Taser International Files UDRP on Tasers.com

13

According to the World Intellectual Property (WIPO) website, a UDRP was recently filed on the Tasers.com domain name. The UDRP is listed in the database as WIPO Case D2014-1492. It appears that the domain name is registered to a domain investor, and the UDRP was filed by TASER International, Inc.

The Tasers.com domain name was acquired for quite a bit of money, and it looks like it may have been sold publicly a couple of times. Three years ago, Michael Berkens reportedthe domain name Tasers.com sold on NameJet.com for $12,900.” In the same commented, Mike opined, “Its a interesting domain as Taser is trademarked many times over including by the manufacturer of the device.” According to NameBio, the Tasers.com domain name had previously been sold on Sedo for $7,600.

When you visit the Tasers.com landing page, I see a form to submit an offer for the domain name. According to the landing page, the domain name was originally purchased to be used as a brand name. “Tasers.com could be the home of a business who needs a unique brand name. We initially purchased the name to brand our apparel company Tasers, but we settled on another name,” it says on the landing page.

TASER International is known for its “taser” self defense products, which are popular with law enforcement agencies. According to the USPTO, there are many trademarks for the “taser” term. In 2013, a UDRP was filed by Taser International for the Taser.com.au and Tasers.com.au domain names. The sole panelist ruled in favor of the company, and the domain names were transferred to Taser International.

The Tasers.com domain name is 15 years old, and it has a  creation date of April 1, 1999. I am not sure why the company waited until 2014 to file a UDRP for this domain name. Perhaps we will learn more once the decision is made and the complainant filing is published.

13 COMMENTS

  1. ” I am not sure why the company waited until 2014 to file a UDRP for this domain name. ”

    Because companies are finally realizing the power of the internet.

    • Obviously tasers feels their mark is strong enough to invoke such actions, or they did not like they price they were quoted.

      This will be a very defining case for many similar situations looming. I wonder how Heritage Auctions feels about such a case?

    • Michael – see paragraph 4:

      “In 2013, a UDRP was filed by Taser International for the Taser.com.au and Tasers.com.au domain names. The sole panelist ruled in favor of the company, and the domain names were transferred to Taser International.”

  2. It was on auction at NJ at the end of June this year, didn’t meet reserve with the high bid at $3,500. Bet the auction participants are glad it didn’t hit reserve now.

    I don’t think this one is defensible even if you use it for something other than stun guns, unless you argue that it has become generic like “escalator” or “frisbee”. Actually you sometimes see Taser on lists of brands that people now use interchangeably with the actual product name (in this case stun gun).

    • With 22 Live Trademarks for the term “Taser” and with all of them owned by Taser International I agree I don’t see it defensible either.

      This company also uses Taser.com as their main website which doesn’t help the cause.

  3. On subject of UDRP .. If all these companies need to do is file a UDRP against someone and then if they lose sue them in federal court over trademark infringement then I don’t see how a legitimate owner of a domain name (assuming they owned a name before anyone owned a trademark on the term) can consider it an asset after all the costs and time are factored into owning a name. There really needs to be a simple process that will not allow a corp or anyone to udrp or sue a legitimate owner of a name. Without that process in place an owner has no leverage. Again I speak of legitimate clean name ownership.
    You should consider a Q&A with a prominent udrp/tm attorney an all this.

  4. The landing page says “Tasers.com could be the home of a business who needs a unique brand name. We initially purchased the name to brand our apparel company Tasers, but we settled on another name”
    The current registrant of Tasers.com should have checked before purchasing it, because the term “Taser” is a TM since 2010 (registration filed in 2006, first use in commerce: 2009) in the Nice Class 25, which includes Apparel …
    What’s more, “Taser” and “Tasers” are not generic terms.
    The plaintiff will easily get this domain as well, just wait and see.

    A costly mistake or just an ex-post excuse for a failed “extortion” attempt?
    Considering that this comes from a director of the Intellectual Property department of a big auction house, it’s up to readers to judge …

Leave a Reply