoosupporthelp.com
D2017-2230 yahooemailsupportnumber.com
D2017-2231 yahoo-supports.com
D2017-2232 contactyahoocustomerservice.com, yahoo-customer-service.org

or these:

D2017-2248 michelinprize.com
D2017-2249 chinamichelin.com, chinesemichelin.com

Or these ones (with international characters or numbers filling in to make visually confusing names):

D2017-2211 ıĸea.com (Ikea)
D2017-2247 l0real.com (L'oreal)
D2017-2238 stat0il.com (StatOil)

Now, sure, there are a couple of interesting ones on that list (ivi.com, ktg.com), but by and large these are nuisance domain names that these companies don't even want, but go after in order to avoid them being used for illicit purposes. There's no $5000 value to these names. The complainants are spending a good chunk of change to go after names which are clearly abusive and they wouldn't have bothered with, but for the fact that someone registered them and was doing whatever with them.

It's easy to throw around words like "usually", but absent some actual data, it's just a word thrown in for effect, and not based on any actual analysis. One of the depressing things about having been at this for a long time is how supposedly intelligent people of all kinds just casually throw around generalizations which are not based on any actual data.

Of the 51 cases listed there at the time of this post, there are maybe four or five that are "interesting", and a couple of them that are "very interesting", like ivi.com and ktg.com.
 
2
•••
That as may be but it's very naive to think that just because they may not want that particular name because they prefer the domain they use than the domain that may infringe trademark that they don't want etc more often than not the domain that infringes trademark won't just sit on the digital shelf doing cartwheels to occupy itself as it will usually be bought by someone

Filing udrp's for fun is an odds game in as much as it's only a matter of time before a person files a udrp against someone that knows their mustard in the domain name industry and the trademark sector of law and fancies playing the udrp filer at their own game for a laugh just to watch the udrp filer back peddle their way out of a situation they instigated whilst paying significant legal fees and compensation in the process - all good fun

Udrp's are a two way street

You may go in to the street thinking you are the biggest vehicle in the street only to find a bigger vehicle tan you that you have to give way to

Such is life
 
0
•••
If you are parked and not demonstrating any use before a UDRP is filed then it puts you in bad spot for demonstrating use and avoiding a 'bad faith' finding.

...

Domain owners should know this too, stop parking your valuable property with ads unless it's generic and tailored to avoid TM collision/violation.

You capture an important point in there.

Too often, there is "park"/"don't park" advice, which is too simple.

Parking a domain name with content related to the generic/descriptive aspects of the domain name is a legitimate use of the domain name.

It's not a question of whether the domain name is or is not parked. It's a question of HOW it is parked.
 
2
•••
Back