近年来，随着网上商业活动快速发展以及电子商务进一步普及，作为企业网上标签的域名在互联网上的标志性作用越来越显著。与此同时，随着各行各业的企业对域名保护的意识逐渐增强，抢注知名企业域名的行为也在“蓬勃发展”之中。本文将通过引用、分析和总结亚洲域名争议解决中心的具体判例，以探究权利人是否可在.com域名纠纷中将商号权作为权利基础从抢注人手中获得.com等“通用顶级域名”。
一、ICANN与亚洲域名争议解决中心
“互联网名称与数字地址分配机构”（ICANN——The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers）（“ICANN”）是非营利性的国际组织，负责互联网协议（IP）地址的空间分配、协议标识符的指派、通用顶级域名（gTLD）以及国家和地区顶级域名（ccTLD）系统的管理、以及根服务器系统的管理。该机构所制定和推行的《统一域名争议解决政策》 （UDRP，“政策”） (1) 适用于所有通用顶级域名 (gTLD) 的争议解决(2)。根据国际惯例，以.com、.net、.org或.info等结尾的域名，属于“通用顶级域名”。如果当事人希望通过类似于仲裁程序的行政投诉途径解决因通用顶级域名而引发的争议，只能适用作为ICANN所制定和推行的《政策》及《统一域名争议解决政策之规则》（“《规则》”）(3)的相关规则，并且只能由该《政策》和《规则》所指定的域名争议解决机构审理。
目前，在世界范围内，被指定的域名争议解决机构共有四家，分别为亚洲域名争议解决中心、美国国家域名争议论坛、世界知识产权组织域名争议解决机构以及捷克域名争议法庭。每个机构在审理案件时均受到《政策》和《规则》的约束，但每个机构也都有权制定适合其审理特点的补充规则，作为《政策》和《规则》的细化和补充。行政投诉申请人可以选择向上述四家中的任何一家机构提起行政投诉申请。从节约成本、提高效率以及其补充规则更适合中国企业特点的角度考虑，中国企业通常会选择亚洲域名争议解决中心提起行政投诉。
二、《政策》是否要求投诉人享有商标权？
根据《规则》的规定，启动域名纠纷行政投诉程序的投诉人应说明据以提起投诉申请的理由，该理由应当包括(4)：
1、争议域名与投诉人享有权利的商品商标或服务商标相同或混淆性相似；
2、投诉人认为被投诉人（域名持有人）对争议域名不享有权利或不具备合法利益；
3、争议域名被认为系属恶意注册和使用。
由此看来，上述规定中要求权利人提起域名纠纷投诉所依据的权利系“商品商标或服务商标”之权利。《规则》及相关补充规则中并没有允许将权利人可以依据和主张的权利延展到“商品商标或服务商标”之外的其他权利。这是否就意味着，权利人无法依据包括商号权在内的其他权利提起域名纠纷投诉，并进而请求撤销争议域名或将争议域名无偿转让给投诉人?带着这样的问题，我们查阅了亚洲域名争议解决中心所作出的若干裁决决定后发现，亚洲域名争议解决中心的裁决专家们并没有就此达成一致的意见。其中，部分专家作出的裁决中认同商号权也可以用来作为认定投诉人享有相应权利的依据。
三、从亚洲域名争议解决中心的判例中获得启迪
1、“派克笔公司（Parker Pen Products）”与“蔡玉仁”关于“www. parker-pen.com”的域名纠纷案
在亚洲域名争议解决中心所受理的“派克笔公司（Parker Pen Products）”与“蔡玉仁”关于“www. parker-pen.com”的域名纠纷案中（投诉人于2009年11月26日向亚洲域名争议解决中心提起投诉；亚洲域名争议解决中心于2010年6月26日作出裁决），在派克商标在中国国内已过有效期且派克笔公司未能提供证据证明该商标已经获得续展的情况下，对于派克公司提出的商号权作为其权利基础的主张，专家组认为，“根据《政策》第4a(i)条之规定，仅商品商标或服务商标可作为.com域名投诉的在先权利基础，因此，投诉人对‘PARKER’享有的商号权不得作为其享有在先民事权益的依据”，进而否认了商号权可以作为在先利益。从该案的裁决中可以看出，专家组在该案中严格按照《政策》第4a(i)条的文本意思解释本条含义，拒绝将商标权延伸至商号权等其他权利，并据此最终裁决驳回派克笔公司（Parker Pen Products）有关要求注销争议域名的投诉请求。
2、“Weight Watchers International Inc.” 与“Adam Jin”关于“www.showpoints.com”的域名纠纷案
在www.showpoints.com域名纠纷案中，投诉人主张其商号权应被作为认可投诉人享有相应权利的因素之一。对此，与在前所引的派克笔公司域名纠纷案不同，本案专家组将中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会域名争议解决中心的一份裁决（Gea Group Aktiengesellschaft及其他与深圳市美菱达实业有限公司域名纠纷案；案件编号：CND2007000187）（“贸仲187号案”）予以考虑。贸仲187号案裁决中称：“对于投诉人主张其商号应当基于《巴黎公约》第八条而得到保护，该商号要在某成员国得到法律保护还必须同时满足另一个附加条件，即应当已经在该成员国内使用且已经产生一定的影响，包括广告或者其他宣传的使用及其产生的一定影响。”
尽管在www.showpoints.com域名纠纷案裁决书中，专家组同样其根据《政策》第4a(i)条之规定对纠纷进行审理，但是，专家组引述贸仲187号案裁决中关于商号权是否应当在域名纠纷中受到保护的内容已经足以说明，专家组在该案中并没有将投诉人所可以依据的权利严格地局限于商标权，并可以灵活地将商号权予以考虑。
3、“Mercer (US) Inc.”与“天津浩远人才开发有限公司”关于“www.tjmercer.com”的域名纠纷案
在亚洲域名争议解决中心所受理的“Mercer (US) Inc.”与“天津浩远人才开发有限公司”关于“www.tjmercer.com”的域名纠纷案中（投诉人于2009年4月14日向亚洲域名争议解决中心提起投诉；亚洲域名争议解决中心于2009年6月22日作出裁决），专家组认为：“虽然现行中国法律中并没有‘商号’这一法律概念(5)，但作为《保护工业产权巴黎公约》的成员国，中国有义务保护已经实际在中国工商业活动中使用的商号，并给予其与商品商标同样的保护。”
尽管在该案中专家组最终主要依据投诉人在其企业注册国以外的其他地区合法注册的商标权而支持了投诉人的主张，但专家组在该案中不仅认可了“商号权”这一概念，而且还将其视为可以对争议域名主张权利的依据之一。但是，该专家组并没有在该案的裁决中对“商号权”具体如何定义、“中国应在何种程度上对‘已经实际在中国工商业活动中使用的商号’予以保护”等问题进行进一步地解释。
值得一提的是，上述曾被亚洲域名争议解决中心的专家组在裁决书中所引证的贸仲187号案裁决中对于“商号权”为何应当给予保护作出了学理解释。贸仲187号案裁决中提到：“商号如同商标一样，是商业标志之一。商业标志获得各国法律保护的来源无非两途，其一是商业标志履行法定注册或者登记程序后获得法律保护，例如注册商标及其注册商标权。其二是商业标志经直接或者间接使用或者宣传产生了商誉而依法得到法律保护，例如知名的未注册商标、商号等，法律保护的其实就是凝聚在这类商业标志上的商誉。通常受法律保护的商业标志会融合上述两种情况。”该裁决对商号的功能和定义进行了简要地解释，并强调了企业从商号中所获得的商誉价值。虽然不知该解释是否会对亚洲域名争议解决中心日后的裁决产生影响或被再次用来引证，但该解释可被寄希望于依据商号权提起域名纠纷投诉的企业在一定程度上予以参考。
四、结束语
亚洲域名争议解决中心不同的专家组在审理域名纠纷案所适用的权利基础存在不同的意见。一部分专家严格地解释和适用《政策》第4a(i)条中所规定的商标权，另一部分专家则灵活地将权利基础延伸或扩展到商号权，以确保在更大程度上对权利人就争议域名所享有的权利的保障。从一方面上，我们看到亚洲域名争议解决中心专家们意见不同所带来的不确定性；从另一方面上，我们也看到具有仲裁机构之性质的亚洲域名争议解决中心在审理域名纠纷案件时所享有的较广泛的自由裁量权。
注释：
(1) 《政策》由ICANN于1999年8月26日通过，1999年10月24日批准实施。
(2) 见http://www.icann.org/ 。
(3) 《规则》由ICANN于1999年10月24日通过。
(4) 参见《政策》第4a(i) 条。
(5) 最高人民法院在其于2008年2月28日公布的《最高人民法院关于审理注册商标、企业名称与在先权利冲突的民事纠纷案件若干问题的规定》（自2008年3月1日起施行）中所运用的概念为“企业名称”而非商号；最高人民法院在其于2006年8月14日公布的《最高人民法院关于审理劳动争议案件适用法律若干问题的解释(二)》（自2006年10月1日起施行）和其于2002年10月12日公布的《最高人民法院关于审理商标民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》（自2002年10月16日起施行）中所承认和运用的概念为“字号”，亦非商号。
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".
