近年來，隨著網上商業(yè)活動快速發(fā)展以及電子商務進一步普及，作為企業(yè)網上標簽的域名在互聯網上的標志性作用越來越顯著。與此同時，隨著各行各業(yè)的企業(yè)對域名保護的意識逐漸增強，搶注知名企業(yè)域名的行為也在“蓬勃發(fā)展”之中。本文將通過引用、分析和總結亞洲域名爭議解決中心的具體判例，以探究權利人是否可在.com域名糾紛中將商號權作為權利基礎從搶注人手中獲得.com等“通用頂級域名”。
一、ICANN與亞洲域名爭議解決中心
“互聯網名稱與數字地址分配機構”（ICANN——The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers）（“ICANN”）是非營利性的國際組織，負責互聯網協(xié)議（IP）地址的空間分配、協(xié)議標識符的指派、通用頂級域名（gTLD）以及國家和地區(qū)頂級域名（ccTLD）系統(tǒng)的管理、以及根服務器系統(tǒng)的管理。該機構所制定和推行的《統(tǒng)一域名爭議解決政策》 （UDRP，“政策”） (1) 適用于所有通用頂級域名 (gTLD) 的爭議解決(2)。根據國際慣例，以.com、.net、.org或.info等結尾的域名，屬于“通用頂級域名”。如果當事人希望通過類似于仲裁程序的行政投訴途徑解決因通用頂級域名而引發(fā)的爭議，只能適用作為ICANN所制定和推行的《政策》及《統(tǒng)一域名爭議解決政策之規(guī)則》（“《規(guī)則》”）(3)的相關規(guī)則，并且只能由該《政策》和《規(guī)則》所指定的域名爭議解決機構審理。
目前，在世界范圍內，被指定的域名爭議解決機構共有四家，分別為亞洲域名爭議解決中心、美國國家域名爭議論壇、世界知識產權組織域名爭議解決機構以及捷克域名爭議法庭。每個機構在審理案件時均受到《政策》和《規(guī)則》的約束，但每個機構也都有權制定適合其審理特點的補充規(guī)則，作為《政策》和《規(guī)則》的細化和補充。行政投訴申請人可以選擇向上述四家中的任何一家機構提起行政投訴申請。從節(jié)約成本、提高效率以及其補充規(guī)則更適合中國企業(yè)特點的角度考慮，中國企業(yè)通常會選擇亞洲域名爭議解決中心提起行政投訴。
二、《政策》是否要求投訴人享有商標權？
根據《規(guī)則》的規(guī)定，啟動域名糾紛行政投訴程序的投訴人應說明據以提起投訴申請的理由，該理由應當包括(4)：
1、爭議域名與投訴人享有權利的商品商標或服務商標相同或混淆性相似；
2、投訴人認為被投訴人（域名持有人）對爭議域名不享有權利或不具備合法利益；
3、爭議域名被認為系屬惡意注冊和使用。
由此看來，上述規(guī)定中要求權利人提起域名糾紛投訴所依據的權利系“商品商標或服務商標”之權利�！兑�(guī)則》及相關補充規(guī)則中并沒有允許將權利人可以依據和主張的權利延展到“商品商標或服務商標”之外的其他權利。這是否就意味著，權利人無法依據包括商號權在內的其他權利提起域名糾紛投訴，并進而請求撤銷爭議域名或將爭議域名無償轉讓給投訴人?帶著這樣的問題，我們查閱了亞洲域名爭議解決中心所作出的若干裁決決定后發(fā)現，亞洲域名爭議解決中心的裁決專家們并沒有就此達成一致的意見。其中，部分專家作出的裁決中認同商號權也可以用來作為認定投訴人享有相應權利的依據。
三、從亞洲域名爭議解決中心的判例中獲得啟迪
1、“派克筆公司（Parker Pen Products）”與“蔡玉仁”關于“www. parker-pen.com”的域名糾紛案
在亞洲域名爭議解決中心所受理的“派克筆公司（Parker Pen Products）”與“蔡玉仁”關于“www. parker-pen.com”的域名糾紛案中（投訴人于2009年11月26日向亞洲域名爭議解決中心提起投訴；亞洲域名爭議解決中心于2010年6月26日作出裁決），在派克商標在中國國內已過有效期且派克筆公司未能提供證據證明該商標已經獲得續(xù)展的情況下，對于派克公司提出的商號權作為其權利基礎的主張，專家組認為，“根據《政策》第4a(i)條之規(guī)定，僅商品商標或服務商標可作為.com域名投訴的在先權利基礎，因此，投訴人對‘PARKER’享有的商號權不得作為其享有在先民事權益的依據”，進而否認了商號權可以作為在先利益。從該案的裁決中可以看出，專家組在該案中嚴格按照《政策》第4a(i)條的文本意思解釋本條含義，拒絕將商標權延伸至商號權等其他權利，并據此最終裁決駁回派克筆公司（Parker Pen Products）有關要求注銷爭議域名的投訴請求。
2、“Weight Watchers International Inc.” 與“Adam Jin”關于“www.showpoints.com”的域名糾紛案
在www.showpoints.com域名糾紛案中，投訴人主張其商號權應被作為認可投訴人享有相應權利的因素之一。對此，與在前所引的派克筆公司域名糾紛案不同，本案專家組將中國國際經濟貿易仲裁委員會域名爭議解決中心的一份裁決（Gea Group Aktiengesellschaft及其他與深圳市美菱達實業(yè)有限公司域名糾紛案；案件編號：CND2007000187）（“貿仲187號案”）予以考慮。貿仲187號案裁決中稱：“對于投訴人主張其商號應當基于《巴黎公約》第八條而得到保護，該商號要在某成員國得到法律保護還必須同時滿足另一個附加條件，即應當已經在該成員國內使用且已經產生一定的影響，包括廣告或者其他宣傳的使用及其產生的一定影響�！�
盡管在www.showpoints.com域名糾紛案裁決書中，專家組同樣其根據《政策》第4a(i)條之規(guī)定對糾紛進行審理，但是，專家組引述貿仲187號案裁決中關于商號權是否應當在域名糾紛中受到保護的內容已經足以說明，專家組在該案中并沒有將投訴人所可以依據的權利嚴格地局限于商標權，并可以靈活地將商號權予以考慮。
3、“Mercer (US) Inc.”與“天津浩遠人才開發(fā)有限公司”關于“www.tjmercer.com”的域名糾紛案
在亞洲域名爭議解決中心所受理的“Mercer (US) Inc.”與“天津浩遠人才開發(fā)有限公司”關于“www.tjmercer.com”的域名糾紛案中（投訴人于2009年4月14日向亞洲域名爭議解決中心提起投訴；亞洲域名爭議解決中心于2009年6月22日作出裁決），專家組認為：“雖然現行中國法律中并沒有‘商號’這一法律概念(5)，但作為《保護工業(yè)產權巴黎公約》的成員國，中國有義務保護已經實際在中國工商業(yè)活動中使用的商號，并給予其與商品商標同樣的保護�！�
盡管在該案中專家組最終主要依據投訴人在其企業(yè)注冊國以外的其他地區(qū)合法注冊的商標權而支持了投訴人的主張，但專家組在該案中不僅認可了“商號權”這一概念，而且還將其視為可以對爭議域名主張權利的依據之一。但是，該專家組并沒有在該案的裁決中對“商號權”具體如何定義、“中國應在何種程度上對‘已經實際在中國工商業(yè)活動中使用的商號’予以保護”等問題進行進一步地解釋。
值得一提的是，上述曾被亞洲域名爭議解決中心的專家組在裁決書中所引證的貿仲187號案裁決中對于“商號權”為何應當給予保護作出了學理解釋。貿仲187號案裁決中提到：“商號如同商標一樣，是商業(yè)標志之一。商業(yè)標志獲得各國法律保護的來源無非兩途，其一是商業(yè)標志履行法定注冊或者登記程序后獲得法律保護，例如注冊商標及其注冊商標權。其二是商業(yè)標志經直接或者間接使用或者宣傳產生了商譽而依法得到法律保護，例如知名的未注冊商標、商號等，法律保護的其實就是凝聚在這類商業(yè)標志上的商譽。通常受法律保護的商業(yè)標志會融合上述兩種情況�！痹摬脹Q對商號的功能和定義進行了簡要地解釋，并強調了企業(yè)從商號中所獲得的商譽價值。雖然不知該解釋是否會對亞洲域名爭議解決中心日后的裁決產生影響或被再次用來引證，但該解釋可被寄希望于依據商號權提起域名糾紛投訴的企業(yè)在一定程度上予以參考。
四、結束語
亞洲域名爭議解決中心不同的專家組在審理域名糾紛案所適用的權利基礎存在不同的意見。一部分專家嚴格地解釋和適用《政策》第4a(i)條中所規(guī)定的商標權，另一部分專家則靈活地將權利基礎延伸或擴展到商號權，以確保在更大程度上對權利人就爭議域名所享有的權利的保障。從一方面上，我們看到亞洲域名爭議解決中心專家們意見不同所帶來的不確定性；從另一方面上，我們也看到具有仲裁機構之性質的亞洲域名爭議解決中心在審理域名糾紛案件時所享有的較廣泛的自由裁量權。
注釋：
(1) 《政策》由ICANN于1999年8月26日通過，1999年10月24日批準實施。
(2) 見http://www.icann.org/ 。
(3) 《規(guī)則》由ICANN于1999年10月24日通過。
(4) 參見《政策》第4a(i) 條。
(5) 最高人民法院在其于2008年2月28日公布的《最高人民法院關于審理注冊商標、企業(yè)名稱與在先權利沖突的民事糾紛案件若干問題的規(guī)定》（自2008年3月1日起施行）中所運用的概念為“企業(yè)名稱”而非商號；最高人民法院在其于2006年8月14日公布的《最高人民法院關于審理勞動爭議案件適用法律若干問題的解釋(二)》（自2006年10月1日起施行）和其于2002年10月12日公布的《最高人民法院關于審理商標民事糾紛案件適用法律若干問題的解釋》（自2002年10月16日起施行）中所承認和運用的概念為“字號”，亦非商號。
Can Trade Name Rights Be Rights Basis for Disputes over Internet Domain Names?
—A Review of Relevant Legal Precedents Established by ADNDRC
An internet domain name is symbolic for modern enterprises in the blossoming online business and E-commerce era. As an increasing number of enterprises become aware of the importance of domain name protection, cybersquatting of well-known trade names of enterprises also intensifies. By reviewing recent decisions from the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre ("ADNDRC"), this article will explore whether a complainant in a domain name dispute is entitled to take trade name rights as the rights basis when reclaiming its generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD").
I. ICANN and ADNDRC
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), as an international non-profit organization, is responsible for assigning the Internet Protocol ("IP") address and Protocol Identifier ("PI"), managing the gTLD system and the Country Code Top-Level Domain ("ccTLD") system, as well as the root server system. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP")(1), which is formulated and implemented by ICANN, is applicable to the resolution of all the disputes over the gTLD.(2)Internationally, the domain names of .com, .net, .org, and .info are ascribed as gTLDs. If the parties concerned intend to resolve a dispute involving a gTLD through administrative procedures such as arbitration, only the UDRP and the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("Rules") (3)formulated and implemented by ICANN shall govern. The dispute should only be submitted to the domain name dispute resolution organizations designated by the UDRP and the Rules.
At present, the UDRP and the Rules designate only four organizations for above resolution.These organizations are the ADNDRC, the National Arbitration Forum, the Domain Name Dispute Resolution Department of the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO"), and the Domain Name Dispute Court of the Czech Republic. All of the aforementioned organizations shall be bound upon by the UDRP and the Rules when hearing a domain name dispute case. However, these entities are entitled to formulate supplementary rules to theUDRP and the Rules based upon their unique dispute resolution characteristics. Any party concerned may lodge administrative complaints with any of the four aforementioned organizations upon domain name disputes. For considerations of cost saving, higher efficiency, and the suitability of its relevant supplemental rules to Chinese enterprises, enterprises residing in China generally choose to lodge administrative complaints with the ADNDRC.
II. Is Complainant Required to Have Trademark Rights according to UDRP?
According to the UDRP, the complainant shall explain the reasons for lodging such an administrative complaint, (4)including:
-
A. How the domain name in dispute is identical or deceivingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
B. Why the accused party (the current holder of the domain name in question) has no right to or interest in the domain name; and
C. Why the domain name has been maliciously registered and used by the accused.
It can be concluded that the rights that a complainant based upon in said domain name dispute are the commodity trademark rights or service trademark rights. The UDRP and any of supplementary rules do not permit the complainant's rights extending to rights other than the commodity trademark rights or service trademark rights. Does this mean a complainant can lodge a domain name dispute based upon rights such as the trade name rights? And if so, can the complainant apply for invalidating the domain name registration or seek the transfer of the registered domain name from the accused for free? In its rulings, the ADNDRC did not provide consensus opinions on above issues. Meanwhile, some experts agree that the complainants can use trade name rights as the rights basis for domain name disputes.
III. Domain Name Disputes Review by ADNDRC
-
A. Parker Pen Products v. Cai Yuren over "www.parker-pen.com"
The dispute between Parker Pen Products and Cai Yuren over the domain name "www.parker-pen.com," was accepted by the ADNDRC on November 26, 2009 and was decided on June 26, 2010. In the dispute, Park Pen Products in China failed to produce evidence to certify that the registration period of the trademark in China had been renewed before the registration period had expired. The ADNDRC denied the trade name right as the basis for a prior civil right or interest and held that "[i]n accordance with Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, only the right to the trademark or service mark can be based on to lodge a complaint about the dispute over a .com domain name. Therefore, the Complainant's prior civil rights or interests shall not be based on the Complainant's trade name rights to the mark 'PARKER'." It can be inferred that the ADNDRC interpreted the case facts within the purview of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP and refused to extend the trademark rights to any other rights including the trade name rights, and ultimatelyrejected Parker Pen Products' Complaint of cancelling the domain name registration in question.
B. Weight Watchers International Inc. v. Adam Jin over "www.showpoints.com"
In the dispute over the domain name "www.showpoints.com," the Complainant Weight Watchers International Inc. claimed that its trade name rights should be taken as rights basis for other corresponding rights. Unlike in Parker, the ADNDRC has taken into account the ruling made by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission ("CIETAC") in a domain name dispute of Gea Group Aktiengesellschaft et al v. Shenzhen Malintech Industrial Co., Ltd. (Case No. CND2007000187). The Court in Gea Group Aktiengesellschaft ruled that "[t]he Complainant claims that its trade name should be protected in accordance with Article 8 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property ("Paris Convention"). However, the trade name must simultaneously satisfy another condition that the trade name has been used and has certain effect in the member country through advertisement or other means of publication."
Although the experts group decided Gea Group Aktiengesellschaft in light of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, the experts group clearly indicated that when deciding whether the trade name shall be protected in domain name dispute, the rights basis is not strictly limited to trademark rights, and the trade name rights have been taken into consideration.
C. Mercer (US) Inc. v. Tianjin Hao Yuan Talent Development Co., Ltd. over "www.tjmercer.com"
The domain name dispute of Mercer (US) Inc. vs. Tianjin Hao Yuan Talent Development Co., Ltd. upon "www.tjmercer.com" was accepted by the ADNDRC on April 14, 2009 and was decided on June 22, 2009. The ADNDRC held that "[a]lthough the term 'trade name' is not defined by the existing Chinese laws, (5)China, as a member country of the Paris Convention, has the obligation to provide the same protection for the trade names that have been used in the business activities in China as the trademarks."
In this case, although the ADNDRC supported the Complainant's claims largely based on the Complainant's rights to the registered trademark in a territory other than its registration country, it referred to the Paris Convention definition of "trade name right" and regarded it as rights basis for the domain name in question. However, the ADNDRC did not provide its own definition of the "trade name right" in its ruling or provide any guidance regarding ways to protect the trade names already used in business activities in China.
Notably, the ADNDRC explained how to protect the "trade name rights" by referencing the ruling in Gea Group Aktiengesellschaft:
-
"A trade name, like a trademark, is a business symbol. Business symbols are legally protected by the laws of all countries either as: (1) a registered trademark or the rights to a registered trademark, after it goes through the formalities of legal registration; or (2) an unregistered famous trademark or trade name which generates goodwill for its direct or indirect use or promotion. As such, the law intends to protect the goodwill of the business symbols. In general, the law protects a business symbol which involves both circumstances."
The ruling of Gea Group Aktiengesellschaft briefly explained the function and definition of a trade name and emphasized the value of goodwill obtained by an enterprise from its trade name. Although the ADNDRC may not reference the above interpretation in its future hearings, enterprises may take this into consideration when lodging domain name disputes with the ADNDRC based upon trade name rights.
-
IV. Conclusion
The ADNDRC experts vary in their opinions concerning the rights basis over domain name disputes. Some experts strictly applied provisions provided in Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, limiting the trademark rights as the sole rights basis for domain name disputes; while other have expanded the rights basis to the trade name rights, so as to further protect the complainant's domain name rights in dispute. On the one hand, uncertainties may arise from the different opinions of the experts of the ADNDRC. On the other hand, the ADNDRC, an arbitration organization, has a relatively wide discretion in adjudicating domain name disputes.
Notes:
(1) UDRP was adopted by ICANN on August 26, 1999, and became effective on October 24, 1999.
(2) See http://www.icann.org/.
(3) The Rules was adopted by ICANN on October 24, 1999.
(4) See Paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the UDRP.
(5) The Rules of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning the Trial of Civil Disputes over the Conflict between Registered Trademark or Enterprise Name with Prior Right(promulgated by the Supreme People's Court on February 28, 2008 and becoming effective as of March 1, 2008) adopted the term "enterprise name", but not the term "trade name". TheInterpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Labor Dispute Cases (II) (promulgated by the Supreme People's Court on August 14, 2006 and becoming effective as of October 1, 2006) and the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Cases of Civil Disputes Arising from Trademarks( promulgated by the Supreme People's Court on October 12, 2002 and becoming effective as of October 16, 2002) used the term "shop name", instead of "trade name".
