Motorola resorts to reverse domain hijacking of motorazr.com

[antman]

Think back to May 2004, when Motorola launched the first RAZR phone. Do you recall the company ever using the name or term MOTORAZR? I sure don’t, and that is because they hadn’t.

To make a long story short, Motorola is trying to use a legal tactic to take away what is rightfully ours – the mobile phone news site .

It seems that a person who reg'd Motorazr before Motorola did is getting in a bit of trouble by the big company.

Another example of giant firms taking out the smaller ones.



An interesting read - Click here

 

[accent]

This trademark did not exist until their initial filing date of June 28, 2005, and it was not awarded to them until November 11, 2006. With those dates in mind, and knowing that we created motorazr.com in July, 28, 2004, how could our site infringe upon a mark that was non-existent nearly 11 months before, when the site was first created?

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.

 

[gamehouse]

Very simple. It was registered in bad faith.

On top of that, their whois record is completely broken.

GH

 

[looklisting]

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?!

Very simple. It was registered in bad faith.

On top of that, their whois record is completely broken.

GH

 

[robertjr]

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

 

[accent]

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?!

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.

 

[Dave_Z]

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".

 

[Broker]

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.

 

[gingeman]

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.

 

[BurninDragon08]

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.

 

[kev]

i was in this position with microsoft a couple of months ago. not good at all
I wish you good luck

 

[Keynes]

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

 

[Broker]

I think its going to come down to the exact time their razr came out and time of reg of domain. If after the fact?????

 

[Spade]

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, im not buying it.

 

[gamehouse]

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:

Think back to May 2004, when Motorola launched the first RAZR phone. Do you recall the company ever using the name or term MOTORAZR? I sure don’t, and that is because they hadn’t.

Now the registration info:

ICANN Registrar: ONLINENIC, INC.
Created: 29-Jul-2004
Expires: 29-Jul-2008
Registrar Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
Whois Server: whois.OnlineNIC.com
Name Server: NS2.SERVE3.COM

On top of that, their meta:

Meta Description: motoRAZR - Motorola Community & Resource
Meta Keywords: motoRAZR - Motorola Community & Resource

Now, get on it and its squatting at its best.

GH

 

[Ronald Regging]

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...

 

[bocanames]

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.

 

[looklisting]

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.

 

[sgarbi]

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!

 

[looklisting]

You're wrong - we don't care about the $1500 like many of you. We rather come out swinging - whether win or lose.

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!