Motorola VS MotoRazr.com - The verdict is in. (UDRP)

[-db-]

Three aspects of Motorola’s complaint were ruled on: that the domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which they have rights; that we, the current owners of MOTORAZR.com, had neither rights nor legitimate interests in the domain, and that we had registered and used it in “bad faith”.

Motorola lost. Read about it here.

 

[Dave_Z]

I liked the respondent's section where it simply said:

Respondent denies these allegations.

That's simple for you.

Probably the main reason why the Complainant lost:

Simply put, despite having been expressly invited to do so by the Panel, Complainant has failed to either allege or prove a date of first use of the MOTORAZR mark, and has not otherwise provided information allowing the Panel to conclude that the Respondent was at the time of the registration of the Domain Name aware of Complainant’s alleged likely future use of such mark.

All in all lucky, despite having posted here about it. Congrats on the win. :D

Now hopefully Motorola won't sue in Court...

 

[Jeffrey]

MOTORAZR.com was registered in 2004, but Motorola's Motorazr was in 2005.

I think Motorola's argument that any word that starts with MOTO is their trademark which i find it baseless.

 

[MikeBigg]

I remember reading through a thread on this:

http://www.namepros.com/legal-issue...esorts-reverse-domain-hijacking-motorazr.html

and thought at the time there was no way that could be successfully defended.

I still think that - if Motorola had got its act together I thik the domain owner would have lost the domain.

Lucky win!

Mike

 

[stscac]

Just reading what -db- wrote in the thread, I was shocked.

By after reading the full details, it became clear. :D

:p

-Steve

 

[slipondajimmy]

Its great to see that in this case the giant was not able to win

 

[stscac]

Its great to see that in this case the giant was not able to win

I think Motorola should have won, but only if they did their homework.

"Moto" was used in their "Hello Moto" campaign significantly and RAZR is probably one of their largest selling phones. As you can see the name infringes on two trademarks, both of Motorola.

-Steve

 

[labrocca]

Now that's how to defend a UDRP!

 

[Dave_Z]

Now that's how to defend a UDRP!

Especially when people don't lose their heads.

 

[labrocca]

Interesting to note that if the domain was parked...I believe they would have lost it. Another message to you parking domainers with questionable names. Build it and they will come isn't just a phrase in a movie...it's something every domainer should live by.

 

[-db-]

Just reading what -db- wrote in the thread, I was shocked.

I wanted to build-up a little suspense for you.

 

[Smith]

This illustrates exactly what is wrong with the urdp process.

When things don't go in favor of a domainer all we see are posts calling the urdp process unfair and corrupt etc, in cases like this where the defendant should have lost we should be saying the same thing.

How can we possibly have any ground to stand on when we are only looking out for our interests and not fighting for a balanced and fair process.

 

[labrocca]

This illustrates exactly what is wrong with the urdp process.

When things don't go in favor of a domainer all we see are posts calling the urdp process unfair and corrupt etc, in cases like this where the defendant should have lost we should be saying the same thing.

How can we possibly have any ground to stand on when we are only looking out for our interests and not fighting for a balanced and fair process.

Speak for yourself. I am not always on the side of domainers. I am on the side of the best argument in the process.

 

[Smith]

Speak for myself?

Did you maybe miss the point of my last post?

 

[fonzie_007]

Motorola's incompetence lost them this case. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP really dropped the ball on representing Motorola. If I was the attorny at KMR LLP, I'd be sweating a malpractice suit.