Domain Name Law and Practice: An International Handbook [2 ed.] 0199663165, 9780199663163

Citation preview

DOMAIN NAME LAW AND PRACTICE AN INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK SECOND EDITION

DOMAIN NAME LAW AND PRACTICE An International Handbook

SECOND EDITION Edited By

Torsten Bettinger Allegra Waddell

1

1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Oxford University Press 2015 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2005 Second Edition published in 2015 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Crown copyright material is reproduced under Class Licence Number C01P0000148 with the permission of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2015943518 ISBN 978–0–19–966316–3 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

PREFACE The present volume is the second edition of a treatise on domain name law and is a comprehensive guide to the technical and organizational basis of the domain name system and Internet governance structure. It is also a reflection on the early attempts to reconcile Internet activity and governance and a substantial review of the significant developments of the past decade since the publication of the previous edition. While this handbook relates to developments over a relatively short period of time in the traditional sense, it is an ambitious text which gives account of the rapid changes in the national and international technical and legal framework in response to entirely novel and unprecedented legal issues and developments. A decade ago, the world was coming to terms with the new era of the internationalization of trade and communication and was in the process of regularizing national law and international procedures for resolving the novel and widespread legal problems accompanying such change. Up to the end of the 1990s, there was a lack of court decisions and widespread uncertainty as to how to address the new tort of cybersquatting and other Internet-related intellectual property law issues. Compounding the harm, as many cases of cybersquatting involved foreign parties, rightsholders often lacked recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions. All interested parties were subject to the laws of a “digital Klondike”, the principle of “first come first served”. In response to these new and unique circumstances, national legislators and courts in most jurisdictions addressed the major intellectual property and competition law issues and were assisted by norm-setting efforts by international bodies. On October 3, 2001, the General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Paris Union presented a Joint Recommendation concerning Provisions on the Protection of Marks and other Industrial Property Rights in Signs on the Internet. This document provided a legal framework and guide for national authorities to ascertain whether the use of a sign on the Internet contributed to the acquisition, maintenance or infringement of a mark or other industrial property right in the sign, or whether such use constitutes an act of unfair competition. Additionally, in light of the complex questions of jurisdiction, applicable law, and enforcement that arise when resorting to national judicial systems and the resulting delays and costs, alternative dispute resolution procedures were established at the international and supranational level which allowed intellectual property owners to rectify abuses of rights in domain name registrations more efficiently. Chief among these, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the dispute resolution process for “.eu” domain names established by European Commission Regulation (EC) 874/2004 of April 2004 have been successful in addressing abusive cybersquatting, with over 50,000 domain name disputes administered to date. Thus, at the time of the publication of the first edition of this volume, a reliable interim status had been achieved at both the national and international level, permitting a logical point of reflection from which the first edition took perspective. The story since that time has been written in large part by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Founded in 1998 and responsible for the coordination and maintenance of the domain name system, ICANN has been constantly evolving policy and procedures regarding the registration of domain names and the resolution of technical and legal disputes over such registrations.

v

Preface In its early years, ICANN presided over a limited number of restrained expansion rounds of the domain name space, reaching 22 Generic Top-Level Domains by 2011. However, from as early as 2005, ICANN was planning an unprecedented expansion round for the delegation of a potentially unlimited number of TLDs to any applicant ranging from nonprofit institutions to local and regional governments to private corporations. The New gTLD Program, formally launched in 2011, instigated a radical change and development to both the DNS and to various supporting mechanisms and procedures within ICANN. This second edition, released at the twilight of the New gTLD Program, provides an account of its administration and the problems and issues which arose, and benefits from perspective on the maturation of legislative and dispute resolution processes developed both prior to and for the Program. As a precondition for the discussion of the legal issues and developments, Part I A presents an overview of the technical and organizational basis and historical development of the domain name system. Part I  B provides a similar overview of the organization of ICANN and a review of its governance structures. Part I C reviews the registration principles and the various dispute resolution systems in connection with the registration of domain names under the generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs). Part I D discusses the development and application of ICANN’s New gTLD Program and identifies the salient issues which impacted gTLD applicants and the Internet community during the process. Part I  E is the country code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD) counterpart to the gTLD discussion of Part I C, with Part I F consisting of an in-depth analysis of the “.eu” ccTLD adopted in European Commission Regulation (EC) 874/2004 of April 28, 2004. Rounding out Part I at Part I G is a section devoted to assessing the state of the domain name industry and the forces and challenges for its commercial participants. Part II comprises presentations of the registration requirements and the domain name law in 30 countries. All are written by acknowledged experts in the field of domain name law who, as attorneys and panelists in the various national and international alternative dispute settlement procedures and as jurists, have been involved directly in the development of domain name law. Each individual national contribution begins with a short summary of the national system for the protection of trade marks and other intellectual property rights in signs. This is followed by a presentation of the registration requirements for the ccTLDs and the alternative dispute settlement procedures in operation in the country, an aspect of considerable relevance for the legal practitioner and a major supplement to the protection available through the ordinary courts. The author of each contribution then analyses and comments on the – in some countries already extensive – case law on the protection of trade marks, commercial designations, names and work titles against registration and use as domain names. The questions of the independent protection of domain names as proprietary rights and the liability of the registrar and registry are treated as separate legal problems. Each country report ends with a section dealing with the forms of relief available to the owner of intellectual property rights and with a variety of procedural factors affecting their enforcement against the registration and use of domain names, plus a section on rules relating to issues of international jurisdiction, applicable law (private international law) and enforcement in international conflicts. Part III examines in detail the wide variety of rights protection mechanisms and other policies developed by ICANN and other authorities in relation to the domain name system. Part III

vi

Preface A starts with a brief introduction to the historical development of the rights protection mechanisms implemented during the New gTLD Program, with Parts III B and C pertaining to those procedures available to challenge TLD applicants prior to delegation and TLD registry operators after delegation, respectively. These procedures, while in some instances reminiscent of other existing trade mark-based ADR programs, are unique as they provide direct avenues to challenge the use of a Top-Level Domain by a registry and not on the basis of individual domain name registrations. It is Part III D which discusses the New gTLD Program-specific RPMs developed for such individual domain name registrations. Part III E consists of a detailed analysis of the dispute resolution procedure set out in the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), with an exhaustive assessment of key decisions addressing the most common factual and legal questions and circumstances arising under the Policy. Part III F provides a brief overview of other ICANN “consensus policies”, of which the UDRP is only one of many, which address a range of technical and legal requirements and procedures applicable to domain name registrars. This is followed in Part III G by an exposition of the alternative dispute resolution procedure for “.eu” and Part III H which references other ADR procedures utilized in the ccTLD space. Part IV sets out the WIPO/Paris Convention Joint Recommendation concerning the Provision on the Protection of Marks and other Industrial Property Rights in Signs on the Internet. The work is rounded off in Part V with a quick-reference table summary of the registration and dispute resolution conditions in other important domain name jurisdictions which are not represented by a full length national report.

vii

DISCLAIMER All information provided in this handbook is provided to the reader as a source of general information on domain name law and related intellectual property issues. It is hoped that the information on these pages will provide useful guidance on domain name dispute registration and dispute resolution, but it cannot take the place of professional advice based upon full knowledge of the specific circumstances of each case. Readers should therefore consult with an attorney licensed to practice in the relevant state or country. While most concerted efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of the information in this volume, the editors and the authors cannot guarantee the completeness or timeliness of any of the information presented on these pages. The Internet is a transient medium. Thus, references to web locations, data, pricing and registration policies are subject to change without notice.

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The editors would like to express their thanks to all the authors who devoted their creativity to the success of the handbook. We would especially like to thank our friend and former colleague of our firm Ty Gray, without whose contribution this work would not have been possible. Special thanks are also due to the Oxford University Press and to OUP colleagues Ruth Anderson, Gemma Parsons, and Rachel Mullaly for their support and patience during our collaboration. The editors would be very grateful to receive any suggestions and criticism from the readership at the postal or email address below. Dr. Torsten Bettinger Bavariaring 14 80336 München [email protected] Munich, September 2015

xi

CONTENTS—SUMMARY Tables of Cases  List of Abbreviations  List of Contributors 

xxix lxxiii lxxix

I  THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM AND THE PROCEDURES AND POLICIES FOR THE REGISTRATION OF DOMAIN NAMES A. Structure and Organization of the Domain Name System  Torsten Bettinger

3

B. Organizational Structure and Functions of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)  Torsten Bettinger and Volker Greimann

13

C. Original gTLDs: Registration Procedures, Registration Agreements, and Dispute Resolution  Torsten Bettinger

47

D. ICANN’s New gTLD Program  Torsten Bettinger and Mike Rodenbaugh

65

E. Country Code Top-Level Domains  Torsten Bettinger

125

F. The European Top-Level Domain ‘.eu’  Torsten Bettinger

131

G. Domain Name Industry  Jannik Skou

139

II NATIONAL LAW

Australia  Alistair Payne and David Fixler

153

Austria  Peter Burgstaller

169

Belgium  Alain Strowel and Benjamin Docquir

193

Brazil  Karin Grau-Kuntz and Bernardo Guitton Brauer

211

Canada  Eric Macramalla

233

Czech Republic  Radka MacGregor Pelikánová and Ladislav Jakl

257

xiii

Contents—Summary Denmark  Knud Wallberg

285

France  David Taylor

313

Germany  Torsten Bettinger

359

Greece  Apostolos Chronopoulos

455

Hong Kong  Hong Xue

483

India  Pravin Anand

501

Ireland  James Bridgeman

527

Israel  Ellen B Shankman

553

Italy  Philipp Fabbio

583

Japan  Makoto Hattori and Nodoka Nakamura

613

Netherlands  Adonna Alkema

641

Norway  Kristine Celius

665

People’s Republic of China  Lian Yunze and Liu Yuping

687

Poland  Justyna Ożegalska-Trybalska

711

Portugal  Alexandre L Dias Pereira and Carla Valério

733

The Republic of Korea  Ho-Hyun Nahm

757

Russian Federation  Iouri Kobiako von Gamm and Natalia Gulyaeva

789

Singapore  Tan Tee Jim, S.C.

811

South Africa  Charné le Roux

833

Spain  Albert Agustinoy Guilayn

855

xiv

Contents—Summary Sweden  Petter Rindforth

875

Switzerland  Gallus Joller

891

Turkey  Mustafa Aksu

919

United Kingdom  Dawn Osborne and Steve Palmer

945 1003

United States of America  William R Towns

III  RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISMS A. Introduction and Historical Background to ICANN’s Rights Protection Mechanisms for New gTLDs  Torsten Bettinger

1073

B. Rights Protection Against Applications for New gTLDs (Pre-Delegation Dispute Resolution)  Torsten Bettinger

1077

C. Rights Protection Against the Operation and Use of New gTLDs by the Registry Operator  Torsten Bettinger, David Taylor, and Jane Seager

1163

D. Rights Protection Against Registration and Use of Domain Names within a New gTLD  Torsten Bettinger, Allegra Waddell, and Hong Xue

1205

E. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)  Torsten Bettinger and Allegra Waddell

1263

F. Other ICANN Consensus Policies  Torsten Bettinger

1453

G. Alternative Dispute Resolution for ‘.eu’  Torten Bettinger and Allegra Waddell

1459

H. Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures for ccTLDs  Torsten Bettinger

1509

IV  JOINT RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PROVISIONS ON THE PROTECTION OF MARKS, AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SIGNS, ON THE INTERNET



Torsten Bettinger

xv

1511

Contents—Summary

V  COUNTRY OVERVIEWS  

Argentina

1527

Bulgaria

1529

Colombia

1532

Cyprus

1533

Egypt

1535

Estonia

1537

Finland

1539

Germany

1541

Hungary

1544

Latvia

1545

Lithuania

1546

Luxembourg

1547

Malta

1548

Mexico

1549

Monaco

1550

Romania

1551

Slovenia

1552

Index 

1553

xvi

CONTENTS Tables of Cases  List of Abbreviations  List of Contributors 

xxix lxxiii lxxix

I  THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM AND THE PROCEDURES AND POLICIES FOR THE REGISTRATION OF DOMAIN NAMES A. Structure and Organization of the Domain Name System 

I.

The Technical Functioning of the Domain Name System  (1) Domain Names and IP Addresses  (2) The Function of the Root-Server  (3) The Hierarchy Levels of the Domain Name System  (4) Internationalized Domain Names

II. The Development of the Domain Name System 

(1) The Early Stages of the Domain Name System  (2) Functional Change  (3) The Reform of the Domain Name System and the Founding of ICANN

B. Organizational Structure and Functions of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

I.

Legal Form and ‘Mission’ 

IA.01 IA.01 IA.04 IA.07 IA.17 IA.20 IA.20 IA.22 IA.24 13 IB.01

II. ICANN’s Organizational Structure  (1) Board of Directors  (2) The Supporting Organizations  (3) Advisory Committees

III. ICANN’s Consensus-driven, Bottom-up, Multi-stakeholder Model  (1) The Concept of Multi-stakeholder Governance  (2) Policy Development Processes

IV. ICANN’s Funding  V.

3

IB.09 IB.09 IB.18 IB.38 IB.51 IB.51 IB.54 IB.63

ICANN’s Agreements with Registries and Registrars  (1) ICANN’s Agreements with Registries  (2) ICANN’s Registrar Accreditation Agreement  (3) ICANN’s Relationship with ccTLD Registries

IB.65 IB.65 IB.75 IB.102

VI. Review of ICANN Objectives

IB.104

VII. ICANN Accountability Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

IB.113 IB.116 IB.129 IB.146

(1) Request for Reconsideration (2) Independent Review of Board Actions (3) Office of the Ombudsman

xvii

Contents VIII. ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) IX. ICANN’s Antitrust Responsibilities X. Challenges of ICANN Actions before Ordinary Courts XI. ICANN and Internet Governance C. Original gTLDs: Registration Procedures, Registration Agreements, and Dispute Resolution 

I.

Sponsored and Unsponsored gTLDs 

II.

Registries, Registrations Requirements, and Dispute Resolution for Sponsored and Unsponsored gTLDs  (1) Registration under ‘.com’, ‘.net’, and ‘.org’  (2) Registration under ‘.int’  (3) Registration under ‘.edu’  (4) Registration under ‘.gov’ and ‘.mil’  (5) Registration under ‘.biz’  (6) Registration under ‘.info’  (7) Registration under ‘.name’  (8) Registration under ‘.aero’  (9) Registration under ‘.coop’  (10) Registration under ‘.museum’  (11) Registration under ‘.pro’  (12) Registration under ‘.jobs’  (13) Registration under ‘.mobi’  (14) Registration under ‘.travel’  (15) Registration under ‘.cat’  (16) Registration under ‘.tel’  (17) Registration under ‘.asia’  (18) Registration under ‘.post’  (19) Registration under ‘.xxx’

III. Registration Statistics

II.

47 IC.01 IC.06 IC.06 IC.13 IC.16 IC.19 IC.20 IC.30 IC.37 IC.49 IC.54 IC.59 IC.66 IC.76 IC.78 IC.81 IC.86 IC.89 IC.92 IC.98 IC.101 IC.112 65

D. ICANN’s New gTLD Program 

I.

IB.148 IB.150 IB.152 IB.157

The Development of the New gTLD Program 

(1) ICANN’s Adoption of the New gTLD Program  (2) The Involvement of National Governments Throughout the Development of the New gTLD Program  (3) Criticism of the New gTLD Program

Application Procedure and Application Requirements 

(1) Main Features of the Applicant Guidebook  (2) Evaluation Questions and Criteria  (3) Application Fees  (4) Application Submission  (5) New gTLD Application Change Request Process and Criteria  (6) String Requirements, Reserved Names, and Strings Ineligible for Delegation  (7) Applicant Eligibility Requirements  (8) Trademark, Public Interest, Morality, and Public Order Concerns  (9) Registration Policy Requirements  (10) Restrictions on Second-Level Domains under a New gTLD

xviii

ID.01 ID.01 ID.07 ID.12 ID.25 ID.25 ID.35 ID.36 ID.40 ID.43 ID.46 ID.53 ID.55 ID.57 ID.62

Contents III. Application Results 

(1) Application Statistics  (2) Types of Applications  (3) Types of Applicants

ID.69 ID.70 ID.74 ID.90

IV.

Public Comment 

ID.92

V.

GAC Early Warnings 

ID.93

VI. Evaluation Procedures 

(1) Background Screening of Applicant  (2) Initial Evaluation of the Application

ID.98 ID.98 ID.99

VII. GAC Advice

ID.131 ID.131 ID.136 ID.141 ID.142

VIII. Third Party Objections

ID.144

IX. Objection by the Independent Objector

ID.147

X.

ID.157

(1) Standards (2) GAC Advice on Particular Strings (3) IGO Name Protection (4) Strings Linked to Categorical Advice

The ICANN Ombudsman

XI. Accountability Processes for New gTLD Applicants

ID.160 ID.162 ID.173

XII. Resolution of String Contention

ID.183 ID.185 ID.197 ID.201

XIII. Transition to Delegation

ID.202

XIV. New gTLD Registry Agreement

ID.205

XV. New gTLD Launch Programs

ID.209 ID.210 ID.214 ID.216 ID.218 ID.219 ID.221 ID.223

XVI. ICANN Contractual Compliance

ID.224

(1) Request for Reconsideration (2) Independent Review

(1) Community Priority Evaluation (2) ICANN Auction of Last Resort or Private Auction (3) ICANN Auction of Last Resort

(1) Reserved Names and the Qualified Launch Program (2) Sunrise Period (3) Landrush (4) Limited Registration Period (‘Sunrise B’) (5) General Availability (6) Premium Names (7) Blocked Lists

125

E. Country Code Top-Level Domains 

I. Introduction 

IE.01

II.

IE.06

Registries and Registrars 

III. Structure of the Namespaces 

IE.07

IV.

(1) Unrestricted Registries  (2) Semi-restrictive Registration Requirements  (3) Restrictive Registration Requirements  (4) ccTLDs Without Territorial Reference

Comparison of the Registration Policies 

IE.08 IE.11 IE.12 IE.13 IE.16

Comparison of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the ccTLDs 

IE.21

V.

xix

Contents VI.

Registration Costs 

IE.25

VII

Statistical Data 

IE.27 131

F. The European Top-Level Domain ‘.eu’ 

I.

Regulatory Framework and Historical Development 

IF.01

II.

The Registry 

IF.05

III.

General Registration Principles 

IF.10

IV.

Eligible Persons 

IF.16

V.

Structure of the Namespace 

IF.18

VI.

Phased Registration 

IF.19

VII. Reserved Geographical and Geopolitical Names 

IF.26

VIII. Country Names and Alpha-2 Codes Representing Countries 

IF.28

IX.

Improper Registrations 

IF.30

X.

Registration of the Reserved Names 

IF.31

XI. WHOIS 

IF.33

XII. Revocation of Domain Names 

IF.34

XIII. Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures against Decisions of EURid, in Violation of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 

IF.35

XIV. Alternative Dispute Settlement Proceedings against Speculative or Abusive Domain Name Registered or Used 

IF.37

XV. Suspension of the Domain Name 

IF.38

XVI. Death and Winding Up of the Domain Holder 

IF.39

XVII. Transfer, Cancellation, and Renewal of Registration 

IF.41

G. Domain Name Industry 

139

I. Introduction 

IG.01

II.

IG.06

Growth of Domain Name Registration 

(1) The Global Boom of the Internet and the Increased Competition in the Market  (2) The Rise and Fall of Domain Name Monetization  (3) New Forms of Abusive Domain Name Registrations

III.

Domain Names as Items of Property 

IV.

The Impact of New gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs on the Primary and Secondary Domain Name Market 

V.

IG.06 IG.10 IG.16 IG.23

(1) Primary Market  (2) Impact of new gTLDs on the Secondary Market (‘Aftermarket’)

IG.25 IG.25 IG.48

New Challenges for Trademark Holders 

IG.50

II  NATIONAL LAW

Australia  Alistair Payne and David Fixler

153

Austria  Peter Burgstaller

169

xx

Contents Belgium  Alain Strowel and Benjamin Docquir

193

Brazil  Karin Grau-Kuntz and Bernardo Guitton Brauer

211

Canada  Eric Macramalla

233

Czech Republic  Radka MacGregor Pelikánová and Ladislav Jakl

257

Denmark  Knud Wallberg

285

France  David Taylor

313

Germany  Torsten Bettinger

359

Greece  Apostolos Chronopoulos

455

Hong Kong  Hong Xue

483

India  Pravin Anand

501

Ireland  James Bridgeman

527

Israel  Ellen B Shankman

553

Italy  Philipp Fabbio

583

Japan  Makoto Hattori and Nodoka Nakamura

613

Netherlands  Adonna Alkema

641

Norway  Kristine Celius

665

People’s Republic of China  Lian Yunze and Liu Yuping

687

Poland  Justyna Ożegalska-Trybalska

711

Portugal  Alexandre L Dias Pereira and Carla Valério

733

The Republic of Korea  Ho-Hyun Nahm

757

xxi

Contents Russian Federation  Iouri Kobiako von Gamm and Natalia Gulyaeva

789

Singapore  Tan Tee Jim, S.C.

811

South Africa  Charné le Roux

833

Spain  Albert Agustinoy Guilayn

855

Sweden  Petter Rindforth

875

Switzerland  Gallus Joller

891

Turkey  Mustafa Aksu

919

United Kingdom  Dawn Osborne and Steve Palmer

945 1003

United States of America  William R Towns III  RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISMS A. Introduction and Historical Background to ICANN’s Rights Protection Mechanisms for New gTLDs 

1073

B. Rights Protection Against Applications for New gTLDs (Pre-Delegation Dispute Resolution) 

1077

I. General Rules of the New gTLD Objection Procedure

IIIB.01 IIIB.01 IIIB.04 IIIB.11 IIIB.12 IIIB.35 IIIB.42 IIIB.62 IIIB.65 IIIB.67 IIIB.68 IIIB.72 IIIB.76

II. String Confusion Objection

IIIB.81 IIIB.81 IIIB.83 IIIB.84 IIIB.85 IIIB.90 IIIB.92

(1) Introduction (2) Legal Classification of the New gTLD Objection Procedures (3) Contractual Acceptance of Objection Procedures (4) New gTLD Objection Process in Detail (5) Consolidation of Objections (6) General Procedural Rules (7) Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Considerations (8) Negotiation and Mediation (9) Hearings (10) Relevance and Applicability of Court Proceedings (11) Precedential Value of the Decision (12) Additional Remedies (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Policy and Rules Standing to Object Dispute Resolution Provider Procedure Panel Appointment Fees

xxii

Contents (7) Expert Determination Criteria (8) Case Filings and Outcomes (9) Case Evaluation (10) Post-proceeding Developments (11) Conclusion

IIIB.94 IIIB.100 IIIB.102 IIIB.119 IIIB.137

III. Legal Rights Objection

IIIB.139 IIIB.139 IIIB.142 IIIB.142 IIIB.144 IIIB.150 IIIB.151 IIIB.153 IIIB.155 IIIB.171 IIIB.173 IIIB.204 IIIB.216

IV. Limited Public Interest Objection

IIIB.222 IIIB.222 IIIB.228 IIIB.231 IIIB.232 IIIB.236 IIIB.238 IIIB.241 IIIB.242 IIIB.248 IIIB.252 IIIB.277 IIIB.280

V.

IIIB.284 IIIB.284 IIIB.287 IIIB.288 IIIB.289 IIIB.292 IIIB.295 IIIB.298 IIIB.303 IIIB.383 IIIB.395

(1) Policy and Rules (2) Standing to Object (3) Dispute Resolution Provider (4) Procedure (5) Mediation (6) Panel Appointment (7) Fees (8) Expert Determination Criteria (9) Case Filings and Outcomes (10) Types of Cases (11) Post-proceeding Developments (12) Conclusion (1) Policy and Rules (2) Standing to Object (3) Dispute Resolution Provider (4) Procedure (5) Panel Appointment (6) Fees (7) Remedy (8) Expert Determination Criteria (9) Case Filings and Outcomes (10) Evaluation (11) Post-proceeding Developments (12) Conclusion

Community Objection

(1) Policy and Rules (2) Standing to Object (3) Dispute Resolution Provider (4) Procedure (5) Panel Appointment (6) Fees (7) Case Filings and Outcomes (8) Expert Determination Criteria (9) Post-proceeding Developments (10) Conclusion

C. Rights Protection Against the Operation and Use of New gTLDs by the Registry Operator 

I.

Trademark Post-delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (1) Introduction (2) Historical Background (3) Overview of the Procedure (4) Conclusion

xxiii

1163 IIIC.01 IIIC.01 IIIC.07 IIIC.24 IIIC.100

Contents II. Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure

IIIC.103 IIIC.103 IIIC.106 IIIC.115 IIIC.152

III. Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure

IIIC.154 IIIC.154 IIIC.157 IIIC.167 IIIC.198

(1) (2) (3) (4) (1) (2) (3) (4)

Introduction Historical Background Overview of the Procedure Conclusion Introduction Historical Background Overview of the Procedure Conclusion

D. Rights Protection Against Registration and Use of Domain Names within a New gTLD 

I.

Trademark Clearinghouse and Rights Protection Mechanisms

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Introduction The Trademark Clearinghouse Submission of Trademark Records Trademark Clearinghouse Dispute Resolution Procedures Submission of UDRP and Court Cases in Relation to Domain Name Labels (6) Rights Protection Mechanisms

II. Uniform Rapid Suspension System (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Introduction Historical Development Drafting of the Uniform Rapid Suspension Procedure Contractual Recognition of the Uniform Rapid Suspension Uniform Rapid Suspension Procedure in Detail Substantive Law Quick Comparison—Uniform Rapid Suspension System and UDRP (8) Conclusion

III. Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Introduction Historical Development Contractual Recognition of the SDRP Outline of the Procedure Conclusion

IV. Registry-Specific Rights Protection Mechanisms—Donuts, Inc Domains Protected Marks List (1) Introduction (2) Historical Development (3) Contractual Recognition of Optional Rights Protection Mechanisms (4) Outline of the Procedure (5) Conclusion

IIID.86 IIID.94 IIID.106 IIID.106 IIID.109 IIID.123 IIID.129 IIID.130 IIID.185 IIID.218 IIID.219 IIID.224 IIID.224 IIID.226 IIID.244 IIID.245 IIID.263 IIID.264 IIID.264 IIID.266 IIID.269 IIID.272 IIID.288 1263

E. UDRP 

I.

1205 IIID.01 IIID.01 IIID.09 IIID.15 IIID.69

The UDRP Process

IIIE.01

II. Historical Development

IIIE.08

III. Electronic Filing and the UDRP Rules of 2009

IIIE.13

xxiv

Contents IV.

Statistics

IIIE.17

V.

Legal Classification of the UDRP

IIIE.22

VI.

Contractual Acceptance of the UDRP

IIIE.25

VII. UDRP Procedure in Detail

(1) Scope (2) Dispute Resolution Providers (3) Procedural Aspects of the UDRP Process (4) Standing (5) Multiple Domain Names (6) Multiple Respondents and/or Complainants: Consolidations (7) Privacy/Proxy Registration Services (8) Identity of the Proper Respondent (9) Supplemental Filings (10) Cyberflight (11) Respondent Default or Lack of Timely Response to the Complaint (12) Non-Compliant Response (13) Panel Challenge for Bias (14) Challenges to the Authority of the Dispute Resolution Provider (15) General Rules of Procedure (16) Filing Fees (17) Precedential Value of UDRP Decisions (18) Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Considerations (19) Panel Decision and Remedies (20) Without Prejudice to Court Proceedings (21) Settlement, Party Agreement, or Other Grounds for the Termination of the Proceeding (22) Paragraph 4(k), Timing, and Remedies at Law (23) Re-filed Complaints

VIII. Substantive Law

(1) Introduction (2) Trademark or Service Mark in which the Complainant has Rights (3) Identity or Confusing Similarity (4) Rights or Legitimate Interests (5) Bad Faith (6) Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

IX.

Conclusion

IIIE.26 IIIE.26 IIIE.43 IIIE.60 IIIE.84 IIIE.86 IIIE.91 IIIE.107 IIIE.117 IIIE.120 IIIE.124 IIIE.134 IIIE.139 IIIE.143 IIIE.149 IIIE.152 IIIE.160 IIIE.172 IIIE.174 IIIE.178 IIIE.184 IIIE.190 IIIE.191 IIIE.194 IIIE.198 IIIE.198 IIIE.205 IIIE.234 IIIE.269 IIIE.357 IIIE.457 IIIE.460 1453

F. Other ICANN Consensus Policies 

I.

Introduction

IIIF.01

II.

WHOIS Data Reminder Policy

IIIF.02

III.

The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy

IIIF.03

IV.

WHOIS Marketing Restriction Policy

IIIF.07

V.

Restored Names Accuracy Policy

IIIF.08

VI.

Expired Domain Deletion Policy

IIIF.09

VII. The Registry Services Evaluation Policy

IIIF.10

VIII. The Add Grace Period Limits Policy

IIIF.11

IX.

IIIF.12

The Expired Registration Recovery Policy xxv

Contents G. Alternative Dispute Resolution for ‘.eu’ 

I.

General Characteristics of the Procedure

IIIG.01

II. Overview of the Procedure

IIIG.06 IIIG.07 IIIG.22 IIIG.25 IIIG.27 IIIG.28 IIIG.30 IIIG.35 IIIG.36 IIIG.37 IIIG.40 IIIG.42 IIIG.44 IIIG.47 IIIG.49 IIIG.50 IIIG.53 IIIG.56 IIIG.63 IIIG.72 IIIG.74 IIIG.80 IIIG.82

III. Substantive Provisions

IIIG.84 IIIG.84 IIIG.92

(1) Components of the ADR Proceeding (2) Standing (3) Challenge Procedure (4) Multiple Domain Names (5) Identity of the Proper Respondent (6) General Rules of Procedure (7) Respondent Default (8) Precedential Value of Prior Decisions (9) Burden of Proof and Evidence (10) Suspension or Termination of the Proceedings (11) Filing of Co-Current ADR Complaints (12) Remedies (13) Consent to Transfer (14) Availability of Court Options (15) The Role of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Provider (16) Appointment and Composition of the Panel (17) Decision (18) Implementation of the Decision and Considerations of Jurisdiction (19) Liability of the Registry or a Registrar (20) Language of the Procedure (21) Allocation of Costs (22) Procedural Differences Between the .EU Policy and the UDRP (1) General Principles (2) The ADR Decision Criteria

IV. Arbitration Proceedings Concerning Sunrise Decisions

(1) Insufficient Proof of Legal Rights (2) Concept of Licensees of Prior Rights Under Article 12(2) of Regulation 874/2004 (3) Bad Faith in Sunrise Applications

V. Conclusion

IIIG.167 IIIG.168 IIIG.172 IIIG.174 IIIG.185

H. Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures for ccTLDs 



1459

1509

IV  JOINT RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PROVISIONS ON THE PROTECTION OF MARKS, AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SIGNS, ON THE INTERNET

I. Introduction

IV.01

II. Territorial Rights in a Global Medium

IV.03

(1) Linking the Use of Signs on the Internet to Individual Territories (2) The Acquisition and Maintenance of Trademark Rights (3) Resolving Conflicts between Territorial Rights

xxvi

IV.04 IV.06 IV.07

Contents III. Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Marks, and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs, on the Internet

IV.11

IV. Implementation in National Law

IV.42

(1) Fundamentals and Objective of the ‘Joint Recommendation’ (2) Individual Provisions of the ‘Joint Recommendation’

IV.11 IV.15

V  COUNTRY OVERVIEWS

Argentina

1527

Bulgaria

1529

Colombia

1532

Cyprus

1533

Egypt

1535

Estonia

1537

Finland

1539

Germany

1541

Hungary

1544

Latvia

1545

Lithuania

1546

Luxembourg

1547

Malta

1548

Mexico

1549

Monaco

1550

Romania

1551

Slovenia

1552

Index 

1553

xxvii

TABLES OF CASES

AUSTRALIA CSR Ltd v Resource Capital Australia Pty Ltd, Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales District Registry, N 1124 of 2002 [2003] FCA 279. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AU.42, AU.64, AU.65 Dow Jones v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575, (2002) HCA 56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . AU.84, AU.88, IN.141 Hunter Grain P/​L v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd (1993) 117 ALR 507. . . . . . . . . . . . . . AU.82 Kailash Center For Personal Development Inc v Yoga Magik Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 536. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AU.64, AU.66 Macquarie Bank v Berg [1999] NSW SC 526 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AU.87 Mantra Group Pty Ltd v Tailly Pty Ltd (No 2) (2010) 183 FCR 450. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AU.49 Paper Products Ltd v Tomlinson (Rochdale) Ltd (No 2) (1993) 116 ALR 163, (1994) 122 ALR 279. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AU.85 Regie National des Usines Renault v Zhang (2002) ALJR 551. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AU.86 Speedo Holdings BV v Evans (No 2) (2011) FCA 1227. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AU.64, AU.67, AU.69 Sports Warehouse Inc v Fry Consulting Pty Ltd (2010) 186 FCR 519; 87 IPR 300; [2010] FCA 664. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AU.49 Sydney Markets Ltd v Sydney Flower Market Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 124. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AU.43 Ward Group Pty Ltd v Brodie & Stone Plc (2005) 143 FCR 479. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AU.81 WWF-​World Wide Fund for Nature aka WWF International v Moniker Online Services LLC and Gregory Ricks D2006-​0695. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AU.40 Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AU.82 AUSTRIA Constitutional Court 9 June 2004, B 1103/​03—​AnwBl 2004/​7947, 520 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.85 Court of Appeal Vienna 23 July 2009—​‘red-​bull.com’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.96 Innsbruck Court of Appeals dated 11 July 2001, 2 R 148/​01h ‘stubaital.at’, ‘stubai.at’, and ‘neustift.at’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.24 OGH 18 September 2012, 4 Ob 102/​12x—​myTaxy—​ZIR 2013, 40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.61 OGH 18 September 2012, 4 Ob 94/​12x = .Bl-​LS 2013/​14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.88 Supreme Court 24 February 1998—​jusline.com I—​MR 1998, 208. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.05, AT.44 Supreme Court 29 September 1998—​AMC/​ATC—​.Bl 1999, 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.02 Supreme Court 27 April 1999 (‘jusline II’), MR 1999, 235. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.16 Supreme Court 13 July 1999—​‘sattler.at’—​ecolex 1999, 703. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.67 Supreme Court 13 September 1999 (‘format.at’), ecolex 2000, 132. . . . . . . . . . . AT.17, AT.44, AT.98 Supreme Court 21 December 1999—​‘ortig.at’—​ecolex 2000, 215 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.62, AT.65 Supreme Court 17 August 2000—​‘gewinn.at’ = MR 2000, 322 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.80 Supreme Court 13 September 2000—​‘bundesheer.at’—​ecolex 2001, 129 = .ÖBl 2001, 35 bundesheer.at (I). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.60, AT.70 Supreme Court 13 September 2000—​‘fpo.at’—​ecolex 2001, 128 = RdW 2001, 141 = wbl 2001, 91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.59, AT.61, AT.69, AT.89, AT.98, CH.144 Supreme Court 19 December 2000, 4 Ob 256/​00a—​‘steuerprofi.at’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.49 Supreme Court 30 January 2001 (‘bernhart.at’), wbl 2001/​290. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.17 Supreme Court 30 January 2001—​‘cyta.at’—​ecolex 2001, 546 = MR 2001, 194. . . . . . AT.30, AT.38, AT.58, AT.83, CH.59, CH.64 Supreme Court 13 February 2001—​T-​One—​ecolex 2001, 547 = MarkenR 2001, 333. . . . . . . AT.02 Supreme Court 22 March 2001—​‘rechnungshof.at’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.78 Supreme Court 3 April 2001—​‘pro-​solution.at’—​ecolex 2001, 757. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.32, AT.61 Supreme Court 3 April 2001—​‘pro-​solution.at’—​.Bl 2001, 263. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.34, AT.61 Supreme Court 14 May 2001—​‘adnet’—​ecolex 2001, 757 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.75 Supreme Court 29 May 2001—​‘dullinger.at’—​ecolex 2001, 758. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.63, AT.107 Supreme Court 12 June 2001 (‘taeglichalles.at’), ecolex 2001, 923. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.18

xxix

Tables of Cases Supreme Court 12 September 2001, 4 Ob 169/​01h—​‘best-​electric.at’ and ‘bestelectric.at’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.49 Supreme Court 12 September 2001—​‘fpo.at II’—​ecolex 2002, 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.91 Supreme Court 25 September 2001—​‘bundesheer.at II’—​ecolex 2002, 191 . . . . . . . . AT.71, CH.144 Supreme Court 16 October 2001—​‘onlaw.co.at’—​ecolex 2002, 192. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.35, AT.61 Supreme Court 13 November 2001, 4 Ob 237/​01h MR 1999, 354—​Wirtschaftswoche; .Bl-​LS01/​20—​E-​MED = ecolex 2001, 127. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.37 Supreme Court 13 November 2001 (‘obertauern.at’), ecolex 2002, 269. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.21 Supreme Court 27 November 2001, 4 Ob 230/​01d—​‘Internetfactory.at’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.47 Supreme Court 29 January 2002 (‘graz2003.at’), MMR 2002, 452. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.20 Supreme Court 13 March 2002—​‘kunstnetz.at’—​ecolex 2002, 597 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.36 Supreme Court 22 April 2002 (‘graz2003.com’), ecolex 2002, 821 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.20, AT.54 Supreme Court 20 August 2002, ecolex 2003, 40 = EvBl. 2002/​213. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.83 Supreme Court 18 February 2003, 4 Ob 38/​03x—​‘music-​channel.cc’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.48, AT.81 Supreme Court 2002 GRUR Int. 344—​BOSS-​Zigaretten I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.152, CH.160 Supreme Court 25 March 2003, 4 Ob 42/​03k—​‘rtl.at’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.41, AT.73 Supreme Court 24 June 2003, 4 Ob 117/​03i—​‘computerdoktor.at’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.47 Supreme Court 8 July 2003, 4 Ob 153/​03h—​‘krone.co.at’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.98 Supreme Court 19 August 2003, 4 Ob 160/​03p—​‘wohnbazar.at’ and ‘wohnbasar.at’. . . . . . . . . AT.45 Supreme Court 16 March 2004, 4 Ob 42/​04m Delikomat Betriebsverpflegung Gesellschaft m.b.H. v Alexander Lehner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.187 Supreme Court 25 May 2004—​‘firn.at’—​ecolex 2004/​449, 957. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.42 Supreme Court 2 October 2004—​‘autobelehnung.at’—​MR 2004, 374 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.85 Supreme Court 9 November 2004, 4 Ob 221/​04k—​‘exacom.at’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.52 Supreme Court 8 February 2005—​‘omega.at’—​ecolex 2005/​404, 849ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.96 Supreme Court 12 July 2005—​‘whirlpools.at’—​MR 2005, 446ff (Burgstaller) . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.28 Supreme Court 8 November 2005 (‘austrian.at’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.19 Supreme Court 14 February 2006—​‘rechtsanwälte.at’—​MR 200, 215 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.72, AT.86 Supreme Court 20 April 2006—​‘rechtsanwaltsportal.at’—​RdW 2006/​440ff (481), MR 2007, 103 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.85 Supreme Court 20 March 2007—​‘palettenb.rse.com II’—​RZ 2007/​14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.116 Supreme Court 2 October 2007—​‘ski Amad./​amade.at III’ = lex:itec 2008/​1, 28ff . . . . . . . . . . AT.58 Supreme Court 2 October 2007—​‘amade.at III/​Ski Amad.’—​MR 2007, 396 ff . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.97 Supreme Court 2 October 2007—​‘amade.at III/​Ski Amad.’—​wbl 2008/​41, 97 ff. . . . . . . . . . . AT.96 Supreme Court 11 December 2007, 17 Ob 22/​07w—​GRUR-​Int 2009, 74 = RZ 2008, 208 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.84 Supreme Court 20 May 2008 (‘eltern.at’), .Bl-​LS 2008/​167. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.25 Supreme Court 9 June 2008 (‘cityforum.eu’), jusIT 2008/​81. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.25 Supreme Court 24 February 2009, 17 Ob 2/​09g—​‘aquapol-​unzufrieden.at’ MR 2009, 132. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.31 Supreme Court 24 February 2009—​‘nimfuehr.at’—​RdW 2009/​581, 583. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.90 Supreme Court 18 January 2011 (‘schladming.com’), ecolex 2011/​287. . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.26, AT.27, AT.56, AT.61, AT.76 Supreme Court 16 February 2011, 17 Ob 1410y—​‘relaxx.at’—​.Bl 2011/​71, 313. . . . . . . . . . . AT.50 Supreme Court 23 March 2011, 4 Ob 197/​10i—​‘faschingprinz.at’, GRUR-​Int 2011, 967ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.33, AT.51 Supreme Court 25 March 2009 = lex:itec 2009/​3, 24ff (Feichtinger). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.108 Supreme Court 19 September 2011 (‘wagrain.com’ and ‘wagrain.at’), ÖBl 2012/​7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.27, AT.56, AT.77 Supreme Court 20 September 2011—​‘Rohrprodukte’—​wbl 2011, 681ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.119 Supreme Court 22 November 2011—​‘infonomics.at’—​.Bl-​LS 2012/​14, 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.95 Supreme Court 28 February 2012—​wbl 2012, 353 ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.113 Supreme Court 12 June 2012 (Red Bull v ‘run cool’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.27, AT.41, AT.57, AT.77 Supreme Court 10 July 2012—​‘Winterreifen’—​wbl 2012/​9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.113 Supreme Court 10 July 2012—​‘Wintersteiger III’—​wbl 2012, 526 ff. . . . . . AT.111, AT.113, AT.114 Supreme Court 21 September 2012, 3 Nc 26/​12x—​geonet.at = ZIR 2013/​3. . . . . . . . AT.109, AT.115 Supreme Court 22 October 2013 –​‘schladming.com’—​ZIR 2014/​1, 71 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.96

xxx

Tables of Cases BELGIUM Brussels Commercial Court, 9 August 2013, 2012/​12072/​A, unpublished. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.92 Brussels Court of Appeal, 29 March 1988, Ing. Cons 1988, 181. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.14 Brussels Court of Appeal, 1 April 1998, J.L.M.B. 1998, 1586 (Tractebel case). . . . . . . . BE.58, BE.66, BE.68, BE.78, BE.99 Brussels Court of Appeal, 25 June 2001, J.T. 2002, 371. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.81 Brussels Court of Appeal, 2 December 2004, IC-​IP, 2004/​5, 537 BE, 54. . . . . . . . . . . . BE.61, BE.95 Brussels Court of Appeal, 31 March 2009, RABG, 2009, 1404. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.59 Brussels Court of Appeal (SA Soci.t. commerciale europ.enne/​SPRL Mezquita & Associates), 4 March 2010, Ing. Cons., 2010, 95. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BE.73 Brussels Court of Appeal, 20 October 2010, IC-​IP, 2011, 397. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.92 Brussels Court of Appeal, 20 November 2011, IC-​IP, 2011/​4, 397 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.58 Brussels Court of Appeal, 31 January 2012, Tempur v Bemo et al . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.54, BE.59 Brussels Court of Appeal, 29 June 2012, Glu4 and 647 Activations v Mia Studio . . . . . . . . . . . BE.54 Court of Appeal Antwerp, 5 June 2002, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken & Mededinging, 2000, 413. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.66 Court of Arbitration (Arbitragehof/​Cour d’Arbitrage), 9 January 2002, No 2/​2002. . . . . . . . . . BE.10 Gerichts’ Gravenhage, 29 September 1995, I.E.R. 1995, 218 (Ben & Jerry’s decision). . . . . . . . BE.75, BE.76, BE.87 Ghent, 7.6.2004, IRDI, 2004, 413 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.59 Ghent Court of Appeal, 26 March 2012, Citrix v Solit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.60 Hof Amsterdam, 7 April 2000, I.E.R. 2000, 151 (Unilever case). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.56 President of the Antwerp Commercial Court, 7 January 1999, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken, 1999, 565. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.61, BE.78, BE.97 President of the Antwerp Commercial Court, 9 January 1999, Computerrecht 1999, 76 (infosupport case) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.98 President of the Bruges Commercial Court, 30 June 2006, APC, 2006, 544 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.59 President of the Brussels Civil Court dated 8 November 2000, unpublished . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.91 President of the Brussels Commercial Court dated 3 January 1997, Computerrecht 1997, 227 (Bluebox case). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.96, BE.99 President of the Brussels Commercial Court dated 23 October 1997 and 27 November 1997, A.J.T. 1997–​98 Cockerill Sambre v Capricorn. . . . . . . . . . . . BE.96, BE.99 President of the Brussels Commercial Court, 24 December 2001, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken & Mededinging, 2001, 708. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BE.59 President of the Brussels Commercial Court, 18 September 1989, T.B.H. 1990, 261. . . . . . . . . BE.14 President of the Brussels Commercial Court, 21 June 1993, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken 1993, 431. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.14 President of the Brussels Commercial Court, 28 October 2002, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken & Mededinging, 2002, 662 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.59 President of the Courtrai Commercial Court, 10 May 2004, APC, 2004, 562. . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.59 President of the Ghent Commercial Court dated 22 December 1997, T.G.R. 1999, 26. . . . . . . BE.96 President of the Gent Commercial Court, 11 March 2001, I.R.D.I. 2003, 68. . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.67 President of the Gent Commercial Court, 4 January 2002, unpublished . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.66 President of the Ghent Commercial Court, 18 June 2010, A.P.C., 2010, 799 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.54 President of the Hasselt Commercial Court, 15 June 2001, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken & Mededinging, 2001, 628 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.66 President of the Hasselt Commercial Court, 9 May 2008, APC, 2008, 598. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.59 President of the Liège Commercial Court, 18 August 1994, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken, 1994, 348. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.14 President of the Mechelen Commercial Court, 5 February 2002, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken & Mededinging, 2002, 540. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BE.67 BRAZIL STJ—​AREsp-​2285388-​60-​2008.8.13.0024. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BR.124 STJ—​Recurso Especial 862.067—​RJ (2006/​0098983-​6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BR.54, BR.97 Supremo Tribunal Federal, Rp 1397. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BR.02

xxxi

Tables of Cases TJ-​RS, Ap.Civ.70020252532. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BR.23 TJ-​SP, Acumuladores Moura S/​A v Com.rcio Bateria Garcia Ltda.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BR.91 TJ-​SP, Agravo de Instrumento 0050385-​35.2012.8.26.0000, Embargos de Declaração 0050385-​35.2012.8.26.0000/​50000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BR.102 TJ-​SP, Agravo de Instrumento 0119981-​09.2012.8.26.0000 (Baterias Moura case). . . . . . . . . BR.100 TJ-​SP, Ap. Civ. 0053375-​64.2010.8.26.0001 (Mappin case). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BR.106 TJ-​SP, Ap. Civ. 0250402-​58.2010.8.26.0000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BR.108, BR.114 TJ-​SP, Ap. Civ. 0184813-​76.2011.8.26.0100 (Yelp). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BR.105 TJ-​SP—​Ap. Civ. 0216432-​24.2011.8.26.0100 (Premiere case). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BR.101, BR.113 TJ-​SP, Ap. Civ. 556.090.4/​4-​00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BR.125 TJ-​SP—​Ap. Civ. 9102818-​96.2008.8.26.0000 (Power Ranger case) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BR.104 Tribunal Regional Federal da 2. Regi.o-​Ap. Civ. 2008.51.01.803883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BR.60 CANADA Airline Seat Co v 1396804 Ontario Inc (2000), 8 C.P.R. (4th) 12 (Ont. S.C.J.) . . . . . . . . . . . CA.100 Bell Actimedia Inc v Puzo (Communications Globe Tete), [1999] F.C.J. No 683 (F.C.T.D.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.61, CA.100 Berry Bros & Rudd Ltd v Planta Tabak-​Manufactur Dr, (1980), 53 C.P.R. (2d) 130 (F.C.T.D.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.85 Black v Molson Canada, (2002), 60 O.R. (3d) 457, 21 C.P.R. (4th) 52 (Ont. S.C.J.) . . . . . . . . CA.96 Braintech v Kostiuk (1999), 171 DLR (4th) 46 (B.C.C.A.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.122 British Columbia v Mihaljevic, (1989), 26 C.P.R. (3d) 184; affirmed (1991), 36 C.P.R. (3d) 445 (B.C.C.A.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.91 British Columbia Automobile Assn et al. v Office and Professional Employees’ International Union, Local 378 et al., [2001] B.C.J. No 151 (B.C.S.C.) . . . . . . . CA.71, CA.72, CA.73, CA.74, CA.75, CA.76, CA.80, CA.81 Canada Post Corp v Epost Innovations Inc [1999] F.C.J. No 1297 (F.C.T.D.). . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.100 Canadian Fly-​In Fishing (Red Lake) Ltd v Lac Seul Airways Ltd, [2002] O.J. No 1988 (Ont. S.C.J.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.100 Canadian Schenley Distillers Ltd v Canada’s Manitoba Distillery Ltd (1975), 25 C.P.R. (2d) 1 (F.C.T.D.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.64, CA.65 Ciba-​Geigy Canada Ltd v Apotex Inc (1992), 44 C.P.R. (3d) 289 (S.C.C.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.70 Cie General des Etablissements Michelin v CAW Canada (1996), 71 C.P.R. (3d) 348 (F.C.T.D.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.58 Easthaven Ltd v Nutrisystem.com Inc (2001), 55 O.R. (3d) 334 (Ont. S.C.J.) . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.115 eGalaxy Multimedia Inc v Bailey, [2002] O.J. Nos 5002 and 5003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.104 Epost Innovations Inc v Canada Post Corp, [1999] B.C.J. No 2060 (B.C.S.C.). . . . . . . . . . . . CA.100 Innersense International Inc v Manegre, [2000] A.J. No 613 (Alta. Q.B.) . . . . . . . . . CA.100, CA.102 Itravel2000.com Inc. (c.o.b. Itravel) v Fagan (2001), 11 CPR (4th) 164 (Ont. S.C.J.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.100, CA.101 ITV Technologies v WIC Television (2003), 29 C.P.R. (4th) 182 (F.C.T.D.). . . . . . . . . CA.64, CA.66 Jaguar Cars Ltd v Remo Imports Ltd (2001), 12 C.P.R. (4th) 393 (F.C.A.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.85 Joseph E Seagram & Sons Ltd v Seagram Real Estate Ltd (1990), 33 C.P.R. (3d) 454. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.85 Law Society of British Columbia v Canada Domain Name Exchange Corp, [2002] B.C.J. No 1909 (B.C.S.C.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.68, CA.100 Leaf Confections Ltd v Maple Leaf Gardens Ltd (1986), 12 C.P.R. (3d) 511 (F.C.T.D.), affirmed 19 C.P.R. (3d) 331 (F.C.A.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.85 Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc v MICYS Company SpA, Court File No CV-​12-​454767, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, March 11, 2013. . . . . . . . . IIIE.187 Lefrance & Bourgeois (Can) Ltee-​Ltd v Societe des coureurs Lefrance & Bourgeois (1979), 65 C.P.R. (2d) 131 (T.M.O.B.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.87 Lexus Foods Inc v Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha ata Toyota Motor Corp (2000), 9 C.P.R. (4th) 297 (F.C.A.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.85 Miss Universe Inc v Bohna, [1995] 1 F.C. 614 (F.C.A.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.64, CA.85 Molson Breweries v Kuettner (1999), 3 C.P.R. (4th) 479 (F.C.T.D.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.115

xxxii

Tables of Cases Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye (1990), 76 D.L.R. (4th) 256 (S.C.C.). . . . . . . . . . . . CA.117 Optagest Canada Inc v Services Optométriques Inc (1991), 37 CPR (3d) 28 (F.C.T.D.). . . . . . CA.87 Park Avenue Furniture Corp v Wilkes/​Simons-​Bedding Ltd (1991), 37 C.P.R. (3d) 413 (F.C.A.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.65 Peinet Inc v O’Brien, [1995] P.E.I.J. No 68 (P.E.I.S.C.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.100 Pizza Pizza Ltd v Canada Registrar of Trade-​marks (1989), 26 C.P.R. (3d) 355 (F.C.A.). . . . . . . CA.87 Playboy Enterprises, Inc v Germain (1979), 43 C.P.R. (2d) 271 (F.C.A.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.87 Polo Ralph Lauren Corp v United States Polo Assn (2000), 9 C.P.R. (4th) 51 (F.C.A). . . . . . . . CA.64 Polysar Ltd v Gesco Distributing Ltd (1985), 6 C.P.R. (3d) 289 (F.C.T.D.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.65 Pro-​C Ltd v Computer City Inc (2001), 14 C.P.R. (4th) 441 (Ont.C.A). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.62 Rolls-​Royce plc v Fitzwilliam, [2002] F.C.J. No 788 (F.C.T.D.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.100 Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group v Noton, [2001] S.J. No 275 (Sask. Q.B.). . . . . . . . . CA.103, CA.105 Shewan v Canada (1999), 87 C.P.R. (3d) 475 (Ont. S.C.J.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.91 Software Guy Brokers Ltd v Hardy, [2004] B.C.J. No 95 (B.C.S.C.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.100 Tele-​Direct (Publications) Inc v Canadian Business Online Inc, [1997] F.C.J. No 1387 (F.C.T.D.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.100 Tolofson v Jensen (1994), 120 D.L.R. (4th) 289 (S.C.C.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.118 Tucows.Com Co v Lojas Renner SA, 2011 ONCA 548. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.116, IIIE.187 Toronto.com v Sinclair (c.o.b. Friendship Enterprises), [2000] F.C.J. No 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.100 United Artists Corp v Pink Panther Beauty Corp (1998), 80 C.P.R. (3d) 247 (F.C.A.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.65, CA.85 Weight Watchers International, Inc v Vale Printing Ltd (2000), 7 C.P.R. (4th) 92 (F.C.T.D.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.100 Zippo Manufacturing v Zippo, 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D.Pa. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.120, CA.122 CHINA Bestseller v Mr Cui Huanxin and Mr Du Xinghua. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CN.112 Haixin Jiang v Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Second Shanghai Intermediate People’s Court, December 24, 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.187 Royal Canin SA v Liu Weize. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CN.82, CN.83, CN.84 Ruhof Corp, The v Beijing Que Xiang Medical & Technology Co Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CN.86 Schneider Electric (China) Co Ltd, Tianjin Meilanrilan Co Ltd, Schneider Electric Industries SAS v Shanghai Meilanrilan Electric (Group) Co Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . CN.101 COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 21/​76, Bier BV v Mines de potasse d’Alsace SA, ECR 1976. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.116 C-​125/​79 Denilauler May 21, 1980. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIG.185 C-​150/​80 Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Jacqmain [1981] ECR 01671. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PT.119 C-​288/​82 Ferdinand MJJ Duijnstee v Lodewijk Goderbauer [1983] ECR 03663 . . . . . . . . . . PT.115 C-​26/​91 Jakob Handte & Co GmbH v Traitements Mécano-​chimiques des Surfaces SA [1992] ECR I-​3967. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PT.118 C-​317/​91, Deutsche Renault/​AUDI ECR 1993 I-​6227. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.111 C-​251/​95 SABEL BV v Rudolf Dassler Sport ECR 1997 I-​6191; [1998] RPC 199 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.03, DE.99, UK.137, UK.162 C-​337/​95, Dior/​ Evora. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.113 C-​355/​96 Silhouette International Schmied/​Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft ECR 1998 I-​4799. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.07 C-​39/​97 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro Goldwyn Mayer Inc ECR 1998 I-​5507 [1998] All ER (EC) 934; [1999] RPC 117. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.95, DE.109, UK.137, UK.162 C-​63/​97, BMW ECR 1999 I-​905. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.94, DE.117, DE.118, DE.226, DE.232, NL.90 C-​337/​95, Parfums Christian Dior/​Evora ECR 1997 I-​6013. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.226 C-​342/​97 Lloyd Shuhfabrik Mayer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV [1999] All ER (EC) 587; [1999] ECR I-​3891 ECR 1999 I-​3819. . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.97, DE.99, DE.111, DE.149, UK.123, UK.137

xxxiii

Tables of Cases C-​375/​97, NJ 2000, No 376 (Chevy) 14 September 1999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BE.74 C-​375/​97, General Motors ECR 1999 I-​5421. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.114, DE.115 C-​375/​97, General Motors Corporation v Yplon SA, 1999 ECR 5435, [1999] All ER (EC) 865; [2000] RPC 572 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.77, UK.124, UK.161 C-​375/​97, NJ 2000, No 376 14 December 1999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.87 C-​425/​98 Marca Mode ECR 2000 I-​4861. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.99 C-​363/​99 Koninklijke KPN Nederland NV v Benelux-​Merkenbureau [2006] Ch 1; [2004] ECR I-​1619 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.161 C-​414/​99 to C-​416/​99 Zino Davidoff and Levi Strauss ECR 2001 I-​8691 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.07 C-​206/​01 Arsenal Football Club v Matthew Reed ECR 2002 I-​10273 . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.07, DE.78, DE.94, DE.118, UK.130, UK.131, UK.132 C-​408/​01 Adidas-​Salomon AG and Adidas Benelux BV v Fitnessworld Trading Ltd [2003] ECR I-​12537; [2004] ETMR 10 . . . . . . . . . DE.93, DE.118, DE.119, UK.124, UK.161 C-​100/​02, Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co v Putsch GmbH [2004] E.C.R. I–​691. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.74, UK.141 C-​159/​02 Turner v Grovit [2005]1 AC 101; [2004] ECR I-​3565 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.237 C-​245/​02 Anheuser-​Busch v Budejovicky Budvar ECR 2004 I-​10989. . . . . . . . . . . . DE.83, UK.132 C-​371/​02 Björnekulla Fruktindustrier ECR 2004 I-​5791 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.07 C-​259/​04 Elizabeth Florence Emanuel v Continental Shelf 128 Ltd [2006] ETMR 56. . . . . . UK.176 25379/​04, 21688/​05, 21722/​05, and 21770/​05 Paeffgen GmbH v Germany 18 September 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.253 C-​48/​05 Adam Opel AG v Autec AG ECR 2007 I-​1017. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.78, UK.132 C-​17/​06 Céline Sarl v Céline SA ECR 2007 I-​7041, [2007] ETMR 80. . . . . . . . . . . CZ.134, DE.83, GR.74, UK.120, UK.128, UK.132, UK.138 C-​328/​06 Nuno v Franquet 22 November 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PT.88 C-​533/​06 O2 Holdings Ltd & Another v Hutchison 3G UK Ltd [2008] ECR I-​4231 . . . . . . UK.123 C-​252/​07 Intel Corporation Inc v CPM UK Ltd [2009] RPC 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.124 C-​301/​07 PAGO International (Intellectual property) [2009] EUECJ C-​301/​07. . . . . . . . . . . UK.124 C-​483/​07 17 February 2009 Galileo Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IF.32 C-​487/​07 L’Oreal SA v Bellure NV Judgment of 18 June 2009, [2009] ETMR 55. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.85, UK.120, UK.124, UK.128, UK.133, UK.138, UK.175 C-​236/​08, C-​237/​08 and C-​238/​08 Google France & Others v Louis Vuitton Malletier & Others Judgment of 23 March 2010; [2011] All ER (EC) 411; [2010] ETMR 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.78, DE.357, DE.358, PT.112, UK.133, UK.192 C-​278/​08 Bergspetche v Trekking.at 25 May 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PT.112 C-​558/​08 Portakabin Ltd and Portakabin BV v Primakabin BV [2010] ETMR 52. . . . . . . . . UK.133 C-​569/​08 Internetportal GmbH v Schlicht 3 June 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PT.69, IIIG.180 C-​235/​09 DHL Express France SAS v Chronopost SA [2012] C.E.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.219, UK.235 C-​323/​09 Interflora v Marks and Spencer [2012] ETMR 1; [2013] ETMR 35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.133, UK.154 C-​324/​09 L’Oreal SA and Others v eBay International AG and Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.192 C-​509/​09 and C-​161/​10 eDate Advertising v X and Olivier and Robert Martinez v MGN 25 October 2011, [2012] 3 WLR 227. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PT.118, UK.220 C-​70/​10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) C-​70/​10 [2012] ETMR 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.192 C-​292/​10 G v Cornelius de Visser [2012] OJ C133/​07. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.219 Case C-​523/​10, Winsteiger AG and Products4U Sondermachinenbau GmbH, April 19, 2012, [2012] ETMR 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.147, DE.381, DE.382, ES.96, UK.135, UK.216, UK.220 C-​306/​11 Linea Natura 24 March 2014. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.95 C-​376/​11 Decision dated July 19, 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIG.24, IIIG.173 C-​561/​11 Fédération Cynologique Internationale v Federación Canina Internacional de Perros de Pura Raza [2013] ETMA 23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.140 C-​65/​12 Leidseplein Beheer BV v Red Bull GmbH [2014] ETMR 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.124 C-​170/​12 Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.216, UK.220, UK.234 C-​293/​12 and C-​594/​12 April 8, 2014 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IB.95

xxxiv

Tables of Cases Case 360/​12 Coty Germany GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.381, UK.216, UK.220, UK.234 C-​314/​12 UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH and Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft mbH Case C-​314/​12 [2014] ECDR 12. . . UK.192, UK.215 C-​383/​12 Environmental Manufacturing LLP v OHIM [2013] EUECJ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.124 C-​387/​12 Hi Hotel HCF SARL v Uwe Spoering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.216, UK.220, UK.234 C-​217/​13 and C-​218/​13 Oberbank Ag, Banco Santander SA and Santander Consumer Bank AG v Deutscher Sparkassen-​und Giroverband eV and Enterprise Holdings Inc v Europcar Group UK Ltd and Europcar International [2014] EWHC 2498 (Ch). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.154 C-​441/​13 Pez Hejduk v EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.216, UK.220, UK.234 European Court of First Instance, Judgment of 7 February 2006, Alecansan, SL ./​. OHIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.71 European Court of First Instance Judgment of 15 March 2006, Athinaiki Oikogeniaki Artopoiia AVEE v OHIM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.71 European Court of First Instance, Judgment of 7 September 2006, L & D, SA v OHIM. . . . . . DE.71 CZECH REPUBLIC 4 As 90/​2006-​123, K Classic, 23 July 2008 (Highest Administrative Court)—​Nestlé v ÚPV, Kaufland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.128 7 A 160/​2000 P from 24 August 2007 (Highest Administrative Court)—​Pt v PP. . . . . . . . . . CZ.135 Decision of the Brno District Court (11Cm 15/​2002) dated 27 November 2002 (Decision No 18 in the collection of decisions at ‘nic.cz’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.143 Decision of the Brno District Court (8Nc 3/​2003) dated 14 February 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.144 Decision of the Highest Administration Court in Brno No 5 A 128/​2001, dated 14 August 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.128 Decision of the Industrial Property Office No O-​114783. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.152 Decision of the Industrial Property Office No OZ 55687-​88, dated 22 December 1992. . . . . CZ.130 Decision of the Industrial Property Office No OZ 80862-​93, dated 13 April 1995. . . . . . . . . CZ.130 Decision of the Industrial Property Office No OZ 82258, dated 14 June 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.130 Decision of the Industrial Property Office No OZ 83873, dated 29 September 1995. . . . . . . CZ.134 Decision of the Industrial Property Office No OZ 67337, dated 26 January 1996. . . . . . . . . . CZ.130 Decision of the Industrial Property Office No OZ 70591, dated 2 February 1996. . . . . . . . . . CZ.134 Decision of the Industrial Property Office No OZ 70944, dated 6 March 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.134 Decision of the Industrial Property Office No OZ 61760, dated 4 April 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.134 Decision of the Industrial Property Office No OZ 74952, dated 12 April 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.134 Decision of the Industrial Property Office No OZ 76651, dated 12 April 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.134 Decision of the Industrial Property Office No O-​164305, dated 18 August 2004 . . . . . . . . . . CZ.130 Decision of the Municipal Court in Prague Case No NC 1072/​200 dated 12 April 2001 . . . . CZ.121 Decision of the Municipal Court in Prague No 19 Cm 247/​2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.147 Decision of the Municipal Court in Prague No 11 Ca 407/​206, dated 25 July 2008. . . . . . . . CZ.128 Decision of the Municipal Court in Prague No 7Ca 180/​2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.151 Decision of the Prague District Court (19 Cm 247/​2001) dated 19 June 2001 (Decision No 11 in the collection of decisions at ‘nic.cz’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.120 Decision of the Prague District Court (No 1060/​2003) dated 5 June 2003 (Decision No 30 in the collection of decisions at ‘nic.cz’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.143 Decision of the Prague District Court (2 Cm 93/​2003) dated 7 July 2003 (Decision No 34 in the collection of decisions at ‘nic.cz’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.143 Decision of the Superior Court in Prague, (Český mobil v Comfor, concerning ‘oskar.cz’), settled on 28 April, 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.123 Decision of the Superior Court in Prague No 3 Cmo 64/​2009, dated 23 September 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.128 Decision of the Superior Court in Prague 3 Cmo 367/​2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.58, CZ.117 Decision of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic 23 Cdo 3407/​2010 dated 19 April 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.107, CZ.114, CZ.126, CZ.139, CZ.150 Decision of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic 23 Cdo 3895/​2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.58

xxxv

Tables of Cases Decision of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic 23 Cdo 407/​2011 dated 28 February 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decision of the Upper Court in Prague No 3 Cmo 304/​2004 dated 16 May 2005. . . . . . . . . Decision of the Upper Court in Prague No 3Cmo 142/​2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decision of the Upper Court in Prague No 3Cmo 142/​2005 dated 31 August 2005. . . . . . . . Decision of the Upper Court in Prague No 3Cmo 321/​2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decision of the Upper Court in Prague No 3 Cmo 403/​2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decision of the Upper Court in Prague No 3Cmo 431/​2008 dated 12 November 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decision of the Upper Court in Prague No 3Cmo 64/​2009 dated 23 September 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decision of the Upper Court in Prague No 3 Cmo 329/​2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Municipal and Superior Courts of the Czech Republic 2 Cm 290/​2001 dated 10 August 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CZ.125 CZ.157 CZ.134 CZ.141 CZ.143 CZ.151 CZ.141 CZ.148 CZ.151 CZ.124

Prague Arbitration Court Decision No 13, September 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.102, CZ.103, CZ.104, CZ.105, CZ.106, CZ.112, CZ.114 Decision No 47 (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.104, CZ.107, CZ.114 Decision 149. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.113 Decision No 171 (August 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.109, CZ.110, CZ.112 Decision No 175 (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CZ.110 DENMARK Bailiff ’s  Courts Dansk Renseri Forening v Sober Rens ApS Fogedretten i Hillerød 26 May 2000, Case No FS 895/​2000 (‘ren-​textilservice.dk’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.120 Fyns Stifttidende A/​S, Århus Stifttidende A/​S, Aalborg Stifttidende A/​S, and Jydske Vestkysten A/​S v Søndagsavisen A/​S Fogedretten i Gladsaxe 25 February 1997, Case No FS 16/​97 (‘jobdanmark.dk’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.104 Semco Danmark A/​S v Semcon Danmark A/​S Københavns Fogedret 17 September 2002, Case No FS 13324 (‘semcon-​danmark.dk’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.108 Tele Danmark A/​S v Itcom A/​S Københavns Fogedrets 22 January 1998, Case No FS 25688/​97 (‘118.dk’ and ‘1118.dk’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.106 Tele2 A/​S v Team Internet Fogedretten i Køge19 November 1998, Case No FS 1945/​98 (‘net2net.dk’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.107 Yellow Page Reklamebureau v/​Anne Blædel v Tele Net Danmark Internet Fagbog ApS Københavns Fogedret 31 October 1997, Case No FS 18066-​97 (‘yellowpage.dk’) . . . . . . DK.105 Court for the Eastern Region Court for the Eastern region dated 27 May 1992, published in U 1992.810 Ø ‘Medicon/​Medicon Valley Capital’ decision, published in U 2003.107 H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.11 High Courts Danlaw Advokater, Danish Lawyers v Advokaterne Ole F Nielsen, Jacob Nørager-​Nielsen et al Ø.L.D 26 June 1998, published as U 1998.1464 Ø (‘danlaw.com’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.119 Dennis Willardt Zewillis v Baan Nordic A/​S (formerly Beologic A/​S) Ø.L.D. 26 November 1999, published as U 2001.697 Ø (‘beologic.com’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.112 K1 and Foreningen af Aktionærer i Bbanken v Bbanken A/​S Ø.L.D. 4 March 2004, published as U 2004.1682 Ø (‘bbanken.as’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.101 Installationsfirmaet L ApS v El-​Salg A/​S V.L.D. 11 June 2002, published as U 2002.2303 V (‘elsalg.dk’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.103 Sky Radio A/​S v DR Ø.L.D. 3 March 2004, published as U 2004.1673 Ø (‘skyradiop5.dk’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.102

xxxvi

Tables of Cases Maritime & Commercial Court Albatros Travel A/​S v Nyhavn Rejser A/​S S.H.D. 10 April 2002, Case No V-​0015-​00 (‘adventurerejser.dk’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.118 Bynet Danmark K/​S v Slagelsetryk A/​S,100 ‘bynet.dk’ (‘citynet.dk’) S.H.D. 21 February 2002, published as U 2002.1056/​2 S (‘bynet-​slagelse.dk’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.100 Deutsche Bank AG v Din Bank A/​S S.H.D. 17 August 2004, published as U 2004.2774 S (‘bank24.dk’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.117 Digital Marketing Support ApS v Dagbladet Børsen A/​S, Maritime and Commercial Court in Copenhagen, August 26, 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.187 Digital Marketing Support ApS v Procter & Gamble Company S.H.D. 8 January 2002, Case No V-​107-​00 (‘always.dk’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.114 Havemøbelland ApS v Damborg Havemøbelland ApS (Damborg Shopping ApS) S.H.D 02 July 2012, Case No V-​101-​11, (‘have-​moebelland.dk’ and ‘have-​møbelland.dk’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.39 Kvik Trafik v Kvik Trafikskole S.H.D. 29 November 2013, Case No V-​0091-​2012 (‘kviktrafikskole.dk’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.99 Lån ApS (Faktum ApS) v Vordingborg Bank A/​S S.H.D. 29 November 2005, published as U 2006.645 S, (‘lån.dk’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.116 Montres Rolex SA v John Fogtmann Montres Rolex SA v John Fogtmann. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.113 Netdenmark A/​S v Advokatsamfundet, Netdenmark A/​S v Advokatsamfundet, S.H.D. 12 September 2011, published as U 2012.1 SH (‘advokat.dk’, ‘advokater.dk’, and ‘advokaterne.dk’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.39 Statisten.dk Aps v Bravo SE, S.H.D.12 April 2011, Case No V-​4-​10 (‘statisten.dk’). . . . . . . . . . DK.39 The Morgan Crucible Company Plc and Magna Industrial Company Ltd v AB, Svejseteknik ApS S.H.D. 21 November 2000, published as U 2001.432 SH . . . . . . . . . . DK.124 Universal Music Group International v CSE, CS Entertainment ApS et al S.H.D. 4 June 2013 Case No V-​26-​2011(‘abba-​the-​show.com’, ‘abba-​the-​music.com’, and ‘abba-​the-​music.dk’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.98 Supreme Court Broadcom ApS (formerly BC Drift ApS) and Broadcom Bolignet ApS v Broadcom Corporation H.D. 25 March 2010, published as U 2010.1643 H (‘broadcom.dk’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.95 Coffilter International v Melitta SystemService GmbH & Co KG and Melitta Haushaltprodukte GmbH & Co KG H.D. 11 February 2003, published as U 2003.020 H (‘Melitta’ used as metatag and search word) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.122 Danske Familierestauranter A/​S og Jensen’s Bøfhus A/​S mod Sæby Fiskehal ApS og Jacob Jensen _​H.D. 19 September 2014, published as U.2014.3658H (‘jensensfisk.dk’ and ‘jensensfiskerestaurant.dk’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.93 Decision of 20 April 2010 published in U 2010.1942 H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.03 Decision of the Supreme Court dated 21 May 2000 published in U 2000.1351 H . . . . . . . . . . DK.07 Decision of the Supreme Court for the Eastern region dated 27 May 1992, published in U 1992.810 Ø. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.14 Decision of the Supreme Court in the ‘Multichoice case’ published in U 1999.1406 H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.11 Innocent Pictures ApS, tvpc.dk A/​S and Claus Sørensen v Tivoli A/​S94 H.D. 6 September 2010, published as U 2010.3203 H (‘tivolinight.dk’ and ‘tivolinight.com’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.94 Københavns Golf Klub v Royal Copenhagen Golf Center A/​S H.D. 13.02.2006, published as U 2006.1486 H (‘royalcopenhagengolfcenter.dk’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.97 Louise Lego (formerly Louise Lego Andersen) v Lego Holding A/​S as a ‘backend’ of URL 126 H.D. 6 November 2007, published as U 2008.372 H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.125 Medieforlaget Danmark A/​S v TDC Forlag A/​S H.D. 22 October 2003, published as U 2004.140 H (‘itfagbogen.dk’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.115 Top-​Toy A/​S v d Icom Data ApS H.D. 24 March 2004, published as U 2004.1561 H (‘br.dk’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.111

xxxvii

Tables of Cases United Parcel Service of America Inc v Data4u v/​Jan Nordmand H.D. 18 April 2007, published as U 2007.1857 H (‘ups.dk’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.110 Xinox DanmarkA/​S (Dracco Scandinavia A/​S) v 365 Media Scandinavia A/​S under konkurs and Nyhedsavisen A/​S under konkurs. H.D. 30 March 2009, published as U 2009.1592 H (‘nyhedsavisen.dk’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DK.39 EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Decision of 18 September 2007, Application nos 25379/​04, 21688/​05, 21722/​05, and 21770/​05 by Paeffgen GmbH against Germany. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.43 FRANCE Afnic v Francelot, EuroDNS Versailles Court of Appeal, 15 September 2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.248 Air France et al v AFNIC and EuroDNS Paris Court of Appeal, 19 October 2012. . . . . . . . . . FR.250 Alifax Sarl v Sony Corporation, SA Sony France Versailles Court of Appeal, 14 September 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.182 Anne-​Marie BS v TI Systems, Provoyance Paris Court of First Instance, 13 June 2003. . . . . . . FR.244 Aujourd’hui Madame Paris Court of First Instance (TGI), 28 March 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.13 Bordas Supreme Court (Cass. Com.), 12 March 1985. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.14 Christine Kelly v Kapado, Serge N Pontoise Commercial Court, 18 September 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.227, FR.255 Comité Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne (C.I.V.C) v Société Yves Saint Laurent Paris Court of Appeal, 15 December 1993. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .FR.11 Comité national olympique et sportif français (CNOSF), Ville de Paris v Gilbert L Paris Court of First Instance, 14 March 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.230 Darjeeling Paris Court of Appeal, 22 November 2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.17 Decathlon v Valley, (‘decathlon.pl’) Supreme Court (Cass. Com) 20 February 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.168, FR.219 Décision No 337320 du 9 juillet 2010 du Conseil d’Etat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.28, FR.29 Décision n°2010-​45 QPC du Conseil Constitutionnel du 6 octobre 2010. . . . . . . . . . . FR.28, FR.29 Ducasse Cass., 6 May 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.14 E-​qualite.com TGI Nanterre, 2e Chambre, 4 November 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.208, FR.244 Europe Ecologie Paris Court of First Instance, 11 March 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .FR.17 Fernand S, Normalu v Acet Paris Court of Appeal, 26 April 2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.260 François Bayrou v Stéphane H. Paris Court of First Instance, 12 July 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.226 Free SA v Osmozis Paris Court of First Instance, 29 October 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.236, FR.244 Gandi Paris Court of First Instance, 27 June 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.221 Google v AXA Paris Court of Appeal, 6 June 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.260 Google France v Louis Vuitton Malletier Paris Court of Appeal, 28 June 2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.245 Hugo Boss v Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken Cass. Com., 11 January 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.260 Ingess Ingénierie et Gestion v Philippe X…Paris Court of Appeal, 4 January 2012 . . . . . . . . . FR.216 Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG v Milka B Versailles Court of Appeal, 27 April 2006 (‘milka.fr’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.218 Looxor.com, Paris Court of First Instance, 9 July 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .FR.208 M Andre D v Sté Sunshine, AFNIC, OVH (Cass. Com.) 9 June 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.215 Microcaz SARL v Oceanet, SA Le Mans Court of First Instance, 29 June 1999. . . . . . . . . . . . FR.243 Microsoft, Carpoint v 3D Soft Paris Court of Appeal, 17 February 2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.233 Moniseur Michel LE P et l’association Internationale des Concours de Beauté pour les Pays Francophones v Société Miss France et Comité La Société Miss France et l’Association Comite Miss France, Miss Europe, Miss Univers, Cour D’Appel de Paris 1ère chambre, section C No 2002/​20314. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.187 Netuneed/​Marie Louise C v Sébastien C (‘onvasortir.com’) Paris Court of First Instance, 19 December 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.245 Planetland.com TGI Paris, 3e Chambre, 21 October 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.208, FR.244 s.n.c. Hôtellerie Arcotel Mulhouse A 36, (‘arcotel.fr’) Paris Court of First Instance, 13 January 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.216

xxxviii

Tables of Cases SA Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG v Madame Milka B Nanterre Court of First Instance, 14 March 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.206, FR.218 SARL A Buttea v SARL Corsica colis Bastia Court of Appeal, 28 January 2002. . . . . FR.201, FR.211 SARL BNF Diffusion v Etablissement Bibliothèque Nationale de France Paris Court of Appeal, 18 September 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.17 SAS Compagnie Française Eiffel Construction métallique v Philippe Jean Michel Couperie Eiffel Bordeaux Court of Appeal, 16 May 2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.15 Sedo GmbH v Hôtels Méridien, Stéphane H Cass. Com. 21 October 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.252 Sem Issy Média et autres v Mohamed E Versailles Court of Appeal, 13 September 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.231 Société Bretagne Ventes Immobilier (BVI) v Société Véronique Le Helley Supreme Court (Cass. Com.) 7 July 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.235 Société Castellblanch v Société Champagne Louis Roederer (‘Cristal’ case) Cass. Com., 9 December 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.259 Société Cooperative Agricole Champagne Cereales v Gérard J Versailles Court of First Instance, 14 April 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.221 Société SG2 v Brokat Informations Systems GmbH (‘Payline’ case) Nanterre Court of First Instance, 13 October 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.259 Soficar v Le Tourisme modern Supreme Court (Cass. Com.) 13 December 2005. . . . . . . . . . . FR.212, FR.213, FR.246 Sony Corporation, SA Sony France v Alifax Sarm (‘espace-​sony.com’) Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre, 20 March 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.182 Sté Publications Bonnier c/​Sté Saveurs et Senteurs Créations Nanterre Court of First Instance, 21 January 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.211, FR.233 Sunshine, AFNIC v Andre D, OVH Paris Court of First Instance, 13 July 2007. . . . . . . . . . . FR.215 Sunshine, AFNIC v Andre D, OVH Paris Court of Appeal, 16 January 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.215 Ville de Paris v Paris-​sans fil Paris Court of First Instance, 6 July 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.229 Virgin Interactive v France Telecom and BDDP-​TBWA Paris Court of Appeal, 18 October 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.200 Würzburg Holding v eBay Paris Court of Appeal, 22 May 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FR.260 GERMANY Adminstrative Appeals Tribunal (OVG) Mannheim, Judgment of 23 May 2013, Az. 6 S 88/​13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.404 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Münster, MMR 2010, 350, 351 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.404 BGH GRUR 1993, 404, 405–​Columbus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.270, DE.276 BGH GRUR 1997, 749, 751–​L’Orange. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.270, DE.276 BGH GRUR 1997, 903, 905–​GARONOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.277 BGH GRUR 1995, 825, 826–​Torres. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.276, DE.277 BGH GRUR 2003, 428, 431–​BIG BERTHA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.277 BGH GRUR 2005 431 Hotel Maritime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV.02, IV.05, IV.09, IV.45, IV.48 BPatG, BlPMZ 2001, 24, 25—​VISIO/​VISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV.06 BPatG BlPMZ 2001, 192–​eCollect.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.284, DE.285 BPatG GRUR 2004, 336–​beauty24.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.284 BPatG Mitt. 2003, 569–​handy.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.285 District Court Ansbach NJW 1997, 2688–​ansbach.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.210 District Court Berlin CR 2000, 700–​deutschland.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.71, DE.210 District Court Berlin, K&R 1998, 557–​technomed.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.138 District Court Bonn, MMR 1998, 110, 111–​detag.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.241 District Court Braunschweig, CR 1998, 364, 367–​deta.com. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.138 District Court Braunschweig, NJW 1997, 2687–​braunschweig.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.210 District Court Bremen, ZUM-​RD 2000, 558–​photo-​dose.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.323 District Court Bremen ZUM-​RD 2003, 360–​bsagmeckerseite.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.81, DE.82, DE.95, DE.134, DE.164, DE.261 Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) NJW 2005, 589—​ad-​acta.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.43, DE.44

xxxix

Tables of Cases District Court Coburg, Judgment of 13 June 2001, Az. 12 O 284/​01, JurPC Web-​Dok. 212/​2001–​tschirn.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.213 District Court Cologne CR 2005, 133, 134–​q.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.213 District Court Cologne, Judgment of 1 June 2007, Az. 6 U 35/​07–​aidu.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.107 District Court Cologne MMR 2000, 625, 626–​wdr.org. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.84, DE.105, DE.152 District Court Cologne, MMR 2002, 60–​budweiser.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.161, DE.331, DE.396 District Court Cologne MMR 2009, 201–​BewerberVZ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.112 District Court Cologne NJW-​RR 1999, 629–​zivildienst.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.210 District Court Cologne, GRUR-​RR 2006, 372–​quaktie.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.81, DE.84 District Court Duisburg MMR 2000, 168–​kamp-​lintfort.cty.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.210 District Court Düsseldorf, GRUR 1998, 159, 164–​epson.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.242 District Court Düsseldorf, GRUR-​RR 2001, 311—​Skylight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.18 District Court Düsseldorf, GRUR-​RR 2003, 11, 12–​versicherungsrecht.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.300 District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 10 February 2000, Az. 4 0 582/​99–​euro-​car-​market.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.283 District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 6 July 2001, Az. 38 O 18/​01, JurPC Web-​Dok. 8/​2002–​literaturen.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.254 District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 22 August 2001–​Az. 2a 075/​01–​selk.de. . . . . . . . . . . DE.213 District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 1 January 2002, Az. 2 a O 245/​01, JurPC Web-​Dok 267/​2002–​scheiss-​t-​online.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.93 District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 30 January 2002 , Az. 2 a O 245/​01, JurPC Web-​Dok. 267/​2002–​scheiss-​t-​online.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.81, DE.119, DE.123, DE.134, DE.164, DE.261 District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 25 February 2004, Az. 2a O 247/​03–​ratiosoft.com. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.271 District Court Düsseldorf, JurBüro 2001, 548. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.379 District Court Düsseldorf, MD 2000, 21–​babynet.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.182, DE.183, DE.282 District Court Düsseldorf, Mitt. 1997, 225, 229–​epson.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.296 District Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2001, 560–​friedrich.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.211 District Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2002, 398–​bocklet.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.213 District Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2003, 342 –​schuelerhilfe.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.74, DE.245 District Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2005, 412. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.329 District Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2006, 412–​wahlipp.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.244 District Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2003, 415, 416–​big-​ben.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.254 District Court Düsseldorf, NJW-​RR 1999, 623, 624–​nazar.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.155 District Court Düsseldorf, NJW-​RR 1999, 841–​Alltours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.296 District Court Düsseldorf, NJW-​RR 2007, 617–​cat-​ersatzteile.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.224, DE.230 District Court Düsseldorf, dated July 21 1999, 34 O 56/​99—​‘donline.de’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.75 District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 25 February 2004, Az. 2a O 247/​03–​ratiosoft.com. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.75, DE.76 District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 11 July 2007, Az. 2 a O 24/​07–​hapimag-​a-​aktien.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.224, DE.379 District Court Cologne MMR 2006, 412–​wahltipp.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.74 District Court Erfurt MMR 2002, 396, 397–​suhl.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.213 District Court Flensburg, Judgment of 18 October 2001, Az. 3 O 178/​01, JurPC Web-​Dok. 321/​2002–​hasselberg.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.213 District Court Frankenthal GRUR-​RR 2006, 13–​günstig.de. . . . . . . . . . . . DE.74, DE.222, DE.244 District Court Frankfurt, CR 1998, 364, 365–​deta.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.84 District Court Frankfurt, Judgment of 10 October 2002–​Az. 3/​8 O 86/​01–​digamma-​portal.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.107 District Court Frankfurt a. M., Judgment of 15 January 2003, Az. 2/​6 374/​02, JurPCWeb-​Dok. 161/​2003–​hockeystore.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.244 District Court Frankfurt/​M., CR 1997, 287, 288–​das.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.138 District Court Frankfurt a.M., MMR 1998, 151–​lit.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.155 District Court Frankfurt a. M., MMR 2000, 102, 104–​Arvis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.297 District Court Frankfurt a.M., MMR 2004, 113, 114–​mormonen.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.260 District Court Frankfurt, MMR 2005, 62, 63–​fetenplaner.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.271

xl

Tables of Cases District Court of Frankfurt, MMR 2009, 272–​huk-​coburg24.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.340 District Court of Frankfurt, MMR 2009, 705, Lufthansa-​Domains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.340 District Court of Hamburg, Az. 312 O 116/​02, Judgment of 7 July 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.316 District Court Hamburg CR 1999, 785, 786–​animal-​planet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.279, DE.396 District Court Hamburg, CR 2002, 296–​diacos.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.316 District Court Hamburg, GRUR-​RR 2002, 267–​schuhmarkt.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.331 District Court Hamburg, Judgment of 12 September 2000, Az. 312 O 424/​00–​dpa-​online.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.242, DE.254 District Court Hamburg, Judgment of 21 March 2002, Az. 315 O 380/​01–​wilm.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.254, DE.255 District Court Hamburg, Judgment of 21 November 2006, Az. 312 O 426/​06–​champagner.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.198 District Court Hamburg, JurPC Web-​Dok. 43/​2000–​xtra.net. . . . . . . . . . DE.105, DE.107, DE.152 District Court Hamburg, MD 2001, 354, 358–​nimm2.com. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.396 District Court Hamburg, Mitt. 2001, 83, 85–​Ferrari. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.226 District Court Hamburg, MMR 1998, 46–​bike.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.184 District Court Hamburg, MMR 2000, 436–​luckystrike.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.80, DE.121 District Court Hamburg, MMR 2000, 620, 622–​joop.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.130, DE.138, DE.175 District Court Hamburg, MMR 2003, 53–​stoppesso.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.63, DE.81, DE.93, DE.119, DE.123 District Court Hamburg, MMR 2003, 128–​cityscout.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.107, DE.113 District Court Hamburg, MMR 2005, 190–​sartorius.at . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.105, DE.152 District Court Hamburg, MMR 2005, 254–​müller.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.211 District Court Hamburg, MMR 2009, 135–​börsevz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.112 District Court Hannover MMR 2002, 134–​verteidigungsministerium.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.210 District Court of Leipzig, Az. 05 O 2919/​10, Judgment of 8 March 2011 (unpublished). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.317 District Court Leipzig, Judgment of 8 February 2001, Az. 11 O 8573/​00, JurPC Web-​Dok. 6/​2001–​waldheim.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.206, DE.213 District Court Leipzig, Judgment of 24 November 2005, JurPC Web-​Dok. 35/​2006. . . . . . . DE.244 District Court Lüneburg GRUR 1997, 470–​celle.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.210 District Court Magdeburg MMR 1999, 607–​foris.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.334 District Court Mainz, Judgment of 9 August 2001, Az. 1 O 488/​00, JurPC Web-​Dok. 127/​2002–​budenheim.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.210 District Court Mannheim, CR 1999, 528–​bautip.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.181, DE.189 District Court Mannheim, K&R 1998, 556, 560–​brockhaus.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.40, DE.296 District Court Mannheim, NJW 1996, 2736–​heidelberg.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.210 District Court Mannheim, WRP 2002, 254–​zwilling.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.315 District Court Mannheim, ZUM-​RD 2000, 74, 75–​nautilus. . . . . . . . . . . DE.101, DE.106, DE.138 District Court Munich I, CR 1999, 451–​fnet.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.75, DE.280, DE.282 District Court Munich CR 2005, 532–​bmw4u.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.107 District Court Munich, CR 2006, 494 f.–​feuerwehr-​fehrbelin.de.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.256 District Court Munich I, Judgment of 5 September 2001–​Az. 7 HK O 10964/​01–​infoversum.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.79 District Court Mannheim, K&R 1998, 558, 560–​brockhaus.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.138 District Court Munich, K&R 2007, 219–​klingeltöne.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.245 District Court Munich, MMR 2000, 832, 833–​biolandwirt.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.106 District Court Munich, MMR 2007, 395–​neu.de/​neu.eu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.268 District Court Munich I, CR 1999, 451–​f-​net.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.271 District Court Munich I, CR 2001, 416–​bmw-​werkstatt.com. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.224, DE.233 District Court Munich I, CR 2001, 555–​saeugling.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.79 District Court Munich I, Decision of 27 December 2004, Az. 33 O 24216/​04–​dialerschutz.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.182, DE.282 District Court Munich I, Decision of 14 February 2005, Az. 9 O 6502/​04–​justiz-​muenchen.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.210 District Court Munich I, Judgment of 14 September 2000, Az. W 5 KLs 70 Js 12730/​99, JurPC Web-​Dok. 228/​2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.269

xli

Tables of Cases District Court Munich I, Judgment of 23 November 2004, Az. 33 O 3866/​04. . . . . . . . . . . . DE.272 District Court Munich I, MMR 1999, 234–​juris-​solvendi.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.107 District Court Munich I, MMR 2001, 61. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.307, DE.322 District Court Munich I, MMR 2001, 545–​saeugling.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.80 District Court Munich I, MMR 2002, 691, 692–​lady-​lucia.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.344 District Court Munich I, MMR 2002, 832–​biolandwirt.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.107 District Court Munich I, NJW-​RR 1998, 978–​sat-​shop.com. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.297 District Court Munich I, WRP 1997, 124, 126–​Maglite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.325 District Court Munich I, ZUM 2000, 526–​Marlene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.205 District Court Munich I, ZUM-​RD 2000, 295, 297–​myintershop.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.241 District Court Munich I, ZUM-​RD 2002, 105–​fordboerse.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.138, DE.223 District Court Munich I, ZUM-​RD 2002, 107–​neuschwanstein.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.210 District Court Munich I, ZUM-​RD 2006, 359, 361–​fwt-​koeln.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.239 District Court Nürnberg-​Fürth, MMR 2000, 629, 630–​pinakothek.de. . . . . DE.101, DE.203, DE.210 District Court Nürnberg-​Fürth, Judgment of 5 December 2001–​Az. 3 O 10751/​00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.107 District Court Nürnberg-​Fürth, Judgment of 24 July 2002, Az. 3 O 5970/​01–​medbook.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.75, DE.271 District Court Osnabrück, Judgment of 23 September 2005, Az. 12 O 3937/​04, JurPC Web-​Dok. 51/​2006–​melle.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.213 District Court Potsdam, Judgment of 16 January 2002, Az. 2 O 566/​01–​polizeibrandenburg.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.210 District Court Stuttgart, WRP 2002, 347–​playmatemoni96.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.107 Dresden Court of Appeals CR 1999, 589 (‘cyberspace.de’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.18 Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfGE 24, 278, 286 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.260 Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfGE 51, 193, 216 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.44 Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) NJW 2005, 589–​ad-​acta.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.374 Federal Constitutional Court, GRUR 2001, 170, 172–​Schockwerbung. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.133 Federal Constitutional Court, WRP 1997, 424, 426–​Rauchen schadet der Gesundheit. . . . . . DE.133 Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 8, 318—​Pazifist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.19 Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 30, 7, 10–​Caterina Valente. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.212 Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 36, 252–​Gründerblitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.252 Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 43, 245, 253 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.20, DE.211 Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfGE 24, 278, 286 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.164 Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfGE 78, 58, 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.44 Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 123, 166, 169 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.43 Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 148, 13, 17 f.–​ambiente.de . . . . . . . . . . . DE.334, DE.337, DE.339, DE.369, CH.144 Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 149, 191, 200–​shell.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.213, DE.235, DE.251, DE.266, DE.321, DE.331 Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 149, 371, 374–​Missbräuchliche Mehrfachabmahnungen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.293 Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 155, 273, 276 f.—​maxem.de. . . . . . . . . . . DE.20, DE.164, DE.202, DE.206, DE.209, DE.211, DE.213, DE.215 Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 161, 216–​Pro Fide Cahtolica. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.212 Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 185, 330—​Sommer unseres Lebens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.369 Federal Supreme Court, Decision of 25 May 2000, Az. I ZR 269/​99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.274 Federal Supreme Court, Decision of 13 June 2002, Az. I ZR 292/​01. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.196 Federal Supreme Court, Decision of 16 March 2006, Az. I ZR 156. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.274 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1953, 446, 447 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.20 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1960, 550–​Promonta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.78 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1961, 354f.–​Vitalsulfal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.310, DE.312 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1964, 38–​Dortmund grüßt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.212 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1966, 375–​Meßmer-​Tee II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.313 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1966, 623–​Kupferberg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.130 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1971, 221–​Pudelzeichen II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.313 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1972, 189–​Wandsteckdose II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.252

xlii

Tables of Cases Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1972, 553–​Statt Blumen ONKO-​Kaffee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.239 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1975, 85–​Clarissa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.313 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1976, 311—​Sternhaus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.18 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1979, 564–​Metall-​Zeitung. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.134 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1983, 262–​Uwe (Uwe Seeler). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.305 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1983, 467–​Photokina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.252 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1987, 438–​Handtuchspender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.78 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1989, 264–​REYNOLDS R1/​EREINTZ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.103 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1989, 349–​ROTH-​HÄNDLE-​KENTUCKY . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.103 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1990, 367–​alpi/​Alba Moda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.101 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1991, 517—​SWOPS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.19 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1993, 55–​Tchibo/​Rolex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.309 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1993, 151—​Universitätsemblem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.18, DE.212 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1994, 630–​Cartier-​Armreif . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.248 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1994, 808–​Markenverunglimpfung I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.123 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1994, 844—​Rotes Kreuz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.18, DE.214 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1995, 424–​Abmehmerverwarnung. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.248 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1996, 198–​Springende Raubkatze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.99 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1996, 781–​Verbrauchsmaterialien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.304 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1998, 830–​Les-​Paul-​Gitarren. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.96 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 161–​MAC Dog. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.250 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 235–​Wheels Magazine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.179 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 238–​Tour de culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.85, DE.221, DE.222 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 245–​LIBERO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.95 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 492, 494–​Altberliner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.148 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 731, 733–​Canon II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.109 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 992–​BIG PACK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.70, DE.125, DE.221 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 1063–​BIG PACK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.78 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2000, 506–​ATTACHÉ/​TISSERAND. . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.96, DE.97 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2000, 608–​ARD-​1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.111 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2000, 709–​Marlene Dietrich. . . . . . . . . . DE.205, DE.214, DE.215 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2000, 1028–​Ballermann. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.101 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2000, 1031–​Carl Link. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.104 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2001, 344–​DB Immobilienfond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.142 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2001, 1038–​ambiente.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.79 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2001, 1050–​Tagesschau. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.184, DE.250 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2001, 1054–​Tagesreport. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.250 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2001, 1058–​Therapeutische Äquivalenz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.133 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2001, 1158–​Dorf Münster. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.74 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2001, 1159–​Dorf Münsterland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.104 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2001, 1161–​CompuNet/​ComNet. . . . . . DE.101, DE.148, DE.154 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 167–​Bit/​Bud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.96, DE.235, DE.250 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 171, 175–​Marlboro-​Dach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.111 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 340, 341–​Fabergé. . . . . . . DE.114, DE.115, DE.235, DE.250 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 544–​BANK 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.109 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 622–​shell.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.120, DE.130, DE.163, DE.175, DE.250 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 626–​IMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.101, DE.106 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 706–​vossius.de. . . . . . . . . . . AT.64, DE.170, DE.235, DE.297 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 812–​Früstücks-​Drink. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.85 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 814–​Festspielhaus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.85 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 898–​defacto. . . . . . . . . . . DE.101, DE.148, DE.154, DE.155, DE.170, DE.213, DE.235 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 917–​Düsseldorfer Stadtwappen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.212 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 972–​FROMMIA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.388 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 1063–​Aspririn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.70, DE.78 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 332–​Abschlusstück. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.235, DE.250

xliii

Tables of Cases Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 340–​Mitsubishi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.226 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 428–​BIG BERTHA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.114 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 442–​Benetton-​Werbung II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.133 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 446–​Preisempfehlung für Sondermodelle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.304 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 878–​Vier Ringe über Audi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.226, DE.227 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 880–​City Plus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.106 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 897–​maxem.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.163 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 899–​Olympiasiegerin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.214, DE.304 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 963–​AntiVir/​AntivVirus . . . . . . . . . DE.85, DE.103, DE.104 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 1047–​Kellogg’s/​Kelly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.106, DE.153 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 1040–​Kinder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.74, DE.100, DE.103 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 151–​Farbmarkenverletzung I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.70 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 235–​Davidoff II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.106, DE.153 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 240–​MIDAS/​medAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.106, DE.153 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 619–​kurt-​biedenkopf.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.211, DE.212, DE.334, DE.337 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 775–​EURO 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.85 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 778–​Urlaub Direkt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.74 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 512–​Leysieffer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.83 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 598–​Kleiner Feigling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.111 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 860–​Internet-​Versteigerung. . . . . . . DE.78, DE.346, DE.347 Federal Supreme Court GRUR 2004, 860–​Internetauktion I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.352 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 865–​Mustang. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.106 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 877–​Werbeblocker. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.239, DE.240 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 947–​Gazoz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.222 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 1039–​SB-​Beschriftung. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.235 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 61–​ComputNet/​ComNet II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.96, DE.148 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 162–​SodaStream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.94 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 262–​soco.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.105, DE.152, DE.154, DE.273 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 264–​Das Telefonsparbuch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.184 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 419–​Räucherkate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.237, DE.251, DE.270 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 430, 431–​mho.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.163, DE.164, DE.166, DE.175, DE.213 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 517—​Literaturhaus. . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.20, DE.202, DE.270 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 583–​Lila Postkarte. . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.93, DE.117, DE.118, DE.119, DE.128 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 687–​weltonline.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.84, DE.117, DE.255 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 959–​Facts II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.281, DE.282 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2006, 158–​segnitz.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.164, DE.213 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2006, 513–​Arzneimittelwerbung im Internet. . . . . . DE.385, DE.386 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 65–​Impuls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.88, DE.91, DE.154 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 168–​kinski-​klaus.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.211 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 259–​solingen.info . . . . . . DE.160, DE.208, DE.209, DE.212 Federal Supreme Court GRUR 2007, 708–​Internetauktion II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.352 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 784–​AIDOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.226, DE.228, DE.230 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 811–​grundke.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.296 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 884–​Cambridge Institute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.388 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 888–​Euro Telekom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.78, DE.127, DE.140, DE.176, DE.189, DE.217 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2008, 702–​Internetauktion III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.352 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2008, 912–​Metroxex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.107, DE.155, DE.273 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2008, 1099–​afilias.de. . . . . . . . . . DE.78, DE.161, DE.163, DE.273 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2009, 484–​Metrobus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.107, DE.156 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2009, 685–​ahd.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.84, DE.140, DE.148 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2009, 1055–​airdsl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.83, DE.88

xliv

Tables of Cases Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2010, 156–​Eifel-​Zeitung. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.273 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2010, GRUR 235–​AIDA/​AIDU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.140 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2010, 738, Peek & Cloppenburg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.148, DE.168 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2011, 617–​SEDO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.83, DE.88, DE.89, DE.354, DE.355, DE.356, DE.357, DE.358, DE.359, DE.360, DE.361 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 304–​Basler Haar-​Kosmetik . . . . . . DE.140, DE.160, DE.162, DE.166, DE.364, DE.366, DE.367, DE.373 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 534–​Landgut Borsig. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.18 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 621–​Oscar. . . . . . . . . . . . DE.399, DE.400, DE.401, DE.402 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 635–METRO/​ROLLER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.148, DE.156 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 651–​regierung-​oberfranken.de. . . . . . . . . . . . DE.210, DE.341 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 832–​ZAPPA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.85 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 1040–​pjur/​pure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.85, DE.273 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 1145–​Pelikan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.107 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2013, 294–​dlg.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.84, DE.373 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2013, 638–​Völkl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.168 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2013, 370–​Alone in the Dark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.362 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2013, 10140–​pjur/​pure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.106 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2014, 393–​wetteronline.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.244, DE.270 Federal Supreme Court, Judgment of 15 August 2013—​I ZR 80/​12–​File-​Hosting-​Dienst. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.362 Federal Supreme Court MR 2001, 147–​‘ambiente.de’ = MMR 2001, 744. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.90 Federal Supreme Court, MMR 2001, 671–​ambiente.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.60 Federal Supreme Court, MMR 2002, 382–​shell.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.79 Federal Supreme Court, MMR 2005, 685–​Pfändung einer Internet-​Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.379 Federal Supreme Court NJW 1994, 124 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.133, DE.164, DE.260 Federal Supreme Court, WRP 1996, 284–​Wegfall der Wiederholungsgefahr II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.304 Federal Supreme Court, WRP 2002, 537–​BANK 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.95, DE.106 Federal Supreme Court, WRP 2004, 360–​Davidoff II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.235, DE.250 Federal Supreme Court, WRP 2007, 964–​Internet-​Versteigerung II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.346 Federal Supreme Court 17 May 2001–​‘mitwohnzentrale.de’ = MR 2001, 148 (Burgstaller). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.85 Federal Supreme Court 2002 MarkenR 190 (‘vossius.de’), MMR 2002 456 Federal Supreme Court Mitt. 2002, 535, 536–​Düsseldorfer Stadtwappen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.18 German Supreme Court ‘BGH’, Beschluss 10.112009, VI ZR 217/​08 = lex:itec 2010/​4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.111 German Supreme Court 13 October 2003, IZR 163/​02—​hotel-​maritime.dk = GRUR 2005, 431. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.114 German Supreme Court, 22 November 2011–​‘shell.de’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.73 German Supreme Court I ZR 161/​02—​‘seicom’—​GRUR 2005, 871 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT.84 Higher Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof ), Decision of 20 November 2008, Az. 10 CS 08.2436. Tz. 40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.404 Higher Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) Munich, Decision of 24 January 2012, Az. CS 11.1290 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.404 Higher Regional Court Brandenburg MMR 2001, 174–​luckau.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.210 Higher Regional Court Braunschweig, Judgment of 19 December 2003, Az. 2 W 233/​03, JurPC Web-​Dok. 254/​2004–​fh-​wf.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.210 Higher Regional Court Cologne, CR 2002, 533, 535–​guenter-​jauch.de . . . . . . . . . . DE.344, DE.348 Higher Regional Court Cologne, GRUR 2000, 798–​alsdorf.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.210 Higher Regional Court Cologne, GRUR 2001, 525–​online.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.245 Higher Regional Court Cologne, GRUR-​RR 2003, 40–​night loop . . . . . . DE.105, DE.112, DE.152 Higher Regional Court Cologne, GRUR-​RR 2003, 42–​Anwalts-​Suchservice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.85 Higher Regional Court Cologne, GRUR-​RR 2003, 42–​Anwalt-​Suchservice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.74 Higher Regional Court Cologne, GRUR-​RR 2005, 16f.–​Kreuzfahrten. . . . . . . . . . . DE.103, DE.107 Higher Regional Court Cologne, GRUR-​RR 2005, 82–​bit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.107 Higher Regional Court Cologne, GRUR-​RR 2006, 19–​schlüsselbänder.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.244

xlv

Tables of Cases Higher Regional Court Cologne, Judgment of 8 May 2002, Az. 6 U 195/​01, JurPC Web-​Dok. 233/​2002–​citipost.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.107, DE.112, DE.113, DE.125 Higher Regional Court Cologne, MMR 2002, 475–​gus.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.101 Higher Regional Court Cologne, MMR 2003, 114–​lottoteam.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.113 Higher Regional Court Cologne, MMR 2006, 629–​Ecolab. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.88 Higher Regional Court Cologne, NJW-​RR 1999, 622–​herzogenrath.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.210 Higher Regional Court Cologne, WRP 2002, 244–​lotto-​privat.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.79 Higher Regional Court Cologne, WRP 2002, 249–​freelotto.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.113 Higher Regional Court Dresden, CR 1999, 102–​dresden-​online.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.280, DE.282 Higher Regional Court Dresden, CR 1999, 589, 590–​cyberspace.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.83, DE.241 Higher Regional Court Dresden, Judgment of 7 March 2006, Az. 14 U 2293/​05–​kettenzüge.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.244 Higher Regional Court Dresden, NJWE-​WettbR 1999, 133, 135–​cyberspace.de. . . . . . . . . . . . DE.84 Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, GRUR-​RR 2001, 230–​Online-​Apotheke. . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.184 Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, GRUR-​RR 2002–​T-​Box. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.113 Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, GRUR-​RR 2003, 11–​versicherungsrecht.de. . . . . . . . . . . DE.184 Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, GRUR-​RR 2003, 25–​duisburg-​info.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.212 Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2002, 827–​exces.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.241, DE.255 Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2007, 187–​professional-​nails.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.222 Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2007, 188–​peugeot-​tuning.de. . . . . . . . DE.112, DE.224, DE.234, DE.272, DE.274 Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, NJW-​WettbR 1999, 626–​ufa.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.117 Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, WRP 1999, 343–​ufa.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.138, DE.296 Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, ZUM-​RD 2001, 446–​claro.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.280 Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, CR 2001, 412–​mediafacts.de. . . . . . . . DE.138, DE.191, DE.322 Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, CR 2001, 620–​praline-​tv.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.255 Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, GRUR 2000, 1063, 1065–​Spee Fuchs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.125 Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, GRUR 2004, 1042–​Cartierschmuck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.78 Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, GRUR-​RR 2001, 264–​weltonline.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.331 Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, GRUR-​RR 2003, 143–​viagratip.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.340 Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, WRP 2000, 645–​weideglueck.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.138 Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, a. M. WRP 2000, 645–​weideglueck.de. . . . . . . . . . . AT.18, DE.84, DE.255, DE.257 Higher Regional Court Frankfurt,/​M. WRP 2000, 773–​alcon.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.131 Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, MMR 2000, 752–​mediafacts.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.181, DE.307 District Court Frankfurt a.M., MMR 2004, 113–​mormonen.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.164 Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, MMR 2005, 458 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.78 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, CR 2001, 552–​1001buecher.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.112 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, Decision of 31 May 2007, Az. 327 O 332/​07–​firmennameblog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.133, DE.262 Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR 2000, 518–​buecherde.com. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.152 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-​RR 2001, 7–​funfunradio.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.107 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-​RR 2001, 126–​Intershop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.107 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR 2001, 838–​1001buecher.de. . . . . . . . . . . . DE.83, DE.123 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-​RR 2002, 100–​derrick.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.83, DE.105, DE.138, DE.152 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-​RR 2002, 256–​24translate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.107 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-​RR 2002, 393–​motorradmarkt.de. . . . . . . . . . . . DE.181, DE.184, DE.189 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-​RR 2004, 178, 181–​schufafreierkredit.de. . . . . . . . DE.85, DE.222 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-​RR 2005, 315–​günstiger.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.348 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-​RR 2006, 408, 413–​Obelix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.187 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, Judgment of 7 July 2003, Az. 3 W 81/​03 JuRPC Web-​Dok. 238/​2003–​be-​mobile.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.107 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, Judgment of 31 July 2003, Az. 3 U 145/​02, eltern-​online.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.331

xlvi

Tables of Cases Higher Regional Court Hamburg, Judgment of 12 April 2007, Az. 312 O 332/​06–​originalnordmann.eu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.84, DE.140 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MarkenR 2004, 413, 416–​Kinder/​Kinderzeit. . . . . . . . . . . DE.115 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2000, 92, 96–​Casino-​online/​Golden Jackpot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.344, DE.396 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2000, 544–​kulturwerbung.de. . . . . DE.83, DE.106, DE.221 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2001, 612–​startup.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.105, DE.152 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2002, 682–​siehan.de. . . . . . . . . DE.105, DE.152, DE.155 Higher Regional Court Hamburg MMR 2002, 822–​Hotel Maritime . . . . . . . . . . . DE.384, DE.385, DE.396, DE.398, DE.403 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2004, 174–​eltern-​online.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.189 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2004, 822–​Domain-​Parking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.353 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2005, 118–​awd-​aussteiger.de. . . . . . DE.81, DE.92, DE.93, DE.94, DE.112, DE.134, DE.164, DE.261 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2006, 226–​combit/​kompit.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.105, DE.107, DE.152 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2006, 476–​metrosex.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.84, DE.105, DE.117, DE.152 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2006, 608–​ahd.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.77, DE.84, DE.101 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2007, 384–​test24.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.107 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2013, 101–​kredito.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.107 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, NJOZ 2005, 4080 f.–​metrosex.de. . . . . . . . . . . DE.112, DE.113, DE.136, DE.330 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, ZUM-​RD 2002, 349–​pizza-​connection.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.84 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, ZUM-​RD 2005, 446–​abebooks.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.271 Higher Regional Court Hamm, CR 1998, 241–​krupp.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.130, DE.175 Higher Regional Court Hamm, CR 2002, 217, 219–​veltins.com. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.138 Higher Regional Court Hamm, GRUR 2003, 722–​castor.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.81 Higher Regional Court Hamm, Judgment of 1 April 2003, Az. 4 U 157/​02–​aldireisen.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.125 Higher Regional Court Hamm, MMR 2001, 695. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.138, DE.307, DE.322 Higher Regional Court Hamm, MMR 2003, 177–​nobia.se. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.396 Higher Regional Court Hamm, MMR 2005, 381–​juraxx.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.77 Higher Regional Court Hamm, NJW-​RR 1999, 632–​pizza-​direkt.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.103 Higher Regional Court Jena MMR 2005, 776–​anwalthotline.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.244 Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe AfP 1999, 378–​badwildbad.com. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.298 Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe GRUR-​RR 2002, 138–​dino.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.84., DE.254 Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe GRUR-​RR 2002, 221–​Ferrari-​Emblem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.226 Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe NJW 1972, 1810 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.260 Higher Regional Court Munich, MMR 1998, 668–​freundin.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.138 Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe CR 1999, 783–​badwildbad.com. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.210 Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe MMR 1999, 171–​zwilling.de . . . . . . . . . . AT.40, DE.105, DE.152 Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe MMR 2002, 814–​Intel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.384, DE.396 Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe NJW 1972, 1810 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.133, DE.164 Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe WRP 1998, 900–​zwilling.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.83 Higher Regional Court Koblenz, CR 2002, 280–​vallendar.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.213 Higher Regional Court Koblenz MMR 2002, 466–​vallendar.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.155 Higher Regional Court Munich, CR 1998, 556–​freundin.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.83 Higher Regional Court Munich, CR 1999, 778–​tnet.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.75, DE.271, DE.274 Higher Regional Court, Munich CR 2002, 449–​literaturhaus.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.384 Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR 1960, 394–​Romy (Romy Schneider). . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.205 Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR 2000, 518–​buecherde.com. . . . . DE.105, DE.106, DE.152 Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR 2000, 519–​rolls-​royce.de. . . . . . . . DE.84, DE.117, DE.138, DE.223, DE.298 Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR-​RR 2001, 107–​mbp.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.97 Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR-​RR 2002, 17–​champagner.de. . . . . . . . . . . DE.196, DE.197 Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR-​RR 2002, 107–​mbp.de. . . . . DE.105, DE.107, DE.112, DE.152

xlvii

Tables of Cases Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR-​RR 2002, 234–​duck.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.211 Higher Regional Court München GRUR- RR 2005, 375, 377–800-FLOWERS. . . . . . . . . . . DE.278 Higher Regional Court Munich, Judgment of 4 June 2005, Az. 6 U 5769/​04–​mbp.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.272, DE.274 Higher Regional Court Munich, Judgment of October 8, 2009, 29 U 2636/​09 REFODERM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.387 Higher Regional Court Munich, MMR 1999, 547–​Buecher.de/​Amazon. . . . . . . . . . . DE.85, DE.88, DE.143, DE.245 Higher Regional Court Munich, MMR 2000, 277–​intershopping.com; . . . . . . . . . . . DE.83, DE.107 Higher Regional Court Munich, MMR 2001, 381–​kuecheonline.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.138 Higher Regional Court Munich, MMR 2001, 692–​boos.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.213 Higher Regional Court Munich, MMR 2007, 115–​fwt-​koeln.de. . . . . . . . DE.235, DE.239, DE.256 Higher Regional Court Munich, MarkenR 2000, 428–​TEAMBUS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.84 Higher Regional Court Munich, MarkenR 2005, 337–​800-​Flowers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.396 Higher Regional Court Munich, MarkenR 2006, 74–​österreich.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.183, DE.184 Higher Regional Court of Munich, PharmaR 2010, 528–​Viagra und viaguara.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.107, DE.125 Higher Regional Court Munich, ZUM 2012, 587. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.387 Higher Regional Court Naumburg, MMR 2002, 57. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.339 Higher Regional Court Rostock, K&R 2000, 303–​mueritz-​online.de . . . . . DE.83, DE.107, DE.155 Higher Regional Court Schleswig CR 2001, 465–​Swabedoo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.80 Higher Regional Court Stuttgart, MMR, 1998, 543–​steiff.com. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.138 Higher Regional Court Stuttgart, MMR 2002, 754, 755–​herstellerkatalog.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.245 Higher Regional Court Zweibrücken, Judgment of 17 October 2002, Az. 4 U 59/​02, JurPC Web-​Dok. 210/​2003 (Domaingrabbing). . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.254, DE.257 KG Berlin CR 2004, 301, 302–​arena-​berlin.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.276 KG NJW 1988, 2892–​Esplanade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.18 KG NJWE-​WettbR 2000, 234–​toolshop.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.282, DE.283 LG Frankfurt, Judgment of August 28, 2009, Az. 3-​11 O 170/​08—​romantic.eu. . . . . . . . . . . DE.268 LG Hamburg CR 1999, 785, 786—​Animal Planet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV.02, IV.05 LG Köln CR 2002, 58–​budweiser.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV.02, IV.05 OLG Frankfurt, BeckRS 2010, 18056, x.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.60 OLG Fankfurt, MMR 2011, 176–​sr.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.60 OLG Hamburg GRUR-​RR 2005, 381, 384–​abebooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.277, DE.278, IV.06 OLG Karlsruhe MMR 2002, 814–​Intel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.277, IV.02, IV.05, IV.09 OLG München GRUR-​RR 2004, 171, 173–​Cambridge Institut. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV.02, IV.46 OLG München MarkenR 2005, 337, 340—​1-​800-​FLOWERS.com. . . . . . . . . . . IV.02, IV.06, IV.46 OVG Mannheim, Judgment of 23 May 2013, Az. 6 S 88/​13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.404 OVG Münster 2010 MMR 350—​Geolocation; Hoeren, 2007 MMR 3 . . . . . . . . . CH.162, DE.404 Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), GRUR-​RR 2001, 180–​CHECKIN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.83, DE.103 Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), CR 1997, 685–​concert-​concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.395 Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), CR 2004, 135–​bandit.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.239 Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), CR 2004, 301, 303–​arena-​berlin.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.271 Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), GRUR-​RR 2007, 398, 399–​.eu Domainnamensregistrierung. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.301 Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), GRUR-​RR 2013, 487–​berlin.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.210 Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), GRUR-​RR 2013, 490–​aserbaidschan.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.210 Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), MarkenR 2003, 367, 369–​America II–​No Peace Beyond the Line. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.189 Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), MMR 2002, 686–​oil-​of-​elf.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.81, DE.91, DE.133, DE.262, DE.263

xlviii

Tables of Cases Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), MMR 2007, 600–​teschechische-​republik.at/​.ch/​.com. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.160, DE.210 Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), CR 2004, 301, 302–​arena-​berlin.de. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.75 Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin) NJW 1997, 3321–​concert-​concept.com. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.384 Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), ZUM 2001, 74, 75–​berlin-​online.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE.143 Superior Regional Court, Hamburg 2004 GRUR-​RR 78, 79–​holzmann-​bauberatung.de. . . . . . DE.174 GREECE Administrative Court of Appeals for the District of Athens, 55/​2010, NOMOS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.58, GR.59, GR.68 Administrative Court of Appeal for the District of Athens, 234/​2013, DiDik 2013, 803. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.55, GR.59, GR.60, GR.68 Athens District Court, 9485/​2000, EpiskEmpD 2000, 1094. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.72 Athens District Court, 3950/​2001, DEE 2001, 604. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.70 Athens District Court, 3359/​2003, EEmpD 2003, 695. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.71 Athens District Court, 3096/​2007, DiMEE 2008, 226. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.71 Athens District Court, 3824/​2008, DiMEE 2009, 76. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.102, GR.105 Athens District Court, 6436/​2008, NOMOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.11 Athens Court of Appeal, 5476/​2010, DEE 2011, 445. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.70 Athens District Court, 2988/​2012, NOMOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.10, GR.104, GR.105 Athens District Court, 3846/​2013, DEE 2014, 31. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.106 Athens District Court, 3286/​2014, DEE 2014, 586. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.10, GR.101 Athens Court of Appeal, 6762/​2007, DiMEE 2008, 83. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.84, GR.102 Athens Court of Appeal, 4776/​2009, NOMOS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.71, GR.76 Patras District Court, 868/​2001, ChrID 2001, 363. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.101 Patras District Court, 868/​2001, ChrID 2001, 868. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.71 Syros District Court, 637/​1999, EEmpD 2000, 144. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.69 Thessaloniki Court of Appeals, 498/​2010, EpiskEmpD 2010, 855. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.105 Thessaloniki District Court, 8198/​2001, EpiskEmpD 2002, 242. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.106 Thessaloniki District Court, 21480/​2013, EPOLD 2014, 371. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GR.101 HONG KONG Commercial Trademark Services SA v Liscaroll Co Ltd t/​a Commercial Investigation Services & Others [1983] 2 HKC 474. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HK.78 Kabushiki Kaisha Yakult Honsha & Others v Yakudo Group Holdings Ltd & Another [2004] HKEC 253. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HK.68, HK.69, HK.75, HK.105 Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc v Specialized Hong Kong Ltd HKIAC DHK1300093 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HK.53, HK.54 Sun Microsystems v Lai Sun Hotels [2000] 2 HKLRD 616. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HK.72, HK.73 INDIA Aktiebolaget Volvo v Volvo Steels Ltd 1998 PTC 83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.16 Ayodhya Consolidated Judgment in OOS No 1 of 1989, OOS No 3 of 1989, OOS No 4 of 1989, OOS No 5 of 1989, Writ Petition (Misc Single) No 746 of 1986 & Writ Petition (Misc Single) No 3106 of 1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.79 Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd v A Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr, 23 November 2009, CS (OS) No 894/​2008, Delhi High Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.146 Beiersdorf AG (Suit no 1991/​99) Delhi High Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.67, IN.68 Casio India Co Ltd v Ashita Tele Systems Pvt Ltd (27) PTC 265 (Del). . . . . IN.105, IN.141, IN.142 Caterpillar Inc v Mehtab Ahmed (2002 (25) PTC 438). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.22 Daimler Benz v Hubo Hindustan AIR 1994 (Del 239) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.21

xlix

Tables of Cases Dr Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd v Manu Kosuri 2001 PTC 859 (Del). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.97 Durga Dutt v Navratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 SC 980. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.18 Eicher Ltd v Web Link India 2002 (25) PTC 322 (Del). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.98, IN.101 Hi-​Tech Pipes Ltd v Asian Mills Pvt Ltd 2006 (32) PTC 192 Del. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.119 ICICI Bank Ltd v Chuandong Xu & Anr, 22 December 2011, CS(OS) 2606/​2008, Delhi High Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.102 (India TV) Independent News Service Pvt Ltd v India Broadcast Live Llc And Ors, 2007 (35) PTC 177 (Del). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.145, IN.146 Info Edge India Pvt Ltd v Shailesh Gupta, 2002 (24) PTC 355 (Del) . . . . . . . IN.92, IN.104, IN.129 Laxmikant Patel v Chetanbhai Shah Appeal (civil) 8266–​8267 of 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.18 Manish Vij v Indra Chugh AIR 2002 Del 243. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.91 Mr Arun Jaitley v Network Solutions Private & Ors, C.S(OS) 1745/​2009 decided on 4 July 2011, at Delhi High Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.115 Online India Capital Pvt Ltd v Dimensions Corporate 2000 PTC 396 (Del). . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.106 Pfizer Products, Inc v Mr Altamash Khan & Anr, MIPR 2007 (3) 445 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.124 Rediff Communication Ltd v Cyberbooth & Anr 2000 PTC 209 (Bom). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.128 Ruston & Hornby Ltd v Zamindaara Engineering Co, AIR 1970 SC 1649. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.17 Satyam Infoway Ltd v Sifynet Solutions P Ltd, 2004 (6) SCC 145. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.130 Shreya Singhal v Union of India AIR2015 SC1523. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.09 Stephen Koenig v Arbitrator, National Internet on 14 December 2011, The High Court of Delhi, OMP 132 of 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.65, IN.131 Tata Sons Ltd v Hoop Anin & Ors CS(OS) 1104/​2008, Delhi High Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.125 Tata Sons Ltd v Bodacious Tatas & Ors CS(OS) 1991/​1999, Delhi High Court. . . . . . . . . . . . IN.95 Tata Sons Ltd v Manu Kosuri 2001 PTC 432 (Del). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.96, IN.101, IN.114 Titan Industries Ltd v Prashanth Koorapati CS (OS) 179/​1998, Delhi High Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.93 William Grant & Sons v McDowell & Co 55 (1994) DLT 80. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.22 Yahoo v Akash Arora, 1999 PTC 201 (Del). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN.92, IN.103, IN.107, IN.129 IRELAND Battle v Irish Art Promotion Centre Ltd [1968] 1 IR 252 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IE.80 C & A Modes Ltd v C & A Waterford Ltd [1976] IR 198. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IE.136 Campus Oil Ltd v The Minister for Industry and Energy (No 2) [1983] IR 88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . IE.138 Contech Building Products Ltd v James Walsh, Contech (Northern Ireland) Ltd and C-​Tech NI Ltd, 2006 IEHC 45 The High Court (ex-​tempore), 17 February 2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IE.135 Dunne v The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government [2008] 2 IR 775, [2007] IESC 60. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IE.82 Falcon Travel Ltd v Owners Abroad Group plc Falcon Travel Ltd, Plaintiff v Owners Abroad Group plc trading as Falcon Leisure Group, 1 IR 175 High Court 28 June 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IE.134 Grehan v Medical Inc and Valley Pines Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IE.170 Jacob Fruitfield Food Group v United Biscuits (UK) Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IE.128, IE.135 Local Ireland Ltd v Local Ireland-​Online Ltd [2000] 4 IR 567. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IE.137 McCambridge Ltd v Joseph Brennan Bakeries [2011] IEHC 433. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IE.128, IE.135 Miss World Ltd and Others v Miss Ireland Beauty Pageant Ltd and Others [2004] IEHC 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IE.135 Tommy Hilfiger Europe Inc v Derek McCarthy trading as ‘LIFEJACKET’ [2008] IESC 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IE.140 The Zockoll Group Ltd, Dyno-​Rod PLC and Phone Names Ltd v Telecom Eireann [1998] 3 IR 287. The High Court: Kelly J 28 November 1997. . . . . . . . . IE.61, IE.151 ISRAEL A.SH.I.R Import Manufacture & Distribution et al. v Forum Consumer Products Ltd et al, LC Appeal 5768/​94. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.132, IL.133, IL.139

l

Tables of Cases Absolute Shoes (CA 9191/​03) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.112 Adidas Salomon A.G. (‘Adidas’) v Jilal Yassin (‘Yassin’) et al, LC Appeal 563/​11. . . . . . . IL.23, IL.134, IL.135, IL.136, IL.137, IL.138, IL.139, IL.140, IL.163 AIWA Co Ltd v Shay-​Lee Engel et al (District Court of Tel Aviv, 1529/​99, 51713/​99) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.143 Alonial. et al v Ariel McDonald, Supreme Court of Israel, Civil Appeal No. 8483/​02 (30 March 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.110 BACARDI (Bacardi CA 6181/​96). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.112 Cellcom Israel Ltd v TM Aquanet Computer Communications Ltd et al, MF 54749/​99, OM 10909/​99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.127, IL.143 Chanel (CC2070/​90). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.112 Compunet v O.B.L. Computer Network (District Court of Tel Aviv, 1439/​99, 34804/​99). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.143 Expedia Inc v Drori Yekutieli et al; Orange International Development Ltd v Orangephone Ltd (District Court of Tel Aviv 2960/​99, 62281/​99) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.143 Haim Levi v Alon Steinberg, Beit Mishpat Shalom in Jerusalem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.160 Israeli Bar Association v Yair Ben David et al, MF 14377/​01, OM 810/​01. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.143 LEE (The HD Lee Company HCJ 95/​68). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.112 Mat’im Li Fashion Chains for Large Sizes Ltd v Crazy Line Ltd (Case 506/​06, 31 July 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.111 MS Magentics Ltd v Discopy (Israel) Ltd et al, CA 1627/​01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.130, IL.144, IL.145 Multidisciplinary Mechina for Design and Architecture Ltd v Shorashim Mechinot for Design and Architecture Ltd et al, CA 8323/​06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.142 Netvision Ltd v Israel Defense Forces et al, MC 090868/​00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.151 Noihauser v ISOC-​IL (High Court of Justice, 7611/​97) . . . . . . . . . . . IL.148. IL.149, IL.150, IL.151 Proportzia PMC Ltd., Google Inc. et al v Dr Dov Klein, CA 15667-​11-​11 delivered 29 July 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.120 Red Hat Inc v Start Commercial Ltd and Others (District Court of Tel Aviv-​Yafo, OM 3768-​12-​10, 24 March 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.163 ST DUPONT (Orlogad, HCJ 476/​82). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.127 TOMMY HILEFIGER (sic) LICENSING LLC et al v Elad Menachem Swisa, CA 11296-​09-​10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.130, IL.142 Webs Planet Ltd v Hezi Hazan et al, CA 1753/​07. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.127, IL.130 Yahoo, Inc v Yahoo Israel (District Court 615/​98, unpublished) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.145, IL.160 Zer4U (2000) Ltd v A Pirchey Sderot Chen Ltd, CA 2308/​02. . . . . . . . . . . . . IL.127, IL.132, IL.143 ITALY Cass., 12 May 1962, No 984, Giust. civ. 1962, I, 1680. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.87 Cass., 26 February 1981, No 1185, Giur. it. 1981, I, 1025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.87 Cass., 24 March 1983, No 2060, GADI 1983, No 6244. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.73 Cass., 2 March 1987, No 2169, GADI 1988, No 2232. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.73 Cass., 21 October 1988, GADI 1988, No 2242. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.02 Cass., 21 October 1988, No 5716, GADI 1988, No 2242. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.73 Cass., 19 March 1991, No 2942, GADI 1991, No 2596. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.73 Cass., 22 January 1993, No 782, GADI 1994, No 3017. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.73 Cass., 25 July 1995, No 8080, GADI 1995, No 3205. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.97 Trib. Bari, ord. 24 July 1996 (1/​2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.86 Trib. Bergamo, 6 March 2003, Dir. inf. 2003, 837. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.80 Trib. Bologna, ord. 20 March 2000 (38/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.108 Trib. Bologna, ord. 20 March 2000 (38/​2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.108 Trib. Brescia, ord. 6 December 2000 (63). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.97 Trib. Brescia, ord. 6 December 2000 (63/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.66 Trib. Brescia, ord. 6 December 2000 (63/​3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.71 Trib. Cagliari, ord. 30 March 2000 (41/​5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.107 Trib. Cagliari, ord. 23 December 2000 (66/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.66 Trib. Cagliari, ord. 23 December 2000 (66/​5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.75

li

Tables of Cases Trib. Crema, ord. 24 July 2000 (51/​4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.108 Trib. Crema, ord. 24 July 2000 (51/​5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.86 Trib. Crema, ord. 24 July 2000 (51/​9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.101 Trib. Firenze, ord. 12 April 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.90 Trib. Firenze, ord. 8 July 2000 (47/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.66 Trib. Firenze, ord. 12 September 2000 (57). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.106 Trib. Firenze, ord. 12 September 2000 (57/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.81 Trib. Firenze, ord. 23 November 2000 (62/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.66 Trib. Genova, ord. 23 January 1997 (4/​2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.101 Trib. Genova, ord. 17 July 1998 (13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.106 Trib. Genova, ord. 17 July 1999 (26/​1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.98 Trib. Genova, ord. 17 July 1999 (26/​2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.79, IT.81 Trib. Genova, ord. 17 July 1999 (26/​4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.101 Trib. Genova, ord. 17 July 1999 (26/​5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.82 Trib. Genova, ord. 13 October 1999 (28/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.72, IT.110 Trib. Gorizia, ord. 25 June 1999 (24/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.71, IT.86 Trib. Gorizia, ord. 25 June 1999 (24/​2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.72 Trib. Macerata, ord. 2 December 1998 (13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.106 Trib. Macerata, ord. 2 December 1998 (13/​2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.93 Trib. Macerata, ord. 2 December 1998 (13/​4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.111 Trib. Messina, ord. 3 October 2000 (61/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.93 Trib. Milano, ord. 10 June 1997 (5/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.108 Trib. Milano, ord. 10 June 1997 (5/​2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.72 Trib. Milano, ord. 10 June 1997 (5/​3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.71 Trib. Milano, ord. 10 June 1997 (5/​4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.74 Trib. Milano, ord. 22 July 1997 (7/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.97 Trib. Milano, ord. 22 July 1997 (7/​2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.74 Trib. Milano, ord. 23 January 1998, GADI 1998, No 3813. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.100 Trib. Milano, ord. 3 February 2000 (33) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.97 Trib. Milano, ord. 3 February 2000 (33/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.72 Trib. Milano, ord. 7 March 2000 (36/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.97 Trib. Milano, ord. 13 April 2000 (42) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.106 Trib. Milano, ord. 13 April 2000 (42/​2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.108 Trib. Milano, ord. 13 April 2000 (42/​3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.86 Trib. Milano, ord. 13 May 2000 (42/​5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.74 Trib. Milano, ord. 8 January 2001 (67/​1–​3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.72 Trib. Milano, ord. 8 January 2001 (67/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.93 Trib. Milano, ord. 8 January 2001 (67/​3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.75 Trib. Milano, ord. 8 January 2001 (68/​4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.75 Trib. Milano, ord. 23 January 2001 (71/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.66 Trib. Milano, ord. 23 January 2001 (71/​2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.81 Trib. Milano, ord. 9 April 2001 (78/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.81 Trib. Milano, ord. 7 August 2001, Riv. dir. ind. 2001, IT, 444. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.64, IT.65 Trib. Milano, sent. 6 June 2007, No 7062. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.85 Trib. Milano, sent. 20 February 2009, Riv. Dir. Ind. 2009, II, 375. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.81 Trib. Modena, ord. 23 October 1996 (2/​2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.93 Trib. Modena, ord. 23 October 1996 (2/​3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.93 Trib. Modena, ord. 23 May 2000 (44/​1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.108 Trib. Modena, ord. 23 May 2000 (44/​2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.75 Trib. Modena, ord. 27 July 2000 (52/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.78 Trib. Modena, ord. 28 July 2000 (53/​2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.66 Trib. Modena, ord. 1 August 2000 (54/​1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.108 Trib. Modena, ord. 1 August 2000 (54/​2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.72 Trib. Modena, ord. 1 August 2000 (54/​3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.106 Trib. Modena, ord. 1 August 2000 (60). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.69, IT.104 Trib. Modena, ord. 23 August 2000 (55). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.106 Trib. Modena, ord. 30 October 2000 (60). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.106

lii

Tables of Cases Trib. Modena, ord. 7 December 2000 (65/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.107 Trib. Modena, ord. 24 January 2001 (72). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.67 Trib. Modena, ord. 24 January 2001 (72/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.108 Trib. Modena, ord. 7 February 2001 (73). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.97 Trib. Modena, ord. 7 February 2001 (73/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.108 Trib. Napoli, decr. 3 December 1998 (14). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.106 Trib. Napoli, ord. 8 August 1997 (9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.108 Trib. Napoli, ord. 14 January 1999 (17/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.66 Trib. Napoli, ord. 14 January 1999 (17/​5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.74 Trib. Napoli, 24 March 1999 (21/​1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.66 Trib. Napoli, ord. 24 March 1999 (21/​4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.72 Trib. Napoli, ord. 24 March 1999 (21/​5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.74 Trib. Napoli, ord. 8 January 2002, Dir. inf. 2002, 359. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.82 Trib. Napoli, ord. 19 February 2002, Dir. inf. 2002, 362. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.82 Trib. Napoli, 26 February 2002, Dir. inf. 2002, 1005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.81, IT.97, IT.101, IT.112 Trib. Napoli, sent. 26 February 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.66 Trib. Padova, ord. 14 December 1998 (15/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.93 Trib. Padova, ord. 14 December 1998 (15/​2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.93 Trib. Parma, ord. 11 January 1999 (16/​1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.82 Trib. Parma, ord. 22 February 1999 (19/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.66 Trib. Parma, ord. 22 February 1999 (19/​2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.82 Trib. Parma, ord. 22 February 1999 (19/​4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.82 Trib. Parma, ord. 7 December 2000 (64/​2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.108 Trib. Parma, ord. 7 December 2000 (64/​4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.75 Trib. Parma, ord. 22 January 2001 (70). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.106 Trib. Parma, ord. 22 January 2001 (70/​1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.66 Trib. Parma, ord. 26 February 2001 (76/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IT.66, IT.67, IT.97 Trib. Parma, ord. 22 January 2001 (76/​3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.82 Trib. Perugia, ord. 5 October 2000 (58/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.81 Trib. Perugia, ord. 5 October 2000 (58/​3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.101 Trib. Pescara, ord. 9 January 1997 (3/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.71, IT.72, IT.109 Trib. Pescara, ord. 9 January 1997 (3/​2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.75 Trib. Napoli, 26 February 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.67 Trib. Napoli, 26 February 2002, Dir. inf. 2002, 1005, 1028 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.79, IT.108 Trib. Parma, ord. 22 January 2001 (70/​3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.79 Trib. Parma, ord. 22 January 2001 (70/​6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.78 Trib. Parma, 26 February 2001 (76/​3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.65 Trib. Reggio Emilia, ord. 30 May 2000 (46). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.106 Trib. Reggio Emilia, ord. 30 May 2000 (46/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.108 Trib. Reggio Emilia, ord. 30 May 2000 (46/​2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.67 Trib. Reggio Emilia, ord. 30 May 2000 (46/​5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.81 Trib. Reggio Emilia, ord. 30 May 2000 (46/​7). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.97 Trib. Roma, 2 March 1993, GADI 1993, No 2949. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.94 Trib. Roma, ord. 2 August 1997 (8/​2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.93 Trib. Roma, ord. 10 February 1999 (18/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.72 Trib. Roma, ord. 22 December 1999 (29) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.106 Trib. Roma, ord. 22 December 1999 (29/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.108 Trib. Roma, ord. 22 December 1999 (29/​3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.67 Trib. Roma, ord. 22 December 1999 (29/​4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.72 Trib. Roma, ord. 22 December 1999 (29/​6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.98 Trib. Roma, ord. 23 December 1999 (30/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.93 Trib. Roma, ord. 2 February 2000 (32/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.117 Trib. Roma, ord. 9 February 2000 (34/​3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.72 Trib. Roma, ord. 9 March 2000 (37/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.117, IT.120, IT.121 Trib. Roma, ord. 9 March 2000 (37/​2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.66 Trib. Roma, ord. 9 March 2000 (37/​4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.71 Trib. Roma, ord. 9 March 2000 (37/​5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.75

liii

Tables of Cases Trib. Roma, ord. 20 March 2000 (38/​2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.70 Trib. Roma, ord. 29 March 2000 (40/​2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.72, IT.73 Trib. Roma, ord. 29 March 2000 (40/​3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.79 Trib. Roma, ord. 29 March 2000 (40/​4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.75 Trib. Roma, 18 July 2000 (48/​1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.66, IT.108 Trib. Roma, ord. 18 July 2000 (48/​2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.110 Trib. Roma, ord. 28 August 2000 (56/​1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.110 Trib. Roma, ord. 18 January 2001 (69/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.81 Trib. Roma, ord. 27 March 2002, AIDA 2003, 1065. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.72, IT.75 Trib. Roma, ord. 12 February 2012, Riv. dir. ind. 2012, II, 463. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.81, IT.105 Trib. S. Maria Capua Vetere, ord. 14 October 2001, Giur. comm. 2004, Il, 120 . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.69 Trib. Salerno, ord. 25 February 2003, Dir. inf. 2003, 832 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.89 Trib. Torino, ord. 7 July 1995, GADI 1995, No 3330. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.100 Trib. Torino, ord. 21 July 2000 (50/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.66 Trib. Torino, ord. 21 July 2000 (50/​2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.93 Trib. Torino, ord. 23 December 2000, AIDA 2003, 699 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.89 Trib. Verona, ord. 10 January 2001 (68/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.66 Trib. Verona, ord. 10 January 2001 (68/​2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.79 Trib. Verona, ord. 10 January 2001 (68/​4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.75 Trib. Vicenza, ord. 6 July 1998 (11/​2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.78 Trib. Vicenza, ord. 22 March 2000 (39/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.78, IT.82 Trib. Vicenza, ord. 22 March 2000 (39/​3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.82 Trib. Vicenza, ord. 8 February 2001 (74/​2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.79 Trib. Viterbo, ord. 24 January 2000 (31/​1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.108 Trib. Viterbo, ord. 24 January 2000 (31/​2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT.74, IT.92 Gioacchino Zerbo v Microsoft Corporation, La Corte d’Appello di Milano, July 13, 2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.187 JAPAN Nagoya District Court dated 11 January 2006 ‘suzuken-​fc.com’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JP.79 Nagoya High Court dated 10 September 2001 ‘JACCS’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JP.93 Osaka District Court dated 19 February 2004 ‘jiyuuken.co.jp’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JP.79 Osaka District Court dated 20 April 2004 (‘Carrier-​Japan’ case) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JP.92, JP.110 Osaka District Court dated 15 July 2004 ‘maxellgrp.com’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JP.79 Osaka District Court dated 23 April 2009 (‘ARK-​ANGELS’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JP.94 Osaka District Court dated 30 June 2011 ‘monchouchou’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JP.91, JP.92 Supreme Court decision dated 13 October 1981—​McDonalds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JP.77 Supreme Court, decision dated 16 February 1988 ‘NHK Nihongo-​yomi’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JP.95 Tokyo District Court dated 24 April 2001 ‘J-​PHONE’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JP.93 Tokyo District Court dated 29 November 2001(‘sonybank.co.jp’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JP.70 Tokyo District Court dated 26 April 2002 (‘goo.co.jp’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JP.70 Tokyo District Court dated 30 May 2002 (‘IYBANK.CO.JP’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JP.70 Tokyo High Court dated 17 October 2002 (‘goo.co.jp’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JP.70 Tokyo District Court dated 31 March 2005 (‘TABITAMA’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JP.92 Tokyo District Court dated 13 March 2007 ‘dentsu’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JP.79 Tokyo District Court dated 30 November 2011 ‘shosha-​ken’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JP.78, JP.94 Tokyo High Court dated 25 October 2001 ‘J-​PHONE’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JP.93 Toyama District Court dated 6 December 2000, ‘jaccs’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JP.90, JP.93 LIECHTENSTEIN FL Supreme Court 4/​2000 LES 208, 211—​‘eschen.li’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.103, CH.116 NETHERLANDS Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 11 November 1999, boek9.nl, IEPT19991111 (Cyráko/​Erobaking). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.111

liv

Tables of Cases Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 7 December 2000, DomJur 2001-​45 (‘passies.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.83, NL.84, NL.85 Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 26 April 2001, DomJur 2001-​101 (‘gezondslapen.nl’ [healthysleeping.nl]). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.92 Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 20 September 2001, DomJur 2001-​111 (‘verkiezingen.nl’ [elections.nl]). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.96 Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 25 October 2001, DomJur 2002-​125 (‘2ekamer.com’, ‘tweedekamer.com’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.96 Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 11 December 2001, DomJur 2001-​114 (‘next.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . NL.83 Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 28 February 2002, DomJur 2002-​131 (‘betuwe-​route.nl’). . . . . . NL.96 Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 20 February 2003, DomJur 2003-​170 (‘prinsjesdag.nl’, ‘miljoenennota.nl’, and ‘troonrede.nl’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.96 Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 7 July 2005, DomJur 2005-​242 (‘subaruvdvelde.nl’) . . . . . . . . . . NL.90 Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 19 October 2006, DomJur 2007-​303 (‘quickprint.nl’). . . . . . . . . NL.92 Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 15 January 2008, DomJur 2008-​370 (‘thuisbezorgen.nl’ [homedelivery.nl]). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.92 Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 31 July 2008, DomJur 2008-​377 (‘112.nl’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.96 Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 22 September 2009, boek9.nl, IEPT20090922 (Dimensione/​Cassina). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.111 Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 23 November 2010, DomJur 2011-​637 (‘cityspa-​amsterdam.nl’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.92 Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 4 January 2011, DomJur 2011-​655 (‘thuisbezorgd.nl’ [homedelivered.nl]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.92 Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 5 July 2011, DomJur 2011-​705 (personal name of a neurosurgeon). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.94 Arnhem Court of Appeal, 30 January 2001, DomJur 2001-​83 (‘akcros.nl’, ‘anp-​online,’ etc) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.83, NL.84 Arnhem Court of Appeal, 12 April 2005, DomJur 2006-​234 (‘x5-​centrum.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.90 Arnhem Court of Appeal, 18 September 2012, DomJur 2012-​894 (personal name of a doctor). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.94 Den Bosch Court of Appeal, 1 February 2005, DomJur 2005-​231 (‘carrerawaspik.nl’) . . . . . . . NL.90 Den Bosch Court of Appeal, 17 January 2007, DomJur 2007-​302, Mf 2007, no 10, p 99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.102 Den Bosch Court of Appeal, 7 June 2011, DomJur 2011-​693 (‘shoetime.nl’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.92 Den Bosch Court of Appeal, 5 July 2011, DomJur 2011-​706 (‘previtas.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.92 Den Bosch Court of Appeal, 24 January 2012, DomJur 2012-​808 (Facet). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.94 District Court of Alkmaar, 20 October 2010, DomJur 2011-​632 (‘voetbalreizenAZ.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.88 District Court of Almelo, 19 December 2001, DomJur 2002-​128 (‘cnn.nl’) . . . . . . . . NL.06, NL.105 District Court of Amsterdam, 24 April 2013, DomJur 2013-​969 (‘vliegticket.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . NL.92 District Court of Arnhem, 6 April 2011, DomJur 2011-​682 (‘agenda.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.92 District Court of Breda, 6 June 2012, boek9.nl, IEPT20120606 (Oishii/​OGE) . . . . . . . . . . . NL.111 District Court of Dordrecht, 27 November 2012, DomJur 2012-​906 (‘artiestenverloning.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.92 District Court of The Hague, 31 October 2012, DomJur 2012-​911 (‘psvshop.nl’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.90 District Court of The Hague, 14 June 2013, DomJur 2013-​972 (‘systek.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.99 District Court of Utrecht, 16 July 2003, DomJur 2003-​177 (‘prinsesmaxima.nl’) . . . . . . . . . . . NL.85 District Court of Utrecht, 4 March 2015, DomJur 2015-​1109 (‘ok.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.85 Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 24 February 2000, DomJur 2000-​3 (‘ariel.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . NL.85 Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 6 July 2000, DomJur 2000-​21 (‘valvoline.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . NL.83 Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 13 July 2000, DomJur 2000-​19 (‘ahold.nl’, et al). . . . . . . . NL.83 Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 3 August 2000, DomJur 2001-​53 (‘iqu.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.83 Pres. District Court of Amsterdam 3 August 2000, DomJur 2000-​22 (‘staten-​generaal.nl’) . . . . NL.96 Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 31 August 2000, DomJur 2000-​38 (‘ziengs.com’). . . . . . . . NL.84 Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 12 October 2000, DomJur 2000-​39 (‘garnier.nl’). . . . . . . . NL.85 Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 2 May 2002, DomJur 2002-​140 (‘citynames.info’). . . . . . . NL.96

lv

Tables of Cases Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 2 March 2005, DomJur 2005-​222 (‘startpaginanl.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.86, NL.102 Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 3 March 2011, DomJur 2011-​665 (‘vakantieveilingen.nl’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.88, NL.99 Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 22 February 2012, DomJur 2012-​817 (‘klokkenluideronline.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.22 Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 21 June 2013, DomJur 2013-​974 (‘lesalonamsterdam.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.92 Pres. District Court of Arnhem, 6 May 2002, DomJur 2003-​171 (‘campings.nl,’ etc) . . . . . . . NL.105 President District Court of Arnhem 3 December 2002, DomJur 2002-​159 (‘janpeterbalkenende.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.95 Pres. District Court of Arnhem, 10 March 2006, DomJur 2006-​253 (candidates Idols). . . . . . . NL.95 Pres. District Court of Breda, 25 September 2002 and 31 October 2002, DomJur 2003-​164 and 2003-​165 (‘ford-​occasion.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.90 Pres. District Court of Breda, 14 January 2004, DomJur 2004-​191 (‘vanmeeterenmercedes.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.90 Pres. District Court of Den Bosch, 6 August 2002, DomJur 2002-​148, with comment Van Hees (‘ltur.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.102 Pres. District Court of Den Bosch, 27 December 2005, DomJur 2006-​250 (‘vacancesolei.nl’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.102 Pres. District Court of Dordrecht, 13 September 2001, DomJur 2001-​106 (‘dukab.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.86 Pres. District Court of Groningen, 5 April 2001, DomJur 2002-​149 (‘rentema.nl’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.95 Pres. District Court of Groningen, 17 March 2010, DomJur 2010-​572 (‘gemeenteoldambt.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.96 Pres. District Court of Haarlem, 17 May 2006, DomJur 2006-​264 (‘saabservice.nl’). . . . . . . . . NL.90 Pres. District Court of Haarlem, 1 September 2011, DomJur 2011-​771 (ministerpresidentrutte) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.95 Pres. District Court of Maastricht, 24 February 2011, DomJur 2011-​654 (‘kewjaliens.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.95 Pres. District Court of Overijssel, 31 May 2013, DomJur 2013-​966 (‘beste-​autobod.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.92 Pres. District Court of The Hague, 8 September 2000, DomJur 2001-​82 (‘at5.com’, ‘at5.net’, et al.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.83 Pres. District Court of The Hague, 9 February 2001, DomJur 2001-​63 (‘vodafone.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.06 Pres. District Court of The Hague, 26 March 2009, DomJur 2009-​479 (‘einsteindelft.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.92 Pres. District Court of The Hague, 10 December 2009, DomJur 2010-​515 (‘hyundaivdvliet.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.90 Pres. District Court of The Hague, 20 July 2012, DomJur 2012-​874 (‘orly-​nederland.nl’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.88, NL.90 Pres. District Court of The Hague, 10 October 2012, IEPT20121010 (‘green-​graffiti.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.88 Pres. District Court of Rotterdam, 17 August 2000, DomJur 2001-​44 (‘kamer.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.96 Pres. District Court of Rotterdam, 26 April 2001, DomJur 2001-​189 (‘staal.nl’ [steel.nl]). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.85 Pres. District Court of Utrecht, 11 January 2001, DomJur 2001-​58 (‘ministers.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.96 Pres. District Court of Utrecht, 23 June 2005, DomJur 2005-​226 (‘woonboulevardutrecht.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.102 Pres. District Court of Zutphen, 30 March 2000, DomJur 2000-​2 (‘wwwad.nl’, ‘wwwnrc.nl’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.86 Pres. District Court of Zutphen, 27 January 2003, DomJur 2003-​116 (‘deanmoor.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.105, NL.107

lvi

Tables of Cases Supreme Court, 18 February 2005, boek9.nl, IEPT20120224 (De Lotto/​Ladbrokes). . . . . . . NL.111 The Hague Court of Appeal, 22 November 2001, DomJur 2001-​112 (‘idnl.nl’) . . . . . . NL.88, NL.92 The Hague Court of Appeal, 13 September 2007, DomJur 2007-​334 (‘netschaap.nl’ and ‘natschaap.nl’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.88 The Hague Court of Appeal, 20 March 2008, boek9.nl, IEPT20080320 (Vitra/​Classic Design). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.111 The Hague Court of Appeal, 18 November 2008, DomJur 2010-​490 (‘juridischloket.info’). . . . . . . NL.92 The Hague Court of Appeal, 28 June 2011, DomJur 2011-​698 (‘fysio-​reeuwijk.nl’) . . . . . . . . . NL.92 The Hague Court of Appeal, 2 October 2012, DomJur 2012-​896 (‘bulldog.com’ and ‘buldog.com’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.87 The Hague Court of Appeal, 15 January 2013, boek9.nl, IEPT20130115 (‘porschespecialist.nl’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL.90 NORWAY Bailine case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO.71 Biltilsynet case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO.27 Bookseller in Kabul’ case, Rt.2009 p1537 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO.123 Carlsberg case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO.95, NO.100 Case No 2005/​539 (Supreme Court) (‘yellow pages’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO.109 Case No 2009/​1396 (Supreme Court), 26 August 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO.113 Champagneria case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO.98 ‘ellevilledager.no’ case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO.70, NO.100 Google case (District Court). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO.107 Ladbroke Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO.70, NO.100 Playstation2 case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO.95, NO.100 ‘volvoimport.no’ case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO.95 POLAND ACa 272/​06 (Court of Appeal in Katowice, 13 June 2006, LEX No 196078) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PL.77 I ACa 1228/​05, (Appeal Court in Poznań, 24 April 2006, LEX OMEGA No 214296). . . . . . . PL.55 IV CSK 665/​10 (High Court, 8 June 2011, LEX No 1112886). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PL.80 IX GC 457/​08, (District Court of Krakow, 10 February 2009, LEX 522313) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PL.51 PORTUGAL Supreme Court of Justice Judgment of 24 February 1960, Proc. 030057. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PT.93 Judgment of 21 February 1969, BMJ nº 184(1969). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PT.18 Judgment of 20 December 1990, BMJ nº 402 (1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PT.18 Judgment of 11 February 2003, CJ/​ASTJ 2003/​I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PT.18 Judgment of 13 May 2003, Proc. 03A1134. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PT.89 Judgment of 3 October 2007, Proc. 07S922. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PT.115 Judgment of 8 October 2009, Proc. 5138/​06.8TBSTS.S1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PT.119 Judgment of 11 October 2011, Proc. 6/​10.1TVPRT. P1.S1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PT.67 Judgment of 29 May 2012, Proc. 5971/​09.9TBOER.S1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PT.67 Judgment of 30 October 2012, 1333/​06.8TBFLG.G2.S1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PT.67 Judgment of 4 July 2013, Proc. 536/​11.8TTPRT-​A.P1.S1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PT.67 Judgment of 26 September 2013, Proc. 6742/​1999.L1.S2, Rel. Conselheiro Oliveira Vasconcelos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PT.18 Judgment of 26 February 2015 (Proc No 1288/​05.6TYLSB.L1.S1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PT.94 Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa, Judgment of 22 January 2009, Proc. 1383/​05.1TYLSB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PT.89

lvii

Tables of Cases Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa, Judgment of 5 November 2009, Proc. 3520/​08.6 . . . . . . . . . . PT.106 Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa, Judgment of 13 March 2012, Proc. 1111/​08.0TYLSB.L1-​1. . . . . . . PT.81 RUSSIAN FEDERATION ‘alibaba.ru’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RU.131–​RU.132 ‘bestwatch.ru’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RU.108 ‘comforel.ru’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RU.113–​RU.115 Commercial Court of Kaliningrad Region, Case No A21-​13/​02 of 16 April 2002 ‘redo.ru’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RU.46, RU.91–​RU.92 Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 9 July 2013, Case No 18-​П. . . . . . . . . . . . RU.137 ‘dobrolet-​avia.ru’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RU.107 Dorogomilovsky District Court of the City of Moscow, judgment dated 6 December 2004 ‘fordcredit.ru’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RU.105–​RU.106 Dzderginsky District Court of the City of Volgograd, Case No 2-​171/​2001. . . . . . . . . . RU.32, RU.35 Federal Commercial Court of Moscow Region, Case No A40-​4514-​2011 ‘tissot.ru’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RU.36, RU.54, RU.129–​RU.130 Federal Commercial Court of Moscow Region, Case No А40-​52842/​04-​110-​496. . . . . . . . . . RU.141 Kalininsky District Court of the City of Novosibirsk; Case No 2-​867/​2004 ‘amway.ru’, ‘artisitry.ru’ and ‘nutrilite.ru’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RU.98–​RU.102 ‘karavay.ru’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RU.116 Moscow Arbitration Court dated 19 June 2000 ‘Kodak’ v RosNIIROS (RIPN). . . . . . . . . . . . . RU.45 Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-​22492/​99-​15-​232 ‘mosfilm.ru’ . . . . . . . . . . . RU.46, RU.69–​RU.71, RU.134 Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-​46846/​99-​83-​491 ‘kodak.ru’. . . . . . . RU.46, RU.60, RU.72–​RU.81 Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-​20169/​00-​51-​210 ‘quelle.ru’. . . . . . . RU.46, RU.55, RU.60, RU.66, RU.82–​RU.84 Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-​12272/​01-​15-​107 ‘nivea.ru’. . . . . . . . RU.32, RU.33, RU.87 Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-​27877/​01-​83-​349 ‘coca-​cola.ru’ and ‘sprite.ru’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RU.46, RU.81 Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-​42141/​01-​26-​190 ‘miele.ru’ . . . . . . . KR.35, KR.36, RU.109–​RU.110 Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-​12817/​02-​110-​138. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RU.32 Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-​40168/​03-​67-​412. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RU.32, RU.64 Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-​34209/​04-​51-​336 ‘suntour.ru’. . . . . RU.103–​RU.104 Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-​111177-​2012 ‘nike.ru’. . . . . . . . . . . . RU.36, RU.41, RU.96–​RU.97, RU.136 Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-​7239-​2012 ‘googl.ru’ and ‘gugl.ru’ . . . . . . . . RU.33, RU.35, RU.54, RU.56, RU.121–​RU.125, RU.136 ‘off-​road.ru’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RU.117 Presidial Council of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation, Case No A56-​46111/​2003 (‘denso.com’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RU.30, RU.54, RU.56, RU.118–​RU.120, RU.142 Ruling No 11 of the Plenum of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation dated 9 December 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RU.58 Supreme Court dated 25 January 2001 ‘Kodak’ v RosNIIROS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RU.52, RU.60 Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation, Case No A40-​47499/​2010 ‘mumm.ru’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RU.36, RU.54, RU.126–​RU.128, RU.136 Sverdlovsk Region Commercial Court. Case No A60-​27671/​2002-​C3 ‘avtosoft.ru’. . . . . . . . . RU.33, RU.35, RU.94–​RU.95 ‘telejob.ru’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RU.111–​RU.112 SOUTH AFRICA Blue Lion Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd v National Brands Ltd and Another 2004 BIP 84 (T). . . . . ZA.13

lviii

Tables of Cases SOUTH KOREA Busan District Court October 25, 2001 2001Godan 5644 Violation of Unfair Competition Prevention Act (‘Busan Sangjo.com’ case) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.24 Busan District Court May 22, 2002 2002 Godan 101 (‘psktdom.com’ case) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.24 Chanel case (Seoul District Court GA HAP 41812 decided October 8, 1999, prohibition of infringement on trademark right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.24 Choungju District Court Young Dong Branch, April 21, 2010, 2009 GA HAP 132 (‘celluarsouth.com’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.46, KR.47, KR.68, KR.69 Chuncheon District Court Yeongwol Branch, April 9, 2004, decision 2003 GA HAP 556 ‘kangwonland.co.kr’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.121 Daegu District Court, August 17, 2010, 2009 GA HAP 11550 (‘nca.com’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.46, KR.47, KR.68, KR.69 Daegu District Court Gyeongju Branch, November 12, 2004, 2003 GA HAP 943 ‘harrypotter.co.kr’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.121 Patent Court December 1, 2010, 2010 HEO 2346 ‘vanillamint.co.kr’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.95 Seoul District Court November 14, 2000 2000Godan5178 violation of Trademark Act (‘himart.co.kr case’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.24 Seoul District Court January 22, 2002 2001Godan 203 Violation of Unfair Competition Prevention Act (‘internetebs.co.kr’ case). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.24 Seoul District Court 2003 GA HAP 24685. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.52 Seoul District Court, April 29, 2003, 2003 GA HAP 439, Preliminary Injunction on Use of Trademark ‘karma-​online.com’ and ‘karma-​online.co.kr’ case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.85 Seoul District Court, December 12, 2003, 2002 GA HAP 79664 ‘startv.co.kr’ . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.121 Seoul District Court, December 26, 2003, 2003 GA HAP 24685 ‘morinaga.co.kr’. . . . . . . . . KR.121 Seoul District Court Northern Branch, November 11, 2004, 2004 GA HAP 2018 ‘imbc.co.kr’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.121 Seoul District Court Southern Branch, June 4, 2004, 2003 GA HAP 9484 ‘kbsi.co.kr’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.121 Seoul Central District Court 2000GA HAP 67360 December 14, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.119 Seoul Central District Court, August 28, 2005 (‘SECOM’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.110 Seoul Central District Court, April 13, 2007 2006 GA HAP 58818 (‘disneystore.co.kr’ case). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.86 Seoul Central District Court, October 11, 2007 2006 GA HAP 74971 (‘wes.com’ case). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.87 Seoul Central District Court, July 4, 2007, 2006 GA HAP 86516 ‘nvidia.co.kr’ . . . . . . . . . . . KR.121 Seoul Central District Court, August 30, 2007, 2006 GA HAP53066 (‘myspce.com’ case). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.89, KR.119 Seoul Central District Court, sentenced November 21, 2007 2007 GA HAP 31803 (‘pioneer.co.kr’ case). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.88 Seoul Central District Court, May 1, 2008 2007GA HAP79720, 2008 GA HAP 1236. . . . . . KR.86 Seoul Central District Court, July 4, 2007 2006 GA HAP 86516 (‘nvidia.com’ case). . . . . . . . . KR.86 Seoul Central District Court 2008 KA HAP 1901, August 5, 2008 (‘HINOKI’). . . . . . . . . . . KR.111 Seoul Central District Court, November 13, 2008 GA HAP 126340 (‘caselogic.co.kr’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.47, KR.69 Seoul Central District Court 2006 GA HAP 46488, November 20, 2008 (‘K2’). . . . . . . . . . . KR.111 Seoul Central District Court, September 26, 2012 GA HAP 10121 (‘amway.co.kr’) . . . . . . . . . KR.70 Seoul District Court, December 12, 2003 2002GA HAP 79664 ‘startv.co.kr’ case. . . . . . . . . . . KR.93 Seoul High Court, January 11, 2002 2001 LA428 Provisional Injunction for Prohibition of Domain Name Use ‘sungrak.co.kr’ and ‘sungrak.pe.kr’ Case. . . . . . . . . . KR.84 Seoul High Court 2002NA4896 August 28, 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.119 Seoul High Court, November 30, 2005 NA 57792. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.93 Seoul Southern District Court 2001TAGI 3829, September 11, 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.114 Seoul Southern District Court 2004 TACHAE 4986, May 17, 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.114 Seoul High Court Decision 2009 RA 1941, May 10, 2010 (‘Adidas’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.111 Supreme Court 96 DA 27889, November 8, 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.106 Supreme Court, December 10, 2002 2000 HU 3395. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.60, KR.102

lix

Tables of Cases Supreme Court, February 13, 2004 2001DA 57709 Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition (‘rolls-​royce.co.kr’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.94 Supreme Court, May 14, 2004 2002DA 13782 Prohibition of Trademark Infringement (‘viagra.co.kr’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.82 Supreme Court March 27, 2003 2002DA68492 prohibition on domain name use (‘altavista.co.kr’/​‘alta.co.kr’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.24 Supreme Court February 13, 2004, 2001DA57709 prohibition of trademark infringement and act of unfair competition (rolls-​royce.co.kr) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.24 Supreme Court May 14, 2004 2002DA13782 lawsuit claiming prohibition of infringement of trademark etc. (‘viagra.co.kr’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.24 Supreme Court, January 27, 2005, 2002DA59788 compensation for damage (‘hpweb.com’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.24 Supreme Court, March 11, 2005 2004DA64562 Confirmation of ownership (‘hsbccard.com’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.24 Supreme Court, August 25, 2005, 2005 DA 22770. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.60, KR.102 Supreme Court 2002 DA59788 January 27, 2005 (‘hpweb.com’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.119 Supreme Court February 1, 2008 2004DA72457 (‘ccfhsbc.com’, ‘hsbc.com’) . . . . . . . KR.24, KR.121 Supreme Court May 26, 2011 2009DA15596 Damage Compensation (‘hpweb.com’ case). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.24 Supreme Court August 25, 2011, 2010DO7088 Violation of the Trademark Act . . . . . . . . . . . KR.24 Supreme Court 2009 DA 15596, May 26, 2011 (‘hpweb.com’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KR.120 SPAIN Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Barcelona No 951/​1998, dated April 23, 2001. . . . ES.81 Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Zaragoza No 473/​2000, dated January 15, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES.83, ES.89 Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Bizkaia No 23/​2001, dated January 5. . . . . . . . . . . ES.88 Judgment No 85/​2001 issued by the Audiencia Provincial from Madrid on June 20, 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES.04 Judgment No 517/​2002 issued by the Audiencia Provincial from Madrid on November 21, 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES.04 Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Zaragoza No 528/​2002, dated September 24. . . . . ES.89 Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Valencia No 800/​2002, dated December 12. . . . . . ES.82 Judgment No 74/​2003 issued by the Audiencia Provincial from Cuenca on March 13, 2003. . . ES.04 Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Asturias No 140/​2004, dated April 19 . . . . . . . . . . ES.89 Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Zaragoza No 67/​2005, dated February 10. . . . . . . . ES.82 judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Murcia No 285/​2005, dated November 2. . . . . . . . ES.89 Judgment related to Case No 299/​2005, issued by Audiencia Provincial from Barcelona dated June 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES.80 Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Bizkaia No 504/​2005, dated July 1. . . . . . . . ES.83,ES.89 Judgment No 504/​2005, issued by the Audiencia Provincial from Vizcaya on July 1, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES.06 Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Madrid No 517/​2005, dated November 21 . . . . . . ES.89 Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Madrid No 645/​2005, dated October 11. . . . . . . . ES.88 Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Girona No 115/​2006, dated March 30. . . . . . . . . . ES.85 Judgment from the Audiencia Provincial of Alicante, Case No 4/​2012, dated January 11, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES.104 Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from A Coruña (Case No 88/​2012) dated February 29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES.98 Judgment of the Juzgado de Primera Instancia from Valencia No 4, dated April 17, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES.83 Preliminary judgment from the Audiencia Provincial of Barcelona No 266/​2005, dated November 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES.89 Preliminary judgment Juzgado de lo Mercantil from Alicante dated October 19, 2004 . . . . . . . ES.89 Marqueze Producciones, S.L. v Carlos Sanz Valbuena, Judgement: 00204-​2003, September 26, 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.187

lx

Tables of Cases Miguel Garcia Quintas v Eresmas Interactiva, SA/​Alehop Internet, SL, (Ordinary Proceeding 179/​2003) First Instance Court No 71 of Madrid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.187 SWEDEN Volvo Personvagnar AB v SCT Scandinavian Car Tuning HB, Stenungsund District Court (Stenungsunds tingsrätt), decision dated 17 January 2001, Case No T202-​00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SE.95, SE.96, SE.103 SWITZERLAND AmtsGer Luzern 2001 SJZ 102 Consideration 5.c—​luzern.ch II. . . . . . . CH.110, CH.116, CH.119, CH.120, CH.128 Berne Commercial Court, 2011 sic! 313—​Viagra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.81, CH.85 BezGer Hinwil 2001 sic! 212—​‘barcodedrucker.ch’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.91, CH.121, CH.122 BGE 84 IV 128. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.130 BGE 97 II 93. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.125 BGE 102 II 161. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.100, CH.102, CH.103 BGE 102 II 305—​Abraham. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.103 BGE 116 II 357 Consideration 2.a.—​Doxycyclin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.124 BGE 107 II 356—​La San Marco. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.90, CH.112 BGE 108 II 228. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.135 BGE 108 II 241. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.100 BGE 116 II 614 Consideration 5.d—​Gucci. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.112, CH.114 BGE 122 III 369—​SMP Management Programm St. Gallen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.96 BGE 122 III 382—​Kamillosan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.68, CH.69, CH.73, CH.75 BGE 124 III 277—​Nike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.80, CH.83 BGE 125 III 91—​rytz.ch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.62, CH.91, CH.112, CH.114 BGE 126 III 239—​‘berneroberland.ch’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.54, CH.56, CH.121, CH.127 BGE 126 III 315—​Rivella. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.66, CH.67, CH.75 BGE 127 III 160 Consideration 2.a, c—​Securicall AG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.94 BGE 127 III 160—​Securitas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.90 BGE 128 III 353—​montana.ch II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.07, CH.10, CH.91, CH.103, CH.104, CH.106, CH.112, CH.113, CH.116, CH.117, CH.120 BGE 128 III 401—​luzern.ch IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.07, CH.103, CH.104, CH.116, CH.120 BGE 131 II 162 consideration 2—​wellness-​fuehrer.ch II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.12 BGE 128 III 146 Consideration 2.b.—​Audi Spezialist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.63 BGE 130 III 748—​Boas-​EMS Clos Nestlé SA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.81 BGE 130 III 748 E. 1.2—​Nestlé. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.80 Federal Supreme Court 1977 GRUR Int. 79 Consideration 5.c—​Terry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.114 Federal Supreme Court 1997 sic! 69 Consideration 4—​Integra Holding AG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.97 Federal Supreme Court 1997 sic! 493 Consideration 3.b—​Anne Frank. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.112 Federal Supreme Court 2000 sic! 399 Consideration 2.b—​Avia AG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.97 Federal Supreme Court 2002 sic! 860 Consideration 4—​luzern.ch IV. . . . . . . . . . . . CH.91, CH.128 Federal Supreme Court 2003 sic! 142—​ExperTeam AG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.91, CH.97 Federal Supreme Court decision 2003 sic! 438—​‘djbobo.de’ . . . . . . . . . . . CH.10, CH.103, CH.104, CH.120, CH.132, CH.156 Federal Supreme Court decision 2003 sic! 822—​‘tonline.ch’ . . . . . . CH.10, CH.74, CH.79, CH.128 Federal Supreme Court 2004 sic! 109 Consideration 4—​bundesgericht.ch II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.59 Federal Supreme Court 2004 sic! 325 Consideration 1.2., 1.3—​Wintegra GmbH.. . . . . . . . . CH.70 Federal Supreme Court 2004 sic! 407 E. 5—​Tripp Trapp III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.62 Federal Supreme Court decision 2005 sic! 200—​‘riesen.ch’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.10, CH.64, CH.79, CH.91, CH.111 Federal Supreme Court 2005 sic! 390—​‘maggi.com’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.80, CH.114, CH.115 Federal Supreme Court 2006 sic! 43 Consideration 9—​Ars Intermedia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.110 Federal Supreme Court 2006 sic! 480 E. 3.1—​‘bsa.ch’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.103, CH.112 Federal Supreme Court 2007 sic! 543, 545—​‘swisslife.ch’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.128, CH.158

lxi

Tables of Cases Federal Supreme Court 2007 sic! 623—​Eurojobs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.141 Federal Supreme Court 2009 sic! 348, 350—​Fairsicherungsberatung. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.141 Federal Supreme Court decision 2010 sic! 797, 798—​Pneus-​Online. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.10 Federal Supreme Court decision 20101 sic! 727, 728—​Jetfly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.10 Federal Supreme Court 2012 sic! 109, 112—​Go Fast II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.128 Federal Supreme Court 2012 sic! 816, 818—​Keytrade AG /​ Keytrade Bank SA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.91, CH.103 Federal Supreme Court 2013 sic! 293, 294—​Blogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.145 Federal Supreme Court decision of 23 July 2002, 4C.9/​2002, consideration 4—​‘luzern.ch;’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.10 Federal Supreme Court 2003 sic! Journal for Intellectual Property, Information and Competition Law 438 Consideration 3—​djbobo.de II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.07 Federal Supreme Court 4A_​717/​2011—​Cash Back VAT Reclaim AG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.91 Federal Supreme Court 4C.31/​2003 Wintegra GmbH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.96, CH.97 Federal Supreme Court 4C.376/​2004 E. 5—​‘maggi.com’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.139 Federal Supreme Court 2012, 323, 324—​Gewinnabschöpfung bei SWITCH. . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.15 Federal Supreme Court SMI 1983/​2 149—​Urgence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.134 GK VIII Bern-​Laupen 2000 sic! 500—​‘beam.to’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.143 GP Bern-​Laupen, 2000 sic! 24—​‘artprotect.ch’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.136 HG AG 2000, sic! 624 Consideration 5.b.bb.—​swisslawyers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.51, CH.121, CH.141, CH.149 HG AG 2001 sic! 818—​‘frick.ch’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.104, CH.116, CH.117 HG BE 2000 MMR 216 Consideration 11—​‘berneroberland.ch’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.120 HG BE 2010 sic! 274, 277—​‘smw-​watch.ch’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.103, CH.128 HG SG 2001 GVP Nr. 46—​‘hundertwasser.ch’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.52, CH.54, CH.110 HG SG 2003 sic! 348—​‘breco.ch’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.52, CH.128 HG SG 2010 sic! 789, 792—​Refoderm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.71, CH.120 HG ZH 2001 sic! 639—​Die Gelben Seiten. . . . . . . . . . . . CH.71, CH.74, CH.75, CH.79, CH.105 HG ZH 2002 ZR 190—​‘volvo-​ankauf.ch’. . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.52, CH.53, CH.55, CH.56, CH.127 HG ZH 2003 ZR 92—​Privatbankiers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.52, CH.53, CH.127 HG ZH 2012 ZR Nr.116—​Handelsname. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.07, CH.54, CH.111 HG ZH 2013 sic! 612, 614—​Comparis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.71, CH.79 HG ZH of April 10, 2013, HG110066. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.37 Hinwil District Court 2001 sic! 212 Consideration 2.a—​‘barcodedrucker.ch’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.57 KG NW dated 7.11.2001—​djbobo.de I.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.79, CH.105, CH.119, CH.120, CH.127, CH.128, CH.132 KG NW dated 7.11.2001 Consideration 5.6.—​djbobo.de I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.74 KG NW dated 7.11.2001 Consideration 6.4—​djbobo.de I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.56 KG NW 2009 sic! 609, 611—​Estrolith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.135 KG ZG 2004 sic! 586, 589—​IVF HARTMANN AG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.91 OG AR 2014 sic! 632, 633—​Axxeva. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.79 OG BL 2000 sic! 26 Consideration 5—​hotmail.ch I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.71, CH.134, CH.136 OG BL 2000 sic! 393—​hotmail.ch II. . . . . . . . CH.61, CH.63, CH.119, CH.120, CH.128, CH.141 OG BL 2000 sic! 393 Consideration 8—​hotmail.ch II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.71 OG LU 2000 sic! 516 Consideration 8.1—​luzern.ch I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.110, CH.116, CH.119, CH.134, CH.136 OG LU, 2000 sic! 804—​‘elcotherm.ch’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.128, CH.135 OG LU 2002 I LGVE No 55 Consideration 3.2.—​bundesgericht.ch I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.59 OG LU 2002 sic! 176—​luzern.ch III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.56, CH.116, CH.120 OG LU ZBJV 2002, 113 Consideration 4—​luzern.ch III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.128 OG TG 2002 sic! 612—​‘audi-​ankauf.ch’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.52, CH.53, CH.56, CH.57, CH.58, CH.101, CH.110, CH.127 OG TG 2002 sic! 683—​‘emarket.ch’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.52, CH.55, CH.79, CH.91 OG ZH SMI 1994, 222 Consideration 8—​Levi’s Jeans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.130 Romeo Maggi v Société des produits Nestlé SA, Maggi-​Unternehmungen AG, Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 4C.376/​2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.88 RKGE 2000, 699—​‘internet.com’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.62, CH.142

lxii

Tables of Cases RKGE 2005, 804—​‘otto-​office.com’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.71, CH.142 Schwyz Cantonal Court, 2011 sic! 108—​Harry Popper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.81 Société des Produits Nestlé S.A v Pro Fiducia Treuhand AG, Tribunal fédéral 4C.376/​2004 (Court decision of January 21, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.187 TC Valais 2001 sic! 744—​montana.ch I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.134, CH.135, CH.136 Tribunal d’arrondissement de Lausanne 2002, 55—​‘cofideco.ch’ . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.54, CH.64, CH.91, CH.98, CH.101, CH.120, CH.128, CH.134, CH.136 ZG BS 2005 sic! 816, 820—​A. Braun /​Braunpat ZG BS 2005 sic! 821, 822—​tax-​info.ch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.141 ZGB-​Bühler, Notes 4 et seq. to Art 29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.07 TURKEY 11th Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 17 January 2011, Decision No 2011/​166, Case No 2009/​7216. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TR.68 11th Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 28 March 2008, Decision No 2008/​4071, Case No 2007/​1677 (‘kazanci.com’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TR.37, TR.68, TR.81 11th Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 17 January 2011, Decision No 2011/​166, Case No 2009/​7216. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TR.37, TR.68 11th Chamber of the Supreme Court, dated 18 April 2011, Decision No 2011/​4550, Case No 2009/​11957. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TR.70 11th Chamber of the Supreme Court, dated 3 July 2013, Decision No 2013/​14152, Case No 2012/​15639. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TR.37 Court of Appeals, dated 14 November 1968, E. 1967/​3750, K. 1968/​6047. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TR.09 Court of Appeals, dated 15 May 1989, E. 1988/​2889, K.1989/​2929, YKD 1990. . . . . . . . . . . TR.09 Court of Appeals, 11th Chamber, dated 19 October 2004, Decision No (K): 2004/​10024, Case No (Esas): 2003/​13570. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TR.01 Court of Appeals, 11th Chamber, dated 28 March 2008, Decision No 2008/​4071, Case No 2007/​1677. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TR.01, TR.02 Court of Appeals, 11th Chamber, dated 17 January 2011, Decision No 2011/​166, Case No 2009/​7216. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TR.01 Court of Appeals, 11th Chamber, dated 18 April 2011, Decision No 2011/​4550, Case No 2009/​11957. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TR.01 Court of Appeals, 11th Chamber, dated 22 December 2011, Decision No 2011/​17562, Case No 2010/​648. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TR.01 Court of Appeals, 11th Chamber, dated 23 January 2012, Decision No 2012/​556, Case No 2011/​15294. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TR.01 Court of Appeals, 13th Chamber, dated 20 June 2005, Decision No 2005/​10379, Case No 2005/​3951. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TR.01 Great Chamber, dated 19 November 2003, Case No 2003/​11-​578, Decision No 2003/​703. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TR.76 Supreme Court dated10 April 1997 (Case No 1920/​2708) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TR.76 Supreme Court dated 23 June 2000 (Case No 5459/​5902) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TR.76 Supreme Court dated 15 February 2001 (11th Chamber, Case No 9896/​1214). . . . . . . . . . . . . TR.76 UNITED KINGDOM 1-​800-​Flowers v Phonenames Ltd [2000] ETMR 369; [2001] EWCA Civ 721. . . . . . . . . . . HK.105, IN.16, UK.230 1-​800-​Flowers v Phonenames Ltd [2000] FSR 697; [2001] ETMR 1028 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.134, UK.158, UK.230 Actavis Group hf v Eli Lilly & Company (USA)/​Medis ehf v Eli Lilly & Company (USA) [2012] EWHC 3316. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.222 Adobe Systems Inc v Netcom Distributors and Others [2012] EWHC 1087 Ch. . . . . . . . . . . UK.125 Aegis Defence Services v Stoner [2006] EWHC 1515 Ch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.115, UK.149 Alliance Francaise De Londres Ltd v Nominet UK [2005] EWHC 3049 Ch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.191 Anheuser-​Busch v Budejovicky Budvar [1984] FSR 413 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.12

lxiii

Tables of Cases Antoni Fields v Klaus Kobec Ltd & Another [2006] EWHC 350 Ch. . . . . . . . . . . . UK.129, UK.140 Arsenal FC v Matthew Reed C-​206/​01 [2003] Ch 454: [2002] ETMR 227 . . . . . . UK.130, UK.131 Asprey and Garrard Ltd v WRA (Guns) Ltd [2002] FSR 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.127, UK.140 Avnet Incorporated v Isoact Ltd 1998 FSR 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.125, UK.197 Bank of China v NMB LLC [2002] 1 WLR 844. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.236 Bonnier Media v Greg Lloyd Smith & Another [2002] ETMR 86 (OH). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.205, UK.221, UK.233 Britannia Building Society v Prangley & Others Ch (Rattee J) transcript 12 June 2000; LTL 12 June 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.156, UK.165 British Telecommunications plc v One-​in-​a-​Million Ltd; Ladbroke plc v same; Sainsbury plc v same; Virgin Enterprises Ltd v same; Marks & Spencer plc v same [1999] 1 WLR 903, [1998] 4 All ER 476, [1999] FSR 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.76, HK.105, IE.139, IE.146, UK.04, UK.09, UK.13, UK.107, UK.108, UK.109, UK.110, UK.111, UK.112, UK.113, UK.114, UK.115, UK.120, UK.127, UK.128, UK.138, UK.139, UK.154, UK.158, UK.166, UK.181, UK.198 Bunt v Tilley [2006] EWHC 407 QB; [2007] 1 WLR 1243 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.192 Cartier and Others v BskyB and Others [2014] EWHC 3354 (Ch). . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.192, UK.215 Chocosuisse Union des Fabricants Suisses de Chocolat v Cadbury Ltd [1999] R.P.C. 826. . . . . . UK.185 Coca-​Cola Company v British Telecommunication [1999] FSR 518. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.201 Coin Controls Ltd v Suzo International (UK) Ltd [1999] Ch 33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.222 Computer Futures Recruitment Consultants Ltd v Stylemode Data Ltd & Another [2000] WL 3328 1329. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.137, UK.145, UK.162, UK.197 Cosmetic Warriors Ltd v Amazon.co.uk Ltd [2014] EWHC 181. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.133 Cowshed Products Ltd v Island Origins Ltd [2010] EWHC 3357 (Ch). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.197 Dame Vivienne Westwood OBE v Anthony Edward Knight [2012] EWPCC 14. . . . . . . . . . . UK.198 Datacard Corp v Eagle Technologies Ltd [2011] EWHC 244 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.132 Davidson v Habeeb & Others [2011] EWHC 3031 QB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.192 Dawson, N.M. ‘Non-​trade Mark Use’ [2012] 4 IPQ 204-​226. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.132 Dearlove v Coombs [2008] EMLR 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.135, UK.232 Derby v Weldon (Nos 3 & 4) [1990] Ch. 65; [1989] 2 WLR 412. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.236 Dixons Group Plc v Triton Tek Ltd Ch transcript 2 December 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.137 Dramatico Entertainment Ltd and Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and Others [2012] EWHC 1152 Ch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.192, UK.215 Easygroup IP Licensing v Athanasios Sermbezis [2003] EWHC 2645 Ch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.197 Easyjet Airline Company Ltd v Dainty (trading as Easy Real Estate) [2002] FSR 111. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.156, UK.197 Efax.com v Mark Oglesby [2000] Masons CLR 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.159, UK.197 Electrocoin Automatic Ltd v Coinworld Ltd and Others [2004] EWHC 1498 Ch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.131 EMI Records v Modern Music (1992) All ER 616 (QB) WRP 1994. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.05 Enterprise Holdings Inc v Europcar Group UK Ltd [2015] EWHC 300 (Ch). . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.236 eSure Insurance v Direct Line Insurance [2008] ETMR 77 CA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.137 Euromarket Designs Inc v Peters [2001] FSR 20; [2000] ETMR 1025 . . . . . . . . . . UK.134, UK.158, UK.231 Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.185 Fage UK Ltd v Danone Ltd [2013] EWHC 133 (Ch). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.185 First Conference Services & Another v Richard Bracchi & Another [2009] EWHC 2176 Ch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.136, UK.144, UK.149, UK.189 Forster v Friedland CA transcript 1052, 10 November 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.87 French Connection Ltd v Sutton [2000] ETMR 341. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.197 Glaxo Plc v Glaxo-​Wellcome Ltd [1996] FSR 338. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.165 Global Project Management Ltd v Citigroup Inc [2005] EWHC 2663. . . . . . . . . . . . UK.12, UK.13, UK.117, UK.119, UK.137, UK.138, UK.154 Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd [2001] QB 201; [1999] 4 All ER 342. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.192 Goldeneye (International) Ltd & Others v Telefonica UK Ltd [2012] EWCA 723 Ch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.193, UK.201

lxiv

Tables of Cases Harrods Ltd v UK Network Services & Others Ch (Lightman J) transcript 9 December 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.106 IBM & Another v Web-​Sphere Ltd & Others [2004] EWHC 529 (Ch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.09 Irvine v Talksport [2002] 1 WLR 2355; [2002] FSR 60. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.177 Bollinger SA v Costa Brava Wine Co Ltd [1960] Ch. 262. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.185 John Walker & Sons Ltd v Henry Ost & Another [1970] 1 WLR 917; [1970] RPC 489. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.185 Julius Sämann Ltd & Others v Tetrosyl Ltd [2006] EWHC 529 (Ch). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.136 Lawyers Online Ltd v Lawyeronline Ltd Ch (Judge Boggis QC) transcript 7 July 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.197 Lucasfilm Ltd & Others v Ainsworth & Another [2011] UKSC 39. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.222 Maier & Another v Asos Plc & Another [2015] EWCA Civ 220. . . . . . . UK.123, UK.124, UK.137, UK.140, UK.141 Marks & Spencer Plc v Craig Cottrell & Another (2001) 24(7) IPD 24046 Ch. . . . . . . . . . . . UK.198 MBNA America Bank NA & Another v Stephen Freeman [2001] EBLR 13 Ch . . . . . . UK.139, UK.197 Mecklermedia Corporation v DC Congress GmbH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.158 Metalrax Group Plc & Another v Vanci [2002] EWHC 167 (Ch). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.09, UK.198 Montblanc Simplo GmbH v Just Results Plc Ch D transcript 1 December 99. . . . . . . UK.155, UK.197 Musical Fidelity Ltd v David Vickers (t/​a Vickers Hi-​Fi) [2002] EWCA Civ 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.04, UK.98, UK.151 Neutrogena Corp v Golden Ltd [1996] RPC 473 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.150 Norwich Pharmacal Co v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [1974] AC 133. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.193, UK.199, UK.200 O2 Holding v Hutchinson [2006] EWCA Civ 1656. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.129 Oberbank Ag, Banco Santander SA and Santander Consumer Bank AG v Deutscher Sparkassen-​und Giroverband eV and Enterprise Holdings Inc v Europcar Group UK Ltd and Europcar International [2014] EWHC 2498 (Ch). . . . . . . UK.154 OBG Ltd & Others v Alan & Others [2007] UKHL 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.202 Office Cleaning Services v Westminster & General Cleaners [1946] 63 RPC 39 . . . . . . . . . . . UK.159 Pankajkumar Patel v Allos Theraputics Inc, High Court of Justice Chancery Division, Claim No HC07C01730, June 13, 2008 (2008 WL 2442985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.187 Partygaming Plc v Dabosh (t/​a Partybackgammon.com Group) [2005] EWHC 3090 Ch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.149 Patel v Allos Therepeutics Inc [2008] ETMR 75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.79 Patel v Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc & Others [2006] EWHC 3461 (Ch). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.187 Phones 4U Ltd and Others v Phone4u.co.uk Internet Ltd and Others [2006] EWCA Civ 244 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.04, UK.149, UK.189 Pitman Training Ltd v Nominet UK Ltd & Another [1997] FSR 797. . . . . . . . . . . UK.191, UK.205 Pocket Kings Ltd v Safenames Ltd & Another [2009] EWHC 2529 Ch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.237 Practice Direction 6B, para 3.1.(9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.224 Prince Plc v Prince Sports Group Inc [1998] FSR 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.152 R v Johnstone [2003] UKHL 28; [2003] 1 WLR 1736. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.131 R v Sheppard and Whittle [2010] EWCA Crim 65. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.219 Radio Taxi Cabs (London) Ltd v Owner Drivers Radio Taxi Services Ltd [2004] RPC 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.98, UK.159 Reckitt & Colman v Boden [1990] 1 WLR 491; [1990] RPC 341(HL). . . . . . . . . . . . IE.135, IN.16, UK.11, UK.145 Reed Executive plc & Anor v Reed Business Information Ltd & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 159. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.141, UK.165 Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd [2012] UKSC 55. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.193, UK.201 Seaconsar Far East Ltd v Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islam Iran [1994] 1 AC 438. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.224 Sodastream Ltd v Thorn Cascade Co Ltd [1982] RPC 459 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.156 Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.123, UK.124, UK.134, UK.137 Spiliada Maritime Corp v Consulex [1987] AC 460. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.224

lxv

Tables of Cases Starbucks (HK) Ltd and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Others [2015] UKSC 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.12, UK.126, UK.146, UK.160 Tamiz v Google Inc [2012] EWHC 449 QB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.192 Tesco Stores Ltd v Elogicom Ltd [2006] EWHC 403 Ch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.140 Totalise Plc v Motley Fool Ltd & Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1897 . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.193, UK.201 Toth v Emirates and Nominet (Intervener) [2012] EWHC 517 Ch. . . . . . . . UK.51, UK.79, UK.191 Tropical Resorts Management Ltd & Others v Morgan [2001] All ER (D) 38. . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.154 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp and Others v British Telecommunications [2011] EWHC 1981 Ch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.192, UK.215 V&S Vin & Sprit AB v Absolut Beach Pty Ltd [2001] All ER (D) 199 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.135, UK.214, UK.231 Vertical Leisure Ltd v Poleplus Ltd, Martin Bowley [2014] EWHC 2077 (IPEC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.117, UK.119, UK.120, UK.128, UK.138 Vine Products v Mackenzie & Co [1969] RPC 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.185 WH Smith Ltd v Peter Colman [2001] FSR 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.87 Warninck v Townsend & Sons (Hull) [1979] AC 731 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IE.135 White Horse Distillers Ltd v Gregson Associates Ltd [1984] RPC 61. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.185 Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions-​und Vertriebs GmbH v Boots-​und Segelzubehör Walter Huber and Franz Attenberger [1999] ETMR 585 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK.184 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1-​800 Contacts, Inc v WhenU. Com, Inc, 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.149 800-​JR Cigar, Inc v GoTo.com, Inc, 437 F. Supp. 2d 273 (D.N.J. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.149 1800Mattress.com, In re L.P., 586 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.178 Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences v Network Solutions Inc, 989 F. Supp. 1216 (C.D. Cal 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.99 Accuride Intern., Inc v Accuride Corp., 871 F.2d 1531 (9th Cir. 1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.175 Alitalia-​Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A. v Casinoalitatlia.com, 128 F. Supp. 2d 340 (E.D. Va. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.90 Am. Rice, Inc v Ark. Rice Growers Coop. Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408 (5th Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . US.212 AmBrit, Inc v Kraft, Inc, 812 F.2d 1531 (11th Cir.1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.142 AMF Inc v Sleekcraft Boats 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979). . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.131, US.132, US.133, US.134, US.142, US.144, US.145, US.146, US.150 Amstar Corp. v Domino’s Pizza, Inc, 615 F.2d 252 (5th Cir. 1980). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.142 Anderson v Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.111 Audi AG v D’Amato 469 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . US.104, US.125, US.126, US.139 Audi AG v Shokan Coachworks, Inc, 592 F. Supp. 2d 246 (N.D.N.Y. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.122 Australian Gold, Inc v Hatfield, 436 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.149 Avery Dennison Corp. v Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.06 Bancroft & Masters, Inc v Augusta National, Inc, 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000). . . . . . . . . . US.203 Bandag, Inc v Al Bolser’s Tire Stores, Inc, 750 F.2d 903 (Fed. Cir. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.134 Barcelona.com v Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona 189 F. Supp. 2d. 367 (E.D. Va. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.111 Barcelona.com, Inc v Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento De Barcelona, 330 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.69, US.93, US.215, US.217, IIIE.189 BASF Corp. v Old World Trading Co, 41 F.3d 1081 (7th Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.159 B&B Hardware, Inc v Hargis Industries, Inc (SC 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.142 Beer Nuts, Inc v Clover Club Foods Co, 805 F.2d 920 (10th Cir. 1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.142 Bd. of Supervisors v Smack Apparel Co, 550 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2008), cert denied, 129 S. Ct. 2759 (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.120 Bosley Med. Inst. v Kremer, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.111, US.118 Boston Athletic Association v Sullivan, 867 F.2d 22 (1st Cir. 1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.142 Brookfield Communications Inc v West Coast Entertainment Corp, 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.67, US.07, US.110, US.123, US.124, US.132, US.143, US.144, US.145, US.146, US.147, US.148, US.149, US.150, US.155, US.158 Burger King Corp. v Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 105 S. Ct. 2174 (1984). . . . . . . . . . . US.203, US.204

lxvi

Tables of Cases Buzz Off Insect Shield, LLC v S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc, 606 F. Supp. 2d 571 (M.D.N.C. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.159 Cable News Network v CNNews.com, Cable News Network v CNNews.com, 162 F. Supp. 2d 484 (E.D.Va. September 18, 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.111, US.92 Caesar’s World, Inc v Caesar’s Palace.com, 112 F. Supp. 2d 502, 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1121 (E.D. Va. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.110, US.92 Cairns v Franklin Mint Co, 292 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.122 Calder v Jones 465 U.S. 783 (1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.204, US.207 Camivale v Staub Design, LLC, No 11-​1124, 456 Fed. App’x. 104, 2012 WL 11214 (3d Cir. January 4, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.97 Capitol Federal Savings Bank v Eastern Bank Corp 493 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (D. Kan. 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.208, US.209 ‘candyland.com’ 40 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1479 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CH.86 Cardservices International v McGee 950 F. Supp. 737, 741 (E.D. Va. 1997), aff’d, 129 F.3d 1258 (4th Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.123 Caterpillar Inc v Telescan Technologies, L.L.C., 2002 WL 1301304 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.313 Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 100 S. Ct. 2343 (1980). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.111 Century 21 Real Estate Corp v Lendingtree, Inc, 425 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2005) . . . . . US.123, US.133 Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v Sandlin, 846 F.2d 1175 (9th Cir. 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.313 Citigroup, Inc v Shui, 611 F. Supp. 2d 507 (E.D. Va. 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.137 Cleary Building Corp. v David A. Dame, Inc, 674 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (D. Colo. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.98, US.112 Coca-​Cola Co v Purdy 382 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.95, US.116 Communications Satellite Corp. v Comcet, Inc, 429 F.2d 1245 (4th Cir. 1970) . . . . . . . . . . . US.175 CompuServe, Inc v Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.205 Conan Properties, Inc v Conans Pizza, Inc, 752 F.2d 145 (5th Cir. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.142 Cooper, In re 254 F.2d 611, 615 (C.C.P.A. 1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.177 CRS Recovery, Inc v Laxton, 600 F. 3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.190, US.199 Deere & Co v MTD Prods., Inc, 41 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.167 Del Monte District Court for the Central District of California, Case No 2:13-​cv-​05912. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIB.205, IIIB.206 Diálogo, LLC v Bauza, 549 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D. Mass. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.159 Dluhos v Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365 (3d Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.93 Dotster v ICANN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IB.154 Dr Seuss Enters. v Penguin Books, 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.146, US.148 DSPT International, Inc v Nahum, 624 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.98, US.107 Dudley v Healthsource Chiropractic, Inc, 585 F. Supp. 2d 433 (W.D.N.Y. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.96 EEOC v Arabian Am. Oil Co, 499 U.S. 244 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.211 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co, In re 476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973). . . . . . . . . . . US.142, IIIB.175 E & J Gallo Winery v Spider Webs Ltd 286 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.137 Edina Realty, Inc v TheMLSonline.com, 2006 WL 737064, at *4 n.3 (D. Minn. 2006) . . . . . US.123 Eli Lilly do Brasil, Ltda v Federal Express Corp 502 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.214 Fair Wind Sailing, Inc v Dempster 764 F.3d 303, (3rd Cir. 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.139 Fare Deals Ltd v World Choice Travel.Com, Inc, 180 F. Supp. 2d 678 (D.Md.2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.94 Federal Communications Commission v Pacifica Foundation 438 U.S. 726, 98 S.Ct. 3026 (1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.20 FleetBoston Financial Corp v FleetBostonFinancial.com, 138 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D. Mass. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.110, US.07, US.92 Ford Motor Co v GreatDomains, 177 F. Supp. 2d 635 (E.D. Mich. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.95, US.182, US.185 Forchion, In re 198 Cal.App. 4th 1284, 1308–​309, 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 690 (2011) . . . . . . . . . . US.198 Frisch’s Rests., Inc v Elby’s Big Boy, Inc, 670 F.2d 642 (6th Cir. 1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.142 Frontrange Solutions USA, Inc v Newroad Software, Inc, 505 F. Supp. 2d 821 (D. Colo. 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.123

lxvii

Tables of Cases Gaffigan v Does 1-​10, 689 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (S.D. Fla. 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.101 Gallup, Inc v Bus. Research Bureau (PVT) Ltd 688 F. Supp. 2d 915 (N.D. Cal. 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.213 Georgia Pacific Consumer Products, LP v Von Drehle Corp., 618 F. 3d 441 (4th Cir. 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.184 Globalsantafe Corp v Globalsantafe.com, 250 F. Supp. 2d 610 (E.D.Va. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . CA.111 GOPETS LTD, a limited liability Korean corporation v EDWARD HISE, an individual, and JOSEPH HISE, an individual unreported. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.187 GoTo.com, Inc v Walt Disney Co, 202 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.145, US.155 Graduate Mgmt. Admission Council v Raju, 267 F. Supp. 2d 505 (E.D.Va.2003). . . . . . . . . . US.137 Green v Fomario, 486 F.3d 100, 106 (3d Cir. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.97 Grotrian, Helfferich, Schulz, Th. Steinweg Nachf. v Steinway & Sons, 523 F.2d 1331 (2d Cir. 1975). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.148 Groupion, LLC v Groupon, Inc, 826 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.160 Grupo Gigante SA de CV v Dallo & Co, Inc 391 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.217 Haelan Laboratories, Inc v Topps Chewing Gum, Inc, 202 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1953) . . . . . . . . US.176 Hanley-​Wood LLC v Hanley Wood LLC, 783 F. Supp. 2d 147 (D.D.C. 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . US.160 Hanson v Denckla 357 U.S. 235 (1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.202 Harrods Ltd, 110 F. Supp. 2d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.98 Harrods Ltd v Sixty Internet Domain Names, 157 F. Supp. 2d 658 (E.D.Va.2001). . . . . . . . . . US.95 Hasbro Inc v Clue Computing Inc, 66 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D. Mass. 1999), affirmed [2000] US App. Lexis 27856 (1st Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.69 Hearts on Fire Company, LLC v Blue Nile, Inc, 603 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D. Mass. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.146, US.149, US.156, US.158 Heathmount AE Corp v Technodome.com, 2000 US Dist. LEXIS 10591 (E.D. Va. July 24, 2000), appeal dismissed, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 475 (4th Cir. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.111, US.92 Helene Curtis Indus. v Church & Dwight Co, 560 F.2d 1325 (7th Cir. 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . US.142 Helicopters Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v Hall, 466 U.S. 408104 S.Ct. 1868 (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.203 Herbko Intern., Inc v Kappa Books, Inc, 308 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.177 ICANN v RegisterFly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IB.152, IB.154 Innovative Companies, In re LLC, 88 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1095 (T.T.A.B. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.177 Interactive Prods. Corp. v a2z Mobile Office Solutions, Inc, 326 F. 3d 687 (6th Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.123 Internet Specialties West, Inc v Milon-​DiGiorgio Enters., Inc, 559 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.145 Interpace, Inc v Lapp, Inc, 721 F.2d 460, 463 (3d Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.142 Int’l Cafe, S.A.L. v Hard Rock Cafe Int’l (USA), Inc, 252 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) . . . . . . US.215 International Shoe Co v Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.92, US.202 Interstellar Starship Serv. v Epix, Inc (Interstellar II) 304 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.145, US.146 Inwood Laboratories, Inc v Ives Laboratories, Inc. 456 U.S. 844 (1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.184, US.187 I.P. Lund Trading ApS v Kohler Co, 163 F.3d 27, 45 (1st Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.05, US.06 ITC Ltd v Punchgini, Inc 482 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.217 J.G. Wentworth, S.S.C. Ltd v Settlement Funding LLC, No 06-​0597, 2007 WL 30115, at *5, *8 (E.D.Pa. January 4, 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.149 Jay David Sallen d.b.a J.D.S. Enterprises v Corinthians Licenciamentos LTDA and Desportes Licenciamentos LTDA, 273 F. 3d 14, No 01-​1197 (1st Cir December 5, 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.188 Jeffrey Walter v Ville de Paris, Case No 4:09-​CV-​3939, United States District Court for Southern District of Texas, September 14, 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.187 Jews for Jesus v Brodsky, 993 F. Supp. 282 (D.N.J. 1998), aff’d, 159 F.3d 1351 (3d Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.119 Keebler Co v Rovira Biscuit Corp., 624 F.2d 366 (1st Cir. 1980). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.01

lxviii

Tables of Cases Kiva Kitchen & Bath Inc v Capital Distrib. Inc, No 08–​20303, 2009 WL 890591 at *3 (5th Cir. April 2, 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.137 Koreag, Controle et Revision S.A., In re 961 F.2d 341 (2d Cir. 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.214 KP Permanent Make-​Up, Inc v Lasting Impression I, Inc 543 U.S. 111 (2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.133, US.134 Kremen v Cohen, CV-​98-​20718-​JW (9th Cir. Jul. 25, 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.116 Kremen v Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.190, US.194, US.195, US.196, US.197, US.198, US.199 L.L. Bean, Inc v Drake Publishers, Inc, 811 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1987). 212 527 F.3d 1045, 1053 (10th Cir. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.111 Lahoti v Vericheck, Inc, 586 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.101 Lamparello v Falwell, 420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . US.97, US.112, US.117, US.119 Levi Strauss & Co v Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co, 97 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1947 (9th Cir. 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.166 Lexmark Int’l, Inc v Static Control Components, Inc, 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1389 (2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.04 Lindy Pen Co v Bic Pen Corp., 982 F.2d 1400 (9th Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.139 Lockheed Martin Corp v Network Solutions, Inc, 985 F. Supp. 949 (C.D.Cal. 1997), affirmed 194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.99, CA.114, US.186, US.187 Lockheed Martin Corp. v Network Solutions, Inc 141 F. Supp. 2d 648 (N.D. Tex. 2001) (Lockheed II). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.180 Louis Vuitton v Haute Diggity Dog 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.170, US.171, US.173, US.174 Lucas Nursery & Landscaping, Inc v Grosse, 359 F.3d 806 (6th Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . US.98, US.102, US.112 MailPlanet.com, Inc v Lo Monaco Hogar, S.L., Case No 08-​11402-​G U. US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.187 Manwin Licensing International v ICM Registry, et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IB.152 Maui Land & Pineapple Co v Ewing, 549 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (D. Haw. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.94 Mayflower Transit, LLC v Prince, 314 F. Supp. 2d 362, 370 (D.N.J. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.97 McBee v Delica Co, Ltd, 417 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.211, US.212 Merck & Co, Inc v Mediplan Health Consulting, Inc, 425 F. Supp. 2d 402 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.149 Microsoft Corp. v Shah, No C-​10-​0653 RSM, 2011 WL 108954. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.185 Millennium Enterprises, Inc, d/​b/​a Music Millennium, et al. v Millennium Music, et al., 33 F. Supp. 2d 907 (D. Or., Jan. 4, 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.123 Moberg v 33T LLC, 666 F. Supp. 2d 415, 428 (D. Del. 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.206 Mobile Oil Corp. v Pegasus Petroleum Corp., 818 F.2d 254 (2d Cir. 1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.148 Moseley v V Secret Catalogue, Inc 537 U.S. 418, 123 S.Ct. 1115 (2003) . . . . . . . . . . US.06, US.168 Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co v Novak, 775 F.2d 247 (8th Cir. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.142 Nat’l Pork Bd. v Supreme Lobster and Seafood Co, 96 U.S.P.Q.2d 1479 (T.T.A.B. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.166 Nationwide Payment Solutions, LLC v Plunkett 697 F. Supp. 2d 165 (D. Me. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.107 Neogen Corp. v Neo Gen Screening, Inc, 282 F.3d 883 (6th Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.204 Neon Network, LLC v Aspis Liv Forsakrings, No CV-​08-​1188-​PHX-​DGC, US District Court, Arizona, June 22, 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.187 New Kids on the Block v News American Publishing, Inc 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.121, US.122, US.123, US.133 Newport News Holdings Corp. v Virtual City Vision, Inc, 650 F.3d 423 (4th Cir. 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.102, US.105, US.106, US.137, US.139 Network Automation, Inc v Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc, 638 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.127, US.142, US.145, US.150, US.151, US.152, US.153, US.154, US.155, US.156, US.157, US.158 Network Solutions, Inc v Umbro International Inc, 529 S.E.2d 80 (Va. Supr. Ct. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.114, US.191, US.192, US.193, US.198, US.199 Nintendo of Am., Ltd v Aeropower Co, 34 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.212 Nitro Leisure Products, L.L.C. v Acushnet Co, 341 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . US.134

lxix

Tables of Cases Northern Light Tech., Inc v Northern Lights Club, 97 F. Supp. 2d, 96 (D.Mass. 2000), aff’d, 236 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.95 OBH, Inc v Spotlight Magazine, Inc, 86 F. Supp. 2d 176 (W.D.N.Y. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.114 Octane Fitness, LLC v Icon Health & Fitness, Inc 134 S.Ct. 1749 (2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.139 Office Depot Inc, US.92 v Zuccarini 596 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.91, US.190, US.197, US.198 Omega S.A. v Omega Engineering, Inc, 228 F. Supp. 2d 112 (D. Conn. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . US.95 PACCAR, Inc v Telescan Techs., L.L.C., 115 F. Supp. 2d 772 (E.D.Mich. 2000). . . . . US.95, US.123, US.124, US.125, US.126, US.144, US.149 Palacio Del Mar Homeowners Ass’n, Inc v McMahon, 174 Cal.App. 4th 1386, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 445 (2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.190, US.198 Panavision International LP v Toeppen 945 F. Supp. 1296 (C.D. Cal. 1996), aff’d 141 F. 3d 1316 (9th Circuit, 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . CA.77, IN.87, US.05, US.06, US.07, US.123, US.132, US.144 Pebble Beach Co v Tour 18 I Ltd, 155 F.3d 526 (5th Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.123, US.142 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v Doughney 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.114, US.115, US.117, US.118, US.119, US.174 Perfumebay.com Inc v eBay, Inc, 506 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.145 Person’s Co, Ltd v Christman 900 F.2d 1565 (Fed.Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.216 Petrolium Nasional Berhad v GoDaddy.com, Inc 737 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . US.185 Philbrick v Enom, Inc, 593 F. Supp. 2d 352 (D.N.H. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.94, US.95 Piper Aircraft Co v Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.216 Pizitz, Inc v Pizitz Mercantile Co of Tuscaloosa, Inc, 467 F. Supp. 1089 204 U.S.P.Q. 707 (N.D. Ala. 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.175 Pizzeria Uno Corp. v Temple, 747 F.2d 1522 (4th Cir. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.142 Planned Parenthood Fed. of Am., Inc v Bucci, 1997 WL 133313 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff’d, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.114, US.119 Playboy Enterprises v Welles, 279 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . US.122, US.134, US.150, US.153, US.156, US.158 Polaroid Corp. v Polaroid Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961). . . . . . . . . . US.07, US.142 Pom Wonderful LLC v Coca-​Cola Co, 134 S.Ct. 2228 (2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.141 Porsche Cars North America, Inc v Manny’s Porshop, Inc, 972 F. Supp. 1128 (N.D. Ill. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.313 Porsche Cars North America, Inc v Porshce.net, 302 F.3d 248 (4th Cir. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . US.135 Prestonettes, Inc v Coty, 264 U.S. 359 (1924). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.134 Promatek Indus., Ltd v Equitrac Corp., 300 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.149 Reebok Int’l, Ltd v Marnatech Enters., Inc, 970 F.2d 552 (9th Cir. 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.212 Research In Motion Ltd v Defining Presence Marketing Group, Inc, 102 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1187 (T.T.A.B. 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .US.166, US.172, US.173, US.174 Rescuecom Corp. v Google Inc 562 F.3d 123. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.149 Ringling Bros.-​Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc v Utah Div. of Travel Dev., 170 F.3d 449 (4th Cir.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.166 Rosetta Stone Ltd v Google, Inc 676 F.3d 144 (4th Cir. 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.188, US.189 S.H., Inc v The Law Society, Case NoCV10-​0248MJP, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, July 19, 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.187 S & L Vitamins, Inc v Australian Gold, Inc, 521 F. Supp. 2d 188 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). . . . . . . . . US.149 St Luke’s Cataract & Laser Inst., P.A. v Sanderson 573 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir. 2009). . . . . . . . . US.137 Sallen v Corinthians Licenciamentos LTDA, 273 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.93 Schlotzsky’s, Ltd v Sterling Purchasing & Nat’l Distrib. Co, Inc, 520 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2008). . . . . US.139 Scotch Whisky Association v Majestic Distilling Co, 958 F.2d 594 (4th Cir. 1992). . . . . . . . . US.215 Shaffer v Heitner 433 U.S. 186 (1977). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.92 Shields v Zuccarini, 254 F.3d 476 (3d Cir. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.102 Shokan Coachworks, Inc, 592 F. Supp. 2d 246 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.123 Skydrive Arizona, LLC v Quattrocchi, 673 F. 3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.159 Solid Host, NL v NameCheap, Inc 652 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (C.D. Cal. 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.98, US.99, US.100, US.185

lxx

Tables of Cases Southern Co v Dauben, Inc, 2009 U.S. App. LEXUS 7993 (5th Cir. April 15, 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.104 Southern Grouts & Mortars, Inc v 3M Co 575 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.108, US.109, US.110 Sporty’s Farm LLC v Sportsman’s Market Inc, 202 F.3d 489 (2d Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.06, US.08, US.95 Standard Process, Inc v Total Health Discount, Inc, 559 F. Supp. 2d 932, 938–​9 (E.D. Wis. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.123 Starbucks Corp. v Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc, 588 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.166, US.171, US.174 Steelbuilding.com, In re 415 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.144, US.178 Steele v Bulova Watch Co 344 U.S. 280 (1952). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.211 Storey v Cello Holdings, LLC, 347 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.105 Super-​Krete Int’l, Inc v Sadleir, 712 F. Supp. 2d 1023 (C.D. Cal. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . US.95, US.101 Syndicate Sales, Inc v Hampshire Paper Corp., 192 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.06 Taubman v Webfeats, 319 F.3d 770, 774 (6th Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.111 TCPIP Holding Co Inc v Haar Communications, Inc, 244 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.06, US.135 theDot Commc’ns Network LLC, 101 U.S.P.Q.2D 1062 (T.T.A.B. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.178 The Network Network v CBS Inc, CV-​98-​1349 (C.D. Cal. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.69 Tiffany (NJ) Inc v eBay Inc, 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.123, US.167, US.184, US.187, US.188, US.189 Times Mirror Magazines, Inc v Las Vegas Sporting News, L.L.C., 212 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.06, US.07, US.135 Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc v Tabari 610 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . US.122, US.127, US.130, US.132, US.133, US.134, US.154, IIIE.313, IIIE.330 Toys ‘R’ Us, Inc v Step Two, S.A. 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.205, US.206 Transamerica Corp. v Moniker Online Services 672 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (S.D. Fla. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.181 Twin Peaks Productions, Inc v Publications International Ltd, 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.177 Ty v Baby Me (N.D. Ill. 2001), Case No 00 C 6016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.123 Ty v Perryman 306 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.127, US.128, US.129 Umbro International, Inc v 3263851 Canada, Inc, 1999 W.L. 117760 (Va. Cir. Ct.). . . . . . . . CA.114 United Drug Co v Rectanus, 248 U.S. 90 (1918). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.01 Utah Lighthouse Ministry v F.A.I.R. 527 F.3d 1045 (10th Cir. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.111, US.112, US.113 Vanity Fair Mills v T Eaton Co 234 F.2d. 633 (2d Cir. 1956) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.212 Verizon California, Inc v Above.com, No CV-​11-​0973 ABC, slip op. at 5-​11 (C.D. Cal., July 13, 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.185 Verizon California, Inc v Navigation Catalyst Systems, 568 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (C.D. Cal. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.101, US.102 Victoria’s Cyber Secret Ltd Partnership v V Secret Catalogue, Inc, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.95 Visible Sys. Corp. v Unisys Corp., 551 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.120 Virtual Works, Inc v Volkswagen of Am., Inc, 238 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.94 Volkswagen AG v Volkswagentalk.com, 584 F.Supp. 2d 879 (E.D. Va. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.127 Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v Church, 411 F.2d 350 (9th Cir. 1959). . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.134 Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v Karadizian, 170 U.S.P.Q. 565 (C.D. Cal. 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.313 Volvo Trademark Holding AB v Volvospares.com, 703 F.Supp.2d 563 (E.D. Va. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.313 Vulcan Golf LLC v Google, Inc 97 U.S.P.Q.2d 1071 (N.D. Ill. 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.182 WCVB-​TV v Boston Athletic Association, 926 F.2d 42 (1st Cir. 1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.123 Webadviso v Bank of America Corp 93 U.S.P.Q.2d 1932 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), aff’d, No 10-​292 (2d Cir. October 26, 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.103

lxxi

Tables of Cases Weber-​Stephen Products Co v Armitage Hardware & Building Supply, Inc, 54 USPQ 2d 1766 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIE.188 Wornow v Register.Com Inc, NY App. Div., No 3817-​3818, (6/​8/​04). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CA.114 Yoyo.Email, LLC v Playinnovation, Ltd, CV-​14-​01922, US District Court, District of Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIID.211 Zatarains, Inc v Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc, 698 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . US.120 Zippo Mfg. Co v Zippo Dot Com, Inc 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D.Pa. 1997). . . . . . . . US.204, US.205

lxxii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AAA American Arbitration Association AAR ARBITRARE Arbitration Rules ABA Austrian Bar Association ACDR Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution ACL Australian Consumer Law AcO Affirmation of Commitments ACPA Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ADNDRC Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center ADR Alternative dispute resolution AFNIC Association Française pour le Nommage Internet en Coopération (French Registry) AGB Applicant Guidebook AIAR Act on Internet Address and Resources ALAC At-Large Advisory Committee AMR Assignment and Management Regulation APC Arbitrazh Procedure Code AS autonomous system ASO Address Supporting Organization AUC Act against Unfair Competition auDA Australian Domain Name Authority BCIP Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property BGC Board Governance Committee CAC Czech Arbitration Court CC Civil Code/Codice Civile ccNSO Country Code Names Supporting Organization CCP Code of Civil Procedure ccTLD Country Code Top-Level Domain Code of Author’s Right and Related Rights CDADC Código do Direito de Autor e dos Direitos Conexos’ Portugal CDRP Canadian Internet Registration Authority Dispute Resolution Policy CDRR CIRA Dispute Resolution Rules CEDRP Charter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy CEL Code of Economic Law CEO Chief Executive Officer CEP Cooperative Engagement Process CEPANI Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation CGDN Community Geographic Domain Name CHF Swiss Franc CIETAC China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission CIRA Canadian Internet Registration Authority CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union CMAP Paris Arbitration and Mediation Centre (Centre de Médiation et d’Arbitrage de Paris) CNDRP CNNIC Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy CNNIC China Internet Network Information Center CPC Civil Procedure code CPCE Posts and Electronic Communications Code (France) CPI Code of Industrial Property ‘Código da Propriedade Industrial’ (Portugal)

lxxiii

List of Abbreviations CPI Codice della Proprietà Industriale CTM Community Trade Mark CTMO China Trademark Office CTMR Community Trademark Regulation DIDP Documentary Information Disclosure Policy DIFO Dansk Internet Forum (Danish Registry) DIT Department of Information and Technology DKPTO Danish Patent and Trademarks Office DNDRC Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center DNL domain name labels DNS Domain Name System DNSO Domain Name Supporting Organization DPML Domains Protected Marks List DR Dispute Rules DRS Dispute Resolution Service DRSP Dispute Resolution Service Provider ECHR European Convention on Human Rights ECJ European Court of Justice ECT Act Electronic Communications and Transactions Act EDDP Expired Domain Deletion Policy EEA European Economic Area EETT National Commission for Telecommunications and Post EFTA European Free Trade Association EJR European Regulation on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters ERDRP Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy ERRP Expired Registration Recovery Policy ESM Expedited (Domain Name) Suspension Mechanism ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute EURid European Registry for Internet Domains Foundation for National Scientific Computing FCCN (Fundação para a Computação Científica Nacional FDI Internet Rights Forum (Forum des Droits de l’Internet) FTDA Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 GAC Governmental Advisory Committee GCC General Civil Code GNSO Generic Names Supporting Organization GTC General Terms and Conditions gTLD generic top-level domain HKDRP HKIRC ‘Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy for .hk and .香港 domain names’ HKIAC Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre HKIRC Hong Kong Domain Name Registration Company Limited IAB Internet Architecture Board IAG Implementation Assistance Group IAHC Internet Ad Hoc Committee IAHU International Ad Hoc Committee IANA Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ICC International Chamber of Commerce ICDR International Centre for Dispute Resolution of the American Arbitration Association

lxxiv

List of Abbreviations ICTA Turkish Information and Communication Technologies Authority IDN Internationalized Domain Name IDRC Internet Address Disputes Resolution Committee IEDR IE Domain Registry Ltd IGO intergovernmental organization IIS Internet Infrastructure Foundation IL-DRP Israel Dispute Resolution Procedure INPI National Institute of Intellectual Property INPI Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle (France) INPI Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (Portugal) INPI Instituto Brasileiro da Propriedade Industrial (Brazil) INTA International Trademark Association IO Indpendent Objector IOC International Olympic Committee IP intellectual property IP Internet Protocol IPC Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle (French Intellectual Property Code) IPC Intellectual Property Constituency IPEC Intellectual Property Enterprise Court IPL Industrial Property Law IPO Industrial Property Office IPOS Intellectual Property Office of Singapore IPR Intellectual Property Rights IRP Independent Review Panel IRT Implementation Recommendation Team IRTP Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy ISOC Internet Society ISOC-IL The Internet Society of Israel ISP Internet Service Provider ITO Israel Trademark Office ITU International Telecommunications Union JIPAC Japan Intellectual Property Arbitration Center JPA Joint Project Agreement JP-DRP Japanese Dispute Resolution Policy JPNIC Japan Network Information Centre JPRS Japan Registry Service JR Jurisdiction Regulation KDRP krTLD Dispute Resolution Policy KRW Korean Won LAR standardized letter of assumption of responsibility (lettera di assunzione di responsabilità) LPI Law of Intellectual Property (Brazil) LPI Limited Public Interest Objection LRO Legal Rights Objection MoU Memorandum of Understanding NAF National Arbitration Forum NASK Research and Academic Computer Network (Poland) NGO non-governmental organization NGPC New gTLD Program Committee NIC Network Information Center NIC.br Brazilian Network Information Centre NIXI National Internet Exchange of India

lxxv

List of Abbreviations NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Administration OECD International Criminal Police Organization OHIM Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market OIDN The Ordinance on the Internet Domain Names (Turkey) PARL Procédures Alternatives de Résolution des Litiges (alternative dispute resolution procedures (France)) PCITT Polish Chamber for Information Technology and Telecommunications PDDRP Post-Delegation Dispute PDP Policy Development Process PIC Public Interest Commitment PICDRP Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure PPC pay-per-click PRV Swedish Patent and Registration Office RA Registration Authority Italiana RAA Registrar Accreditation Agreement RALO Regional At-Large Organizations RBN Registered Business Name RCC Russian Civil Code RDNH reverse domain name hijacking RES Rapid Evaluation System RIPN RosNIIROS RIR Regional Registries RNA Regole di naming RNAP Restored Names Accuracy Policy RPM Rights Protection Mechanism RPPG Registration Policies, Procedures and Guidelines (Singapore) RRDRP Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure RSEP Registry Services Evaluation Policy RSSAC Root Server System Advisory Committee RuPTO Russian Patent and Trademark Office SAIIPL South African Institute for Intellectual Property Law SAR Special Administrative Region SCoO Swiss Code of Obligations SDRP Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy SDRP Singapore Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy SEK Swedish krona SGNIC Singapore Network Information Centre Pte Ltd SIDN Foundation for Internet Domain Registration in the Netherlands SLD second-level Domain SMD Signed Mark Data SO Supporting Organization SSAC Advisory Committee for Security and Stability Issues STA Spanish Trademarks Act, Act No 17/2001 STI Special Trademark Issues STJ Superior Court of Justice sTLD sponsored TLD TAR Technical and Administrative Regulations TCO Turkish Code of Obligations TComC Turkish Commercial Code TDRA Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 TDRP Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy TJ-RS Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Sul

lxxvi

List of Abbreviations TLD top-level domain TLG Technical Liaison Group TMA Trade Marks Act TMCH Trademark Clearinghouse TMO Trademarks Ordinance TPA Trademark Protection Act TPI Turkish Patent Institute TRAB Trademark Review and Adjudication Board TRIPS The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights TTAB Trademark Trial and Appeal Board UCA Unfair Competition Act UCPA Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act UDRP Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization URL Uniform Resource Locator URS Uniform Rapid Suspension usDRP usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy usNDP Nexus Dispute Policy and Rules USPTO United States Patent and Trademark Office uTLD Unsponsored to-level domain VAA Voluntary Arbitration Act W3C World Wide Web Consortium WDRP WHOIS Data Reminder Policy WGIG Working Group on Internet Governance WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization WMRP WHOIS Marketing Restriction Policy WSIS World Summit on the Information Society WTO World Trade Organization

lxxvii

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Albert Agustinoy Guilayn (Spain) is the partner in charge of the IP/IT Group at Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves Pereira. His professional practice is focused in the field of intellectual property and information technology, where he has accrued significant experience, particularly in the field of entertainment law and domain names practice. He studied law at Barcelona University and did his postgraduate studies at the Autonomous University of Barcelona (Spain) as well as at the Robert Schuman University of Strasbourg (France). Mr Agustinoy is a visiting professor for several master degrees in Spain, including the Magister Lvcentinvs (University of Alicante), Esade (Barcelona and Madrid) and CEU San Pablo University (Madrid). He has written a number of books and articles on IT legal issues particularly on domain names. Dr Mustafa Aksu (Turkey) is Professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Istanbul. The focus of his research is in the field of civil, intellectual property, and Internet law. Dr Aksu studied law at the universities of Istanbul and Tübingen. He was academic assistant at the Faculty of Management Science at the Istanbul Technical University between 1989 and 1992. Dr Aksu acquired his doctorate at the Faculty of Law at Tübingen supported by a scholarship from the Turkish Ministry of Culture. Following his doctorate, he worked as academic assistant to the chair of Professor Dr Eduard Picker (at the Faculty of Law at Tübingen) from 2000 to 2001. He was granted scholarships by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law for one year in 2002 and for several months in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2007. He was also fellow of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) during the summers of 2011 and 2012. Dr Aksu was a visiting professor in the summer semester of 2011 at the Faculty of Law of the University of Heidelberg. He gave the introductory lecture to Turkish law and a seminar on the impact of EU and German law on Turkish copyright law. He is the author of numerous publications on intellectual property, civil, medical liability, labour, and Internet law. Ms Adonna Alkema (Netherlands) is attorney at law with Hofhuis Alkema Groen, an intellectual property boutique firm established in Amsterdam. Ms Alkema specializes in intellectual property law with a focus on trademarks, copyright, and advertising law. In addition to her work as a lawyer, she frequently publishes and lectures on intellectual property and advertising law. She is one of the authors of the Dutch intellectual property handbook ‘Kort begrip van het intellectuele eigendomsrecht’. Pravin Anand (India) is a senior partner of Anand and Anand, New Delhi. He has been practicing both as an advocate and as a patent and trademark attorney. He has been a counsel in many important intellectual property cases, and he serves on the editorial board of several international intellectual property journals such as IP Asia, Entertainment Law Review, and Computer & Telecommunications Law Review. Mr Anand has served on several international and national expert groups and committees, including the patent law drafting committee for revising and recommending changes to the law. He is the chair of the IPR Promotion Advisory Committee (IPAC) constituted by the Government of India, and the chair of the IT Committee set up by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), as well as a panelist of the Regional Centre for Arbitration Kuala Lumpur (RCAKL) and WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.

lxxix

List of Contributors Dr Torsten Bettinger (Germany) is a partner with the patent attorneys and attorney-atlaw chambers of Bettinger Scheffelt Kobiako von Gamm in Munich. He advises in all fields of intellectual property and specializes in the creation of global trademark and branding strategies, programs to protect intellectual property rights against infringement, unfair competition and copyright. He has counseled clients on cutting-edge issues such as the new generic top-level domain (gTLD) program, including drafting and prosecuting new gTLD applications and developing advocacy and enforcement strategies in this space. As counsel and as WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center panelist, Mr Bettinger has been involved in decisions on numerous domain name conflicts based on the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and similar processes for country code top-level domains (ccTLDs). Mr Bettinger is the head of the ICANN Task Force Committee of AIPPI and represents AIPPI in ICANN's Intellectual Property Organization. He writes and lectures on intellectual property, IT and copyright law and is a regular speaker at international conferences on IP and IT law Topics. Bernardo Guitton Brauer (Brazil) is an attorney at law with Denis Borges Barbosa Advogados in Rio de Janeiro. Mr Brauer focuses on the field of industrial property and litigation. He studied law at Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) and his LLM on Intellectual Property at Queen Mary University of London. He is pursuing a Master’s degree in civil proceedings at Universidade de São Paulo (USP). James Bridgeman MA (Dub), FCIArb, Barrister-at-Law (Middle Temple and Kings Inns), Chartered Arbitrator, Certified Mediator (MII) (Ireland) is a Barrister in practice in civil and commercial law based at the Law Library, Dublin and Lamb Chambers, London. He is a trustee of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and an ICSID panellist. He has experience as a panellist and mediator of Internet Domain Name disputes since 2000, appointed by WIPO, ICC, NAF, Nominet UK, the ICC, and the Czech Arbitration Centre. Prof Dr Peter Burgstaller (Austria) is an intellectual property/information technology attorney at law with Prof. Hintermayr & Partner in Linz and Professor for Information Technology and Intellectual Property Law at the University of applied Sciences Upper Austria. Professor Burgstaller is Domain Name Panelist at the WIPO Mediation and Arbitration Center and the Czech Arbitration Court as well as a court-appointed expert for author’s rights and media. Professor Burgstaller studied law in Linz and London and in 2007 received a visiting scholarship at Harvard University, JFK School of Government, undertaking major research into patent and technology transfer. Professor Burgstaller is the author of several law books and papers on IT/IP law as well as co-editor of the IP/IT law journals ZIR and MR-Int. Kristine Celius (Norway) serves as a Deputy Judge at Sogn District Court in Sogndal. She came from a position as an associate lawyer at Thommessen law firm in Oslo, where she worked in the litigation department as a part of the intellectual property, media, and marketing group. She graduated from the University of Oslo, Faculty of Law, in 2011, after having participated in Thommessen’s Scholarship programme. Her master’s thesis focused on data privacy and the use of electronic evidence in civil cases. Dr Apostolos Chronopoulos (Greece) is a Lecturer in Trade Mark Law at the Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary, University of London. He has studied law at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (LLB), the University of London (LLM Lond) and the Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich (LLM Eur and PhD). He is also a member of the Athens Bar. Alexandre L Dias Pereira (Portugal) is a professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Coimbra (FDUC). He teaches business law, contracts, copyright, information and Internet law, and provides supervision and assessment of research papers and dissertations.

lxxx

List of Contributors A  former lecturer at the Coimbra Law School between 1994 and 2008, he also served as full-time visiting professor at the University of Macau and as a part-time invited professor at the Portucalense University. Currently he also has a position as part-time professor at the Coimbra Business School (ISCAC). Having received his academic law degrees (JD, LLM, S.JD) from the University of Coimbra (and an Erasmus diploma from the Catholic University of Leuven on European legal studies), his doctoral thesis is entitled ‘Copyright and Freedom of Information’. He has acted as guest speaker at conferences or seminars and lecturer at postgraduate studies more than 100 times, he has given legal opinions and drafted national reports for several international projects. A member of FDUC’s research Legal Institute, he focuses on technology law and is the author of several books and almost 100 book chapters and legal articles in national and international publications. Benjamin Docquir (Belgium) is a partner with Simont Braun, an independent law firm in Brussels. As a member of a team entirely dedicated to intellectual property, information technology, and trade practices, he specializes in all areas of information technology law, including intellectual property, licensing and contracts, consumer protection, data protection and privacy, electronic commerce and domain names. He studied law in Namur, Louvain-laNeuve, and Brussels. He is a scientific associate with the ULB (University of Brussels). He researches and publishes extensively in his fields of expertise. Prof Dr Philipp Fabbio (Italy) is an Associate Professor of Law at Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria and an attorney at law in Rome. Professor Fabbio focuses on the field of industrial property and competition law. From 2002 to 2004 he was a research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law in Munich. From 2005 to 2008 he was an Assistant Professor at Sapienza University School of Law in Rome. In 2008 and 2010 he taught as a Visiting Professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law—IIT and Loyola University of Chicago School of Law, respectively. He regularly gives conference lectures on intellectual property and competition law topics, in Italy and abroad. David Fixler LLB (Hons)/BA (Australia) is a Senior Associate in the intellectual property practice group of King & Wood Mallesons in Melbourne, Australia. He graduated from Monash University with a Bachelor of Laws (Honours) and Bachelor of Arts in 2009 before commencing with a national law firm and joined King & Wood Mallesons in 2015. He is currently completing a Masters of Laws at the University of Melbourne with a focus on intellectual property. David co-authored the chapter, ‘Trade Marks and the Internet’ in the leading Australian IP publication, Patents Trade Marks & Related Rights (Lahore). Dr Karin Grau-Kuntz, LLM (Brazil) is academic coordinator of IBPI—Instituto Brasileiro de Propriedade Intelectual, Editor of the Revista Eletrônica do IBPI and of Counsel at Würtenberger Kunze Rechtsanwälte in Munich, Germany. She studied law in Brazil at the Catholic University of São Paulo. Her Master’s Degree at the Faculty of Law of the LudwigMaximilian University, Munich, had as its subject ‘Surname as Trademark in German, French and Brazilian Law’ and she attained Dr jur at this German faculty on the subject ‘Copyright in the Mercosur Member States’. From 1995 to 1999, Dr Karin Grau-Kuntz was scholarship and freelance Research Assistant at the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law in Munich. Volker Alexander Greimann is the Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel at Key-Systems, an ICANN accredited registrar and a member of KeyDrive SA Group. He is responsible for ICANN and registry policy management, contractual and legal compliance, contractual work, litigation management and providing legal and policy advice to the company. Mr Greimann was Secretary of ICANN's 2011- Registrar Stakeholder Group. He represented European registrars on the registrar negotiation team for the 2013 RAA. He was elected by

lxxxi

List of Contributors the Registrar Stakeholder Group as a member of the GNSO Council in August 2012 and is also the Vice-Chair of the GNSO Council. Natalia Gulyaeva (Russian Federation) is recognized as a leading Russian intellectual property and TMT specialist and is named in international legal directories including Chambers & Partners as a highly recommended Russian practitioner who is ‘really on top of things’. Since 2004, Ms Gulyaeva has headed Intellectual Property, Media & Technology Practice for Russia/CIS at Hogan Lovells. She advises clients on all aspects of contentious and non-contentious intellectual property and TMT work including dispute resolution, strategic counselling, portfolio management/auditing, anti-piracy actions and transactional work. In addition to her qualification as a Russian lawyer, she is admitted as an English solicitor. She is well known for a string of victories in litigious matters before the Russian courts where she acted against the NPEs, cybersquatters, and trademark pirates. She is equally creative and successful in handling complex disputes between international and domestic corporations in Russia and other CIS countries and in coordinating multi-jurisdictional litigations. Mr Makoto Hattori (Japan) is an attorney admitted in Japan and New York State. He deals with international disputes and lawsuits, and provides consultations to clients in the fields of intellectual property, corporate practice, and business turnaround. Prof Ing Jakl Ladislav, CSc (Czech Republic) graduated from the Technical University in Brno in aircraft engineering, from the Technical University in Bratislava in Industrial Property and Licensing Specialization, and from the University of Economics in Prague where he was awarded a degree in science and was subsequently honoured by a University Professor degree. He is an expert in the field of intellectual property rights, and has experience in practice. Since graduation he has practiced as patent examiner on the former Czechoslovak Patent Office and later as chair of its appeal senates. He has practiced as a patent attorney at Technical University Prague for more than 20  years. From 1989 to 1998 he was the President of the Industrial Property Office of the Czech Republic. Since 1970 he has taught industrial property study programmes at Technical University Bratislava and since 1990 he has taught at the University of Economics in Prague. He is currently intellectual property chair at the Metropolitan University Prague and at the same time is a vice/chair of the Metropolitan University Prague and director of its Institute for Industrial Property. He is on the list of patent and trademark attorneys and is acting as a panelist in the framework of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. Dr Gallus Joller (Switzerland) is a partner and attorney at law at Troller Hitz Troller, Lucerne, Switzerland. His practice covers advice and litigation in all fields of intellectual property, with an emphasis on trademarks, unfair competition, and Internet-related intellectual property issues. Gallus Joller was involved in several leading cases before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, notably on the protection and infringement of non-traditional trademarks, trade dress and domain name conflicts. He attended the Universities of St Gallen and Geneva, and worked at the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law in Munich (1998–1999). Gallus Joller is the author of numerous publications on intellectual property law and a frequent speaker on IP-related topics. Iouri Kobiako von Gamm (Russian Federation) is a qualified German and European patent attorney and partner of the ‘Bettinger Scheffelt Kobiako von Gamm’ IP law firm. He has more than 15 years of experience in advising German and international clients on the commercialization of intellectual property rights, including 7 years of in-house work in the licensing department of Siemens AG. Iouri Kobiako von Gamm earned his summa cum laude degree in applied physics and mathematics from the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (‘PhysTech’) in Russia. He obtained his first knowledge in the field of industrial property law at the Russian State Academy of Intellectual Property (former RGIIS). Iouri Kobiako von Gamm is a member of the German Association for

lxxxii

List of Contributors the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR) and an author of publications in legal journals and handbooks on domain name, trademark, and patent law. His scientific work in intellectual property was supported by scholarships of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), Daimler-Benz-Foundation as well as the Max Planck Society. Charné le Roux (South Africa) is a partner in the Trade Mark Litigation Department of Adams & Adams in Cape Town. She holds Bluris, LLB degrees from the University of Pretoria. She acted as public prosecutor prior to joining the firm and now specializes in trademark, advertising, domain name, and copyright litigation. She is a senior domain name panelist both for WIPO and the South African Institute of Intellectual Property Law. Eric Macramalla (Canada) is a partner at Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP and a member of the firm’s Intellectual Property Group. His practice focuses on trademark litigation and prosecution, as well as a variety of Internet-related legal issues, including social media and domain name disputes. Mr Macramalla also advises on a range of sports legal matters. Through his trademark litigation and prosecution practice, he helps clients manage their domestic and global trademark portfolios, while protecting and enforcing their intellectual property rights, both in Canada and abroad. In light of the ever-evolving intersection between intellectual property and social media, he also helps his clients navigate IP issues on Twitter, Facebook, and other virtual platforms. With recognized expertise in dispute resolution, Mr Macramalla acts for clients in domain name disputes around the world. He is also an arbitrator for domain name disputes. He is the sports legal analyst for TSN, the host of the radio show Offside: The Business & Law of Sports, and is regularly called upon to provide legal commentary for television, radio, and print media outlets such as TSN, CTV, CBS, and NBC. Mr Macramalla also frequently shares his views on trending topics in sports via his Twitter account, @EricOnSportsLaw. Mr Ho-Hyun Nahm (Republic of Korea) is the lead partner of BARUN IP & LAW (office@ barunip.com) in Seoul, Korea. Mr Nahm was admitted to the Korean National Patent Bar as Patent and Trademark Attorney in 1986. He has been specializing in contentious and non-contentious patent and trademark matters as well as international licensing. Currently, Mr Nahm is the Chair of IDRC (Internet address Dispute Resolution Committee in Korea) and the President of APAA (Asian Patent Attorneys’ Association)-Korea Group. He also serves as a panelist of the US National Arbitration Forum (NAF), WIPO, the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Committee (ADNDRC), and IDRC. He is the Vice President of the Korea Arbitrators’ Association and an arbitrator of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. He also serves as the Director of the Korean Intellectual Property Forum, the Korean Industrial Property Rights Institute, and the FICPI-Korea. He is currently serving as a member of the following international non-governmental organizations: International Trademark Association (INTA), AIPPI, FICPI, ECTA, Asian Patent Attorneys Association (APAA), and the Pharmaceutical Trade Marks Group (PTMG). Mr Nahm is the author of the books Challenging the 21st Century with Intellectual Property Rights (in Korean, English, and Japanese versions) and Change Your Life With Ideas. He is also co-author of the book From Edison To Ipod and the contributor for the Korean jurisdiction of ‘INTA Opposition Guideline’. He has been named a leading lawyer by numerous professional publications including Asia Law and has won the Korea Innovation Award in Service for the Law Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights Community. Ms Nodoka Nakamura (Japan) is an attorney at law at Abe, Ikubo & Katayama Law Firm in Tokyo. Ms Nakamura has wide experience in domain name dispute-settlement procedures as a representative of major Japanese companies. She wrote a paper on domain name dispute procedures before WIPO in 2008.

lxxxiii

List of Contributors Dawn Osborne (United Kingdom) was educated at Magdalen College, Oxford, and is a partner with Palmer Biggs Legal, having previously been a partner at Rouse & Co International, following training with the city firm Denton Hall. She is a panellist for WIPO, NAF, Nominet and the .eu, .xxx, and new TLD dispute resolution processes. She has been involved in a number of well-known cases in the Internet field in the UK and is regularly involved in recovering domain names and combatting soft intellectual property infringements on the web including acting in peer-to-peer cases and obtaining Internet Service Provider takedowns. Dr Justyna Ożegalska-Trybalska (Poland) is associate professor, lecturer on intellectual property and Internet law at the Intellectual Property Law Chair of the Jagiellonian University in Cracow. Dr Ożegalska-Trybalska focuses on the field of copyright law, industrial property law, and multimedia law. She studied law at the Jagiellonian University and her doctoral thesis was on domain names. Dr Ożegalska-Trybalska is the author of the monograph Domain names–legal issues and many other publications on protection and intellectual property rights’ infringement on the Internet. Since 2006 she has been an arbitrator at the Domain Name Arbitration Court at the Polish Chamber for Information Technology and Telecommunications. Steve Palmer (United Kingdom) is a qualified lawyer with the intellectual property specialist firm Palmer Biggs Legal, based near London Gatwick. Mr Palmer is admitted to the Roll of Solicitors in England and Wales and is a domain name Panellist with the Czech Arbitration Court for ‘.eu’ disputes. The focus of his work at PB Legal is in the field of intellectual property law and Internet law. He has been recommended by the Legal 500 directory as ‘an excellent choice for the protection and enforcement of IP in cyberspace … and …experienced in design rights and trade mark filings’. In addition to his particular expertise in defending and enforcing intellectual property rights in litigation, he has particular experience in the field of trade marks, designs, and copyright. He also has extensive experience in relation to domain name disputes, including under ICANN’s Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy and Nominet’s Dispute Resolution Service. Alistair Payne BA LLB; LLM(Lond) (Int Prop) (Australia) is a partner and head of the Intellectual Property Group at Matheson Solicitors in Dublin, Ireland. Having formerly practised at two of the national firms in Australia, he is also a long-standing domain name dispute resolution panellist with the World Intellectual Property Association and the Czech Arbitration Court. Mr Payne chaired the International Trade Mark Association’s Emerging Issues Committee in 2012/2013 and is a member of MARQUES, APRAM, AIPPI, and the Intellectual Property Committee of the Law Society of Ireland. JUDr Radka MacGregor Pelikánová, PhD, LLM, MBA (Czech Republic) is an academic researcher and lecturer at four colleges, including Metropolitan University, Prague, and an attorney at law, member of the Czech Bar Association and the Michigan Bar Association. Dr MacGregor holds a law degree from Charles University, Prague (Dr and PhD), from the University of Paris XIII, Paris (licence en droit), and from Wayne State University, Detroit (LLM) and a degree in economics from the National American University (MBA). She has been providing legal services for 20  years and has been teaching for the last seven years. Dr MacGregor has published a dozen books and over 100 academic articles, mainly about intellectual property, business, and EU law, both in Czech and in English. She is the co-author of the first Czech monograph about domain names (2000) and the single author of the most recent Czech monograph about domain names (2012). Petter Rindforth (Sweden) has a Master of Law (LLM) from the University of Stockholm, with additional study and practice as Lay Assessor, County Court of Stockholm, and Mediation training INTA Panel of Neutrals in Amsterdam, San Diego, Chicago, and Berlin. He is a Registered (European) Community Trade Mark and Design Attorney, as well as a

lxxxiv

List of Contributors Registered Legal Practitioner of the European Patent Office. Mr Rindforth is registered as arbitrator/panellist for WIPO, National Arbitration Forum, .SE (Sweden) and the Czech Arbitration Court. He currently serves as member of ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council, representing the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC). Mike Rodenbaugh is a partner of Rodenbaugh Law, California, US. Mr Rodenbaugh has extensive transactional and dispute resolution experience with respect to intellectual property, e-commerce and internet marketing. He has specialized in trademark and domain name matters since 1995 and is active in the International Trademark Association as a member of the Internet Committee, and at ICANN as a member of the Intellectual Property Constituency. With respect to ICANN, Mr Rodenbaugh has been twice elected to represent the Business Constituency (www.bizconst.org) as one of its three Officers, and as one of its former Councilors to the Generic Names Supporting Organization. Jane Seager is Counsel in the Intellectual Property, Media and Technology Group of the Paris office of Hogan Lovells. She specializes in advising on brand protection online, in particular regarding the protection and recuperation of domain names in many jurisdictions across the globe, together with portfolio management and strategy, especially in relation to new gTLDs. Ms Seager also advises on many technology-related issues such as social media, phishing, cybersecurity, and take down of websites, and regularly negotiates the sale and purchase of IT-related assets such as IPv4 addresses, domain names, and app names. She is a panellist with Nominet and with the Czech Arbitration Court in relation to domain name disputes under ‘.uk’ and ‘.eu’ respectively and is also a UDRP panelist with the Czech Arbitration Court. Jane has a Masters degree in intellectual property/information technology law from the University of Assas, Paris, and is qualified to practice law in both England and France. She previously spent five years working in London, first in a specialized intellectual property firm and then in the commercial department of a large city firm. Upon moving to Paris in 2000 she spent two years acting as an in-house lawyer for one of the ‘big five’ auditing firms, advising their information technology consultants in Europe, the Middle East, India, and Africa. Ellen B Shankman (Israel) heads her firm specializing in branding strategy, trademark protection and enforcement, licensing, copyright, and Internet and domain name issues. Ms Shankman has more than 25 years experience in trademark and intellectual property law, including representation of small start-ups through Fortune 10 companies and is ranked as one of Israel’s leading trademark lawyers in numerous publications, including World Trademark Review, Who’s Who, Legal 500, Chambers, and Managing Intellectual Property’s Expert Guide to Trademark Law Practitioners. She is a former Member of International Trademark Association (INTA) Board of Directors and Chair of INTA’s Internet Committee. Her ICANN credentials include:  member of Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT), former member of the Policy Council of the Generic Domain Name Supporting Organization (GNSO), the ICANN Nominating Committee (NomCom), and Officer of the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC). She has drafted rules for the allocation of domain names under the ‘.il’ ccTLD and has been an IL-DRP Panellist. She is an author and lecturer on trademark and Internet issues and a recipient of the 2002 INTA’s first ever Volunteer Service Award for the Advancement of the Association for work in the Internet area. Having practiced law in the US as a litigator before making aliyah in 1986, Ms Shankman was admitted to practice before the Israel, New York, Massachusetts and Maryland Courts, as well as before the US Federal and Supreme Courts. Jannik Skou MBA has more than 15  years experience in the domain name and brand protection industry. He has worked with a number of Fortune 500 and Europe Top 500 companies in the areas of domain name strategy, domain name management, brand protection, investigation, domain name audits, and business process optimization. Mr Skou

lxxxv

List of Contributors is a partner at the Swiss consulting company Thomsen Trampedach, which works with large, international corporations to implement best practice or client-specific strategies and solutions, and has assisted a number of brands and regions in applying for and operating their own gTLDs. He is a member of Marques, ICANN’s Intellectual Property Constituency, INTA’s Internet Committee, and acts as an expert at the EU-sponsored China IPR HelpDesk. He is the author of various articles on new gTLDs and Online Brand Protection. Alain Strowel (Belgium) is professor at the Saint-Louis University (Brussels) and UCLouvain. He also teaches in some IP-focused LLM programmes in Europe (KULeuven and Munich Intellectual Property Law Centre). Alain’s courses cover copyright, design, the interface between intellectual property and competition and media law. Mr Strowel qualified as avocat and works as Of Counsel in the Brussels office of Covington & Burling LLP where he focuses on digital copyright and trademark issues. He is a panellist for the WIPO and ‘.be’ domain name resolution procedures. He has authored numerous articles and a few books, including Quand Google défie le droit (De Boeck-Larcier, 2011). He has edited various collections of essays including Peer-to-Peer File Sharing and Secondary Liability in Copyright Law (Edward Elgar, 2009) and Net Neutrality in Europe—La neutralité de l’Internet en Europe (Bruylant, 2013). Tan Tee Jim, S.C. (Singapore) is a senior partner at Lee & Lee in Singapore and a Senior Counsel (equivalent to Queen’s Counsel in the UK). He has focused on intellectual property and commercial litigation since he was called to the Singapore Bar in 1980. He has been involved in a number of high profile IP cases in Singapore and is the author of the book Law of Trade Marks and Passing Off in Singapore. He has also been regularly cited as a leading lawyer in Singapore and Asia by various legal publications, including The Asia Pacific Legal 500, Global Counsel 3000, and AsiaLaw Leading Lawyers. Dr David Taylor (France) is a partner in the Intellectual Property, Media and Technology Group of Hogan Lovells in Paris. Dr Taylor has a Masters of Engineering from Birmingham University, UK, and a PhD in Physics from the INPG, Grenoble, France and is admitted to practice law at the English and Paris Bars. He specializes in Internet-related intellectual property, online brand protection, trade mark and copyright issues, and heads up the firm’s Internet Domain Name Practice comprising the registration, recuperation and management of client portfolios via the Anchovy® service and new gTLD strategy. David also advises on data protection, encryption and cybersecurity issues, together with software licensing and development agreements. David is a domain name panelist/expert/arbitrator with WIPO, Nominet and the Czech Arbitration Court. He is a member of the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) of ICANN, was a member of the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) and recently finished a three-year term on both the ICANN GNSO Council and as a special advisor to the INTA Internet Committee. William R Towns (United States of America) is a partner at Novak Druce Connolly Bove + Quigg LLP. His litigation and alternative dispute resolution practice concentrates on intellectual property, with an emphasis on trademarks, unfair competition, and domain name disputes. Mr Towns is a WIPO UDRP panelist, and an expert panelist for both the Legal Rights Objections (LRO) procedure and the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP) implemented under ICANN’s New gTLD Program. He also serves as an Adjunct Professor of Law at St Mary’s University Law School in San Antonio, Texas, where he teaches courses in international business transactions and international intellectual property. Carla Valério (Portugal) is currently an academic member of the Faculty of Law of the National University of Timor-Leste, lecturing on law of obligations and commercial law. She is also a legal adviser to the government of Timor-Leste and an attorney. Her postgraduate studies at the Faculty of Law of the University of Coimbra focused on commercial and industrial property law, with an LLM research thesis entitled ‘Trademarks and the Internet’.

lxxxvi

List of Contributors Allegra Waddell (United States) is an intellectual property attorney barred in Missouri, US, and is registered to practice before the US Patent and Trademark Office. Ms Waddell served several years on the Legal Staff of the Domain Name Dispute Resolution Section of WIPO’s Arbitration and Mediation Center. During her time at WIPO, she was heavily involved in the research for and drafting of the second edition of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Decisions released in February 2011. She is currently located in Tucson, Arizona, US. Knud Wallberg (Denmark) is an attorney at law with Wallberg IP Advice and a PhD fellow at the University of Copenhagen, Center for Information and Innovation Law. Mr Wallberg is a member of the Danish Dispute Board for Domain Names as well as a member of the Danish Appeal Board for Patents and Trademarks. Mr Wallberg also serves as UDRP Panellist with WIPO and ‘.eu’ Panellist with the Czech Arbitration Court and has published a number of books and articles on trademarks and domain names. Prof Dr Hong Xue (Hong Kong) is Professor of Law and the Director of the Institute for the Internet Policy & Law at Beijing Normal University (BNU). Professor Xue is an elected Top Ten Nationally Distinguished Young Jurists by the China Law Society. She is the Co-Director of UNCITRAL-BNU Joint Certificate Program on International E-Commerce Law, Faculty Chair of Asia Pacific Internet Leadership Project (APILP) and the member of the Advisory Committee of the United Nations Network of Experts for Paperless Trade in Asia and the Pacific (UNNExT). She is an arbitrator at China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) and a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) neutral at World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and Asia Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center (ADNDRC). She is a WIPO-appointed panellist for Legal Rights Objection (LRO) procedure in ICANN new gTLD program. She is an ICANN Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO) councillor and the Chair of Council of Chinese Domain Name Users Alliance. Her latest book is International Intellectual Property Law @ Crossroad (China Law Press, 2012). Lian Yunze (People’s Republic of China) is a senior partner of Hylands Law Firm and head of the Patent and Trademark Team. His contribution on intellectual property makes Hylands a leading IP firm, ranked by MIP, Legal 500 and Chambers Asia. In 1982 he started his legal practice. From 1985 to 1996 he worked with CCPIT Patent and Trademark Law Office. In 2001 he joined Hylands as a partner. Since 1985 he has been practicing in IP, specializing in trademark, copyright, unfair competition, domain names and IP litigation. He is a frequent speaker in many international conferences and writes extensively in national and international IP publications. He is a panelist of CIETAC Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center and Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre. Liu Yuping (People’s Republic of China) began her professional legal career as attorney at law and trademark attorney in 2006 as an English language and law graduate and is now Head of the Trademark and Litigation Department in Hylands Law Firm. Mrs Liu is experienced in all matters relating to trademark law and practice, both contentious and non-contentious, including trademark protection, trademark prosecution and enforcement, anti-counterfeiting, and trademark strategy. Mrs Liu also deals with matters pertaining to copyright, unfair competition and domain names including Internet and wireless keywords, handling domain name disputes and advising on domain name strategy. She also advises on dispute resolution and arbitration matters.

lxxxvii

Part I THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM AND THE PROCEDURES AND POLICIES FOR THE REGISTRATION OF DOMAIN NAMES

A STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM Torsten Bettinger

I. The Technical Functioning of the Domain Name System 

(1) Domain Names and IP Addresses  (2) The Function of the Root-Server  (3) The Hierarchy Levels of the Domain Name System  (4) Internationalized Domain Names 

II. The Development of the Domain Name System 

IA.01 IA.01 IA.04

IA.20 (1) The Early Stages of the Domain Name System  IA.20 (2) Functional Change  IA.22 (3) The Reform of the Domain Name System and the Founding of ICANN  IA.24

IA.07 IA.17

Bibliography Adkinson, William F. Jr, Domain Name Services: Let Competition, Not ICANN, Rule (Progress on Point), Release No 9.21 (September 2002); Crocker, Steve/Piscitello, David, Security of the Domain Name System, The Power of Ideas: Internet Governance in a Global Multi-Stakeholder Environment, Ed. Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Berlin: Druckerei J. Humburg GmbH, 2007. 181–9; Drake, William/Wilson, Ernest J. III, Governing Global Electronic Networks:  International Perspectives on Policy and Power, MIT Press, 2006; Froomkin, A. Michael, ICANN and the domain name system after the ‘Affirmation of Commitments’, Research Handbook on Governance of the Internet, Ed. Ian Brown, Glos:  Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 2013. 27–51; Hamm, Ingrid/Machill, Marcel, Wer regiert das Internet? ICAN als Fallbeispiel für Global Internet Governance. Gütersloh, 2001; Heisz, Janina, Legitimation durch Verfahren am Beispiel des Domain Name Systems, Vienna Working Papers in Legal Theory, Political Philosophy and Applied Ethics, No 26, Göttingen, 2001; Hillebrand, Annette/Büllingen, Franz, WIK-Diskussionsbeitrag No 218, 2001, Internet-Governance—Politiken und Folgen der institutionellen Neuordnung der Domainverwaltung durch ICANN; Hofmann, Jeanette, Die Regulierung des Domainnamenssystems, Entscheidungsprozess und gesellschaftliche Auswirkungen der Einrichtung neuer Top-Level-Domains im Internet, WZB-Discussion-Paper SP III 2003-104; ICANN, Evaluation of the New gTLDs: Policy and Legal Issues, prepared for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, July 10, 2004, available at: http://www. icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdf; Hofmann, Jeanette, Internet Governance:  Zwischen staatlicher Autorität und privater Koordination, in:  Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft, 3/2005, S.  10–39; Johnston, Rita Rodin, The .XXX Factor, 29 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 523 (2011); Kleinwächter, Wolfgang, ICANN als United Nations der Informationsgesellschaft? MMR 1999, 452 ff.; ICANN between technical mandate and political challenges, Telecommunications Policy 24 (2000) 553–63; From Self-Governance to Public-Private Partnership:  The Changing Role of Governments in the Management of the Internet’s Core Resources, 36 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1103 (2003); Knipp, Elmar, Stability, Security and Sustainability in ccTLD Management for the Internet, The Power of Ideas: Internet Governance in a Global Multi-Stakeholder Environment, Ed. Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Berlin: Druckerei J. Humburg GmbH, 2007. 243–8; Lindsay, David, International Domain Name Law, Portland:  Hart Publishing, 2007; Lipton, Jacqueline/Wong, Mary, Trademarks and Freedom of Expression in ICANN’s New gTLD Process, 38 Monash

3

A.  Structure and Organization of the Domain Name System U.  L. Rev. 188 (2012); Mueller, Milton, The New Global Politics of Internet Governance, The Power of Ideas: Internet Governance in a Global Multi-Stakeholder Environment, Ed. Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Berlin: Druckerei J. Humburg GmbH, 2007. 215–19; Mueller, Milton, Ruling the Root, Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002; OECD Report, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, Generic Top Level Domain Names: Market Development and Allocation Issues, July 13, 2004, available at: http://www.oecd. org/dataoecd/56/34/32996948.pdf; Mühlberg, Annette, Users and Internet Governance—The Structure of ICANN’s At-Large Advisory Committee, The Power of Ideas: Internet Governance in a Global Multi-Stakeholder Environment, Ed. Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Berlin:  Druckerei J. Humburg GmbH, 2007. 249–55; Olsen John R./Maniatis, Spyros M./Wood, Nick/Wilson, Caroline (Hrsg.), Domain Names: Global Practice and Procedure, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2000; Rony, Ellen/Rony, Peter, The Domain Name Handbook—High Stakes and Strategies in Cyberspace, Lawrence, Kansas: West 1998; Voegeli, Julia, Die Regulierung des Domainnamenssystems durch die Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Cologne, Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2006; Walker, L, ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, 15 Berkeley Tch. LJ 289, 294 (2000); Waz, Joe/Weiser, Phil, Internet Governance: The Role of Multistakeholder Organizations, 10 J. on Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 331 (2012); Weber, Rolf H., The legitimacy and accountability of the internet’s governing institutions, Research Handbook on Governance of the Internet, Ed. Ian Brown, Glos:  Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 2013. 99–120; Weinberg, Jonathan, Governments, Privatization, and ‘Privatization’:  ICANN and the GAC, 18 Mich. Telecomm. Tech L. Rev. 189 (2011); Weinberg, Jonathan, ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy, 50 Duke Law Journal 187 (2000); Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), Report of June 2005, available at:  http://www.wgig.org; Weinberg, Jonathan, Non-state actors and global informal governance: the case of ICANN, International Handbook on Informal Governance, Ed. Thomas Christiansen/Christine Neuhold, Glos:  Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 2012. 292–313; Zittrain, Jonathan, ICANN: Between the Public and the Private, Comments before Congress, 14 Berkeley Tch. L.J. 1071 (1999).

I.  The Technical Functioning of the Domain Name System (1) Domain Names and IP Addresses IA.01 Although the Internet has no cross-organizational, financial, or operational management

responsible for the entire Internet, certain administrative tasks are coordinated centrally. Among the most important organizational tasks that require global regulation is the management of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and their corresponding domain names. The IP address consists of an existing 32 bit (IP4) or 128 bit (IP6) sequence of digits1 and is the actual physical network address by which routing on the Internet takes place and which will ensure that the data packets reach the correct host computer.

IA.02 In addition to these numeric addresses, a globally consistent, hierarchically structured nam-

ing system (Domain Name System) was created in 1984, merely for the sake of user friendliness, which allows the assignment of any IP address to a globally unique domain name.2 The

1 For example, ‘93.184.216.119’ (IPv4) or 2606:2800:220:6d:26bf:1447:1097:aa7 (IPv6); Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) is the fourth version in the development of the Internet Protocol (IP), and routes most traffic on the Internet. IPv6, a successor protocol, has been developed to deal with the long-anticipated problem of IPv4 address exhaustion. 2  The idea of a hierarchical namespace (namespace) for the Internet was first described in 1981 by DL Mills in RFC document 799  ‘Internet Name Domain’, and the division of the namespace in the generic top-level domains (TLDs) was shown for the first time, in 1984, by J. Postel and J. Reynolds in the document ‘domain Requirements’ (RFC 920). For details, see Rony/Rony, The Domain Name Handbook, 89 ff.

4

I.  The Technical Functioning of the Domain Name System main function of domain names is to provide easily recognizable and memorable names to numerically addressed Internet resources. The task of the Domain Name System (DNS) is the ‘resolution’ of domain names into IP IA.03 addresses and vice versa. In some ways, the DNS fulfils the function of a phone book. It translates or ‘maps’ the name to a numeric address. Unlike the telephone numbers in a telephone directory, however, domain names are not stored in a central register but are managed in a hierarchical, distributed database system called the ‘name servers’.3 The DNS today has over 250 million registered names, and is the world’s largest distributed database, with no end to its growth in sight.

(2) The Function of the Root-Server The DNS is used to organize the allocation of names or namespaces into a hierarchy that is IA.04 used to avoid naming conflicts. The structure of the management system can best be compared with that of an upside-down tree. The root of the tree (‘root zone’) is the upper level of the hierarchy, which is managed by IA.05 the supranational organization Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). It consists of 13 name servers (‘root servers’)—or, more accurately, there are 13 IP addresses on the Internet where root servers can be found (the servers that have one of the 13 IP addresses can be in dozens of different physical locations). These servers all store a copy of the same file which acts as the main index to the Internet’s address books. It lists an address for each top-level domain (‘.com’, ‘.net’, ‘.de’,’.fr’, etc) where that registry’s own address book can be found.4 The root zone then splits into several branches, representing the top-level domains. These in turn branch out into further sub-branches, the second-level domains. The hierarchy is shown in Figure IA.1. Each level of hierarchy in the DNS owes its existence to the authorization from the next higher level.5 When a top-level domain is entered into the authoritative master database (Registry) the IA.06 Registry Operator creates the zone files which allow computers to route Internet traffic to and from the top-level-domain anywhere in world. The Registry Operator then contracts with Registrars to provide registration services to the public. Internet users do not interact directly with the Registry Operator.

(3) The Hierarchy Levels of the Domain Name System Domain names follow a syntax whereby various levels of subsidiary points are separated from IA.07 each other (so-called ‘domain-levels’). In the domain name ‘arbiter.wipo.int’, the address of the Arbitration and Mediation Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, ‘.int’ represents the top-level domain, ‘wipo’ the second-level domain and ‘arbiter’ the third-level domain. This is shown in Figure IA.2.

3  A name server is a file server that resolves a domain name corresponding to the respective numeric IP address (‘name resolution’). A  basic distinction exists between ‘authoritative’ and ‘not authoritative’ name servers. The former have the ‘authority’ for a zone, ie they are responsible for it and can answer questions about appropriate domain names from their locally stored data. Non-authoritative name servers, however, can also answer questions, but they must themselves query the authoritative name server to be able ‘to resolve the domain name to an IP address’. 4  Ten servers were originally in the United States; some are now operated via anycast. Three servers were originally located in Stockholm (I), Amsterdam (K), and Tokyo (M). A list of root server operators is available at: http://root-servers.org. Political control of the ‘Masterroot’ of all root servers lies with the US Department of Commerce. 5  The individual delegation and authorization levels are referred to as ‘zones’. The Registry is responsible for managing all field names in the relevant zone.

5

A.  Structure and Organization of the Domain Name System ‘root’-Zone, administered by ICANN

int-Zone, administered by IANA .int

TopLevel Domain

de-Zone, administered by DENIC

.com

.org

wipo.int-Zone, administered by WIPO SecondLevel Domain ThirdLevel Domain

.de

bettinger.de-Zone, administered by BSK

wipo.int

bettinger.de

arbiter.wipo.int

Figure IA.1:  Hierarchical Structure of the DNS < .arbiter.wipo.int >

Third-Level Domain

Second-Level Domain

Top-Level Domain

Figure IA.2:  Domain-level Structure IA.08 The Lookup mechanism of the DNS (lookup) is based on a demand–response interaction

between the various name servers. In order for the domain name ‘wipo.int’ to be resolved, first a local name server for the IP address is interviewed and, in turn, it forwards the question to one of the 13 root servers. The root server answers the question by giving the name and IP number of a name server that has the authoritative data for the top-level domain ‘.int’, and sends the reply to the requesting name server. The local name server then interviews the name server in charge of ‘.int’ and receives the IP address of the name server for ‘wipo.int’. In a third step, the name server ‘wipo.int’ relays the available information about the IP address of ‘www.wipo.int’ (193.5.93.80), which is then transmitted to the local name server. The local name server sends this information to the computer that accesses the website at ‘www.wipo.int’. Despite the multi-stage search process, DNS queries regularly take less than a second to complete.

IA.09 The top of the domain name hierarchy, the top-level domain (TLD), was originally

restricted to eight generic top-level domains (gTLDs), three of which (‘.com’, ‘.net’, and ‘.org’) were open to registration by all Internet users worldwide, and four of which (‘.edu’, ‘.int’, ‘.gov’, and ‘.mil’) were restricted to US agencies and international organizations. Additionally, the TLD ‘.arpa’ is used exclusively for purposes related to the infrastructure of the Internet.

6

I.  The Technical Functioning of the Domain Name System In November 2000, the Internet Cooperation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), IA.10 the organization responsible for the administration of the DNS, decided to expand the namespace of eight gTLDs for the first time by seven additional gTLDs (specifically, ‘.biz’, ‘.name’, ‘.info’, ‘.aero’, ‘.coop’, ‘.pro’, and ‘.museum’).6 In the years 2005 to 2012, eight more gTLDs were added, including ‘.jobs’, ‘.mobi’, ‘.tel’, ‘.travel’, ‘.cat’, ‘.asia’, ‘.post’, and ‘.xxx’. (For the registration requirements and dispute resolution in the various gTLD spaces, see para IC.06 below.) In June 2011, after a detailed and lengthy consultation with the many constituencies of IA.11 ICANN’s global Internet community, including governments, civil society, business and intellectual property stakeholders, and technologists, ICANN authorized the launch of the New gTLD Program, which opened the namespace for an unlimited number of new gTLD applications including both new ASCII and internationalized domain name (IDN) top-level domains.7 In the first application round which ended on May 30, 2012, 1,930 applications for new IA.12 gTLD’s were received, 751 of which were contested (for details on ICANN’s role and organizational structure see Section B; on the ICANN New gTLD Program see Section D). In addition to the gTLDs, there are some 250 two-letter country code top-level domains IA.13 (ccTLDs), based on the ISO 3166 standard (for example ‘.de’ for Germany, ‘.ch’ for Switzerland, ‘.br’ for Brazil, and ‘.eu’ for the European Union)8 and managed by national registries. Second-level domains (hereinafter domain names) are assigned under the conditions imposed IA.14 by the registry responsible for the management of top-level domains. Because of their address character, a domain name under a particular top-level domain can be granted only once. (For more information concerning the registration requirements in the various gTLDs see para IC.06, and for the registration requirements in the ccTLDs see paras IE.08 et seq., and the individual country reports.) Lower level domains (eg third and fourth-level-domains) are either registered and managed IA.15 by the respective owners of the relevant second-level domain name or assigned under the conditions imposed by the registry depending on the established hierarchy of the TLD. In the gTLDs and ccTLDs, the structure of domain name registrations are generally flat, IA.16 that is, domain names can be registered only at the second hierarchical level. In some of the ccTLD name spaces, however, the registration system has evolved, and is divided below the second-level domain into other generic or geographic sub-levels. For example, Nominet UK, the ‘.uk’ registry in the United Kingdom, originally set up a number of second-level domains under the top-level domain ‘.uk’ for reserved use by certain groups. These include ‘.co.uk’ for commercial enterprises, ‘.ltd.uk’ for corporations, ‘.ac.uk’ for universities, ‘.sch.uk’ for schools, and ‘.gov.uk’ for government agencies.9

(4) Internationalized Domain Names Until recently, the Root Zone was limited to a set of characters conforming to US-ASCII IA.17 (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) or ‘Latin’ alphabets. This changed

  See ICANN Board Resolution 00.89, available at: https://features.icann.org/resolutions.   See ICANN Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01, available at: https://features.icann.org/resolutions. 8  ISO 3166 is a value set by the International Organization for Standardization by which each State is assigned a two-letter abbreviation code. 9  For details, see the country report for the United Kingdom, para UK.17. 6 7

7

A.  Structure and Organization of the Domain Name System with the introduction of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), which allowed top-level domains (TLDs) and sub-level domains in different scripts and enabled Internet users to access domain names in their own languages.10 IA.18 Since 2009 ICANN has allowed countries and territories to submit requests to ICANN for IDN

ccTLDs representing their respective country or territory names in scripts other than US-ASCII characters (IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process).11 Also ICANN’s New gTLD Program allows the addition of IDN gTLDs into the root zone for the first time (see para ID.85).

IA.19 Today, many ccTLD registries and gTLD registries also support IDNs at the second or lower

levels (see the National Reports in Part II).

II.  The Development of the Domain Name System (1) The Early Stages of the Domain Name System IA.20 The DNS, in its present form, was created12 and developed in the early 1980s by the Internet

Engineering Task Force (IETF),13 the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA),14 and its director, Jon Postel,15 on behalf of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA), a division of the Pentagon, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other US research institutions. The registration policies have been edited into a log and standard series, the so-called Request for Comments (RFCs), the binding effect of which is based primarily on the professional reputation of and public confidence in the personal integrity of the responsible engineers and network designers, but not per se on legal norms in the strictest sense.16

10  ICANN has partnered with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to promote IDNs and a multilingual Internet through UNESCO’s network of expert linguists, links to Member States and other UN agencies, and the establishment of working groups to encourage the participation of least-developed countries. See ‘Internationalized Domain Names’, available at: http://www. unesco.org for a detailed explanation of ICANN’s partnership with UNESCO. UNESCO also produces an annual report on IDN deployment. Most recently it reported that only 2% of the world’s registered domain names are IDNs. See EURid-UNESCO World Report on IDN Deployment 2013, available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002239/223982e.pdf. 11  The IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process was launched on November 16, 2009. As of that date eligible countries and territories were able to request their respective IDN ccTLD(s) through the process. The first IDN ccTLDs were successfully implemented into the DNS root zone in 2010, including Russia (.рф), Egypt (‫رص‬.) and Saudi Arabia ‫ةيدوعسلا‬.). For information on countries and territories that have completed the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process, see http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/fast-track. 12  The inventor of the DNS is an American engineer, Paul Mockapetris, who described in 1983 in RFCs 882 and 883, the first DNS specification. These were later replaced by the still valid RFC 1034 and RFC 1035. 13  The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is an open, international community of network designers, professionals, and producers who contribute to the development of the Internet and its trouble-free operation. It functions as a standards body for the Internet industry communication protocols (TCP/IP, SMTP, http, etc), and ISOC, the international umbrella organization of the IETF, publishes the Requests for Comments (RFCs), standards, and accompanying documents for the Internet. The IETF is based in Herndon, VA, USA. 14  IANA is currently a department of ICANN. Prior to the establishment of ICANN under a United States Department of Commerce contract, IANA was administered principally by Jon Postel at the Information Sciences Institute (ISI) of the University of Southern California (USC), under a contract USC/ISI had with the United States Department of Defense. 15  The late Jon Postel is recognized as one of the most important pioneers of the Internet and was largely responsible for the development of DNS, first as an employee of the University of Southern California and later as a professor and finally as president of IANA. 16  RFCs are a protocol and standard series, which today represent the most important official communications of the Internet Committees and the Internet community. RFCs are publications of the IETF and the Internet Society, the principal technical development and standards-setting bodies for the Internet. RFC

8

II.  The Development of the Domain Name System Until 1992, the registration of domain names was commissioned by the US Defense IA.21 Department by SRI International, a non-profit research institute based in California. Later, the NSF, the leading organization in developing the Internet, oversaw registration. They transferred the responsibility for registering and managing domain names by a contract dated December 31, 1992, to the private company Network Solutions, Inc (NSI), which thereby obtained sole control of the registration and administration of domain names.17

(2) Functional  Change Until the mid 1990s, the importance of domain names was limited solely to their address IA.22 function and the ability to serve as user-friendly locators. Internet users came almost exclusively from the academic environment. With the proliferation of the World Wide Web (WWW) and the resulting commercialization of the Internet, the mid 1990s began to see a changing function of the DNS (transmutation of domain names).18 Domain names were no longer primarily used as addresses to identify universities or research institutions, but by companies as a source identifier for their online presentations and products as well as by individual people for private purposes. Easily-remembered domain names became a scarce commodity for which high prices were paid and which were the subject of a fast growing number of trademark disputes.19 The tension between the different functions of domain names resulted in an intense debate IA.23 on the necessary reforms of the DNS and the Internet governance structures to follow. While the decisions regarding the development of the DNS and the Internet architecture in the 1990s were made almost exclusively by the engineers and the early Internet community, the relevant governments (whose role until that time had been largely limited to the financing of the infrastructure) became interested in the commercialization of the Internet, and took an interest in the development and control of the DNS from an economic standpoint. Stakeholders in the economy, international organizations like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)20 and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), WIPO, the European Commission (EC) and individual national governments began to see the importance of the Internet and its namespace, and to identify and participate in complaint claims. Accordingly, it was viewed as a priority to enforce trademark rights on the Internet, and to see the abolition of the failed registry monopoly of Network Solutions Inc, by the development of proper conflict resolution mechanisms to deal with trademark disputes.21

1591, concerning the domain delegation and registration authority, was written by Jon Postel in March 1994 and describes the allocation of address space in gTLDs and ccTLDs. Additionally, it lays down conditions for the delegation of administrative responsibilities for the ccTLDs. The RFC 1591 is available at: http://www. isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt. 17  The contract was initially due to run until 1998 and was extended several times. The contracts are available at: http://www.icann.org/nsi/nsi-agreements.htm. 18  The Management of Internet Names and Numbers, Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, 1999, World Intellectual Property Organization, available at:  http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/ processes/process1/report/finalreport.html. 19  The first legal dispute over the registration and use of domain names was in 1994 in the US, and in 1996 in Germany. 20  The OECD had undertaken a study in 1997, showing that the issue of management of names and numbers of a network is not just a technical, but also a political question, which related to the governance structure of the Internet as a whole. See OECD, Internet Domain Names: Allocations Policies, DG (97) 207 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/11/2091363.pdf. 21  In 1998, the registration revenues generated by the NSI monopoly exceeded US$36 million. See L. Walker, ‘ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy’, 15 Berkeley Tch. LJ 289, 294 (2000).

9

A.  Structure and Organization of the Domain Name System (3) The Reform of the Domain Name System and the Founding of ICANN IA.24 Initial proposals for the reform of the DNS were initiated in 1996 by the International

Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC), the representative of IANA, the ITU, the Internet Society (ISOC),22 WIPO and several other organizations.23

IA.25 The basic ideas of the IAHC’s proposal, which was presented in a gTLD-Memorandum of

Understanding,24 were the extension of the name space by a further seven gTLDs (‘.firm’, ‘.store’, ‘.web’, ‘.arts’, ‘.rec’, ‘.info’, and ‘.nom’), and the resolution of Network Solutions Inc’s registry monopoly through the transfer of the registration business to a total of 28 registrars located throughout the seven regions of the world. The umbrella organization CORE (Council of Registrars), an association of recognized registrars, was established under Swiss law and based in Geneva. As a supervisory body, it fell into their area of expertise to determine the registration policies for the creation of new top-level domains, and to orchestrate a so-called Policy Oversight Committee (POC), formed by representatives from the ISOC, the IANA, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB),25 the ITU and the International Trademark Association (INTA), and WIPO. It was further proposed that the registration of domain names should include a voluntary, 60-day upstream ‘waiting period’, in order to give brand owners the opportunity to assert their rights early in the application process. Internationally-known names (internationally famous names) should, at the request of their owners, generally be excluded from registration.

IA.26 The reform efforts of the IAHC failed, however, due to the opposition of the US government,

which opposed the establishment of an Internet company under Swiss law, as well as opposition from parts of the private sector, who feared that the integration of the ITU, sooner or later, would lead to more government control over the Internet.26 The European Commission objected to the proposals of the IAHC because they allegedly did not take sufficient account of European interests. From summer 1997, the US Department of Commerce again took the lead in the discussion about the Internet governance structures and the DNS itself.27

IA.27 Just three months after IAHC presented its ‘gTLD Memorandum of Understanding’, the

US government presented an alternative solution model in a ‘Green Paper’28 to several national governments and a variety of institutions and organizations around the world. The Department of Commerce voiced concerns about the political control of the Internet infrastructure and also expressed its intention to deliver these to a private organization. It further advocated that the control of the DNS should be transferred to a newly-formed non-profit corporation, which should operate through international participation, but on the basis of

22  The Internet Society (ISOC) is a non-profit organization that promotes the technical development of the Internet and encourages the exchange of information between IP service providers and Internet users and, among other things, governs the development of technical standards (RFCs). ISOC has more than 55,000 individuals and 130 organizations as members, and is managed by its Board of Trustees, elected by its members worldwide. ISOC is the parent organization of the IAB and IETF. For details, see http://www.isoc.org. 23  For details, see Rony/Rony, The Domain Name Handbook, 531 ff. and the IAHC website at: http:// www.iahc.org. 24  The text is available at: http://www.itu.int/net-itu/gtld-mou/gTLD-MoU.htm. 25  The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) is a body of technicians, which oversees the development of Internet protocols, and coordinates and oversees the activities of the IETF and Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). For details see http://www.iab.org. 26 See Rony/Rony, The Domain Name Handbook, p 530; Kleinwächter, ICANN between technical mandate and political challenges, Telecommunications Policy 24 (2000), 553, 554. 27  Rony/Rony, The Domain Name Handbook, p 530; Hofmann, Die Regulierung des Domainnamenssystems, WZB Discussion Paper SP III 2003-104, s 2.5. 28  Department of Commerce, Proposal to Improve the Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses (‘Green Paper’). See http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dnsdrft.htm.

10

II.  The Development of the Domain Name System California law. Registry and registrar functions would be relegated to the field of domain registration to allow for increased market competition. The decision on which new TLDs would be introduced was retained by the US government itself. The Green Paper met with fierce opposition from the Internet community as well as from IA.28 national governments and international organizations. The fact that the US Commerce Department’s reform proposals represented in this Green Paper did not address the underlying claims to authority of the IAHC and other organizations was strongly criticized. Many players criticized the Green Paper, calling it an ‘usurpation’ by the US government in order to establish a self-governing regime of technicians.29 The European Union, which had favoured an international political solution under the auspices of a UN organization such as the ITU, expressed criticism in a statement on the Green Paper and demanded that the US government limit its direct regulatory intervention.30 In June 1998, the US Department of Commerce issued a ‘White Paper’ in response to the IA.29 criticisms of the original plan, which increased the distance between the US and the institutional structure of the new organization which would define for itself the new generic top-level domains.31 The US government defended the concept of a private non-profit organization under US IA.30 law that was independent of government influence. In essence, it was about replacing IANA and the corresponding control of technicians over important Internet-related tasks by an appropriately structured and legally-vested organization suitably reflective of its international functions. The development of the new management structure was outlined in the White Paper, with IA.31 the following four guidelines: (1) Stability: The privatization of the network management shall not affect the reliability and security of the DNS. (2) Competition: The network management shall, as far as possible, be left to market forces. (3) Private bottom-up coordination: In relation to the management areas that the ‘coordination’ requires, a private sector solution was favoured over a government organization. This should reflect the tradition of grassroots governance of the Internet. (4) Representation:  The functional and geographic diversity of the Internet should be reflected in its administrative structure. To ensure that the rules and procedures for the network management are fair and based on general consent, it is important to develop mechanisms that guarantee international participation. The contours of the future organization would be based on these principles outlined by the IA.32 US Department of Commerce. The new organization should be non-profit and based in the US, but nevertheless of international composition. Representatives of the regional address

29  Hofmann, Die Regulierung des Domainnamenssystems, WZB Discussion Paper SP III 2003-104, Section 2.5. 30  Council of the European Union and the European Commission, Reply of the European Community and its Member States to the US Green Paper, March, 16 1998, available at:  http://europa.eu/:  ‘We recommend that the US Administration limit its direct regulatory intervention in the Internet only to those relationships which fall clearly under existing contracts between the Agencies of the US Government and their contractors and that all other decisions be referred to an appropriate internationally constituted and representative body. In this context, no decision should be taken as to the creation of new gTLDs before an international consensus is reached.’ 31 United States Department of Commerce, Management of Internet Names and Addresses, Policy Statement (‘White Paper’), Doc No 980212036-8146-02, Washington, June 5, 1998, available at: http://www. ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notice/1998/statement-policy-management-internet-names-and-addresses.

11

A.  Structure and Organization of the Domain Name System registries, the technical community, the domain name registries, the registrars, Internet service providers, brand owners, Internet experts, and commercial and non-commercial users ‘from around the world’ should be integrated into the organizational structure. Only governments should be excluded from direct participation.32 IA.33 The tasks of the new organization, as listed in the ‘White Paper’ included:

(1) (2) (3) (4)

the formulation of policies for the allocation of IP addresses; the supervision of the authoritative root server; the formulation of conditions under which new TLDs are created; and coordinating the allocation of other Internet-related parameters.

IA.34 As the US government in the White Paper had abandoned its original plan to establish the

new organization itself, in the summer of 1998 the ‘International Forum on the White Paper’ (IFWP) was formed in response to the White Paper and after public discussion. The IFWP practically involved the entire spectrum of interests of the name and number management (engineers, lawyers, professors, political officials, and corporate and association representatives), and the US Department of Commerce submitted two proposals for the newly-founded organization.33 Another suggestion came from IANA itself which, to a certain extent, suggested its own organizational transformation.34

IA.35 In October 1998, the US Department of Commerce pronounced on the draft statute for

IANA. A month later, the US government formally designated the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) as the private company recognized and responsible for the tasks of domain administration (on the organizational structure and functions of ICANN, see paras IA.05 et seq.).35

IA.36 With regard to the administration of the country code top-level domains (ccTLDs), after the

foundation of ICANN, the decision-making power lies solely with the relevant national governments who have elected to transfer the administrative and technical management of their Registries either to private organizations, government agencies, or institutional facilities.36

32  Hofmann, Die Regulierung des Domainnamenssystems, Entscheidungsprozess und gesellschaftliche Auswirkungen der Einrichtung neuer Top Level Domains im Internet, WZB-Discussion Paper SP III 2003-104, Kap 2.6.; Heisz, Legitimation durch Verfahren am Beispiel des Domain-Name-Systems, p 28. 33  Hofmann, Die Regulierung des Domainnamenssystems, Entscheidungsprozess und gesellschaftliche Auswirkungen der Einrichtung neuer Top Level Domains im Internet, WZB-Diskussion Paper SP III 2003-104, Kap. 2.6.; Heisz, Legitimation durch Verfahren am Beispiel des Domain-Name-Systems, p 28. 34  The various draft statutes, including the alteration of the draft, which the US Department of Commerce has officially recognized, are available on the website of the ‘Domain Name Handbook’ at:  http://www. domainhandbook.com/archives/comp-bylaws.html. 35 See Hillebrand/Büllingen, WIK-Diskussionsbeitrag No 218, 2001, pp 25 ff.; Guckenberger, in: Hamm, Ingrid/Machill, Marcel, Wer regiert das Internet? ICAN als Fallbeispiel für Global Internet Governance. Gütersloh, 2001, pp 83 ff.; Zittrain, ‘ICANN Between the Public and the Private’, 14 Berkeley Tech LJ 1071, pp 1077 ff. (1999); Kleinwächter, MMR 1999, pp 452, 456 ff.; the statutes of ICANN are available at: http:// www.icann.org. 36  For more on the organization of specific ccTLD registries, see the country reports in Part II.

12

B ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS OF THE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS (ICANN) Torsten Bettinger and Volker Greimann

I. Legal Form and ‘Mission’  II. ICANN’s Organizational Structure  (1) Board of Directors  (2) The Supporting Organizations  (3) Advisory Committees 

(3) ICANN’s Relationship with ccTLD Registries

IB.01 IB.09 IB.09 IB.18 IB.38

VI. Review of ICANN Objectives VII. ICANN Accountability Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

IB.113 (1) Request for Reconsideration IB.116 (2) Independent Review of Board Actions IB.129 (3) Office of the Ombudsman IB.146

III. ICANN’s Consensus-driven, Bottom-up, Multi-stakeholder Model 

IB.51 (1) The Concept of Multi-stakeholder Governance  IB.51 (2) Policy Development Processes  IB.54 IV. ICANN’s Funding  IB.63

V. ICANN’s Agreements with Registries and Registrars 

IB.102 IB.104

VIII. ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP)  IX. ICANN’s Antitrust Responsibilities X. Challenges of ICANN Actions before Ordinary Courts XI. ICANN and Internet Governance

IB.65 IB.65

(1) ICANN’s Agreements with Registries  (2) ICANN’s Registrar Accreditation Agreement  IB.75

IB.148 IB.150 IB.152 IB.157

I.  Legal Form and ‘Mission’ Although the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is respon- IB.01 sible for the management and the creation of rules with respect to a key global issue of the twenty-first century, it sets up its organizational structure and legitimating basis in a way that differs significantly from the political and organizational schemes that were used to solve similar global phenomena in the past. In terms of its organizational form, ICANN is neither an intergovernmental organization (IGO), nor a classic non-governmental organization (NGO) with individual or institutional members, but a new, unprecedented type of a private transnational organization which represents various types of stakeholders from around the world, and is made up of elected and appointed representatives of institutions, numerous ‘advisory committees’, ‘constituencies’, and ‘supporting organizations’ (SOs).1 1 See Kleinwächter, ICANN between technical mandate and political challenges, Telecommunications Policy 24 (2000), 553–4; see also the report by Zalnieriute/Schneider on ‘ICANN’s procedures and policies in the light of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democratic values’, facilitated by the Council of Europe, available at: http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/icann-and-human-rights.asp.

13

B.  Organizational Structure and Functions IB.02 ICANN operates under a multi-stakeholder model of governance and policy-making2

that was initially put in place by the US Department of Commerce and is based on input from the global Internet stakeholders3 (for details on ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model see para IB.51). This governance structure implies that ICANN aims to bring together primary stakeholders in the domain name system (DNS), including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community, and users, to participate in an open dialogue to develop consensus-based solutions to common goals in a transparent, bottom-up process (for more information about policy development at ICANN see para IB.54).4

IB.03 According to ICANN’s Bylaws, as amended on April 11, 2013, it is a private organization

that is based on the principle of a ‘Californian Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for Charitable and Public Purposes’. Under Article I of the ICANN Bylaws, their task is to ‘to coordinate the global Internet’s systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems’.

IB.04 Under Article I  of the ICANN Bylaws, it is the responsibility of ICANN to maintain

control over:

(1) the allocation and assignment of the three identification codes for the Internet, namely the: (a) domain names (forming a system, referred to as the domain name system); (b) Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and autonomous system (AS) numbers; and (c) Protocol port and parameter numbers; (2) the operation and development of the DNS root name server system; and (3) the development of rules in an objectively reasonable manner in relation to these functions. IB.05 Until an ‘Affirmation of Commitments’ (AoC) was signed between the US Department of

Commerce and ICANN on September 30, 20095 the existence of ICANN was subject to periodic renewal of its contracts with the US government, which acted both as a contractor and supervisory authority over ICANN.

IB.06 In the AoC this public–private relationship between ICANN and the US government was modi-

fied, replacing the original Memorandum of Understanding and Joint Project Agreement (JPA),6

2 See Ayres, Grace: ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model, available at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/ files/icann-multi-stakeholder-model-14apr08-en.pdf. 3  See US Department of Commerce, Statement of Policy on the Management of Internet Names and Addresses, Docket No 980212036-8146-02, June 5, 1998 (‘White Paper’) available at: http://www.ntia.doc. gov/federal-register-notice/1998/statement-policy-management-internet-names-and-addresses. 4  Article X s 5 of the ICANN Bylaws names the following ICANN stakeholder groups:  (1)  Registries Stakeholder Group representing all gTLD registries under contract to ICANN; (2) Registrars Stakeholder Group representing all registrars accredited by and under contract to ICANN; (3) Commercial Stakeholder Group representing the full range of large and small commercial entities of the Internet; and (4) Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group representing the full range of non-commercial entities of the Internet. 5  See Affirmation of Commitments (Affirmation) by the US Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, available at:  http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/ aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm. 6  The Affirmation of Commitments contains specific provisions for periodic review of the four key ICANN objectives by independent ‘Review Teams’, composed of Community members representing Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, Independent experts, and ex-officio members such as the Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committees, the US Department of Commerce and the ICANN CEO. The JPA consists of ten responsibilities identified out of the Memorandums of Understanding which have been signed and renewed between ICANN and the US Department of Commerce. The JPA, signed in September 2006, resolved to assess ICANN’s performance on the ten responsibilities.

14

II.  ICANN’s Organizational Structure and thereby releasing ICANN from the direct control of the US government and making oversight an international effort.7 While largely symbolic, the AoC re-enforced the role of ICANN as a being a ‘mul- IB.07 ti-stakeholder, private sector led, bottom-up policy development model for DNS technical coordination that acts in the benefit of global internet users’8 (see section III.2 for a description of the policy development within ICANN), and affirmed ICANN as an independent, transparent and accountable not-for-profit organization not controlled by any one entity, but regularly reviewed in its core responsibilities by review teams consisting of volunteer community members and a number of designated review team members9 (see para IB.104 for the Review Process). While the AoC can be terminated by either party, the lapsing of the Memorandum of Understanding and JPA make such an act unlikely. The AoC was therefore interpreted as an eternal agreement by ICANN’s CEO.10 As an additional step towards ICANN independence, in 2014 the National Telecommunica­ IB.08 tions and Information Administration (NTIA) of the US Department of Commerce announced its intention to transition the key Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) domain name functions to ICANN ‘to support and enhance the multi-stakeholder model of Internet policymaking and governance’.11

II.  ICANN’s Organizational Structure (1) Board of Directors The board of directors is responsible for ICANN’s operational management. It comprises the (vot- IB.09 ing) president, 15 voting members (directors) and five non-voting external members (liaisons), who only have the right to participate in the meetings, discussions, and deliberations of the board. The Address Supporting Organization (ASO), the Country Code Names Supporting IB.10 Organization (ccNSO) and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) appoint 7 See Froomkin, A.  Michael:  ‘Almost Free:  An Analysis of ICANN’s Affirmation of Commitments’ in University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No 2011-01, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1744086. 8  See Affirmation of Commitments 4, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc. 9  See Affirmation of Commitments 9.1–9.4, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc. 10 See ICANN announcement of September 30, 2009; available at:  http://www.icann.org/en/news/ announcements/announcement-30sep09-en.htm. 11  The NTIA has been responsible for several technical and procedural roles in the administration of the Internet, including administering changes to the authoritative root zone file and other related root zone management functions. Transitioning the functions of NTIA marks the final phase of the privatization of the DNS. See ‘NTIA Announces Intent to Transition Key Internet Domain Name Functions’, available at: http://www. ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions. ICANN initiated a discussion on ‘Enhancing ICANN Accountability’ to address how it will operate without US oversight, and proposed a working group to address issues raised concerning ICANN Accountability. See https:// www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en. Despite the initiative by ICANN, many remained unconvinced that the available mechanisms were sufficient to ensure accountability. In an unprecedented action, all constituencies and stakeholders of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) made a joint statement calling for the creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community, including in reference to the transition of the IANA functions. The Joint Statement was made at the ICANN Public Forum at ICANN’s 50th Meeting in London. See https://london50. icann.org for more information. See also ‘Call for independent accountability mechanism to oversee ICANN’, World Trademark Review (June 26, 2014) available at: http://worldtrademarkreview.com/; On 3 November 2014, the Drafting Team that was formed by the ICANN community to develop a charter for the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) distributed a charter for CCWG-Accountability; the CCWG is expected to deliver proposals that would enhance ICANN’s accountability towards all stakeholders.

15

B.  Organizational Structure and Functions two directors each, while the At-Large Community appoints one director. Eight of the directors are selected by the Nominating Committee, which is composed of persons representing the ICANN constituencies, the Advisory and Supporting Organizations and the board itself. The final seat is reserved for the president and CEO of ICANN. The nominating committee shall be composed of voting members selected from the constituencies of the GNSO, the regional at-large advisory committees and the SOs, as well as non-voting members appointed by the board, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), and the Advisory Committees in accordance with the ICANN bylaws, with the chair being a non-voting appointee by the board.12 IB.11 The idea of a grassroots self-government and the direct election of half the board members

by interested Internet users (at-large membership), as the first version of ICANN’s Articles of Association had planned back in November 1998, were abandoned after the first Internet election in the autumn of 2000.13

IB.12 In appointing ICANN directors, the nominating committee and the SOs must ensure that

the ICANN board is composed of members who differ in their geographic origin and culture, as well as with regard to their qualifications, experience, and perceptions (Article VI s 2 ICANN’s Articles of Association). The total number of directors (excluding the president) who come from one of the five world regions (Europe, Asia/Australia/Pacific, Latin America/ Caribbean Islands, Africa, and North America) must not exceed five. The nomination committee must also ensure in its decision that each of the five regions of the world is always represented by at least one director.

IB.13 As provided by Article XII section 1 of the ICANN Bylaws, the board of directors has estab-

lished various board committees to which the board of directors has delegated parts of its legal authority.14

IB.14 In 2003 the board of directors established a Board Governance Committee (BGC).15 Since

February 3, 2009, reconsideration requests have been the responsibility of the BGC (for details on the Request for Reconsideration Process, see paras IB.116–118).

IB.15 In order to make strategic and financial decisions relating to ICANN’s new generic top-level

domain programme, on April 10, 2012 the board decided to establish the New gTLD Program Committee and has delegated decision-making authority to the Committee with regard to any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program for the current round of the programme and as related to the Applicant Guidebook.16

IB.16 Based on previously existing ICANN policies, procedures, and processes, the ICANN board

adopted the Board Governance Guidelines on October 18, 2012, to ‘provide a structure within which the board and management can effectively pursue ICANN’s mission’.17 These

12  See ICANN Bylaws VII, § 2, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#VII-2, as well as Nominating Committee Organizational Chart, available at: http://nomcom.icann.org/guidelines2013.htm. 13  To participate in the election, Internet users could register with ICANN as members. At the first election in the autumn of 2000 only 76,000 Internet users participated worldwide, which had caused reasonable doubts about the usefulness of this mechanism. Terms of the five ICANN at-large directors expired in September 2002. Results of the election are available at: http://www.members.icann.org. 14 See http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board. 15  Board Governance Committee Charter as approved by the ICANN Board of Directors October 13, 2012, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/charter. 16  See New gTLD Program Committee Charter as approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on April 10, 2012, at: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/new-gtld/charter. 17  See ICANN Board Governance Guidelines, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/ guidelines.

16

II.  ICANN’s Organizational Structure Guidelines further define the core values and the role of the board in overseeing the performance of the ICANN management and ICANN strategic planning, and define the means for board accountability and review and ICANN performance evaluations. At present, the ICANN Bylaws do not provide for a direct involvement of national govern- IB.17 ments in the ICANN decision-making process through voting rights in the ICANN board, however, national governments provide guidance and advice upon request of the board as well as on their own volition by means of the GAC (for a description of the role of the GAC see paras IB.39–45).

(2) The Supporting Organizations Supporting organizations are the policy development bodies that make up the ICANN IB.18 multi-stakeholder governance model. They promote the development of Internet policy and encourage international and diverse participation in the technical management of the Internet (for ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model of governance and policy-making see para IB.51). The SOs will be the primary source of substantive policy recommendations for matters lying within their specialized charters and will serve as advisory bodies to the board according to the procedures set forth in the ICANN Bylaws. The ICANN Bylaws provide for three SOs to assist, review, and develop recommendations IB.19 on Internet policy and structure within three specialized areas: the ASO, the GNSO and the ccNSO. (See Bylaws Article VI.) Each SO has the capability to elect two members to the ICANN board. With respect to the IB.20 ccNSO and GNSO the Bylaws provide for specific Policy Development Processes (PDPs) which govern the way in which these SOs develop policies consistent with the their role as outlined in Articles IX and X of the ICANN Bylaws. Participation in the SOs will be open to any individual or organization that meets the IB.21 reasonable minimum qualifications proposed by the SOs and ratified by the ICANN board. Each individual SO will adopt participation structures appropriate for its effective functioning. The SOs are self-funding and shall establish equitable participation dues or other assessments IB.22 to cover all costs of organizing and sustaining the work of the SO within the ICANN structure. ICANN provides administrative and operational support necessary for the GNSO to carry out its responsibilities.

(a) Address Supporting Organization (ASO) The Address Supporting Organization (ASO) reviews and develops recommendations on IB.23 numeric IP address policy and advises the board on policy development for the operation, procurement, and management of numeric IP addresses (see Article VIII ICANN Bylaws).18 It is composed of the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs): (1) AfriNIC (African Network Information Center),19 (2) APNIC (Asia Pacific Network Information Center),20 (3) ARIN (American Registry for Internet Numbers),21

18  The ASO was established by the Memorandum of Understanding entered on October 21, 2004 between ICANN and the Number Resource Organization, an organization of the existing regional RIRs. 19 See http://www.afrinic.net. 20 See http://www.apnic.net. 21 See http://www.arin.net.

17

B.  Organizational Structure and Functions (4) LACNIC (Regional Latin-American and Caribbean IP Address Registry),22 and (5) RIPE-NCC (Réseaux IP Europeéns—Network Information Coordination Centre).23 IB.24 The ASO does not develop policy relating to Internet number resources but rather ensures

that the PDP has been correctly followed in each RIR region.

(b) Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) IB.25 The single most important support organization with regard to the multi-stakeholder policy development process is the GNSO.24 The GNSO is the policy-making body of ICANN and is responsible for making recommendations to the ICANN board regarding applicable administrative and registration provisions for generic top-level domains25 (for details on the GNSO Policy Development Processes see paras IB.55–60). The GNSO was instrumental in the development of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the creation of the New gTLD Program, and in the establishment of rights protection mechanisms for the protection of trademark rights in connection with the creation of new top level domains (for details on the New gTLD Program and rights protection mechanisms see Section III). IB.26 The GNSO has four distinct Stakeholder Groups which are separated into two ‘houses’—the

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group26 and the Registrar Stakeholder Group27 making up the ‘Contracted Parties House’, and the non-commercial and commercial stakeholder groups making up the ‘Non-Contracted Parties House’. Stakeholder groups and the constituencies are responsible for defining their own charters with the approval of their members and of the ICANN board of directors.

IB.27 The Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) is comprised of three Constituencies:28

(1) the Internet Service and Connectivity Provider Constituency (ISPCP),29 (2) the Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC),30 and (3) the Intellectual Property Interests Constituency (IPC).31 IB.28 The ISPs and Connectivity Providers Constituency is particularly attentive to the needs and

concerns of such providers and balances these with the public interest.

IB.29 The Commercial and Business Users Constituency provides a voice and representation

in ICANN processes for the views of the commercial Internet user community that is not

 See http://www.lacnic.net.  See http://www.ripe.net. 24 See http://gnso.icann.org/en/. 25  See Article X ICANN Bylaws. 26  For information on the composition and constitution of the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group, see http://www.rysg.info/. 27  See the section ‘ICANN Registrar Stakeholder Group’, and for more information on its composition and constitution see http://www.icann-registrars.org/. 28  In the GNSO, ‘constituency’ is a technical term referring to a group of Internet users united around a particular common interest or perspective, formally recognized by the GNSO Council. 29 See the section ‘Internet Service and Connectivity Provider Constituency’, and for more information on the composition and constitution of the constituency see http://gnso.icann.org/ internet-service-and-connection-providers/. 30  Members of the ‘Commercial and Business Users constituency’ are essentially multinational companies, most of them located in the US (eg AT&T, Amazon.com, Ebay, Google, Facebook, GE Company, etc) but it also includes, for instance, the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris. For details see http://www. bizconst.org/. 31  Members of the ‘Intellectual Property Constituency’ are international and national associations representing the interests of intellectual property protection. See http://www.ipconstituency.org/. 22 23

18

II.  ICANN’s Organizational Structure contracted by ICANN; that is, individual entrepreneurs, small, medium, large, and multinational businesses, as well as associations of companies such as Chambers of Commerce. The Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) represents the views and interests of owners IB.30 of intellectual property worldwide with particular emphasis on trademark, copyright, and related intellectual property rights and their effect on and interaction with the DNS, and to ensure that these views, including minority views, are reflected in the recommendations made by the GNSO Council to the ICANN board. It contributes within GNSO policy development processes as well as outside these processes to ensure that ICANN policies are consistent with the interests of rights holders. The IPC’s membership is made up of international, local and national intellectual property IB.31 organizations, as well as individuals, companies, organizations or firms involved in the protection of intellectual property. Among the IPC’s most visible contributions as of late is to the development of the New gTLD Program. While conveying scepticism as to the benefit of the New gTLD Program to the collective Internet community, the IPC has consistently advocated a measured introduction of gTLDs, including the provision of Rights Protection Mechanisms for trademark holders at both the pre- and post-delegation stage (for details on the involvement of the IPC in the development of the New gTLD Program, see paras ID.18–21). The Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group is divided into:

IB.32

(1) the NonCommercial Users Constituency,  and (2) the Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency33 (see Article X s 5 of the ICANN Bylaws). 32

The purpose of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) is to represent, through its IB.33 elected representatives and its Constituencies, the interests and concerns of non-commercial registrants and non-commercial Internet users who register domain names for non-commercial personal use and are primarily concerned with the non-commercial, public interest aspects of generic Top-level Domains (gTLDs). The GNSO Council which governs policy development in the GNSO is made up of 18 IB.34 voting members selected from the four GNSO Stakeholder Groups and three members selected by the ICANN Nominating Committee (see Article X s 3 ICANN Bylaws). The Commercial and Non-Commercial Stakeholder Groups each have six votes, and the Registries and Registrars Stakeholder Groups have three each. This voting arrangement, however, leads to an entrenchment of power in the hands of the registries and registrars (contracted parties) at the expense of other interests on the GNSO Council.34 The GNSO Council has adopted a GNSO Policy Development Process35 which gov- IB.35 erns the way in which the GNSO develops policy consistent with the role of the GNSO as outlined in Article X of the ICANN Bylaws36 (for details on the GNSO PDPs see paras IB.55–60).

32 Members of the ‘NonCommercial Users Constituency’ represent the interests and concerns of non-commercial registrants and non-commercial Internet users. For details see http://www.ncdnhc.org/. 33  Members of the ‘Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency’ are non-profit associations and interest groups. For details see http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg/npoc/. 34  See for instance, Letter from the International Trademark Association to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration of July 5, 2006, available at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov. 35 See http://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/consensus-policy/pdp. 36  See Article X ICANN Bylaws, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws.

19

B.  Organizational Structure and Functions (c) Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) IB.36 The Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) is an advisory body within ICANN responsible for making policy proposals to the board relating to ccTLDs (Article IX s 1 ICANN Bylaws).37 IB.37 The PDP is managed by the ccNSO Council, which consists of 18 Councilors, 15 elected by

ccNSO members and three appointed by the ICANN Nominating Committee (Article IX s 3 ICANN Bylaws). Today the ccNSO is mainly a platform within ICANN to facilitate technical cooperation between ccTLD managers and a forum to discuss ccTLD-related issues. A main focus in recent years has been the introduction of ‘fast-track’ ccTLD Internationalized Domain Names.

(3) Advisory Committees IB.38 In addition to the SOs, ICANN has set up five advisory committees (see Article XI

ICANN Bylaws) who are not eligible to vote, but are represented on the board by so-called non-voting liaisons.

(a) Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) IB.39 While ICANN is not an arm of any government, the ICANN Bylaws provide specific mechanisms for soliciting, receiving, and considering governmental inputs. That advice is received into the policy development process through the GAC, the most important advisory body to the ICANN board.38 IB.40 Membership in the GAC is open to all national governments, Distinct Economies as rec-

ognized in international fora, and multinational governmental organizations and treaty organizations, on the invitation of the GAC through its chair (Article XI s 2 ICANN Bylaws). Currently, the GAC is regularly attended by approximately 50 national governments, distinct economies, and global organizations such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) and regional organizations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Asia Pacific Forum, and Council of Europe.

IB.41 The GAC provides guidance and advice upon request of the board as well as on their own

volition. Its influence on decisions of the board, under the current version of ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation by Article XI s 2.1(j), is strengthened relative to other SOs.39 As GAC liaisons are not permitted to vote in the directorate and the SOs, and to allow for comprehensive consultation and explanation of duties, the board was obliged to find an acceptable solution for all parties, in particular in the event that the ICANN board would make a decision adverse to GAC recommendations.40 While GAC advice has a strong preponderance

 See http://ccnso.icann.org/.   More information is available on the GAC’s website at http://gac.icann.org/. 39  The GAC furthermore operates on the basis of the GAC Operating Principles, available at:  http:// gacweb.icann.org. 40  In the light of the responsibility of GAC members to protect the public interest and the human rights of their citizens it is remarkable that the GAC’s role in the decision-making process is solely advisory; see also the report by M. Zalnieriute and S. Schneider on ‘ICANN’s procedures and policies in the light of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democratic values’, facilitated by the Council of Europe, recommending the improvement of the human rights expertise in and early engagement of the GAC. The report is available at: http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/icann-and-human-rights.asp. 37 38

20

II.  ICANN’s Organizational Structure with regard to subsequent board decisions, the ICANN board has the ability to make an independent decision by providing a rationale specific to the advice.41 Initially, participation in the GAC and its influence on ICANN was limited. The GAC con- IB.42 cerned itself primarily with issues of a national, rather than truly global, nature.42 Starting with a change in the ICANN Bylaws in 2002, which strengthened the GAC’s ability to influence policy processes, continuing with suggestions among some countries that an international organization such as the ITU would be more appropriate than ICANN to administer Internet functions, and including the controversy surrounding the delegation of the ‘.xxx’ TLD, governments grew more interested in influencing and commenting on ICANN’s activities. The growing interest in and powers of the GAC’s role have contributed to its importance in policy development.43 Due to its unique role in the development of ICANN, the US government enjoys special IB.43 privileges in the GAC. The US government is on the one hand a member of the GAC, and on the other it is also afforded a permanent seat in the ICANN review teams in accordance with the AoC signed between the US Department of Commerce and ICANN (see above para IB.05).44 In the AoC, the US government affirmed its commitment to participation in the GAC and recognized the GAC’s role in decision-making and its provision of public policy input. The AoC further provided for periodic community review of four objectives ((1) ensuring IB.44 accountability, transparency, and the interests of global Internet users; (2)  preserving the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS; (3) promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice; and (4) WHOIS policy). Each objective has a dedicated review team that includes the Chair of the GAC (or their nominee), with the Chair of the GAC and the CEO of ICANN jointly agreeing to the composition of each review team. The AoC mandates that the Accountability and Transparency Review team include the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the US Department of Commerce.45 The GAC has been provided with a pivotal role in the process for the expansion of the IB.45 gTLD name space by means of providing ‘Advice’, which carries heightened impact regarding applications that, in the opinion of the GAC, should not be approved by the ICANN board. Depending on the nature of the Advice, it may result in the withdrawal of identified new gTLD applications.46 Prior to issuing GAC Advice, the GAC issued GAC Early Warnings signalling potential concerns by individual governments, serving as a warning to applicants for potential upcoming GAC Advice or other concerns. The Early Warnings resulted in the implementation of Public Interest Commitments (PICs) as voluntary amendments to the Registry Agreements by the applicants which would hold them to certain standards. The

41  This was the case with the board’s decision to approve the application for the TLD ‘.xxx’, despite the advice provided by the GAC; see Adopted Board Resolutions March 18, 2011, available at: http://www.icann.org/ en/groups/board/documents/; see GAC Advice in ‘Letter from Heather Dryden to Peter Dengate Thrush’ of March 16, 2011, available at: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee. 42 See Weinberg, Governments, Privatization, and ‘Privatization’:  ICANN and the GAC, 18 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev 189, 191–6 (2011). See also Kleinwaechter, From Self-Governance to Public-Private Partnership: The Changing Role of Goverrments in the Management of the Internet’s Core Resources, 36 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1103, 1116 (2003). 43  See Weinberg (above n 42) at 200–204. 44  See Affirmation of Commitments (Affirmation) by the US Department of Commerce and ICANN, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm. 45  See the Affirmation of Commitments by the US Department of Commerce and ICANN, available at: https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm. 46  For more information about GAC Advice, see Part III, paras IIIB.265–71.

21

B.  Organizational Structure and Functions GAC has requested additional protections for IGOs and international NGOs, and issued Safeguard Recommendations for new gTLD applications relating to consumer protection, to regulated markets or industries, to restricted/exclusive access TLDs, and to categories with a higher potential for abuse.47 In addition to supplying advice on particular applications in the New gTLD Program, the GAC has furthermore engaged the ICANN board regarding Rights Protection Mechanisms for trademark holders, among other issues (for details on the GAC’s role with regard to the development of the New gTLD Program see para ID.07–11).48

(b) The Advisory Committee for Security and Stability Issues (SSAC) IB.46 The task of the committee for security and stability issues (Security and Stability Advisory

Committee, SSAC)49 is to advise the board on matters affecting the security and integrity of the name and address allocation system on the Internet (Article XI s 2.2, ICANN Bylaws). As an example, and its most visible recent activity, SSAC published an advisory note regarding the mitigation of ‘name collision’ risks arising out of the delegation of new gTLDs, advising as to the impact of the delegation of certain domain names on the operation and functionality of the DNS.50

(c) The Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) IB.47 The task of the root system server Advisory Committee (Root Server System Advisory Committee, RSSAC) is to advise the board regarding the operation of root name servers in the DNS, and advising on the operation of name servers, including hardware capabilities of the hosts, operator software, and network connectivity (Article XI s 2.3, ICANN Bylaws).51 (d) The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) IB.48 Since the direct election of the at-large directors was abandoned,52 the representation of individual Internet users (At-Large Community) via a so-called At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) (Article XI s 2.4, ICANN Bylaws) was proposed.53 The ALAC consists of two members of the Regional At-Large Organizations (RALO), and five members appointed by the Nominating Committee. The five members appointed by the Nominating Committee shall each be citizens of countries that represent one of the five world regions.54 (e) The Technical Liaison Group IB.49 Since the quality of ICANN’s work depends heavily on access to information regarding the technical standards, upon which the activities of ICANN are based, ICANN established a Joint Technical Group (Technical Liaison Group, TLG). The board brought the TLG into contact with the relevant technical advisory bodies (Article XI-A s 2, ICANN Bylaws). The TLG is currently composed of representatives of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), the International Telecommunications Union’s Telecommunications Standardization Sector (ITU-T), the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and Internet Architecture Board (IAB). 47 See ICANN GAC Communique April 11, 2013, available at:  http://www.icann.org/en/news/ correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf. 48 See http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation/board-gac-consultations. 49 See https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac. 50  See SSAC Advisory Concerning the Mitigation of Name Collision Risk, available at:  https://www. icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-062-en.pdf. For more information about name collision in the New gTLD Program, see para IIID.235. 51  On the function of the root name servers, see paragraph 7 et seq. 52  See para IB.11. 53 See http://alac.icann.org/. 54  For more on the At-Large Structure, which represents individual Internet users worldwide, see the At-Large Framework Formation, available at: http://alac.icann.org/framework.htm.

22

III.  ICANN’s Consensus-driven, Bottom-up, Multi-stakeholder Model (f ) ICANN Structure Diagram Figure IB.1 below presents the overall structure of ICANN as a result of the development and IB.50 reform process in 2013.55

III.  ICANN’s Consensus-driven, Bottom-up, Multi-stakeholder Model (1) The Concept of Multi-stakeholder Governance ICANN has adopted a multi-stakeholder model of organization and decision-making. IB.51 The concept of a multi-stakeholder organization is to allow participation from and representation of a range of diverse social and economic interests, and participants from outside the governmental and industrial sectors.56 The aim of multi-stakeholder processes is to promote better decision-making by ensuring that the views of concerned stakeholders are heard and integrated at all stages through dialogue and consensus building. The driving concept of the multi-stakeholder process is that every stakeholder involved has a valid view and relevant knowledge and experience to contribute to the decision-making process. ICANN’s multi-stakeholder governance is designed to bring the various stakeholders, includ- IB.52 ing governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community, and users, together and to allow them to participate in policy decision-making and to address the issues that fall under ICANN’s responsibility (for details on the various stakeholder groups and constituencies see Section II). Under this model, the members of

Figure IB.1:  ICANN Organizational Structure Source: ICANN

 See http://www.icann.org/en/groups/chart.  See Waz/Weiser, Internet Governance: The Role of Multistakeholder Organizations, 10 J. on Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 331 (2012). 55 56

23

B.  Organizational Structure and Functions constituencies and stakeholders in the Internet Community may raise issues at the grassroots level to complement the board of directors in creating Internet Policy.57 IB.53 In what ICANN describes as a consensus-driven, bottom-up model of governance, ICANN

policy usually begins its development in the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. Worthwhile solutions that find consensus can rise through the respective Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees until eventually policy recommendations are passed to the ICANN board for a vote.

(2) Policy Development Processes IB.54 ICANN’s two major policy development bodies, the GNSO and ccNSO, have adopted

Policy Development Processes (PDPs) which govern the way in which policies are developed consistent with their role as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws (see Article IX s 6 and Article X s 6, ICANN Bylaws).

(a) GNSO Policy Development Process IB.55 The GNSO policy development process58 is a multi-stakeholder, bottom-up and consensus-

driven process used to develop policy recommendations for consensus policies for consideration by the ICANN board. Any member of the GNSO council, any ICANN Advisory Committee, and the ICANN board may request an Issue Report by describing an issue for consideration in its request. The Issue Report is prepared by ICANN staff describing the issue and its scope, which is then posted for Public Comment.59 The received comments are reviewed and considered by ICANN staff prior to the creation of a Final Issue Report, which is delivered to the GNSO Council. Except for Issue Report requests initiated by the ICANN board, which require no formal vote, the GNSO Council then votes whether to initiate a PDP. After initiation, a working group to draft the PDP Charter for the PDP Working Group is formed by calling for volunteers. The GNSO Council subsequently votes to approve the PDP Charter, leading to the formation of the PDP Working Group by the GNSO Council.

IB.56 Working Groups deliberate and develop recommendations based upon the input of their

members, outside experts and the broader ICANN community and thereafter prepare Initial Reports containing the results of their deliberations and their PDP Recommendations, which are posted for public comment. Based on the public comments, the Working Group prepares Final Reports containing the Final Recommendations which may be posted for public comment prior to being considered and voted upon by the GNSO Council. The Council may defer any PDP Recommendation back to the Working Group for further work in case the Council has specific concerns or suggestions.

57  In April 2014, a Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial), held in Sao Paulo, Brazil, identified a set of common principles and important values that contribute to an inclusive, multi-stakeholder, effective, legitimate, and evolving Internet governance framework. The NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement is available at: http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf/. The High Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms recognized and fully supported and adopted these principles and emphasized in its report of May 2014 that the internet governance ecosystem should respect human rights and shared values; see also Kleinwächter, Multistakeholderism, Civil Society, and Global Diplomacy:  The Case of the World Summit on the Information Society, in Drake, William; Wilson, Ernest J. III, Governing Global Electronic Networks: International Perspectives on Policy and Power, MIT Press, 2006. 58  Full details of the GNSO PDP are available at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/101/new-pdp. 59 See http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment for a complete list of ongoing and recently completed public comment phases.

24

IV.  ICANN’s Funding Once (some or all of ) the recommendations contained in a Final Report have been approved, IB.57 a Recommendations Report is prepared and reviewed by the GNSO Council for presentation to the ICANN board. The board then votes on the PDP recommendations approved by the Council. Where the board does not adopt the recommendations, the rejected recommendations may be affirmed or modified and resubmitted to the board through a Supplemental Recommendation Report. Once the board has adopted a PDP recommendation, the recommendation is developed into a binding ‘Consensus Policy’ by ICANN staff.60 Participation in a GNSO PDP Working Group or Charter Drafting Team is open for IB.58 any member of a stakeholder group or constituency as well as for unaffiliated individuals. Interested parties may volunteer and provide a Statement of Interest detailing the affiliation and potential conflicts of interest of the member to the GNSO Secretariat.61 Working group members are expected to regularly attend (usually weekly) virtual or face-to-face meetings and actively and constructively participate in the group by assisting in the development and drafting of documents and contributing ideas and knowledge. During any public comment phase anyone may submit written comments to provide argu- IB.59 ments or insight. The received public comments are publicly-posted and deliberated by the Working Group members, the board, and/or ICANN staff and often lead to further review of the issues and modifications of the recommendations. Further participation in the multi-stakeholder process is possible by attending the three IB.60 annual ICANN meetings which include discussion panels, the public forum and working group sessions,62 as well as by forming a new constituency within the existing stakeholder groups.63

(b) ccNSO Policy Development Process The ccNSO PDP follows a similar structure, but the ccNSO council only prepares a vote for IB.61 the general ccNSO membership, which can adopt the recommendations of the final report with a two-thirds majority before they are submitted to the ICANN vote. The board can make supplemental recommendations only if it votes against the ccNSO membership vote with a two-thirds majority, otherwise the recommendations are implemented. ICANN policies only apply to ccNSO members to the extent that they are developed through IB.62 the PDP process and provided that they do not conflict with applicable law. In addition, a ccNSO member may not be bound by ccNSO policy if it provides a declaration to the ccNSO council stating that its implementation would require a breach of custom, religion, or public policy, and that failure to implement the policy would not impair DNS operations or interoperability.

IV.  ICANN’s Funding The funding for ICANN is mainly made up of transaction-based fees as well as annual IB.63 accreditation fees and variable fees paid by the ICANN accredited registrars (45 per cent of the ICANN budget), and fees paid by the registry operators (registries) of gTLDs (47 per cent). The remainder of the budget is made up of voluntary payments made by ccTLD   See ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA.   More information is available at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/volunteer-wg.htm. 62  More information on the upcoming ICANN meetings is available at: http://meetings.icann.org/. 63  For details on how to form a new constituency, see:  http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/form-newconstituency.htm. 60 61

25

B.  Organizational Structure and Functions registries, meeting sponsorships and by the regional registries (RIRs) responsible for the allocation of numeric Internet addresses (IP numbers). The individual registry fees paid by the registry operators result from the terms of respective registry agreements.64 The ICANN operational budget for the 2013 financial year amounted to US$82 million.65 IB.64 The New gTLD Program is funded on a cost-recovery basis by the application fees paid by

the new gTLD applicants. The total income of ICANN with regard to new gTLD application fees amounted to in excess of US$357 million. These funds are dedicated specifically to the evaluation of the new gTLD applications, the applicants, and the development of required infrastructure such as the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). Any excess fees not used in the New gTLD Program will be subject to a community consultation regarding the further use of any excess amounts. The application fees are a separate and non-recurring part of the recent ICANN budgets.66

V.  ICANN’s Agreements with Registries and Registrars Torsten Bettinger and Volker Greimann (1) ICANN’s Agreements with Registries (a) Role/Function of a Registry IB.65 In the strictest sense, a registry is a database of all domain names registered in a TLD. The Registry Operator, also known as the Network Information Center (NIC) is the entity which is responsible for the technical operation of the TLD, including all of the names registered in that TLD, and which provides ‘registry services’, including: (1) the receipt of data from registrars concerning registrations of domain names and name servers; (2) provision to registrars of status information relating to the zone servers for the TLD; (3) dissemination of TLD zone files; (4) operation of the registry zone servers; and (5) dissemination of contact and other information concerning domain name server registrations in the TLD as required by the registry agreement with ICANN. IB.66 A  registry may outsource the entire operation of a gTLD or parts of the system to a

subcontractor.67 Should a registry operator require assistance to sustain critical registry functions ICANN may transmit the registry services to one of the emergency back-end registry operators currently contracted with ICANN.

(b) Registry Evaluation and Registry Agreement IB.67 The relationships between ICANN and the gTLD registries are governed by the individual

Registry or Sponsorship Agreements, which set out the obligations of both parties. Prior to the New gTLD Program, the delegation of a gTLD to a registry operator was preceded by an application and a selection process in which the gTLD application was evaluated by ICANN according

  See ICANN, Registry Agreements, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries.   See Financial Information for ICANN, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials. 66 See ICANN, Adopted Operating Plan and Budget for 2013, available at:  http://www.icann.org/ financials/. 67  The vast majority of applicants for new gTLDs, in particular applicants for .brand gTLDs, have chosen to outsource registry services to subcontractors. 64 65

26

V.  ICANN’s Agreements with Registries and Registrars to ICANN’s ‘Registry Services Evaluation Policy’68 with the help of technical, economic, and legal experts and in consideration of comments in the public forums set up by ICANN.69 For new gTLDs this evaluation process has been considerably formalized and restructured in IB.68 the gTLD Applicant Guidebook (for details of the evaluation procedure for new gTLD see Part ID.II). Under the agreements with ICANN, registries are obliged to provide registration services IB.69 exclusively through ICANN accredited registrars. In case of new gTLD registries, this requirement is further narrowed down to registrars under the 2013 ‘Registrar Accreditation Agreement’, or any successors thereof. Each registry is required to sign an agreement with accredited registrars (Registry-Registrar IB.70 Agreement), further detailing the obligations between the particular registry and registrar and including TLD-specific requirements, procedures, and ‘Consensus Policies’ that the registrar is required by ICANN to include in its agreements with registrars.70 Such policies may also include anti-abuse policies, eligibility requirements or general terms of registration which go beyond ICANN’s requirements and are specific to the TLD space. However, ICANN requires that all registrars applying for accreditation must be treated equally by the registry. Modifications of Registry-Registrar Agreements used by a registry must be approved by the ICANN board and are subject to Public Comments.

(c) Registry-Registrar Separation To promote competition in the domain name industry, ICANN initially pursued a policy IB.71 of strict vertical separation and prohibition of cross-ownership between registries and registrars,71 directed at expanding the number of registry operators and registrars.72 The topic of vertical integration of registries and registrars was revisited in 2007 by a GNSO IB.72 working group developing the implementation details for the New gTLD Program when it became clear that the GNSO policy recommendations on the new gTLD process were unable to address the issue of the economic, business, and/or legal relationships between registries and registrars. In November 2010, the ICANN board decided to remove the restrictions against vertical integration in the New gTLD Program in favour of policies regarding inappropriate abusive conduct of vertically integrated registries and registrars and new enforcement mechanisms.73 In 2011, the ICANN board expanded this policy to also apply to incumbent registries, provided they accepted the additional requirements of the new gTLD agreement.74 68  The Registry Services Evaluation Policy is available at:  http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/ rsep/policy. 69  For details of the selection process for the creation of new TLDs, see Hofmann, Regulation Of The Domain Name System, WZB Discussion Paper SP III 2003-104, p 61; ICANN, Evaluation of the New gTLDs: Policy and Legal Issues, prepared for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, July 10, 2004, available at: http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdf; ICANN, GNSO Initial Report Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains, July 28, 2006, available at: http://gnso.icann.org/ drafts/newgtlds-issues-report-01-28jul06.htm. 70  At present ICANN has adopted eight ‘Consensus Policies’; a list of all Consensus Policies is available at: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/consensus-policies. 71  See Proposed Unsponsored TLD Agreement, February 26, 2001, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/ about/agreements/registries/unsponsored/registry-agmt-26feb01-en.htm. 72  Under its original agreement with the US Department of Commerce, the Registry Operator for ‘.com’, ‘.net’ and ‘.org’, Network Solutions Inc, operated as a vertically integrated registry and registrar. 73 See Board Resolutions, November 5, 2010, available at:  http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/ documents/resolutions-05nov10-en.htm. 74  See ICANN Board Resolution, October 2012, available at:  http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/ documents/.

27

B.  Organizational Structure and Functions (d) Registry Compliance IB.73 In order to ensure that contracted parties fulfil the requirements set forth in their respective agreements, ICANN devised its Contractual Compliance Program. Typically, ICANN’s compliance actions pertain to its agreements with gTLD registrars and registries.75 ICANN’s compliance actions regarding registries are based on the particular requirements of the relevant gTLD registry or sponsorship agreement (which vary between registries), which ICANN has compiled and organized into general compliance areas for a more uniform approach to addressing issues. These registry compliance areas include functional specifications, performance specifications, equivalent access to registry services, reserved names, zone files, WHOIS, data escrow, registration restrictions, use of registrar data, and payments to ICANN. In this regard, however, ICANN contractual compliance has only issued one Notice of Breach to a Registry.76 IB.74 Violations of registry requirements may be identified by members of the public through a

complaint form,77 or may be revealed as part of ICANN’s audit program. Under the audit program, beginning in 2012, all ICANN-accredited registrars and registries will generally be subject to an audit of their activities every three years. Where a registry is found to be in breach of its registry agreement and fails to cure said breach within reasonable time, ICANN and the concerned registry will engage in dispute settlement processes as detailed in the registry agreement.78 With the New gTLD Program, where many hundreds of new gTLDs will be delegated and correspondingly many more contractual relationships will be assessed and enforced, it is vital that ICANN’s contractual compliance activities effectively monitor and police the expanded domain name space. Its previous meager and ineffectual efforts and reliance on public reporting of breach do not necessarily instil confidence in this regard.

(2) ICANN’s Registrar Accreditation Agreement (a) Role and Function of a Registrar IB.75 An ICANN Accredited Registrar is authorized by ICANN to contract with registered name holders and registry operators to offer domain name registration services through direct access to the gTLD registries. The registrar is the link between the registries and the registered name holders, passing through the requests of registrants and potential registrants to the appropriate registries. Currently ICANN has accredited over 900 registrars.79 IB.76 The relationship between ICANN and the accredited registrars is governed by a Registrar

Accreditation Agreement (RAA). To date, three versions of the RAA have been produced: the 2001 RAA, the 2009 RAA, and the 2013 RAA. The RAA details the obligations of a registrar towards ICANN and registered name holders as well as the business and technical requirements, and provides a contractual framework on how the registrar can conduct its business.

75  ICANN compliance actions also pertain to registries in the New gTLD Program. See paras ID.204–207 for more information. 76 The Notice of Breach was issued in relation to the alleged offering of domain names on the second level which did not satisfy its restricted registration policies. The registry operator thereafter instituted an arbitration proceeding claiming that ICANN improperly issued the Notice of Breach. As a result of a settlement agreement, the arbitration and Notice of Breach were later withdrawn. See Notice of Breach of .Jobs Registry Agreement, available at:  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/jeffreyto-johnson-fassett-27feb11-en.pdf; see also settlement agreement, available at:  https://www.icann.org/en/ system/files/files/settlement-agreement-11dec12-en.pdf. 77  A registry complaint form is available at: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/ registries/form. 78  As an example, please refer to Article 5 of the ‘.com’ Registry Agreement, available at: https://www.icann. org/en/about/agreements/registries/com/agreement-01dec12-en.htm. 79  A list of ICANN-accredited registrars is available at: http://www.internic.net/alpha.html.

28

V.  ICANN’s Agreements with Registries and Registrars (b) Registrar Accreditation Process Several steps are required to become an ICANN-accredited registrar.80

IB.77

Applicants must first review the applicable eligibility criteria and financial considerations IB.78 to determine if they qualify under the ICANN guidelines to operate a registrar, and that no circumstances warranting disqualification apply.81 Necessary qualifications generally include evidence of business and technical capacity to operate a registrar, demonstrable ability to obtain general liability insurance in the amount of US$500,000, working capital of US$70,000, and the registration of an existing and operational second-level domain (or third-level ccTLD domain). Financial considerations include a non-refundable application fee, yearly accreditation fee, variable fee (consisting of a portion of ICANN’s operating costs which is divided among all registrars, payable quarterly), and a transaction-based gTLD fee (a flat fee charged for each new registration, renewal, or transfer, payable quarterly).82 ICANN may refuse a registrar application or otherwise disqualify a registrar if an application IB.79 contains a material misrepresentation, material inaccuracy, or materially misleading statement, or if the applicant or related individual: (1) within the past ten years, has been convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor related to financial activities, or has been judged by a court to have committed fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, or has been the subject of a judicial determination that ICANN deemed as the substantive equivalent of any of these; (2) within the past ten years, has been disciplined by any government or industry regulatory body for conduct involving dishonesty or misuse of the funds of others; (3) is currently involved in any judicial or regulatory proceeding that could result in a conviction, judgment, determination, or discipline of the type specified in (1); or (4) is the subject of a disqualification imposed by ICANN and in effect at the time the application is considered. Once an applicant has reviewed the criteria and considerations, a Registrar Accreditation IB.80 Application must be completed and submitted to ICANN, along with the application fee.83 ICANN will evaluate the application and inform the applicant of its decision after conducting any necessary inquiries. Successful applications must thereafter sign an RAA and Registrar Data Escrow Agreement with ICANN and pay the accreditation fee to complete the accreditation process with ICANN. The accreditation is valid for a period of five years.

(c) Obligations of ICANN The obligations between ICANN and the accredited registrars are governed by an accredit- IB.81 ation agreement (RAA). ICANN’s obligations to the accredited registrar include that it shall exercise its responsibilities in an open and transparent manner, not unreasonably restrain competition, not apply standards, policies, procedures or practices arbitrarily, unjustifiably,

80 ICANN provides an overview of the registrar accreditation process at:  http://www.icann.org/en/ resources/registrars/accreditation. 81  A Statement of Minimum Qualifications for Accreditation is provided in the Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy (‘.com’, ‘.net’, and ‘.org’ top-level domains), available at:  http://www.icann.org/en/ resources/registrars/accreditation/policy-statement. 82  The applicable fees at the time of writing are the following: application fee, US$3,500; accreditation fee, US$4,000; variable fee, approximately US$1,000, subject to a reduction of two-thirds for smaller and less active registrars; transaction fee, US .20 per transaction for registrars operating under the 2001 RAA, US .18 per transaction for registrars operating under the 2009 or 2013 RAA (pursuant to the 2014 financial year budget, see http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/adopted-opplan-budget-fy14-22aug13-en.pdf ). 83  The Registrar Accreditation Application is available at:  http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/ accreditation/application.

29

B.  Organizational Structure and Functions or inequitably, and not single out the registrar for disparate treatment unless justified by substantial and reasonable cause, and ensure adequate appeal procedures to the registrar to the extent it is adversely affected by ICANN actions.84

(d) Obligations of the Registrars IB.82 The RAA details the obligations of a registrar towards ICANN and registered name holders

as well as the business and technical requirements and provides a contractual framework on how the registrar can conduct its business. Under the RAA, an Accredited Registrar is required to follow any ICANN ‘Consensus Policy’ developed through the multi-stakeholder processes and approved by the ICANN board. This also includes the obligation to adapt business practices in case new consensus policies are approved. Such policies include, among others, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy (UDRP), the WhoIs Data Reminder Policy (WDRP), the Expired Registration Recovery Policy (ERRP) and the Expired Domain Deletion Policy (EDDP).85

IB.83 (i) Consensus Policies and Temporary Policies Specification 

IB.84 Many registrars, in their daily business practices, utilize sales intermediaries (generally

referred to as resellers), which in turn are bound by contract to the terms and conditions of the Registry-Registrar Agreements. Registrars are required, in their contractual agreements with their resellers, to include a mandatory submission to the terms and conditions specified in the relevant agreement.

IB.85 In order to promote competition among registrars, in July 2004 ICANN adopted the

‘Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy’ (IRTP), to ensure that domain owners can always switch from one registrar to another registrar. The policy outlines in detail how the change of registrars is to be accomplished and specifies the reasons for which a request for transfer may be denied.86 In the event of disputes arising from such a transfer between registrars, ICANN has also created a dispute resolution procedure, entitled the ‘Registrar Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy’ (TDRP).87 Proceedings under the TDRP may be filed with the appropriate registry operator or with an independent dispute resolution provider.

IB.86 Any ICANN-accredited registrar may initiate a TDRP proceeding against another regis-

trar by submitting a complaint in accordance with the selected registry operator or dispute resolution provider’s supplemental rules. The current dispute resolution providers for this policy are the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center (ADNDRC)88 based in Hong Kong, Beijing, and Seoul, and the National Arbitration Forum (NAF)89 located in the USA. Initiation of a TDRP proceeding with either the registry operator or dispute resolution provider does not prevent a registrar from submitting a dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction before the commencement or after the conclusion of the TDRP proceeding. The applicable law and jurisdiction for any dispute arising out of the TDRP proceeding would be established by the applicable registry-registrar agreement.90

  See s 2.3 of the 2013 RAA.  For a full list of consensus policies applicable to registrars, see http://www.icann.org/en/resources/ registrars/consensus-policies. See also Part IIIF for a further description of the Consensus Policies. 86  The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy may be found at: http://www.icann.org/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm. 87  The Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy may be found at:  http://www.icann.org/transfers/disputepolicy-12jul04.htm. 88 See http://www.adndrc.org/. 89 See http://domains.adrforum.com/. 90  As an example, a dispute arising out of the ‘.com’ Registry-Registrar Agreement ‘is to be construed in accordance with and governed by the internal laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, United States of America’ with legal proceedings brought in any state or federal court in the eastern district of the 84 85

30

V.  ICANN’s Agreements with Registries and Registrars (ii)  Registrants’ Benefits and Responsibilities  While the RAA is an agreement between IB.87 ICANN and the registrar, many terms and conditions in the RAA are of importance to the domain name registrant. In the wake of a notorious incident involving registrar malfeasance, the CEO of ICANN on March 21, 2007 announced a ‘review of the registrar accreditation process and the content of the RAA’.91 As the result of proposed amendments to the RAA, section 3.15 of the 2009 RAA provides that registrars shall provide a link to a website which ‘identifies available registrant rights and responsibilities.’92 ICANN subsequently made available on its website such resource as a product of a joint working group of the GNSO Council and the ALAC, in conjunction with registrar consultations.93 The resource provides a ‘plain language’ summarization of terms related to registrant rights and responsibilities. Some relevant summarizations pertain to the use and availability of registrant data, rules on the business dealings between the registrar and registrant, and the applicability of certain consensus policies. In 2009, prior to the adoption by the board of the 2009 RAA, the GNSO Council began work IB.88 on further RAA amendments and the drafting of a Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter.94 With the 2013 RAA, the Charter was incorporated in the Registrants’ Benefits and Responsibilities specification of the RAA, providing domain name registrants’ rights. Domain Name Registrants’ Rights:

IB.89

1. Your domain name registration and any privacy/proxy services you may use in conjunction with it must be subject to a Registration Agreement with an ICANN Accredited Registrar. • You are entitled to review this Registration Agreement at any time, and download a copy for your records. 2. You are entitled to accurate and accessible information about: • The identity of your ICANN Accredited Registrar; • The identity of any proxy or privacy service provider affiliated with your Registrar; • Your Registrar’s terms and conditions, including pricing information, applicable to domain name registrations; • The terms and conditions, including pricing information, applicable to any privacy services offered by your Registrar; • The customer support services offered by your Registrar and the privacy services provider, and how to access them; • How to raise concerns and resolve disputes with your Registrar and any privacy services offered by them; and • Instructions that explain your Registrar’s processes for registering, managing, transferring, renewing, and restoring your domain name registrations, including through any proxy or privacy services made available by your Registrar. 3. You shall not be subject to false advertising or deceptive practices by your Registrar or through any proxy or privacy services made available by your Registrar. This includes deceptive notices, hidden fees, and any practices that are illegal under the consumer protection law of your residence.

Commonwealth of Virginia. See s 6.7 of the ‘.com’ Registry-Registrar Agreement, available at: http://www. verisign.com/static/002136.pdf. 91 See http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-21mar07-en.htm. 92 The 2009 RAA is available at:  http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/ra-agreement-21may09en.htm. 93 See http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/registrant-rights/educational. 94 See http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20090304. The drafting team was initially of a different opinion as to the scope of the charter, with some members envisioning a charter declaring basic rights to be afforded to registrants by registrars while others viewing the charter as an inventory of obligations and responsibilities in the RAA. The drafting team thereafter determined that only existing rights and obligations should be included in the charter.

31

B.  Organizational Structure and Functions IB.90 Domain Name Registrants’ Responsibilities:

1. You must comply with the terms and conditions posted by your Registrar, including applicable policies from your Registrar, the Registry, and ICANN. 2. You must review your Registrar’s current Registration Agreement, along with any updates. 3. You will assume sole responsibility for the registration and use of your domain name. 4. You must provide accurate information for publication in directories such as WHOIS, and promptly update this to reflect any changes. 5. You must respond to inquiries from your Registrar within fifteen (15) days, and keep your Registrar account data current. If you choose to have your domain name registration renew automatically, you must also keep your payment information current.

The Data Retention Specification of RAA requires registrars to make available a variety of information about domain names and the registered name holders, and purports that such data will be retained by private companies for up to two years after the contract for the domain has ended.95

IB.91 (iii)  Public Access to Data on Registered Names, WhoIs and Data Retention 

IB.92 Registrars are required to keep the first category of personal data for a period of two

years after the contract for the domain has expired. The second category of personal data must be retained for 180 days following any ‘relevant interaction’ with a registered name holder. In addition, section 3.3 of the RAA requires registrars to ‘provide an interactive web page and a port 43 WHOIS service providing free public query-based access to up-to-date data concerning all active Registered Names sponsored by Registrar in any gTLD’.

IB.93 The data accessible includes many different types of personal information, such as the

name as well as primary and secondary name server(s) and the contact details of the registered name, the identity of the registrar, the creation and expiry dates of the registration, and the name and postal address of the registered name holder (3.3.1). Moreover, it provides that the ‘Registrar may subcontract its obligation to provide the public access provided that Registrar shall remain fully responsible for the proper provision of the access and updating.’96

IB.94 Both obligations in data retention specification and the policy of public access to data on

registered names under the RAA raise questions relating to the respect for fundamental rights of privacy and personal data protection.

IB.95 The data retention requirements under the 2013 RAA, including the retention of credit card

data for longer than is necessary for the performance of the domain name registration contract, were subject to ongoing discussion.97 Led by the European Data Protection Supervisor98 and the Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of

95  The ‘Data Retention Specification’ distinguishes between name and contact details for the domain name owners as well as all other types of data a registrar might collect, such as log files and billing records containing the ‘means and source of payment’, log files about the communication with the registrar including source IP address, telephone number, e-mail address, Skype handle or instant messaging identifier, as well as the date, time, and time zones of communications. 96  Data Retention Specification, 2013 RAA, para 3.3.3. 97  See the ‘Data Retention Specification’ of the 2013 RAA. 98 See the website of the European Data Protection Supervisor at:  https://secure.edps.europa.eu/ EDPSWEB/edps/EDPS/Dataprotection.

32

V.  ICANN’s Agreements with Registries and Registrars Personal Data,99 it was argued that ICANN’s data retention requirements for the purposes of law enforcement were in violation of European data protection law100 and recent judgments of the European Court of Justice.101 ICANN provided a waiver of compliance with its data retention requirements but in order IB.96 for such a waiver to be made, the registrar would need either a written legal opinion from a law firm or governmental body stating that the collection or retention of any data is reasonably likely to violate applicable law. ICANN and the registrar would thereafter discuss the matter to reach a ‘mutually acceptable resolution of the matter’.102 The European advocates requested that ICANN reduce data retention requirements to those IB.97 which are necessary for the performance of the contract between the registrar and registrant.103

(e) Registrar Compliance To ‘preserve the security, stability and resiliency of the Domain Name System and to pro­ IB.98 mote consumer trust’,104 ICANN monitors and follows up on third-party complaints alleging non-compliance of accredited registrars with established ICANN policy or the RAA.105 Since 2012, ICANN has additionally performed audits of the contractual compliance of registrars with their obligations under the RAA independent of third-party complaints. Registrars under the 2013 RAA are required to certify their compliance with their obligations annually. The 2013 RAA also includes further requirements for registrars’ business dealings including registrant data validation, verification and retention and the maintenance of separate abuse points of contact for the public and law enforcement. Where a registrar is found to be in breach of the RAA and it fails to cure said breach within a IB.99 reasonable time the accreditation may be suspended or terminated by ICANN. A suspension prohibits the registrar from executing any new registrations or transfers of domain names to its accreditation. For severe, repeated or continued breaches ICANN may also terminate the RAA and transfer all registrations under its accreditation to a different registrar. Many accredited registrars offer domain services through resellers. A reseller is a person or IB.100 entity participating in the registrar’s distribution channel for domain names, thereby facilitating the entry of a registration agreement between the registrar and the registrant.106 While resellers of registrars are not party to an agreement with ICANN, each registrar must have an agreement or other arrangement with its resellers passing on the obligations of the accreditation agreement (such as the collection of registration data), as the registrar bears full responsibility for the compliance with and enforcement of all provisions of the RAA and consensus

99  The Working Party was set up under Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC and is an independent European advisory body on data protection and privacy. 100  See Article 6(1)(b) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 24, 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. 101  See ECJ judgment of April 8, 2014, Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others. 102  See para 2 of the Data Retention Specification, 2013 RAA. 103  See, for instance, letter of June 6, 2013 from Article 29 Working Party, Jacob Kohnstamm, Chairman to Steve Crocerk and Fadi Chehade, available at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence; and letter of April 17, 2014 from European Data Protection Supervisor to John Jeffrey, available at: https://secure. edps.europa.eu/. 104 See http://www.icann.org/en/resources/compliance. 105  Compliance complaints can be made at: http://www.internic.net/. 106  See ICANN, 2013 RAA Section 1.24, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/ approved-with-specs-27jun13-en.pdf.

33

B.  Organizational Structure and Functions policies for all registrations processed through its accreditation. The 2013 RAA includes clauses that specifically refer to resellers and reseller conduct.107 IB.101 Despite the mechanisms and the obligations ICANN has made to monitor and enforce issues

of contractual compliance, ICANN has been criticized for failure to follow through on these activities.108 Contributing to this is the sheer volume of complaints (over 3,000 per month) in relation to the number of compliance staff (approximately 20).109

(3) ICANN’s Relationship with ccTLD Registries IB.102 While each ccTLD operator operates independently of ICANN policies and supervision,

many ccTLD operators have voluntarily entered into agreements of limited scope with ICANN in the form of exchanges of letters, accountability frameworks, and sponsorship agreements.110 ICANN does not have authority to take compliance action in the ccTLD namespace.

IB.103 Since 2003, the country code TLD operators have been organized in an advisory body within

ICANN in the ccNSO.111 The ccNSO is a consortium of ccTLD operators made up of the ccNSO council and its working groups. It works in conjunction and coordinates its efforts with other SOs and bodies within ICANN. Its main focus is the development of ccTLD policies and consensus, the introduction of Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) ccTLDs, and the provision of advice to the ICANN board regarding global ccTLD issues.112

VI.  Review of ICANN Objectives IB.104 The AoC between ICANN and the US Department of Commerce (see above paras

IB.05–IB.07) contains specific provisions for periodic review of the four key ICANN objectives by independent review teams, composed of Community members representing SOs and Advisory Committees, independent experts and ex-officio members such as the chair of the Governmental Advisory Committees, the US Department of Commerce, and the ICANN CEO.113

IB.105 The four objectives are: (1) ensuring accountability, transparency, and the interests of global

Internet users; (2) preserving security, stability and resiliency; (3) promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice; and (4) enforcing existing WHOIS policy. The AoC generally defined the relevant commitment or concern with regard to each objective.

IB.106 Regarding the first objective, the AoC states that ICANN commits to accountability and

transparency by assessing:

(1) ICANN board governance (including evaluation of board perfomance and the consideration of an appeal mechanism for board decisions);

107  See ICANN, 2013 RAA section 3.12, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/ approved-with-specs-27jun13-en.pdf. 108  See, for instance, ‘UDRP Failure Endangers Consumers’, June 18, 2014, available at:  http://www. circleid.com. See also letter from INTA to Committee on the Judiciary, US House of Representatives, June 24, 2009, available at: http://www.inta.org. 109  See information from ICANN Contractual Compliance ‘Monthly Update’ and ‘Staff’ on its website, available at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/compliance-2012-02-25-en. 110  See ICANN, ccTLD agreements, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/cctlds/agreements.html. 111  See ICANN, Country Code Names Supporting Organization, available at: http://ccnso.icann.org/. 112  See ICANN Bylaws, Section IX, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#IX. 113  See para 9 of the Affirmation of Commitments.

34

VII.  ICANN Accountability Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (2) (3) (4) (5)

the role and effectiveness of the GAC; the processes by which ICANN receives public input; the extent to which ICANN decisions impact the public; and the policy development process.

Review of accountability and transparency is to occur every three years.

IB.107

The second objective concerns operational issues and ICANN’s commitment to guard against IB.108 emerging threats to the DNS through attention to the secure and stable coordination of the DNS, contingency planning, and by maintaining clear processes. Review of security, stability, and resiliency is to occur every three years. The third objective was made in contemplation of the expansion of the top-level domain IB.109 space, and stipulates that issues of competition, consumer protection, security, stability, malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns, and rights protection will be addressed prior to the implementation of new gTLDs. This objective is to be reviewed every four years. The fourth objective, regarding WHOIS policy, ‘requires that ICANN implement measures IB.110 to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information’. WHOIS policy is reviewed every three years. ICANN published a discussion paper in December 2009 to provide an avenue for commu- IB.111 nity comment and to give guidance to the Review Teams.114 The discussion paper expounded on the review requirements and methodology, as well as the activities of the review teams from the identification of candidates to their terms of reference and reporting timeline. In line with its requirements under the AoC, review teams have commenced with their IB.112 respective periodic reviews of the identified objectives, providing reports and recommendations to the ICANN board for its review and action.115

VII.  ICANN Accountability Dispute Resolution Mechanisms ICANN has committed itself on the level of its Bylaws to being accountable and transpa­ IB.113 rent in its practices, and it undergoes reviews and other processes to address this issue on an ongoing basis.116 ICANN’s accountability is checked through regular review as established in the AoC with IB.114 the US Department of Commerce,117 its Documentary Information Disclosure Policy,118 and through its corporate structure, which provides an avenue for stakeholders and constituents of the Internet community to participate.119 In the event that a party feels they have not been dealt with fairly or believes that due IB.115 process has not been followed by ICANN, dispute resolution mechanisms have been provided in the ICANN Bylaws to ensure accountability for those actions. The mechanisms include the request for reconsideration, the independent review, and the office of the Ombudsman.

 See http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/draft-proposal-26dec09-en.pdf.   For further information, refer to http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review. 116  See, for instance, ICANN Accountability & Transparency Frameworks and Principles report of January 2008, available at: http://www.icann.org. 117  See Part B, Section I for more information about the Affirmation of Commitments. 118  See Part B, Section VIII. 119  ICANN’s organizational structure is covered at Part B, Section II. 114 115

35

B.  Organizational Structure and Functions (1) Request for Reconsideration (a) Scope and Standing IB.116 Article IV, section 2.2 of ICANN’s Bylaws states that any person or entity may submit a request for reconsideration or review of an ICANN action or inaction to the extent that it has been adversely affected by: (a) one or more staff actions or inactions that contradict established ICANN policy(ies); (b) or one or more actions or inactions of the ICANN board that have been taken or refused to be taken without consideration of material information, except where the party submitting the request could have submitted, but did not submit, the information for the board’s consideration at the time of action or refusal to act; or (c) one or more actions or inactions of the ICANN board that are taken as a result of the board’s reliance on false or inaccurate material information. IB.117 ICANN action or inaction has been interpreted broadly, encompassing even third-party

vendor actions such as those of Dispute Resolution Service Providers in the New gTLD Program.120 While ICANN does not define what it means to be ‘adversely affected’, the ICANN Bylaws use ‘adversely affected’, ‘materially harmed’,121 and ‘materially affected’ interchangeably, and defines that in order to be ‘materially affected’, ‘the person must suffer injury or harm that is directly and causally connected to the Board’s alleged violation of the Bylaws or the Articles of Incorporation, and not as a result of third parties acting in line with the Board’s action’.122

IB.118 Although there is nothing in the Applicant Guidebook or the ICANN Bylaws to indicate that

third-party vendors fall in the category of ICANN staff or the ICANN board, in the face of a multitude of inconsistent expert decisions with regard to string similarity objections and legal rights objection, and the lack of an appeal process against these decisions, the BGC issued a number of recommendations to the New gTLD Program Committee that the request for reconsideration process be made available for challenges of determinations from dispute resolution panels established by a dispute resolution service provider where it can be stated that either the panel failed to follow the established policies or processes in reaching its decision, or that ICANN staff failed to follow its policies in accepting that decision.123 (For an analysis of the BGC determinations on requests for reconsideration of decisions of dispute resolution panels with regard to new gTLD applications see Part IIIB.) However, the BGC stated in a number of decisions that the reconsideration process is not intended for the BGC to perform a substantive review of expert panel decisions and that it is therefore not a mechanism for direct, de novo appeal of staff or panel decisions with which the requester disagrees.124

IB.119 Article IV section 3 of the Bylaws calls for the BGC to evaluate and make recommendations

to the board with respect to Reconsideration Requests.

IB.120 A request will be dismissed if the BGC finds that the requesting party does not have standing

because it failed to satisfy the criteria set forth in the Bylaws. These standing requirements are

120  For more information about the role of the Request for Reconsideration in the New gTLD Program, see Part IIID.XI. 121  ‘Material harm’ is also described in materials related to Independent Review, which is discussed in section VII.2. 122  ICANN Bylaws, Article IV s 3.2. 123 Recommendation of the Board of Governance Committee (BGC) Reconsideration Request 13-7 (September 25, 2013); see BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-10 (October 10, 2013) 124  See Recommendation of the Board Governance Committee (BGC), Reconsideration Request 13-5, August 1, 2012, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration.

36

VII.  ICANN Accountability Dispute Resolution Mechanisms intended to protect the reconsideration process from abuse and to ensure that it is not used as a mechanism simply to challenge a decision with which someone disagrees, but that it is limited to situations where the board did not have access to information that, if available, may have resulted in a different decision. Additionally, the Request for Reconsideration cannot be invoked simply because the person or entity does not agree with the action or inaction, but must be based on the stated standards. A request will also be dismissed if it requires the BGC to make a substantive determination, such as a review of a third-party expert determination in a new gTLD objection procedure. In such circumstances, the BGC will evaluate only whether an ICANN action or inaction (or the third-party vendor) failed to follow established processes.125

(b) Filing of a Request for Reconsideration According to Article IV section 2.5 of the ICANN Bylaws, all Reconsideration Requests IB.121 must be submitted to an e-mail address designated by the BGC within 15 calendar days after: (1) for requests challenging board actions, the date on which information about the challenged board action is first published in a resolution, unless the posting of the resolution is not accompanied by a rationale. In that instance, the request must be submitted within 15 calendar days from the initial posting of the rationale; or (2) for requests challenging staff actions, the date on which the party submitting the request became aware of, or reasonably should have become aware of, the challenged staff action; or (3) for requests challenging either board or staff inaction, the date on which the affected person reasonably concluded, or reasonably should have concluded, that action would not be taken in a timely manner. Due to the wide scope of possible actions which may be subject to the Request for IB.122 Reconsideration, the applicable time frame may not be clear and certain caution is advised when assessing filing requirements. For instance, during the New gTLD Program, ICANN failed to specify that third-party expert determinations would be subject to a Request for Reconsideration, later specifying that the posting of a determination on the ICANN website constituted the appropriate action triggering the 15 calendar day filing window.126 To properly initiate a reconsideration process, all requestors should complete the Recon­ IB.123 sideration Request form posted on the ICANN website.127 When challenging a staff action or inaction, a request must contain, among other things, IB.124 a detailed explanation of the facts as presented to the staff and the reasons why the staff’s action or inaction was inconsistent with established ICANN policy(ies).128 To date, more than 50 Requests for Reconsideration have been filed against ICANN’s action IB.125 or inaction,129 including a Request for Reconsideration filed by the GNSO Intellectual

125  See Recommendation of the Board of Governance Committee (BGC) Reconsideration Request 13-5, August 1, 2012, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration. 126  See Request for Reconsideration 14-9, available at: http://www.icann.org/. 127  The Request Form is available at: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration. 128  See Article IV s 2.6(g) of the ICANN Bylaws and the Reconsideration form effective as of April 11, 2013, available at:  http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/request-form-11apr13en.doc. 129  The Requests for Reconsideration and the Board of Governance Determination on the Reconsideration Request Committees’ Recommendation are published at: https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/ reconsideration.

37

B.  Organizational Structure and Functions Property Constituency130 and ICANN’s Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group.131 The reconsideration process is described in Figure IB.2 below.

(c) Administrative Costs IB.126 According to ICANN Bylaws, Article IV, section 2.4, ICANN bears the normal adminis-

trative costs of the reconsideration process, but reserves the right to recover from a party requesting review or reconsideration any costs that are deemed to be extraordinary in nature. When such extraordinary costs can be foreseen, that fact and the reasons why such costs are necessary and appropriate to evaluating the Reconsideration Request shall be communicated to the party seeking reconsideration, who shall then have the option of withdrawing the request or agreeing to bear such costs.

(d) Remedy IB.127 ICANN’s Bylaws provide that the BGC shall have the authority to make a final determin-

ation and recommendation on the Request for Reconsideration. As the BGC deems necessary, it may make a recommendation to the board for consideration and action. The ICANN board is not bound to consider or follow the recommendation, but the determination is final and establishes precedential value.132

IB.128 Accordingly, the BGC has wide scope in its power to address issues in its recommenda-

tions. However, such power is limited to the extent that the ICANN board accepts such recommendations.

(2) Independent Review of Board Actions IB.129 In addition to its reconsideration process, ICANN has established a separate accountability

mechanism for independent third-party review of board actions alleged by an affected party to be inconsistent with ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws. The framework for Independent Review was installed in 2002, and the appointment of the dispute resolution provider was made in 2004.133 This process has, until recently, seldom been used, but has been engaged on several occasions in relation to the New gTLD Program.134

(a) Scope and Standing IB.130 Article IV section 3 states that any person materially affected by a decision or action by the

board that is asserted to be inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws may submit a request for Independent Review.

IB.131 The basis of a requestor’s argument must be that the ICANN board’s action or inaction vio-

lated the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws. In contrast to the Request for Reconsideration, Independent Review must pertain to the activities of the ICANN board and does not extend to the actions of ICANN staff or third-party vendors.

IB.132 The wording used to describe the extent of harm covered by the Independent Review differs

from the Request for Reconsideration (‘materially affected’ versus ‘adversely affected’), but as

130  See Request 12-2 of the GNSO Intellectual Property Constituency (June 2012)  against ICANN’s decision to authorize the ‘.cat’ registry to suppress public access to domain name registrant contact data. 131  See Request 13-3 of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group against ICANN’s staff decision to allow trademark holders to include, along with a Clearinghouse record of a verified trademark, up to 50 names that previously had been found to have been abusively registered or used. 132  See ICANN Bylaws, Article IV ss 2.15 and 2.17. 133  See ‘Answers to Recurring Questions Regarding the Independent Review Process’, available at: https:// www.icann.org/resources/pages/irp-questions-2010-06-19-en. 134  The use of accountability mechanisms in the New gTLD Program are discussed further in Part III.

38

39

Promptly after receipt of Request, Board Governance Committee (BGC) to consider if the Request is sufficiently stated; summary dismissal may apply at this stage

Figure IB.2:  Request for Reconsideration Process Timeline

For explanatory purposes only. Article IV, Section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws sets out all time requirements for the Reconsideration Process. In addition, Requesters may agree to variances to the times as set out in the Bylaws.

Reconsideration Request filed (within 15 days after Board or staff action)

30 days after receipt of Request, unless impractical, BGC to make a final determination or recommendation to the Board (or NGPC) OR report to the Board (or NGPC) on why no final recommendation available yet and timeframe for making final recommendation. For Request brought regarding staff action or inaction, the BGC has the option to make a final determination or to issue a recommendation to the Board (or NGPC)

The Reconsideration Process Timeline

Board (or NGPC) action on BGC Recommendation, at next regularlyscheduled Board meeting (recommended as 60 days after receipt of Request or as soon thereafter as feasible)

VII.  ICANN Accountability Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

B.  Organizational Structure and Functions described in para IB.117, the ICANN Bylaws use each interchangeably. In order to be ‘materially affected’, the person must suffer injury or harm that is directly and causally connected to the board’s alleged violation of the Bylaws or the Articles of Incorporation, and not as a result of third parties acting in line with the board’s action. IB.133 In its model form for submission, the concept of ‘material harm’ is invoked as a requirement

for Independent Review, and is stated to require ‘that there must be a loss or injury suffered (financial or non-financial)’. Furthermore, the decision of the Independent Review Panel (IRP) must be able to alleviate the harm. Injury or harm caused by third parties, or that reaches a sufficient magnitude only because it was exacerbated by the actions of a third party, is not sufficient for standing.135

(b) Filing of an Independent Review IB.134 A request for Independent Review must be filed within 30 calendar days of the posting

of the minutes of the board meeting (and the accompanying board briefing materials, if available) and that the requesting party contends that ICANN violated its Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation (Article IV s 3.3, ICANN Bylaws). In the event that the request is in relation to a decision by the ICANN BGC, the request must be filed within 30 calendar days of the posting of the minutes of the BGC meeting in which the determination at issue was made.136

IB.135 The Bylaws provide that requests for Independent Review will be referred to an IRP. ICANN

has designated the International Centre for Dispute Resolution of the American Arbitration Association (ICDR) to operate the Independent Review process. To initiate a request for Independent Review, the ICDR form must be completed. The ICDR will then contact the complainant to discuss the process in more detail. The procedures of the independent review process are set out in ICDR’s Supplementary Procedures for ICANN Independent Review Process. These procedures supplement the ICDR’s International Arbitration Rules in accordance with the independent review procedures set forth in Article IV section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws.

IB.136 Prior to filing the request for Independent Review, within 15 calendar days of the relevant

date (posting of the minutes of the board or BGC meeting), a Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP) may be entered.137 The intention of the CEP is to resolve or narrow the issues that are contemplated to be brought in the Independent Review.138 The CEP will consist of an initial conference, with additional (in-person or remote) conferences to take place on an expedited basis until the issues are resolved or cannot be further narrowed. Questionably, the CEP is expected to take place before the requestor prepares its legal arguments and in the absence of outside legal counsel. Further, while described as voluntary, if the CEP is not engaged in good faith, it will result in the awarding to ICANN all reasonable fees and costs incurred by ICANN should the requestor not prevail.139

(c) Conduct of the Independent Review IB.137 Pursuant to Article IV section 3.6, ICANN will establish an omnibus standing panel of

between six and nine members with a variety of expertise, including jurisprudence, judicial

135  The required form for submitting a request for Independent Review is located on the website of the dispute resolution service provider, the International Centre for Dispute Resolution, at: http://www.icdr.org/. 136 See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/mechanisms-2014-03-20-en. 137 The rules for cooperative engagement are available at:  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ cep-11apr13-en.pdf. 138  See ICANN Bylaws, Article IV s 3.14. 139  See ICANN Bylaws, Article IV s 3.16.

40

VII.  ICANN Accountability Dispute Resolution Mechanisms experience, alternative dispute resolution, and knowledge of ICANN’s mission and work from which each specific IRP shall be selected. Individuals holding an official position or office within the ICANN structure are not eligible to serve on the standing panel. This provision of the Bylaws additionally states that in the event an omnibus standing panel has not been constituted or if there is a requirement for expertise which is not covered by the standing panel, panelists will be selected in accordance with the dispute resolution provider’s rules. Despite the requirement to establish the omnibus standing panel in the ICANN Bylaws, it never appears to have been installed.140 Either party may request that the IRP be considered by a one- or three-member panel IB.138 (Article IV s 3.6, ICANN Bylaws; s 3 Supplementary Procedures for ICANN Independent Review Process). The chair of the standing panel for the IRP retains the ability to decide on what the appropriate size of the panel will be, based upon issues such as the complexity of the matter alleged. The chair may also make recommendations as to whether any particular expertise is desired on the panel (see Article IV s 3.8, ICANN Bylaws). The IRP shall have the power to dismiss the request summarily in the event the claim- IB.139 ant cannot demonstrate standing to initiate the proceeding. The IRP shall also have the power to dismiss frivolous or vexatious requests (see Article IV s 3.11a, ICANN Bylaws). Upon the filing of a request for an independent review, the parties are urged to participate IB.140 in a conciliation period for the purpose of narrowing the issues that are stated within the request for independent review. A conciliator will be appointed from the members of the omnibus standing panel by the chair of that panel (see Article IV s 3.15a, ICANN Bylaws). Similarly to the ‘voluntary’ cooperative engagement process, ICANN requires in its Bylaws that failure to participate in conciliation will result, should the claimant not prevail, in the awarding to ICANN of fees and costs. The IRP should strive to issue its written declaration no later than six months after the filing IB.141 of the request for independent review (see Article IV s 3.18, ICANN Bylaws). Previous and ongoing cases demonstrate, however, that the IRP routinely requires significantly more time to render its declarations.141 The IRP shall, if feasible, conduct its proceedings by electronic means. It may conduct tele- IB.142 phone conferences and extraordinarily conduct in-person hearings if deemed necessary. Any hearing will be limited to argument only, with evidence submitted in advance (see Article IV s 3.11, ICANN Bylaws).

(d) Costs The party not prevailing shall ordinarily be responsible for bearing all costs of the IRP IB.143 Provider, but in an extraordinary case the IRP may in its declaration allocate up to half of the costs of the IRP Provider to the prevailing party based upon the circumstances, including a consideration of the reasonableness of the parties’ positions and their contribution to the public interest. As explained above, if the requesting party does not participate in cooperative engagement and conciliation in good faith, the Bylaws mandate that the IRP award to ICANN all reasonable fees and costs, including legal fees, if the requesting party is not successful (see Article IV ss 3.16 and 3.18, ICANN Bylaws).

140  See para 30 of ‘Decision on Interim Measures of Protection’, DCA Trust v ICANN, May 12, 2014, available at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/dca-v-icann-2013-12-11-en. 141  The first decided IRP required over 20 months from initiation to declaration.

41

B.  Organizational Structure and Functions (e) Form and Effect of an IRP Declaration IB.144 The IRP has a limited authority and power in rendering its declaration. Article IV section 3.11 of the ICANN Bylaws limits the IRP solely to declaring whether an action or inaction of the ICANN board was inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws. It has additional procedural and interim powers, such as the power to summarily dismiss inappropriate requests, make requests for further information, consolidate requests, determine the timing, and recommend that the ICANN board stay or take any action until such time as the ICANN board reviews the opinion of the IRP. IB.145 The IRP will render its declaration in writing, on the basis of submitted materials, and des-

ignate the prevailing party (and allocation of fees, if relevant). The holdings of the IRP are advisory in nature and do not constitute a binding arbitral award, and therefore do not prevent a party from initiating a proceeding before an ordinary court against the same action.142 The ICANN board’s decision on the basis of the IRP declaration is final and creates precedent for future IRP proceedings, and can serve as grounds for summary dismissal of future requests for Independent Review on the same issue.

(3) Office of the Ombudsman IB.146 An Office of the Ombudsman is set up under Article V of the ICANN bylaws, whose job

it is to carry out an independent internal review of complaints by members of the ICANN community claiming unfair or inappropriate treatment by ICANN staff or the board, and to determine the appropriate remedy.143 The Ombudsman does not have the power to make, change, or set aside a policy, administrative or board decision, but is authorized to make reports to the board as he or she deems appropriate with respect to any particular matter and its resolution.

IB.147 In this capacity the Ombudsman contributed to the development of the New gTLD Program

through its reports to the ICANN board’s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) on certain Dispute Resolution Service Provider (DRSP) actions in the course of the new gTLD objection process.144 The Ombudsman’s reports formed the basis of three NGPC resolutions concerning the administration of formal objections to new gTLD applications. Additionally, the Ombudsman has served as a sounding board for a range of complaints from participants of the new gTLD dispute resolution process,145 both from aggrieved parties claiming inconsistency in rendered expert determinations and as referred from the board itself in NGPC Actions on Requests for Reconsideration (for details on the processes for reconsideration and independent review of ICANN actions and ‘Request for Reconsideration’ see para IB.116).

VIII.  ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) IB.148 ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) is intended to ensure that

information contained in ICANN documents is made available to the public unless there is a compelling reason for confidentiality.146

142  See the Independent Review Panel Declaration, Case No 50 117 T 00224 08, ICM Registry LLC v ICANN. 143  The functions of the Ombudsman are set out in an ‘Ombudsman Framework’, available at: http:// www.icann.org/ombudsman/ombudsman-framework-03dec04.htm. 144 See http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-13jul13-en.htm. 145  See Part III para IIIB.382. 146  See ICANN’s website at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en.

42

X.  Challenges of ICANN Actions before Ordinary Courts ICANN will respond within 30 calendar days to a request, and if the information is denied, IB.149 it will provide a written statement to the requestor identifying the reasons for the denial. ICANN provides a list of conditions for which it will deny a DIDP request on its website, and provides accountability mechanisms such as the Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review to appeal such denials.147

IX.  ICANN’s Antitrust Responsibilities ICANN, as the sole authoritative body worldwide responsible for the administration of the IB.150 Domain Name System, and charged with overseeing and managing the new gTLD registration system, is undoubtedly a monopolist in the sense of US and EU antitrust law. It is settled law that its status as a non-profit organization does not grant it antitrust immunity. Nor may ICANN claim immunity on the grounds of the ‘state-action-doctrine’, as its actions with respect to the new gTLD registration system are neither clearly and affirmatively expressed nor explicitly determined and supervised by the State itself. In fact, the 1998 US Department of Commerce White Paper—which according to ICANN’s own statements still dictates its policies today—explicitly considered and rejected the idea that ICANN should be given antitrust immunity: The new corporation does not need any special grant of immunity from the antitrust laws so long as its policies and practices are reasonably based on, and no broader than necessary to promote the legitimate coordinating objectives of the new corporation…. Antitrust law will provide accountability to and protection for the international Internet community.148

As a monopolist under antitrust law, ICANN is under a particular obligation, a special IB.151 responsibility to act in a transparent, fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory manner and to treat all applicants equally.

X.  Challenges of ICANN Actions before Ordinary Courts ICANN, a Californian non-profit organization, has been subject to several court actions IB.152 during its lifetime.149 ICANN has participated in court proceedings on the basis of a wide range of subject matter (inter alia, concerning the delegation of gTLDs, consensus policies such as the UDRP and IRTP, compliance obligations, and internal matters of procedure and contracts). The grounds for such cases range from breach of contract and interference with contractual performance, to the violation of antitrust laws.150 ICANN has also participated as the plaintiff in ICANN v RegisterFly, asserting breach of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement in a notable registrar non-compliance matter.151

147  See Part B, Section VII for more information about ICANN accountability mechanisms. See also Request for Reconsideration 13-11 concerning a denied DIDP request by ICANN’s Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group, available at: http://www.icann.org. 148  See US Department of Commerce, Management of Internet Names and Addresses, Policy Statement (White Paper), Doc No 980212036-8146-02, Washington, June 5, 1998, available at: http://www.ntia.doc. gov/federal-register-notice/1998/statement-policy-management-internet-names-and-addresses. 149  ICANN maintains a list of lawsuits and other proceedings relating to ICANN at: http://www.icann. org/en/news/litigation. 150  See, for instance, Manwin Licensing International v ICM Registry, et al as an example of antitrust allegations, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/litigation. 151 See ICANN v RegisterFly, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/litigation.

43

B.  Organizational Structure and Functions IB.153 ICANN’s contracts with its registrars and registries, together numbering in the thousands,

represent a significant source of potential dispute. In the event of a dispute between ICANN and contracted parties, the relevant contractual agreement typically contemplates dispute settlement through arbitration and court options.152

IB.154 ICANN’s Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has undergone a series of revisions (in

2001, 2009, and 2013), all of which contain provisions for the resolution of disputes under the agreement and procedures for the establishment or revision of specifications and policies. The RAA provides that disputes arising out of the agreement with the concerned registrar ‘shall be resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction, or, at the election of either party, by an arbitration’. General rules for the administration of the arbitration are detailed, specifying arbitration pursuant to the International Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association to take place in Los Angeles County, California. Litigation is specified in the jurisdiction of a court located in Los Angeles, California.153

IB.155 Similarly, registry agreements typically contain provisions for the resolution of disputes and

the modification of the agreement.154 Additionally, the registry agreement typically includes an indemnification provision of ICANN from third-party claims except to the extent the claim arose due to a breach by ICANN of its obligations or by its wilful misconduct, and a limitation of liability in the amount of Registry-Level Fees paid by the registry to ICANN within the 12 preceding months for ICANN’s violations, and registry liability limited to fees and monetary sanctions due and owing to ICANN.

IB.156 Dispute resolution under registry agreements differs from the provisions of the RAA in that

the parties must first attempt ‘cooperative engagement’ involving a single designated executive officer from both ICANN and the registry with full authority to act as representative to resolve the dispute. Failing resolution during the ‘cooperative engagement’ stage, registry agreements contain arbitration clauses specifying the rules of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce for arbitrations occurring in Los Angeles County, California. Any litigation concerning the registry agreement shall be in a court located in Los Angeles County, California. Registries have challenged ICANN actions under the relevant registry agreements in court155 and through arbitration.156

XI.  ICANN and Internet Governance IB.157 To counter the historically unilateral control of the DNS by the US, and the dominant role

of the US in the governance of the Internet as a whole, the final report of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) in June 2005 discussed several models to ensure a fair share by governments across all regions of the world, and the roles of the other stakeholders (business, civil society).157

152  See, for instance, Section 5.8 of the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement, available at: https://www. icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en. 153  Registrars have challenged ICANN actions under the RAA in court, see Dotster v ICANN (challenging the existence of ‘consensus’ for a new specification or policy under s 4.3 of the 2001 RAA, available at: http:// www.icann.org/en/news/litigation/dotster-v-icann). See also ICANN v Registerfly (ICANN action in relation to allegation of registrar breach of RAA). 154  As an example, see Article 5 to the model Registry Agreement for new gTLDs, as provided in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook, available at: http://www.icann.org. 155 See http://www.icann.org/en/news/litigation/verisign-v-icann. 156 See http://www.icann.org/en/news/litigation/employ-media-v-icann. 157  The ‘Final Report’ is available at: http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf.

44

XI.  ICANN and Internet Governance The release of ICANN from US control has partially been achieved by the AoC and the new IB.158 and stronger role of the GAC within ICANN. In 2013, ICANN further announced the creation of three regional hubs in Los Angeles, Istanbul, and Singapore and engagement centres in several other cities (including Beijing, Montevideo, and Geneva) to better reflect its global role and outreach as well as reducing the role of the Los Angeles head office.158 It took until March 2014 for the announcement of the intention to transition the US IB.159 Administration’s oversight over the root zone file, the core data base for all top level domains available in the legacy DNS, to ICANN. The root zone file had been declared untouchable during the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) conference in Tunis by US officials. The leaks of former National Security Agency employee, Edward Snowden, in mid-2013 about the abuse of the existing dominance of US infrastructure and application providers by US intelligence services triggered a restart of the debate.159 Several new fora were established160 at the end of 2013 and the start of 2014 to talk about the IB.160 future of Internet Governance, including an ad hoc conference in Brazil (Netmundial),161 an ICANN selected High Level Expert Panel and a Global Commission on Internet Governance, announced during the 2014 World Economic Forum in Davos by the Centre of International Governance Innovation and Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

158   See ICANN October 19, 2012 announcement, available at:  http://www.icann.org/en/news/ announcements/ announcement-19oct12-en.htm. 159  See Part B Section I, for more information. 160  Ermert, Monika, Year Ahead:  Internet Governance After Snowden:  Cacophony Of Conferences, Intellectual Property Watch, January 30, 2014, available at: http://www.ip-watch.org. 161 See http://www.netmundial.org for more information.

45

C ORIGINAL gTLDs: REGISTRATION PROCEDURES, REGISTRATION AGREEMENTS, AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION Torsten Bettinger

(8) Registration under ‘.aero’  (9) Registration under ‘.coop’  (10) Registration under ‘.museum’  (11) Registration under ‘.pro’  (12) Registration under ‘.jobs’  (13) Registration under ‘.mobi’  (14) Registration under ‘.travel’  (15) Registration under ‘.cat’  (16) Registration under ‘.tel’  (17) Registration under ‘.asia’  (18) Registration under ‘.post’  (19) Registration under ‘.xxx’

I. Sponsored and Unsponsored gTLDs  IC.01 II. Registries, Registrations Requirements, and Dispute Resolution for Sponsored and Unsponsored gTLDs  IC.06 (1) Registration under ‘.com’, ‘.net’, and ‘.org’  (2) Registration under ‘.int’  (3) Registration under ‘.edu’  (4) Registration under ‘.gov’ and ‘.mil’  (5) Registration under ‘.biz’  (6) Registration under ‘.info’  (7) Registration under ‘.name’ 

IC.06 IC.13 IC.16 IC.19 IC.20 IC.30 IC.37

III.  Registration Statistics

IC.49 IC.54 IC.59 IC.66 IC.76 IC.78 IC.81 IC.86 IC.89 IC.92 IC.98 IC.101 IC.112

I.  Sponsored and Unsponsored gTLDs Before ICANN adopted the New gTLD Program, two types of gTLDs could be distin- IC.01 guished within the gTLDs: sponsored TLDs (sTLDs) and unsponsored TLDs (uTLDs). The uTLDs are subject to any particular user group and are managed under the general nam- IC.02 ing conventions established by ICANN for gTLDs. In contrast, sTLD must be administered by a sponsoring organization that sets the rules of IC.03 administration and registration for the respective sTLD itself. They are earmarked and are only open to registration by a certain group of users specified by the Sponsoring Registry (so-called sponsored TLD community). In 2012 22 gTLDs were available for unrestricted or restricted registration as shown in IC.04 Table IC:1. On the introduction of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), see Part ID below.

47

IC.05

C.  Original gTLDs: Registration Procedures, Registration Agreements Table IC.1: Original sTLDs and uTLDs (2013) The ‘Original’ gTLDs TLD

Type

Users

Registry

Place

.com

unsponsored

Verisign, Inc http://www.verisign.com/

USA

.org

unsponsored

unrestricted use, but directed at commercial users unrestricted use

USA

.net

unsponsored

Public Interest Registry (PIR); Afilias Ltd http://www.afilias.info/ Verisign, Inc http://www.verisign.com/

.edu

sponsored

.mil

sponsored

.gov

sponsored

.int

sponsored

unrestricted use, but directed at network providers educational institutions United States Department of Education US military facilities Department of Defense Network Information System http://www.nic.mil/ US governmental United States General Services organizations Administration http://www.nic.gov/ international Internet Assigned Numbers intergovernmental Authority (IANA) organizations http://www.iana.org/

USA USA USA

USA

USA

Expansion by Seven gTLDs (November 2000) .biz

unsponsored

business users

.info

unsponsored

unrestricted use

.name

unsponsored

natural persons

.pro

unsponsored

accountants, auditors, lawyers, and doctors

.aero

sponsored

aerospace industry

.coop

sponsored

cooperatives

.museum sponsored

museums

48

NeuLevel, Inc http://www.neulevel.com/ Afilias Ltd http://www.afilias.info/ Global Name Registry Ltd http://www.theglobalname.org/ RegistryPro Ltd http://www.registrypro.com/ Société internationale de télécommunications aéronautiques, SC (SITA) http://www.sita.com/aero/info/ compinfo.asp National Cooperative Business Association (NCBA) http://www.cooperative.org/ Museum Domain Management Association (MuseDoma) http://www.musedoma. museum/

USA USA USA USA Switzerland

USA

Sweden

II.  Registries, Registrations Requirements, and Dispute Resolution Expansion by Seven gTLDs (2005–2012) .jobs

sponsored

International Human Resource Management

.mobi

sponsored

.travel

sponsored

unlimited use, but directed to providers of services for mobile devices providers of travel services

.tel

sponsored

.cat

sponsored

.asia .post .xxx

sponsored sponsored sponsored

providers and users of telecommunications services Catalan linguistic and cultural community from Asia/for Asia postal services online adult entertainment

Employ Media LLC USA http://www.employmedia.com/ http://pc.mtld.mobi/mobilenet/ Ireland

Tralliance Corporation http://www.tralliance.info/ Telnic Ltd http://www.telnic.com

USA

Fundació puntCAT http://www.puntcat.org DotAsia Organisation Universal Postal Union ICM Registry, LLC

Spain

UK

Hong Kong Switzerland USA

II.  Registries, Registrations Requirements, and Dispute Resolution for Sponsored and Unsponsored gTLDs (1) Registration under ‘.com’, ‘.net’, and ‘.org’ (a) Registry Since the early 1980s, until the reform of the Domain Name System by ICANN, the registry IC.06 functions for the originally existing gTLDs (‘.com’, ‘.net’, and ‘.org’) were managed by the US-based registrar Network Solutions, Inc. The US government acted as the registry operator for the ‘.mil’, ‘.edu’, and ‘.gov’ gTLD spaces. The gTLD ‘.int’ was administered directly by ICANN. Then, through a ‘Registry Agreement’ with ICANN executed on May 25, 2001, the regis- IC.07 try functions for the top-level domains ‘.com’, ‘.net’, and ‘.org’ were transferred to the US company Verisign Inc.1 In 2012 the US Department of Commerce approved the renewal of the ‘.com’ Registry Agreement between Verisign, Inc, and ICANN. Under this agreement, Verisign was to manage the registry for the ‘.com’ top-level domain for six more years (for details on the agreement between ICANN and the registries see Part IB.V, above). The gTLD ‘.org’, until January 2003 operated by Verisign Inc, has been delegated to the IC.08 Public Interest Registry (PIR)2 which was selected from a group of 11 candidates. Many of

1 The ‘.com’ Registry Agreement is available on the ICANN website at: http://www.icann.org/tlds/ agreements/verisign/com-index.htm. Verisign is a US company based in Reston, Virginia that operates a diverse array of network infrastructure, including two of the Internet’s 13 root nameservers, the authoritative registry for the ‘.com’, ‘.net’, and ‘.name’ gTLDs and the ‘.cc’ and ‘.tv’ ccTLDs. 2  PIR is a not-for-profit organization located in Virginia, created by the Internet Society (ISOC) in 2002.

49

C.  Original gTLDs: Registration Procedures, Registration Agreements the back-office functions for the space are performed by Afilias Ltd of Dublin, Ireland. In 2013 ICANN renewed the Registry Agreement with PIR for an unlimited period. IC.09 The gTLD ‘.net’ is operated by Verisign Inc on the basis of an unsponsored registry agree-

ment signed with ICANN on July 1, 2011 for a further five years.

(b) Registration Requirements IC.10 The registration requirements for the generic top-level domains ‘.com’, ‘.net’, and ‘.org’ were initially described in 1994 in RFC 1591.3 Thereafter, registration in these spaces was opened to all natural and legal persons across the world, regardless of nationality or place of establishment. A limitation of each TLD to a specific target group, as had been anticipated in RFC 1591, does not exist, and instead the gTLDs ‘.com’, ‘.net’, and ‘.org’ are used in practice by companies in all industries and by private individuals.4 IC.11 The registrars in these gTLDs act in accordance with the principle of priority (first-come,

first-served), without undertaking any review of the potential conflicting rights of third parties. An applicant for a domain name is responsible for ensuring that the applied-for domain name does not injure the rights of any third parties. To facilitate contacting the owner of a domain name, each registrar is obliged store the contact information for the domain holder and those entities or individuals responsible for the administrative and technical affairs of the registrant (the so-called administrative contact, Admin-C and technical contact, Tech-C) in a WHOIS database, which is made publicly accessible via the Internet.5

(c) Domain Dispute Resolution Policies IC.12 For the resolution of characteristic disputes involving bad faith domain registrations, holders of registered or common-law trademarks may seek recourse through extra-judicial arbitration proceedings under the ‘Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy’ (UDRP),6 to which every domain name owner submits by signing the relevant registration agreement. (2) Registration under ‘.int’ IC.13 Registrations in the TLD ‘.int’ are made directly by application to the Internet Assigned

Numbers Authority (IANA).7 The pool of eligible registrants is limited to organizations that were established by international agreement between governments. Each organization may only register a single domain name. Fees are not charged for the registration of ‘.int’ domains.

IC.14 The current policy provides for the following registration requirements for registrations

in ‘.int’:

(1) There must be a treaty between national governments presented and recognized by IANA and both the ‘specialized agencies’ of the UN and the organizations with ‘observer status’ at the United Nations.

3  Postel, Domain Name Structure and Delegation, March 1994, available at: http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/ rfc1591.txt. 4  The limitations initially established by RFC 1591, limiting ‘.net’ to ‘Network Providers’ and ‘.org’ to non-commercial organizations, did not fit for the ‘.com’ space. 5  This contact information can be queried via a so-called WHOIS search on the website of each registrar, and includes in particular the domain name, the name of the domain owner, the IP addresses of the first and second name server, the corresponding names of those name servers, the date of registration of the domain name, and relevant details about using the WHOIS data regulated by the registrar’s ‘WhoIs Marketing Restriction Policy’. 6  For more details on this, see Part IIIA. 7 See http://www.iana.org.

50

II.  Registries, Registrations Requirements, and Dispute Resolution (2) The organization requesting the domain name must have been founded by state contract—a Council decision (‘council decision’) or the like is not enough. (3) The organization must have its own legal personality and be subject to international law (‘subject to and governed by international law’). Organizational units within an international organization that operate a particular pro- IC.15 gramme or perform a specific function may have the opportunity to operate a third-level domain allocated under the second-level domain registered by the contracting organization (eg in the form ‘.example.un.int’), provided that the contracting organization consents to such registration.8

(3) Registration under ‘.edu’ (a) Registry The gTLD ‘.edu’ is under the control of the US government. By agreement with the US IC.16 Department of Commerce, dated October 29, 2001, the administration delegated operation of the TLD to the organization EDUCAUSE9 for a period of five years. This contract was renewed in 2011 for a further five years. EDUCAUSE is a non-profit organization that represents more than 1,900 universities and colleges in the United States and their commercial partners. (b) Registration Requirements To register a domain name under the TLD ‘.edu’, the applicant must demonstrate that it IC.17 is a ‘postsecondary institution’ which is listed as an educational institution on the list of ‘Nationally Recognized Accrediting Agencies’ by the US Department of Education. The right to registration depends solely on the recognition of the organization as an educa- IC.18 tional institution in the above sense, but not by the seat of the organization. Most educational institutions which are located outside the United States are not eligible. The transfer of ‘.edu’ domain names to third parties is prohibited.10

(4) Registration under ‘.gov’ and ‘.mil’ Registration in the TLD ‘.gov’ is reserved only for the US government, and the TLD ‘.mil’ IC.19 is reserved exclusively for the US military.11 Information about the registration requirements and registration procedures are not publicly accessible.

(5) Registration under ‘.biz’ (a) Registry and Registration Requirements The TLD ‘.biz’ is among the group of unsponsored TLDs and is reserved for registration by IC.20 commercial enterprises and organizations (‘commercial entities’). The Registry NeuLevel12 is a joint venture by US-based NeuStar, Inc and Melbourne IT, Ltd. Main investors include NeuStar MidOcean Partners and Warburg Pincus. NeuLevel is headquartered in the United States.13

8  Information about the registration requirements and procedures is available at: http://www.iana.org/ int-dom/int.htm. 9 See http://www.educause.edu. 10  See the rules for authorization at: http://www.educause.edu/edudomain/eligibility.asp. 11 See http://www.disa.mil/. 12 See http://www.neulevel.biz. 13 For details, see ICANN, Evaluation of the New gTLDs:  Policy and Legal Issues, prepared for the ICANN, July 10, 2004, available at: http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdf.

51

C.  Original gTLDs: Registration Procedures, Registration Agreements IC.21 Under the ‘.biz’ Procurement Directives, it is only acceptable to register a domain name

under ‘.biz’ after its use for purposes within the definition of ‘bona fide business or commercial use’ takes place. Domain registrations for private, non-profit or other purposes are prohibited, in particular, and it is not acceptable to register a domain name solely for the purpose of resale or for further licensing.14

IC.22 The concept of ‘bona fide business or commercial purpose’ is defined in the ‘.biz’ Registration

Restrictions15 as follows:

For purposes of the .biz Registration Restrictions (‘Restrictions’), ‘bona fide business or commercial use’ shall mean the bona fide use or bona fide intent to use the domain name or any content, software, materials, graphics or other information thereon, to permit Internet users to access one or more host computers through the DNS: a. To exchange goods, services, or property of any kind; b. In the ordinary course of trade or business; or c. To facilitate (i) the exchange of goods, services, information, or property of any kind; or, (ii) the ordinary course of trade or business. IC.23 The registration of a ‘.biz’ domain name solely for the purposes of (1) selling, trading, or leas-

ing the domain name for compensation; or (2) the unsolicited offering to sell, trade, or lease the domain name for compensation cannot constitute a ‘bona fide business or commercial use’ of that domain name.

IC.24 For illustration purposes, the following shall not constitute a ‘bona fide business or commer-

cial use’ of a ‘.biz’ domain name:

(1) Using or intending to use the domain name exclusively for personal, noncommercial purposes; or (2) Using or intending to use the domain name exclusively for the expression of non-­ commercial ideas (ie registering ‘abcsucks.biz’ exclusively to criticize or otherwise express an opinion on the products or services of ABC company, with no other intended business or commercial purpose). IC.25 Compliance with the registration restrictions set by the registry is not verified by the registrar

at the time of registration, but the applicant must assure compliance with registration requirements (see para IC.28 for the resolution of disputes arising from violations of the Registration Requirements).

(b) Domain Dispute Resolution Policies IC.26 To give the owners of registered trademarks the ability to exercise their rights before beginning the registration phase, in order to effectively protect themselves against abusive domain registrations, mark holders were given the opportunity to present their brands in a register kept by the competent registrar. This registration window, called the ‘IP Claim Period’, began on August 7, 2001. Each trademark owner registered in the register was to be informed by the registrar upon the registration of any identical domain names (‘Intellectual Property Claim

14 See the Unsponsored TLD Agreement:  Appendix L (.biz)—Registration Restrictions, available at:  http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/biz/registry-agmt-appl-18apr01.htm. See also the National Arbitration Forum decisions, NAF Claim Nos FA0203000106124 and FA0203000110782, concerning ‘us-bank.biz’ and ‘us-bank.info’, in which the non-commercial use of the domain name ‘us-bank.biz’ was considered. The site was used for public criticism of US Bancorp Licensing, Inc, and thus deemed a violation of the ‘.biz’ Restriction Policy. 15 See Unsponsored TLD agreement Appendix L—Registration Restrictions available at:  http://www. icann.org/tlds/agreements/biz/registry-agmt-appl-18apr01.htm.

52

II.  Registries, Registrations Requirements, and Dispute Resolution Service’) and had, subsequent to September 2002, the opportunity to initiate a so-called ‘Start-Up Trademark Opposition Procedure’ (STOP),16 to take action against such alleged bad faith domain name registrations.17 Since the end of the early registration phase which took place from June 15 to August 6, 2001, IC.27 the ‘.biz’ space began registration in accordance with the principle of priority (‘first-come, first-served’). Challenges to the registration or use of a given domain name on the grounds that it is not IC.28 being or will not be used primarily for a bona fide business or commercial purpose are filed under the Restrictions Dispute Resolution Policy (RDRP).18 Challenges under the RDRP may be initiated by any party filing a complaint with an approved dispute resolution service provider. In the event of disputes arising from bad faith registration and use of a domain name, hold- IC.29 ers of trademark rights may file a complaint under the UDRP to which each domain name registrant must be subject in the Registration Agreement.

(6) Registration under ‘.info’ (a) Registry and Registration Requirements The gTLD ‘.info’ is an unsponsored, unrestricted TLD open for registration to any natural IC.30 or legal person. The registry operator is Afilias Ltd, in consortium with a number of other registrars and investors. Afilias Ltd has its head office in Ireland. The registration is based on the ‘first-come, first-served’ principle without further restrictions IC.31 on advertising content.

(b) Dispute Settlement Procedures and Other Procedures for Protection of Trademark Rights In order to prevent bad faith domain registrations, trademark owners were able to enter IC.32 their brands in the trademark register during a so-called ‘Sunrise period’ from October 2, 2000 to August 7, 2001, and were thereafter allowed to register domain names which matched the word elements of their brand or identical matching domain names (‘identical to the textual or word elements of the mark’) on a preferential basis.19 Since an examination of the alleged rights did not occur, and there was a fear that Sunrise registrations were based in part on false safety notices, any third party had the right to initiate a review process, administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) as a Dispute Resolution Service Provider. In order to initiate a successful Sunrise attack, the challenger had to show that: (i) at the time of the registration of the domain name, no current (non-expired) trademark or service mark registration was issued in the registrant’s name; (ii) the domain name was not identical to the textual or word elements of the trademark or service mark registration on which the registration of the domain name was based;

16  See the ‘Start-Up Trademark Opposition Policy and Rules for .BIZ’, available at: http://www.neulevel. biz/ardp/docs/stop.html. 17  Between December 2001 and September 2002, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center saw a total of 338 cases brought under the Start-Up Trademark Opposition Policy for .BIZ (STOP). For a summary overview of the STOP proceedings, see the WIPO ‘.biz’ STOP Report, available at: http://www.wipo.int/ amc/en/domains/reports/biz-stop/index.html. 18  The RDRP is available at: http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/rdrp. 19  See the ‘Proposed Unsponsored TLD Agreement: Appendix J (.info)’, available at: http://www.icann. org/tlds/agreements/info/registry-agmt-appj-11may01.htm.

53

IC.33

C.  Original gTLDs: Registration Procedures, Registration Agreements (iii) the trademark or service mark registration on which the registration of the domain name was based was not of national effect; or (iv) the trademark or service mark registration on which the registration of the domain name was based was not issued prior to October 2, 2000.20 IC.34 In the Sunrise period, more than 50,000 domain names were registered, more than half by

registrants in Europe (20 per cent in Germany alone) and about 35 per cent in the US. As it turned out, over 30 per cent of these registrations were for generic terms not protectable as trademarks, and were based on false brand information (‘Sunrise-squatting’).

IC.35 Of the 50,000 Sunrise registrations applied for in the period between December 26, 2001

and August 26, 2002, 13,593 Sunrise registrations were challenged by the registry Afilias Ltd, and a further 1,579 were challenged by third parties and reviewed by WIPO.

IC.36 Holders of trademark rights can file a complaint pursuant to the UDRP against abusive reg-

istrations of ‘.info’ domain names.21

(7) Registration under ‘.name’ (a) Registry and Registration Requirements IC.37 The Registry Operator for ‘.name’ is Verisign Inc, based in Reston, Virginia, United States.22 IC.38 The gTLD ‘.name’ is an unsponsored gTLD dedicated exclusively to the registration of an

individual’s own personal name (defined as a ‘legal name or name under which a person is commonly known’, for example, ‘arno.schmidt.name’) and names of fictional characters, provided the registrant holds trademark or service mark rights in that character’s personal name (eg ‘Asterix’, ‘Sherlock Holmes’). Numeric characters may also be used in combination with either type of personal name above.

IC.39 Until January 2004, domain names under the TLD ‘.name’ could only be registered at the

third level, in the format ‘Firstname.surname.Name’ or ‘surname.Firstname.Name’. Since that time, however, it has become possible to register ‘.name’ domains directly at the second level.

IC.40 When a domain is registered on the third level (john.doe.name), the second level (doe.name

in this case) is shared, and may not be registered by any individual. Other second-level domains like johndoe.name remain unaffected.

IC.41 Challenges to a registration in ‘.name’ on the grounds that it does not meet the eligibil-

ity requirements are filed under the Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (ERDRP). Defensive registrations and second-level domain e-mail address registrations are also subject to challenge under the ERDRP. Any person or entity may bring a challenge to a registration under the ERDRP.

IC.42 Complaints under the ERDRP may be submitted to either the National Arbitration Forum or

the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. Each provider follows the Rules for Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy as well as its own supplemental rules.

20  For more information see the ‘WIPO End Report on Case Administration under the Afilias Sunrise Registration Challenge Policy for .info’ at:  http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/reports/info-sunrise/ index.html. For the relevant evaluation criteria of the ‘Pre-registration Procedures’, see ‘Evaluation of the New gTLDs: Policy and Legal Issues, prepared for ICANN’, July 10, 2004, at: http://www.icann.org/tlds/ new-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdf. 21  See Part IIIA. 22  See the .name Registry Agreement December 1, 2012 until August, 15 2018, available at: http://www. icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/name/agreement-01dec12-en.htm.

54

II.  Registries, Registrations Requirements, and Dispute Resolution (b) Domain Dispute Resolution Policies During Phase I, which ended in 2002, there was the opportunity for holders of trademarks IC.43 to apply for a ‘Defensive Registration’ where: (i) the protected word-elements of the holder’s trademark were identical to the applied-for domain name same string; (ii) the trademark protection had national scope (‘national effect’); and (iii) the mark in question was registered before April 16, 2001. A ‘Defensive Registration’ is made in order to reserve a particular alphanumeric string and IC.44 thereby prevent identical name registrations in a second-level or third-level domain.23 On the basis of the agreements concluded with ICANN, the registry will indefinitely IC.45 provide a registration-based ‘Name Watch Service’ (Name Watch)24 that is available and offered through authorized registrars. The Name Watch Service allows users to monitor registrations in the TLD ‘.name’, which correspond to a monitored sign (Watched String). The same characters can be provided by several different Name Watch applicants, and all will be monitored. Registrations in ‘.name’ must consist of an individual’s own personal name or the personal IC.46 name of a fictional character (provided the registrant holds trademark or service mark rights in that character’s personal name). Numeric characters may also be used in combination with either type of personal name above. To ensure that the registration eligibility requirements are met, any person or entity may IC.47 bring an informal dispute settlement procedure (ERDPR)25 against domain registrations that violate the eligibility requirements and request deletion or transfer.26 Defensive registrations and second-level domain e-mail address registrations are also subject to challenge under the ERDRP. Any person or entity may bring a challenge to a registration under the ERDRP. Holders of trademark rights can file a complaint pursuant to the UDRP against abusive reg- IC.48 istrations of domain names.27

(8) Registration under ‘.aero’ (a) Registry and Registration Requirements The sTLD ‘.aero’ is a sponsored, restricted gTLD, which is aimed at companies in the avi- IC.49 ation industry. The registry operator, SITA (Société Internationale de Télécommunications Aéronautiques),28 is the world’s leading provider of information and telecommunications solutions for the aerospace industry. SITA exists in accordance with Belgian law and is a 100 per cent subsidiary of Swiss Air Transport Community (ATC).

  See .NAME Agreement Appendix 11, Registration Restrictions, August 15, 2007.   See the ‘Proposed Unsponsored TLD Agreement: Appendix J (.name)’ and the ‘Proposed Unsponsored TLD Agreement: Appendix C (.name)’, available at: http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-appj-30jun01.htm and http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-appc-03jul01.htm. 25  See the ‘Proposed Unsponsored TLD Agreement: Appendix M (.name)’ available at: http://www.icann. org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-appm-8aug03.htm. 26  So far 11 ‘.name’ ERDRP decisions have been rendered; see the List of Decisions available at: http:// www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisionsx/index-name.html. 27  See Part IIIA. 28 See http://www.information.aero. 23 24

55

C.  Original gTLDs: Registration Procedures, Registration Agreements IC.50 The registration of an ‘.aero’ domain name consists of two steps:

(1) Identification. Before an applicant applies for registration of an ‘.aero’ domain name, it must be recognized as a member of the aviation community and have received an Aviation Membership ID. (2) Registration. If the applicant can demonstrate an Aviation Membership ID, it can register a ‘.aero’ domain name from an accredited registrar. An applicant and/or domain owner may file a Request for Reconsideration under the .aero Eligibility Reconsideration Policy29 against a decision of the sponsor, that: (i) the applicant does not qualify for a registration in ‘.aero’, and is therefore not entitled to receive an Aviation Community Membership ID, or (ii) the domain owner is no longer eligible to register a domain name under ‘.aero’ and therefore ordered the withdrawal of the licence to use the domain name. IC.51 The Request for Reconsideration under the ‘.aero’ Eligibility Reconsideration Policy should

not be confused with the ICANN accountability measure of the same name.30

(b) Domain Dispute Resolution Policies IC.52 Each applicant agrees to accept the ‘Charter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy’ (CEDRP) for challenges to registration of a domain name on the grounds that the registrant does not meet the ‘.aero’ eligibility requirements (set forth in the sponsored TLD charter).31 Any person or entity may bring a challenge to a registered name under the CEDRP. The sole dispute resolution provider is the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. IC.53 Holders of trademark rights can file a complaint pursuant to the UDRP against abusive reg-

istrations of ‘.aero’ domain names.32

(9) Registration under ‘.coop’ (a) Registry and Registration Requirements IC.54 The ‘.coop’ TLD is a sponsored gTLD, which was established to serve the needs of interna-

tional cooperatives. The Sponsor and Registry Operator is DotCooperation LLC,33 a subsidiary of the US National Cooperative Business Association (NCBA) and represents the interests of cooperatives and the associations of cooperatives in the United States.

IC.55 According to the ‘.coop’ Charter34 a ‘cooperative’ is an organization that meets the definition

and principles of the ‘Statement on the Co-operative Identity’,35 which were adopted by the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA).

IC.56 The registration of ‘.coop’ domain names are available to:

(i) Members of the National Cooperative Business Association (NCBA); (ii) members of the ICA; (iii) organizations that are recognized and written in accordance with applicable law as ‘Cooperatives’; (iv) cooperatives comprised of associations;  See https://www.information.aero/sites/information.aero/files/ERP-policy-2002-06-16.pdf.   See Section VII.1 of Part IB for the ICANN Request for Reconsideration. 31  The CEDRP is available at: http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/cedrp. 32  See Part IIIA. 33 See http://www.cooperative.org. 34  See the TLD Sponsorship Agreement: Annex 1 (coop) at: http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/coop/ sponsorship-agmt-att1-05nov01.htm. 35 See http://www.coop.org/coop/principles.html. 29 30

56

II.  Registries, Registrations Requirements, and Dispute Resolution (v) (vi) (vii) (viii)

organizations committed to the seven cooperative principles; organizations that are controlled by cooperatives; entities whose operations are dedicated to serving cooperatives principally; and for not more than 5,000 applicants, the use by persons or entities whose use of a ‘.coop’ domain name would, in the opinion of the DotCooperation Limited Liability Corporation Board, advance the interests of the cooperative sector in general or would assist in the development of cooperatives worldwide.

(b) Domain Dispute Resolution Policies Each applicant agrees to accept the CEDRP for challenges to registration of a domain name on IC.57 the grounds that the registrant does not meet the ‘.coop’ eligibility requirements set forth in the sponsored TLD charter.36 Any person or entity may bring a challenge to a registered name under the CEDRP. The sole dispute resolution provider is the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. Holders of trademark rights can file a complaint pursuant to the UDRP against abusive reg- IC.58 istrations of ‘.coop’ domain names.37

(10) Registration under ‘.museum’ (a) Registry and Registration Requirements The TLD ‘.museum’ is a sponsored gTLD, which was introduced with the aim of providing IC.59 museums with a clear identity in virtual space. The sponsoring organization, the Museum Domain Management Association (MuseDoma),38 is authored by a US rights group based in Sweden. The registry operator is the Internet Council of Registrars (CORE). The registration requirements for ‘.museum’ are charter regulated.39 Under Article 1 of the IC.60 charter, only museums, museum associations, and natural persons who are employees of museums are allowed to register under this TLD. The term ‘museum’ is defined as a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society IC.61 and of its development, and open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates, and exhibits, for purposes of study, education, and enjoyment, material evidence of people and their environment. Eligible registrants include the staff and personnel of museums or institutions that are desig- IC.62 nated as museums, which have enjoyed special training or practical experience, and who are responsible for the management or operation of a museum of importance. Also eligible for registration are freelance people who respect the ICOM Code of Professional IC.63 Ethics for Museums in either technical or advisory work.

(b) Domain Dispute Resolution Policies Each applicant agrees to accept the CEDRP for challenges to registration of a domain name IC.64 on the grounds that the registrant does not meet the ‘.museum’ eligibility requirements (set forth in the sponsored TLD charter).40 Any person or entity may bring a challenge to a registered name under the CEDRP. The sole dispute resolution provider is the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.

  The CEDRP is available at: http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/cedrp.   See Part IIIA. 38 See http://musedoma.museum/. 39  See ‘TLD Sponsorship Agreement: Attachment 1 (.museum)’, available at: http://www.icann.org/tlds/ agreements/museum/sponsorship-agmt-att1-20aug01.htm. 40  The CEDRP is available at: http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/cedrp. 36 37

57

C.  Original gTLDs: Registration Procedures, Registration Agreements IC.65 Holders of trademark rights can file a complaint pursuant to the UDRP against abusive reg-

istrations of ‘.museum’ domain names.41

(11) Registration under ‘.pro’ (a) Registry and Registration Requirements IC.66 ‘.pro’ is a non-sponsored gTLD that is open for registration only by the members of the professions, particularly in the areas of legal services, medicine, and accounting. The registry, RegistryPro Ltd,42 is headquartered in the US. IC.67 ‘.pro’ is a top-level domain reserved for use exclusively by service professionals and enti-

ties internationally. All applicants meeting the following qualifications may register a ‘.pro’ domain name:

(i) provides professional services; (ii) validated by a government certification body or government-recognized jurisdictional entity that regularly verifies the accuracy of its data; and (iii) in good standing with its authority. IC.68 In addition, registrants will be asked to provide the following information related to their

professional eligibility:

(i) identification; (ii) contact information; and (iii) profession-specific information such as ID number. IC.69 Second-level domain names can be registered by all qualifying professionals internationally. IC.70 Members of the medical, legal, accounting, and engineering professions are eligible to register

third-level ‘.pro’ domain names with the following extensions:

(1) Legal: ‘.law.pro’, ‘.avocat.pro’, ‘.bar.pro’, ‘.recht.pro’, ‘.jur.pro’; (2) Accountancy: ‘.cpa.pro’, ‘.aaa.pro’, ‘.aca.pro’, ‘.acct.pro’; (3) Medical Professions: ‘.med.pro’; (4) Engineering: ‘.eng.pro’.

(b) Domain Dispute Resolution Policies IC.71 An owner of an eligible trademark or service mark registration may file a complaint under the

Intellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy (IPDRCP).43 An intellectual property defensive registration may be registered only by the owner of an eligible trademark or service mark registration.

IC.72 The IPDRCP provides an avenue for challenges to intellectual property defensive regis-

trations concerning whether such registrant meets the Registration Qualifications. Any person or entity may initiate an IPDRCP proceeding by submitting a challenge in accordance with the rules. The sole dispute resolution provider is the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.

IC.73 Challenges to a registration on the grounds that the registrant did not meet the registra-

tion qualifications are filed under the Qualification Challenge Policy (QCP).44 A  challenge to a registration under the Qualification Challenge Policy may be brought by any   See Part IIIA.  See http://www.registrypro.pro. 43  The IPDRCP is available at: http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/ipdrcp. 44  The QCP is available at: http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/proqcp. 41 42

58

II.  Registries, Registrations Requirements, and Dispute Resolution interested party. Complaints under the QCP may be submitted to the National Arbitration Forum, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, or the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre. Each provider follows the Rules for Qualification Challenge Policy as well as its own IC.74 supplemental rules. Holders of trademark rights can file a complaint pursuant to the UDRP against abusive reg- IC.75 istrations of ‘.pro’ domain names.45

(12) Registration under ‘.jobs’ (a) Registry and Registration Requirements The ‘.jobs’ TLD is designed for companies that are involved in the recruitment of staff and IC.76 personnel management. The registry operator is the US-based Employ Media LLC.46 In accordance with Appendix A of the ‘.Jobs Application and Registration Agreement’,47 any firm or person can register a domain name under ‘.jobs’ who is involved in the recruitment of staff or other activities related to human resource management. Registration is exclusively for domain names that match the business name or other trade name used in business (‘firmenname.jobs’). This includes corporate slogans, domain names, or other signs that contain the company names.

(b) Domain Dispute Resolution Policies Holders of trademark rights can file a complaint pursuant to the UDRP against abusive reg- IC.77 istrations of ‘.jobs’ domain names.48 (13) Registration under ‘.mobi’ (a) Registry and Registration Requirements The ‘.mobi’ TLD is a sponsored top-level domain which was introduced in 2005. The registry IC.78 is managed by the company dotMobi (mTLD Mobile Top-Level Domain, Ltd),49 which was founded by a consortium of leading mobile and Internet companies (including Ericsson, Google, Microsoft, Nokia, T-Mobile, Vodafone, GSM Association, Hutchison, Samsung Electronics, T-Mobile, and Telefónica Móviles). ‘.mobi’ domains can be registered by anyone without restriction, however, the TLD is directed to the providers of services that can be accessed via mobile devices. The beginning of the registration took place in several phases. In the so-called ‘Limited Industry IC.79 Launch phase’ from May 22 to May 29, 2006, only companies in the mobile telecommunications industry were entitled to register. Following this was a so-called Sunrise period to enable the owners of trademarks to register domain names identical to their marks. Finally, between September 15 and October 13, 2006, it was possible for general registrants to secure preferential registration of certain generic names, unless the applicant demonstrated that the term had been registered as a brand before July 11, 2005 and that said brand had been used for at least five years preceding the application (‘Premium Name Application Process for Trademark Holders’).50   See Part IIIA.  See http://www.employmedia.com/. 47 See http://www.goto.jobs/reg.agreement.asp. 48  See Part IIIA. 49 See http://pc.mtld.mobi/mobilenet/index.html. 50  For the procedures related to the so-called ‘Premium Names’ phase, see the ‘Premium Names Trademark Application Rules for .MOBI’, available at:  http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/gtld/mobi/index.html. See also discussion on Premium Names in the New gTLD Program at Part ID.XV(6). 45 46

59

C.  Original gTLDs: Registration Procedures, Registration Agreements (b) Domain Dispute Resolution Policies IC.80 Holders of trademark rights can file a complaint pursuant to the UDRP against abusive registrations of ‘.mobi’ domain names.51 (14) Registration under ‘.travel’ (a) Registry and Registration Requirements IC.81 The ‘.travel’ TLD is a sponsored TLD, which is intended for providers of services from the

travel sector. The Registry, Tralliance Corporation,52 is a subsidiary of the US telephone service theglobe.com.

IC.82 In accordance with Section 1.1 of the ‘.travel’ registration provisions,53 the sTLD ‘.travel’ is

restricted to private, governmental and non-governmental agencies in the field of the travel and tourism industry.

IC.83 Pursuant to Section 2.3.1 of the registration provisions, only characters that are used publicly

by the applicant or brought in contact with it are able to be registered. Eligibility for registration must be proved by means of a so-called VIN number.

(b) Domain Dispute Resolution Policies IC.84 Each applicant agrees to accept the CEDRP for challenges to registration of a domain name on the grounds that the registrant does not meet the ‘.travel’ eligibility requirements (set forth in the sponsored TLD charter).54 Any person or entity may bring a challenge to a registered name under the CEDRP. The sole dispute resolution provider is the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. IC.85 In addition, holders of trademark rights can file a complaint pursuant to the UDRP against

abusive registrations of ‘.travel’ domain names.55

(15) Registration under ‘.cat’ (a) Registry and Registration Requirements IC.86 The ‘.cat’ TLD is a sponsored TLD, which was introduced in 2005 to give the Catalan language and culture community the opportunity to make itself more visible in the virtual marketplace of the Internet.56 The registry is the Fundació puntCAT.57 IC.87 Registrations in ‘.cat’ are restricted to members of the Catalan linguistic and cultural

community. The eligibility requirements are not verified prior to registration. To prove its eligibility, the applicant must demonstrate that it is a member of the Catalan linguistic and cultural community. Challenges to a registration in ‘.cat’ on the grounds that it does not meet the eligibility requirements can be filed under the ‘.cat’ Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (Política de Resolució de Conflictes sobre Requisits d’Admissibilitat del.cat).58

  See Part IIIA.  See http://www.tralliance.travel/. 53 See http://www.travel.travel/index.php/policies/. 54  The CEDRP is available at: http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/cedrp. 55  See Part IIIA. 56  See the ‘.cat Domain Charter’, available at: http://www.nic.cat/normativa/en_normativa_registre.html. ‘The .cat TLD is intended to serve the needs of the Catalan Linguistic and Cultural Community on the Internet (the “Community”)’. 57 See http://www.puntcat.org/. 58  The Policy is available at: http://fundacio.cat/en/domini/about-cat/domain-rules. 51 52

60

II.  Registries, Registrations Requirements, and Dispute Resolution (b) Domain Dispute Resolution Policies Holders of trademark rights can file a complaint pursuant to the UDRP against abusive reg- IC.88 istrations of domain names.59 (16) Registration under ‘.tel’ (a) Registry and Registration Requirements The TLD ‘.tel’, approved by ICANN on May 15, 2006, is designed to enable companies or IC.89 individuals from a computer or mobile phone to communicate by entering a ‘.tel’ domain name over different communication services (eg VoIP, traditional telephone numbers, mobile numbers, e-mail, SMS, Skype). The British company, Telnic Ltd acts as the registry.60 The use of ‘.tel’ domain names is IC.90 restricted by the DNS resolution of each domain name, which includes content as part of the DNS record instead of directing the user to a webspace or server chosen by the domain holder.

(b) Domain Dispute Resolution Policies Holders of trademark rights can file a complaint pursuant to the UDRP against abusive reg- IC.91 istrations of ‘.tel’ domain names.61 (17) Registration under ‘.asia’ (a) Registry and Registration Requirements ‘.asia’ is a sponsored TLD approved by ICANN on December 6, 2006. The reg- IC.92 istry is operated by DotAsia Organisation Ltd, a Hong Kong not-for-profit limited-by-guarantee corporation. 62 DotAsia Organization Ltd was created to operate ‘.asia’ as a regional namespace dedicated to the needs of the Pan-Asia and Asia Pacific Internet community.63 Each ‘.asia’ domain name registration must satisfy one of two requirements: (1) The ‘.asia’ domain must have at least one domain contact that is a legal entity in the DotAsia Community (referred to as a Charter Eligibility Declaration Contact). The domain contact must provide information to make the declaration that it is a legal entity within the DotAsia Community, including the locality of establishment of the entity (based on the corresponding ISO 3166 code), type of entity, form of identification, and identification number. The ‘.asia’ registry will monitor the compliance of Charter Eligibility Declarations and may cancel any non-conforming registration. (2) The ‘.asia’ domain must have at least one administrative contact with a postal address within the DotAsia Community (referred to as a Charter Eligibility Administrative Contact). No further information is required. As with the Charter Eligibility Declaration Contact, the ‘.asia’ registry will monitor the compliance of Charter Eligibility Admin Contacts and may cancel non-confirming registrations. When there is a question of conformance the registry may request further evidence.

  See Part IIIA.  See http://www.telnic.org/. 61  See Part IIIA. 62 See http://www.dot.asia/. 63  See the DotAsia Memorandum & Articles of Incorporation, available at: http://www.dot.asia/policies/ DotAsia-M&A--2006-09-12.pdf. 59 60

61

IC.93

C.  Original gTLDs: Registration Procedures, Registration Agreements IC.94 The ‘.asia’ Charter Eligibility Requirement Policies define the DotAsia Community based on

the geographical boundaries described by the ICANN Asia/Australia/Pacific region.64

IC.95 ‘.asia’ domain names first became available through the registry’s ‘Pioneer Domains Program’,

which involves the allocation of domain names other than on a first-come, first-served basis but rather on the basis of proposals received within the ‘Pioneers Recruitment Period’. During the Pioneer Domains Challenge Period, rights holders can challenge a Pioneer Domain Application.65 Sunrise and Landrush periods followed the Pioneer Domains Program, lasting from October 9, 2007 to March 12, 2008. No disputes were received during the Sunrise or Landrush periods.

(b) Domain Dispute Resolution Policies IC.96 Challenges to a registration in ‘.asia’ on the grounds that it does not meet the eligibility

requirements may be filed under the CEDRP, with WIPO being the only approved provider.

IC.97 Holders of trademark rights can file a complaint pursuant to the UDRP against abusive reg-

istrations of ‘.asia’ domain names.66

(18) Registration under ‘.post’ (a) Registry and Registration Requirements IC.98 The sponsored TLD ‘.post’ is a domain space available exclusively for the postal sector. The

Universal Postal Union (UPU), a specialized agency of the United Nations, is the registry responsible for the operation of ‘.post’.67

IC.99 The ‘.post’ domain is intended to serve the Sponsored Community, including the UPU and

its permanent bodies and member countries, designated operators, Restricted Unions, and other postal community members. Those members of the Sponsored Community who qualify as members of the Registrant Groups and submit formal application requests through a registrar may obtain domain name registrations.68

(b) Domain Dispute Resolution Policies IC.100 Holders of trademark rights can file a complaint pursuant to the UDRP against abusive registrations of ‘.post’ domain names.69 (19) Registration under ‘.xxx’ (a) Registry and Registration Requirements IC.101 ‘.xxx’ is a sponsored TLD operated by ICM Registry LLC. Approved by ICANN in March

2011, the ‘.xxx’ domain is ‘dedicated to serving the Adult Sponsored Community by making it easier for consumers around the world to find adult related sites’.70

IC.102 ‘.xxx’ domain names may be registered by any entity, but in order to have the domain name

resolved to a website, the registrant must become a member of the Sponsored Community and complete the membership application process.71

64 See the ‘.asia’ Charter Eligibility Requirement Policies, available at:  http://www.dot.asia/policies/ DotAsia-Charter-Eligibility--COMPLETE-2010-09-01.pdf. 65  For more information, see generally http://www.dot.asia/asia-registry/asia/. 66  See Part IIIA. 67 See http://www.upu.post/en/post/about-post.html. 68  See the .post Domain Management Policy, available at: http://www.upu.int/fileadmin/documentsFiles/ activities/dotPost/policyManagementDotPostEn.pdf. 69  See Part IIIA. 70 See http://www.icmregistry.com/about/. 71 See http://www.icmregistry.com/about/sponsored-community/.

62

II.  Registries, Registrations Requirements, and Dispute Resolution The Sponsored Community consists of individuals, business, entities, and organizations IC.103 which comply with the Sponsoring Organization’s Policies and Best Practices Guidelines, and either provide or represent online adult entertainment intended for consenting adults, or provide products or services to those entities.72 The membership application requires the provision of registrant details, agreement to the ‘.xxx’ Registry-Registrant Agreement, and an attestation to being a member of the Sponsored Community. ICM Registry LLC offered a Sunrise and Landrush registration period prior to gen- IC.104 eral registration. The registry further subdivided the Sunrise period between trademark holders within and outside the adult entertainment industry. If, at the close of both the Sunrise and Landrush period, more than one application was made during each respective period, the name proceeded to auction. The prevailing applicant will be deemed to be on notice of the intellectual property claims of the other applicants during the relevant period.

(b) Domain Dispute Resolution Policies Registrations in the ‘.xxx’ space are subject to the UDRP, the CEDRP, and the Rapid IC.105 Evaluation Service (RES). Holders of trademark rights can file a complaint pursuant to the UDRP against abusive reg- IC.106 istrations of domain names at any ICANN-approved provider.73 The CEDRP applies to two types of registrations:

IC.107

1. Where the registration or use is in a manner inconsistent with the Sponsored Community eligibility criteria (the policy specifically explains that: ‘Use constituting “non-commercial commentary or criticism” of a specific person or business entity targeted by a registered domain name in the .XXX TLD will not be deemed a legitimate use, in contrast to the provision of bona fide legal or policy advocacy services, commercial parody, satire, and other varieties of commercial nominative, comparative use which shall be deemed legitimate uses of domain names in the .XXX TLD under this CEDRP.’); or 2. Where a registration is made improperly under the ‘Sunrise A’ registration period. The complainant in these circumstances must ‘show that a registered domain name in the .XXX TLD has not been registered in compliance with the provisions [of ] the Registry Sunrise Program as they relate to Sponsored Community Adult Trademark Rights Holders (“AT” applicants), or Sponsored Community Existing Domain Name registrants (“AD” applicants); and be submitted to the Provider prior to September 1, 2012.’ The sole provider under the CEDRP is the National Arbitration Forum.

IC.108

The RES was designed for clear cases of abuse of well-known marks or personal or profes- IC.109 sional names (and is explicitly not applicable to address abuse of geographic terms, appellations of origin, trade names, and other protected signs). The sole remedy available is the cancellation of the registration. However, a preliminary decision (which may result in the suspension of the operation of the domain name) is to be rendered within two working days. A final decision is made by an evaluator in summary format and may include commentary, and state whether the domain name is to be cancelled or maintained. No information regarding individual decisions are publicly published.

72  Refer to the .xxx registry-registrant agreement, available at: http://www.icmregistry.com/about/policies/ registry-registrant-agreement/. 73  See Part IIIA.

63

C.  Original gTLDs: Registration Procedures, Registration Agreements IC.110 RES actions are applicable in two types of dispute:

(i) trademark abuse, on similar grounds as the UDRP; and (ii) impersonation, where the complainant (an individual) alleges that a domain name substantially corresponds to the name of the individual, and that the domain name was registered with unlawful intent or to harass, without any conceivable fair use defence. IC.111 The sole provider of the RES procedure is the National Arbitration Forum.74

III.  Registration Statistics IC.112 As the use of the Internet remained reserved until the mid 1990s mainly for universities and

research institutions, in the early stages of the DNS applicants almost exclusively came from the academic and engineering environment of the universities and some technology companies. The oldest domain name, ‘symbolics.com’, was awarded to the company Symbolics Technology, Inc on March 15, 1985. The following month, the first ‘.edu’ domain names were registered by four American universities.75 These were followed by other domain registrations in ‘.com’ and ‘.org’, but the number did not exceed 30 in 1985.

IC.113 With the commercialization of the Internet in the mid 1990s the number of registrations

began to rise exponentially. In 1995, the number of registrations under gTLDs was at about 120,000. In January 1998, 2.1 million domain names were registered in the gTLDs, of which 1.8 million were under ‘.com’, and increased to 18 million in the year 2000.

IC.114 After a short period of decline during the crisis in the New Economy in 2002, the domain

name registration numbers under the largest gTLDs began to rise continuously and in 2015 exceeded 150 million registrations. The number of domain registrations in the largest gTLDs are shown in Table IC.2. Table IC.2:  Number of domain registrations in the largest gTLDs76 TLDs

Registrations, July 2000

Registrations, November 2007

Registrations August 2015

.com .net .org .info .biz Total

14,680,275 2,512,425 1,449,775 – – 18,642,475

70,781,070 10,389,251 6,309,055 4,906,502 1,886,272 94,227,150

118,685,866 15,017,140 10,616,431 5,186,899 2,115,661 151,621,997

74 Refer to the Rapid Evaluation Service Policy at:  http://www.icmregistry.com/about/policies/ res-policy/, see also the website at the National Arbitration Forum at: http://domains.adrforum.com/main. aspx?itemID=1676&hideBar=False&navID=373&news=26. 75  These domain names were ‘cmu.edu’ (Carnegie Mellon University), ‘purdue.edu’ (Purdue University), ‘rice.edu’ (Rice University) and ‘berkeley.com’ (University of California at Berkeley). 76 Source: http://research.domaintools.com/statistics/.

64

D ICANN’S NEW gTLD PROGRAM Torsten Bettinger and Mike Rodenbaugh

I. The Development of the New gTLD Program 

VI. Evaluation Procedures 

ID.98 ID.98 ID.99 VII. GAC Advice ID.131 (1) Standards ID.131 (2) GAC Advice on Particular Strings ID.136 (3) IGO Name Protection ID.141 (4) Strings Linked to Categorical Advice ID.142 VIII. Third Party Objections ID.144 (1) Background Screening of Applicant  (2) Initial Evaluation of the Application 

ID.01

(1) ICANN’s Adoption of the New gTLD Program  ID.01 (2) The Involvement of National Governments Throughout the Development of the New gTLD Program  ID.07 (3) Criticism of the New gTLD Program  ID.12

IX. Objection by the Independent Objector X. The ICANN Ombudsman XI. Accountability Processes for New gTLD Applicants

II. Application Procedure and Application Requirements 

ID.25 (1) Main Features of the Applicant Guidebook ID.25 (2) Evaluation Questions and Criteria  ID.35 (3) Application Fees  ID.36 (4) Application Submission  ID.40 (5) New gTLD Application Change Request Process and Criteria  ID.43 (6) String Requirements, Reserved Names, and Strings Ineligible for Delegation  ID.46 (7) Applicant Eligibility Requirements ID.53 (8) Trademark, Public Interest, Morality, and Public Order Concerns ID.55 (9) Registration Policy Requirements  ID.57 (10) Restrictions on Second-Level Domains under a New gTLD  ID.62 III.  Application Results  ID.69 (1) Application Statistics  ID.70 (2) Types of Applications  ID.74 (3) Types of Applicants  ID.90 IV. Public Comment  ID.92 V. GAC Early Warnings  ID.93

ID.147 ID.157

ID.160 ID.162 ID.173 XII. Resolution of String Contention ID.183 (1) Community Priority Evaluation ID.185 (2) ICANN Auction of Last Resort or Private Auction ID.197 (3) ICANN Auction of Last Resort ID.201 XIII.  Transition to Delegation ID.202 XIV. New gTLD Registry Agreement ID.205 XV. New gTLD Launch Programs ID.209 (1) Reserved Names and the Qualified Launch Program ID.210 (2) Sunrise Period ID.214 (3) Landrush ID.216 (4) Limited Registration Period (‘Sunrise B’) ID.218 (5) General Availability ID.219 (6) Premium Names ID.221 (7) Blocked Lists ID.223 XVI.  ICANN Contractual Compliance ID.224 (1) Request for Reconsideration (2) Independent Review

I.  The Development of the New gTLD Program (1) ICANN’s Adoption of the New gTLD Program Since its creation in 1998, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ID.01 has been responsible for ensuring free trade and marketplace competition in the sale and regulation of domain names, as well as overseeing the stability of the Domain Name System

65

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program (DNS) and the creation of consistent, functional policies. Therefore, its responsibilities include assessing when, and to what degree, additional generic top-level domains (gTLDs) are needed in order to ensure the proper functioning of the DNS. In order to make such a determination, ICANN relied on the input of interested Internet stakeholders as mandated through its multi-stakeholder model, which involves interested business entities, individuals, and governments from around the world.1 ID.02 As early as 2003, following on the release of seven new gTLDs which resulted in the expan-

sion of the DNS to include 15 active gTLDs, ICANN began to contemplate a further, more expansive extension. At its Board Meeting of October 31, 2003, ICANN decided to evaluate the perceived need for additional top-level extensions across the Internet community, as well as the feasibility of further expanding the name space.2 On September 30, 2004, ICANN published a staff report, which suggested a variety of potential allocation models, noted the need for any new release of TLD spaces to be compatible with the then-anticipated Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) launch, and called for further community input and technical assessment of feasibility.3 The staff report took into consideration the numerous third-party submissions already received in comments on the project discussion as well as reports such as those received from Summit Strategies International LLC and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).4

ID.03 From 2005 to 2007, a Policy Development Process (PDP) in connection with the intro-

duction of new gTLDs was developed by the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO).5 During this PDP, the GNSO conducted extensive and detailed consultations with all constituencies within the ICANN multi-stakeholder model. As described at various points in this chapter, many constituencies, governments, businesses, and interested parties provided a range of input, from critical to complementary, throughout the entire process.

ID.04 As a result of the PDP, the GNSO Council released the ‘DRAFT GNSO Recommendation

Summary’ on September 14, 2006, which outlined five principles to be addressed in the development of any new gTLD allocation strategy: (1) all new gTLDs must be introduced following an orderly and predictable procedure; (2) new gTLDs must incorporate IDN scripts; (3) market competitiveness must be a key component of any new developments; (4) technical parameters must be developed in order to ensure DNS stability; and (5) a test for ‘business capability’ must be established to ensure applicants were sufficiently prepared to utilize the new spaces.

ID.05 The GNSO Council chartered Working Groups to discuss and report on issues such as

Reserved Names, IDNs, and Protecting Rights of Others. Public comments were taken on those reports and on the Council’s Initial Draft Report6 and Final Draft Report.7 On August 8,

  For more information on ICANN’s Multi-stakeholder Model see Part IB.III.   The full text of ICANN Board resolutions may be found at: https://www.myicann.org/resolutions. 3  The full text of the September 30, 2004 staff report entitled ‘Strategy: Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains’ is located on ICANN’s website at: http://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/new-gtld-strategy.pdf. 4  See Summit Strategies International, ‘Evaluation of the New gTLDs: Policy and Legal Issues’; OECD Digital Economy Papers No 84, “Generic Top Level Domain Names: Market Development and Allocation Issues”, both available at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation/prior-reports. 5  For further information about the GNSO PDP see Part IB para IB.58. 6  See ‘GNSO Initial Report Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains’, July 28, 2006, available at: http://gnso.icann.org. 7  See ICANN’s Public Comment for the ‘Introduction of New Top-Level Domains’, opened on August 10, 2007, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment. 1 2

66

I.  The Development of the New gTLD Program 2007, the GNSO Council unanimously adopted its Final Report—Introduction of New Generic Top-Level-Domains, outlining the framework for the new gTLD launch.8 It was in this report that the specifications for new gTLD applications began to take the shape and form later seen in the Applicant Guidebook. Specifications included restrictions on TLD string content, and broad-stroke outlines for evaluation mechanisms both on technical and policy levels, as well as the notion that fees shall be imposed on applicants so that ICANN would recover the expected costs of the program. By October 2008 the first Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG v1) was released for public ID.06 comment,9 followed by a total of nine Guidebook drafts10 over the next two and a half years. By June 2011, the ICANN Board launched the New gTLD Program, at the same time approving the then-final New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. Between January 12, 2012 and May 30, 2012, ICANN accepted applications for new gTLDs. Thereafter, the Final Applicant Guidebook was published on June 4, 2012.11

(2) The Involvement of National Governments Throughout the Development of the New gTLD Program The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), due in part to the significant inte­ ID.07 rest among nations and international organizations in the protection of rights and the administration of the Internet, played a substantial role during the development and implementation of the New gTLD Program.12 Between March 2007 and December 2010, the GAC provided regular input to ICANN regarding the development of the New gTLD Program.13 In its correspondence of December 2010, the GAC provided a ‘scorecard’ of the key outstanding issues of governmental concern which remained to be addressed in connection with the program, including the creation of sufficient objection procedures for governments, review mechanisms for sensitive strings,14 issues related to root zone stability, market concerns, so-called ‘vertical integration’ of registry and registrar functions and separation questions,15 trademark protection, and law enforcement considerations.16

8 ‘ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization Final Report, Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains’ of August 8, 2007, available at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-frparta-08aug07.htm. 9 See http://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-en.htm for ICANN’s archive of documents and links related to DAG v1. 10  A full listing of all of the Guidebooks, as well as additional module information, is posted at: http:// archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/dag-en.htm. 11  ICANN’s New gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AGB), June 4, 2012, available at: http://newgtlds.icann. org/en/applicants/agb. 12  On the role of the GAC within ICANN’s organizational structure see Part B paras IB.39–IB.45. 13  A  record of the advice was detailed in Hearing Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, December 8, 2011, entitled ‘ICANN’S Expansion of Top Level Domains’, S. HRG. 112–394. 14 Pursuant to AGB Section 3.1, GAC members can raise concerns about any application, but it is intended to address applications that are identified by governments to be problematic, eg that potentially violate national law or raise sensitivities. These have included strings that are linked to regulated or professional sectors or strings representing generic terms. 15  Registry operators are obligated to maintain legal separation of their registry operations and any registrar/reseller related activity and may not, except under certain circumstances, register domain names in their own right. See Specification 9 to the Registry Agreement. For background and history on the issue of vertical integration, see Part B.V(1). 16 See ‘GAC indicative scorecard on new gTLD outstanding issues listed in the GAC Cartagena Communique’, February 23, 2011, available at: https://gacweb.icann.org/.

67

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program ID.08 The ICANN Board adopted a number, but not all of the GAC’s suggestions in the last draft

of the applicant guidebook published before the opening of the application window on January 11, 2012.

ID.09 Soon after the close of the gTLD application window, coinciding with the public comment

period on applications, the GAC could issue an ‘Early Warning’ on an application, which indicated governmental concern about legal or other sensitive issues. A GAC Early Warning could be issued by one or more governments. The Early Warning itself did not have any formal consequences, but signaled to the applicant that formal GAC Advice may issue if the concerns in the Early Warnings were not addressed.17

ID.10 GAC Advice is the more formal tool that the GAC could deploy against problematic gTLD

applications. GAC Advice could be issued at any time during the application process, and depending on the level of support for the Advice among governments, could result in an application failing to proceed to delegation.18

ID.11 Some governments commented on the New gTLD Program not only through the GAC

but also directly. Governments held meetings and hearings to discuss the launch of the New gTLD Program, addressing questions in relation to the protection of trademark rights or use of geographic or region names, the possibility of fraud, consumer confusion and intellectual property (IP) theft, data protection, and the ability of ICANN to enforce its policies in an expanded DNS, among other topics.19 Through such processes, or sua sponte, government representatives addressed their concerns to ICANN through communications.20 ICANN in response typically referred to policy development processes and mechanisms which address the general concerns raised, and inviting the participation of these entities within the relevant processes.

(3) Criticism of the New gTLD Program ID.12 Throughout its conception and development, there was strong opposition to ICANN’s

New gTLD Program, due to concerns about the stability of the DNS, the questionable need for additional gTLD spaces, concerns related to the speed of the roll-out process and the adequacy of planning precautions, and issues related to trademark abuse and cybercrime.21

(a) Concerns of the International Trademark Association and Other Trademark Organizations ID.13 Representatives from the trademark and intellectual property stakeholder groups have been particularly concerned with the manner in which the New gTLD Program has been developed and implemented. Organizations such as Marques, the European Communities Trade

  See AGB Section 1.1.2.4 and Section V, below for information about the ‘GAC Early Warning’.   See AGB Section 3.1 and Section VII, below for information about ‘GAC Advice’. 19  See, for example, Hearing before the United States Congress Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet of May 4, 2011, available at: http://judiciary.house.gov/, and Hearings before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the United States Senate of December 8 and 14, 2011, available at: http://www.commerce.senate.gov/. 20  See, for instance, Letter from Senate and House Judiciary Committee Chairmen Patrick Leahy et al. to Akram Atallah of August 7, 2012; Letter of UN Assistant Secretary General to Akram Atallah of July 11, 2012; Letter of Government Councillor and Head of the Department for Economic Affairs of the Canton of Zurich of June 27, 2012. Correspondence available at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence. 21  A list of opponents to the New gTLD Program and their viewpoints is available on the ICANN Wiki at http://icannwiki.com/index.php/New_gTLD_Program. 17 18

68

I.  The Development of the New gTLD Program Mark Association (ECTA), and the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) have routinely commented on the potential for abuse of trademarks and the sufficiency of rights protection mechanisms which have been made available.22 The International Trademark Association (INTA) in particular has consistently voiced con- ID.14 cerns about the purpose of the launch of new gTLDs, the rights protection mechanisms developed for the new spaces, and perceived defects in transparency and communication at ICANN.23 As an example, in January 2011, INTA released its report entitled ‘Comments on The ID.15 Economic Considerations in the Expansion of Generic Top-Level Domain Names—Phase II Report: Case Studies’, in which INTA stated its belief that little actual benefit could be derived from the introduction of additional gTLD spaces, that the so-called threat of ‘name scarcity’ was not an imminent threat to the DNS, and that the resulting costs to brand owners inherent in the rollout of the New gTLD Program vastly outweighed any potential positive effects of the program.24 Similarly, in May 2011, INTA reported its findings and addressed its position to the ID.16 Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet, Committee on the Judiciary of the US House and Senate.25 INTA expressed concern over the potentially limited benefits of the New gTLD Program and noted the high costs anticipated by brand owners should the New gTLD project move forward. Citing an ICANN commissioned work, ‘An Economic Framework for the Analysis of the Expansion of Generic Top-Level Domain Names’,26 INTA detailed that the costs to trademark owners and Internet users included the misappropriation of intellectual property (which results in subsequent ‘costs of domain name watching, defensive registrations, litigation and other enforcement efforts, and lost profits’), domain navigation dilution, increased reliance on search engines, cybersquatting, increased harm from malware, phishing, and counterfeit products, reduced investment in IP, and losses from failed gTLDs. INTA has additionally raised questions, and submitted comments for ICANN’s ID.17 review, regarding a wide variety of related issues, including the perceived need for defensive registrations, and the ambiguity of many of the provisions in the Applicant Guidebook.27

22  See, for instance, the correspondence section of the ICANN website, available at: http://www.icann. org/; see also position papers for ECTA (http://www.ecta.org/position-papers/) and AIPLA (http://www. aipla.org/advocacy/). 23 See INTA Board Resolution ‘Creation of New gTLDs and Trademark Protection’ of July 8, 2009 (‘INTA, through its participation in the Intellectual Property Constituency, part of the governance structure of ICANN, and through written submissions to the U.S. Department of Commerce, to the U.S. Congress and to ICANN has consistently expressed concerns about the impact on rights holders and consumers of the expansion of the number of generic top-level domain names’), available at: http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/ Pages/CreationofNewgTLDsandTrademarkProtection.aspx. 24 International Trademark Association (INTA) Comments on The Economic Considerations in the Expansion of Generic Top-Level Domain Names Phase II Report: Case Studies, January 14, 2011, available at: http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/. 25  US House, Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet. ‘ICANN Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD)’, Hearing, May 4, 2011 (Serial No 112-37). Washington: Government Printing Office, 2011. 26  ‘An Economic Framework for the Analysis of the Expansion of Generic Top-Level Domain Names’, June 2010, available at: http://newgtlds.icann.org. 27  INTA maintains a publicly-available website of its advocacy efforts in the New gTLDs and related resources at: http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/.

69

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program (b) Concerns of ICANN’s Intellectual Property Constituency ID.18 The Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) forms part of the Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN’s GNSO, representing the views and interests of IP owners.28 Due to the significant overlap in interests, the IPC’s expressed views are often parallel to those of trademark associations. ID.19 In January 2006, the IPC provided its first comments in connection with the New gTLD

Program, in line with its positions developed during previous expansion efforts. In its position statement, the IPC questioned generally whether new gTLDs should be introduced, discussed selection criteria and allocation methods for new gTLDs, and espoused a policy to guide contractual conditions for new gTLDs. Since its first position statement on the New gTLD Program, the IPC has published at least 18 position papers up to 2013 specifically on matters related to the new gTLD process.29 In essence, the IPC’s positions are merely refinements on the broad categories of issues identified in its January 2006 position paper, which echo its general stance that new gTLDs should be introduced in a slow and controlled manner in order to ensure that the public interest is not adversely affected, and should be introduced only to the extent that there is a public interest in the competitive benefits of different types of gTLDs than those currently in existence, and in a way that maximizes beneficial impacts on that public interest.

ID.20 The IPC’s comments included advice on pre- and post-delegation Rights Protection

Mechanisms, protections for certain categories of applicants such as the Red Cross, resolution of disputes and string contention sets, and the general administration of the New gTLD Program. They also noted the lack of economic studies in ICANN’s assessment of the New gTLD Program, raised questions concerning the scope and functions of the Trademark Clearinghouse and questions regarding the sufficiency of the new dispute resolution mechanisms. The IPC consistently advocates for adequate protection of IP, consumer, and non-commercial interests, and has repeatedly voiced concerns about the perceived negative economic impact of the New gTLD Program.

ID.21 Due in part to the strong opinion of many trademark holders and the IPC calling for greater

rights protections in the new gTLDs, the ICANN Board passed a resolution calling on the IPC to convene an Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) comprised of an internationally diverse group of experts to develop trademark protection solutions.30 Many of the IRT’s proposals were implemented,31 however, some criticized and blamed the IPC and its role in the IRT’s activities as it did not provide for a diverse representation of interested parties in the development of Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs).32

(c) Concerns of the World Intellectual Property Organization ID.22 In addition to the critical comments put forth by INTA and the IPC between 2009 and 2012, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) also provided a number of

28  For details about the role of the IPC within the ICANN organizational structure see Part IB paras IB.30–IB.31. 29  IPC position statements may be accessed at: http://www.ipconstituency.org/position-statements/. 30  See ICANN Board Resolution 2009.03.06.06, available at: https://www.icann.org/resources. See also Part III, Rights Protection Mechanisms and other ICANN Policies at paras IIIA.04–IIIA06 for more information about the IRT. 31  Including the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS, see Part III.D.II), post-delegation dispute resolution mechanisms (PDDRP, see Part III.C.I), and the precursor to the Trademark Clearinghouse (see Part III.D.I). 32 See Lipton/Wong, Trademarks and Freedom of Expression in ICANN’s New gTLD Process, 38 Monash U. L. Rev 188, 204–8 (2012).

70

II.  Application Procedure and Application Requirements comments questioning the sufficiency of the proposed Rights Protection Mechanisms for the new gTLD space. Concerns included the cost and scope of the Trademark Clearinghouse, the efficacy of the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) and Post-Delegation Dispute (PDDRP) mechanisms, and the availability of protection for names of IGO institutions. Drawing on earlier work such at the First WIPO Internet Domain Name Process (providing ID.23 the framework for the development of the UDRP), the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, and the ‘Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Marks, and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs, on the Internet’, WIPO’s comments echoed the concerns of governments and rightsholders while also applying its practical experience in the administration of proceedings under the UDRP.33 This led to substantive contributions, including input in the development of substantive criteria and procedural rules for Legal Rights Objections, and the proposal of the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure.34 It also led to the reaffirmation of prior positions on IGO protections, and general concerns for rightsholders on the Internet. Despite its involvement in the development of several of the mechanisms and procedures ID.24 featured in the New gTLD Program, WIPO often criticized the eventual configuration of such mechanisms. WIPO critiqued the final version of the Trademark PDDRP as it believed that, by limiting the actionable conduct to affirmative action, the standard for bringing a dispute under the procedure was too high and did not account for a registry profiting from wilful blindness to trademark infringement.35 Similarly, WIPO provided two alternate configurations to the adopted Uniform Rapid Suspension mechanism, which WIPO ultimately did not apply to operate.36

II.  Application Procedure and Application Requirements (1) Main Features of the Applicant Guidebook The Applicant Guidebook (AGB) provided a step-by-step procedure for new gTLD appli- ID.25 cants and specified the required documents and information that applied, the financial and legal commitments of operating a new gTLD, and what to expect during the application and evaluation periods. The AGB is divided into the following six sections, generally corresponding to the chrono- ID.26 logical steps an applicant would take during the application process. Module 1 (Introduction to the gTLD Application Process) gave applicants an overview of ID.27 the process for applying for a new gTLD, and included instructions on how to complete and submit an application, the supporting documentation an applicant must submit with an application, the required fees, and submission instructions. It also described the conditions associated with particular types of applications, and the stages of the application life cycle.

33  Historical documents are available on the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation website, available at: http:// www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/. 34  See Letter of March 13, 2009 on WIPO-Proposed New gTLD Post-Delegation Procedure, available at: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/. 35  See Letter of March 26, 2010 on the February 2010 revision of ICANN’s Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence. 36  See Letter of April 3, 2009 on WIPO Discussion Draft—Model Expedited (Domain Name) Suspension Mechanism and URS 2.0? WIPO Discussion Contribution, ICANN Toronto Meeting, Presentation and Discussion Paper, October 2012, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence.

71

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program ID.28 Module 2 (Evaluation Procedures) outlined the evaluation procedures and criteria used to

determine whether applied-for gTLDs would be approved for delegation. These included an ‘initial evaluation’ consisting of a background screening as well as a technical and financial assessment of the business entity applying for the gTLD string, and the evaluation of the applied-for string for conflicts with existing and other applied-for strings and the potential impact on security and stability of the DNS. Module 2 also provided for an ‘extended evaluation’ in certain circumstances if an application failed the initial evaluation.37

ID.29 Module 3 (Objection Procedures) established two types of mechanisms that allowed rights­

holders, interested entities, and governments to object to or otherwise comment on the appropriateness of an application:

(1) The procedure by which ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee provided GAC Advice on New gTLDs to the ICANN Board of Directors. The module described the purpose of this procedure, and how GAC Advice on new gTLDs was considered by the ICANN Board once received.38 (2) The dispute resolution procedure triggered by a formal objection to an application by a third party. The module described the purpose of the objection and dispute resolution mechanisms, the grounds for lodging a formal objection to a gTLD application, the general procedures for filing or responding to an objection, and the manner in which dispute resolution proceedings are conducted. This module also discussed the guiding principles, or standards, that each dispute resolution panel applied in reaching its expert determination.39 ID.30 Module 4 (String Contention Procedures) set out situations in which two or more applicants

for an identical or confusingly similar gTLD string successfully complete all previous stages of the evaluation and dispute resolution processes, and the methods available to applicants for resolving such ‘string contention’ cases.40

ID.31 Module 5 (Transition to Delegation) described the final steps required of an applicant for

completion of the process, including execution of a Registry Agreement with ICANN and preparation for delegation of the new gTLD into the root. A draft model of the New gTLD Registry Agreement was included.41 Additionally, the module introduced a host of new Rights Protection Mechanisms for the new gTLD space. These policies were intended to function in tandem with the existing Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), which has been in place as a mandatory dispute resolution mechanism in the gTLD spaces since its implementation in December of 1999.42 The new policies to be introduced with the delegation of the New gTLD spaces were: (1) the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS);43 (2) the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), which facilitated the mandatory sunrise registration and Trademark Claims periods utilized in the rollout of every new gTLD;44 (3) the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Policy (PDDRP);45   See para ID.130, below.   See paras ID.131–ID.140, below. 39  See ‘Rights Protection Against Registration and Use of Domain Names within a New gTLD’ at Part III.D. 40  See para ID.183. 41  It is possible that any Agreement could be modified, to a greater or lesser degree, to accommodate the specific requirements and needs of each delegated TLD space. ICANN reserved the right and made updates and changes to the proposed registry agreement during the course of the New gTLD Program. 42  For more about the UDRP and its abundant case history, see Part III.E. 43  For additional information about the URS, see Part III.D.II. 44  A section dedicated to the functions of the Clearinghouse is provided at Part III.D.I. 45  Further information about the PDDRP mechanism is provided in Part III.C.I. 37 38

72

II.  Application Procedure and Application Requirements (4) the Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP);46 and (5) the Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Policy (PICDRP), adopted after the publication of the AGB and incorporated into Specification 11 of a revised model Registry Agreement.47 These dispute resolution mechanisms are discussed in more detail in their respective chapters, ID.32 found in Part III of this volume. Module 6 (Top-Level Domain Application—Terms and Conditions) provided Terms and ID.33 Conditions that each applicant must accept in order to submit an application to ICANN. This included a broad covenant not to sue ICANN for any reason relating to the application or the New gTLD Program. The Figure ID.1 below illustrates the general application procedure.

ID.34

(2) Evaluation Questions and Criteria In order to complete the application for a New gTLD, any potential applicant had to provide ID.35 responses to 50 questions set out in the attachment to Module 2 of the AGB. The questions were divided by subject matter into five groups, namely: (1) information concerning the applicant’s identity and contact information (Questions 1–11), as well as the names of the applicant’s board members, directors, and major share-holders; (2) information related to the functionality and compliance of the TLD string within the Guidebook-specified parameters (Questions 12–17); Objection Filing

Application Submission Period

Administrative Completeness Check

Initial Evaluation

Transition to Delegation

Extended Evaluation

Dispute Resolution

String Contention Time

Figure ID.1:  Comparison Between the URS and UDRP Processes Source: ICANN Applicant Guidebook

  See Part III.C.II.   See Part III.C.III.

46 47

73

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program (3) information related to the intended use and registration restrictions for the space (Question 18). Applicants had to specify how the TLD would be used, and whether the space would be open for registration either by the general public or a qualified subset of public or private individuals or entities. Specific information was required for ‘Community Applications’, which are intended to provide clearly delineated groups with an opportunity to limit the use and scope of their applied-for gTLD to meet the particular needs of their community (Questions 19–22); (4) information concerning the functional specifications of the gTLD registry (Questions 23–44). The fourth set of questions concerned the technical capabilities of the proposed new gTLD registry, and were designed to ensure that each delegated TLD will be managed by a competent registry operator. Questions addressed the operational and technical capabilities of both the registry back-end service provider and the registry itself; and (5) information concerning the applicant’s financial stability (Questions 45–50). Applicants had to provide detailed financial records demonstrating their capacity to operate the applied-for spaces, as well as commitment letters from their financial backers. They also had to provide a ‘Continuing Operations Instrument’, generally a letter of credit, to provide funds for continued operation of the TLD in the event of the default. Such amounts ranged from US$18,000 to 300,000, depending upon the intended business plan of the applicant.

(3) Application  Fees ID.36 The fee for submitting a new gTLD application, in addition to the TLD Application System

(TAS) fee of US$5,000, was US$180,000.48 Furthermore, any applicant who filed or was the subject of any formal objection proceeding, or who was involved in a string-contention auction process was obligated to pay substantially more to resolve the relevant process before the gTLD was delegated. Each objection procedure required the payment of additional fees, both to the dispute resolution service provider and any appointed panel. If an applicant was successful, it would thereafter be subject to annual fees of at least US$25,000 while the registry is in operation.49

ID.37 Accordingly, ICANN received nearly US$350 million in application fees, and has the further

opportunity for significant financial gain through the resolution of contention sets arising from multiple applications for gTLD strings in its ‘Auction of Last Resort’.50 ICANN noted that its fees were intended to be revenue neutral in order to recover costs associated with the new gTLD program.51 Refunds were available for applicants who withdrew before the evaluation process was completed, with the refund amount decreasing from 80 per cent to zero depending on the stage of the application process.52

ID.38 ICANN set its fees in conjunction with its budget plan, consisting of three phases—‘Dev­

elopment’, ‘Deployment’, and ‘Application Processing’.53 ICANN has foreseen the largest costs as being associated with application processing, with the largest expense associated with Initial Evaluation panels. Surprisingly, ICANN reserved one third of the total received fee (US$60,000 of the US$180,000 per application) for ‘Risk Costs’ including legal fees and administrative costs.

ID.39 Given that the ‘Risk Costs’ would amount to over US$115 million (for comparison, note

that ICANN’s revenue in 2010 was US$65,768,000),54 and the potential for many millions

  See AGB, Section 1.5.1.   See AGB, Section 5.4.1. 50  See AGB, Section 4.3. See further Section XII below, for more information on String Contention Resolution. 51  See AGB, Section 1.5. 52  See AGB, Section 1.5.1. 53  See ‘New gTLD Program Explanatory Memorandum, New gTLD Budget’, October 21, 2010, available at: http://newgtlds.icann.org. 54  See ICANN 2010 Annual Report, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/about/annual-report. 48 49

74

II.  Application Procedure and Application Requirements more as the result of String Contention auctions, it is not necessarily clear how ICANN, a non-profit organization, determined that the fees and mechanisms developed for the New gTLD Program were revenue neutral. ICANN did not provide much guidance as to the way excess revenue would be used, noting that ‘[a]‌ny proceeds from auctions will be reserved and earmarked until the uses of funds are determined’ including possibly the ‘formation of a foundation with a clear mission and a transparent way to allocate funds to projects that are of interest to the greater internet community’.55

(4) Application Submission The application process for the first round of the New gTLD Program was scheduled to be ID.40 open from January 12, 2012 to April 12, 2012.56 All gTLD applications were to be submitted through an online TLD Application System ID.41 (TAS). Each applicant was required as part of the TAS registration process to provide essential information as to its identity, contact information, and corporate composition, and also pay a non-refundable fee of US$5,000 (in addition to the base application fee). All application materials were required to be submitted in English. Application forms or supporting materials submitted through means other than TAS were not accepted. By submitting the application, applicants (including all parent companies, subsidiaries, affili- ID.42 ates, agents, contractors, employees, and any and all others acting on its behalf ) were required to agree to the Top-Level Domain Application Terms and Conditions, without modification.57 The most significant of these terms were the applicant’s warranty that all information in the application was true, and that applicant broadly promised not to sue ICANN for any claim related to the application, even if it were delayed or denied.

(5) New gTLD Application Change Request Process and Criteria The Guidebook Section 1.2.7 requires that, upon signing the Registry Agreement, all ID.43 statements in the gTLD Application must remain materially true. Given the lengthy time (typically at least 18 months, and potentially several years) between submission of the application and delegation, many applications required changes prior to delegation, either due to amendments required by ICANN during the application process, or due to changes in circumstances. Requests for changes to applications could be submitted to the New gTLD Customer Service Center (CSC) by submitting a Change Request Form.58 ICANN provided criteria by which it evaluated a requested change, and provided that it ID.44 would hold amended applications for at least 30 calendar days to allow for public comment on a revised application. ICANN also reserved the right to require a re-evaluation of the application in the event of a material change, including the possibility of additional fees and evaluation in a subsequent application round. Failure to notify ICANN of changes in circumstances may have resulted in denial of the applications. In practice, amendments to applications appeared to have been common and without con- ID.45 troversy, as no public comments, re-evaluation, or application denials appear to have resulted on the basis of an amendment alone. Over 1,300 of the 1,930 applications were updated via a change request.   See AGB, Section 4.3.   Due to a technical error, however, the window was closed several hours earlier than anticipated, and it remained closed until May 21 while certain security issues were addressed. On May 27, the TAS system opened again for applicant use, and it formally closed on May 30, 2013. 57  The TAS Terms and Conditions are available at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/terms. 58  See ‘New gTLD Application Change Request Process and Criteria’, available at: http://newgtlds.icann. org/en/applicants. 55 56

75

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program (6) String Requirements, Reserved Names, and Strings Ineligible for Delegation (a) Technical Requirement ID.46 Applied-for gTLD strings in ASCII must be composed of three or more visually distinct characters. Two-character ASCII strings were not permitted, to avoid conflicting with current and future country codes based on the ISO 3166-1 standard.59 ID.47 Applied-for gTLD strings in IDN scripts must be composed of two or more visually dis-

tinct characters in the script. However, two-character IDN strings would not be approved if visually similar to any one-character label (in any script) or if they were visually similar to any possible two-character ASCII combination.60

(b) Reserved Names and Other Unavailable Strings ID.48 A small number of names such as ICANN, GAC, IRTF, GNSO, gTLD, www, and whois were not available as gTLD strings.61 If an applicant entered a Reserved Name as its applied-for gTLD string, the application system would recognize the Reserved Name and would not allow the application to be submitted. In addition, applied-for gTLD strings were reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they were similar to a Reserved  Name. ID.49 An application for a gTLD string that was identified as too similar to a Reserved Name, or to an

existing or applied-for TLD, also could be rejected during Initial Evaluation. This decision was rendered only as to two pairs of New gTLD applications: ‘.unicorn’/‘.unicom’, and ‘.hotels’/‘.hoteis’. Applicants and existing TLD operators furthermore had an opportunity to file String Confusion Objections against strings which they considered to be impermissibly similar to their TLDs.62

(c) Strings Ineligible for Delegation ID.50 Names relating to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement were prohibited from delegation as gTLDs in the initial application round. Future application rounds may differ according to consideration of further policy advice.63 (d) Geographical Names ID.51 Country and territory names listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard were excluded from the process based on advice from the GAC. This included the long and short form of a country name, translated into any language, and the three-letter codes associated with such countries. ID.52 The AGB provided that geographic strings other than those on the ISO 3166-1 list could be

allowed in the gTLD space if there was agreement with the relevant government or public authority. Applications for any string that was a representation, in any language, of the capital city name of any country or territory listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard as well as an application for a city name, whether or not the applicant declared that it intended to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city name, were considered geographic names and had to be accompanied by documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities. Also permissible were applications for sub-national place names (such as a county, province, or state) or a UNESCO region.64

(7) Applicant Eligibility Requirements ID.53 Only ‘established corporations, organizations, or institutions in good standing’ could apply

for a new gTLD. Applications from individuals or sole proprietorships, yet-to-be formed   See AGB, Section 2.2.1.3.2 and subsection (d), below.   See AGB, Section 2.2.1.3.2. 61  See AGB, Section 2.2.1.2.1. 62  For more information on String Confusion Objections, see Part III.B.II. 63  See AGB, Section 2.2.1.2.3. 64  See AGB, Section 2.2.1.4. 59 60

76

II.  Application Procedure and Application Requirements legal entities, or applications presupposing the future formation of a legal entity (for example, a pending joint venture) were not permitted.65 With regard to the standing requirement, background screening at both the entity level and ID.54 the individual level was conducted for all applications to confirm eligibility, including screening for abusive or criminal behaviour.66

(8) Trademark, Public Interest, Morality, and Public Order Concerns ICANN did not review or restrict any application on the basis of public interest, morality, or ID.55 public order. Moreover, ICANN did not check for potential conflicts between the applied-for strings and trademarks at the time of application. Accordingly, any eligible applicant could register any string provided it complied with the technical requirements and was not otherwise unavailable or reserved as indicated above. However, certain strings which raised concerns or sensitivities relating to the public interest, or moral or public order were subject to objection by governments or interested third parties.67 Third-party objection proceedings68 on the grounds of string confusion,69 public interest,70 ID.56 community opposition,71 or legal rights72 could also be asserted during a defined objection period. A successful objection by a third-party objector would result in the rejection of the application, except in the instance of string confusion, which would result in the strings being placed in a contention set.73

(9) Registration Policy Requirements During development of the New gTLD Program, many different domain registration busi- ID.57 ness models were considered and debated. These models pertained to the choice of TLD, defined the types of registrants who would be allowed to register domain names in a particular TLD, and the steps and requirements which the registrant must satisfy to obtain such a registration. They ranged from purely ‘open and unrestricted’ name spaces such as the legacy ‘.com’ and ‘.net’ TLDs, to ‘restricted’ or ‘community’ spaces such as the legacy ‘.travel’ and ‘.aero’ TLDs, to ‘closed’ spaces to be operated by trademark owners (for example, ‘.google’ or ‘.hsbc’). Ultimately, the Guidebook provided for just two categories of applications, Community-based Applications and Standard Applications, in an effort to give true ‘community’ applicants an advantage in the process.74 ICANN initially made no restrictions with regard to registration policies. Applicants were free ID.58 to designate any restrictions they wished, provided they complied with minimum requirements for abuse prevention and mitigation, rights protection mechanisms and security, and

  See AGB, Section 1.2.1.   See Section VI(1) below for more information on background screening. 67  Governments could raise ‘Early Warnings’ (see section V, below) or issue formal Advice (section VII, below), or objections could be filed (see Part III.B). 68  See Part III.B for more information. 69  ‘The applied-for gTLD string is confusingly similar to an existing TLD or to another applied-for gTLD string in the same round of applications.’ See AGB, Section 3.2.1. 70  ‘The applied-for gTLD string is contrary to generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order that are recognized under principles of international law.’ See AGB, Section 3.2.1. 71  ‘There is substantial opposition to the gTLD application from a significant portion of the community to which the gTLD string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted.’ See AGB, Section 3.2.1. 72  ‘The applied-for gTLD string infringes the existing legal rights of the objector.’ See AGB, Section 3.2.1. 73  See Part III.B for discussion of third-party objections. 74  If two applications for the same string were filed on these alternate bases, then the Community-based applicant would prevail over the Standard applicant. Given this significant advantage, the bar was set very high for a Community-based applicant to prove the community nature of its business model. A 16-point test 65 66

77

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program for Community-based applications, certain information in relation to their registration policies was requested (although no policies or procedures were mandated). ID.59 On this basis a significant number of applicants sought to operate ‘closed generic’ TLDs, which

concerned generic or dictionary words and would be open only to the applicant and its affiliates.75 Such applications, although not proscribed by the AGB, proved to be highly controversial.76 The GAC provided Advice approximately a year after the close of the application window that such applications should not be allowed unless the operator could prove a ‘public interest’ benefit.77 Most applicants were forced to amend their application or risk that their application would not be approved.78 On June 21, 2015, ICANN board’s New gTLD Program Committee passed a resolution that applicants for closed generic gTLDs must elect within a reasonably limited time to either (1) submit a change request to no longer be an exclusive generic TLD, and sign the current form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement or (2) maintain their plan to operate an exclusive generic TLD. As a result, their application will be deferred to the next round of the New gTLD Program, subject to rules developed for the next round, to allow time for the GNSO to develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs (see Board Resolution 2015.06.21.NG02, available at: http://features.icann.org/resolutions).

ID.60 The post-application change in the ‘rules’ of registration policy requirements represented a

significant development for many applicants, which affected applicants’ strategies in pursuance of their gTLD applications. For those applicants who did not take the opportunity to change their applications from ‘closed’ to ‘open’ at the time of publication, ICANN has not made any final determination.

ID.61 Additionally, in the Beijing Communique, the GAC provided Advice in relation to strings

that are linked to regulated or professional sectors, advising that such TLDs should operate in a way that is consistent with applicable laws.79 The GAC Advice80 provided a list of safeguards for registration and use of domain names under the affected TLD strings, and required that applicants commit to such safeguards in their Registry Agreements.81 was developed, called a Community Priority Evaluation (CPE), and an applicant was required to score 14 points in order to succeed. See Section III.2(e), below, for more information. 75 See Annex 1 to ICANN NGPC Resolution 2013.09.28.NG02, September 28, 2013, available at:  https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents. Amazon in particular filed more than 70 applications of this nature, including ‘.books’, ‘.blog’, and ‘.cloud’. 76  See, eg, ‘Brands set to lose “closed generic” gTLDs’, World Intellectual Property Review, June 28, 2013, available at: http://www.worldipreview.com/. 77  See ‘GAC Communique—Beijing, People’s Republic of China’, April 11, 2013, available at: http:// gacweb.icann.org/. Taking into account the public comments and the GAC’s ‘Category 2 Safeguard Advice’, and apparently finding any sort of compromise to be unworkable, the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) resolved on June 25, 2013 to defer moving forward with the contracting process for applicants seeking to impose exclusive registry access for ‘generic strings’. ICANN’s New gTLD Program Committee also resolved to amend the Registry Agreement to define a ‘generic string’ as ‘a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others’. 78  In essence, ICANN appears to have prohibited such models by requiring applicants to make an enforceable Public Interest Commitment (PIC) to operate each TLD in an open and transparent manner. The PIC Specification in the Registry Agreement was amended to include a provision to preclude registry operators from imposing eligibility criteria that limit registration of a generic string exclusively to a single person or entity and their ‘affiliates’. See ICANN’s New gTLD Program Committee Resolution 2013.06.25.NG04 available at: https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents. For more information about PICs, see Part III.C.III. 79  The non-exhaustive list of strings related to children, the environment, health and fitness, the financial sector, gambling, charity, education, intellectual property, professional services such as accountants and engineers, corporate identifiers, generic geographic terms, inherently governmental functions, and strings with a risk of cyber bullying such as ‘.gripe’ and ‘.sucks’. 80  See Section VII for more information about GAC Advice. 81  The form of the commitment was the PIC pursuant to Schedule 11 of the Registry Agreement.

78

II.  Application Procedure and Application Requirements (10) Restrictions on Second-Level Domains under a New gTLD The Registry Agreement between ICANN and the registry operator of a new gTLD contains ID.62 various requirements as to what domains can be registered at the second-level (ie ‘secondlevel. TLD’), and/or higher levels if such registrations are offered.

(a) Reserved Names Under Section 2.6 and Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement, all registry operators ID.63 were required to exclude certain second-level domain names from registration in a TLD. These reserved names included all two character names, in a concession to the GAC concern that some such names corresponded to Country Code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs) and other such ccTLDs that might be delegated in the future, although some Registry Operators requested exceptions to this requirement.82 Also reserved were names that the registry operator could use in connection with the operation of the TLD (such as ‘whois’ and ‘nic’). The registry operator could also reserve up to 100 domain names for itself, in accordance with the ‘registry operator code of conduct’ (Specification 9 of the Registry Agreement) which prevents, inter alia, a violation of the ‘vertical separation’ rule on registry/registrar operations.83 The registry operator could also reserve any number of second-level domain names it wished to withhold from registration or allocation.84 Also reserved were country and territory names (including internationalized variants) as pro- ID.64 vided in several official lists, which could be released to the extent that the registry operator reached agreement with the applicable government. The names and certain acronyms of the International Olympic Committee and the ID.65 International Red Cross and Red Crescent also enjoyed reservation from registration at the second level. Furthermore, as the result of actions by ICANN’s GAC,85 first enumerated in its ‘Toronto Communique’,86 Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) enjoyed protection of a limited number of names and acronyms.87

(b) Name Collision Block Lists ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee identified a potential security issue if ID.66 domain names that corresponded to third-party network names were delegated.88 ICANN commissioned experts to develop a Name Collision Occurrence Management Framework that was applied to all TLDs, which produced an individual assessment per TLD indicating the mitigating measures that must be applied by the registry. Generally, TLD operators could choose to proceed to delegation by blocking all of the second-level domains identified as risky in ICANN’s expert report, if the TLD was found eligible for this measure. The obligation to block all such risky second-level domains was incorporated into Specification 6 of the Registry Agreement. 82  Requests required an amendment of the Registry Agreement, and were submitted for public comment. See Public Comments on the Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace of June 12, 2014, available at: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/two-char-new-gtld-2014-06-12-en. 83  See Part IB, Section V(1)(c) for more information about ‘vertical separation’. A special exception to the ‘vertical separation’ concept and the 100 domain name limitation on self-registration was available for ‘.Brand’ applicants, who run their registry under a single-registrant model. For more information about ‘.Brand’ applicants, see Section III(2), below. 84  The Registry Operator is permitted to withhold any number of domain name registrations, and would typically do so in conjunction with ‘premium’ names it would otherwise make available through more profitable means. See para ID.300, below, for more information about ‘premium’ domain name sales. 85  See below Section IX concerning the impact of GAC Advice in the New gTLD Program. 86  The GAC Toronto Communique is available at: https://gacweb.icann.org. 87  The scope of IGO protections has been the subject of ongoing discussion within ICANN, and is unresolved at the time of writing. 88  See ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee Advisory Concerning the Mitigation of Name Collision Risk, November 7, 2013, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/.

79

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program ID.67 Name Collision Block Lists became an increasingly controversial issue within the New gTLD

Program. Many criticized the relatively late notice89 and the volume of blocked domain names, which varied by gTLD and cumulatively numbered in the millions.90 Blocked names also routinely involved trademarked or interesting and useful generic names, which caused frustration for many ‘.Brand’ registries eager to implement marketing strategies and use their own trademark in their new gTLD.

ID.68 Blocked names furthermore presented other problems in the New gTLD Program, as it was

realized that any plans to release such names would occur after many sunrise periods, and thus there was a risk that many strings consisting of or containing trademarks would be available without the possibility of the trademark holder exercising its sunrise rights.

III.  Application Results ID.69 Immediately following the close of the application submission period, ICANN checked all

applications for administrative completeness and then posted the public portions of all applications considered complete and ready for evaluation.

(1) Application Statistics ID.70 The application window for the first round of the New gTLD Program opened from January

12, 2012, to April 12, 2012 (and later extended due to a technical error until May 30, 2012). A total of 1,930 applications were received from 1,155 unique applicants. Overall, a total of 1,409 string sets were applied for, with 751 applications filed for strings sought by multiple applicants. Thus, roughly 39 per cent of all applications would face string contention proceedings and/or the ICANN auction process prior to delegation.

ID.71 More than 600 applications were filed by companies for strings matching their brands, and a

substantial number of submissions were also put forward by companies seeking to capitalize on the popularity of common terms.91

ID.72 Applicants participating in the New gTLD Program came from a diverse range of geo-

graphic locations. The greatest percentage of applications came from North America (911 applications) and Europe (675 applications), followed by the Asia/Pacific region (303 applications), the Latin America/Caribbean area (24 applications), and Africa (17 applications).

ID.73 See a full categorized list of applied-for gTLDs, below.

Generic TLDs .academy .accountant .accountants .actor .ads .adult .agency .airforce

.analytics .and .antivirus .apartments .app .archi .architect .are

.army .art .associates .attorney .auction .audio .auto .autoinsurance

.baby .band .bank .bar .bargains .baseball .basketball .beauty

89  See ‘Donuts, Uniregistry and Famous Four respond to ICANN’s new gTLD security bombshell’, Domain Incite, August 6, 2013, available at:  http://www.domainincite.com/. See also ‘Reports for Alternate Path to Delegation Published’, November 17, 2013, available at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/. 90 Full blocked lists are available at:  http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/apd-reports17nov13-en.zip. 91  More information about specific applicants is provided in Section III(2).

80

III.  Application Results .beer .best .bet .bible .bid .bike .bingo .bio .black .blackfriday .blog .blue .boats .boo .book .boutique .broadway .broker .build .builders .business .buy .buzz .cab .cafe .cam .camera .camp .capital .car .cards .care .career .careers .carinsurance .cars .cash .casino .catering .catholic .center .ceo .channel .charity .charity .cheap .christmas .church .city .claims .cleaning .click

.clinic .clothing .cloud .club .coach .codes .coffee .college .community .company .compare .computer .condos .construction .consulting .contact .contractors .cooking .cool .corp .country .coupon .courses .cpa .credit .creditcard .creditunion .cricket .cruise .dad .dance .data .dating .day .dds .dealer .deals .degree .delivery .democrat .dental .dentist .design .dev .diamonds .diet .digital .direct .directory .discount .diy .docs

.doctor .doctor .dog .dot .download .drive .earth .eat .eco .ecom .education .email .energy .engineer .engineering .enterprises .equipment .esq .estate .events .exchange .expert .exposed .express .fail .faith .family .fan .farm .fashion .feedback .film .finance .financial .financialaid .fish .fishing .fit .fitness .flights .florist .flowers .fly .foo .food .football .forex .forsale .forum .foundation .free .frontdoor

81

.fun .fund .furniture .futbol .fyi .gallery .game .garden .gay .gift .gifts .gives .giving .glass .glean .global .gmbh .gold .golf .gop .graphics .green .gripe .grocery .group .guide .guitars .guru .hair .halal .hangout .health .healthcare .heart .help .here .hiphop .hiv .hockey .holdings .holiday .home .horse .hospital .host .hosting .hot .hoteis .hotel .hoteles .house .how

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program .immo .inc .industries .ing .ink .institute .insurance .insure .international .investments .ira .islam .jewelry .juegos .kids .kitchen .kosher .land .law .lawyer .lds .lease .legal .lgbt .life .lifeinsurance .lifestyle .lighting .limited .limo .link .live .living .llc .loans .loft .lol .lotto .love .ltd .luxe .luxury .mail .makeup .man .management .map .market .marketing .mba .med .media

.medical .meet .meme .memorial .men .menu .mlb .mls .mobile .mom .money .mormon .mortgage .motorcycles .mov .movie .music .mutualfunds .navy .nba .network .new .news .next .nfl .ngo .ninja .now .office .one .ong .online .organic .page .partners .parts .party .patch .pay .pets .pharmacy .phd .photo .photography .physio .pics .pictures .pid .ping .pink .pizza .place

.play .plumbing .plus .poker .porn .press .prod .productions .prof .promo .properties .property .protection .pub .qpon .racing .radio .realestate .realtor .realty .recipes .red .rehab .rent .rentals .repair .report .republican .restaurant .retirement .review .rip .rocks .rodeo .room .rsvp .rugby .run .safety .sale .salon .save .scholarships .school .science .search .secure .security .seek .services .sex .sexy

82

.shiksha .shoes .shop .shopping .show .silk .singles .site .ski .skin .smile .soccer .social .software .solar .solutions .spa .space .sport .spot .spreadbetting .star .storage .store .stroke .studio .study .style .sucks .supplies .supply .support .surf .surgery .systems .talk .tattoo .tax .taxi .team .tech .technology .tennis .theater .tickets .tips .tires .today .tools .top .tours .town

III.  Application Results .toys .trade .trading .training .trust .tube .university .vacations .ventures .vet .video

.villas .vin .vip .vision .vodka .vote .voting .voyage .watch .weather .web

.webcam .website .wedding .wiki .win .wine .winners .work .works .world .wow

.wtf .xyz .yachts .yellowpages .yoga .you .zip .zone

City TLDs .abudhabi .amsterdam .barcelona .bcn .berlin .boston .brussels .budapest .capetown .city

.cologne .dubai .durban .hamburg .helsinki .ist .istanbul .joburg .koeln .kyoto

.london .madrid .melbourne .miami .moscow .nagoya .nyc .osaka .paris .rio

.roma .stockholm .sydney .taipei .tokyo .vegas .yokohama .wien .zuerich

Geographic/Cultural TLDs .africa .alsace .aquitaine .arab .bayern .bzh .cal .catalonia

.corsica .cymru .eus .gal .gent .genting .irish .kiwi

.lat .nrw .okinawa .pars .quebec .ryukyu .saarland .scot

.swiss .tatar .thai .tirol .vlaanderen .wales .zulu

.persiangulf .reise .rest .rich .ruhr .sapo .sarl .schule .shia .shouji .sina .skolkovo .sncf .soy .srl

.tienda .translations .uno .versicherung .viajes .villas .viva .vivo .voto .vuelos .weibo .whoswho .xihuan .xin .yun

International TLDs—Latin/Ascii Characters .abogado .anquan .banque .blanco .casa .cyou .dabur .gmbh .gratis .halal .haus .hoteis .hoteles .immo .immobilien

.indians .jetzt .jio .juegos .kim .kinder .lacaixa .latino .maison .moda .moto .movistar .mozaic .mutuelle .onl

83

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program IDNs—Internationalized TLDs—Non-Latin Script 點看 香港電訊

dot com Hong Kong Telecom 香格里拉 Shangri-La 餐厅 Restaurant 食品 Food 飞利浦 Philips 電訊盈科 PCCW 集团 conglomerate 通販 Online Shopping 通用电气公司 General Electric company 购物 Shopping 谷歌 Google 诺基亚 Nokia 联通 Unicom 网络 Network 网站 Website 网站 Website 网店 Webstore 网店 webshop 网址 Website 网址 Netaddress 移动 Mobile 盛贸饭店 Traders Hotel 盛貿飯店 Traders Hotel 珠宝 Jewelry 点看 Dot com 游戏 Game 深圳 Shenzhen 淡马锡 Temasek 欧莱雅 L'Oréal 机构体制 Org 机构 Org

招聘 手表

Recruitment Watches

닷넷 みんな

dot net everyone

手机 我爱你 慈善 微博 微博 广州 广东

Cell I Love You Charity Wei-bo Microblogging Guangzhou Guangdong

ポイント ファッション セール ストア コム クラウド グーグル

Point Fashion Sale Store com Cloud Google

广东

Guangdong

アマゾン

Amazon

工行 家電 娱乐 娱乐 天主教 大拿 大众汽车 在线 嘉里大酒店 嘉里 商标 商店 商城 公益 公司 八卦 健康 信息 信息 佛山 企业 亚马逊

ICBC Consumer Electronics Entertainment Entertainment Catholic Dot Net Volkswagen Online Kerry Hotels Kerry Trademark Shop Mall Public Interest Business Organization Gossip Healthy Knowledge Info Foshan Enterprise Amazon

คอม संगठन नेट कॉम ‫هارمه‬ ‫عقوم‬ ‫كيازوم‬ ‫يليابوم‬ ‫لتويك‬ ‫موك‬ ‫كيلوثاك‬ ‫برع‬ ‫ةكبش‬ ‫كتيب‬ ‫رازاب‬ ‫نايلعلا‬ ‫وكمارا‬ ‫تالاصتا‬ ‫يبظوبا‬ ‫םֹוק‬ сайт рус

書籍 普利司通

Book Bridgestone

中文网 中信

орг онлайн

时尚 新闻 政府 政务

Vogue News Government Government

世界 一号店 삼성 닷컴

Website CITIC (China International Trust and Investment Corporation) World Number One Store SAMSUNG dot com

com Organization Net Com Compeer Site Qtel Mobily Qtel Com Catholic Arab Web Your own house Bazaar Olayan Aramco Communications Abu Dhabi com Site Russian speaking community Org Online

москва ком католик дети

Moscow Com Catholic Kids

84

III.  Application Results Brand TLDs .aaa .aarp .abarth .abb .abbott .abbvie .abc .able .accenture .acer .aco .active .adac .aeg .aetna .afamilycompany .afl .africamagic .agakhan .aig .aigo .airbus .airtel .akdn .alcon .alfaromeo .alibaba .alipay .allfinanz .allfinanzberater .allfinanzberatung .allstate .ally .alstom .amazon .americanexpress .americanfamily .amex .amfam .amica .amp .android .ansons .anthem .anz .aol .apple .aquarelle .aramco

.arte .asda .astrium .athleta .audi .audible .auspost .author .avery .avianca .aws .axa .axis .azure .baidu .banamex .bananarepublic .barclaycard .barclays .barefoot .bauhaus .bbb .bbc .bbt .bbva .bcg .beats .beknown .bentley .bestbuy .bharti .bing .blockbuster .bloomberg .bloomingdales .bms .bmw .bnl .bnpparibas .boehringer .bofa .bom .bond .booking .boots .bosch .bostik .bot .box

.bradesco .bridgestone .brother .bugatti .buick .bway .cadillac .call .calvinklein .canalplus .cancerresearch .canon .capitalone .caravan .caremore .cartier .caseih .cashbackbonus .cba .cbn .cbre .cbs .ceb .cern .cfa .cfd .chanel .changiairport .chartis .chase .chatr .chesapeake .chevrolet .chevy .chintai .chk .chloe .chrome .chrysler .cialis .cimb .cipriani .circle .cisco .citadel .citi .citic .cityeats .clinique

85

.clubmed .comcast .commbank .comsec .connectors .cookingchannel .crown .crs .csc .cuisinella .datsun .dclk .dell .delmonte .deloitte .delta .desi .deutschepost .dhl .digikey .discover .dish .dnb .dnp .docomo .dodge .doha .doosan .dstv .dtv .dunlop .duns .dupont .dvag .dvr .dwg .edeka .emerck .emerson .epost .epson .ericsson .erni .est .esurance .etisalat .eurovision .everbank .extraspace

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program .fage .fairwinds .farmers .fast .fedex .ferrari .ferrero .fiat .fidelity .fido .final .finish .fire .firestone .firmdale .flickr .flir .fls .flsmidth .foodnetwork .ford .fox .fresenius .frl .frogans .frontier .ftr .fujitsu .fujixerox .gallo .gallup .gap .garnier .gbiz .gcc .gdn .gea .gecompany .ged .george .ggee .glade .gle .globalx .globo .gmail .gmc .gmo .gmx .godaddy

.goldpoint .goo .goodhands .goodyear .goog .google .got .gotv .grainger .gree .guardian .guardianlife .guardianmedia .gucci .guge .hbo .hdfc .hdfcbank .heinz .hermes .hgtv .hilton .hisamitsu .hitachi .hkt .homedepot .homegoods .homesense .honda .honeywell .hotmail .hsbc .htc .hughes .hyatt .hyundai .ibm .icbc .ice .icu .idn .ieee .ifm .iinet .ikano .imamat .imdb .infiniti .infosys .infy

.intel .intuit .ipiranga .iselect .ismaili .itau .itv .iveco .iwc .jaguar .java .jcb .jcp .jeep .jlc .jll .jmp .jnj .jot .joy .jpmorgan .jpmorganchase .jprs .juniper .justforu .kaufen .kddi .kerastase .kerryhotels .kerrylogisitics .kerryproperties .ketchup .kfh .kia .kiehls .kindle .komatsu .konami .kone .kpmg .kpn .krd .kred .ksb .kuokgroup .kyknet .ladbrokes .lamborghini .lamer .lancaster

86

.lancia .lancome .landrover .lanxess .lasalle .latrobe .leclerc .lefrak .lego .lexus .liaison .lidl .like .lilly .lincoln .linde .lipsy .livestrong .lixil .locker .locus .loreal .lotte .lpl .lplfinancial .ltda .lundbeck .lupin .macys .maif .mango .marriott .marshalls .maserati .matrix .mattel .maybelline .mcd .mcdonalds .mckinsey .meo .merck .merckmsd .metlife .microsoft .mih .mii .mini .mint .mit

III.  Application Results .mitek .mitsubishi .mma .mnet .moe .moi .monash .monster .montblanc .mopar .mrmuscle .mrporter .msd .mtn .mtpc .mtr .multichoice .mutual .mzansimagic .nab .nadex .naspers .nationwide .natura .nec .netaporter .netbank .netflix .neustar .newholland .nextdirect .nexus .nhk .nico .nike .nikon .nissan .nissay .nokia .northlandinsurance .northwesternmutual .norton .nowruz .nowtv .nra .ntt .obi .observer .off

.olayan .olayangroup .oldnavy .ollo .olympus .omega .onyourside .ooo .open .oracle .orange .orientexpress .origins .otsuka .ott .overheidnl .ovh .pamperedchef .panasonic .panerai .passagens .patagonia .payu .pccw .pfizer .philips .piaget .pictet .pin .pioneer .piperlime .pitney .playstation .pnc .pohl .politie .polo .pramerica .praxi .prime .progressive .pru .prudential .pwc .qtel .quest .qvc .raid .ram .read .redken

.redstone .redumbrella .reisen .reliance .ren .rexroth .richardli .ricoh .rightathome .ril .rmit .rocher .rockwool .rogers .rwe .safe .safeway .sakura .samsclub .sandvik .sandvikcoromant .sanofi .sap .sapo .sapphire .sas .saxo .sbi .sbs .sca .scb .schaeffler .schmidt .schwarz .schwarzgroup .scjohnson .scor .seat .select .sener .ses .seven .sew .sfr .shangrila .sharp .shaw .shell .shopyourway .showtime .shriram

87

.sky .skydrive .skype .sling .smart .softbank .sohu .song.sony .spiegel .stada .staples .starhub .statebank .statefarm .statoil .stc .stcgroup .stream .supersport .suzuki .svr .swatch .swiftcover .symantec .tab .taobao .target .tata .tatamotors .tci .tdk .telecity .telefonica .temasek .terra .teva .thd .theguardian .thehartford .tiaa .tiffany .tjmaxx .tjx .tkmaxx .tmall .toray .toshiba .total .toyota .tradershotels .transformers

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program .transunion .travelchannel .travelers .travelersinsurance .travelguard .trv .tui .tunes .tushu .tvs .ubank .ubs .uconnect .ultrabook .ummah .unicom

.unicorn .uol .ups .vana .vanguard .vanish .verisign .vermögensberater .vermögensberatung .vig .viking .virgin .visa .vista .vistaprint .volkswagen

.volvo .vons .walmart .walter .wang .wanggou .warman .weatherchannel .weber .webjet .weir .williamhill .wilmar .windows .wme .wolterskluwer

.woodside .wtc .xbox .xerox .xfinity .xperia .yahoo .yamaxun .yandex .yodobashi .youtube .zappos .zara .zero .zippo

(2) Types of Applications ID.74 Despite ICANN’s election not to create more than two hard-and-fast categories of TLD

types, Community and Standard, the new gTLD applications can generally be considered to fall into five broad groups based on the designation criteria included in the application, namely: generic TLDs (which may be operated as either open or closed models), ‘.BRAND’ applications and other TLDs with single-registrant business models, IDN TLDs, geographic TLDs, and Community-based TLD applications.92

(a) Applications for ‘Generic gTLDs’ ID.75 1,093 applications referred to generic words, and a total of 600 unique string sets, which were the subject of applications both for the exclusive use by companies in relation to their products or services, and for use as open-TLD spaces. Of these applications, approximately 1,050 applications were made for generic words in connection with an open registration model, and approximately 50 were made for an exclusive registry model. ID.76 Domain names in open generic gTLDs are open to all for registration, but may employ eligibil-

ity or use restrictions.

ID.77 A business model based on open generic TLDs generates profit through the sale of second-level

registrations relating to the category or type of goods or services represented by the TLD (ie ‘cars. luxury’ or ‘sports.photography’). In addition, applicants in competition for the same string (and for open generic TLDs in particular) often made a significant profits through self-resolution of string contentions.93

ID.78 The category of open generic gTLDs saw the greatest number of string contentions, and was the

most highly-contested class of TLDs both by number and objection proceedings.

92  Some overlap between these categories exist, such as IDN ‘Dot Brand’ strings. ICANN’s statistical breakdown is available at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/statistics. 93  Pursuant to AGB, Section 4.1.3, ‘Applicants that are identified as being in contention are encouraged to reach a settlement or agreement among themselves that resolves the contention.’ Private auctions typically utilized a model whereby losing bidders would share in the proceeds of the winning bid. This resulted in several parties profiting greatly from losing applications. See ‘Minds + Machines Wins.Law &.Vip; Loses 5 Auctions & Pockets $6.2 Million’, The Domains, September 24, 2014, available at: http://www.thedomains. com/. For more information see http://icannwiki.com/index.php/GTLD_Auctions.

88

III.  Application Results Domain names in closed generic gTLDs are closed to registrations by anyone, except the ID.79 applicant and its ‘affiliates’ as contractually defined and imprecisely interpreted by ICANN.94 Numerous commentators during the ICANN Public Comments period voiced strong objection to the exclusive use of generic words by individual companies, citing free market concerns and risks to the competitive online marketplace.95 Later, after the close of the application window, ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee provided GAC Advice which severely limited the number of closed generic gTLD applications.96

(b) ‘.BRAND’ Applications The 664 ‘.BRAND’ applications comprised the second-largest category of submissions, which ID.80 corresponded to either the corporate names or major brands of various companies worldwide for the purpose of enhancing brand awareness and to provide a platform for hosting new online services.97 The technology, media and financial sectors accounted for the largest percentage of requests.98 Many well-known trademark owners applied for a large number of gTLDs, although against ID.81 expectations several large and well-known trademark holders did not even apply for their primary corporate brand.99 As the decision to apply for a top-level domain space represents a major investment and, in many cases, a substantial shift in the branding strategy of a company, it remains to be seen whether some of these major international brand-owners will file for their own gTLD spaces in subsequent application rounds, or whether some market participants will simply elect not to operate their own TLD. The ‘.BRAND’ spaces operate following a closed single-registrant gTLD model, providing ID.82 companies with absolute control over the use of their trademarks and the dissemination of any information or advertising associated thereby with their brands. Some ‘.BRAND’ applicants, previously interacting with ICANN individually through dis- ID.83 pute resolution processes or the Intellectual Property Constituency,100 came together in a separate vehicle called the Brand Registry Group (BRG) to lobby ICANN and its constituencies and stakeholder groups from outside ICANN’s formal structure.101 The BRG’s vision and mission is to provide advocacy, representation, networking, and best practices to ‘.BRAND’ applicants who were likely to be relatively uninformed and isolated actors in the New gTLD Program. The BRG’s major deliverable during the New gTLD Program was the creation of the additional Specification 13 to the Registry Agreement, which provided for special exemptions in line with the unique purpose of these TLDs.102 94   For example, Amazon originally applied to register ‘.book’ with the ‘intention that all .BOOK domain names will be registered and used by it and its Affiliates’. 95   Public comments on gTLD applications are accessible at: https://gtldcomment.icann.org/commentsfeedback/applicationcomment/. 96   The so-called ‘GAC Category 2 Safeguard Advice’ resulted in nearly all affected applicants having to amend their applications to adapt an open model. See Section IX, below, for more information. 97   In addition to corporate names or marks, corporations also applied for generic strings which matched the category of goods or services the corporation supplies, such as ‘.beauty’, ‘.hair’, ‘.makeup’, and ‘.skin’ by French beauty company L’Oreal S.A. and ‘.docs’ by Microsoft, Inc. 98   Statistics regarding the ‘.BRAND’ applications have been prepared by MarkMonitor, and its report entitled ‘.Brand Applications Account for One Third of All New gTLD Applications’ of June 13, 2012 is available at: https://www.markmonitor.com/. 99  This included such well-known trademarks as COKE, EBAY, FACEBOOK, MERCEDES, PORSCHE, SIEMENS, TWITTER, etc. 100  See Part IB para IB.30. 101  See the Brand Registry Group website at: http://www.brandregistrygroup.org/. 102  ‘.BRAND’ applicants were given the opportunity to register to themselves all domains within a space instead of being subject to the typical 100 domain name limit (pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Registry Agreement,

89

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program ID.84 There were very few conflicting ‘.BRAND’ applications, wherein two trademark holders with

rights in identical or similar marks filed for the same string. Conflicting ‘.BRAND’ applications could be resolved through string contention processes or through the Legal Rights Objection process.103 One of the most contentious of these disputes involves the German company Merck KGaA and the American company Merck & Co, who have each filed applications for the ‘.MERCK TLD’, in addition to several variants on the mark (ie –‘.EMERCK’, ‘.MERCKMSD’, and ‘.MSD’). The Merck applications were subject to several Legal Rights Objections,104 Community Objections,105 a String Confusion Objection,106 a Request for Reconsideration to the ICANN Board,107 and a request for Independent Review.108 The Merck dispute is currently unresolved within ICANN as of the editorial deadline of October 2014.

(c) Applications for Internationalized Domain Names ID.85 Of the 1,930 applications received, 116 (6 per cent) concerned IDN spaces, which were submitted for a total of 12 different scripts.109 Most of the IDN applications corresponded to generic dictionary terms. Chinese was by far the most popular IDN script, with 73 applications, followed by Arabic (15 unique IDN strings), Japanese (nine) and Russian/Cyrillic (seven). Some IDN applications corresponded to famous brand names such as Amazon, L’Oreal, and Samsung.110 (d) Geographic gTLDs ID.86 A further 66 applications (3 per cent) concerned geographic terms or regions.111 Although country names were not permitted, a number of applications for city names, geographic regions, and continents were received. In most instances, the applications for city names were filed by the responsible public authorities themselves,112 or by groups of investors acting with the consent of the relevant authorities.113 The AGB specified that governmental consent or non-objection to any application for a geographic TLD was required.114 ID.87 Most of the policy models for geographic strings involved open gTLD spaces with broad

eligibility requirements.115

Specification 9), and to designate ‘exclusive’ registrars instead of allowing all registrars the ability to offer domain names in a TLD space (pursuant to Specification 13 of the Registry Agreement), as an exception to the Registry Code of Conduct. 103  Legal Rights Objection proceedings are discussed at Part III.B.IV. 104  See WIPO Case Nos LRO2013-0009, 0010, 0011, 0068, and 0069. 105  See ICC Case Nos EXP/428/ICANN/45, EXP/419/ICANN/36, and EXP/425/ICANN/42. 106  See ICDR Case No 50 504 280 13. 107  See Request for Reconsideration 14-9, available: at ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at https://www.icann.org/resources. Requests for Reconsideration are discussed more generally at Section XI, below. 108  See Merck KGaA v ICANN, available at: ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at https:// www.icann.org/resources. Independent Review is discussed more generally at Part IB para IB.129. 109 See Part I.A, Section I(4) for more information about internationalized domain names. A  full list of the IDN applications is provided on the ICANN Wiki, at: http://icannwiki.com/index.php/ New_gTLD_IDN_Applications. 110  Verisign applied for a dozen transliterations of the ‘.com’ and ‘.net’ TLDs, clearly betting on the future of a multilingual Internet and investing in variations of the two most popular gTLDs to date. 111  A list of all geographic applications is available on the ICANN Wiki at: http://icannwiki.com/index. php/New_gTLD_Geographic_Applications. For more information about geographical TLDs, see Section II(4), above, and AGB Section 2.2.1.4. 112  For example, ‘.TAIPEI’, ‘.STOCKHOLM’, ‘.ZUERICH’, and ‘.PARIS’. 113  Including ‘.BERLIN’, ‘.广东’ (Guangdong), ‘.深圳’ (Shenzhen), ‘.NRW’ (the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia), and ‘.FRL’ (Friesland). 114  AGB, Section 2.2.1.4. 115  The applications for the strings ‘.wales’, ‘.nrw’, ‘.bayern’, ‘.saarland’, and ‘.alsace’ are amongst those which utilized open-model mechanisms. Some geographically-targeted spaces anticipated operating along a

90

III.  Application Results (e) Community-Based Applications Of the new gTLD applications received, there were a total of 1,846 standard and 84 ID.88 community-based applications (4 per cent).116 Being one of the two defined types of applications available in the AGB (the other being a catchall ‘standard application’), a community-based gTLD is operated for the benefit of a clearly delineated community, and any applicant could at its own discretion designate its application as community-based.117 Designation by the applicant as a community-based gTLD required enhanced protections and additional substantiation by the applicant to demonstrate that it is representative of the community it names.118 Some examples of community applications included ‘.bzh’ (for the Breton community), ‘.gay’ (for the LGBT community), and ‘.music’. In the event a string was the subject of multiple applications, including a community appli- ID.89 cation, the community application was evaluated to determine whether it met the ‘community priority’ criteria. Applications which were found to meet the community priority criteria would automatically prevail over standard applications.119 (For details regarding the Community Priority Evaluation see Section XII.1.) In addition, a number of corporations with broad international presences filed on behalf of their corporate communities, including Bugatti International SA (.BUGATTI), Merck KGaA (.MERCK) and ACO Severin Ahlmann GmbH & Co KG (.ACO).120 As designation as a community application required few, if any, changes or additional provisions that a ‘.BRAND’ applicant would otherwise make in a standard application (given that it would be operating a closed-registry model), such applicants would have little to lose with a community objection. On the other hand, in the event that multiple applicants applied for the same string (string connection), application under a community designation could prove to be decisive as the community group is automatically given precedence to the TLD if community status is proven through the Community Priority Evaluation process. However, it appears unlikely that such corporate communities composed of subsidiaries of the same parent company will be approved by Community Priority Evaluation Panels.121

closed model, however, utilizing the string in connection with official communications and to promote local business interests. 116  Detailed information about the community TLD applications is available at: http://icannwiki.com/ index.php/Community_Applicants. 117  AGB, Section 1.2.3. 118 AGB, Section 1.2.3.1 provides that an applicant for a community-based gTLD is expected to: (1) demonstrate an ongoing relationship with a clearly delineated community; (2) have applied for a gTLD strongly and specifically related to the community named in the application; (3) have proposed dedicated registration and use policies for registrants in its proposed gTLD, including appropriate security verification procedures, commensurate with the community-based purpose it has named; and (4) have its application endorsed in writing by one or more established institutions representing the community it has named. 119  See section 4.2 of the Applicant Guidebook. Both ‘.gay’ and ‘.music’ are highly contested spaces with applications filed both on community and non-community bases. As of March, 2014, it still was not determined whether those applications would receive ‘Community Priority’ from ICANN, even though the purported Community-based applications had each lost numerous Community Objections they had filed against competing applicants. 120  Of these, the ‘.merck’ application was contested, and as of October 2014, it was not determined whether one or more ‘.merck’ applications would receive ‘Community Priority’. 121  An expert in a community objection considering the ‘.merck’ application noted that ‘the Expert is reluctant to approve a community composed of subsidiaries of the same parent company. As the Respondent correctly suggests, the Expert must avoid creating a dangerous precedent that may give rise to abusive community objections in the future. Allowing groups of companies to qualify as valid communities under the Guidebook will create every incentive for potential objectors to incorporate subsidiaries in order to build a synthetic community.’ Merck Registry Holdings, Inc v Merck KGaA, International Chamber of Commerce Case No EXP/419/ICANN/36 at 23.

91

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program (3) Types of Applicants ID.90 Although the total number of submissions received during the first round of new gTLD applications

was 1,930, there were only 1,155 individual applicants, due to the fact that some entities applied for large batches of gTLD spaces.122 The ten highest-volume applicants were, in descending order: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Donuts, Inc (307 applications);123 Google (via Charleston Road Registry Inc, (101 applications));124 Amazon.com, Inc (75 applications);125 top-level domain holdings (68 applications);126 Famous Four Media (Domain Venture Partners, 60 applications);127 Uniregistry (54 applications);128 Radix (31 applications);129 Afilias (31 applications);130 Demand Media (United TLD Holdco Ltd, 26 applications);131 and Zodiac (15 applications).132

122  For more statistical information about the first round of New gTLD applicants, see http://icannwiki. com/index.php/New_gTLD_Stats. 123  Donuts, Inc is a start-up company that raised over US$100 million prior to applying for 307 TLD strings (see ‘Donuts Raises $100M-Plus To Deliver “Dot-Anything-You-Want” Domain Names’, June 5, 2012, available at: http:/www.wsj.com). Its strategy is to own and operate TLDs ‘specific to a large number of verticals, such as general business, sports, hobbies and leisure, personal expression, occupations, shopping and e-commerce, travel and regional, community and religion, and many other interests and categories’. See http:// www.donuts.co/about/. Its management team includes many well-known people in the Internet community. 124  The second most prolific registrant, a subsidiary of Google Inc of the USA, selected a wide array of generic terms for registration, as well as several variants of its famous ‘Google’ trademark, including ‘.GOO’, ‘.GOOG’, ‘.GOOGLE’ and ‘.GUGE’. Google also applied for ‘.CHROME’, the name of its well-known Internet browsing software. The vast majority of its 101 applications, however, were for dictionary terms, including: ‘.APP’, ‘.BOOK’, ‘.BABY’, ‘.BLOG’, ‘.EARTH’, ‘.EAT’, ‘.FAMILY’, ‘.FILM’, ‘.FOOD’, ‘.CAR’, ‘.CHANNEL’, ‘.KID’, ‘.LOVE’, ‘.MAP’, ‘.NEW’, ‘.SEARCH’, ‘.STORE’, ‘.SALE’, ‘.WEB’, etc. Its ‘.GOO’ application was challenged by an Asian web portal by that name, and Google withdrew its application. 125  Similar to the Google model, Amazon selected some strings which correspond to its widely-known trademarks (eg ‘.AMAZON’ and ‘.KINDLE’), as well as a broad array of dictionary terms, including: ‘.APP’, ‘.MUSIC’, ‘.MOVIE’, ‘.AUTHOR’, ‘.CLOUD’, ‘.DEAL’, ‘.DRIVE’, etc. The ‘.AMAZON’ application is subject to a community objection filed by the ICANN Independent Objector and was the recipient of consensus GAC Advice against its application in the English, Chinese, and Japanese scripts. 126 Top-Level Domain Holdings (TLDH) is the parent company of Minds + Machines, and is a publicly-traded corporation headquartered in the British Virgin Islands. TLDH garnered controversy when a former ICANN Chairman joined TLDH, raising discussions including within the US Congress about conflict of interests. See ‘ICANN departures after Web suffix vote draw criticism’, The Washington Post, August 21, 2011, available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/. 127  Famous Four Media is a Gibraltar-based company, established in 2011 ‘by a small group of recognized domain name experts and successful financiers’. See http://www.famousfourmedia.com/. 128  Uniregistry is a Cayman Islands-based partnership, launched in 2012. It is headed by Frank Schilling, ‘owner of one of the world’s largest domain name portfolios’. See http://www.icannwiki.com/index.php/ uniregistry and http://www.uniregistry.com/. 129  Radix is a Dubai-based business founded in 2012, and Asia’s largest new gTLD applicant. See http:// radixregistry.com/. 130  Afilias is an Irish registry founded in 2000 and which was responsible for the launch of the ‘.info’ gTLD and owns the ‘.mobi’ TLD. See http://www.afilias.info/. 131  Demand Media is a US-based corporation founded in 2006 which owns eNom, the second-largest domain name registrar. See http://www.demandmedia.com/. Some questions were raised in relation to Demand Media’s ability to overcome the required background check called for at AGB Section 1.2.1 and apply for TLDs, due to successful UDRP complaints being brought against it. See Letter of Jeffry M Stoler to Stephen Crocker et al, July 28, 2012, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence. 132 Zodiac Ltd (the largest Chinese applicant), submitted 15 applications, including:  ‘.WANG’— transliteration of characters for ‘web’ and ‘king’ (a common Chinese surname); ‘.佛山’—the Chinese script

92

V.  GAC Early Warnings Most of the high-volume domain name applicants selected predominately (or, in some cases, ID.91 entirely) generic-word gTLDs.133 These applicants also largely were those who were supported by venture capital. It is important for ICANN to exercise its responsibility to control these organizations, many of whom are located in various offshore locations, to ensure that those individuals and entities which invest in the new spaces through second-level registrations and marketing can be assured of a stable and well-operating DNS.

IV.  Public Comment At the time gTLD applications were publicly posted on ICANN’s website, ICANN opened ID.92 a comment period (the Application Comment period) during which the public could comment on specific applications.134 Application comments received within a 60-day period from the posting of the application materials were made available to the evaluation panels performing the Initial Evaluation reviews. To be considered by evaluators, comments had to be received in the designated comment forum within the stated time period. Public comments were also relevant to later objection proceedings.135

V.  GAC Early Warnings The AGB provided for the GAC to issue an ‘Early Warning’ during the 60-day public com- ID.93 ment period following the publication of the list of applications.136 An Early Warning could issue for any reason137 and indicated to the applicant that a government or governments believed the application potentially violated law or raised sensitivities. The Early Warning was a notice only, and in itself had no consequences. However, it could be the precursor to formal GAC Advice, or a formal Objection on any of the grounds discussed in the warning notice.

for Foshan; ‘.广 东’—the Chinese script for Guangdong; ‘.广州’—the Chinese script for Guangzhou, ‘.八卦’—the Chinese script for ‘gossip’; ‘.网店’—the Chinese script for ‘webshop’ or ‘e-shop’; ‘.商城’—the Chinese script for ‘mall’; ‘.我 爱你’—the Chinese script for ‘I love you’; ‘.网站’—the Chinese script for ‘website’, ‘homepage’ or ‘portal’; ‘.娱乐’—the Chinese script for ‘entertainment’. 133  Donuts Inc, specifically targeted dictionary terms for registration, which included, inter alia: ‘.APP’, ‘.BOOK’, ‘.BLOG’, ‘.LAW’, ‘.MOVIE’, ‘.MUSIC’, ‘.LOVE’, and ‘.NEWS’. All of the Donuts applications utilize an open-registration policy model, and are anticipated to be used in a first-come, first-served, fully unrestricted manner. 134  See AGB Section 1.1.2.3. 135  The Independent Objector could file formal objections to a gTLD application under Limited Public Interest and Community grounds. The Independent Objector could only file an objection if there had been at least one comment in opposition to the application. Significantly, one applicant for ‘.med’ successfully had its Request for Reconsideration accepted by the ICANN Board Governance Committee on the basis that no comment had been made directly concerning the applicant’s application, and thus the Independent Objector had no basis to file its objection. See Request for Reconsideration 14-1, available at: ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at https://www.icann.org/resources. 136  AGB, Section 1.1.2.4. For details about the GAC’s role in the development of the New gTLD Program see para ID.07; on the GAC’s role within ICANN’s organizational structure and ICANN policy making processes see Part IB paras IB.39–IB.45. 137  While definitive guidance has not been issued, the GAC has indicated that strings that could raise sensitivities include those that ‘purport to represent or that embody a particular group of people or interests based on historical, cultural, or social components of identity, such as nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, belief, culture or particular social origin or group, political opinion, membership of a national minority, disability, age, and/or a language or linguistic group (non-exhaustive)’ and ‘those strings that refer to particular sectors, such as those subject to national regulation (such as .bank, .pharmacy) or those that describe or are targeted to a population or industry that is vulnerable to online fraud or abuse’.

93

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program ID.94 Upon receipt of a GAC Early Warning, the applicant could withdraw for an 80 per cent

refund (US$148,000), or the applicant could proceed through the Initial Evaluation process.

ID.95 After the list of applied-for strings were revealed, more than 250 Early Warnings were issued,

with the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE), on behalf of the Australian government filing roughly half of them.138

ID.96 Only a few applications were withdrawn after receiving an Early Warning, including Swiss

Airlines’ application for ‘.Swiss’ (as the other competing application had garnered support of the Swiss government), and one applicant for ‘.gmbh’ (as the German government issued warnings for all six ‘.gmbh’ applications). Other applications later became the subject of formal GAC Advice (see below para ID.131).

ID.97 One controversial solution provided to address concerns raised in GAC Early Warnings

was the voluntary Public Interest Commitment (PIC). PIC Specifications provide applicants with the opportunity to make public interest commitments based on statements made in their applications and/or additional public interest commitments which were not included in their applications but to which they intend to commit. These commitments become part of the applicant’s new gTLD registry agreement (see Specification 11 of the Registry Agreement). PICs were envisioned as a way of placating the concerns of the GAC by binding applicants to their aspirations and mandates in their respective gTLD applications. PICs may also be used in other circumstances, such as in response to GAC Advice. In tandem with the PIC, the Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Process (PICDRP) was proposed to enforce such commitments through a formal procedure.139

VI.  Evaluation Procedures (1) Background Screening of Applicant ID.98 ICANN screened applicants against UDRP cases and legal databases for data that may indi-

cate a pattern of cybersquatting behaviour.140 Although some questionable and potentially disqualifying behaviour on behalf of some applicants appear to have occurred, no application was disqualified on this basis.141 In addition, criminal background checks were performed

138  Warnings were issued on a variety of bases, including lack of sufficient information regarding the operation of the space in question, issues relating to the use of closed-TLD models for generic terms, and for spaces containing geographically-oriented names. Other governments and organizations warned about strings they deem immoral or otherwise found problematic such as ‘.africa’, ‘.amazon’, ‘.patagonia’, and ‘.shenzhen’ (IDN). Radix Registry’s 31 applications received a warning by the US government, because Radix had included in its application the suggestion that the FBI had endorsed Radix. The US government filed notices on applications for ‘.army’, ‘.airforce’ and ‘.navy’, stating for each: ‘The string is confusingly similar to the name of a specific government agency.’ The complete list of Early Warnings is posted at the GAC website, available at: https://gacweb.icann.org. 139  First proposed on February 5, 2013, new gTLD applicants for the 145 strings targeted by GAC Early Warnings had until March 5, 2013 to submit PICs. Applicants thereafter had an opportunity to amend their PICs. As the deadline to file an objection in accordance with Module 3 of the Applicant Guidebook was March 13, 2013, many criticized the PICs as a quick-fix which placed would-be objectors in the difficult and uncertain position of interpreting such submissions and launching objections against gTLD applications which could be subject to later amendments. 499 PICs were eventually submitted. For details on the PICDRP see Part III.C.III. 140  AGB Section 1.2.1. 141  See Letter of Jeffry M Stoler to Stephen Crocker et al, July 28, 2012, available at: http://www.icann. org/en/news/correspondence.

94

VI.  Evaluation Procedures against all individuals named in the application, including directors, officers, and significant shareholders.142

(2) Initial Evaluation of the Application (a) Overview The Applicant Guidebook defined the Initial Evaluation that all new gTLD applications ID.99 went through. Those that did not pass all elements could request Extended Evaluation. The Initial Evaluation consisted of three types of review:  String Review,143 Applicant ID.100 Review,144 and Registry Services Review.145 String review focused on the applied-for gTLD string to test:

ID.101

(1) whether the applied-for gTLD string was so similar to other strings that it would create a probability of user confusion, and whether the applied-for gTLD string was identical or similar to strings declared unavailable or ineligible by ICANN (String Similarity review); whether the applied-for gTLD string might adversely affect DNS security or stability (DNS Stability review); and (2) whether evidence of requisite government approval was provided in the case of certain geographic names (Geographic Names review). Applicant review focused on the applicant to test whether the applicant had the requisite ID.102 technical, operational, and financial capability to operate a registry. Registry Services Review focused on the applicant to test whether the registry services offered ID.103 by the applicant might adversely affect DNS security or stability. All Evaluations were performed by independent experts that ICANN selected after issuing ID.104 a request for proposal.146 The Evaluation Process for each evaluation was set out in the Evaluation Panels Process ID.105 Documentation.147 Although the results of the Expert Evaluation were considered only as advice to ICANN (as stated in the process documentation), ICANN has made clear that it relied on the advice of its evaluators in the initial evaluation stage of the New gTLD Program, subject to quality assurance measures. Because ICANN was committed to measured delegation rates to monitor any impact ID.106 on root zone operations, it designed the New gTLD Program so that approximately 500 applications would be evaluated at a time (often referred to as ‘batching’).148 To establish

142  In one instance, ICANN published private details including the addresses of CEOs on its website, see ‘ICANN leaks private details of proposers of new internet suffixes’, The Australian, June 18, 2012, available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/. 143  AGB, Section 2.2.1. 144  AGB, Section 2.2.2. 145  AGB, Section 2.2.3. 146  The following companies and organizations were selected for the initial evaluations defined in the Applicant Guidebook:  String Similarity:  InterConnect Communications/University College London; DNS Stability:  Interisle Consulting Group; Geographic Names:  The Economist Intelligence Unit and InterConnect Communications/University College London; Technical and Operational Review:  Ernst & Young, JAS Global Advisors, and KPMG; Financial Capability Review: Ernst & Young, JAS Global Advisors, and KPMG; Registry Services Review: Interisle Consulting Group. 147  Evaluation Panels Process Documentation is available at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/ evaluation-panels. 148  Batching allowed ICANN to complete the Initial Evaluation for groups of applications as ICANN staff was not able to process more than 500 applications at a time. The time that an applicant submitted its

95

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program which applications should be processed in the first batch, the second batch and so on, ICANN created a secondary time-stamp process which required applicants to obtain a time-stamp through a Prioritization Draw to assign priority numbers to all new gTLD applications. Each application was assigned a randomly-drawn priority number. These priority numbers were used to determine the order in which initial evaluation results were released.

(b) String Review Within the New gTLD Program, every applied-for string was subjected to the String Similarity Review.149 This review involved a preliminary comparison of each applied-for gTLD string against:

ID.107 (i)  String Similarity 

(1) existing TLDs; (2) Reserved Names;150 (3) other applied-for strings; and (4) strings requested as IDN ccTLDs.151 ID.108 The objective of this review was to prevent user confusion and loss of confidence in the

DNS resulting from delegation of confusingly similar strings. The visual similarity check that occurs during Initial Evaluation was intended to augment the objection and dispute resolution process.152

ID.109 The relevant test for string confusion is as follows:

String confusion exists where a string so nearly resembles another visually that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion. For the likelihood of confusion to exist, it must be probable, not merely possible that confusion will arise in the mind of the average, reasonable Internet user. Mere association, in the sense that the string brings another string to mind, is insufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.153 ID.110 The String Similarity Review was performed in accordance with process documentation

posted at ICANN’s website.154 In contrast to the reviews set out in Section 2.2.2 of the Applicant Guidebook, including the Technical/Operational review and the Financial Review, which allowed the evaluators to seek clarification or additional information through the issuance of clarifying questions, there was no process point in the String Similarity Review for applicants to submit additional information.

application and the time in which its application was processed did not provide any advantage vis-à-vis other applicants. See AGB Section 1.1.2.5. 149  AGB, Section 2.2.1.1. 150  AGB, Section 2.2.1.2. Simultaneously with the String Similarity Review, a comparison was made between the string and certain reserved names such as ‘example’, ‘ICANN’, ‘whois’, and ‘www’. Exact matches with an entry in the top-level reserved names list (or an IDN variant) was not processed by the application program, but otherwise eligible applied-for strings were reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they were too similar and thus would not proceed. See also Section II(10) above for more information on Reserved Names. 151  Applied-for two-character IDN gTLD strings were also compared against every other single character or any other two-character ASCII string to protect possible future ccTLD delegations, see AGB, Section 2.2.1.1.1. 152  See the following chapter on New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedures and AGB, Module 3. 153  AGB, Section 2.2.1.1.2. This was in stark contrast to the standard to determine string confusion in the string objection proceeding set out in Section 3.5.1 of the Applicant Guidebook, which covered a more expansive conception of similarity, including aural similarity or similarity in meaning. 154  See String Similiary New gTLD Evaluation Panel—Process Description, available at: http://newgtlds. icann.org/en/program-status/evaluation-panels.

96

VI.  Evaluation Procedures The basis of the test, while providing room for other considerations by the String Similarity ID.111 Panel, was an algorithmic score155 for the visual similarity between each applied-for string and all other existing and applied for TLDs and reserved names.156 If applied-for strings were determined to be visually identical or similar to each other, then ID.112 those strings were placed in a contention set, which then was resolved by the Community Priority Evaluation, through voluntary agreement among the involved applicants, or via an auction process pursuant to the contention resolution processes in Module 4 of the Applicant Guidebook.157 If a contention set was created, only one of the strings within that contention set would ultimately be approved for delegation. InterConnect Communications, as the ICANN appointed third-party vendor for String ID.113 Similarity Review, utilized its independent expertise, including in linguistics158 and found only two non-exact match contention sets (‘.hotels’/‘.hoteis’ and ‘.unicorn’/‘.unicom’, based on the similarity between ‘l’/‘I’ and ‘rn’/‘m’) as well as 230 exact match contention sets. The Expert’s decision to place the strings ‘.hotels’ and ‘.hoteis’ in a contention set was chal- ID.114 lenged by the applicant for ‘.hotels’ in a Request for Reconsideration Process pursuant to Section Article IV, Section 2.2 of the ICANN Bylaws. In its decision the Board Governance Committee (BGC) pointed out that a reconsideration process can properly be invoked for challenges of the third party’s decisions where it can be stated that either the vendor failed to follow its process in reaching the decision, or that ICANN staff failed to follow its process in accepting that decision. However, the BGC denied the applicant’s request holding that the Request for Reconsideration Process is not a mechanism for review over the results of the String Similarity Review and that it would not (through the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC)) supplant its own determination as to the visual similarity of strings over the guidance of an expert panel formed for that particular purpose.159 The applicant for ‘.hotels’ later filed a request for Independent Review of the String Similarity determination, which was denied. A  further intensive debate resulted from the fact that InterConnect Communications did ID.115 not place into contention other sets of very similar strings, including those which represent merely singular and plural variants of the same dictionary word (eg ‘.kid’ and ‘.kids’; ‘.property’ and ‘.properties’; ‘.game’ and ‘.games’; ‘.hotel’ and ‘.hotels’, etc).160 This decision is still not accepted by applicants, as evidenced by the many correspondences and Requests for Reconsideration filed of the basis of this issue.161

155  This so-called SWORD-Algorithm was developed by SWORD, an international IT company expert in verbal search algorithms. 156  The algorithm, user guidelines, and additional background information was available to applicants for testing and informational purposes. See AGB, Section 2.2.1.1.2. 157  For details on the resolution of string contention see Section XII. 158  ICANN did not provide any instructions to the panel outside of the criteria specified in the Applicant Guidebook, including any pre-judgment of whether singular or plural versions of strings should be considered visually similar. 159  See Recommendation of the Board of Governance Committee (BGC) Reconsideration Request 13-5, August 1, 2012 (Booking.com), available at: ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at https:// www.icann.org/resources. 160  Based on ICANN’s staff analysis, there were a total of 26 singular/plural applied-for, English language strings. Some strings include auto/autos, car/cars, career/careers, coupon/coupons, cruise/cruises, deal/deals, fan/fans, game/games, gift/gifts, home/homes, hotel/hotels, kid/kids, loan/loans, pet/pets, photo/photos, property/properties, sport/sports, tour/tours, watch/watches, and work/works. 161 See Requests for Reconsideration 13-5 (hotel/hotels), 13-6 (hotel/hotels), 13-14 (car/cars), and 14-5 (web/webs), available at:  ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at https://www.icann. org/resources, See Letter from Michael Beckerman to Stephen Crocker, December 10, 2013, Letter from

97

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program ID.116 In its ‘Bejing Communiqué’ the GAC expressed its belief that singular and plural versions

of a string as a TLD could lead to potential consumer confusion and requested ICANN to reconsider its decision to allow singular and plural versions of the same strings.162 The ICANN Board through the NGPC issued a resolution in which it discussed whether any changes were needed to the New gTLD Program as a result of the GAC’s concern.163

ID.117 The NGPC ultimately determined that no changes were needed as it considered that the

String Confusion Objection, with the scope to consider broader concepts of similarity, would address these issues.164 As it turned out later, unsurprisingly, not all applicants confronted with concurring applications for singular or plural versions of their applications for generic strings filed String Similarity objections, and the majority of those which filed objections against plural or singular strings did not prevail as the majority of String Confusion Objection Panels, in applying the broader standard of confusing similarity, took the view that singular and plural versions of the same string were not confusingly similar.165

ID.118 The existence of delegated singular/plural TLD pairs will prove problematic for investors and

consumers on the Internet. The presence of a singular or plural version of a gTLD string would mean that potential applicants for a second-level registration would need to register a domain name in each or risk losing potential visitors who are confused as to the appropriate website location. Equally, those consumers would be confused and potentially repelled by the existence of the singular/plural TLD, as the risk of confusion may cause consumer distrust. Furthermore, if such singular/plural domain names were not in fact owned by the same entity, it would create the possibility for one owner to free-ride off the marketing and investment of the other registrant in its website.

ID.119 Nonetheless, applicants in many cases continued in their applications despite the existence of

the singular or plural version of their string.166

The DNS stability evaluation was designed to determine whether an applied-for string violated any technical requirements,167 and in limited

ID.120 (ii) DNS Stability Evaluation 

Elisa Cooper to the New gTLD Program Committee, October 22, 2013, and Letter from Elisa Cooper to the New gTLD Program Committee, December 30, 2013, available at:  http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/ program-status/correspondence. 162  GAC Advice and communiques can be found at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/GAC-advice. 163  Resolution 2013.06.04.NG01, available at: https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents. 164  Resolution 2013.06.25.NG07, available at: https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents. 165  For a detailed analysis of these decisions see Part IIIB, para IIIB.119. 166  Delegated strings include career/careers, photo/photos, and supply/supplies. Surprisingly, Donuts, Inc, that applied for 307 strings, filed for singular/plural pairs and other closely-related strings, and in some instances proceeded through delegation. Donuts, Inc applied for such strings as property/properties, finance/ financial, photography/photos, and tech/technology. 167 Each applied-for string will also be evaluated for compliance with the ASCII label requirements. Specifically, any requested ASCII-script domain name must be comprised of 3–63 alphabetical (a–z) characters, and must be in compliance with Domain Names: Implementation and Specification (RFC 1035), and Clarifications to the DNS Specification (RFC 2181). Additionally, the string must constitute a valid and functional host name, in accordance with the technical standards promulgated by the DOD Internet Host Table Specification (RFC 952), Requirements for Internet Hosts—Application and Support (RFC 1123), Application Techniques for Checking and Transformation of Names (RFC 3696), and, where appropriate, Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) (RFCs 5890–4). Furthermore, any IDN gTLD string must constitute a valid A-label, also capable of expression in Unicode (as a U-label), must comply with the ‘Bidi rule’ of RFC 5893, and must be in compliance with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) IDNA standards. Additionally, any IDN domain name must be written in a single script, except where commonly allowed under the grammatical rules of the underlying language. Two-letter IDN gTLD strings are permitted, so long as they are not deemed visually similar to a one-character label in any script, and are not found to be similar to any possible two-letter ASCII combination.

98

VI.  Evaluation Procedures circumstances, if the string ‘creates a condition that adversely affects’ DNS operations. While certain requirements were relatively simple to confirm, the issue of whether the delegation of a string would raise significant security or stability issues was not well defined.168 It is critical that all of the delegated New gTLD spaces are fully functional and do not ID.121 cause stability or resolution issues for the DNS. In order to ensure that any potential new gTLD space will integrate effectively with the existing root zone framework, ICANN evaluated each applied-for string to ensure its compliance with the guidelines established by the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC).169 Any string which was determined to cause issues with ‘the throughput, response time, consistency, or coherence of responses to Internet servers or end systems’ could be deemed to have failed the initial evaluation, and no further action would be taken with regard to the application in question.170 No applications failed the DNS stability evaluation, although applications for ‘.ged’ and ‘.livestrong’ failed a Registry Services evaluation for failure to provide sufficient information for the evaluator to determine whether a proposed registry service would raise significant security and stability issues.171

(iii)  Geographic Names Review  Based on advice from the GAC in its communiqués, ID.122 country and territory names are not available as gTLD strings. Other geographic names, such as capital city names, city names, and other geographic strings, could be allowed in the gTLD space if this was agreed with the relevant government or public authority.172 A Geographic Names Panel (GNP) determined whether each applied-for gTLD string rep- ID.123 resented a geographic name, and verified the relevance and authenticity of the supporting documentation where necessary. For any application where the GNP determined that the applied-for gTLD string was a country or territory name, the application would not be permitted to pass the geographic names review and would be denied. Applications for ‘.taipei’, ‘.tata’, ‘.tui’ and ‘. 佛山’ (a region in China) initially did not pass Initial Evaluation based on the geographic names review, and were asked to provide the required documentation before passing Extended Evaluation.173

(c) Applicant Review The Applicant Review process reviewed the financial stability and technical capabilities of ID.124 the applicant organization.174 (i)  Financial Review  In terms of the financial component of the review, applicants had to ID.125 demonstrate their dedication to the long-term operation of the space and show that sufficient resources were committed to ensure its stability. Evaluators looked both to the responses in the application concerning the applicant’s financial capacity and planning, and to the consistency of an applicant’s responses in terms of the type and purpose of the registry it planned

168  One significant topic of relevance and discussion in relation to the security or stability of the DNS was the issue of Name Collisions, which ‘occurs when an attempt to resolve a name used in a private name space (eg under a non-delegated Top-Level Domain, or a short, unqualified name) results in a query to the public Domain Name System (DNS). When the administrative boundaries of private and public namespaces overlap, name resolution may yield unintended or harmful results’. See the discussion at Section II.10 above. See http://www.icann.org/en/help/name-collision for further information. 169  For a copy of the SSAC’s report on root zone stability and suggested New gTLD technical requirements, see http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac045.pdf. 170  See AGB, Section 2.2.1.3.1. 171  Application data is available at: http://www.newgtlds.icann.org/en. 172  AGB, Section 2.2.1.4. 173  Application data is available at: http://www.newgtlds.icann.org/en. 174  AGB, Section 2.2.2.

99

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program to operate. This was the most failed review during Initial Evaluation, with most applicants failing as they did not supply their financial statements.175 To pass the Technical/Operational Review it was necessary for an applicant to demonstrate a clear understanding and accomplishment of the key technical and operational aspects of gTLD registry operation, as reflected in its responses in the application.176 Generally, a back-end registry services provider such as Verisign, Neustar, CentralNIC, or Afilias was hired by nearly all applicants to satisfy this review and the Registry Services Review.

ID.126 (ii)  Technical Review 

ID.127 Subsequently, each applicant that passed the technical evaluation and all other steps was

required to complete a pre-delegation technical test prior to delegation of the new gTLD.177

(d) Registry Services Review ID.128 Finally, the Registry Services Review evaluated the applicant’s proposed registry services for any possible adverse impact on DNS security or stability.178 ICANN evaluators assessed whether the registry’s proposed operational model complied with industry-standard procedures and best practices, reduced opportunities for error, utilized root-zone data in an acceptable manner, and was designed to handle the anticipated volume of data in a secure manner. ICANN also reviewed the additional services which the registry provider intended to offer within the space, particularly where any customary registry services were provided in an unusual or novel manner.179 (e) Initial Evaluation Results ID.129 At the time ICANN completed the last of the Initial Evaluations, 1,745 of 1,903 applications had passed Initial Evaluation and were eligible to proceed to the next phase of the New gTLD Program.180 32 of the Applications were eligible for Extended Evaluation.181 Three applications (for ‘.africa’, ‘.thai’, and ‘.gcc’) were not approved either due to the New gTLD Program Committee’s acceptance of GAC Advice, or because they did not meet the minimum required criteria under the Applicant Support Program. 121 of the applications were withdrawn for various reasons, including ‘.Brand’ applications which apparently lost interest, and applications in contention sets that were settled or deemed hopeless by the withdrawing applicant. (f ) Extended Evaluation ID.130 Extended Evaluation was available for those applications that did not pass Initial Evaluation

on the basis of financial, technical, registry services, or geographic names review.182 During Extended Evaluation, applicants had the opportunity to address the outstanding deficiencies on their applications. Of the 38 applicants that entered Extended Evaluation, 35 passed.183

175  Applications for the following strings failed Initial Evaluation: alcon, art, bcg, cipriani, eco, frl, home, jcp, life, livestrong, llc, locus, ltd, mckinsey, olayan, olayangroup, online, pay, payu, place, pnc, rexroth, shaw, supersport, transunion, and ‫نايلعلا‬. Application data is available at: http://www.newgtlds.icann.org/en. 176  Applications for the strings art, eco, express, frl, livestrong, shop, smart, and unicorn did not pass Initial Evaluation on the Technical Review. Application data is available at: http://www.newgtlds.icann.org/en. 177  AGB, Module 5, Transition to Delegation. 178  AGB, Section 2.2.3. 179  Applications for ‘.ged’ and ‘.livestrong’ did not pass Initial Evaluation under the Registry Services Review. Application data is available at: http://www.newgtlds.icann.org/en. 180  See ICANN announcement ‘Milestone:  Initial Evaluation Comes to a Close’ of August 30, 2013, available at: http://www.icann.org. 181  38 applicants eventually became eligible and requested Extended Evaluation. 182  AGB, Section 2.3. 183 It is possible to view the applications which passed Extended Evaluation by viewing ‘Current Application Status’ on ICANN’s dedicated New gTLD website, at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/.

100

VII. GAC Advice

VII.  GAC Advice (1) Standards Module 3 of the Guidebook ‘describes two types of mechanisms that may affect an appli- ID.131 cation’. The two mechanisms are formal Advice from ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC Advice), and dispute resolution mechanisms (Objections). The GAC is composed of governments and multinational governmental organizations and, although it does not have voting rights through the ICANN Board, it had a special role within ICANN and in the New gTLD Program. The GAC is described in further detail in Part B,184 and the Objection procedures are discussed in Part IIIB. GAC Advice is purportedly constrained to ‘a particular application’, but the GAC has not ID.132 hesitated to offer its advice as to large and ill-defined categories of applications.185 Module 3 describes the purpose of the GAC Advice mechanism, and how GAC Advice is to be considered by the ICANN Board. Pursuant to Section 3.1, the GAC Advice mechanism utilized the same standard as a GAC Early ID.133 Warning, requiring that the application subject to the Advice potentially violated national law or raised sensitivities.186 Whereas an Early Warning required the action of only one government, GAC Advice is issued only with full GAC consultation and consensus. While the notion of GAC ‘consensus’ is murky, it is generally understood to mean that one government may propose Advice, and if no other government formally states its disagreement, then the Advice issued. If there was disagreement then further effort to reach consensus would ensue, and/or Advice as to the application would not issue. GAC Advice may take one of three forms, with various potential consequences:

ID.134

(1) If the GAC consensus is reached that an application shall not proceed, this creates a ‘strong presumption’ for the ICANN Board that the application shall not be approved. (2) If the GAC issues consensus advice that there are concerns about an application, then the ICANN Board is expected to engage in dialogue with the GAC to understand the scope of the concerns, before making a decision. (3) If the GAC issues consensus advice that an application should not proceed unless remediated, then this creates a ‘strong presumption’ for the ICANN Board that the application shall not be approved unless remediated via a procedure in the Guidebook (ie via obtaining government approval of an applied-for geographic term). Once GAC Advice was published by ICANN, the affected applicants had 21 calendar days to ID.135 provide a written response for consideration by the Board. The Board could retain independent experts to assist it, such as experts for the various other objection processes provided under Module 3 of the Applicant Guidebook. The GAC Advice was not supposed to suspend the processing of any application.187   See ‘Governmental Advisory Committee’, Part IB, Section II(3).   Take, for example, the ‘Category 1’ and ‘Category 2’ safeguards, relating to strings representing ‘regulated or professional sectors’ and ‘generic terms’, respectively. 186  Commentators noted that the GAC’s role in evaluating such sensitivities is both difficult and vital. Noting that a blanket prohibition on the use of words, names or forms of expression on the Internet would raise questions in respect to human rights, and freedoms of expression and association, decisions on sensitivities would need to be made on a case-by-case basis and take into account national, cultural, religious, and human rights concerns. See Benedek W, Gragl P, Kettemann M C, Liddicoat J, van Eijk N (October 2012), ‘Comments Relating to Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association with Regard to New Generic Top Level Domains’, DG-I, 2012/4. 187  For more information, see ICANN’s information page on GAC Advice at http://newgtlds.icann.org/ en/applicants/gac-advice. 184 185

101

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program (2) GAC Advice on Particular Strings ID.136 The ‘Beijing Communique’, issued April 11, 2013, was the first communique to also include

formal GAC Advice as per the terms of the Applicant Guidebook.188 It specifically recommended the rejection of the ‘.africa’ and ‘.gcc’ applications, each of which had received Early Warnings.189 It informally, without consensus, ‘raised sensitivities’ as to the ‘.islam’ and ‘.halal’ applications, stating that ‘some GAC members’ recommend the applications not to proceed. It also identified several more strings that suggested further GAC consideration,190 including geographic terms such as ‘.amazon’ and ‘.patagonia’ (each the subject of ‘.BRAND’ applications). This Communiqué also was the first to attempt to categorize various groups of applications, subjecting each group to different advice. The GAC also advised the Board to reconsider the String Similarity panel determinations regarding singular and plural versions of the same string.

ID.137 Some issues raised in the Beijing Communiqué continued to see further development in

subsequent GAC communiqués, and new issues continued to be raised. The GAC included further Advice to the Board on New gTLDs in its Durban Communiqué of July 18, 2013, with the GAC indicating consensus that applications for ‘.amazon’ and ‘.thai’ should not proceed. IDN applications for ‘.guangzhou’ and ‘.shenzen’ in Chinese, along with applications for ‘.spa’ (matter resolved), ‘.yun’ (later withdrawn), ‘.wine’ and ‘.vin’ were tabled for further consideration while the applications for ‘.date’ and ‘.persiangulf ’ were allowed to proceed. Concern was noted by the government of India for the applications ‘.indians’ and ‘.ram’.

ID.138 The GAC Advice concerning the applications for ‘.amazon’, ‘.wine’ and ‘.vin’ set off a par-

ticularly active discussion and conflict which extended beyond the GAC to other mechanisms and activities within ICANN.

ID.139 Following the consensus of the GAC against the ‘.amazon’ application in the Durban

Communiqué, the NGPC commissioned an independent, third-party expert to provide additional analysis on the specific issues of the application of relevant international and local law on geographical indications. The expert provided the legal opinion on March 31, 2014, where he concluded that there is no rule of international law which obliges ICANN to accept or reject the ‘.amazon’ application.191 The NGPC resolved to accept the GAC advice that the ‘.amazon’ (and IDN equivalent applications) shall not proceed (NGPC Resolution 2014.05.14.NG03). Amazon.com Inc, the applicant for ‘.amazon’ took action thereafter, filing a Request for Reconsideration of the NGPC resolution, which was denied.192 Amazon. com is engaged in Cooperative Engagement at the time of the editorial deadline following 188  See GAC Communiqué—Beijing, People’s Republic of China of April 11, 2013, available at: http:// newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice. 189  The New gTLD Program Committee of ICANN later issued resolutions on June 4, 2013 directing that, pursuant to the GAC Advice and Section 3.1 of the Applicant Guidebook, the ‘.gcc’ and the ‘.africa’ applications will not be approved. That resolution gave the applicants the opportunity to withdraw the applications or seek relief according to ICANN’s accountability mechanisms (see Annex 1 to Resolution 2013.06.04.NG01, available at: https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents). Subsequently, both applicants submitted Requests for Reconsideration to the ICANN Board. Both were denied. The applicant for ‘.africa’ later filed a Request for Independent Review. The Panel held in favour of the applicant and recommended that ICANN send the application for .AFRICA back into evaluation. The panel cited two main concerns relating to the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee’s (GAC’s) advice on DCA’s application: (1) the panel was concerned that the GAC did not include, and that ICANN did not request, a rationale on the GAC’s advice; and (2) the panel expressed concern that ICANN took action on the GAC’s advice without conducting diligence on the level of transparency and the manner in which the advice was developed by the GAC (see DCA Trust v ICANN, IRP Case 50 2013 001083, available at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/irp-en). 190  Strings include ‘.shenzhen’ (IDN in Chinese), ‘.persiangulf ’, ‘.guangzhou’ (IDN in Chinese), ‘.amazon’ (and IDNs in Japanese and Chinese), ‘.patagonia’, ‘.date’, ‘.spa’, ‘.yun’, ‘.thai’, ‘.zulu’, ‘.wine’, and ‘.vin’. 191  The legal opinion was published on ICANN’s website as an attachment to the April 7, 2014 Letter from Stephen Crocker to Heather Dryden, and is available at: https://www.icann.org/. 192  See Request for Reconsideration 14-27 available at: ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at https://www.icann.org/resources.

102

VII. GAC Advice the ruling in the Request for Reconsideration, which, if unsuccessful, may be followed by a request for Independent Review.193 Furthermore, the applications for ‘.wine’ and ‘.vin’ were contested outside of the GAC ID.140 Advice mechanism. Similar to ‘.amazon’, the NGPC asked staff to commission an independent legal analysis ‘of the legally complex and politically sensitive background on the GAC’s advice regarding “.wine” and “.vin” ’. Again, an external expert provided a legal opinion, again finding that there is no rule of the law of geographical indications, nor any general principle which obliges ICANN to reject or accept the applications. On the basis of the analysis and absent GAC consensus advice, the NGPC resolved on March 22, 2014 that the applications for ‘.wine’ and ‘.vin’ should proceed.194 Some GAC members, in the Singapore Communique of March 27, 2014,195 asserted a procedural error in receiving expert advice without providing the opportunity to comment, and on that basis many countries filed Requests for Reconsideration (all Requests were denied).196 Shortly thereafter, on April 4, the NGPC concluded that there was no process violation but provided 60 days for impacted parties to ‘negotiate’ and ask the ICANN Board to consider the wider implications of the relevant issues, including whether ICANN is the proper venue in which to resolve these issues.197 After a lengthy negotiation during the Cooperative Engagement Process, the applications for ‘.wine’ and ‘.vin’ resumed processing following the withdrawal of objections by the European Commission and Wine Industry Organizations.198

(3) IGO Name Protection The GAC has also urged for greater IGO name protection, including specifically the IOC ID.141 and Red Cross/Red Crescent movement. Echoing previous advice on the matter, the GAC indicated that these parties are in an objectively different category to other rights holders that warrants special protection for their names and acronyms. The expected preventative protection of IGO names and acronyms at the time of the Durban Communiqué later evolved, coincident with a final report issued by a GNSO working group on the same issue,199 into advice for the development of a mechanism which acts as a ‘trademark claims’ service which notifies both the potential registrant and IGO of possible conflicts at the time of registration, and the possibility of entering into dispute resolution processes to resolve disagreements at no or nominal cost to the IGO.200 As at the time of writing, the ICANN Board remained in dialogue with both the GAC and the GNSO to resolve sticky conflicts between their respective advice with respect to protection of IGO names.

(4) Strings Linked to Categorical Advice In Annex 1 to the Beijing Communiqué, the GAC recommended ‘Safeguards Applicable to all ID.142 New gTLDs’, and stated recommendations with respect to WHOIS verification, mitigating 193  See ICANN’s Independent Review webpage at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/ irp-en for more information. 194  See Resolution 2014.03.22.NG01, available on the Board Resolution section of ICANN’s website at: https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents. 195  The GAC Singapore Communique is available at: http://gacweb.icann.org/. 196 See Reconsideration Requests 14-13/14/15/16/17/18/19/20/21/22/24/25/26, and the May 14, 2014 meeting of the Board Governance Committee on this issue, available at: ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at https://www.icann.org/resources. 197  See NGPC Resolutions 2014.04.04NG01-2014.04.04NG04, available at: https://www.icann.org/en/ groups/board/documents. 198 See https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cep-irp-status-09jun15-en.pdf. 199  See Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy Development Process, November 10, 2013, available at: https://gnso.icann.org/. 200  See the Buenos Aires Communiqué, November 20, 2013 at: http://www.icann.org/.

103

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program abusive activity, security checks, documentation requirements, complaint handling, and consequences for failure to comply with same. The GAC then stated a few broad categories, with particular yet vague advice for each. Primarily, and broadly, the GAC expressed need for greater safeguards surrounding TLD strings that ‘are linked to regulated or professional sectors’ (GAC Category 1 Advice).201 It provided a non-exhaustive list including strings relating to children, the environment, health and fitness, financial, gambling, charity, education, intellectual property, professional services, corporate identifiers and generic geographic terms. ID.143 The GAC also supplied advice with respect to ‘Restricted Access’ TLDs. The GAC advice

generally says that such strings should be operated in a manner ‘appropriate for the types of risks associated with the TLD’, without giving any undue preference to any registrar or to itself. The GAC further opined on a category it called ‘Exclusive Access’ TLDs, expressing concerns about the potential impact on competition and consumer choice, as well the potential impact on the public interest and stating that ‘[f ]‌or strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal’ or be rejected (GAC Category 2 Advice).202 On June 21, 2015, two years after the GAC advised that closed generics must serve ‘a public interest goal’, ICANN Board’s New gTLD Program Committee passed a resolution that Applicants for closed generic gTLDs must elect within a reasonably limited time to either (1) submit a change request to no longer be an exclusive generic TLD, and sign the current form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement or (2) maintain their plan to operate an exclusive generic TLD. As a result, their application will be deferred to the next round of the New gTLD Program, subject to rules developed for the next round, to allow time for the GNSO to develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs. The Applicant Guidebook did not contain guidance on how ICANN would place restrictions on applicants’ proposed registration policies (see ICANN Board Resolution 2015.06.21.NG02, available at: https://features. icann.org/resolutions).

VIII.  Third Party Objections ID.144 In addition to ICANN’s Independent Objector,203 any other applicant or third party could

file a formal objection against any application on one of four bases set forth in Module 3 of the Guidebook. The objection process was intended to afford businesses, individuals, governmental entities, and communities an opportunity to advance arguments against introducing certain new gTLDs into the domain name system. ICANN engaged three dispute resolution providers to handle these objection procedures. 201  On February 5, 2014, ICANN’s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) adopted an implementation framework for GAC Category 1 safeguard Advice, allowing applicants to proceed in their applications once eligibility criteria have been met and which would be incorporated into Specification 11 of the Registry Agreement with ICANN if a string is delegated (utilizing the so-called ‘Public Interest Commitment’, the violation of which is subject to the Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Process). See Resolution 2014.02.05.NG01, available at: https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents. 202  ICANN solicited responses from 186 applicants for strings identified in the GAC Category 2 Advice. 139 applicants indicated that the registries would not be operated as exclusive access TLDs, 12 indicated that the registries would be exclusive access registries, and 35 indicated that although their applications stated that the registry would operate as an exclusive access registry, the registrants would not operate them as such. ICANN announced that those applications for strings that would not be operated as exclusive access TLDs may proceed, and required applicants to amend their applications and make such Public Interest Commitments pursuant to Specification 11 of the Registry Agreement to reflect this, if necessary. For those applicants intending to operate as exclusive access registries for the identified ‘generic strings’, ICANN requested a response as to how the proposed registry serves a public interest goal. The responses would be submitted to the NGPC and GAC for further consideration and are outstanding as of the time of publication. 203  See Section IX, below.

104

IX.  Objection by the Independent Objector There were four grounds for objection to applied-for New gTLD strings, namely:

ID.145

(1) String Contention Objection, for strings which may be considered sufficiently similar to confuse an average Internet user; (2) Community-Based Objection, for gTLD strings which may explicitly or implicitly target a defined community; (3) Limited Public Interest Objection, for gTLD strings deemed ‘contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under principles of international law;’ and (4) Legal Rights Objection, for any strings considered identical or confusingly similar to the trade or service marks of entities around the world, or to the names of IGO organizations. Each of the four above-mentioned objection procedures is reviewed in greater detail in Part III. ID.146

IX.  Objection by the Independent Objector ICANN selected an ‘Independent Objector’ (IO) to review all applications and all com- ID.147 ments submitted with respect to each application.204 The IO could lodge limited public interest and community objections in cases where no other objection (of the same type, absent extraordinary circumstances) had been filed, if and only if it was in the best interests of global Internet users. The IO could not object to an application unless there was at least one comment in opposition to the application made in the public sphere. ICANN selected a respected French law professor, Dr Alain Pellet, as IO and provided him a $25 million budget for salary and dispute resolution fees. After reviewing applications and comments, the IO sent an initial notice to applicants he ID.148 deemed possible candidates for an objection. The IO deemed it appropriate to issue public comments, as such comments aimed to address public concerns and inform the public of the reasons why the IO might or did not intend to lodge an objection. He then issued initial comments on 24 ‘controversial applications’ regarding 16 strings including ‘.islam’, ‘.catholic’, ‘.adult’, ‘.gay’ and perhaps curiously, ‘.hot’ and ‘.vodka’.205 The majority of IO comments were simply to clarify that the IO did not consider filing an ID.149 objection against a particular controversial application, against the appropriate legal background (such as the principle of the freedom of expression). In four instances the IO initially found that an objection might be warranted, concerning the strings ‘.army’, ‘.church’, ‘.gcc’, and ‘.islam’.206 In each case, the IO engaged with the relevant applicants to seek clarification of the grounds which give rise to his concern. In all cases, the IO ultimately found that it would probably not proceed to file an objection. Regarding the ‘.army’ application, the IO was concerned that the gTLD could potentially ID.150 mislead Internet users that the registry is affiliated with a national army, and cause irreparable harm to the security and stability of States. The IO considered the applicant’s assurances in response to the IO’s initial notice that the applicant would use the space in a manner which sufficiently overcame his concerns (although notably, no public interest commitment was filed by the applicant).

  AGB, Section 3.2.5.   See ‘The Independent Objector’s Comments on Controversial Applications’, available at: http://www. independent-objector-newgtlds.org/. 206  All comments are available at: http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/. 204 205

105

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program ID.151 Also, in its final assessment, the IO gave insight to the impact of GAC Early Warnings (which

do not guarantee that the GAC will ultimately issue Advice) as a result of the interaction with the applicant. As GAC Early Warnings express the opinion of a particular government and do not guarantee that the GAC will ultimately issue Advice, the IO did not consider itself bound by the reasoning in the Early Warning, and could find that it is not barred from filing an objection.

ID.152 Regarding the ‘.church’ application, the IO engaged both applicants for the string, as he

believed that operation of the space in a closed manner would violate the principle of the freedom of religion. Both applicants made such assurances to the IO that the string would be used in conjunction with an open registration model, which was accepted by the IO. Donuts, Inc, the successful applicant, made a Public Interest Commitment to operate the string in this manner.

ID.153 For both the ‘.gcc’ and ‘.islam’ applications, the IO had concerns (and for ‘.gcc’, was in

fact not satisfied in the applicant’s response), but decided not to file an objection as it found that other parties were better suited to file an objection. The IO considered that it was acting as a ‘safety net’ and did not intend to file an objection when the interested third party is ‘fully aware of the controversial issues and is better placed than the IO to file an objection, if it deems it appropriate’.207 A Legal Rights Objection was ultimately filed against the ‘.gcc’ string, but was withdrawn when GAC Advice was accepted to not allow the application to proceed. A Community Objection was filed against the ‘.islam’ string, but was not successful.

ID.154 Ultimately, he did not object to any applications associated with those 16 controversial

strings,208 but instead objected to 24 other applications, including ‘.amazon’ and multiple applications for ‘.charity’, ‘.med’/‘.medical’, ‘.health’/‘.healthcare’ and ‘.hospital’.209 The IO’s filings demonstrate that its reasoning with regard to health and medical-related filings were motivated by his understanding that ‘health’ ‘is a crucial, existential need for each and every human being not seldom defining the difference between life and death’.210 For his community objections on the same basis, as well as regarding the ‘.charity’ applications, the IO asserted that the relevant application did not address the specific enhanced needs of the community, which would lead to the detriment of the community. Regarding his objections against ‘.amazon’, the IO noted the expression by GAC members of concern for the private use of the TLD which coincides with the Amazon community, and that such ‘exclusive misappropriation’ would prevent the use of this domain for purposes of public interest, gradually eroding the link between the term ‘Amazon’ and the region to which it refers.211 207  The IO stated its ‘public policy’ not to ‘make an objection when an established institution representing and associated with the community having an interest in an objection can lodge such an objection directly. This does not exclude that the IO nevertheless deems it appropriate to file a community objection in particular circumstances, eg, if the established institution representing and associated with the community has compelling reasons not to do so, if the community has no representative established institutions entitled to file a community objection, or when several communities are in the same interest and an application could raise issues of priority or in respect to the modalities of the objection.’ See the Independent Objector’s comment on ‘.islam’. 208  Of the 16 controversial strings, objections were filed by other parties in relation to seven: ‘.gay’, ‘.gcc’, ‘.islam’, ‘.lgbt’, ‘.persiangulf ’, ‘.sex’, and ‘.sexy’. ‘.gcc’ was filed as a Legal Rights Objection, ‘.sex’ and ‘.sexy’ were filed as unrelated String Confusion Objections. The rest were filed as Community Objections. All of these objections either failed or were withdrawn. 209  See ‘The Objections Filed by the Independent Objector’, available at: http://www.independent-objectornewgtlds.org/. 210  See paragraph 9 of the IO’s Objection in Prof Alain Pellet, Independent Objector v Afilias Ltd, ICC Case No EXP/409/ICANN/26, available at: http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org. 211 See IO’s Objection in Prof Alain Pellet, Independent Objector v Amazon EUS.a.r.l., ICC Case No EXP/396/ICANN/13 (c.EXP/397/ICANN/14, EXP/398/ICANN/15), available at:  http://www. independent-objector-newgtlds.org.

106

X.  The ICANN Ombudsman Three objected-to applications were withdrawn, and the IO withdrew three objections.212 ID.155 The IO prevailed on one of the ‘.charity’ community objections and against ‘.hospital’,213 ‘.med’ and ‘.medical’,214 but lost the objections against ‘.health’ and ‘.healthcare’. He also lost his objections against ‘.amazon’,215 while his objection against ‘.patagonia’ was withdrawn when that ‘.BRAND’ applicant withdrew its application. The assessment of the IO and his role within the New gTLD Program was mixed. Some ID.156 applicants have called into question the IO’s impartiality in certain proceedings, while others have noted that the benefit of the IO is reduced by the nature of the deadlines and operations imposed on the position. Especially as the objection filing deadline was the same for the IO and other third parties, some concerned parties were left without important information as to the necessity of initiating an (often expensive) objection procedure without the benefit of knowing ahead of time that a case would or would not be addressed by the IO.

X.  The ICANN Ombudsman The Ombudsman function is provided in Article V of ICANN’s Bylaws, and shall act as a ID.157 neutral dispute resolution practitioner to provide an independent internal evaluation of complaints by members of the ICANN community who believe that the ICANN staff, board or an ICANN constituent body has treated them unfairly.216 Several parties involved in the New gTLD Program engaged the Ombudsman to address mat- ID.158 ters of unfairness, relating to Objection procedures217 and the (un)availability of appeals mechanisms from Objection Panel Decisions.218 ICANN has also referred many participants to the Ombudsman in conjunction with Requests for Reconsideration to the ICANN Board.219 212  Following the filing of objections by other objectors against the particular applications for ‘.med’ and ‘.hospital’ in which the IO also filed an objection, the IO withdrew its cases after finding that there were no extraordinary circumstances that could justify that the objection should remain. The IO has also inexplicably withdrawn its objection to ‘.indians’ without comment. 213  The applicant (Donuts, Inc) in ‘.hospital’ was later unsuccessful in its Request for Reconsideration of the (split) Expert Determination (Request 13-23, available at: ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at https://www.icann.org/resources). 214  A Request for Reconsideration was filed by the applicant in one of the IO’s successful objections against ‘.med’, claiming that there was no public comment against the applicant’s application and thus the IO did not have the proper grounds for filing its Objection. See Request 14-1, available at: ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at https://www.icann.org/resources. The IO’s case against Donuts, Inc was successful and its others were not, as Donuts, Inc refused to implement eligibility requirements and other safeguards which the Expert accepted would result in the detriment to the Community. The other two applicants adopted restricted eligibility criteria. Donuts, Inc later filed (and was not successful in) a Request for Reconsideration on this issue (Request 14-3, available at: ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at https://www.icann.org/resources). 215  The Expert for the consolidated ‘.amazon’ cases decided that there were justifiable doubts as to the independence of the IO, due to links between the IO and two major national representatives of the Amazon Community. See Prof Alain Pellet, Independent Objector v Amazon S.a.r.l., The International Centre for Expertise of the International Chamber of Commerce, Case No EXP/396/ICANN/13 (c. 14/15), available at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/. 216  For more information on the role of the ICANN Ombudsman, see Part I, para IB.146. 217  The Ombudsman found that it had the jurisdiction to consider the actions of Objection Dispute Resolution Service Providers and to make findings on issues. See, for instance, ‘Ombudsman Letters to Board’, July 13, 2013, available at: https://www.myicann.org/ombudsman-letters-board; ‘Objections to new gTLD Applications’, May 15, 2013, available at: https://omblog.icann.org; ‘Ombudsman Recommendation on Late Objection’, June 26, 2013, available at: https://omblog.icann.org/. 218  See ‘Dispute Resolution Providers and Decisions’, December 12, 2013, available at: https://omblog.icann.org/. 219  See, for instance, the Board Governance Committee Recommendation on Requests 13-06, 13-09, 13-10, 13-12, 13-16, 13-18, 13-21, 13-22, 13-23, 14-02, 14-03, 14-04, 14-5, 14-6, 14-09, 14-11, and 14-12, available at: http://www.icann.org/.

107

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program ID.159 While the Ombudsman may consider actions in relation to the New gTLD Program, in

some instances forming the basis of Board Resolutions,220 it did not have the ‘authority to act in any way with respect to internal administrative matters, personnel matters, issues relating to membership on the Board, or issues related to vendor/supplier relations’ (Dispute Resolution Service Providers have been designated as vendors).221 Moreover, some criticism was made against the Ombudsman regarding its authority and investigative practices.222

XI.  Accountability Processes for New gTLD Applicants ID.160 ICANN, at the level of its Bylaws, indicates a set of core values that guide its decisions

and actions, which include general concepts of transparency, fairness and neutrality, and the promotion of the public interest, among others.223 ICANN further recognizes the need for processes which hold ICANN accountable for those decisions and actions, and provides two mechanisms for this purpose. Those processes are the Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review.224 ICANN, through the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), is discussing supplementing these with further processes.225

ID.161 For purposes of the New gTLD Program, these accountability mechanisms were mentioned in

the Applicant Guidebook as potentially relevant for purposes of challenging any final decision made by ICANN with respect to a new gTLD application.226 ICANN did not provide any further clarity as to the applicability or impact of such mechanisms within the New gTLD Program, except that the use of an accountability mechanism might trigger individual consideration of gTLD applications as an exceptional circumstance.227 Despite the lack of clarity and instruction, ICANN received an unprecedented number of Requests for Reconsideration and Independent Review submissions arising out of ICANN’s actions or inactions during the New gTLD Program.

(1) Request for Reconsideration (a) Introduction ID.162 The Request for Reconsideration was invoked as the result of the New gTLD Program on the

basis of a number of different grounds, including Advice from the GAC, Board Resolutions, objection to panel decisions, Community Priority Evaluations, and other grounds (for a more detailed discussion of ICANN’s Request for Reconsideration Process see Part IB.VII). Over 30 Requests for Reconsideration were filed on the basis of GAC Advice and its impact on the New gTLD Program228 or issues of internal procedure (such as applicant change requests,229

220 See New gTLD Program Committee Resolutions 2013.07.13.NG02-04, July 13, 2013, available at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/documents-2014-03-24-en. 221  See ICANN Bylaws, Article V, s 3.2. 222  See ‘Communication to the Parties’ in Axis Communications AB/Axis AB v Saudi Telecom Company, WIPO Case No LRO2013-0051, September 20, 2013, available on the Arbitration and Mediation portion of WIPO’s website at: http://www.wipo.int/. 223  See ICANN Bylaws, Article I, s 2. 224  See ICANN Bylaws, Article IV. 225  See the GNSO constituency joint statement at the ICANN Public Forum of June 26, 2014 in London at page  26, available at:  https://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-public-forum/transcript-publicforum-26jun14-en.pdf. 226  See AGB, Section 6.6. 227  See AGB, Section 5.1. 228  For more information on GAC Advice, see Section VII, above. 229 See, for instance, Reconsideration Request 14-29, available on ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at:  https://www.icann.org/resources. For more information about applicant change requests, see Section VIII, below.

108

XI.  Accountability Processes for New gTLD Applicants Community Priority Evaluation,230 or Board decisions as the result of Ombudsman reports231). Thirteen Reconsideration Requests alone were filed on the basis of GAC Advice concerning the ‘.wine’ and ‘.vin’ gTLDs.232 The Request for Reconsideration was also invoked on the basis of AGB Module 3 Objection ID.163 proceedings, where since 2013 some 20 applicants have sought to challenge the decisions of various objection panels.233 Despite the variance in the grounds for reconsideration, the result was nearly always the ID.164 rejection of the request, usually, because in the context of the New gTLD Program, the reconsideration process does not call for the BGC to perform a substantive review of expert determinations but was limited to whether the panel or ICANN followed applicable policies or procedures.

(b) Standing and Standard Article IV, Section 2.2 of ICANN’s Bylaws states that any entity may submit a request for ID.165 reconsideration or review of an ICANN action or inaction to the extent that it has been adversely affected by: (1) one or more staff actions or inactions that contradict established ICANN policy(ies); (2) or one or more actions or inactions of the ICANN Board that have been taken or refused to be taken without consideration of material information, except where the party submitting the request could have submitted, but did not submit, the information for the Board’s consideration at the time of action or refusal to act; or (3) one or more actions or inactions of the ICANN Board that are taken as a result of the Board’s reliance on false or inaccurate material information. For many requests, the applicable action was relatively clear—an ICANN Board resolution ID.166 withdrawing an application234 or the failure to receive financial support pursuant to ICANN processes for the filing of a new gTLD application.235

230  See, for instance, Reconsideration Request 14-12, available at: ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at https://www.icann.org/resources. For more information about community priority evaluation, see Section XII(1). 231  See Reconsideration Request 13-8, available at: ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at https://www.icann.org/resources. 232  See Reconsideration Requests 14-13–14-22 and 14-24–14-26, available at ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at: https://www.icann.org/resources. 233  Of these, some ten Reconsideration Requests were against Community Objections, five were against String Confusion Objections, three were against Legal Rights Objections, and one was against a Limited Public Interest Objection. More information about Objection processes is available at Part III. Requests concerning String Confusion Objections were commonly made on the basis of clearly inconsistent outcomes, such as where one of three determinations considering the similarity of the strings ‘.car’ and ‘.cars’ came to a different conclusion. See, for instance, Reconsideration Request 13-14, available on ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at: https://www.icann.org/resources. The inconsistency in certain String Confusion Objections was the subject of additional consideration by the ICANN board, including a potential appeal mechanism to resolve apparent inconsistencies. See Part IIIB, para IIIB.119 for more information about ICANN Board actions regarding appeal mechanisms for certain inconsistent String Confusion Objections. 234  See, for instance, Reconsideration Request 13-4 concerning GAC Advice and subsequent Board acceptance of such advice regarding the ‘.africa’ application, available on ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at: https://www.icann.org/resources. 235  See, for instance, Reconsideration Request 13-1 concerning the failure to obtain ICANN financial assistance for the submission of a new gTLD application, available on ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at: https://www.icann.org/resources.

109

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program ID.167 In many situations, however, the appropriate basis for a reconsideration request was less clear,

in particular with regard to the actions of third-party vendors (such as expert determination panels). ICANN in this regard determined that the Reconsideration process can properly be invoked for challenges of the third party’s decisions where it can be stated that either the vendor failed to follow its process in reaching the decision, or that ICANN staff failed to follow its process in accepting that decision.236 In this context, the relevant action forming the basis of the request for reconsideration is the acceptance of the expert determination by ICANN within the New gTLD Program, not the rendering of the expert determination itself. This distinction (between the rendering of the determination and acceptance by ICANN), when coupled with the lack of provided information about the procedure, prevented parties from challenging erroneous decisions, as it was not clear whether ICANN would review any decisions before ‘acceptance’ within the New gTLD Program, and the form such action by ICANN would take.237

(c) Evaluation ID.168 Requests for Reconsideration are evaluated by the Board Governance Committee (BGC), a committee of the ICANN Board, which has the power to make recommendations to the Board as to the merits of such Requests. The BGC’s determination is construed to be advice and not binding on the Board.238 The BGC also may dismiss insufficient requests, conduct factual investigations, request additional written submissions, and make a final determination without reference to the Board.239 ID.169 In the context of the New gTLD Program, the Reconsideration process was not intended

to permit the Board to perform a substantive review of Panel decisions; Reconsideration is not available as a mechanism to re-try the decisions of the evaluation panels or when a party merely disagrees with a decision.240

ID.170 By constraining the scope of the review to the limited purpose of determining whether a ven-

dor or ICANN staff failed to follow processes, ICANN attempted to avoid evaluating a case on its own competence and attempted to decide matters on issues of procedure. The BGC then would not be able to replace a panel decision with its own. The BGC noted that it was not an appeal mechanism and by seeking such the requestor would be in contravention of the established processes within ICANN.241

(d) Effect of Decision and Results ID.171 ICANN’s bylaws empower the BGC to make a final determination or a recommendation

to the ICANN Board with respect to a Reconsideration Request, which the Board is not obligated to follow.242 All of the Requests for Reconsideration made regarding the New gTLD Program were denied except for two, with ICANN’s BGC generally finding that 236  See Recommendation of the Board of Governance Committee (BGC) Reconsideration Request 13-5, 1 August 2012, available on ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at:  https://www. icann.org/resources. 237  See, for instance, Reconsideration Request 14-9 wherein ICANN specified that posting of the expert determination in full on its website constituted the requisite acceptance by ICANN of the expert determination, which ICANN informed the requestor several months after the fact. 238  See ICANN Bylaws, Article IV, s 2.17. 239  See ICANN Bylaws, Article IV, s 2.3. 240 Ibid. 241  See BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-5, available on ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at:  https://www.icann.org/resources. Moreover, many criticized ICANN for failing to provide an appropriate appeal mechanism, see ‘Dispute Resolution Providers and Decisions’, ICANN Ombudsman Blog, December 12, 2013, available at: http://omblog.icann.org. 242  See ICANN Bylaws, Article IV, ss 2.16 and 2.17.

110

XI.  Accountability Processes for New gTLD Applicants proper grounds for reconsideration had not been stated.243 In a select number of cases, the BGC, while denying the Requests for failure to state proper grounds as detailed in the ICANN Bylaws, noted that the issues raised are important for consideration and/or resolution via other means, such as through Board action244 or as a part of a review of various New gTLD Program activities.245 Given the relatively broad scope for the BGC to make recommendations to the Board, it would be possible for the requestor to ask for particular remedies to suit the situation. However, as demonstrated by the volume of Requests and the number of denials, it was a major ID.172 failure for ICANN to fail to provide for appropriate review mechanisms as many parties were left without recourse for their concerns. By its narrow scope, and in light of the interests involved, the Request for Reconsideration was wholly inappropriate for dealing with the concerns of applicants and third parties during the New gTLD Program.

(2) Independent  Review (a) Introduction In addition to the Reconsideration Process, ICANN has established a separate process for inde- ID.173 pendent third-party review of Board actions (or inactions) alleged by an affected party to be inconsistent with ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws. Any person materially affected by a decision or action by the Board that he or she asserts is ID.174 inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws may submit a request for independent review of that decision or action. In order to be materially affected, the person must suffer injury or harm that is directly and causally connected to the Board’s alleged violation of the Bylaws or the Articles of Incorporation, and not as a result of third parties acting in line with the Board’s action. An Indpendent Review Panel (IRP) request must be filed within 30 calendar days of the post- ID.175 ing of the minutes of the Board meeting (and the accompanying Board Briefing Materials, if available) that the requesting party contends demonstrates that ICANN violated its Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation. For IRP requests relating to a BGC determination on a Reconsideration Request, such requests must be filed within 30 calendar days of the posting of the minutes of the BGC meeting in which the determination at issue was made. Prior to initiating a request for independent review, the complainant is urged to enter into a ID.176 period of cooperative engagement with ICANN for the purpose of resolving or narrowing the issues that are contemplated to be brought to the IRP. The independent review process has been invoked twelve times as a result of actions during ID.177 the New gTLD Program: twice as a result of GAC Advice that an application should not be  Ibid.   The BGC Recommendation for Reconsideration Requests 13-9 and 13-10, concerning apparently inconsistent String Contention Objection determinations, noted ‘[t]‌hough there are no grounds for reconsideration presented in this matter, following additional discussion of the matter the BGC recommended that staff provide a report to the NGPC, … setting out options for dealing with the situation raised within this Request, namely the differing outcomes of the String Confusion Objection Dispute Resolution process in similar disputes….’. The ICANN Board later on February 11, 2014 proposed a ‘Review Mechanism to Address Perceived Inconsistent Expert Determinations on String Confusion Objections’, available at: http:// www.icann.org. For more information about the String Confusion Objections, see Part IIIB, para IIIB.119. 245  The BGC Recommendation for Reconsideration Request 13-1 stated that ‘[t]‌he BGC believes, however, that [Requestor] raises some interesting issues in its Request and suggests that the Board direct that the concerns raised in [Requestor’s] Request be included in a review of the Applicant Support Program so that the design of future mechanisms to provide financial assistance and support in the New gTLD Program can benefit from the experiences within this first round’. 243 244

111

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program approved,246 once as a result of not terminating an allegedly problematic application,247 once as a result of a panel finding during String Similarity Review,248 twice in relation to String Confusion Objections,249 once in relation to panel findings during a Legal Rights Objection,250 and twice in relation to a panel finding during a Community Objection.251 Further, three Independent Reviews were filed on the basis of a Community Priority Evaluation processes.252 Each Request for Independent Review was made subsequent to a denied Request for Reconsideration.

(b) Standing and Standard ID.178 The basis for standing uses language which may be equivalent in practice to that of the

Request for Reconsideration (a person or entity must be ‘materially affected’ versus ‘adversely affected’), but in contrast to the Request for Reconsideration, the action or inaction must be by the ICANN Board, not including ICANN staff.

ID.179 For Requests for Independent Review that arise from the actions of third-party vendors,

this would necessarily involve elaborating the error or unfairness by the panel or vendor in terms of its acceptance or endorsement by the ICANN Board253 or that in some way the ICANN Board, by design of certain processes, created or contributed to certain conditions of unfairness.254

ID.180 The IRP is subject to the following standard of review (Article IV, Section 3.4 ICANN

Bylaws):

a. did the Board act without conflict of interest in taking its decision; b. did the Board exercise due diligence and care in having a reasonable amount of facts in front of them; and c. did the Board members exercise independent judgment in taking the decision, believed to be in the best interests of the company?

If a requestor demonstrates that the ICANN Board did not make a reasonable inquiry to determine it had sufficient facts available, ICANN Board members had a conflict of interest

246 See DCA Trust v ICANN, available at:  http://www.icann.org/en/news/irp/dca-v-icann, and Better Living Management Co, Ltd v ICANN, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/irp/blm-v-icann. 247 See Gulf Cooperation Council v ICANN, available at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gcc-v-icann2014-12-06-en. 248 See Booking.com v ICANN, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/irp/booking-v-icann. 249 See Vistaprint Ltd v ICANN, available at:  https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/vistaprint-vicann-2014-06-19-en, and dot Sport Limited v ICANN, available at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ dot-sport-v-icann-2015-03-27-en. 250 See Merck KGaA v ICANN, available at:  https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/merck-v-icann2014-07-22-en. 251 See Donuts v ICANN, available at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/donuts-v-icann-2014-1013-en, and Corn Lake, LLC v ICANN, available at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/corn-lake-v-icann2015-04-07-en. 252 See Dot Registry, LLC v ICANN, available at:  https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/dot-registry-vicann-2014-09-25-en, Despergar Online SRL, Donuts Inc., Famous Four Media Limited, Fegistry LLC and Radix FZD v ICANN, available at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/various-v-icann-2015-03-16-en, and Little Birch LLC and Minds + Machines Group Limited v ICANN, available at: https://www.icann.org/ resources/pages/birch-mmx-v-icann-2015-03-27-en. For more information about the Community Priority Evaluation, see para ID.185. 253  That is, ‘ICANN failed to comply with its obligation to neutrally and fairly apply the Policy established in the Applicant Guidebook and Bylaws by accepting the Determination that .webs is confusingly similar to .web’, see Request for Independent Review in Vistaprint Ltd v ICANN, available at: https://www.icann.org/ resources/pages/irp-2012-02-25-en. 254  That is, ‘ICANN failed to comply with its obligation to remain accountable by failing to provide any remedy for its mistreatment of Booking.com’s Application’, see Request for Independent Review in Booking. com v ICANN, available at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/irp-2012-02-25-en.

112

XII.  Resolution of String Contention in participating in the decision, or the decision was not an exercise in independent judgment, believed by the ICANN Board to be in the best interests of the company, after taking account of the Internet community and the global public interest, the requestor will have established proper grounds for review.

(c) Effect of Decision Similar to the Request for Reconsideration, the declaration by the Independent Review Panel ID.181 (IRP) is advisory. The ICANN Board shall consider the declaration, but it is not binding on its actions.255 An IRP Panel may recommend that the Board stay any action or decision, or that the ID.182 Board take any interim action, until such time as the Board reviews and acts upon the IRP declaration.

XII.  Resolution of String Contention Module 4 of the Applicant Guidebook defined string contention as occurring when two or ID.183 more applicants for the same gTLD string, or strings whose similarity is identified as creating a probability of confusion, successfully complete all previous stages of evaluation and dispute resolution.256 Strings that were in direct contention, or indirect contention (where, for instance, two strings not in direct contention with each other are both in contention with a third string), were considered part of a contention set. Contention sets were identified during Initial Evaluation, and were formed through successful String Confusion objections. The resolution of contention sets proceeded in one of three ways. Where one of the involved ID.184 applications was filed as a community-based application, the conflict could be resolved on the basis of community priority. Where none of the relevant applications in the contention was filed on a community basis, the applicants could be placed into an auction procedure.257 Finally, applicants in a contention set could resolve their conflicts (at any time) via mediation or private auction processes.

(1) Community Priority Evaluation The preference for community-based TLDs in the contention process is based on policy ID.185 advice from the GNSO258 and is intended to ensure that community‐based applicants receive the TLD string to which their community is strongly related.259 Once all applications in a contention set completed all prior stages, including resolution ID.186 of ICANN’s accountability mechanisms,260 then community-based applicants were invited to opt for evaluation. Those who opted-in needed to pay a deposit of US$22,000, which was refunded only if the application successfully passed the evaluation.261 Failure of an   See ICANN Bylaws, Article IV, s 3.21.   AGB, Section 4.1. 257  See AGB, Section 4.1.4. 258  See ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization, ‘Final Report Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains’, August 8, 2007 available at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-frparta-08aug07.htm. 259  See ICANN, ‘Letter from ICANN chair to GAC chair regarding GAC’s comments on DAGv3’ (published in October 2009), http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09500.html: ‘Perhaps the most important aspect of the suggested categories is that an applicant within these categories does, in fact, receive the string associated with its community, and that is what the existing process is designed to do.’ 260  Including the Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review. 261  AGB, Section 4.2.1. 255 256

113

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program application to pass Community Priority Evaluation simply meant the application proceeded as a standard application. ID.187 Precedence automatically took place if the community applicant passed the so-called

‘Community Priority Evaluation’ (CPE). This evaluation process was conducted by ‘The Economist Intelligence Unit’ (EIU) and ‘InterConnect Communications’.262 To pass the CPE, applicants for community-based gTLDs had to demonstrate the following, scoring at least 14 of 16 possible points. First, the community applicant had to demonstrate an ‘ongoing relationship with a clearly delineated community’ (4 points).263 Secondly, the applicant had to show that the applied for gTLD string was strongly and specifically related to the community named in the application (4 points). Thirdly, the applicant must have proposed dedicated registration and use policies for registrants in its proposed gTLD, including appropriate security verification procedures, commensurate with the community-based purpose it has named (4 points). Lastly, its application had to be endorsed in writing by one or more established institutions representing the community it had named (4 points).264

ID.188 As of the publication deadline, three assessed applications had successfully passed Community

Priority Evaluation. The application for ‘.hotel’ by HOTEL Top-Level-Domain S.a.r.l., the first application to successfully pass CPE, received 15 out of 16 points, thereby securing community status and resolving the contention set (with the six other applications not proceeding).265 The application received full marks under three criteria, and receiving three of four points for Nexus (the maximum allowable when a string merely identifies the community and does not match the name of or be a short form or abbreviation of the community name). The EIU determined that the application pertained to and showed sufficient nexus to a delineated and organized community and received the endorsement of several hoteland travel-related groups and associations within that community while not receiving any relevant opposition.

ID.189 Similarly, community applications for ‘.radio’266 and ‘.eco’267 successfully passed Community

Priority Evaluation, resulting in their respective contention sets resolving in their favour. The ‘.radio’ application received 14 of 16 points, with the panel finding that the ‘radio industry’ composed of a large and ‘very diverse’ collection of radio broadcasters, as well as

262  ICANN, ‘Preparing Evaluators for the New gTLD Application Process’ (November 22, 2011) http:// newgtlds.icann.org/en/blog/preparing-evaluators-22nov11-en. 263 The scope of a ‘community’ determined to what extent specific groups deserved protected status. The GNSO recommendation from which the Applicant Guidebook definitions are derived, as well as the Applicant Guidebook itself and GAC Advice indicate that a ‘community’ should be interpreted broadly. According to the GNSO, this broad interpretation will include, ‘for example, an economic sector, a cultural community, or a linguistic community’. The Applicant Guidebook states that a ‘community can consist of legal entities, individuals or of a logical alliance of communities’. See ICANN, ‘GAC Scorecard Sorted’ (March 14, 2011) http://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-scorecard-sorted-14mar11-en.pdf. 264  Information about the Community Priority Evaluation, Results of Evaluations, and the EIU is available at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe. 265  See gTLD application no 1-1032-95136 for ‘.hotel’ by HOTEL Top-Level-Domain s.a.r.l. The other six applicants who automatically lost their contention set on the basis of the Community Priority Evaluation filed Reconsideration Request 14-34 to address matters of asserted unfairness in the Evaluation. 266 See gTLD application no 1-1083-39123 for ‘.radio’ by the European Broadcasting Union. The three remaining applicants for ‘.radio’ filed Reconsideration Request 14-41, asserting that the European Broadcasting Union did not meet certain criteria to qualify as a community-based gTLD and requesting reversal of the decision to award a passing score to the European Broadcasting Union and reinstate the others’ applications. 267  See gTLD application no 1-912-59314 for ‘.eco’ by Big Room Inc.

114

XII.  Resolution of String Contention associations, federations, and radio professionals constituted a clearly delineated community with a well-defined membership and awareness and recognition among its members. The panel found that the ‘radio community’ was sufficiently structured, although there was no one organization that represented all the radio member categories. The ‘.eco’ application achieved 14 of 16 points, with full marks for ‘Community Establishment’. ID.190 The ‘ECO’ community was defined by the applicant with reference to not-for-profit, business, and business environmental organizations as well as governmental agencies with environmental missions and related individuals who are ‘delineated from Internet users generally by community-recognized memberships, accreditations, registrations, and certifications that demonstrate active commitment, practice and reporting’. The Panel found that the community had awareness and recognition among its members. One application which failed to obtain community priority was for ‘.gay’.268 Only one of ID.191 four applicants for the ‘.gay’ gTLD, dotgay llc, applied as a community applicant. Dotgay llc achieved only ten of 16 total points in its Community Priority Evaluation, failing to achieve the minimum 14 points necessary to prevail, although it earned full points for ‘Community Establishment’. The applicant defined the ‘gay’ community as those ‘individuals whose gender identities ID.192 and sexual orientation are outside of the norms defined for heterosexual behavior of the larger society’ including ‘individuals who identify themselves as male or female homosexuals, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, ally and many other terminology’. The applicant elaborated that the requirements of the individuals to demonstrate membership in the community ‘is the process of “coming out”’. Despite the fact that the panel recognized that the applicant-designated ‘gay’ community was clearly delineated and organized, the panel took issue with the applicant’s definition for membership in the ‘gay’ community. The panel found no ‘Nexus between Proposed String and Community’, as membership in the community that the general population would recognize as ‘gay’ is not limited to only those who have ‘come out’ but include other individuals who have either not come out or who are heterosexual ‘allies’, among others. As a result of Request for Reconsideration 14-44 by dotgay LLC, ICANN ‘discovered in ID.193 the course of investigating the claims [that] the CPE Panel inadvertently neglected to verify some of the letters submitted in support of the Application’, and ordered that the CPE Panel’s Report be set aside and new evaluators be appointed to conduct a new CPE.269 The evaluation is still ongoing at the time of the publication deadline. A further example of an applicant’s failure to secure community priority was demonstrated ID.194 by .Music LLC in its community application for ‘.music’.270 .Music LLC achieved only three of the available 16 points in its Community Priority Evaluation, failing to score any points for ‘Community Establishment’ and ‘Nexus between Proposed String and Community’. .Music LLC defined its community as ‘The Global Music Community’ comprised of ‘an international range of associations and organizations and the millions of individuals these organizations represent, all of whom are involved in the creation, development, publishing, recording, advocacy, promotion, distribution, education, preservation and or nurturing of the art of music’. The panel noted that the community does not demonstrate an awareness and recognition among its members without any sufficient organization.

  See gTLD application no 1-1713-23699 for ‘.gay’ by dotgay llc.   See BGC Determination on Reconsideration Request 14-44 of January 20, 2015, available at: https:// www.icann.org/resources/pages/14-44-2014-10-22-en. 270  See application no 1-959-51046 by .Music LLC for ‘.music’. 268 269

115

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program ID.195 Despite the detailed evaluation criteria with an intricate points-based assessment for appli-

cations, it is unclear whether the Community Priority Evaluation fairly identified applications that, due to the relationship with and endorsement of a particular group, deserved to block other competing applications. The question exists as to whether ICANN and its designated experts could or should elevate applications solely because of their relationship with an incumbent group associated with a particular term. In one matter, commercial applicants (whose applications were disregarded after a competitor successfully passed community priority evaluation) asserted that the community application served to ‘fend off legitimate competition from business operators in competition with the standard’ business model, and thus the application and community designation is anticompetitive.271 The basis of the community application model, and evaluation of applications in line with standards meant to apply across all such models is by its nature a normative and subjective affair which may be difficult or impossible.

ID.196 Participants in Community Priority Evaluation have also expressed their criticism of ICANN

and the EIU. Parties criticized ICANN in the setting of standards, claiming that requirements changed after the application period closed and thereafter allowed standard applicants to amend applications to make them more competitive with community applications. Criticism of the EIU included that it lacked requisite skill and expertise, failed to prevent or address conflicts of interests, created additional requirements after the application period, and failed to act in accordance with its own standards.272

(2) ICANN Auction of Last Resort or Private Auction ID.197 In most cases where multiple applicants applied for a single new gTLD it was expected that

contention would be resolved by the community priority evaluation, or through voluntary agreement among the involved applicants.273 If that was not the case, auctions took place to determine the winner of each contention set.

ID.198 At least a dozen contention sets have been resolved via private agreement, with one or more

applicants withdrawing, presumably for some sort of consideration, from the remaining applicant, or after forming a joint venture.274

ID.199 If no settlement or agreement between the applicants that were identified as being in conten-

tion was reached among themselves, applicants had two options: resolving the string contention on the basis of ICANN’s Auction of Last Resort or through private auction.

ID.200 The models used for private auction, as opposed to ICANN’s auction model, would gener-

ally split the successful applicant’s bid among the ‘losing’ bidders in the same contention set. Accordingly, the loss of a contention set through a private auction could prove lucrative and those applicants (typically those who applied for many generic TLD strings) appeared to take strategic losses in order to gain capital for other auctions.275 Moreover, applicants who might

271  See Request for Reconsideration 14-34, available on ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at: https://www.icann.org/resources. 272  See Independent Review matter regarding Dot Registry, LLC v ICANN, available at:  https://www. icann.org/resources/pages/dot-registry-v-icann-2014-09-25-en. 273  See AGB, Section 4.3. 274  Information about settlement of contention sets became public from time to time through blogs aimed at the domain name investment community. 275  Private auctions had the potential to create significant windfalls to applicants who ‘lost’ such auctions, see for example ‘Minds + Machines Wins.Law &.Vip; Loses 5 Auctions & Pockets $6.2 Million’, The Domains, September 24, 2014, available at: http://www.thedomains.com/.

116

XIII.  Transition to Delegation otherwise have lost the incentive to run their own registries276 appear to be holding out for resolution through an auction process.

(3) ICANN Auction of Last Resort ICANN anticipated that few contention sets would proceed to auction, noting that many ID.201 applicants would likely elect to resolve their disputes through alternative means,277 and referred to the auction process as a ‘mechanism of last resort’.278 ICANN entered an Auction Development and Management Agreement with ‘Power Auctions LLC’ on September 13, 2013 to provide auction services, including the generation of auction rules.279 The ICANN auctions followed an ‘ascending clock’ model, meaning that the appointed auctioneer would successively raise the bid amount for the TLD until only one interested party remains.280 The winning party had to arrange payment for the auction within 20 working days to proceed toward delegation. ICANN retained the entirety of the winning bid, with all other losing applicants being entitled only to a 20 per cent refund of their application fee.281

XIII.  Transition to Delegation Module 5 of the Guidebook described the final steps required of an applicant for comple- ID.202 tion of the new gTLD application process, including execution of a registry agreement with ICANN and preparation for delegation of the new gTLD into the root zone. All applicants that successfully completed the evaluation process were required to enter into a registry agreement with ICANN before proceeding to delegation. That agreement is discussed in detail in the next section. After executing the agreement, each applicant was required to complete pre-delegation ID.203 technical testing as a prerequisite to delegation into the root zone. This pre-delegation test had to be completed within the time period specified in the registry agreement, or risk termination of that agreement.282 The purpose of the pre-delegation technical test was to verify that the applicant would operate the registry in accordance with the required technical and operational criteria, in a stable and secure manner. Once an applicant met all of the pre-delegation testing requirements, it was eligible to request delegation of its applied-for gTLD.

276  An applicant could lose the incentive to operate a registry for several reasons—for instance, Microsoft withdrew its application for ‘.live’ as it subsequently abandoned its marketing under the ‘Live’ brand. Other disincentives could also have occurred due to the New gTLD Program itself, such as, for instance, applicants who initially applied to operate closed generic TLDs but only until later—and after the time in which a significant sum of money could be returned via refund—when GAC Advice materially undermined the applicant’s strategy. In this regard, as of April 2014, no applicant affected by GAC Category 2 Safeguard advice (effectively restricting the application for a closed registry operating on a generic TLD string) appears to have withdrawn its application. 277  This position, however, is somewhat unclear, given the prohibition on the establishment of joint ventures between applicants to solve string contention concerns, and the requirement that any material changes to an applicant trigger a full re-evaluation of the entire application. See AGB, Section 4.1.3. 278  AGB, Section 4.3. 279 Further information about the auction process, including a link to Power Auctions LLC and the Auction Rules, is available at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions. 280  Detailed information about the auction model, with illustrations, is provided in AGB, Section 4.3.1. 281  AGB, Section 1.5; ICANN ‘Auction of Last Resort’ results are published at: https://gtldresult.icann. org/application-result/applicationstatus/auctionresults. 282  Section 4.3(b) of the draft Registry Agreement provided 12 months to complete all testing and procedures from the date of signing.

117

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program ID.204 Upon notice of successful completion of the ICANN pre-delegation testing, applicants initi-

ated the process for delegation of the new gTLD into the root zone database. This included provision of additional information and completion of additional technical steps required for delegation.283

XIV.  New gTLD Registry Agreement Torsten Bettinger and Mike Rodenbaugh ID.205 The Registry Agreement (RA) between ICANN and the registry operator incorporated all the

rights and obligations of either party (including special requirements and commitments that the registry operator agreed to in its gTLD application) in the operation of the TLD and specified the applicable procedures in case of dispute and termination.284 ICANN expected that the RA would be signed within nine months of ICANN’s formal notification, which was sent to successful applicants after completion of all other prior stages in the process; otherwise ICANN has discretion to rescind its invitation request.285

ID.206 Applicants were expected to enter into the RA as written. Applicants could propose negoti-

ated terms, but this would cause delay, and any material changes had to be approved by the ICANN Board before execution of the RA.286

ID.207 The key obligations of the registry operator, as set forth in the RA, were summarized in

Module 5 of the Applicant Guidebook. Registry obligations included the requirement to comply with all ICANN consensus policies287 and to implement both pre-288 and post-289 launch rights protection mechanisms. The Registry Agreement included the obligation to pay recurring fees to ICANN (minimum US$25,000 per year), and certain technical requirements and other provisions to ensure security and stability of the gTLD.

ID.208 As also detailed in AGB Section 5.4.1: ‘The registry agreement defines the obligations of gTLD

registry operators. A breach of the registry operator’s obligations may result in ICANN compliance actions up to and including termination of the registry agreement.’ ICANN indicated that it would perform audits on a regular basis to ensure that gTLD registries remained in compliance and to investigate complaints from the community.290 However, with the dramatic increase in the number of contracting parties, it remains to be seen how ICANN will be able to handle its compliance obligations. It is important for the stability and security of the Internet, and also for the protection of Internet consumers and rightsholders, that ICANN itself monitors and takes appropriate action to ensure that contracted parties are held to their contractually-obligated

  Information about the delegation process is available at: http://www.iana.org/help/gtld-delegation.   For more information generally about Registry Agreements, see Part I.B, Section V. 285  An applicant can request a one-time, nine-month extension, if it can demonstrate to ICANN’s satisfaction that it is working diligently and in good faith toward completing any steps necessary for entry into the RA. 286  See AGB, Section 5.1. 287  ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)—developed consensus policies are applicable to all registries and are updated from time to time. See Part IIIF for more information. 288  The registry operator must implement, at a minimum, a Sunrise period and a Trademark Claims service during the start-up phases for registration in the TLD, as provided in the RA. These mechanisms will be supported by the Trademark Clearinghouse, discussed in detail at Part III. 289  Post-launch Rights Protection Mechanisms include the requirement to implement decisions under the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) procedure, the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Policy (PDDRP), Registration Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP), and the Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP). These procedures are covered in Part III. 290  See para ID.232 for more information about ICANN Contractual Compliance and its activities. 283 284

118

XV.  New gTLD Launch Programs duties. There may be serious questions in this regard, especially as ICANN appears to rely heavily on third-party reporting291 and has a history of inadequate enforcement activity.292

XV.  New gTLD Launch Programs After delegation of a gTLD string, the AGB and RA provided for certain domain name reg- ID.209 istration processes and allocations to occur for the protection of certain rightsholders and for the enhancement of the registry’s operation and marketability. Also, registries incorporated certain launch programs not inconsistent with the AGB and RA to capitalize off the value of certain highly-desirable strings.

(1) Reserved Names and the Qualified Launch Program The registry operator had the right and obligation to withhold certain domain names from ID.210 registration, either temporarily or permanently.293 Certain strings were mandated to be permanently reserved, including the word ‘example’ and two-character labels (ie ‘example.example’ and ‘xx.example’). Defined country and territory names, names relating to the IOC, the International Red Cross/Red Crescent, and IOs were also subject to special protections. The registry could also reserve certain names for its own benefit. The Qualified Launch ID.211 Program294 was intended to provide a mechanism for registry operators to register a limited number of names to third parties to promote their TLDs prior to the sunrise period, while maintaining safeguards against intellectual property infringement.295 Section 3 of Specification 5 of the RA provided certain reservations of domain names for ID.212 Registry Operations. Section 3.2 of Specification 5 of the gTLD Registry Agreement allowed a registry operator to register up to 100 domain names to itself (as an exception to the Registry Operator Code of Conduct, which forbids the registry operator from registering domain names in its own right).296 Section 4.5.1 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Rights Protection Mechanism Requirements (the TMCH Requirements)297 contemplated the possibility, subject to ICANN’s further review and analysis, that registry operators could offer a ‘Qualified Launch Program’ in which they could allocate or register some or all of these   ICANN maintains a complaint uptake form on its website and at: http://www.internic.net/.  See letter from INTA to Committee on the Judiciary, US House of Representatives of June 24, 2009 (‘ICANN has repeatedly demonstrated inadequate enforcement of even its most fundamental and longest-standing contractual policies. ICANN’s lack of commitment and resources with respect to contractual enforcement has directly led to conduct that translates into DNS instability, eg lax compliance by registrars with respect to their obligations under the Registration Accreditation Agreement, tolerance of inaccurate WHOIS information, and a lack of uniformity and cooperation with respect to proxy registrations.’). Available at: http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/. 293  See Section 2.6 of the Registry Agreement; the applicable rules for reserved names are provided in Specification 5 to the Registry Agreement. 294 See ‘Trademark Clearinghouse Rights Protection Mechanism Requirements Approved Launch Program Application Process’, November 12, 2013, available at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/. 295  If a domain name under a Qualified Launch Program does not match a label registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse, then the domain name may be registered in a Qualified Launch Program to any third party. On the other hand, if the domain name does match a label in the Clearinghouse, then the domain name may only be registered to a Sunrise-Eligible Rights Holder (as defined in the TMCH Requirements) in the Qualified Launch Program. In the case of geographic TLDs, names may also be registered to public authorities under the Qualified Launch Program, subject to certain requirements. Each domain name registered in a Qualified Launch Program will reduce the number of domain names available to a Registry Operator. 296  The Registry Operator Code of Conduct is found at Specification 9 to the Registry Agreement. 297  The Trademark Clearinghouse Rights Protection Mechanism Requirements are available at:  http:// newgtlds.icann.org/. 291 292

119

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program 100 domain names prior to any other third-party registration or sunrise period to third parties for the purposes of promoting their TLDs.298 ID.213 Section 3.3 of Specification 5 furthermore allowed the registry operator to withhold any

other domain name (provided that it does not hold it for its own use), and release this registration at a later date subject to the registry operator’s discretion. Strategies in relation to these names are discussed below regarding ‘Premium Names’ and ‘Blocked Lists’.299

(2) Sunrise  Period ID.214 The AGB provided that the registry operator implement a sunrise period which allowed eli-

gible rightsholders an early opportunity to register names in the TLD.300 Such rightsholders had the opportunity to register domain names before the public if the domain name corresponding to its mark was not otherwise reserved.

ID.215 The AGB required that to participate in the sunrise period, a rightsholder must register with

the Trademark Clearinghouse.301 The sunrise service must be offered for at least 30 calendar days during the pre-launch phase of the TLD, allowing qualified rightsholders the opportunity to register second-level domain names matching the mark registered at the Trademark Clearinghouse, and notifying such registered rightsholders if someone else is seeking a Sunrise registration.302

(3) Landrush ID.216 The registry operator has the possibility of implementing several alternate and optional

launch programs which are not mentioned in the AGB or RA.

ID.217 Typically, but not in all cases, registries provided for a ‘landrush’ period coinciding with

or coming after the sunrise period, and before ‘general availability’ (when domain names become available to the general public in a ‘first-come, first-served’ model at standard pricing). Landrush registrants had the opportunity to register domain names which were not reserved or already registered. Landrush registrations were usually at a much higher price than during general availability and were not typically ‘first-come, first-served’. Multiple requests to register a domain name during landrush may be resolved via auction, whereby the potential registrants bid against each other for the registration.

(4) Limited Registration Period (‘Sunrise B’) ID.218 After the mandatory sunrise period for rightsholders, registry operators may have had a sep-

arate registration phase (in conjunction with or alternatively to a landrush period, prior to general availability) whereby it made available registrations to registrants who satisfied certain eligibility criteria. This may have been done in order to ensure that certain types of registrants, typically with special connection with the gTLD string, had the opportunity to register within the space. As an example, ‘.nyc’ offered a ‘City Government Affiliated Phase’ prior to landrush and general availability that allowed city government and affiliated entities the right to register ‘.nyc’ domains through a city-designated single point of contact that authenticated eligibility.303

298  The Qualified Launch Program has alternatively been referred to as a ‘Founders Program’ (.nyc) or ‘Pioneer Program’ (.kiwi). 299  See paras ID.221 and ID.223, respectively. 300  AGB, Section 5.4.1. 301  For more information about the Trademark Clearinghouse, see Part III.D.I. 302  See Section 6.2 of ‘Trademark Clearinghouse’, June 4, 2012, attachment to Registry Agreement. 303 See http://www.nic.nyc/about/.

120

XV.  New gTLD Launch Programs (5) General Availability After all required and special launch processes were completed, domain names became avail- ID.219 able to the general public on an ongoing, ‘first-come, first-served’ basis (in accordance with the registry’s general policy on eligibility). In some cases, registries used a special pricing arrangement in the first few days of availabi­ ID.220 lity. For instance, Donuts, Inc, instead of offering a landrush, allowed interested parties to register domain names in its ‘Early Access Program’.304 The first-come, first-served process allowed domain names to be registered for a high price on the first day of general availability, and in decreasing amounts thereafter for a period of seven calendar days, when standard general availability pricing applies.305

(6) Premium  Names Pursuant to the registry’s ability to withhold registrations under Section 3.3, Specification 5 ID.221 of the Registry Agreement, registries commonly would withhold valuable domain names to be sold or auctioned any time after the close of the sunrise period.306 The registry could set aside as many names as it pleases and, as is generally the case, the registry determined the prices it charged for such domain names. There is a fine balance as to the number of domain names the registry reserves in such a manner, as it would risk discouraging registrants should too many names be reserved. The issue of premium names was subject to some controversy during the New gTLD Program, ID.222 as in some instances registry-designated premium names clearly incorporated famous brands for sale at significantly higher prices than the general availability prices. Some referenced the desire for resolution of this practice through a mechanism similar to the ‘Premium Name Application Process for Trademark Holders’ for ‘.mobi’ names.307

(7) Blocked  Lists In addition to such pre-launch marketing programs, some registry operators also created ID.223 post-launch rights protection mechanisms to better protect intellectual property rights. These protections utilized the ability of a registry to reserve certain registrations pursuant to Section 3.3, Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement. Notably, Donuts, Inc (applicant for 307 gTLDs) implemented their Donuts Protected Marks List (DPML).308 Going beyond the protection afforded by the Trademark Clearinghouse, brand owners added their trademark-related terms into the DPML to block them from registration at the second level in all Donuts operated top-level domains. A blocked domain could not be registered by a third party or used in any way, including as a website or in conjunction with e-mail. Donuts touted that the DPML protects mark holders against cybersquatting at a fraction of what it would cost to defensively register their marks in all Donuts TLDs. However, it is also true that Donuts and other registries profited from the attempt by trademark holders to protect their brands in the vastly-expanding DNS.

 See http://www.donuts.co/early-access/.   First-day pricing for domain names under this program could be on the order of US$10,000. See, for instance ‘GoDaddy has a $12,500 price tag for Donuts’ Early Access Program’, December 10, 2013, available at: http://domainnamewire.com/. 306  See, for instance, ‘Pre-Reserve a Domain Name, or Not? ICANN Answers the Question’, November 13, 2013, available at: http://blog.icann.org/. 307  See Part IC, para IC.78 ff. for more information on the Premium Name Application Process for Trademark Holders for ‘.mobi’. 308  See Part III.D.IV for a detailed account of the DPML. See also http://www.donuts.co/dpml/. 304 305

121

D.  ICANN’s New gTLD Program

XVI.  ICANN Contractual Compliance ID.224 ICANN’s Contractual Compliance Program exists to ensure that ICANN’s contracted

parties fulfil the obligations set forth in their agreements with ICANN. Its approach is three-pronged:  prevention through collaboration, transparency through communication, and enforcement.309 As a part of its compliance functions, ICANN specifically developed a program for gTLD registry compliance, identifying ten common compliance areas which serve as a basis for regular review.310

ID.225 The Applicant Guidebook indicated that the Registry Agreement defined the obligations of

new gTLD registry operators, and that a breach of these obligations may result in ICANN compliance actions up to and including termination of the registry agreement.311 Registries in the New gTLD Program, given the limited scope for negotiation of terms of the Registry Agreement, had nearly identical agreements and obligations. The Applicant Guidebook contained the model Registry Agreement, which was later updated during the course of the New gTLD Program. The registry made certain representations and warranties in Article 1 of the Registry Agreement,312 whereby registry covenants were defined at Article 2,313 and payment obligations were defined at Article 6.

ID.226 The Applicant Guidebook further indicated that ICANN compliance will audit and investigate

complaints regarding the registry operator’s adherence to contractual obligations.314

ID.227 Compliance issues follow a systematic resolution path, broken into two stages and incorporating

the general approach detailed above. During the prevention stage of informal resolution mechanisms, issues raised by a submitted complaint or through ICANN’s monitoring efforts will trigger an inquiry by ICANN to the contracted party. If the contracting party does not cooperate and comply with ICANN’s informal resolution process, a formal breach notice is issued.

ID.228 Complaints may be raised to the attention of ICANN through portals on its website.315 ICANN

indicates in its regular reports that it receives upwards of 3,000 complaints a month, with a small and growing proportion of such complaints in relation to registry actions and issues.316

ID.229 ICANN’s audit program is built on a three-year cycle, whereby all registries and registrars

will be randomly selected for an audit during the three years.317 Auditing will be completed with the assistance of KPMG. Registries may be subject to more than one audit during the three-year cycle based on certain circumstances, including in the event of excessive complaints

  See ICANN’s Contractual Compliance Program page, available at: https://www.icann.org/resources.   Compliance areas include: functional specifications (including protocols, zone file generation, grace periods), performance specifications (including availability, outages, processing times), equivalent access for registrars to registry services, reserved names, zone files, whois, data escrow, registration restrictions, use of registrar data, and payments to ICANN. 311  See AGB, Section 5.4.1. 312  Representations and warranties include that all material information provided in the gTLD applications are true and correct at the time of signing, and that they continue to be true and correct, that the registry operator is duly organized and in good standing, and that the registry operator has a letter of credit. 313  Covenants include the obligation to provide only approved registry services, compliance with consensus and temporary policies, compliance with reserved names requirements, protection of the legal rights of third parties (through sunrise registration and other protective actions), and compliance with relationship rules with registrars, among others. 314  See AGB, Section 5.4.2. 315  Complaints may be submitted at ICANN’s website and at: http://www.internic.net. 316  ICANN Contractual Compliance monthly reports are available at: https://www.icann.org/resources. 317  ICANN’s dedicated audit program webpage is available at: https://www.icann.org/resources/. 309 310

122

XVI.  ICANN Contractual Compliance or issues identified in a previous audit. Audits will consist of a notification followed by a request for information notice and reminders over the course of approximately one month. The auditing phase takes approximately three months, with a two-week reporting phase. Six weeks are provided for remediation of breaches. Results are published on ICANN’s website. Article 4 of the Registry Agreement provided ICANN the power to fail to renew a registry ID.230 agreement or terminate a registry agreement during the course of the term of agreement should a registry fail to cure a breach of its obligations. ICANN has only issued one breach notice to a registry in the past, which was dropped as ID.231 a part of a settlement agreement with the registry after it filed a lawsuit against ICANN.318 Given the fundamental change in nature of the DNS landscape due to the introduction ID.232 of the new gTLDs, it is important that ICANN efficiently and effectively monitors and enforces contractual compliance with its registries. Many of the contracted parties are located in jurisdictions where the registry may enjoy certain protections and traditional court options are limited, thus making the ICANN contractual compliance efforts one of the few options available to address improper activity. It is yet to be seen how effective ICANN will be, given the prior track record and criticism of compliance actions.319

318  See February 27, 2011 Notice of Breach of .Jobs Registry Agreement, available on the Contractual Compliance portion of ICANN’s website at: http://www.icann.org/. 319  See, for instance, ‘UDRP Failure Endangers Consumers’, June 18, 2014, available at:  http://www. circleid.com. See also letter from INTA to Committee on the Judiciary, US House of Representatives, June 24, 2009, available at: http://www.inta.org.

123

E COUNTRY CODE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS Torsten Bettinger

I. Introduction  II. Registries and Registrars  III. Structure of the Namespaces  IV. Comparison of the Registration Policies 

(3) Restrictive Registration Requirements  IE.13 (4) ccTLDs Without Territorial Reference  IE.16

IE.01 IE.06 IE.07

V. Comparison of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the ccTLDs  VI. Registration Costs  VII. Statistical Data 

IE.08 IE.11

(1) Unrestricted Registries  (2) Semi-restrictive Registration Requirements  IE.12

IE.21 IE.25 IE.27

I. Introduction In addition to the gTLDs, there are currently some 250 spaces known as ‘country code IE.01 top-level domains’ (ccTLDs). ccTLDs were established at the dawn of the Internet, with the intention of facilitating and promoting the spread of the Internet globally.1 The ‘.us’ domain name was the first delegated ccTLD, followed by ‘.uk’ and ‘.il’ in 1985.2 In contrast to gTLDs, the ultimate public policy authority for the operation of ccTLDs IE.02 rests with the relevant government or public authority. How this authority is exercised is determined by applicable law. The relationship between national governments, the registry of the ccTLD, and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) are set out by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) in the ‘Principles and Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top-Level Domains.3 This document captures the important administration and self-determination rights and roles of the relevant governments and ccTLD registries, while preserving and reaffirming ICANN’s role of coordinating and ensuring the stability and security of the domain name system. ICANN fills this role by retaining the power to delegate and re-delegate ccTLDs and coordinating the operation of the root name server and policy development processes. The ccTLD Registry is a trustee for the delegated ccTLD, and has a duty to serve the local IE.03 Internet community as well as the global community. ccTLD registries are to operate in accordance with applicable law, but it is important that practices among the many ccTLDs be consistent when possible. Multiple (not identical) best practices for ccTLD registries have

1  See ‘ccTLD Delegation and Administration Policies’, available at: https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/ cairo2000/cctld-topic.htm. 2 See Yu, ‘The Origins of ccTLD Policy Making’, Cardozo J. of Int’l & Comp. Law, 12:387 at 390. 3 See http://archive.icann.org/en/committees/gac/gac-cctld-principles.htm.

125

E.  Country Code Top-Level Domains been published by authorities and groups, in order to promote stability of the domain name system (DNS) and operation which promotes the public interest.4 IE.04 Historically, ccTLDs have been two-letter domains derived from the ISO 3166-1 stand-

ard for coding countries and territories (eg ‘.de’ for Germany, ‘.br’ for Brazil ‘.za’ for South Africa and ‘.jp’ for Japan).5 Since 2009 ICANN has allowed countries and territories to submit requests to ICANN for IDN ccTLDs representing their respective country or territory names in scripts other than ASCII characters (IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process).6

IE.05 Today many ccTLD registries and gTLD registries also support IDNs at the second or lower

levels (see the National Reports in Part II).

II.  Registries and Registrars IE.06 In the initial phase of the DNS, the ccTLD registries were almost exclusively handled by

universities or government organizations. Since then, the majority of countries have delegated the responsibility for their respective ccTLDs to private organizations that operate for profit or public interest. The majority of the private ccTLD registries are subject to government oversight (eg Spain, France, Austria, Ireland, Norway, China, Greece, and Singapore). In only a few countries is the award made on a statutory basis directly by public authorities (eg Finland).7 In a similarly small number of countries (eg Germany and the United Kingdom), the registries operate independently of direct government oversight. Efforts to install ICANN contractual agreements with ccTLD registries have so far failed.8

III.  Structure of the Namespaces IE.07 ccTLD registries are free to decide whether to set up sub-level domains under their ccTLDs

to continue to divide the namespace. The majority of registries have divided the namespace into generic and/or geographic sub-level domains. Domain names can thus be registered either directly under the top-level domain and among the various sub-level domains, or only under the sub-level domains.

4  Compare Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries (CENTR) Best Practice Guidelines for ccTLD Managers, available at: http://archive.icann.org/en/cctlds/centr-2nd-best-practices-20may01.htm and ICANN ccTLD Constituency Best Practice Guidelines for ccTLD Managers, available at: http://archive. icann.org/en/cctlds/cctldconst-4th-best-practices-10mar01.htm. 5  The current delegation can be determined from IANA’s list of ccTLDs available at: http://www.iana.org/ domains/root/db. 6  The IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process was launched on November 16, 2009. As of that date eligible countries and territories were able to request their respective IDN ccTLD(s) through the process. The first IDN ccTLDs were successfully implemented into the DNS root zone in 2010, including Russia (.рф), Egypt (‫رص‬.) and Saudi Arabia ‫ةيدوعسلا‬.). For information on countries and territories that have completed the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process, see http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/fast-track. 7  For example, in Finland the domain registry is managed by the Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority, in Austria by the privately organized ‘NIC.AT GmbH’, and in Switzerland by the academic institution ‘SWITCH’ (Swiss Academic and Research Network). 8 See also Voegeli, Die Regulierung des Domainnamenssystems durch die Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, pp 124 ff.

126

IV.  Comparison of the Registration Policies

IV.  Comparison of the Registration Policies While the gTLDs are managed in accordance with the rules and the contractual agreements IE.08 of ICANN, the administration of ccTLDs is subject to the provisions of the respective ccTLD Registry.9 The registration requirements and registration procedures vary considerably.10 In the majority IE.09 of ccTLDs, the registration can take place directly via the Registry, but some registry operators prefer to manage the registrations exclusively through accredited registrars, as is done in the gTLDs. With regard to the registration requirements, four registry models can be distinguished.

IE.10

(1) Unrestricted Registries In an increasing number of countries, registration under the ccTLD is without any eligibility IE.11 requirements. Under this allocation practice, every natural person or legal entity, regardless of nationality or place of business, is eligible to register a domain name of their choice, provided it is not already registered. The only limitation may be the prohibition of strings which contradict generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order recognized under principles of international or national law.

(2) Semi-restrictive Registration Requirements The majority of the ccTLD registries utilize a model of semi-restrictive registration. It is not IE.12 necessary to demonstrate by submission of documents a mark or legally recognized name which corresponds to the characters of the domain name, but the applicants are limited to natural or legal persons within the geographical area referred to and demonstrated by the ccTLD. The designated registration conditions differ for such tests, commonly referred to by registrars as a ‘local presence requirement’. Some evidence of a headquarters or economic activities within the country or geographical area is required in certain jurisdictions, while in others it suffices if the domain holder has appointed an authorized local representative within the country (for details see the National Reports in Part II).

(3) Restrictive Registration Requirements In contrast to semi-restrictive registration requirements, a few ccTLD operators employ even IE.13 more stringent registration requirements. There has been a decline in the number of ccTLDs employing fully restrictive registration requirements. Such registries will allow registration only on the condition that the applicant has documented proof of both a territorial relation

9 Guidelines for the management of ccTLDs in ICANN were from the ‘Governmental Advisory Committee’ (GAC), which proposed to support the development of appropriate procedures for the delegation and administration of ccTLDs. The main aim of these guidelines is to contribute to the development of possible models for communication between the relevant government or public authorities and ICANN, between ICANN and the registry, and between the relevant government or public authority and the registry. The ‘Principles for the delegation and administration of country code top-level domains’ are available at: http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm. See also the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center developed ‘ccTLD Best Practices for the Prevention and Resolution of Intellectual Property Disputes’, which gives an overview of the registration practices and policies in the ccTLDs and serves to prevent bad faith domain registrations in the ccTLDs and contribute to the resolution of domain name disputes, available at: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/bestpractices/bestpractices.html. 10  As a forum for the exchange of information between the different European registries, the ‘Council of European National TLD Registries’ (CENTR) has been established, made up of mainly European ccTLD registries. See http://www.centr.org.

127

E.  Country Code Top-Level Domains to the relevant jurisdiction as well as a mark or rights in a name which are recognized and coincide with the registered domain name.11 IE.14 Under the restrictive registration model, registries have employed varying requirements and

models. Some of the restrictive requirements apply only to direct registration under the ccTLD, and sub-level domains are either made available under less restrictive registration requirements or restrictions do not exist. If the registries do not allow splitting of the name space into sub-level domains, then the restrictive registration requirements generally apply to all registrations.

IE.15 Overall, the development of registration policies for ccTLDs in recent years has been charac-

terized by an increasing liberalization of the registration requirements. A number of registries have abandoned the aforementioned semi-restrictive principles and the existing territorial requirements now follow an unrestricted grant practice. Experience has shown that restrictive registration requirements do lead to fewer disputes when appropriately enforced, however, they can impede electronic commerce and marketing strategies within a restricted ccTLD space and can result in significantly fewer domain registrations.12

(4) ccTLDs Without Territorial Reference IE.16 For commercial reasons, some registrars have been given substantial leeway from ccTLD

authorities and operate as private companies that sell domain names globally without territorial terms.13

IE.17 The ccTLD ‘.tk’14 of the South Pacific island state of Tokelau is one of the fastest growing

ccTLDs in recent years, largely due to the approach of offering the basic use of domain names in the ccTLD to anyone without charging registration or renewal fees. The registrant of a free ‘.tk’ domain does not become the legal owner of the domain name unless it chooses a paid registration. Since 2013, ‘.tk’ has become the largest ccTLD with more than 26 million reported registrations as of 2014. Freedom Registry, the operator of ‘.tk’, is also offering domain names in the African ccTLDs of ‘.cf ’ (Central African Republic), ‘.ga’ (Gabon) and ‘.ml’ (Mali) under the same conditions.15

IE.18 As another example, with 11,000 inhabitants, the South Pacific island nation of Tuvalu

licensed the ‘.tv’ ccTLD to a US company for US$50 million.16 Second-level domains in the ‘.tv’ space have been auctioned off for more than US$100,000. Second-level domains, such as ‘news.tv’, will be offered at prices of up to US$1 million. The ‘.tv’ registry also offers individual letters and numbers as domain names that are not in the traditional gTLDs. Registrations such as ‘h.tv’ and ‘k.tv’ or ‘2.tv’ and ‘7.tv’ were made available for premium prices.

IE.19 Other ccTLDs have capitalized on unintentional associations, such as the ccTLD ‘.md’ from

Moldova, which is marketed worldwide to companies in the healthcare industry (‘md’ here

11  See the registration policy for ‘.fi’ (Finland) which limits registration to companies and organizations registered in Finland and to Finish citizens; ‘.tr’ (Turkey) limiting registration to local entities or companies which have business relationships with Turkey. 12  France, which utilized a restrictive registration policy, had only 200,000 registrations by 2004, while under the semi-restrictive German ccTLD more than 6 million domain names were registered. 13 See the OECD Report, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, Generic Top-LevelDomains:  Market Development and Allocation Issues, July 13, 2004, available at:  http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/56/34/32996948.pdf. 14 See http://www.dot.tk/. 15  See the website of Freedom Registry, at http://www.freenom.com/en/index.html. 16  Similar to ‘.tv’, the ccTLD ‘.ag’ of the Caribbean islands of Antigua and Barbuda is operated by the US Company ‘NIC.AG’ through a licence and fee arrangement.

128

VI. Registration Costs referencing ‘medical doctor’). The ccTLD ‘.la,’ the country code of Laos, is marketed primarily to Internet users in Los Angeles, California. The ccTLDs ‘.bz’ (Belize), ‘.cc’ (Cocos (Keeling) Islands). ‘.ms’ (Montserrat) ‘.nu’ (South IE.20 Pacific Niue Island of Iceland), ‘.pn’ (Pitcairn Iceland), ‘.vg’ (British Virgin Islands) and ‘.ws’ (Western Samoa) are marketed globally outside their ‘home states’.

V.  Comparison of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the ccTLDs In contrast to the registration requirements in the gTLDs, registries of the ccTLDs have no IE.21 obligation to recognize the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Rather, it is the free decision of the registries to determine whether they wish to bind their consumers, through the domain registration agreements, to the UDRP or other dispute resolution models. So far, approximately 70 of the 250 ccTLD registries have adopted the UDRP or variations thereof.17 The majority of ccTLD registries, however, have since developed independent alternative IE.22 dispute resolution mechanisms, some of which are administered by WIPO or by dispute resolution providers based in the respective countries. In most cases these dispute settlement procedures are strongly, both procedurally and in IE.23 terms of substantive decision criteria, similar to the UDRP.18 Differences are mainly in terms of the rights upon which a complainant may rely, as well as in the scope of the procedure. In the majority of ccTLDs the scope is limited to abusive domain registrations, but some jurisdictions will also include a more expansive view encompassing conflicts arising under national law between a domain name registration and trademark rights. Some of the ccTLD registries provide for implementation of an adversarial dispute resolution process, or a mandatory or voluntary arbitration proceeding. In a small number of countries, the dispute settlement procedures have been designed as a IE.24 true arbitration, which the parties submit to via contractual agreement only after the onset of the domain name dispute. Experience shows that arbitration of domain name disputes are impractical, because a contractual agreement between the parties on a non-judicial conflict resolution after the onset of the conflict can rarely be achieved.

VI.  Registration Costs The costs of registering domain names in ccTLDs vary significantly (see the respective IE.25 country reports). Prices for ccTLD registration range from US$5 (e.g. domains in the ‘.nl’ and ‘.de’ spaces) to more than US$1,000 per registration per year (eg domains in the ‘.kl’ and ‘.tt’ spaces). In countries where registration is possible only though registrars, such registrars shall each IE.26 determine their own ‘market price’ for domain names. In some cases, in order to promote registration by registrars, the registry will set the costs of registrations using various price levels for direct (from the registry) and indirect (from the registrar) registrations. The registration

17  For details, see the marginal note in Part IIIE, para IIIE.30; a full list of these ccTLDs is available at: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cctld/index.html. 18  A list of each of the applicable ccTLD dispute resolution systems is available at: http://www.wipo.int/ amc/en/domains/rules/cctld/index.html. See also Part IIIH and the various National Law reports in Part II.

129

E.  Country Code Top-Level Domains costs of registering a domain immediately from the ccTLD registry are usually much higher than for registrations completed through a competent registrar.

VII.  Statistical Data IE.27 The registration numbers for the ccTLDs vary significantly, even taking into account the

population figures. Crucial for the number of registrations, apart from the extent of commercial use of the Internet in a given state or region, are the respective zone name registration conditions. According to an extensive report from the Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries (CENTR) the overall growth rate of domain names in ccTLDs has clearly slowed between 2008 and 2013.19

IE.28 In absolute terms, the ccTLD ‘.tk’ of the South Pacific island state of Tokelau is today the

largest ccTLD due to the approach of offering the basic use of domain names in the ccTLD to anyone without charging registration or renewal fees. This is followed by Germany (‘.de’) with over 15.9 million, China (‘.cn’) with 11.9 million, and the United Kingdom (‘.uk’) with 10.5 million registrations.20

IE.29 Together, the following ten largest ccTLDs account for 65 per cent of all ccTLD domain

name registrations worldwide.21

Table IE.1:  Largest ccTLDs (January 2015) Tokelau (.tk) Germany (.de) China (.cn) United Kingdom (.uk) Netherlands (.nl) Russian Federation (.ru) European Union (.eu) Brazil (.br) Argentina (.ar) Australia (.au)

26.0 million 15.9million 11.9 million 10.6 million 5.5 million 4.8 million 3.8 million 3.2 million 3.0 million 2.6 million

  CENTR, Recent Growth Trends within CENTR and gTLD Registries, 2013.  DENIC provides updated domain registration statistics, available at:  http://www.denic.de/en/ background/statistics/international-domain-statistics/. 21  See the Verisign Industry Report Q2, 2014. 19 20

130

F THE EUROPEAN TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN ‘.eu’ Torsten Bettinger

I. Regulatory Framework and Historical Development  II. The Registry  III. General Registration Principles  IV. Eligible Persons  V. Structure of the Namespace  VI. Phased Registration  VII. Reserved Geographical and Geopolitical Names  VIII. Country Names and Alpha-2 Codes Representing Countries  IX. Improper Registrations  X. Registration of the Reserved Names 

XI. WHOIS  XII. Revocation of Domain Names  XIII. Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures against Decisions of EURid, in Violation of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004  XIV. Alternative Dispute Settlement Proceedings against Speculative or Abusive Domain Name Registered or Used  XV. Suspension of the Domain Name  XVI. Death and Winding Up of the Domain Holder  XVII. Transfer, Cancellation, and Renewal of Registration 

IF.01 IF.05 IF.10 IF.16 IF.18 IF.19 IF.26 IF.28 IF.30 IF.31

IF.33 IF.34

IF.35

IF.37 IF.38 IF.39 IF.41

I.  Regulatory Framework and Historical Development In February 2000, as part of the eEurope Initiative, the European Commission commenced IF.01 public consultation on the introduction of a new ccTLD, ‘.eu’. Its aim was to create a clearly recognizable link with the Community, thereby making the internal market more visible on the Internet-based virtual market, and allowing enterprises, organizations, and natural persons within the European Community the opportunity to register their sign or name under a top-level domain that would manifest their European identity. Since ‘interested circles’ generally expressed their support for the project, the Commission asked IF.02 ICANN on behalf of the Community to delegate the ‘.eu’ code for the purpose of creating a new ccTLD ‘.eu’, and on 25 September 2000, was informed by ICANN that the ‘.eu’ code could indeed be delegated to the Community.1 On 12 December 2001, the Commission published a ‘Proposal for a Regulation by the European Parliament and European Council on the Implementation of the .eu Top Level Domain,’2 which was submitted to the European Parliament in the co-decision procedure provided for in Article 251 of the EU Treaty. After a number of amendments were made and a common position was adopted by the Council

1  The precondition for delegation was the registration of the ‘.eu’ code with the International Organization for Standardization in the list of ISO-3166 codes. 2  (COM) 2000 927 final.

131

F.  The European Top-Level Domain ‘.eu’ of the European Parliament,3 Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 of the European Parliament and Council4 was adopted on 22 April 2002, laying down in detail the regulatory framework for the new top-level country-specific domain ‘.eu’. IF.03 After a call for Expressions of Interest in the role of TLD registry for the ‘.eu’ domain,5

the Commission designated the European Registry for Internet Domains (EURid) to be responsible for the organization and management of the TLD ‘.eu’ by a decision dated 21 May 2003.6 This was followed by Regulation (EC) 874/2004 dated 28 April 2004,7 which laid down the preconditions and basic rules for the registration of domain names under ‘.eu’, and the rules for alternative dispute resolution (see the following sections).

IF.04 Following the end of the Sunrise period in December 2005, the TLD ‘.eu’ opened to all

natural or legal persons who reside in the EU Member States. According to the statistics published by EURid (as of August 2015), more than 3.8 million domain names are currently registered in the ‘.eu’ space.

II.  The Registry IF.05 As mentioned above, responsibility for the management and organization of the ‘.eu’ domain

rests with the consortium ‘European Registry for Internet Domains’ (EURid), which prevailed over 25 competitors following the Commission’s call for expressions of interest for the selection of the ‘.eu’ TLD registry.

IF.06 The consortium is composed of the following three enterprises, all of which also act as the

registry for the ccTLD of their own country: (1) DNS Belgium vzw/asbl, Kroning Leopold I Straat 1 bus2 B–3000 Leuven (2) Instituto di Informatica e Telematica Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Area della Ricerca di Pisa Via Guiseppe Moruzzi 1 I–156124 Pisa

(3) Network Information Center Sweden AB (NIC SE) Seehlstedtsgatan 7 SE–11528 Stockholm IF.07 In addition, EURid has two associate members, the Slovene Company Akademska in

Raziskovalna mre A Slovenije and the registry of the Czech ‘.cz’ ccTLD, CZ NIC.

  Council of the European Union, 7 November 2001, 2000/0328, ECO 254 CODEC 926.   Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 April 2002 on the implementation of the ‘.eu’ Top Level Domain, OJ L113/1. 5  Commission, Call for Expressions of Interest for the Selection of the ‘.eu’ TLD Registry (C2002/C 208/08), OJ L113, 30 April 2002, p 1. 6  Commission Decision of 21 May 2003 on the designation of the ‘.eu’ Top Level Domain Registry (C2003) 1624. 7  Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004, laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the ‘.eu’ Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration (OJ L162/1, 30 April 2004, p 1). 3 4

132

III.  General Registration Principles By Article 2 of Regulation 733/2002, the functions of the registry comprise the following IF.08 activities: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

registration of domain names; maintenance of the corresponding databases and associated public query services; operation of the registry of domain names; operation of the TLD name server; and creation and management of the TLD ‘.eu’ zone files.

Details are set out in the service contract concluded between the Commission and EURid, IF.09 initially for a period of five years.8 Pursuant to Regulation 733/2002, Article 3(4) the registry will not itself act as registrar.

III.  General Registration Principles According to Regulation (EC) No 874/2004, application for a domain name through elec- IF.10 tronic means is intended to be a simple, rapid and efficient procedure through accredited registrars (registrar), which is to be made available in all official languages of the Community institutions (Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004). Registrations can consist of Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic characters used in any of the official IF.11 languages of the European Union (‘.eu’ IDN domain names). Since the expiry of the period of phased registration on April 7, 2006 (see next sec- IF.12 tion), the ‘.eu’ ccTLD has followed an unrestricted registration system similar to the gTLDs; that is, there are, apart from the technical requirements and the exclusion of certain ‘reserved characters’ and ‘indecent names’, no other requirements for registration of domain names. Registration is, however, limited to the range of eligible businesses, organizations, and individuals who can demonstrate a seat, a branch or a residence within the European Community. Registration is based on the principle of priority (‘first-come, first-served’). That is, the IF.13 domain name is assigned to that applicant whose application is first received in a technically correct manner and in accordance with the Regulation (Article 2, paragraph 3 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 in conjunction with Section 2 of the ‘General Conditions for the registration of .eu domain names’). Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004, all applications for registration shall IF.14 contain: (1) the name and address of the requesting party; (2) a confirmation by electronic means from the requesting party that it satisfies the general eligibility criteria set out in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002; (3) an affirmation by electronic means from the requesting party that to its knowledge the request for domain name registration is made in good faith and does not infringe any rights of a third party; and (4) an undertaking by electronic means from the requesting party that it shall abide by all the terms and conditions for registration, including the policy on the extra-judicial settlement of conflicts set out in Chapter VI.

8  The draft service contract can be found in Schedule 4 of the Call for Expressions of Interest for the Selection of the ‘.eu’ TLD registry (2002/c 04/08), OJ L113, dated 30 April 2002.

133

F.  The European Top-Level Domain ‘.eu’ IF.15 Further details on the registration requirements are set out in Sections 1–4 of .eu Domain

Name Registration Terms and Conditions.9

IV.  Eligible Persons IF.16 In contrast to the unrestricted procurement system of gTLDs (such as ‘.com’, ‘.net’ and

‘.org’), Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 sets restrictions on the range of eligible applicants. Only the following are entitled to register:

(1) undertaking having its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community, or (2) organization established within the Community without prejudice to the application of national law, or (3) natural person resident within the Community. IF.17 The violation of the provisions of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 is a reason for

the withdrawal of the domain registration.

V.  Structure of the Namespace IF.18 Under Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004, a splitting of the namespace into add-

itional sub-level domains is not allowed. Domain Names can therefore only be registered under the top level domain ‘.eu’.

VI.  Phased Registration IF.19 Under Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004, the registration process under the ccTLD

‘.eu’ was a phased registration system wherein the domain name owner or exclusive licensee of ‘prior rights’ recognized by national and/or Community law, and public institutions were entitled to register their marks or names as domain names.

IF.20 Phased registration consisted of two phases each lasting two months. IF.21 In the first phase from December 7, 2005 to February 6, 2006 only the following forms of

domain names were registered:

– names or common abbreviations of public facilities; – geographical indications; and – national and community trademarks. IF.22 The second phase of phased registration from February 7, 2006 to April 6, 2006 saw the reg-

istration of signs that could be registered in the first phase, and additionally characters which consisted of other prior rights could be registered by the holders of rights to that character. These included under Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004: – unregistered trademarks; – trade names;

9

 See http://www.eurid.eu/files/docs/trm_con_EN.pdf.

134

VII.  Reserved Geographical and Geopolitical Names – business names; – company names; – family names; and – distinctive titles of protected literary and artistic works. Under Article 12, paragraph 3 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004, the application to reg- IF.23 ister a domain name had to be in accordance with prior rights. Article 10 Paragraph 1 and 2 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 include a reference to the legal basis of the national or Community law and other relevant information that should be included. Furthermore, the applicant must submit proof within 40 calendar days, showing that he is the holder of the prior right claimed on the characters; for example, the entry number of the trademark, information concerning publication in an official journal or government gazette entries, and membership of professional or business associations and chambers of commerce. The procedure and conditions of registration during the Sunrise period were set out in detail in the .eu Registration Policy and Terms and Conditions for Domain Name Applications made during the Phased Registration Period (‘Sunrise Rules’).10 As a ‘Validation Agent’, the firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers was responsible for the ver- IF.24 ification of the registration requirements and evidence submitted to demonstrate the asserted prior rights in the Sunrise applications. With regard to the names of public institutions, Member States were given authority to validate the Sunrise registrations. The audit was conducted through established national validation points in each EU Member State. During the Sunrise period, a total of 319,205 applications for registration were filed with IF.25 EURid. EURid’s decisions related to the Sunrise phase led to a variety of conflicts that are the subject of non-judicial arbitration proceedings under Articles 21 et seq of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004.

VII.  Reserved Geographical and Geopolitical Names Article 5 para 2 of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 provided that Member States may notify to IF.26 the Commission and to the other Member States a limited list of broadly-recognized names with regard to geographical and/or geopolitical concepts which affect their political or territorial organization that may either: (1) not be registered; or (2) be registered only under a second-level domain according to the public policy rules. Where a Member State or the Commission, within calendar 30  days of publication, IF.27 raised an objection to an item included in a notified list, the Commission was able to take appropriate measures to resolve the conflict through a related administrative or regulatory procedure under Article 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC. As part of the opposition, all the objections were sent to the members of the Committee as established by Article 22, paragraph 1 of Directive 2002/21/EC and Communications Committee to the Director General of DG Information Society Commission (Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004).

  The ‘.eu’ Sunrise Rules are available at: http://www.eurid.eu/files/docs/sunrise_rules_en.pdf.

10

135

F.  The European Top-Level Domain ‘.eu’

VIII.  Country Names and Alpha-2 Codes Representing Countries IF.28 Under Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004, Member States may request that their

official name (eg United Kingdom of Great Britain, Federal Republic of Germany) and the name by which they are commonly known (eg Great Britain, United Kingdom, Deutschland, Germany, etc) in one or more Community languages of the European Union could only be registered directly under the top-level domain ‘.eu’ by their own government. The Commission must provide to the Member State or candidate country, within two months of the date the request is submitted in line with Regulation (EC) No 874/2004, a list of names to be reserved. The Commission shall inform the registry of the name to be reserved and the bodies which represent the national governments able to register the name.

IF.29 Alpha-2 codes representing countries (eg GB, DE, FR, etc) could not be registered as domain

names just below the top level domain ‘.eu’.

IX.  Improper Registrations IF.30 If a court of a Member State finds that a domain name is libelous, racist, or contrary to public

policy, the registration of this domain name shall be locked after notice of the court decision, and the registration shall be withdrawn after the submission of a final judgment (Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004).

X.  Registration of the Reserved Names IF.31 Under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004, the following domain names are reserved

for the operating functions of the registry: ‘eurid.eu’, ‘registry.eu’, ‘nic.eu’, ‘dns.eu’, ‘internic. eu’, ‘whois.eu’, ‘das.eu’, ‘coc.eu’, ‘eurethix.eu’, ‘.eurethics.eu’, and ‘euthics.eu’.

IF.32 Additionally, Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 provides that the Commission

may ask the Registry to introduce domain names directly under the ‘.eu’ TLD for use by the Community institutions and bodies. In this regard, when domain names introduced by the Commission pursuant to Article 9 potentially conflict with the rights of trademark holders, the European Court of Justice determined that the rights holders’ interests are not affected by the measure and cannot invoke the right to judicial protection in relation to the Commission’s actions.11

XI. WHOIS IF.33 The registry, in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004, undertakes

to ensure that reasonably accurate and up-to-date information on the technical and administrative contact responsible for managing each registered domain name is available, as well

11  Decision of the ECJ dated 17 February 2009– C-483/07. In this matter, Galileo Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG protested the Commission’s reservation of the domain name ‘galileo.eu’ pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation No 874/2004. Galileo Lebensmittel held a licence for the exclusive use of various trademarks, including GALILEO. The ECJ found that the Commission’s decision was not of direct and individual concern to Galileo Lebensmittel as the Commission’s decision in no way impeded the performance of a contract to which Galileo Lebensmittel was a party, and therefore its interests were unaffected by the measure.

136

XV.  Suspension of the Domain Name as ensuring that information concerning the domain name holder is made available via the public WHOIS database. If the domain owners are natural persons, only their e-mail addresses shall be published in the WHOIS register, unless publication of the full data of the owner is required. The intentional submission of inaccurate information in the registration of a domain name constitutes a violation of the registration provisions. Details on the WHOIS registration data, and the measures to prevent the misuse of this data, are found in the WHOIS policy for ‘.eu’ domain names,12 and Section 7 of the registration policy for ‘.eu’ domain names.

XII.  Revocation of Domain Names The registry maintains, under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004, the right to IF.34 revoke a domain registration for the following reasons without any extra-judicial dispute resolution procedures: (1) outstanding unpaid debts owed to the registry; (2) holder’s non-fulfilment of the general eligibility criteria pursuant to Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) 733/2002; and (3) holder’s breach of the terms of registration under Article 3.

XIII.  Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures against Decisions of EURid, in Violation of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 In case of disputes arising from the cancellation of a domain name registration by the registry IF.35 or any other decision of EURid, the Czech Arbitration Court13 provides an alternative dispute resolution procedure pursuant to Articles 21 et seq of Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004 (see Part IIIB). Under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004, the cancellation of a domain name and, IF.36 where necessary, its subsequent transfer can also be due to a decision of an ordinary court.

XIV.  Alternative Dispute Settlement Proceedings against Speculative or Abusive Domain Name Registered or Used If a domain name was registered for speculative or abusive purposes within the meaning of IF.37 Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004, anyone can initiate an alternative dispute resolution procedure at the Czech Arbitration Court (Czech Arbitration Court) (see Part IIIG).

XV.  Suspension of the Domain Name To avoid accidental deletions, especially in the case of death or liquidation of the domain IF.38 holder, section 9 of the Terms and Conditions for the Registration of ‘.eu’ domain names states that a domain name may be suspended for calendar 40 days if the registrar receives a   Available at: http://www.eurid.eu/de/general/download.   Arbitration Court at the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic, see http://www.arbcourt.cz/. 12 13

137

F.  The European Top-Level Domain ‘.eu’ request for cancellation or a request for transfer to another registrar. During this period the domain owner has the right to reactivate the domain name. Such a reactivation occurs only when the registrar appointed by the domain holder, or the heirs of the domain holder, or the responsible executor has received a request for reactivation.

XVI.  Death and Winding Up of the Domain Holder IF.39 If the domain name holder dies during the registration period of the domain name, the exec-

utors of his or her estate, or his or her legal heirs, may request transfer of the name to the heirs along with submission of the appropriate documentation. If the domain name holder is an undertaking, a legal or natural person, or an organization that becomes subject to insolvency proceedings, winding up, cessation of trading, winding up by court order or any similar proceeding provided for by national law, during the registration period of the domain name, then the legally appointed administrator of the domain name holder may request transfer to the purchaser of the domain name holder’s assets along with submission of the appropriate documentation.

IF.40 If, on expiry of the registration period, no transfer has been initiated, the domain name shall

be suspended for a period of 40 calendar days and shall be published on the registry’s website. During this period the administrator may apply to register the name along with submission of appropriate documentation. If the administrator has not registered the name during that 40-day period, the domain name shall thereafter become available for general registration (Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004).

XVII.  Transfer, Cancellation, and Renewal of Registration IF.41 The cancellation or renewal of a domain registration can only be made by application of the

domain holder to his registrar. The procedure for the cancellation and renewal will be determined by the relevant registrar (Section 9 of the registration policy for .eu domain names). If the domain registration should not be extended, the remaining time on the registration period shall inure to the benefit of the registrar.

IF.42 The transfer of a domain name must be in accordance with the provisions in Section 13 of

the Registration Policy for .eu domain names.

138

G DOMAIN NAME INDUSTRY Jannik Skou

I. Introduction  IG.01 II. Growth of Domain Name Registration  IG.06

III.  Domain Names as Items of Property  IV. The Impact of New gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs on the Primary and Secondary Domain Name Market 

(1) The Global Boom of the Internet and the Increased Competition in the Market  IG.06 (2) The Rise and Fall of Domain Name Monetization  IG.10 (3) New Forms of Abusive Domain Name Registrations  IG.16

(1) Primary Market  (2) Impact of new gTLDs on the Secondary Market (‘Aftermarket’) 

V. New Challenges for Trademark Holders 

IG.23

IG.25 IG.25 IG.48 IG.50

I. Introduction Since the late 1990s, when domain names emerged on the consumer market with the intro- IG.01 duction of numerous domain registrars for the ‘.com’, ‘.net’, and ‘.org’ spaces, a dynamic and fast-growing industry has emerged. During the past 20 years, this industry has grown and matured, and is now in the midst of a dramatic and unprecedented expansion. With the launch of more than 1,000 new gTLDs, of which approximately 100 are written in non-Latin scripts (so-called IDNs—Internationalized Domain Names), the Domain Name System (DNS) is on the horizon of a new era. New providers in both the primary and secondary markets have entered the marketplace, and large players are looking to secure even greater market shares. For example, some current gTLD registry service providers (including Afilias1) have IG.02 entered the registrar business, a number of the current ccTLD registry providers and their affiliates (including ARI Registry Services,2 Nic.At,3 Nominet,4 and AFNIC5) will be looking to take on the management of new gTLD spaces, and several large registrars have entered the registry services market. At the same time, the corporate domain name management market (so far dominated by established providers such as Mark Monitor, CSC Corporate Domains, Melbourne IT DBS,6 and NetNames), is being challenged by a number of new consulting companies and intellectual property (IP) law firms, who have been 1  Afilias is the registry operator of ‘.mobi’, and ‘.info’, and also delivers registry operator services to ‘.asia’, ‘.pro’, ‘.org’, ‘.xxx’, and ‘.aero’. Afilias has applied for 31 new gTLDs including ‘.app’, ‘.casino’, and ‘.mail’, and is supporting a total of 296 new gTLD applicants with registry services. 2  ARI Registry Services (ARI) is a wholly owned subsidiary of AusRegistry, which is the Registry Operator of the ‘.au’ ccTLD. 3  Registry Operator of the ‘.at’ ccTLD. 4  The ‘.uk’ ccTLD registry. 5  The ‘.fr’ ccTLD registry. 6  In March 2013, Melbourne IT DBS was acquired by CSC Corporate Domains, and its services are now marketed under CSC Digital Brand Services.

139

G.  Domain Name Industry attracted by the larger margins and high growth rates available in the expanding domain name market. IG.03 As the number of gTLD domain name registrations has increased from some 7 million in

1999 to 154 million gTLDs (and 134 million ccTLDs),7 it has become increasingly difficult to find available attractive, short, and generic terms to register as second-level domain names in the ‘legacy gTLDs’ such as ‘.com’, ‘.net’, and ‘.org’ and in the ccTLDs. In response to this scarcity, an industry of domain name auction providers and brokers has emerged, known generally as the ‘domain name aftermarket’. Furthermore, the industry has seen a dramatic rise in the number of professional domain name registrants or investors, commonly referred to as ‘domainers’,8 who have developed ways to profit from the advertising platforms offered by the large search engine9 services. One potentially lucrative method available to domainers is the creation of ‘pay-per-click’ (PPC) websites, wherein a registered domain name is used to display a landing page containing hyperlinks to third-party websites. When an Internet user clicks on one of these links the owner of the landing webpage receives a referral fee from the owner of the third-party site. Although individual ‘click fees’ do not amount to more than mere fractions of a cent, in the aggregate these sums can become quite substantial. In order to realize large profits, domainers often ‘batch register’ huge swaths of domain names and utilize automated software programs to generate and maintain the associated websites. In order to maximize traffic to their sites, some unscrupulous domainers have intentionally selected domain names which differ very slightly from well-known or popular websites, with the intent to capitalize on direct navigation or ‘typo’ errors. This practice, known as ‘typosquatting’ has become a permanent facet of the modern DNS landscape.

IG.04 It cannot be ignored, however, that the domain name industry (perhaps due to the easy entry

into the market—no prior skill or large investment is needed to trade in domain names) has also attracted a number of ‘bad players’ who have systematically abused the intellectual property rights of others in order to profit via domain name monetization. Domain names have been, and will continue to be, used by the criminal element, both small-time players and elements of organized crime, for fraudulent schemes and to facilitate the sale of counterfeit goods online.

IG.05 The purpose of this chapter is to analyze those trends and developments in the domain name

industry which are relevant for trademark owners and the law firms who represent them. The goal is to provide an understanding of some of the recent key developments in the domain name market and to identify potential threats, as well as opportunities, for trademark owners.

II.  Growth of Domain Name Registration (1) The Global Boom of the Internet and the Increased Competition in the Market IG.06 The driving force behind the tremendous increase in the number of domain name registra-

tions over the past fifteen years is, of course, the growth in the global number of Internet users,

7  Verisign Industry Report, of March 2015 available at:  http://www.verisigninc.com/assets/ domain-name-report-march2015.pdf. 8  ‘Domainer’ is a term used to describe a person who buys and sells domain names, with the purpose of generating profit either by selling the domain names at a higher price later in time or from advertising activities. Although often used pejoratively by ADR panelists, the term ‘domainer’ is commonly used within the industry with no negative connotations, and has indeed been adopted by the professional domain name registrants themselves. 9  Primarily Google’s adsense program and Yahoo!’s Search Marketing.

140

II.  Growth of Domain Name Registration including the myriad businesses that now engage in online commerce and communication. Domain names play a critical role in this new marketplace, acting as the central components of web addresses and e-mail addresses. The popularity of the Internet, and the vast number of individuals and entities interested in IG.07 purchasing domains, has led to dramatically increased market competition amongst registrars. As expected in a competitive open market, this has led to a reduction in the price of registrations, and to an increase in the availability of automated registration and renewal services.10 The introduction of the New gTLD Program is likely to further drive competition and reduction in domain name prices in the primary market, as it will be easier for consumers and companies to find and register a domain name that is relevant for their business or cause.11 In May 2015, ICANN published the first of two reports on the impact of the introduction of hundreds of new gTLDs. The aim of the report12 is to measure aspects of consumer awareness, perceived consumer choice, experience and trust related to the current generic top-level domain (gTLD) landscape and the domain name system (DNS). The report concludes that the respondents find the new gTLDs: useful, informative, helpful, practical, interesting, and innovative. In parallel to the competition amongst registrars in the various open gTLD spaces, by and large IG.08 the country code registries (which are, in most cases, essentially the relevant national governments) have also supported the growth of domain name registrations by relaxing the eligibility requirements for domain name registration. Some ccTLD registries, in the interest of promoting increased buy-in for the space, have removed registration restrictions altogether, and in some cases have also dramatically lowered the applicable registration fees. These actions, designed to promote adoption of the various ccTLDs and to bolster the use of online commerce within the national spaces, have included the removal of local presence requirements and limitations on the locale of protectable trademark rights.13 Since 2009, ICANN has allowed IDN ccTLDs. Today, there are 39 such IDN ccTLDs avail- IG.09 able, including ‘.рф’ (‘.rf’ in Cyrillic, representing the Russian Federation) with currently over 800,000 registrations,14 and ‘.中国’ (‘.china’ or ‘.Zhongguo’) with currently over 280,000 registrations.15

(2) The Rise and Fall of Domain Name Monetization As noted above, one of the most important factors leading to the exponential growth of IG.10 domain name registrations has been the phenomenon of domain name monetization.

10  Since the separation of Registry and Registrar, when Network Solutions dominated the market for the domain name registration market as ‘single player’ charging over US$100 for a domain name, the list of ICANN-accredited registrars has grown to approximately 1,000, and registry fees start at US$6.00 for a ‘.NET’ domain name. 11  See ‘Report of Dennis Carlton Regarding ICANN’s Proposed Mechanism for Introducing New gTLDs’ (http://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/carlton-re-proposed-mechanism-05jun09-en.pdf ), and ‘Comments on Michael Kende’s Assessment of Preliminary Reports on Competition and Pricing’ available at: http://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/carlton-re-kende-assessment-05jun09-en.pdf, as well as related comments on the two available at:  http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement06jun09-en.htm. 12  Available at: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-05-29-en. 13  For instance, ‘.fr’ for France, ‘.se’ for Sweden, ‘.in’ for India, ‘.cn’ for China, and ‘.ru’ for Russia; for details see the respective national chapters in Part II. 14 Coordination Center for TLD RU—domain name statistics available at:  http://statdom.ru/tld/рф/ report/summary/. 15  Statistical Report on Internet Development in China (July 2014) p 4, available at: http://www1.cnnic. cn/IDR/ReportDownloads/201411/P020141102574314897888.pdf.

141

G.  Domain Name Industry IG.11 As the use of the Internet increased over the last decade, so did the spending on online

advertising. Large search engines such as Google and Yahoo! began offering easy-to-install advertising software, which enables domain name and website owners to display third-party ads, or sponsored links, on their websites. From 2003 and onwards, an industry of domain name investors, or domainers, emerged. These domainers registered millions of domain names and used automation software to create websites under each domain, which contained only sponsored links. Such websites are known as pay-per-click websites, or simply PPC-sites. The type-in or direct navigation traffic, when Internet users search for content by entering a domain name into their browser (rather than utilizing a search engine function), frequently make data entry errors. Domainers capitalize on these potential mistakes (ie by registering common misspellings of popular websites or brands). Finding him- or herself on the landing page of a cybersquatter, the Internet user may click on one of the provided links to third-party content. When this occurs, the search engine servicing the website will give a small commission fee (a percentage of what the advertiser pays to the search engine for displaying their ad) to the owner of the PPC site and domain name.16

IG.12 Until June 2008, when ICANN added a fee for the automated mass deletion of domain

names within the first five days of their registration (during what was known as the ‘Add Grace Period’, which was intended to enable registrars to delete, free of charge, any domain name which was either selected in error or found to unintentionally violate the rights of third parties), a practice referred to as domain name ‘tasting’ or ‘kiting’17 enabled ‘domainers’ to monetize large quantities of domain names without ever having to pay ICANN or registry fees. The idea behind this practice worked only in scale—registrars would batch register immense blocks of domain names and connect them to the Internet with automated landing pages. Shortly before the last moment of the Add Grace Period, five days after their registration, the registrar would batch delete all of the domains, and select a new group of names for the same purpose. Thus, the registrar was free to earn revenue from those pages for five days without being subject to any transactional payments. Indeed, the practice was so lucrative that many domainers even became registrars in order save on the registrar fees.18

IG.13 ICANN soon stopped this practice by implementing deletion fees based on the percent-

age of deletions in comparison to the total portfolio of registrations held by a given registrar, and imposing the threat of de-accreditation should large numbers of batch deletions be requested on a routine basis. Accordingly, the amount of automated deletions of ‘.com’ and ‘.net’ domain names occurring during the Add Grace Period dropped dramatically—99.7 per cent from a monthly high of almost 18 million to less than 60,000—after the new rules were implemented.19

16 See 14th International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, Tenerife, Spain, January 2010, http://www.benedelman.org/typosquatting/typosquatting.pdf. 17  Kiting refers to the practice of registering and deleting a domain name with one set of WHOIS data, and then registering, and deleting, the same domain name again using different WHOIS data. When carried out during the five-day Add Grace Periods, registrants could monetize such domain name registrations without ever having to pay any fees to registries or ICANN. ‘Tasting’ is referring to the practice of registering a domain name and measuring the web traffic for that domain name within the Add Grace Period. If a given domain name had an attractive amount of web traffic, the domainer would keep the domain name and pay for the domain. If it was not attracting sufficient traffic to make it feasible to keep and pay for the domain name, the domain name could be deleted free of charge. 18  One example of such a case is described in the Washington Post on November 28, 2007, available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/28/AR2007112801679.html. 19 See http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-12aug09-en.htm.

142

II.  Growth of Domain Name Registration Over these six years (2003–2008), the price of domain names sold on the aftermar- IG.14 ket increased significantly, although prices stabilized considerably during 2008 following ICANN’s announcement of the new rules concerning domain tasting. Prices again increased between late 2008 and 2012. In September 2012, however, Google updated its PANDA search algorithm, which made domain name monetization via PPC sites substantially less attractive.20 Google’s aim with the PANDA update was to further reward contributors of high quality website-content, and ‘punish’ contributors of website content with little or no relevance to Internet users. The PANDA update was very significant in terms of how websites are ranked, and led to some devaluation of domains available on the aftermarket, since domainers are naturally only willing to invest amounts that will be easily recoverable through the use of said domains.21 According to SEDO, one of the largest providers of aftermarket domain names, the average price of ‘.com’ domain names sold on their platform had decreased from US$2,762 in Q4, 2011 to US$2,225 in Q3, 2012. After the change in Google’s algorithm (which resulted in a decrease in payments to PPC-site owners), the average price of ‘.com’ domains dropped further, and as of Q4 2012 the average aftermarket sale amounted to US$1,914. Notably, the median price of ‘.com’ domains sold on SEDO still hovered around US$600 as IG.15 of Q2, 2014. This is still roughly 40 times the price of an available ‘.com’ registration.

(3) New Forms of Abusive Domain Name Registrations The easy access to domain names and the quick money to be made via their monetization, IG.16 also (and perhaps inevitably) attracted a number of bad actors to the domain name industry. Even today, a large number of domain name registrants engage in practices that infringe the rights of trademark owners, including the registration and use of domain names containing third-party trademarks or variations thereof. During the peak of domain name tasting and kiting, a number of high-volume domain name IG.17 registrants became accredited ICANN registrars in order to capitalize on these practices and to avoid payment of the applicable fees. A number of these new ‘registrars’ were later caught violating the rights of trademark owners,22 by systematically registering misspelled domain names infringing on famous trademarks and by using these domain name registrations to profit from revenue generated via PPC-sites. A study in 2009 by the assistant Harvard professors, Tyler Moore and Benjamin Edelman,23 revealed that at least 938,000 typo-squatted domains active in 2009 were targeting the top 3,264 ‘.com’ sites. One registrant (with three ICANN Accreditations) was found to have 1.8  million domains, of which 1,100 were infringing the DELL trademark alone.24 Despite the dramatic increase in the number of domain name registrations, and the per- IG.18 ceived rise in the number of bad actors in the domain name industry, the percentage of

20  For a summary of the effect of the change of the PANDA algorithm, see, for instance, http://www. webpronews.com/seo-factors-to-consider-when-choosing-a-domain-name-2013-02; http://searchengineland.com/ verisign-blames-google-for-drop-in-domain-registration-renewal-rates-137739; and http://domainnamewire. com/2012/10/26/for-verisign-its-2009-all-over-again/. 21 See http://www.sedo.com/us/resources/market-trends/. 22  One can submit a complaint against a registrar at: http://www.internic.net. However, it is recommended that these cases of systematic trademark infringements are solved through litigation. Notices that have been sent to named registrars for breach of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement with ICANN can be found on ICANN’s website at: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/notices. 23 See 14th International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, Tenerife, Spain, January 2010, http://www.benedelman.org/typosquatting/typosquatting.pdf. 24 See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/28/AR2007112801679.html.

143

G.  Domain Name Industry Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) cases filed (as compared to the total number of gTLD registrations) has substantially decreased in recent years.25 During the 13 years in which the UDRP has been in place, the number of cases filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center has risen from 1,857 cases in the year 2000 to 2,884 cases in 2012. Interestingly, the proportion of UDRP cases, when compared to the number of total gTLD domain name registrations, has decreased from about one UDRP case per 3,769 active gTLD domain names in 2000, to one UDRP case per 57,706 active gTLD domain name registrations in 2014. This proportional decrease in the percentage of UDRP filings may be seen as an indication that trademark owners either lack the resources to defend their Intellectual Property Rights, and/or that they prefer to recover the infringing domain names by other means, such as buying them on the aftermarket or seeking redress via the applicable national courts. Ironically, trademark owners who elect to purchase infringing names do, even if against their will, contribute to make the aftermarket more attractive. IG.19 Although the Internet is effective in removing barriers by enabling companies and individuals

to trade and communicate online, it is also an attractive platform for criminals. The Internet provides an unprecedented level of anonymity for bad actors, who can easily emerge and disappear again, and the arms-length automated contracts utilized by registrars allow for the development of scams. Some of these mechanisms include ‘hidden WHOIS’ services (ie privacy or proxy registrations which allow registrants to shield their online identities) or the use of stolen Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.

IG.20 As in any industry, as the technology improves so do the threats, and online criminals are

continually developing new methods to profit from online activity. In recent years, there has been a shift in the landscape of threats from cybersquatting26 and typosquatting to new types of risks and schemes.27

IG.21 The introduction of the UDRP, and the fact that trademark owners have invested in large

numbers of proactive and defensive domain name registrations protecting their trademarks and company names, have resulted in a decrease in cybersquatting cases. Instead, trademark owners face the threats of typo-squatting (as described above), ‘doppelgaenger domains’,28 domain name slamming,29 fake renewal reminders, and other related domain name scams.

IG.22 More and more industries also face the threat of phishing attacks, where online criminals

through e-mails (often using typosquatted domain names30) deceive Internet users into

 See http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/statistics/cases.jsp.   Cybersquatting was originally defined as the practice whereby a registrant selected, in bad faith, an exact match of a trademark or company name in order to offer that domain name for sale at a high price by contacting the trademark owner directly. The introduction of the UDRP, as well as proactive steps taken by trademark owners in securing large batches of ‘defensive registrations’, has resulted in a decrease in cybersquatting cases. 27  DNS-specific threats such as Denial of Service (DOS) Attacks, Pharming, DNS-Cache poisoning are not considered in this context. 28  Doppelganger domains are domain names such as ‘wwwtrademark.com’, where the ‘.’ between the ‘www’ hostname and the actual domain name has been omitted. 29  Domain name ‘slamming’ is a term describing a common scam perpetrated by resellers of registrars (very often located within the People’s Republic of China). In this scam, the resellers contact trademark owners to inform them that the reseller has been asked by another client of theirs to register domain names that would violate the IPR of the trademark owner. Obviously, the domain name reseller has never received any infringing domain name registration orders from any clients. The scam is simply to try to make the trademark owner register domain names through them. The usual advice is to ignore such e-mails, or alternatively to report them to the local registry, be it CNNIC (in China), or elsewhere. 30  According to the Anti Phishing Working Group, as many as 11,500 domain names infringing on brand names were use for phishing alone in July 2014. See http://docs.apwg.org/reports/apwg_trends_report_ q3_2014.pdf. 25 26

144

IV.  The Impact of New gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs entering their credit card details or sensitive login credentials. The financial sector is the most frequently targeted by phishing attacks, although in recent years there has been an increase in phishing attacks across the board, including in such industries as retail services and Internet Service Providers (ISPs), as well as auction, online gaming, and social media sites.31

III.  Domain Names as Items of Property As a result of the increased awareness of online infringement of IPR, domain names have IG.23 gradually moved from being a responsibility of the IT departments of large corporations to being considered as independent intellectual property assets. Domain names are now commonly managed in a similar way as trademarks, and are therefore generally the responsibility of corporate legal departments.32 This shift shows a change in thinking—domain names, once treated as tangible assets, are now being thought of as intangible intellectual property rights. According to Brandfinance.com,33 whereas 25 years ago companies were valued based on their tangible (75 per cent) and intangible assets (25 per cent), today those respective percentages have become reversed. Intellectual property rights have become critically important to modern companies, and indeed in many respects it is the brand reputation, goodwill, and marketing of products that determines their success in the market. As in-house legal counsel often lacks the technical capacity to manage many aspects of domain IG.24 names (including hosting, editing of zone files, etc) there has been a noted increase in the demand for outsourcing of these technical and administrative tasks. Accordingly, there has been a sharp increase in the number of independent domain management service providers in the marketplace, which offer value-added services to corporate entities. These value-added services include 24–7 phone support, strategic advice on which domain names to register, monitoring of infringing domain name registrations, account management, consolidated invoicing, enhanced security services, up-time guarantees, online domain name management portfolio interfaces and so on.

IV.  The Impact of New gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs on the Primary and Secondary Domain Name Market (1) Primary  Market The impending introduction of 48 new IDN ccTLDs, not to mention the more than 1,000 IG.25 new gTLD spaces, will create a number of opportunities for trademark owners, and present a whole host of challenges for brand management. Among the 1,930 new gTLD applications published by ICANN in June 2012, almost 500 IG.26 of these requested spaces correspond to the brand or trademark of a major corporation. In some cases, companies applied for TLDs comprised of generic or descriptive terms related to the particular goods or services that the relevant brand owner provides.

 Ibid.  See http://www.club-nd.fr/downloads/files/27394 on March 31, 2013. 33 See http://www.brandfinance.com/ (May 10, 2009). Brandfinance is a UK-based consultancy company, providing brand valuation services to international corporations. 31 32

145

G.  Domain Name Industry IG.27 In total, ICANN received 917 applications from brand owners34 who sought to implement

the new concept of a ‘single registrant’ policy, by which only the applicant itself is eligible to register second-level domain names under the applied-for gTLD. Amongst those large brands were corporations such as Microsoft, BMW, Citibank, Citic Group, HSBC, Barclays,35 and many more.

IG.28 Some brand owners also applied for translated or transliterated versions of their brands.

Examples of such applications were Volkswagen’s application for ‘.大众汽车’ (‘Volkswagen’ in Chinese), and Citic Group’s application for ‘.中信’(‘Citic’ in Chinese).

IG.29 Those brand owners that have applied for their own closed gTLD may profit from the asso-

ciated marketing strategy—by affirmatively stating that all domains emanating from a particular TLD location are authorized and accurate,36 they may be able to reduce the number of defensive registrations needed in alternate TLD spaces. Brand owners who manage their own TLD spaces can therefore hope that Internet users and search engines will consider these TLDs to represent a ‘safe zone’, free of typosquatting, scams, sale of counterfeit goods, and so on.

IG.30 It is, of course, still uncertain whether this effect will be achieved, or whether Internet users

will continue to search for large brands within the ‘.com’ space or relevant ccTLDs.

IG.31 Some brand owners have even applied for generic terms as closed gTLDs, which has resulted

in a wide-ranging debate on the appropriateness of this strategy. For example, the Richemont company applied for ‘.WATCHES’ and ‘.手表’ (‘watches’ in Chinese); Wal-Mart and Safeway both applied for ‘.GROCERY’; and Goodyear and Bridgestone both applied for ‘.TIRES’.37

IG.32 Another questionable practice was the bulk application for large numbers of TLD spaces. For

example, the Amazon company applied for 76 gTLDs, including ‘.BOOK’, ‘.食品’ (‘food’ in traditional Chinese), ‘.KIDS’, ‘.NOW’, and ‘.SEARCH’. Additionally, Google applied for over 100 new gTLDs, including not only ‘.GOOGLE’ and ‘.谷歌’ (‘Google’ in Chinese), but also for a wide range of generic-term TLDs, such as ‘.SEARCH’, ‘.MUSIC’, ‘.MOVIE’, ‘.INC’, and ‘.LOVE’. Both Google and Amazon had applied for large numbers of generic TLDs utilizing closed registration models and single registrant policies, meaning that the applicant company would (at least initially), be the sole eligible registrant within the space. ICANN, however, advised by the Governmental Advisory Committee,38 in the summer of 2013 urged those applicants for strings representing generic terms to change their registration policies to allow for third-party registrations of domains, unless it could be demonstrated that exclusive registry access would serve a public interest goal.39

34 A  categorized list of the new gTLD applicants is provided by ICANN at:  https://gtldresult.icann. org/application-result/applicationstatus. Other sources include:  http://www.pool.com/gtld/index.aspx, and http://icannwiki.com/index.php/All_New_gTLD_Applications. 35  On May 11, 2015 Barclays published a press release stating the intended switch from ‘.com’ and ‘.co.uk’ to ‘.barclays’ and ‘.barclaycard’. One example is http://home.barclays. Press release available at: http://www. newsroom.barclays.com/releases/ReleaseDetailPage.aspx?releaseId=3162. 36  One such is example is Marriot, emphasizing the authenticy of a ‘.brand’: ‘So, whenever you see .marriott, you’ll have even more assurance that it’s from a trusted Marriott affiliation’. Source: http://www.marriott. com/marriott/gtld.mi. 37 For more information on the impact of closed generic domains in the New gTLD program, see Part ID, Section II.9. 38 See https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf. 39  Most, but not all applicants decided to open their generic TLDs to third-party registrants. For example, Google, as a response to GAC early warnings and to public comments (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/ files/files/report-comments-closed-generic-08jul13-en.pdf ) decided to allow third party registrations for four of their applied for gTLDs: ‘.app’, ‘.blog’, ‘.search’, and ‘.cloud’.

146

IV.  The Impact of New gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs For many trademark owners (regardless of whether they have applied for their own gTLD or IG.33 not) the ongoing release of about 600 open and geographic new gTLDs is vastly broadening the pool of available, attractive second-level registrations. As mentioned above, it is difficult and often very expensive to register attractive, short, and IG.34 generic terms under the 22 ‘legacy’ gTLDs such as ‘.com’ and ‘.net’ and the roughly 280 ccTLDs (including IDN equivalents). Therefore, the new open gTLDs (even where such spaces have imposed eligibility or registrations requirements), are likely to offer a whole host of good opportunities to promote services aimed at specific target groups. The new ‘Geo TLDs’ such as ‘.LONDON’, ‘.PARIS’, or ‘.NYC’40 may enable trademark IG.35 owners to promote their services online to regionally targeted consumers, by marketing their services available under the local geo-TLD. Similarly, industry specific service companies (particularly in niche industries), may benefit from promoting their businesses under such relevant industry TLDs as ‘.FISHING’, ‘.BOATS’, ‘.HAIR’, or ‘.THEATER’. In a sense, the domain name landscape may develop into TLD zones similar to the classes IG.36 within trademarks. Today, it is common for different trademark owners, who have identical trademarks registered in different classes or regions, to desire to register the same ‘.com’ domain name. The new structure of the DNS landscape may enable such trademark owners to register an exact match of their trademarks, each in a different TLD relevant to their product or service offerings. Similarly, the new IDN ccTLDs, as well as the new IDN gTLDs,41 will create attractive IG.37 platforms for mark holders, and will enable companies to interact with local customers in relevant scripts and languages. Needless to say, the introduction of the new gTLDs created a justified set of new fears for IG.38 trademark owners. Many brand holders have been and are concerned about the advent of the new TLD spaces, wherein substantial funds and resources have already been, and will have to be, dedicated to defensive domain name registration and UDRP filings throughout 2015 and 2016 in order to reduce the risks and threats associated with typosquatting, cybersquatting and other domain name related threats.42 The primary domain name market, which encompasses first-instance services related to new IG.39 registrations, hosting, and renewal of domain names, as well as added-value services (including domain monitoring and recovery, either via brokerage or dispute resolution processes), is currently seeing a large shift toward the consolidation of major industry players, as well as the introduction of new companies and service providers eager to enter the market during the DNS expansion. The domain name market has reached a sufficient size (particularly in light of the new gTLD IG.40 launch) which makes it attractive not only to venture capitalists, but also to such large investors as private equity funds and media corporations.43

40  For information about the number of registrations in each TLD see https://ntldstats.com/tld. On June 8, 2015,  ‘.nyc’ had 79,312 domain registrations, whereas ‘.london’ had 62,511 and ‘.paris’ 18,335 domain names. In total, all of the 350 open new gTLDs launched by June 8, 2015 had, collectively, 6,016,870 domains, which gives an average of about 17,000 domains per new gTLD. 41  Such as ‘.公司’ (pronounced ‘GONGSI’, meaning ‘Business’ in Chinese) and ‘.网络’ (pronounced ‘WANGLUO’, meaning ‘Network’ in Chinese), both applied for by CNNIC, the registry of the ‘.cn’ ccTLD. 42  For more discussion concerning the rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) available in the new gTLD spaces, see Part IIIC through Part IIIE of this volume. 43  Thomson Reuters acquired Mark Monitor, Sept 2012: http://thomsonreuters.com/content/press_room/ legal/713109.

147

G.  Domain Name Industry IG.41 At a time when traditional industries are facing low growth rates in the midst of a global

recession, the high-end single digit growth rates in domain name registrations44 coupled with the potential for large profit margins (typically between 60 per cent and 80 per cent on domain name registrations and added-value services) make the domain industry extremely attractive to investors.

IG.42 The entrance barriers to becoming an ICANN accredited registrar are very low. For less than

US$10,000, it is possible to secure ICANN accreditation as a new domain registrar. With an additional investment of US$10,000 to 30,000, it is possible to either set up private name servers, or to outsource the management of name servers to one of the many DNS expert firms. Perhaps not surprisingly, the domain name industry today has more than 1,500 ICANN accredited registrars.45

IG.43 Over the last five years, however, the domain name market has seen the consolidation of

many registrar entities and domain name service providers. In the business-to-consumer segment, GoDaddy46 is by far the largest registrar with almost 18 million domain names under its management. In comparison, Network Solutions,47 the ‘original’ domain name registrar, now oversees a mere 4.4 million domain name registrations.48

IG.44 Today the ten largest registrars49 have a combined market share of 30 per cent, measured by

the number of domains under their respective management. This figure illustrates that, despite the large number of ICANN-accredited registrars, the consumer market of the domain name industry has been through a phase of consolidation, which is expected to continue in the coming years.

IG.45 Until around 2008, the entry barriers to the corporate segment of domain name registration

and management were very high, as it was difficult and costly to offer registrations in a wide array of national ccTLD spaces. Many ccTLD registries, including ‘.se’ (Sweden), ‘.nl’ (the Netherlands), and ‘.it’ (Italy) were previously requesting local presence and hard-copy domain name registration forms. Certain ccTLDs (eg ‘.se’ in Sweden) only allowed one domain registration per company. Inevitably, the need for monitoring and defensive domain name registrations in these now open and automated ccTLDs has also increased.

IG.46 As a result of this development, more registrars are now focusing on the corporate segment,

as it has become easier to offer a broader range of these country-specific TLDs.

IG.47 In order to grow their businesses, many registrars and service providers have extended

their product portfolio to include brand monitoring services, domain name recovery and consulting services. The perceived switching costs related to transferring a portfolio of domain names from one provider to another have been very high in the corporate segment. 44  Growth rates in 2015: Total number of domains (288 million) were up 6.2% and ccTLDs alone were up 8.7%. Figures taken from the Verisign Industry Report, available at: https://www.verisigninc.com/assets/ domain-name-report-march2015.pdf. 45 See http://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accredited-list.html. It is important to note, however, that many of these registrars are commonly owned and/or operated. 46  As an indication of the increased attractiveness of the domain name industry, in 2011 GoDaddy was acquired by a group of private equity firms for an astonishing US$2.25 billion. See http://latimesblogs. latimes.com/technology/2011/07/go-daddy-sold-for-225-billion.html. 47  In 2000 Network Solutions was acquired by Verisign. In 2003 Network Solutions was then sold to The Najafi Companies. In 2007 Network Solutions was acquired by General Atlantic, a private equity fund and again sold to Web.com Group Inc. (Nasqaq: wwww). 48 Source: http://www.webhosting.info/registrars/top-registrars/global/?pi=1. 49  Key Drive, the holding company of the German registrar Key-Systems, has purchased the registrar Moniker. The top ten registrars combined manage 40.9 million out of the 133 million ‘.com’, ‘.net’, ‘.org’, and ‘.info’ domains. Source: http://Webhosting.info and http://www.Keydrive.lu.

148

V.  New Challenges for Trademark Holders Corporate clients have found it both risky and tedious to transfer large portfolios of domain names from one registrar to another.50 Simply put, the increased service or better pricing offered by a new registrar is often not perceived as an attractive compensation for the risk and workload related to the transfer of registrars. Since 2008, these perceived switching costs have made it very difficult for registrars to attract new, high-volume corporate customers. In addition, the intensity of competition in the US and UK markets has resulted in a price war which has driven down registration and service fees. Thus, most large corporate registrars have become increasingly interested in getting a foothold in the Western European and BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) markets, through acquisitions of competitors or local domain name service providers, in order to realize higher profit margins.51

(2) Impact of new gTLDs on the Secondary Market (‘Aftermarket’) As noted above, in reaction to the growing scarcity of available, attractive second-level domain IG.48 names, the various aftermarket providers have made a good business of facilitating the sale of already registered domain names through open or closed online auctions or by means of broker services. The largest players in the domain name aftermarket are providers such SEDO. com, Pool.com, and Afternic.com.52 Still other providers are offering domain parking services to registrants, enabling domain IG.49 name holders to monetize their domains via PPC revenues. Large actors in this field are Oversee.net, NameDrive, and Bodis, but most major consumer registrars, such as GoDaddy, eNom, and Moniker, also offer both auction and parking services. A third category of aftermarket providers consists of companies that offer various types of ‘drop catching’, a form of automated registration by which deleted domains may be re-registered within seconds after their expiry, based on pre-entered customer specifications.

V.  New Challenges for Trademark Holders The domain name industry will no doubt continue to grow over the next five years. The num- IG.50 ber of Internet users has reached 2.9 billion people, equivalent to 40 per cent of the world’s total population,53 and is expected to grow significantly in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and thus it may be anticipated that the number of domain name registrations will continue to expand as well. The high-end single digit growth rate of domain name registrations may, however, be IG.51 challenged by the increased success of social media, blogs, Twitter, and other communication platforms that do not require the registration of unique domain names in order to communicate.

50  Risks related to the transfer of a portfolio of domain names include the risk of losing e-mails, the risk of websites being deactivated, and the risk of having to pay for the same services at two different registrars during a migration of domain names. 51  To name just a few mergers and acquisitions: CSCcorporate domains have bought Register.com corp. division, Nameprotect, Ebrandsecure, an IPMirror, and in March 2013 even Melbourne IT’s corporate domain name division for US$157 million, which was almost equivalent to the entire market share of Melbourne IT (who also has a large retail and reseller business). Previously, Melbourne IT had bought Verisign’s corporate domain name division. GroupNBT (‘NetNames’) has been bought by a private equity fund. 52  Afternic was bought by Godaddy in 2013. Source:  http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/19/godaddy-buysafternic-to-beef-up-its-domain-registry-marketplace/. 53 Source: http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/ (June 8, 2015).

149

G.  Domain Name Industry IG.52 Trademark owners are facing a couple of very challenging years, wherein existing online

brand protection and promotion strategies will be challenged by the introduction of thousands of new TLDs.54 Every new TLD space, particularly those which operate under an open registration policy, presents new threats in the form of cybersquatting, typosquatting, phishing, and as-yet undeveloped parasitic schemes. But, trademark owners will also be presented with new promotional opportunities and enforcement tools, as these spaces will be supported by new rights-protection mechanisms, such as the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) (see Part III Section IIID.II), the Trademark Clearinghouse (see Part III Section IIID.I(2)), and the Trademark Claims Service (see Part III Section IIID.1(6)(b)).

IG.53 In this new domain name landscape brand owners have to decide whether to continue to

defensively register domains in all TLDs, whether to select only industry-specific and relevant geographical TLDs, or whether to switch from third-party TLDs altogether, and instead only be present under a proprietory ‘.brand’ TLD. In all likelihood, most trademark owners will apply a pragmatic approach balancing the need for defensive registrations, monitoring and enforcement with their budget restrictions. It will be interesting to follow which online brand promotion and protection strategies will form a new best practice.

54  Once this round of gTLD launches has been completed, ICANN is likely to launch another round of new gTLDs in 2018. It is still uncertain whether the next round will operate with a maximum number of new gTLDs, but the ICANN plan is aiming to present the ICANN board with a recommendation on how to implement additional rounds in Q2, 2017. The ICANN plan for developing a board recommendation for the roll out of a new gTLD application round is available at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/assessmentsdraft-work-plan-22sep14-en.pdf.

150

Part  II NATIONAL LAW

AUSTRALIA (‘.au’) Alistair Payne and David Fixler

I. Overview of the National System of the Protection of Trade Marks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs  II. The ccTLD (‘.au’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

(7) Costs  AU.28 (8) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings  AU.30 (9) ADR Decisions  AU.33 (10) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Administrative Panel  AU.36 IV.  Court Litigation  AU.41 (1) No Specific Anticybersquatting Legislation  AU.41 (2) Infringement of Trade Marks  AU.48 (3) Infringement of Titles  AU.63 (4) Court Procedure and Remedies  AU.64

AU.01

AU.04 (1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry  AU.04 (2) The Structure of the Name Space  AU.05 (3) Registration Restrictions  AU.08 (4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration  AU.12 (5) Transfer of Domain Names  AU.15 (6) Prevention of the Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR Proceeding or Court Proceeding  AU.16 (7) Statistics  AU.17

V. The Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  VI. Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers  VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law 

III. ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.au’ Domain Space 

AU.18 (1) Legal Framework of the ADR Procedure  AU.20 (2) ADR Complaint  AU.21 (3) ADR Response  AU.22 (4) Procedural Issues  AU.23 (5) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider  AU.24 (6) Role of the Administrative Panel  AU.27

(1) International Jurisdiction  (2) Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Choice of Law  (3) The Global Nature of the Internet and Remedies 

Links Patent and Trade Marks Office: IP Australia: http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au Domain Name Organizations: Registry: auDA http://www.auda.org.au Registration conditions: http://www.auda.org.au/domains/au-domains WHOIS: Operated by AusRegistry at http://www.ausregistry.com.au/whois Alternative Dispute Resolution: Dispute Resolution Providers: http://www.auda.org.au/audrp/providers/ Policy: http://www.auda.org.au/policies/ Procedural Rules: http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2010-05/

153

AU.71 AU.75 AU.76 AU.78 AU.78 AU.83 AU.87

Australia (‘.au’)

I.  Overview of the National System of the Protection of Trade Marks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs AU.01 Trade marks and trade names are protected in Australia by a combination of registered trade

mark protection (Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (TMA), the action in ‘passing off ’ at common law and by the prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct and false association under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) (Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010)  ss 18 and 29 (corresponding provisions under previous legislation:  Trade Practices Act 1974, ss 52 and 53).1 The ACL has a broader application than the Trade Practices Act because the ACL applies to both corporations and individuals (the TPA only applied to corporations). In addition, some degree of indirect protection is provided by the state- and territory-based ‘first-in-time’ system of business name registration and in limited special cases by statute, mainly in respect of official bodies or place names. There is also statutory protection for certain geographical indications.

AU.02 It is common practice, depending upon the particular circumstances of the case, to simul-

taneously make claims under the TMA, the ACL and in passing off at common law. The Federal Court or State and Territory based Supreme Courts have jurisdiction depending upon the nature of the claim. Remedies sought could include injunctive relief on a preliminary, interim interlocutory or permanent basis, damages, or an account of profits, depending upon the chosen cause of action.

AU.03 The length of proceedings and time to trial will be determined by the nature of the proceed-

ings and the particular court and registry in which proceedings are filed. As a very general guide, it is possible in most jurisdictions to bring an ex parte interim injunction application within a day or two, and an ‘on notice’ application within two weeks. The time to a substantive hearing in the Federal Court, allowing time for interlocutory procedures, could typically be from three to nine months after initial filing depending on the complexity of the case and issues raised by the parties at an interlocutory stage. Applications filed in the Federal Court’s Fast Track List (which can be used for ‘non-patent’ intellectual property proceedings, including claims under the ACL) can be set down for a hearing and judgment delivered within six months.2 There is no specific legislation regulating domain names.3

II.  The ccTLD (‘.au’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1)  Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry AU.04 The policy under the ‘.au’ domain name space in Australia is regulated by the Australian

Domain Name Authority (auDA). auDA is a self-regulating industry body endorsed by the Australian government as the appropriate organization to manage delegation of the ‘.au’ domain space from ICANN.4

1  The authors acknowledge the work of Ravi Mohindra, Solicitor, Vodafone Group Services Limited, England, a co-author of the previous version of this chapter. 2  The Fast Track List is unlikely to apply where the trial is likely to exceed five days (Federal Court Practice Note CM8 at 2.3(a). 3  However, the Australian government maintains residual power to regulate domain names in the ‘.au’ domain space under the Telecommunications Act 1977. 4 auDA’s website at http://www.auda.org.au explains in more detail its organizational structure and authority and sets out details of auDA’s policies.

154

II.  The ccTLD (‘.au’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (2) The Structure of the Name Space The ‘.au’ domain space is divided into the following ‘open’, ‘closed’, and ‘community geo- AU.05 graphic’ sub-domains: (a) Open (ie open to the general public subject to eligibility criteria) (i) ‘asn.au’—for associations; (ii) ‘com.au’—for companies and commercial organizations; (iii) ‘id.au’—for individuals; (iv) ‘net.au’—for businesses and commerce; and (v) ‘org.au’—for charities and non-profit organizations; (b) Closed (ie only available within a defined sector) (i) ‘gov.au’—for governmental organizations; (ii) ‘edu.au’—for educational organizations; and (iii) ‘csiro.au’—for the Commonwealth Science and Industry Research Organization; (c) Community Geographic Domain Names (ie only for community use of geographic names) (i) ‘.act.au’—within the Australian Capital Territory; (ii) ‘.nsw.au’—within New South Wales; (iii) ‘.nt.au’—within the Northern Territory; (iv) ‘.qld.au’—within Queensland; (v) ‘.sa.au’—within South Australia; (vi) ‘.tas.au’—within Tasmania; (vii) ‘.vic.au’—within Victoria; and (viii) ‘.wa.au’—within Western Australia It is not possible to directly register a second-level domain name in the ‘.au’ domain space, AU.06 and auDA’s 2010 Names Policy Panel recommended maintaining this position in its May 2011 Draft Recommendations. Registration is undertaken by auDA-authorized private registrars. The range of services AU.07 offered and fees charged vary from registrar to registrar and, for example, at the time of writing, the cost of a ‘.com.au’ domain name registration could vary from AU$25—AU$140.

(3) Registration Restrictions The Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Rules for the Open 2LDs5 additionally set out AU.08 various eligibility criteria dependant upon the sub-domain registration sought. Applicants in any sub-domain must be ‘Australian’ as defined by the policy, which broadly means that they are a locally domiciled individual, body, or entity. Qualification rules for the ‘open’ sub-domains require in general terms that the domain name sought demonstrably matches the applicant’s name or acronym or has a ‘substantial and close connection’ with the applicant in relation to its services, products, activities, events, venues, or profession and must be at least two characters long. In the case of ‘.com.au’ or ‘.net.au’, the domain name may also be based on an application or registration for an Australian registered trade mark. Applicants must provide contact details for the administrative and technical contact and the details are publicly available on WHOIS. Ausregistry Pty Ltd (‘Aus registry’) has been appointed by auDA as the registry operator for AU.09 the open second level domain names (‘.asn.au’, ‘.com.au’, ‘.id.au’, ‘.net.au’, and ‘.org.au’), the

5  For a complete listing of the eligibility requirements for registration within the open second-level spaces, see http://www.auda.org.au/policies/ 2012-04/.

155

Australia (‘.au’) community geographic second level domain names (‘.act.au’, ‘.nsw.au’, ‘.nt.au’, ‘.qld.au’, ‘.sa. au’, ‘.tas.au’, ‘.vic.au’, and ‘.wa.au’) and for two closed second level domain names (‘.edu.au’ and ‘.gov.au’). Aus registry monitors performance but does not undertake registrations itself as this is carried out by auDA-accredited registrars. AU.10 Registration in the ‘open’ domain name space is undertaken by auDA-authorized pri-

vate registrars and can be completed on-line. The range of services and fees charged vary from registrar to registrar. Applicants must submit contact details for the administrative and technical contact and the details are publicly available on the register maintained by auDA.

AU.11 Registration in the closed domain name spaces is managed by individual institutions6 and

in the Community Geographic Domain Name space, registration is managed by auDA directly.

(4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration AU.12 On applying to register a domain name the applicant must complete a registry agreement

with its chosen registrar, which in this capacity acts as an agent for auDA.

AU.13 In summary, the registry agreement:

(a) grants registrants a two-year domain name licence; (b) obliges registrants to comply with eligibility criteria and auDA’s policies, provide accurate information, and confirm that the domain name does not infringe third party rights; and (c) obliges the registrant to agree to the .au Dispute Resolution Policy. AU.14 In general, unless expressly authorized by auDA, its policy is that a registrant cannot hide its

identity or contact details by using a privacy service.7

(5) Transfer of Domain Names AU.15 Domain names may be transferred to another eligible entity upon the submission of a

completed transfer form and the registrar’s confirmation of the request with the then current registrant. Transfer results in a new two-year domain name licence being issued to the transferee.

(6) Prevention of the Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR Proceeding or Court Proceeding AU.16 Domain names may not be transferred during a pending administrative dispute resolution

proceeding or for a period of 15 calendar days after such a proceeding is concluded.

(7) Statistics AU.17 The total number of domain name registrations in the ‘.au’ space exceeded 2.5 million in

August 2012. Approximately 86 per cent of these domain names are registered in the ‘.com. au’ domain space.

 See http://www.auda.org.au/domains/au-domains/.  See the Registrant Contact Information Policy, available at:  http://www.auda.org.au/policies/ auda-2010-07/. 6 7

156

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.au’ Domain Space

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.au’ Domain Space auDA adopted its own dispute resolution policy, the auDRP in 2002. This policy covers all AU.18 domain names registered in the Australian domain space (excluding the ‘.gov.au’ and ‘.csiro. au’ sub-domains8) and is broadly based on the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) but features several substantive differences which are discussed below. From the inception of auDA’s authority in 2002, all ‘.au’ domain name registrants agree in the domain name registration agreement to submit to the auDRP upon applying for domain name registration and are then bound by the panel’s decision. At the time of writing, there have been 300 cases submitted for decision under the Policy. AU.19 Approximately 26 per cent of these decisions have resulted in a decision for the respondent, 15 per cent were withdrawn or terminated prior to decision, and the balance were decided in favour of the complainant.

(1) Legal Framework of the ADR Procedure The Policy applies to domain name licences issued from 1 August 2002 in the open second level AU.20 domain name spaces, namely the following sub-domains: ‘asn.au,’ ‘com.au,’ ‘id.au,’ ‘net.au’ and ‘org.au’. All other domain names (excluding ‘.gov.au’ and ‘.csiro.au’) are governed by auDRP policy. The Australian Information and Communication Technology in Education Committee (AICTEC) do set policy in conjunction with auDA, in relation to the domain name ‘.edu.au’. Where policy from AICTEC and auDA conflict, auDA policy supersedes AICTEC policy.

(2) ADR Complaint The complaint must be in the language of the Registrant Agreement, which means that it will AU.21 generally be in the English language in the ‘.au’ domain name space, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. There is no mandatory format for the complaint, but it must conform with the requirements of any supplemental rules set out by the relevant provider and must also set out the 15 specified items of information listed in paragraph 3 of the .auDRP Rules. A complaint may be made in respect of more than one domain name provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. Information on the creation date and registrant of a domain name can be obtained via the WHOIS records maintained by Aus registry.9

(3) ADR Response After the relevant service provider notifies the respondent of the complaint, the respondent AU.22 may file a response within 20 calendar days. In exceptional circumstances the relevant provider may extend the period for filing the response. The period may also be extended by written agreement between the parties. There is no mandatory standard format for the response but it must conform with the nine requirements set out in paragraph 5(b) to Schedule A of the .auDRP Policy, which are broadly similar to those set out in paragraph 5 of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

8   Disputes arising from domain name ‘.gov.au’ are resolved in compliance with the policy and guidelines of the Australian Government Department of Finance and Deregulation. Disputes arising from the sub-domain ‘.csiro.au’ are resolved between the individual and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation privately, otherwise through the Australian Commercial Dispute Centre. 9   The Aus registry WHOIS service is available at: http://www.ausregistry.com.au/whois.

157

Australia (‘.au’) (4) Procedural  Issues AU.23 The complaint or response may be prepared by the parties themselves, or by their legal rep-

resentatives. The burden of proof is upon the complainant and the general consensus, as for the UDRP, is that it is determined ‘on the balance of probabilities’. The Rules do not provide for ‘in person hearings’ unless the panel determines exceptionally that a hearing is required. Panel decisions are published by auDA on its website.10

(5) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider AU.24 The current providers selected by auDA to perform dispute resolution services for proceed-

ings under the auDRP are as follows: (a) (b) (c) (d)

Leading Edge Alternative Dispute Resolvers (LEADR);11 The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators—Australian Branch (CIARB);12 The Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA);13 and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).14

AU.25 Each provider maintains a list of approved panellists, and is responsible for selecting the

panels to determine each administrative proceeding. The complainant can select either a one-member panel or a three-member panel, and must pay the appropriate fee to the chosen provider.

AU.26 In the event of a request for a three-member panel, the provider will take into account at

least one panellist choice from each of the party’s lists. The provider checks the parties’ filings for compliance and issues notifications to each party under the Rules and provides the complaint to the respondent within three calendar days from the receipt of the fees from the complainant.

(6) Role of the Administrative Panel AU.27 The list of possible administrative panellists is made up of numerous Australian citizens or

residents who are appointed by the individual service providers.

(7) Costs AU.28 The current fees15 for filing a dispute under the Policy are as follows:

(a) AU$2,000 for a one-member panel; and (b) AU$4,500 for a three-member panel. AU.29 The respondent is not required to pay any fees to the provider unless the complainant has

elected a one-member panel and the respondent elects a three-member panel, in which case the respondent must pay half of the applicable costs to the provider.

  The list of decisions may be accessed at: http://www.auda.org.au/policies/audrp/.  See http://www.leadr.com.au. 12 See http://www.arbitrators.com.au. 13 See http://www.iama.org.au. 14 See http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains. 15  The fee is charged per dispute. Either side can petition to have multiple disputes heard before the one panel, but to be heard under the one panel the domain names must be registered under the same domain name holder. Where there is a substantial number of domain names disputed in a single case the fee may rise due to an increase in the associated costs. Raising a fee is done on a case-by-case basis (generally over five domain names in a single case would require an adjustment in the fee, but this is rare as the majority of cases involve only one domain name). 10 11

158

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.au’ Domain Space (8) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings In the event that legal proceedings are initiated prior to or during an administrative domain AU.30 name dispute proceeding, then the panel has the discretion to decide whether to suspend or terminate the proceedings, or to proceed to a decision. An unsuccessful party may decide to initiate court proceedings, and a registrar must accord- AU.31 ingly wait ten calendar days before implementing the panel’s decision in order to allow for legal proceedings to be commenced. Table AU.1 provides a rough comparison of the time and likely costs involved in court pro- AU.32 ceedings and auDRP proceedings. Table AU.1: Comparison of the Time and Costs involved in Court Proceedings and auDRP Proceedings auDRP Complaint

Court Proceeding*

Likely cost:

AU$2,000 filing fee and AU$2,000–4,000 in solicitor’s fees for preparing the complaint. These costs are generally predictable.

Likely timing of decision:

Six weeks.

AU$30,000–60,000 including costs of: 1. preparing an Application/Fast Track Statement; 2. a Scheduling Conference; and 3. (assuming the matter is contested) a one-day trial. The costs of contested litigious matters is inherently unpredictable and the above estimate is a ‘best guess’. Five–eight months.

* The estimates provided in relation to Court proceedings are given on the basis that the matter proceeds in the Federal Court’s Fast Track system which, as its name suggests, is designed as a way to expedite proceedings. The Fast Track system is discussed further below.

(9) ADR Decisions The complainant must nominate one of the following remedies in the event that it proves AU.33 each of the above three elements of the Policy: (a) cancellation of the domain name, in which case the domain name becomes available for registration in the usual course; or (b) transfer of the domain name, provided that the registrar determines that the complainant is eligible to hold that domain name in accordance with the eligibility criteria for the relevant sub-domain. The decisions are issued by the panel within 14 calendar days of appointment, unless spe- AU.34 cial circumstances necessitate a delay, and the service provider must communicate the text of each decision to the relevant parties within a further three calendar days. Decisions are implemented by way of communication of the decision between service providers and the relevant registries, with the registries implementing the decision. A publicly available archive of decisions is available on-line at auDA’s website.16

  Decisions are available at: http://www.auda.org.au/policies/audrp/.

16

159

Australia (‘.au’) AU.35 There is no appeal process under the Policy. In the event that an aggrieved party wishes to

challenge a decision under the Policy, it must take its dispute to the relevant court.

(10) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Administrative Panel AU.36 A  registrant of an applicable domain name licence is required to submit to a mandatory

administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a ‘complainant’) asserts to an auDA-approved provider of dispute resolution services, in compliance with the auDA Rules and the applicable provider supplemental rules, that:17 (a) the respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name,18 trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (b) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;19 and (c) the respondent’s domain name has been registered or subsequently used in bad faith.

AU.37 The Policy expressly states that the complainant bears the onus of proof in an administrative

proceeding.

AU.38 Like the UDRP, the Policy sets out circumstances which without limitation can be used to

prove that the respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and that the domain name has been registered or subsequently used in bad faith (paragraph 4(b) and 4(c) of the Policy). However, it is important to note that there are some significant differences between these circumstances and the circumstances set out in the UDRP, and these are set out below.

AU.39 Although the Policy is based on the UDRP, it is an adaptation of it and there are accordingly

a number of differences between the two policies. The key differences are as follows:

(a) The complainant is able to prove the first element of the auDRP by demonstrating that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name or trade mark in which the complainant has rights. The name can be the complainant’s company, business or other legal or trading name, as registered with the relevant Australian government authority, or its personal name (whereas under the UDRP the name must be a trade mark or service mark). (b) Unlike the UDRP, if the complainant seeks to rely on the circumstance set out in paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy, that the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of a name, trade mark or service mark from reflecting that name, trade mark or service mark in a corresponding domain name, there is no requirement on the complainant to show that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. (c) While under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP the respondent must be attempting to attract internet users to its own website, the auDRP simply provides that the respondent engages in bad faith by attempting to attract internet users to ‘a website or other online location’ (ie not necessarily to the respondent’s website). (d) The complainant does not need to prove the conjunctive requirement of registration and use in bad faith, it can establish bad faith by proving that the respondent either registered or subsequently used the domain name in bad faith.

  The elements of a claim under the auDRP may be found in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.   auDA has determined that a ‘name’ for the purposes of the Policy refers to (a) the complainant’s company, business or other legal or trading name, as registered with the relevant Australian government authority, or (b) the complainant’s personal name. 19  As registration of ‘.au’ domain names is subject to eligibility criteria, a respondent cannot establish rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name merely by a registrar’s determination that the respondent satisfied the relevant eligibility criteria for the domain name at the time of registration. 17 18

160

IV.  Court Litigation Overall and subject to express differences in policy wording, panels have interpreted the AU.40 auDRP in a way that is generally consistent with the interpretation of the UDRP. However, privacy or proxy registration services is one area in which the approaches under the auDRP and the UDRP policies differ markedly. auDA policy expressly outlines that registrants cannot conceal the true identity of a party by using a privacy registration service unless otherwise expressly permitted under another of auDA’s policies.20 Although the UDRP policy does not expressly provide for privacy registration services, a panel will consider the use of a privacy registration service to be in bad faith unless the service was used for legitimate purposes, such as keeping an individual’s details private from the public.21

IV.  Court Litigation (1)  No Specific Anticybersquatting Legislation There is no legislation in Australia which specifically targets cybersquatting. However, in cer- AU.41 tain circumstances, recourse against cybersquatting is available under: (a) ss 18 and 29 of the ACL; (b) legislation prohibiting passing off; and (c) s 120 of the TMA. The difficulty with the action in registered trade mark infringement is the onus of proving AU.42 that the domain name is being ‘used’ as a trade mark and this is difficult unless a mark is being used in relation to identical goods, goods of the same description or closely related services. The success of such an action will depend upon the individual factual circumstances, but in a classic cybersquatting-type scenario these hurdles may be potentially insurmountable22 and plaintiffs will be left with their potential unfair competition type remedies in passing off, or under the ACL, ss 18 or 29. In many cases, causes of action in passing off and for misleading or deceptive conduct under AU.43 the ACL are run in tandem. The focus is often upon the action for misleading or deceptive conduct as it provides broad relief but avoids some of the technical difficulties and requirements of the action in passing off.23 The action under the ACL, s 18 for misleading or deceptive conduct (or conduct that is AU.44 likely to mislead or deceive) in the course of trade, is in the nature of a statutory tort which requires an objectively provable misrepresentation, but has no requirement for actual damage. The required misrepresentation is construed based on the court’s objective assessment of the domain name selection and usage in the context of its actual use and surrounding circumstances. Factors such as whether there is a disclaimer on the relevant site, use in relation to unrelated goods or services, instances of actual confusion, or a real likelihood of damage

  Section 2.4(b) of the auDA Registrant Contact Information Policy.   WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature aka WWF International v Moniker Online Services LLC and Gregory Ricks D2006-0695. 22  See, for example, the comments by Hill J in CSR Ltd v Resource Capital Australia Pty Ltd, Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales District Registry, N 1124 of 2002 [2003] FCA 279. 23  For example, in Sydney Markets Ltd v Sydney Flower Market Pty Ltd, Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales District Registry [2002] FCA 124, Hely J alluded to the possibility that although the applicant did not have an exclusive reputation in its name such as to support an action in passing off, there might have been a basis for an action under the TPA, s 52 had the parties’ businesses not co-existed for several years without any evidence of consumer confusion. 20 21

161

Australia (‘.au’) are not necessarily determinative. It is for the court to decide upon objective grounds whether the conduct concerned is misleading or deceptive. AU.45 Section 29 of the ACL proscribes a corporation from representing in relation to the supply

or promotion of goods or services that it has an affiliation or sponsorship or approval that it does not have. Although narrower in its ambit than s 18, it offers a separate cause of action which is usually pleaded and decided in conjunction with the ACL, s 18.

AU.46 Relief available under any of these heads includes possible injunctive relief, damages, an order

declaring an entitlement to ownership of the domain name, requiring its de-registration, and preventing further use or registration by the respondent. In addition, relief may be sought or given specifically requiring website disclaimers and restraining the use of metatags based on the domain name. In an action brought under the ACL additional relief may be sought in the nature of restraining orders against a person who procured or was knowingly concerned in the breach.24

AU.47 Australian law does not otherwise feature a European civil law type unfair competition law

based on a conception of conduct in bad faith.

(2) Infringement of Trade Marks (a)  Risk of Confusion between Domain Names and Trade Marks and Service Marks AU.48 In circumstances where the domain name contains an identical or deceptively similar mark

and the domain name resolves to a website which relates to identical goods or goods of the same description or closely related services this is likely to amount to classical registered trade mark infringement under the TMA, s 120(1) and (2).25

AU.49 The key issue in an infringement action involving a domain name is likely to centre on

whether the domain name is being used as a trade mark. Mere descriptive use, or a domain name’s function as a ‘place keeper’ or direction indicator resolving to a website which promotes unrelated goods or services, will not constitute use as a trade mark to support an action for trade mark infringement under the TMA, s 120.26 A trade mark will be infringed by the use of a domain name where there is content on the website (ie other use of the mark) which indicates that the domain name is being used as a ‘badge of origin’ to distinguish goods or services being sold online.27

AU.50 When a domain name which is upon comparison identical or deceptively similar to a third

party’s trade mark is used in relation to dissimilar goods or services then, unless the trade mark is famous, there can be no confusion for trade mark infringement purposes and it will not be possible to successfully bring an infringement action under the TMA, s 120. There is no cause of action for dilution of trade marks under Australian law other than the provisions for protection of famous marks which are considered further below.

  Australian Consumer Law (Sch 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2019), s 232.   ACIP Issues paper, ‘A review of the relationship between trade marks and business names, company names and domain names’ January 2004. 26  See the discussion in the context of cybersquatting in the CSR case at n 13, at para 42. 27  Sports Warehouse Inc v Fry Consulting Pty Ltd (2010) 186 FCR 519; 87 IPR 300; [2010] FCA 664. Kenny J held: ‘In this case, the domain name is more than an address for a website, the domain name is also a sign for the applicant’s online retaining (sic) service available at the website …the public is likely to understand a domain name consisting of the trade mark (or something very like it) as a sign for the online service identified by the trade mark as available at the webpage to which it carries the Internet user.’ See also Mantra Group Pty Ltd v Tailly Pty Ltd (No 2) (2010) 183 FCR 450 at 463. 24 25

162

IV.  Court Litigation Alternative relief may be available in this situation under the extended action in passing off AU.51 or under the ACL. The effectiveness of these causes of action will depend upon establishing that internet users are likely to be misled by the registration or use of the domain name into believing that the registrant (defendant) is affiliated with the trade mark owner (applicant). This is possible in circumstances where the parties are ‘cybersquatting’. Where there is no evidence of cybersquatting, but the parties operate in different fields of activity, then in theory at least, there may still be an actionable misrepresentation if the court accepts that there is a false association or connection such as to mislead people into thinking that the domain name concerned resolves to the complainant’s website.

(b)  Infringement of Famous Trade Marks Section 120(3) of the TMA protects well-known registered trade marks in Australia in AU.52 accordance with Australia’s obligations under the TRIPS Convention. On one view, it provides anti-dilution protection for well-known registered trade marks. The section contains five key prerequisites to infringement: (a) that the registered trade mark AU.53 is well known in Australia; (b) the allegedly infringing sign is used as a trade mark; (c) it is used in relation to dissimilar goods or services; (d) use of the allegedly infringing sign will be taken to indicate a connection between the unrelated goods or services and the registered trade mark owner; and (e) that the interests of the registered owner are likely to be adversely affected. This provision provides broad protection for well-known registered trade marks against the AU.54 unauthorized registration and use of substantially identical or deceptively similar domain names, provided always that the domain name is being used as a trade mark. The ‘used as a trade mark’ requirement renders it difficult for trade mark owners to ever use the section in relation to instances of cybersquatting because of the difficulty in arguing that the domain name registrant has used the domain name as a trade mark.

(c)  Infringement of Personal Names, Names of Cities, and Other Public Law Corporations Australian law does not formally acknowledge rights of personality. Indirect protection is AU.55 provided for personal commercial reputation under the law of passing off and under the ACL, ss 18 and 29. In theory anyone can register a domain name incorporating a personal name subject to the AU.56 requirements of the ‘.au’ domain name registration policy which limits registration of personal names to the ‘.id.au’ domain space and in practice requires proof of the applicant’s name for registration. Apart from the state based first-in-time business name registration system, federal company AU.57 name incorporation system and the limited statutory protection for geographical appellations of origin (mainly concerned with wine), there is no general statutory protection regime for trade names in Australia. Protection is, however, available at common law under the tort of passing off and the ACL, ss 18 and 29, as outlined above, provide substantial protection against the use of confusingly similar names in the course of trade. These causes of action are effective in circumstances where the domain name incorporates AU.58 another trader’s established trade name and resolves to a website promoting similar goods or services. The likelihood of success is much more limited where the use is in relation to dissimilar goods or services and the scope for consumer confusion is limited. This is because there is likely to be little evidence of actual consumer confusion and, unless there is some objectively determinable likelihood that people would incorrectly assume some connection or affiliation, it will be difficult to establish that there was an adequate misrepresentation to support an action in passing off or a likelihood that consumers would be misled under the ACL.

163

Australia (‘.au’) AU.59 No special protection is afforded to owners of unregistered famous trade marks. However, in

general, the likelihood of establishing the degree of false association or connection sufficient to support an actionable misrepresentation under the tort of passing off or for the purposes of an action under the ACL will increase with the degree of notoriety.

AU.60 Since 2005 it has been possible to register Australian geographical names, including city

names, in the ‘.com.au’ or ‘.net.au’ domain spaces. There are also eight second-level domains for Australian states and territories under which communities may register Community Geographic Domain Names (CGDNs). The structure of CGDNs follows the format ‘place­ name.state/territory.au’ and the use of CGDNs is limited to ‘operat[ing] a community website’.28

AU.61 Certain institutions and public corporations have their names specifically protected by stat-

ute (whether federal-, or state-, or territory-based) and publicly and privately listed corporations will enjoy a limited degree of protection from registration of their name under the first-in-time system administered by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission.

AU.62 Protection for the names of trading corporations or public institutions which operate in the

course of trade is otherwise available at common law under the tort of passing off and the ACL, ss 18 and 29.

(3) Infringement of  Titles AU.63 No statutory intellectual property protection exists for the titles of publications. However,

again the limitations on registration of domain names assure some degree of protection against confusing or fraudulent registrations. Protection for titles which are not registered as service marks must be sought at common law through the tort of passing off and under the ACL, ss 18 and 29.

(4) Court Procedure and Remedies AU.64 A broad range of remedies is available at common law, under the ACL and under the TMA

in domain name dispute court litigation. Depending upon the particular circumstances courts may grant injunctive relief on an interim, interlocutory, or permanent basis, damages, an order declaring an entitlement to ownership of the domain name, requiring its de-registration, and preventing further use or registration by the respondent.29 In addition, relief may be sought or given specifically requiring website disclaimers30 and restraining the use of metatags based on the domain name.

AU.65 In CSR v Resource Capital Australia the respondent registered the domain names ‘csrsugar.

com’ and ‘csrsugar.com.au.’ The applicant is a publically listed company and its core business is refining and selling sugar. Hill J was unimpressed by the respondent’s argument that it registered the domain names so as to highlight deficiencies in CSR’s intellectual property policy and ordered that the domain names be transferred to the complainant and enjoined the respondent from registering or using any other domain names including the name CSR.

AU.66 Kailash Center For Personal Development Inc v Yoga Magik Pty Ltd concerned a claim by a

yoga instructor against a website operator for continuing to make statements on the website

  auDA’s Policy Rules and Guidelines for Community Geographic Domain Names (Policy No 2008-04).   See, for example, the relief granted by the Federal Court in CSR Ltd v Resource Capital Australia Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 279. See also the relief granted in Speedo Holdings BV v Evans (No 2) (2011) FCA 1227. 30  By way of example, see the relief ordered in Kailash Center For Personal Development Inc v Yoga Magik Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 536 which included website disclaimers, orders requiring de-registration of domain names and injunctions preventing them from re-registering the domain names. 28 29

164

V.  The Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name suggesting that there was a connection between them when the relationship between them had been terminated. Allsop J found that the statements made on the website contravened the statutory prohibitions against misleading or deceptive conduct and ordered that: • the respondent publish a corrective notice on the website; • the respondent de-register domain names which referred to the applicant; and • the respondent be restrained from registering other domain names which refer to the applicant. Speedo Holdings BV v Evans (No 2) involved various domain names registered by ‘Dave Evans’ AU.67 containing the name SPEEDO which were used as addresses for pornographic websites. Speedo alleged that ‘Evans’ had infringed the SPEEDO trade marks and contravened the statutory provisions against misleading or deceptive conduct (now s18 of the ACL). ‘Evans’ did not appear and Flick J made orders (default judgment): • restraining ‘Evans’ from registering domain names containing the SPEEDO mark or operating any website at an address with such a domain name; • for the transfer to Speedo of any domain names containing the SPEEDO mark; and • that if ‘Evans’ does not comply with the above orders a Registrar of the Court sign all necessary documents so that the domain names are transferred to Speedo. In an action brought under the ACL additional relief may be sought in the nature of restrain- AU.68 ing orders against a person who procured, or was knowingly concerned in, the breach.31 Where there is a need for speedier relief, applicants may (as previously mentioned) take advantage AU.69 of the Federal Court’s Fast Track List (which can be used for ‘non-patent’ intellectual property proceedings including claims under the ACL) and can thereby be set down for a hearing and judgment delivered within six months.32 If the respondent fails to file an appearance, the applicant may apply for default judgment (which avoids the need to establish allegations by evidence).33 The legal costs involved in commencing a court proceeding for a domain name matter AU.70 (whether by filing a Statement of Claim or a Fast Track Statement) is likely to cost, at least, a few thousand dollars (and likely more depending on complexity). If the matter proceeds beyond a first directions hearing or (in the Fast Track List) Scheduling Conference, the costs could easily exceed AU$20,000 and if to a fully contested hearing for one to two days, more than AU$35,000. It will be apparent that the costs are likely to be much higher than the AU$2,000 fee for filing an auDRP complaint (even taking into account any legal costs incurred where a lawyer is instructed to prepare the complaint). The ordinary position is that, at the conclusion of a court proceeding, an order will be made requiring the losing party to pay the winning party’s legal costs (at least those which were fairly and reasonably incurred).34

V.  The Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name The protection of trade marks and trade names is fundamentally based upon their acquisition AU.71 of acquired distinctiveness through use. The common law protects the developed goodwill

  Australian Consumer Law (Sch 2 Competition and Consumer Act 2010).   The Fast Track List is unlikely to apply where the trial is likely to exceed five days (Federal Court Practice Note CM8 at 2.3(a)). 33  Speedo Holdings BV v Evans (No 2) (2011) FCA 1227. 34  This may only amount to 50–60% of the legal costs actually incurred by the successful party. 31 32

165

Australia (‘.au’) arising from use of the trade mark through the tort of passing off. Additional protection is provided indirectly35 by the ACL, ss 18 and 29. AU.72 The registered trade mark system provides an exception to this rule for first-in-time, 100

per cent inherently distinctive marks which may achieve registration without any prior use. Other categories of trade marks obtain registration based upon their degree of acquired distinctiveness through use.

AU.73 The prerequisite for protection under the common law or for securing protection as a registered

trade mark based upon acquired distinctiveness is therefore use as a trade mark. Accordingly, the use of a domain name could only give rise to rights sufficient to protect an identical trade mark or trade name in Australia if it could be shown to have been used in a trade mark sense and not just descriptively, or as a mere website portal indicator. As previously discussed, a court (or the Trade Mark Office) is only likely to consider the use of the domain name to be ‘trade mark use’ where it can draw that inference by the use of the trade mark on the website.

AU.74 It is therefore possible for a domain name, which is used as a trade mark, to acquire a second-

ary meaning through use and for goodwill attaching to that trade mark to be protectable at common law and to support an application for trade mark registration.

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers AU.75 It is unlikely that the Australian registry, domain name registrars or internet service providers

would be held liable for contributory trade mark infringement under the TMA or as a person ‘knowingly concerned’ in a contravention of the ACL (at least in circumstances where they have not been put on notice that a domain name is infringing a third party’s trade mark rights). There appears to have been no case to date that has tested this risk and the risk is therefore more academic than real.

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property AU.76 Australian domain names are granted upon the basis of a renewable licence to the domain

name holder.

AU.77 Circumstances in which they may be transferred are set out in the auDA policy,36 available

on the Internet, and in any event the receiving holder must be able to satisfy the eligibility requirements for registering within the ‘.au’ space. The restriction on transferring domain names within six months of registration has been removed.

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (1)  International Jurisdiction AU.78 Australian courts37 will take jurisdiction in a matter involving foreign parties dependant upon

an assessment as to whether the criteria for ‘personal’ and for ‘subject matter’ jurisdiction are

35  Note that the ACL, ss 18 and 29 are essentially consumer protection provisions which have the indirect effect of protecting a trade mark owner from misrepresentation by competing traders. 36  auDA Policy No 2011-03 Transfers (Changes of Registrant) Policy, available on auDA’s website, at: http://www.auda.org.au. 37  In general these principles apply in federal, state, and territorial courts.

166

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law fulfiled in the particular circumstances. Personal jurisdiction at common law requires that the defendant has a presence in, or submits to the jurisdiction. This criterion may be difficult to fulfil where, for example, the foreign defendant does not have a place of business or assets in Australia. Subject matter jurisdiction is concerned with the forum conveniens, or the courts’ competence to determine the matter and the most appropriate forum for adjudication. Specific statutory provisions in each of the Australian jurisdictions also provide for ‘long arm’ AU.79 jurisdiction enabling foreign service of Australian proceedings. Essentially these comprehend situations (i) where a cause of action arises in the jurisdiction; (ii) where a claim can be made in respect of damage arising in the jurisdiction; or (iii) where an injunction is sought to restrain the performance of an act within the jurisdiction. A registered trade mark infringement, an incidence of passing off at common law, or a breach of s 18 or s 29 of the ACL will qualify as a relevant cause of action or tort depending upon the Australian jurisdiction sought to be invoked. Damage arising from such a cause of action or tort will also qualify under this head. There are several potential difficulties in successfully asserting jurisdiction in a case of AU.80 Internet-based trade mark infringement where the defendant is neither within the jurisdiction, nor has submitted to jurisdiction. In such a case a plaintiff might rely on the long arm jurisdiction provisions but in order to do so must show that the case falls within one of the three categories set out above. Several potential difficulties arise. First, as noted previously, it is a prerequisite of registered AU.81 trade mark infringement that the mark is being used as a trade mark. Further, there must be an act of infringement of an Australian trade mark, which necessarily means an act of infringement within the jurisdiction. This latter requirement presents particular difficulties in the context of an alleged web-based infringement on a foreign website in circumstances where the site may or may not be targeted at Australian consumers. In Ward Group Pty Ltd v Brodie & Stone Plc 38 the Court held that for the infringement provisions of the TMA to be enlivened the website must be directed towards Australian consumers. The tort of passing off is not geographically limited by statute in the same way as registered AU.82 trade mark infringement, but in order to assert jurisdiction under the long arm provisions it will be necessary to show that a misrepresentation is directed towards people in Australia,39 and that damage has occurred within the jurisdiction. Similar common law principles apply in determining the place of misrepresentation for the purposes of an action under s 18 or s 29 of the ACL.40

(2) Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Choice of Law For statutory causes of action the court’s subject matter jurisdiction will be determined by AU.83 the terms of the relevant statute (in this case the TMA or ACL), while for causes of action at common law (the tort of passing off ) the court’s subject matter jurisdiction is determined by the relevant choice of law rule. The TMA is necessarily limited in scope to infringements within Australia of an Australian AU.84 registered trade mark. The place of infringement is therefore critical in determining subject matter jurisdiction. Provided that the place of download (as found in the case of Dow Jones v Gutnick41 in relation to defamation) is adopted as the place of the infringing act

  (2005) 143 FCR 479.   It being established law in Australia that in torts based on misrepresentation that the infringing act occurs upon receipt of the misrepresentation: Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538. 40  Hunter Grain P/L v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd (1993) 117 ALR 507. 41  (2002) 210 CLR 575. 38 39

167

Australia (‘.au’) then Australian courts will be competent to adjudicate trade mark infringement actions in relation to a foreign website. AU.85 Similarly, with respect to breaches of the ACL, in the case of web-based conduct, provided

that conduct is aimed at Australian consumers then it is most likely that the place of the breach would be where the material was downloaded and viewed and consequently Australian courts would have subject matter jurisdiction.42 Section 5 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 provides that the ACL applies to conduct, of Australian companies and residents, outside of Australia.

AU.86 The general choice of law rule applied by the High Court of Australia in Regie National des

Usines Renault v Zhang43 in relation to private international law matters is that the law to be applied will be the law where the tort is committed. Therefore if an act of passing off is found to have taken place in Australia then the courts will apply Australian law. An act of passing off is likely to be found to be within Australia if the foreign website and relevant misrepresentation is aimed at an Australian audience and the plaintiff has demonstrated that it has a relevant goodwill to protect in Australia.

(3) The Global Nature of the Internet and Remedies AU.87 Australian courts have to date demonstrated a sensitivity to the global nature of the Internet

and the potential extra-territorial effect of injunctions in relation to Internet-based defamation. In Macquarie Bank v Berg44 the New South Wales Supreme Court refused to accept jurisdiction and grant an injunction to restrain the publication of allegedly defamatory material on a foreign website concerning the Australian-based plaintiff. Simpson J, in the first case of its kind in Australia, explained that unless practical effect could be given to orders restricting the transmission of material to certain geographic areas, then an injunction restraining publication would have the potential effect of restraining publication throughout the world. As no practical means of technically restricting access to the material was proposed to the court, the application for injunctive relief was refused.

AU.88 In the Gutnick case,45 the High Court also acknowledged the extra-territorial effect of an

injunctive remedy. However, in their joint judgment, the majority of the Full Bench refused to accept46 that the relevant features of the Internet as a medium of communication were substantially different from any other forms of mass media communication. The majority decision noted that the potential extra-territorial preventative effect of the law was mitigated in the case of defamation by the publisher’s prior knowledge of the location of a plaintiff ’s reputation.

AU.89 It appears from these cases that Australian courts will be cognizant of the potential

extra-territorial effect of injunctive remedies for Internet-based trade mark infringements, causes of action under the ACL, or under the tort of passing off and where necessary and if practical will seek to limit the scope of relief appropriately.

42  This approach is consistent with the Federal Court decision in Paper Products Ltd v Tomlinson (Rochdale) Ltd (No 2) (1993) 116 ALR 163, upheld (1994) 122 ALR 279 as noted by R Garrett, (1999) ‘The Internet and Trademark Rights: Some Problems of Jurisdiction’, Intellectual Property Forum, 39: 18. 43  (2002) ALJR 551. 44  [1999] NSW SC 526. 45  See note 41 above. 46  At least for the purposes of defining the place of publication under the law of defamation.

168

AUSTRIA (‘.at’) Peter Burgstaller

I. Overview of the National System of Protection of Trademarks and Other Intellectual Property Rights in Signs  AT.01 II. The ccTLD (‘.at’) Registration Conditions and Procedures  AT.07 III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution  AT.15 IV.  Court Litigation  AT.16

VI. The Use of Generic Terms and Descriptive Indications as Domain Names  VII.  The Liability of the Registry  VIII. Remedies and Procedural Law Issues 

(1) Abusive Registration of Domain Names (Domaingrabbing)  AT.16 (2) Trademark Infringement  AT.29 (3) Infringement of Trade Names and Other Commercial Designations  AT.43 (4) Infringement of Names  AT.53 (5) Names of Towns and Other Public Law Corporations  AT.74 (6) Infringement of Publication Titles  AT.79

V. Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name 

(1) Wait Status  (2) Remedies  (3) Infringement Proceedings  (4) Court/Attorney’s Fees

AT.94 AT.94 AT.95 AT.98 AT.102

IX. Domain Names as Items of Property 

AT.105

(1) Assignment and Licence Rights to Domain Names (2) Execution of Domain Names

X.  International Conflicts

(1) Jurisdiction (2) Applicable Law

AT.82

AT.85 AT.89

AT.105 AT.108 AT.110 AT.110 AT.117

Links Austrian Patent and Trademark Office: http://www.patentamt.at NIC.AT (Austrian Registry): http://www.nic.at/en/index Registration conditions:  http://www.nic.at/en/service/legal_information/terms_conditions Search platform for relevant Austrian statutes: http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/bundesrecht Search platform for relevant Austrian court decisions: http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Jus

I.  Overview of the National System of Protection of Trademarks and Other Intellectual Property Rights in Signs The legal basis for the protection of signs in Austria is found in the Trademark Protection AT.01 Act (hereinafter the TPA),1 in the name law provision of the General Civil Code, s 43 (hereinafter the GCC), in the Act against Unfair Competition (hereinafter the AUC), and in the Copyright Act, s 80.2 The statutes offering protection for signs outside of trademark law apply concurrently with any applicable trademark law claims. The Austrian system for the protection of trademarks essentially follows the requirements of AT.02 the Trademark Directive3 with respect to both the capacity for protection4 and the likelihood  See http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Bundesrecht.   Federal Act against Unfair Competition 1994—AUC, Federal Gazette No 448/1984 (WV) as amended by Federal Law Gazette I No 79/2007. 3  Council Directive 21 December 1988, 89/104/EEC. 4  Cf. the TPA, ss 1 and 4. 1 2

169

Austria (‘.at’) of confusion5 between trademarks.6 Additionally, the Austrian Supreme Court has held that, with regard to the question of likelihood of confusion, Austrian law is in line with the Community concept and must be interpreted in accordance with the decisions of the European Court of Justice.7 AT.03 In trademark cases and cases based on the AUC, the Austrian legal system provides for pro-

tection via interlocutory proceedings in instances of infringement.8 No hearing of witnesses or expert witnesses is contemplated in interlocutory proceedings—this not only substantially facilitates the plaintiff ’s burden of proof in the assertion of his claim but also shortens the duration of proceedings.

AT.04 Interlocutory proceedings can also be conducted at all levels, including before the Austrian

Supreme Court. In practice, interlocutory proceedings, which do not concern an assessment of the merits but involve purely legal issues, are frequently not followed by a main proceeding on the same issue. This is because the Supreme Court’s legal opinions established during interlocutory proceedings are rarely different from those which would be rendered in the main proceedings, since the relevant division of the Supreme Court in an interlocutory proceeding is always identical with the one in the main proceeding.

AT.05 Trademark, unfair competition law, and name law disputes involving the registration and use

of domain names have by now become a regular event before Austrian courts. After a period of considerable legal uncertainty, the most important legal issues of domain law have now been clarified especially by numerous Supreme Court decisions9 having been issued since the start of the commercial use of the Internet in Austria.

AT.06 There is no statutory regulation of domain law, which means that domain name conflicts are

to be resolved on the basis of the existing trademark, unfair competition, name, copyright, and tort law provisions.

II.  The ccTLD (‘.at’) Registration Conditions and Procedures AT.07 The registration of domain names in the ccTLD ‘.at’ is the responsibility of ‘nic.at Internet

Verwaltungs-und Betriebsgesellschaft m.b.H’ (NIC.AT). NIC.AT is a private law, limited liability company (GmbH) and serves as the official registry for all domains ending with ‘.at’, ‘.co.at’, and ‘.or.at’. The abbreviation NIC stands for ‘Network Information Centre’, and ‘nic.at’ is the central node of the ‘.at’ zone. In the middle of 1998, the company NIC.AT GmbH was established by the ISPA (Association of the Internet Service Providers, Austria), which was also the owner of NIC.AT until 2000.10 In order to provide a more appropriate ownership structure than an association, and in order to put NIC.AT in a position to serve as an efficient provider of services for the local Austrian Internet community in the long term, the ISPA board decided to create a limited liability company structure for NIC.AT. The ISPA

  Cf. the TPA, s 10.  Council Directive 89/104/EEC which approximate the Laws of the Member States Relating to Trademarks; the Act in particular implements the option for the protection of well-known trademarks contained in Art 5(2) of the Directive. 7  Thus Supreme Court 29 September 1998—AMC/ATC—ÖBl 1999, 82. Cf. also Supreme Court 13 February 2001—T-One—ecolex 2001, 547 = MarkenR 2001, 333. 8  Only the claim itself must be authenticated. 9  Starting with Supreme Court 24 February 1998—jusline.com I—MR 1998, 208. 10  For a critical comment on the power of the NIC.AT, with reference to the Telecommunications Act see Mosing and Otto, Internet-Adressenverwaltung in Österreich, MR 2002, 176. 5 6

170

II.  The ccTLD (‘.at’) Registration Conditions and Procedures board further arranged for a 100 per cent transfer of the entity into the charitable Internet Foundation Austria (IPA), which also corresponds to the current structure of the ccTLD space and management in many EU countries. However, a central role in the administration of the space is still taken by the Domain Name Council, which is an advisory body of the IPA that decides on basic issues of the domain name delegation policy.11 The registration of a TLD ‘.at’ domain names does not require that the applicant must have AT.08 an address in Austria or be an Austrian national. Hence any natural or legal person can register a domain name in the ‘.at’ ccTLD irrespective of his or her place of residence or business.12 Domain names are registered according to the ‘first-come first-served’ principle. There is no AT.09 check for possible conflicting intellectual property rights in signs. It is also possible to register descriptive domain names. With registration, the domain holder receives a registration certificate that enables him to prove his ownership of the domain. Since 31 March 2004, it has been possible to register internationalized domain names.

AT.10

In order to allow disputes between the registrant and third parties to be settled out of court, AT.11 upon notification of a dispute NIC.AT will offer to set the status of the relevant domain name to ‘wait’. A precondition of utilizing the ‘wait’ status is the third party’s attestation of the basis for the claim, as well as his request to activate such wait status in writing or by telefax. As soon as the prima facie evidence has been examined by NIC.AT, the domain name status can be set to ‘wait’ for one month. ‘Wait status 1’ allows the registrant either to continue using the domain or to cancel the domain, but the domain cannot be transferred to third parties that are not involved in the dispute. The cancellation of the ‘wait’ status upon joint application by the parties in dispute is possible at any time. At the request of either party in the dispute, ‘wait status 1’ can be prolonged for the duration of one month. After the expiration or cancellation of wait status 1, wait status 1 cannot again be employed in the course of the same dispute. ‘Wait status 2’ blocks the transfer of the domain name for the entire duration of the dispute.13 However, neither ‘wait status 1’ nor ‘wait status 2’ gives the third party any further rights to the domain, specifically with regard to the right to register or secure transfer of the domain name at issue.14 Domain names can be registered as second-level domains directly at the ‘.at’ second level or AT.12 as third-level domains under the following second-level domains: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

‘.co.at’ for commercial providers; ‘.or.at’ for organizations; ‘.ac.at’ for universities and other academic institutions; and ‘.gv.at’ (only for state agencies).15

The University of Vienna registers domain names under the second-level domain ‘.ac.at’,16 AT.13 while the technical administration of ‘.gv.at’ is delegated to the Vienna City Administration.17 All the necessary information about NIC.AT and the registration procedures can be found on the registry’s website.18

  See the nic.at history at: http://www.nic.at/en/uebernic/company_details_imprint/history.   See General Terms and Conditions, s 1 at: http://www.nic.at/en/service/legal_information/terms_conditions/. 13  See General Terms and Conditions, s 2. 14  See Section VIII, para AT.94. 15  Cf. for instance, Forgo, Das Domain Name System, in Mayer-Schönberger, Galla, and Fallenböck, Das Recht der Domainnamen (Vienna, Onlaw/Manz, 2001) 1, 12. 16 See http://www.nic.aco.net. 17 See http://www.digitales.oesterreich.gv.at. 18 See http://www.nic.at, available in German and English. 11 12

171

Austria (‘.at’) AT.14 As of 2012, over 1 million domain names had been registered by NIC.AT under ‘.at’, ‘.co.

at’ and ‘.or.at’. More than 96 per cent of these domains were registered under ‘.at’, 2.8 per cent under ‘.co.at’ and 0.8 per cent under ‘.or.at’. Almost 65 per cent of domain names under the ‘.at’ ccTLD are held by Austrian holders, 18 per cent by holders from Germany, 13 per cent by holders from the rest of the EU; the rest are held by parties which have their place of business or residence outside the EU.19

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution AT.15 At the initiative of NIC.AT a voluntary, institutionalized dispute resolution mechanism,

following the model of the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), was introduced to supplement dispute settlement by the ordinary courts.20 The Arbitration Centre for ‘.at’ domains,21 which was responsible for the administration of these disputes, formally started work on 1 March 2003,22 but was discontinued on 31 October 2008. Since that time, under Austrian law all disputes arising out of domain names under the TLD ‘.at’ are therefore in the sole competence of the ordinary courts.

IV.  Court Litigation (1)  Abusive Registration of Domain Names (Domaingrabbing) AT.16 A relatively large number of domain disputes have been decided in Austria based on dishon-

est or obstructive competitive practices within the meaning of the AUC, s 1. In the conflict between Jusline GmbH, which had been the holder of the word-trademark ‘jusline’ since 1995, and had used the designation since 1997 as its company name, and the registrant of the domain name ‘jusline.at’,23 the Supreme Court held that the registration of a domain name for the sole purpose of creating an obstacle to the plaintiff ’s access to the market in order to obtain a financial benefit from the subsequent removal of the obstacle was dishonest within the meaning of the AUC, s 1 (domaingrabbing). The Court accordingly ordered the termination of the use of the disputed domain name and also the cancellation of the disputed domain name.

AT.17 In the ‘format.at’ case,24 in which the publisher of the magazine Format requested interlocu-

tory protection against a rival publishing group that had reserved the domain name ‘format. at’ immediately after the new magazine was announced, the Supreme Court reduced the requirements for a finding of domaingrabbing by holding that the mere reservation and use of a domain name with the intention of preventing another from using his sign as a domain name on the Internet constituted an anticompetitive obstruction within the meaning of the AUC, s 1. Hence, it was sufficient merely to intend to obstruct the other party   For further details, see https://www.nic.at/uebernic/statistiken/.   Cf. also Anderl, Die Domain-Streitschlichtung für.at, MMR 2003, 374 ff. 21  Further information can be found at: http://www.streitschlichtung.at. 22  The Arbitration Centre, contrary to the usual terminology, is referred to in German as the Mediation Centre (although the Centre’s English language page uses the term Arbitration Centre). Apparently, however, proceedings are not mediation but rather have a dispute settlement function (editor’s comment). 23  Supreme Court 27 April 1999 (‘jusline II’), MR 1999, 235 with comment by Schanda = ÖBl 1999, 225 = MR 1999, 235 = wbl 1999/343 = RdW 1999, 657 = MMR 1999, 662 = GRURInt 2000, 373 = K&R 1999, 467. 24  Supreme Court 13 September 1999 (‘format.at’), ecolex 2000, 132 with comment by Schanda = ÖBl 2000, 72 = MR 1999, 351 = wbl 2000/31 = MMR 2000, 352 with comment by Haller. 19 20

172

IV.  Court Litigation (without any intention of deriving a financial benefit).25 The Supreme Court held, however, that interlocutory protection should not result in an irreversible situation. Consequently, the petition for an injunction against the use of the name was justified, but not the petition for its cancellation. In the dispute involving the publisher of the daily newspaper, Täglich Alles concerning the AT.18 domain name ‘taeglichalles.at’,26 the domain was initially registered by a person resident in Vienna who then transferred it to the defendant, a housewife resident in Slovenia, who did not use it on the Internet. The Supreme Court extended its case law in this matter, stating that the requirement of an intent to sell or obstruct must be satisfied at least at the time of the registration or (in the case of a transfer of the domain name) at the time of the transfer; this intent must be the overwhelming although not necessarily the sole reason for the acquisition of the domain registration. The Supreme Court expressly held that the registration of another’s sign as a domain name with the intent to sell or obstruct established an ad hoc competitive relationship.27 This has also been applied to private persons whose similar acts went beyond the private sphere and made them participants in competition. Generally, the burden of assertion and proof is borne by the party seeking to establish the AT.19 factual basis for a finding in that party’s favour. Concerning the burden of assertion and proof for the existence of intent to obstruct or sell, the Supreme Court held that it was sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the existence of a factual matrix that shows no identifiable interest on the part of the defendant in the acquisition of the domain name. This is the case, for instance, if the domain name selected is identical to a third party’s sign but has no connection with the defendant’s own name or activity. However, the burden of proof can be transferred if there are very special evidentiary difficulties for the plaintiff in any specific case, the decisive factor being whether the circumstances of the particular case appear to justify a transfer of the burden of proof to the defendant.28 In the dispute between a company owned by the city of Graz founded to prepare, organize, AT.20 and market the city as the Cultural Capital of Europe in 2003 and holder of the word-picture mark ‘Graz 2003’, and an IT enterprise that had registered the domain name ‘graz2003.at’,29 the Supreme Court pointed out that the blocking of the domain name and the selling of the domain name constituted dishonest obstructive competitive practices. The registration of a domain name may be deemed dishonest within the meaning of the AUC, s 1 if the acquirer of the domain name intends to obstruct the rights-owner in a manner contrary to competitive practices. This would, as a rule, be the case where there is an offer to sell the domain name to the rights-owner, because it was only the capacity to obstruct which provided the necessary pressure to back up the financial demands.30 25  Likewise in Supreme Court 30 January 2001 (‘bernhart.at’), wbl 2001/290 with comment by Thiele; the criterion was, however, held not to have been satisfied. 26  Supreme Court 12 June 2001 (‘taeglichalles.at’), ecolex 2001, 923 with comment by Schanda = MR 2001, 245 = wbl 2001/319. 27 For the situation in Germany, see also Dresden Court of Appeals CR 1999, 589 (‘cyberspace.de’) and Frankfurt Court of Appeals CR 2001, 615 (‘weideglueck.de’) (Obstruction pursuant to ss 826, 226, Civil Code). 28  With regard to the burden of proof in the context of domain grabbing, see Supreme Court 8 November 2005 (‘austrian.at’). 29  Supreme Court 29 January 2002 (‘graz2003.at’), MMR 2002, 452 with comment by Schanda = ecolex 2002, 524 with comment by Fallenböck. 30 Likewise Supreme Court 22 April 2002 (‘graz2003.com’), ecolex 2002, 821 with comment by Fallenböck = RdW 2002/394, 403 = wbl 2002/230, 331 with comment by Thiele, in which the Supreme Court, however, made it clear that the mere offer of cooperation between the parties to the dispute and the prospects of obtaining revenue was not sufficient to establish dishonest practice within the meaning of the AUC, s 1.

173

Austria (‘.at’) AT.21 However, the use of the domain name ‘obertauern.at’ by a hotel owner who operated an

information page about the Obertauern area and supported hotel bookings for 40 hotels under the domain name was held by the Supreme Court to be neither a breach of the name rights of the districts of Untertauern and Tweng, in whose territory the village and skiing area of ‘Obertauern’ is located, nor a breach of the general competition law clause of the AUC, s 1 or the prohibition against misleading conduct in the AUC, s 2.31

AT.22 If a domain name does not contain specific unambiguous additions (such as ‘.ac’ or ‘.gv’), as

a rule no conclusive inference can be drawn against the registrant. An average Internet user does not presume and rely on the domain name ‘townname.at’ as always being the official page of the local government authority. In the particular case of ‘Obertauern.at’ the capacity to mislead was further negated by the notice on the home page that the website in question was not operated by the plaintiff (the District of Obertauern) together with details of the plaintiff ’s Internet address and the Obertauern Tourism Association. Such explanatory indications were capable of eliminating any likelihood of confusion.

AT.23 Moreover the use of the e-mail address ‘[email protected]’ was not capable of being mis-

leading, since the defendant did not use and advertise this address in isolation but rather in the context of the website, and for this reason it also benefited from the effect of the explanatory notice.32

AT.24 The contrary conclusion, however, was reached some months before by the Innsbruck Court

of Appeal in the dispute between the Stubai and Neustift Tourism Associations and the holder of the domain names ‘stubaital.at’, ‘stubai.at’, and ‘neustift.at’, who for three years used a website under the three domain names to present tourism information about the Stubai Valley and provided an advertising and reservation service for roughly 120 tourism businesses in return for payment.33 The defendant’s home page moreover contained a notice that the website was independent of the Neustift and Stubai Tourism Associations. Nevertheless, the Innsbruck Court of Appeal held that this constituted an infringement of the prohibition against misleading conduct in the AUC, s 2(1). It held that the Stubai Valley was world famous as a tourism region and that many international visitors were increasingly obtaining their information about the tourism programme in this valley through the Internet. It must be assumed that the three domain names registered by the defendant could create the impression amongst Internet users that the site was that of an official or at least semi-official provider. The defendant thereby created the incorrect impression amongst Internet users that it was active as a tourism organization. The competitive relationship between the parties resulted from the fact that both parties, although to different degrees, offered tourism information via the Internet.

AT.25 Domaingrabbing under the AUC, s 1 requires not only active use34 but also registering the

domain name at issue in bad faith.35

AT.26 In the case ‘schladming.com’,36 the Supreme Court held that when scrutinizing the domain

name with regard to the name of a village the generic TLD ‘.com’ also has to be considered. The relevant issue in this context is whether the ordinary user might be confused by the usage   Supreme Court 13 November 2001 (‘obertauern.at’), ecolex 2002, 269.   On the legal situation in Germany, cf. Federal Supreme Court 2002 MarkenR 190 (‘vossius.de’), MMR 2002 456 with comment by Hoeller. 33  Ruling of the Innsbruck Court of Appeals dated 11 July 2001, 2 R 148/01h ‘stubaital.at’, ‘stubai.at’, and ‘neustift.at’. 34  Supreme Court 9 June 2008 (‘cityforum.eu’), jusIT 2008/81, 175ff. 35  Supreme Court 20 May 2008 (‘eltern.at’), ÖBl-LS 2008/167. 36  Supreme Court 18 January 2011 (‘schladming.com’), ecolex 2011/287, 731ff. 31 32

174

IV.  Court Litigation of the domain name at issue. To show the ordinary user’s view on that point it is possible to present a relevant gallup poll. This Supreme Court ruling leads to the conclusion that the examination of the likelihood of confusion is not only a purely legal issue but might also be a factual question. The Supreme Court confirmed the ‘schladming.com’ decision in ‘wagrain.at’ and ‘wagrain. AT.27 com’,37 and added that not only generic TLDs (eg ‘.com’) but also country code TLDs (eg ‘.at’) have to be considered when scrutinizing the ordinary user’s view, especially on the basis of a gallup poll. However, in ‘red bull v run cool ’ the Supreme Court restricted the range for using gallup polls to evaluate the likelihood of confusion.38 Under the AUC, s 1, using a catch-all function, whereby all third-level domains are ‘caught’ AT.28 by the second-level domain holder, even though an Internet user employs the trademark or name of a competitor as a third-level domain, is an illegal channelling of potential customers.39

(2) Trademark Infringement (a)  Likelihood of Confusion between Domain Names and Trademarks Pursuant to the TPA, s 10(a) a trademark infringement based on a likelihood of confusion AT.29 requires: (1) the use of a sign identical to the trademark in relation to goods or services that are identical to those for which the trademark is registered; or (2) the use of a sign that is identical to or similar to the trademark for the same or similar goods or services if this creates the likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, including the likelihood of association between the sign and the trademark. On the question of the conditions under which there is use of another’s trademark within the AT.30 meaning of the TPA, s 10(a)40 the Supreme Court held, in a dispute between the operator of a shopping centre and holder of the word-picture mark ‘CYTA’, and the holder of the domain name ‘cyta.at’,41 that the mere registration of a domain name was not as a rule an act of use in the trademark law sense. In ‘aquapol-unzufrieden.at’ the Supreme Court held that the owner of a mere private website AT.31 does not use a trademark under TPA, s 10(a).42 However, if the owner of the private website provides links to other websites with commercial content he is acting in the sense of TPA, s 10(a) even if the website in itself does not contain commercial aspects. A likelihood of confusion in domain name conflicts is not only present if the domain name AT.32 is identical to the conflicting sign, but also if the domain name and the conflicting signs are similar. This view had already been confirmed by the Supreme Court in ‘pro-solution.at’.43 In order to avoid an unacceptable discrepancy between virtual and non-virtual business, the

  Supreme Court 19 September 2011 (‘wagrain.com’ and ‘wagrain.at’), ÖBl 2012/7, 29.   Supreme Court 12 June 2012 (Red Bull v ‘run cool’ ). 39  Supreme Court 12 July 2005—‘whirlpools.at’—MR 2005, 446ff. (Burgstaller); Burgstaller, Sub-Level Domains and catch-all Functions—legal?, ecolex 2005, 454ff. 40  Section 10a corresponds with Art 5(3) of the Trademark Directive. 41  Supreme Court 30 January 2001—‘cyta.at’—ecolex 2001, 546  =  MR 2001, 194 with comment by Pilz = MMR 2001, 600 with comment by Schanda. 42  Supreme Court 24 February 2009, 17 Ob 2/09g—‘aquapol-unzufrieden.at’ MR 2009, 132. 43  Supreme Court 3 April 2001—‘pro-solution.at’—ecolex 2001, 757 with comment by Schanda = MR 2001, 258 = wbl 2001/266 = ÖBl 2001, 263. 37 38

175

Austria (‘.at’) principles concerning the likelihood of confusion developed in general intellectual property law shall also to be applied to the assessment of conflicts involving a domain name. The party entitled by virtue of a protected sign could therefore, if the other conditions were satisfied, bring an action against the holder of a domain name not only where the signs were completely identical but also where the domain name was so marginally different from the sign that there was a likelihood of confusion. AT.33 When scrutinizing the likelihood of confusion under trademark law in the context of domain

name disputes one has not only to consider the domain name per se but also the goods and services which are presented on the relevant website, unless the plaintiff ’s trademark is ­famous, TPA, s 10(2).44

AT.34 According to these principles, in the case ‘pro-solution.at’ there was a likelihood of confusion

with respect to the enterprises involved between the firm name ProSolution and the domain name ‘pro-solution.at’, since the goods and services were identical.45

AT.35 These principles had already been demonstrated in the conflict between Onlaw Internet

Verlags AG, which had secured a license to use the trademark ‘onlaw’ and the domain name ‘on-law.at’, and the registrant of the domain name ‘onlaw.co.at’.46 The Supreme Court explicitly confirmed its view that a likelihood of confusion does not only apply where the signs are identical. Moreover, it was held that the second-level domain ‘.co’ did not make the domain name distinctive from the plaintiffs’ trademark. The defendant’s argument, that there was a limited stock of suitable and memorable domain names, and that Internet users were accustomed to paying attention to even minor differences in domain names, was rejected. The Court ruled that there was no need for a separate legal culture on domain names. Domain names were to be integrated into the intellectual property law on signs by applying the norms of intellectual property law. In order to avoid an unacceptable discrepancy between virtual and non-virtual business, the principles concerning the likelihood of confusion developed in general intellectual property law shall also to be applied to the assessment of conflicts involving domain names. The mere insertion of a hyphen and the replacement of a single letter, where such might be a common typing mistake, were in any event not capable of excluding similarity.

AT.36 It was according to these principles that the Supreme Court also held the sign ‘kunstNET’

and the domain name ‘kunstnetz.at’ to be confusingly similar—the examination of the likelihood of confusion through the use of the domain name being based on the contents of the website placed on the Internet under a specific domain.47

AT.37 Likewise, the designation ‘the drive company’ held by a driving school and the designations

‘Drivecompany’ and ‘drivecompany.at’ were held to be confusingly similar, since the sequence of words ‘the drive company’ as an element of the trademark was not merely descriptive with respect to the services of a driving school, but was unusual, original, and individual, and hence had distinctive character.48

44  See also with regard to AUC, s 9: Supreme Court 23 March 2011, 4 Ob 197/10i—‘faschingprinz.at’, GRUR-Int 2011, 967ff. 45  Supreme Court 3 April 2001—‘pro-solution.at’—ÖBl 2001, 263. 46  Supreme Court 16 October 2001—‘onlaw.co.at’—ecolex 2002, 192 with comment by Schanda = MR 2002, 51 with comment by Hebenstreit = ÖBl 2002/12. 47  Supreme Court 13 March 2002—‘kunstnetz.at’—ecolex 2002, 597 with comment by Schanda = ÖBl—LS 02/125. 48 Supreme Court 13 November 2001, 4 Ob 237/01h MR 1999, 354—Wirtschaftswoche; ÖBl-LS 01/20—E-MED = ecolex 2001, 127 with comment by Schanda.

176

IV.  Court Litigation In the dispute referred to above, between the operator of a shopping centre and the holder AT.38 of the word-picture mark CYTA, and the holder of the domain name ‘cyta.at’,49 who used the home page to provide information about services in the field of consulting and software management, the Supreme Court held for the first time that the content of the website was the decisive factor for the question of the similarity of goods and services. Since the goods and trade sectors of the plaintiff and the defendant were completely different, a likelihood of confusion and therefore trademark infringement within the meaning of the TPA, s 10(1)(2) could not be shown. This line was also adopted in the decision on the dispute between the plaintiff licensee of the AT.39 trademark ‘kinder’ and the holder of the domain ‘kinder.at’ (meaning ‘children’). According to the Supreme Court, in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion resulting from the use of a domain name the decisive factor was the content of the website accessible under a specific domain. Since the products offered by the plaintiff (mainly chocolate and chocolate products) did not impinge upon the field of activity that was pursued on the website connected to the domain name (a portal for parents and children inviting communication on questions of upbringing, collections of links and useful information for children, and involvement in the question of the protection of young people on the Internet), the claims based on the TPA, s 10(1) were for this reason alone unfounded.

(b)  Well-known and Famous Trademarks The holder of a well-known trademark can, pursuant to the TPA, s 10(2), prohibit a third AT.40 party from using without consent in the course of trade a sign which is identical to or similar to the trademark even for goods or services that are not similar to those for which the trademark is registered, if the trademark has a reputation in Austria and if the use of the sign without due cause takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the trademark. Section 10(2) of the TPA implements the option for protection of well-known trademarks pursuant to the Trademark Directive, Article 5(2).50 In this context, even though it is not a TPA, s 10(2) case, it is worth mentioning the decision AT.41 of the Supreme Court in the conflict between the well-known media enterprise RTL and a private person using a pseudonym formed from the initial letters of his two given names and his surname, rtl or RTL or r.t.l., to present himself as an advertising specialist, journalist, and author concerning the domain ‘rtl.at’.51 The Supreme Court based its decision on the plaintiff ’s name rights and held that the plaintiff had acquired a valuable interest worthy of protection through the outstanding reputation of his name. The necessary balancing of interests between the defendant’s and the plaintiff ’s name rights resulted in a conclusion that the defendant could reasonably be expected to use a domain other than his initials.52 In the case ‘firn.at’ the Supreme Court held that the sign ‘firn’ was well known in the market AT.42 for sweets.53 The usage of the domain names ‘firn.at’ and ‘firn.co.at’ by the defendant for providing a website with information for casting-events and go-go-girl performances therefore

49  Supreme Court 30 January 2001—‘cyta.at’—ecolex 2001, 546  =  MR 2001, 194 with comment by Pilz = MMR 2001, 600 with comment by Schanda. 50  On the conditions for a claim based on the protection of well-known trademarks, cf. for instance, Schanda, MSchG, s 10 Notes 39 ff. Cf. on the legal situation in Germany, Mannheim District Court 7 O 529/97—‘brockhaus.de’; Karlsruhe Court of Appeal 24 June 1998 MMR 1999, 171—‘zwilling.de’ with comment by Viefhues, Munich Court of Appeal MMR 1998, 668. 51  Supreme Court, ruling dated 25 March 2003, 4 Ob 42/03k—‘rtl.at’. 52  See also Supreme Court 12 June 2012—‘red bull v run cool’. 53  Supreme Court 25 May 2004—‘firn.at’—ecolex 2004/449, 957.

177

Austria (‘.at’) violated the trademark rights of the plaintiff under TPA, s 10(2) because of the fame of the mark even though the goods and services are different.

(3) Infringement of Trade Names and Other Commercial Designations AT.43 Successful claims against domain name registrants have already been based on the AUC,

s 9(1) which forbids the use of a name, a firm name, or special business designation if the latter ‘is capable of causing confusion with a name, firm name or special designation’.

AT.44 Thus in the ‘format.at’ decision the Supreme Court assumed that the designation ‘Format’

used by the plaintiff for paper goods indicated a specific characteristic of the goods identified, but for paper goods the sign was nevertheless original, unusual, and not merely descriptive.54 As a relatively imaginative designation (fantasy word in the broader sense), it was entitled to protection pursuant to the AUC, s 9(1) even without evidence of secondary meaning. The defendant’s use of the designation as a domain name to advertise magazines and subscription possibilities at least established a likelihood of confusion in the broader sense, since the target public would have the impression of commercial and organizational relationships between the enterprises.55

AT.45 Likewise, a likelihood of confusion was upheld between the firm name ‘BAZAR’ held by a

publisher of print media and the domain names ‘wohnbazar.at’ and ‘wohnbasar.at’ offering apartments, houses and real estate.56 The Supreme Court concluded that the sign used by the plaintiff had at least a small degree of distinctive character and that the fields of activity of the parties to the dispute were not so thoroughly different that a likelihood of confusion could be excluded between the two signs used.

AT.46 The same approach was adopted in the decision on the dispute between the user of the

domain name ‘computerdoktor.at’ and the user of the company name ‘Computer Doktor’.57 The word combination ‘Der Computer Doktor’ as used for computer services was not purely descriptive. Even if the average informed and reasonable consumer could conclude from the term ‘computer’ that services were being offered in connection with the supply or maintenance of hardware or software, additional considerations were necessary to interpret the term formed from the two words ‘Computer’ and ‘Doktor’ as a description of the plaintiff enterprise’s field of activity. The target public must first associate the term ‘doctor’ with a doctor treating an illness and—starting from this consideration—equate the malfunction or the maintenance of a computer or its software to an illness that the enterprise using the name was offering to ‘cure’, that is—remedy. If it could be proved that the plaintiff had already used the designation before the domain name was first used, the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction based on the AUC, s 9(1).

AT.47 Comparable considerations can also be found in the Supreme Court decision in the conflict

between the holder of the firm name ‘the.internet.factory’ to identify programming, design

54  Supreme Court 13 September 1999—‘format.at’—ecolex 2000, 132 with comment by Schanda = ÖBl 2000, 72 = MR 1999, 351 = wbl 2000/31 = MMR 2000, 352 with comment by Haller. 55  In the ‘jusline I’ decision—ecolex 1998, 565 with comment by Schanda = ÖBl 1998, 241 = MR 1998, 208 90 = RdW 1998, 400 = ÖJZ-LSK 1998/149 = ARD 4960/19/98 = GRURInt 1999, 358 = K&R 1998, 544 = MMR 1999, 90—a similar claim failed on the grounds of a lack of capacity for protection of the word ‘jusline’; in jusline II, the claims were based on obstructive competitive practices pursuant to AUC s 1; in ‘sattler.at’, the name law claim was dismissed on the grounds that the defendant did not lack the right to use the name. 56  Supreme Court, ruling dated 19 August 2003, 4 Ob 160/03p—‘wohnbazar.at’ and ‘wohnbasar.at’. 57  Supreme Court 24 June 2003, 4 Ob 117/03i—‘computerdoktor.at’.

178

IV.  Court Litigation and maintenance services and the holder of the domain name ‘internetfactory.at’, likewise active in the computer sector.58 The court dismissed the petition of a publishing company that asserted title protection rights AT.48 against the holder of the domain ‘music-channel.cc’ pursuant to the Copyright Act, s 80 and sign rights based on the AUC, s 9 to the name ‘Music-Channel’.59 The term ‘Music-Channel’ as an element of the plaintiff ’s trademark ‘music-channel.cc’ was purely descriptive, since the conceptual content could easily be interpreted, without complicated conclusions or mental processes by the public concerned, as a descriptive indication of the type of activity of the company in question. Accordingly, the plaintiff could not succeed in its claims against the domain name registrant. The same argument was used to dismiss claims based on the AUC, s 9(1) by Best Energy AT.49 VertriebsgmbH against the use of the domain names ‘bestelectric.at’ and ‘bestelectric.at’ by Best Electric Stromvertrieb GmbH.60 The relevant public, according to the Supreme Court, would understand ‘best energy’ as a reference to the type and quality of the services offered by the plaintiff energy company. It therefore fell into the category of a descriptive term that was only capable of protection pursuant to the AUC, s 9 if it had acquired secondary meaning. The product designation ‘STEUERPROFI’ (meaning ‘tax professional’) for an employee tax calculation programme sold on CD-ROM also fell into the same category. Claims based on the AUC, s 9(1) against the holder of the domain name ‘steuerprofi.at’ were therefore also dismissed.61 In ‘relaxx.at’ the Supreme Court held that because of the different packages under which AT.50 the competing products were marketed, the plaintiff had no right to prevent the defendant from using the domain name at issue.62 The Supreme Court emphasized the fact that product packaging could only be protected under the AUC, s 9(3) if the product packaging had acquired secondary meaning. As a principle, the Supreme Court stipulated that to make out a successful case under the AT.51 AUC, s 9 one has to show not only a similarity/identity between the plaintiff ’s sign and the defendant’s domain name but also a similarity/identity between the goods/services for which the plaintiff ’s sign and the defendant’s domain name is used; therefore, the content of the defendant’s website has to be considered.63 In the case ‘exacon v exacom’ the plaintiff had used the sign ‘exacon’ as a company name AT.52 since 1994; he had also registered the domain names ‘exacon.at’ and ‘exacon.co.at’ to provide information on the Internet about software.64 In 2002 the defendant registered the domain name ‘exacom.at’; the defendant’s branch of industry was also software. The Supreme Court held that there is a likelihood of confusion between the plaintiff ’s sign and the domain name at issue. The plaintiff ’s sign is distinctive and enjoys the better right under AUC, s 9 compared to the defendant since he has been trading since 1994.

(4) Infringement of Names Section 43 of the GCC has developed into what is probably the most important provision for AT.53 domain disputes. It reads:  ‘Anyone whose right to bear his name is disputed or is impaired   Supreme Court 27 November 2001, 4 Ob 230/01d—‘Internetfactory.at’.   Supreme Court, ruling dated 18 February 2003, 4 Ob 38/03x—‘music-channel.cc’. 60  Supreme Court 12 September 2001, 4 Ob 169/01h—‘best-electric.at’ and ‘bestelectric.at’. 61  Supreme Court 19 December 2000, 4 Ob 256/00a—‘steuerprofi.at’. 62  Supreme Court 16 February 2011, 17 Ob 1410y—‘relaxx.at’—ÖBl 2011/71, 313. 63  Supreme Court 23 March 2011, 4 Ob 197/10i—‘faschingprinz.at’, GRUR-Int 2011, 967 ff. 64  Supreme Court 9 November 2004, 4 Ob 221/04k—‘exacom.at’. 58 59

179

Austria (‘.at’) through unauthorized use of his name (pseudonym) can file an action for an injunction and, in the event of willful intent or negligence, for damages.’65 AT.54 Unlike infringements based on intellectual property law, the GCC, s 43 does not require a

use in the course of trade. The provision protects against both the disputing of a name (name denial)66 and the impairment of a name (name usurpation).67 In the ‘graz2003.com’ decision, the Supreme Court expressly held that the registration of a name as a domain name does not dispute the right of another to use the name but that such registration constitutes a concurrent right.68 The fact that the bearer of the name could therefore not register it under the same TLD is merely a technical consequence.

AT.55 Name impairment involves the following elements: the injured party’s own name right, identity

(or similarity) of name, use of the name by the infringing party (use in the manner of a name), unlawfulness of the use of the name (without authorization), and impairment of the injured party’s protectable interests.69

AT.56 In ‘schladming.com’ the Supreme Court held that when scrutinizing the domain name with

regard to the name of a village, the generic TLD ‘.com’ has to be considered too.70 The relevant issue in this context is whether the ordinary user might be confused by the usage of the domain name at issue by another person or entity than the village. To show the ordinary user’s view on that point it is possible to present a relevant gallup poll before the court. With this ruling the likelihood of confusion is no longer merely a legal issue but might also be a factual question. The Supreme Court confirmed this decision in ‘wagrain.at/wagrain.com’71 and added that not only generic TLDs (eg ‘.com’) but also country code TLDs (eg ‘.at’) have to be considered when scrutinizing the ordinary user’s view on the likelihood of confusion. For showing or excluding a likelihood of confusion a gallup poll might be a proper instrument to do that.

AT.57 In ‘red bull v run cool ’, however, the Supreme Court clarified that likelihood of confusion is

in general a legal question; only in exceptional cases may a gallup poll be relevant.72

AT.58 With regard to GCC, s 43 the Supreme Court held that the fact of simply registering a name

in the sense of GCC, s 43 by an unauthorized person might be unlawful.73

(a)  The Injured Party’s Own Name Right AT.59 In the dispute between the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) and a US citizen named

Alan Lockwood who had set up a home page under the domain name ‘fpo.at’74 with an address in the USA, and where the home page corresponded essentially with that of the FPÖ, the Supreme Court repeated its case law according to which the GCC, s 43 protected not only the names of natural persons but also those of legal persons and political parties, as well

 See Thiele in Festschrift für Irmgard Griss, hrsgg Schenk/Lovrek/Musger/Neumayr (2011) 659 ff.   Conflicts between a civil name and a domain name can also be determined under the aspect of name dispute Aicher in Rummel, ABGB s 43 Note 3 last paragraph; similarly for the domain registry, Stomper, Verantwortung der Domain-Vergabestelle für Kennzeichenverletzungen, 2001 RdW 136; also Supreme Court 29 January 2002—‘graz2003.at’, MMR 2002, 452. 67 Cf. Aicher in Rummel, ABGB, s 43 Note 7. 68  Supreme Court 22 April 2002—‘graz2003.com’—ecolex 2002, 821  =  RdW 2002/394, 403  =  wbl 2002/230, 331. 69 See Burgstaller/Feichtinger, Internet Domain Recht, 21 ff. 70  Supreme Court 18 January 2011—‘schladming.com’—ecolex 2011/287, 731 ff. 71  Supreme Court 19 September 2011—‘wagrain.com/wagrain.at’—ÖBl 2012/7, 29. 72  Supreme Court 12 June 2012—‘red bull v run cool ’. 73  Supreme Court 2 October 2007—‘ski Amadé/amade.at III’ = lex:itec 2008/1, 28 ff.; see to the contrary in the context of sign law under the UAC and the TPA—Supreme Court in ‘inet.at’ and ‘cyta.at’. 74  Supreme Court 13 September 2000—‘fpo.at’—ecolex 2001, 128 = RdW 2001, 141 = wbl 2001, 91. 65 66

180

IV.  Court Litigation as trade names and firm names. It therefore granted name protection to the political party, the FPÖ. In the dispute between the Republic of Austria, as the legal entity responsible for the Austrian AT.60 Federal Army, and a private person who had registered the domain name ‘bundesheer.at (I)’ (meaning ‘Federal Army’) and had set up a (critical) discussion platform on the Federal Army under this address, the Supreme Court held that the GCC, s 43 protected the name of a person and that the subject matter of name protection included designations with the function of a name.75 A designation had the function of a name if it referred to the bearer of the name as such or an enterprise. The use of the term ‘Bundesheer’ referred to the Republic of Austria as the entity responsible for the army. The plaintiff Republic of Austria could, therefore, claim the protection of the GCC, s 43 against the infringement of its interests through the unauthorized use of the term ‘Bundesheer’.

(b)  Identity of the Signs In the above-mentioned fpo.at (I) decision,76 the Supreme Court moreover held that minor AT.61 differences between the name used and the name protected did not change the use of the name if the overall impression based on phonetic and semantic content created the risk of a confusion of identity or attribution. The FPÖ was therefore entitled to take action against ‘fpo.at’.77 Moreover, the top level shall not be taken into account when examining the identity of the signs,78 except with regard to domain name conflicts with the names of villages. In the case ‘schladming.com’79 the Supreme Court explicitly held that when scrutinizing a domain name with regard to the name of a village, the generic TLD ‘.com’ also has to be considered. (c) Use of the Name by the Infringing Party (Use in the Manner of a Name—Name Function) In the ‘ortig.at’ decision,80 the Supreme Court held for the first time that domain names AT.62 which contain a name or suggest a name have an identifying and naming function and that their use is therefore covered by the GCC, s 43.81 The defendant had reserved ‘ortig.at’ for the ‘Organisation Regionaler Technologie und Informations-Gesellschaften’, which the defendant was in the course of founding. The registration was contested by the private individual Albert Ortig, whose claim was upheld at third instance (Supreme Court). Which interest is more worthy of protection where two persons use elected names within the framework of the general freedom of action is to be determined according to the priority principle. According to that principle, as a rule, the person who first uses the sign has a better right. This principle applies generally where a number of rights coincide, that is, also in the case of a conflict between a name right and the special designation of an enterprise. In the present factual matrix, the family name of the plaintiff, who had been offering Internet services since the beginning of 1999, was in conflict with an identical domain name formed as an abbreviation of the fantasy name of an umbrella association of Internet providers that the defendant intended to found. In this case, the bearer of the family name held the better right, since the domain name ‘ortig.at’ was held in trust by the defendant for an organization that did not yet   Supreme Court 13 September 2000—‘bundesheer.at’—ecolex 2001, 129 = ÖBl 2001, 35.   Supreme Court 13 September 2000—‘fpo.at’—ecolex 2001, 128 = RdW 2001, 141 = wbl 2001, 91. 77  See also Supreme Court in ‘pro-solution’ and ‘onlaw.co.at’. 78  OGH 18 September 2012, 4 Ob 102/12x—myTaxy—ZIR 2013, 40. 79  Supreme Court 18 January 2011—‘schladming.com’—ecolex 2011/287, 731 ff. 80 Cf. Höhne, Namensfunktion von Internet Domain Names?, ecolex 1998, 924 and Schanda, Replik auf Höhne, Namensfunktion von Internet Domain Names?, ecolex 1999, 181. 81 Supreme Court 21 December 1999—‘ortig.at’—ecolex 2000, 215; see also Burgstaller/Feichtinger, Internet Domain Recht, 21 ff. 75 76

181

Austria (‘.at’) exist and hence had not appeared on the market, and was therefore unauthorized because it was used without the user having a right of his own or a right derived from an entitled party. AT.63 In ‘dullinger.at’ Mr Dullinger mandated, in the name of his company Dullinger Stefan KEG,

a web designer to establish a website and register the domain name ‘dullinger.at’.82 Upon completion of the requested work, the web designer had to transfer the domain and website to the company ‘Dullinger Stefan KEG’. The Supreme Court held that the web designer was entitled to register the domain name at issue since he was authorized by the holder of sign rights in the name ‘dullinger’ and the plaintiff (‘Dullinger GmbH’) had no better rights in the domain name at issue—hence, the claim was dismissed.

(d)  Unlawfulness (Without Authority) AT.64 An unauthorized usage is neither based on the user’s own right nor authorized by the entitled

party.83

AT.65 However, in general it becomes more complicated if the defendant’s use of the name is based

on his own rights. Basically, in such a conflict, the priority principle applies (namely priority of the intellectual property rights and not a comparison of priority between the intellectual property right on the one hand and the de facto registration of the domain name on the other hand).84 This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the ‘ortig.at’ decision.85

AT.66 In the case of compulsory names (eg civil family names), the priority principle does not,

however, lead to a sensible result. For such conflicts, case law has, therefore, developed a different principle: both parties are subject to a requirement of mutual consideration. Both parties must therefore contribute to avoiding confusion as far as possible (such as by adding a supplemental term to the text of the domain name), and must accept as a matter of principle the use of the name by the other bearer. These factual matrices are usually dealt with under the heading of identity of names.86

AT.67 It was according to this principle that the Supreme Court decided the ‘sattler.at’ case.87 The

word ‘Sattler’ was both a name of a profession (namely, a saddler) and a personal name. The use of the sign Sattler by an industrial lobby that also represented the interests of this profession was therefore of itself not unauthorized within the meaning of the GCC, s 43. The lobby had a legitimate interest of its own in using the name of the profession it represented. Anyone who registered a domain name that was in a close relationship to his own name or to services offered could as a rule rely on a legitimate interest in the use of the domain designation. Consequently, two entities entitled to use the sign Sattler were in conflict.88

AT.68 However, the principle of identical names used by the Supreme Court only applies to con-

flicts between compulsory names. The holder of a pseudonym cannot rely on identity of names to defend the use of his elective name.89   Supreme Court 29 May 2001—‘dullinger.at’—ecolex 2001, 758. See below para AT.107.  Cf. Aicher in Rummel, ABGB, s 43 Note 13 with further references; cf. on the situation in Germany, Munich Court of Appeals 2000 CR 402—‘vossius.de’ and Federal Supreme Court 2002 MarkenR 190—‘vossius.de’ = MMR 2002, 456 with comment by Hoeller. 84  Thiele in Festschrift für Irmgard Griss, hrsgg Schenk/Lovrek/Musger/Neumayr, 667 ff. 85  Supreme Court 21 December 1999—‘ortig.at’—ecolex 2000, 215 = ÖBl 2000, 134. 86 Cf. Schanda in Mayer-Schönberger, Galla and Fallenböck, 67, 74 f; apparently dissenting, Cologne Court of Appeals 2000 CR 696—‘maxem.de’; Zöchbauer, MR 2001, 353, 356. 87  Supreme Court 13 July 1999—‘sattler.at’—ecolex 1999, 703. 88  The Supreme Court based this statement on the proposal by Bücking, Namens- und Kennzeichenrecht im Internet (Domainrecht) (1999) Note 191. 89  For details, see Schanda, Der OGH zu sattler.at—Eine kritische Analyse, in Mayer-Schönberger, Galla and Fallenböck, Domain Recht (Onlaw/Manz, Vienna, 2001). 82 83

182

IV.  Court Litigation (e)  Impairment of Protectable Interests In the fpo.at (I) decision,90 the Supreme Court held that protectable interests had been AT.69 impaired by the fact that the website under ‘fpo.at’, while appearing to have a design identical to that of the plaintiff (FPÖ), unlike the latter also had links to extreme right-wing organizations. Hence here, too, the decisive factor was the content of the website. In the bundesheer.at (I) decision (interlocutory injunction), the Supreme Court came to the AT.70 conclusion that in the specific case there was no likelihood of confusion inherent in the domain name at issue by the defendant, since he expressly stated on his home page that it was not of an official character and expressly referred to the home page of the Federal Minister for National Defence at ‘bmlv.gv.at’.91 However, in the main proceeding (bundesheer.at (II)92) the Supreme Court pointed out AT.71 that, although there was no likelihood of confusion in using the domain name at issue because of the fact that the defendant expressly stated that it was not the official site, the Republic’s interests are impaired since Internet users do not obtain information about the Austrian Federal Army under the ordinary name in which the Republic has rights.93 With ‘bundesheer.at’, the defendant held a domain name that attracted attention to the discussion platform set up on it. To a certain extent it constituted an exploitation of the name ‘Bundesheer’, protected for the Republic of Austria, similar to the dishonest exploitation of the reputation of a well-known trademark. The defendant was thereby acquiring an advantage to which he was not entitled. The bearer of the name must be allowed a legitimate interest in his name not being used to attract attention to activities with which he has no connection. Such a use of the name infringed the name bearer’s protectable interests.94 The domain name ‘rechtsanwälte.at’ is generic but has acquired secondary meaning with AT.72 regard to the Austrian Bar Association (ABA). The ABA moreover has rights in the name ‘rechtsanwälte’ under GCC, s 43.95 In the decision ‘rtl.at’96 the Supreme Court had to assess a conflict between the AT.73 well-known media enterprise RTL and a private person using a pseudonym formed from the initial letters of his two given names and his surname, rtl or RTL or r.t.l., to present himself as an advertising specialist, journalist, and author. The Supreme Court based its decision on the plaintiff ’s name rights and held that the plaintiff had acquired a valuable interest worthy of protection through the outstanding reputation of its name. The necessary balancing of interests between the defendant’s and the plaintiff ’s name rights resulted in a conclusion that the defendant could reasonably be expected to use a domain other than his initials.97

90  Supreme Court 13 September 2000—‘fpo.at’—ecolex 2001, 128 with comment by Schanda = RdW 2001, 141 = wbl 2001, 91 with comment by Thiele = ÖBl 2001, 30 with comment by Schramböck = MMR 2001, 601 with comment by Schanda. 91  Supreme Court 13 September 2000—‘bundesheer.at’—ecolex 2001, 129 ÖBl 2001, 35 = MMR 2001, 305 with comment by Schanda. 92 Supreme Court 25 September 2001—‘bundesheer.at II’—ecolex 2002, 191 with comment by Schanda = MR 2001, 411 = wbl 2002/64 = ÖBl 2002, 142. 93  See also Stomper, Praxishandbuch Internet Recht, 37 f. 94  For the legal situation in Germany cf. also Berlin District Court CR 2000, 700—‘deutschland.de’. 95  Supreme Court 14 February 2006—‘rechtsanwälte.at’—MR 200, 215 ff. 96  Supreme Court, ruling dated 25 March 2003, 4 Ob 42/03k—‘rtl.at’. See above para AT.41. 97  See also German Supreme Court, 22 November 2011—‘shell.de’.

183

Austria (‘.at’) (5) Names of Towns and Other Public Law Corporations AT.74 The use of town names as domain names has frequently been the subject matter of decisions

by the Supreme Court. While in the ‘Graz2003.at’ decision discussed at para AT.20 the court left open the question whether the domain name constituted ‘a disputing of the name’ and hence interfered in the rights of the bearer of the name without there being a need to examine an infringement of protectable interests,98 this question was answered in the negative in the ‘Graz2003.com’ decision with respect to the registration of place names as domain names in the top-level domains ‘.com’ and ‘.org’, since the website accessible under the disputed domain names contained the clear and unmistakable notice that it was not the plaintiff ’s home page.

AT.75 These principles were confirmed by the Supreme Court with respect to the use of the top-level

domain ‘.at’. This dispute was between the Adnet village community in the Province of Salzburg and the registrant of the domain name ‘adnet.at’,99 who used the name for a website with information both about the village of Adnet and its surroundings (artistic and ­cultural programme, Adnet marble, telephone numbers of accommodation providers, and the Tourism Association), and about himself and the ‘Dorf-Café Adnet’ operated by his wife. The Supreme Court denied that there was a confusion of attribution since the defendant had placed a link to the Plaintiff ’s website on the home page of his website and expressly pointed out that his website was not the official website of the District of Adnet.

AT.76 In the case ‘schladming.com’100 the Supreme Court held that when scrutinizing the domain

name with regard to the name of a village the generic TLD ‘.com’ also has to be considered. The relevant issue in this context is whether the ordinary user might be confused by the usage of the domain name at issue; to show the ordinary user’s view on that point it is possible to present a relevant gallup poll.

AT.77 The Supreme Court confirmed the ‘schladming.com’ decision in ‘wagrain.at/wagrain.com’

and added that not only generic TLDs (eg ‘.com’) but also country code TLDs (eg ‘.at’) have to be considered when scrutinizing the ordinary user’s view especially on the basis of a gallup poll.101 In ‘red bull v run cool ’, however, the Supreme Court held that gallup polls are only relevant under exceptional circumstances when assessing the likelihood of confusion.102

AT.78 In ‘rechnungshof.at’ the Supreme Court pointed out that Internet users may rely on the

authenticity of information presented on a website only if it is available under ‘.gv.at’ because the second-level domain ‘.gv’ is only provided for public institutions.103

(6) Infringement of Publication Titles AT.79 Pursuant to the Copyright Act, s 80 neither the title nor any other designation of a work

of literature or art shall be used in the course of business for another work in any manner that is capable of causing confusion.104 The particular designation of a publication, to which

98  Along the same line, see also Schanda, comment on ecolex 1999/281—‘Sattler.at’, with reference to Düsseldorf District Court, NJW-RR 1999, 626—‘ufa.de’; see also Aicher in Rummel, ABGB s 43 Note 3; Kapferer and Pahl, Kennzeichenschutz für Internet-Adressen, ÖBl 1998, 275, 279. 99  Supreme Court 14 May 2001—‘adnet’—ecolex 2001, 757 with comment by Schanda = MR 2001, 408 = MMR 2002, 40 with comment by Schanda; the decision in interlocutory proceedings was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 20 May 2003, 4 Ob 47/03w—‘adnet.at II’. 100  Supreme Court 18 January 2011—‘schladming.com’—ecolex 2011/287, 731 ff. 101  Supreme Court 19 September 2011—‘wagrain.com/wagrain.at’—ÖBl 2012/7, 29. 102  Supreme Court 12 June 2012—‘red bull v run cool ’. 103  Supreme Court 22 March 2001—‘rechnungshof.at’. 104 See Burgstaller/Feichtinger, Internet Domain Recht 43 ff.

184

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name the Copyright Act, s 80 does not apply, that is, titles of publications that are not themselves works within the meaning of the Copyright Act, might be protected under the AUC, s 9.105 To make a successful case under the Copyright Act, s 80 the plaintiff has not only to show AT.80 that the publication is a work within the meaning of the Copyright Act, s 1 but also distinctiveness with regard to the title of the publication.106 The court dismissed the petition of a publishing company that asserted title protection rights AT.81 against the holder of the domain ‘music-channel.cc’ pursuant to the Copyright Act, s 80 and sign rights based on the AUC, s 9 to the name ‘Music-Channel’.107 The term ‘Music-Channel’ as an element of the plaintiff ’s trademark ‘music-channel.cc’ was purely descriptive, since the conceptual content could easily be interpreted without complicated conclusions or mental processes by the public concerned as a descriptive indication of the type of activity of the company in question.

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name Under Austrian law the question of the acquisition of an intellectual property right in AT.82 domain names depends on how the latter are qualified in law. Thus, for instance, the right to a firm name, where registration in the Companies Register establishes the type of trader (the Commercial Code, ss 2 and 3), is acquired upon registration; the protection of registered trademarks is likewise created on the day of registration (TPA, s 19(1)), although it has retroactive effect as of the date of filing (TPA, s 23(1)). In contrast, the right to the special designation of a business enterprise or a publication is created upon the start of the use of the sign, provided that the sign is distinctive. Otherwise, the right, pursuant to the AUC, s 9(3) is only created upon the acquisition of secondary meaning. In the case ‘inet.at’,108 the plaintiffs had been using the word ‘inet’ in their firm names AT.83 since 1999 and 2000 respectively, and were the holders or authorized users of the word trademark ‘inet’, which had been protected with priority from 2000. The defendant operated a software company and was the registrant of the domain name ‘inet.at’, which until 2001 had not been used for a website to offer goods and services, but simply to redirect e-mails from customers and to operate a virtual server. The defendant’s registration of its domain name pre-dated the plaintiff ’s acquisition of their rights. However, the plaintiff ’s arguments were that because the defendant did not use the domain name at issue to display a website, he had not acquired intellectual property law protection. The Supreme Court confirmed the principle that the mere registration of a domain name does not confer sign law. To establish such protection one has to use the domain name in the course of trade to establish rights in sign law under AUC, s 9.109 However, in the present case, the Supreme Court dismissed the injunction because the defendant had used the domain name at issue by redirecting e-mails to third parties before the plaintiffs acquired IP-rights by registering the trademark.

 See Schmid in Wiebe/Kodek, UWG-Kommentar, s 9 Rz 20 ff.   Supreme Court 17 August 2000—‘gewinn.at’ = MR 2000, 322 ff. 107  Supreme Court 18 February 2003—‘music-channel.cc’. 108  Supreme Court 20 August 2002, ecolex 2003, 40 = EvBl. 2002/213. 109  See Supreme Court 30 January 2001—‘cyta.at’—MR 2001, 194 ff. See above n 41. 105 106

185

Austria (‘.at’) AT.84 In ‘personalshop’110 the Supreme Court again confirmed the principle set out in ‘inet.at’, that

the mere registration of a domain name does not confer any rights under sign law to the domain name holder.111

VI.  The Use of Generic Terms and Descriptive Indications as Domain Names AT.85 In general, there are no grounds under Austrian law which prevent someone from using

descriptive terms and generic designations as domain names, either from the point of view of a general legitimate interest in free use or from the point of view of misleading the public or the anticompetitive channelling of customer flows.112 However, there might be special professional rules which prevent members of a particular profession from using a generic sign to present their goods or services on the market.113

AT.86 The domain name ‘rechtsanwälte.at’ is generic but has acquired secondary meaning

with regard to the ABA. The ABA moreover has rights in the name ‘rechtsanwälte’ under GCC, s 43.114

AT.87 However, a decision by the ‘Supreme Appeal and Disciplinary Commission for Attorneys’

on the question of the admissibility under the professional code of conduct of the use by an attorney of the domain name ‘scheidungsanwalt.at’115 (meaning ‘divorce attorney’) appears more restrictive than German case law. The Commission held that this use constituted an infringement of the Attorneys Code of Conduct 1977, s 45116 since the registration of the domain for an activity that is pursued by all attorneys in Austria achieved an exclusivity and prevented other lawyers from making identical advertising.

AT.88 In the case ‘hotel.eu’117 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the ‘.eu-ADR-Authority’

that registering a generic term as a graphic trademark simply for the purpose of enrolling the sunrise period II of the.eu-registration process is abusive and against the registration rules of EURid.

VII.  The Liability of the Registry AT.89 The liability of the Austrian Registry NIC.AT was first discussed in Austria on the occasion

of the dispute concerning the domain name ‘fpo.at’. Even in the interlocutory proceedings,118

  Supreme Court 11 December 2007, 17 Ob 22/07w—GRUR-Int 2009, 74 = RZ 2008, 208 ff.   See also the German Supreme Court I ZR 161/02—‘seicom’—GRUR 2005, 871. 112  Supreme Court 20 April 2006—‘rechtsanwaltsportal.at’—RdW 2006/440ff (481), MR 2007, 103 ff.; Supreme Court 2 October 2004—‘autobelehnung.at’—MR 2004, 374 ff.; on the legal situation in Germany, see especially Federal Supreme Court 17 May 2001—‘mitwohnzentrale.de’ = MR 2001, 148 (Burgstaller). 113  See eg Supreme Appeal and Disciplinary Commission for Attorneys at Law, ruling dated 28 April 2003, 13 Bkd 2/03 confirmed by the Constitutional Court 9 June 2004, B 1103/03—AnwBl 2004/7947, 520 ff. 114  Supreme Court 14 February 2006—‘rechtsanwälte.at’—MR 200, 215 ff. 115  Supreme Appeal and Disciplinary Commission for Attorneys at Law, ruling dated 28 April 2003, 13 Bkd 2/03 confirmed by the Constitutional Court 9 June 2004, B 1103/03—AnwBl 2004/7947, 520 ff. 116  The provision reads as follows: ‘… each attorney shall advertise through the quality of his legal services and shall to this purpose restrict himself to what is objectively appropriate, and shall refrain from an unprofessional and obtrusive arrangement of his public relations contacts’. 117  OGH 18 September 2012, 4 Ob 94/12x = ÖBl-LS 2013/14. 118  Supreme Court 13 September 2000—‘fpo.at’—ecolex 2001, 128. 110 111

186

VIII.  Remedies and Procedural Law Issues the Supreme Court held that whether the registry was a legitimate defendant was determined according to the principles that were developed for cases of indirect participation in a tort. An abettor within the meaning of this case law was only someone who deliberately encouraged the offender. Accordingly, the registry was liable if the injured party, stating the relevant facts, requested AT.90 an intervention and if the infringement of his rights was obvious without further investigation even to a non-lawyer.119 If the registry in such a case failed to block the domain name despite a corresponding demand by the injured rights-holder, an action could be brought against it for an injunction and, under certain circumstances, for elimination of the tort. The registry’s refusal to block the domain name despite having knowledge of an obvious infringement of rights would in such a case be nothing other than deliberately encouraging the obvious infringement by the direct offender and continuing to permit the infringement of the rights.120 In the action on the main issue,121 the Supreme Court confirmed this result and in addition AT.91 commented on a number of objections raised by NIC.AT. The registry’s inability to influence the contents of the home page under the domain name in question did not exclude its status as a party. It was not because it contributed to designing the contested home page or failed to change its contents that it was involved in the infringement. Instead, despite a corresponding demand by the party whose name rights were infringed and in knowledge of an infringement of the rights that was obvious without further investigation even to non-lawyers, it had refused to block the domain name or take other measures to prevent a continuation of the infringement. Whether the registration of the domain name itself, or its use in connection with the home AT.92 page accessible under it, infringes the name rights of a third party was irrelevant for the responsibility of the registry in cases in which the infringement was obvious without further investigation even to a non-lawyer and where the injured party had set out the corresponding facts and demanded intervention by the registry. If the registry is liable as an indirect participant according to these principles, an action could AT.93 be filed against it before or alongside the direct offender, and not only if the enforcement of the rights against the domain name registrant would be impossible or unreasonably difficult.

VIII.  Remedies and Procedural Law Issues (1)  Wait Status NIC.AT offers, in order to allow disputes between the registrant and third parties to be set- AT.94 tled out of court, upon notification of a dispute, to set the status of the relevant domain name to ‘wait’. A precondition of utilizing ‘wait’ status is the third party’s attestation of the basis for the claim, as well as his request to activate such wait status in writing or by telefax. ‘Wait status 1’ allows the registrant either to continue using the domain or to cancel the domain, but the domain cannot be transferred to third parties that are not involved in the dispute within one month. At the request of either party in the dispute ‘wait status 1’ can be prolonged for the duration of one month; after the expiration or cancellation of wait status 1, wait status 1

119  Supreme Court 24 February 2009—‘nimfuehr.at’—RdW 2009/581, 583; Stomper in RdW 2001, 136; Burgstaller/Feichtinger, Internet Domain Recht, 51 ff. 120  Cf. Federal Supreme Court MR 2001, 147—‘ambiente.de’ = MMR 2001, 744. 121  Supreme Court 12 September 2001—‘fpo.at II’—ecolex 2002, 35.

187

Austria (‘.at’) cannot again be set in the same dispute. However, ‘wait status 1’ does not give the third party any right, especially with regard to the right of first registration. If the conflict is not settled out of court within the time period of one to two months, ‘wait status 1’ shall be cancelled, unless the third party presents to NIC.AT evidence of a filed lawsuit against the registrant and requests ‘wait status 2’, which may be upheld until the case is finally decided by the relevant court. ‘Wait status 2’ blocks the transfer of the domain name for the entire duration of the dispute (like ‘wait status 1’)122 but does not transfer further rights to the third party (eg the right of first registration or a special right to transfer the domain name at issue).123

(2) Remedies AT.95 As a rule, an injunction also includes an order for the elimination of the infringing

activity.124 Interlocutory measures, however, shall not create an irreversible situation; claiming cancellation of a domain name registration is therefore not admissible in interlocutory proceedings.125

AT.96 In the case of infringing domain names, the claim to elimination is for the cancellation of

the domain. It was broadly discussed in the Austrian literature as to whether there is also the possibility of claiming a transfer of the domain from the defendant to the plaintiff.126 In ‘red-bull.com’ the Court of Appeal of Vienna confirmed a transfer of the domain name on the basis of the first instance decision which was not challenged;127 however, in the recent decision ‘schladming.com’ the Supreme Court stipulated that under Austrian law there is no legal basis for claiming a transfer of a domain name.128 In the case ‘omega.at’, the Supreme Court already held that the claim for elimination/cancellation does not include the right for a transfer of the domain name.129

AT.97 If a domain name infringes a registered trademark, the trademark owner is entitled to order

the holder to cease and desist from using the domain name for addressing a website with goods and/or services similar to those for which the trademark is registered. A request for cancellation of the domain name, however, is not justified if the domain name may also be used for addressing a website with goods and/or services which are not similar to those for which the trademark is registered, unless the trademark is famous under the TPA, s 10(2).130

(3) Infringement Proceedings AT.98 The claim for cancellation cannot, according to established case law, be obtained by interloc-

utory injunction in preliminary proceedings. In the ‘format.at’ decision131 and subsequently in the ‘fpo.at’132 and ‘krone.co.at’133 decisions, the Supreme Court held that the requirement to ensure the cancellation of the registration by issuing the corresponding declaration to the domain name administrator responsible created an irreversible situation, since third parties would acquire the possibility of registering the domain thus being released. Such an order

  See General Terms and Conditions, s 2.   See also above, at para AT.11 124   Supreme Court 22 November 2011—‘infonomics.at’—ÖBl-LS 2012/14, 54. 125   See also AT.03 and AT.04. 126   See Supreme Court 2 October 2007—‘amade.at III/Ski Amadé’—wbl 2008/41, 97 ff. 127  Court of Appeal Vienna 23 July 2009—‘red-bull.com’—see Thiele in Festschrift Irmgard Griss, ed. Schenk/Lovrek/Musger/Neumayr, 685. 128  Supreme Court 22 October 2013 –‘schladming.com’—ZIR 2014/1, 71 ff. 129  Supreme Court 8 February 2005—‘omega.at’—ecolex 2005/404, 849 ff. 130  Supreme Court 2 October 2007—‘amade.at III/Ski Amadé’—MR 2007, 396 ff. 131  Supreme Court 13 September 1999—‘format.at’—ecolex 2000, 132. 132  Supreme Court 13 September 2000—‘fpo.at’—ecolex 2001, 128. 133  Supreme Court 8 July 2003, 4 Ob 153/03h—‘krone.co.at’. 122 123

188

IX.  Domain Names as Items of Property would be incompatible with the provisional nature of such a decision, and could not be imposed in interlocutory proceedings.134 As a matter of principle, interlocutory injunctions require both confirmation of the rights to AT.99 be secured and confirmation that those rights are endangered (the Enforcement Regulation, s 381). However, if the rights to be secured derived from the AUC, TPA, or Copyright Act, no confirmation of the risk is necessary (the AUC, s 24 and the TPA, s 56). Instead, there is an irrefutable assumption that this is the case. In these cases, urgency is therefore not a precondition for an interlocutory injunction.135 Under Austrian law an interlocutory injunction might be issued even without the opportu- AT.100 nity for the defendant to respond to the petitioner’s submission. An interlocutory injunction may even be claimed without the sending of any cease-and-desist-letter before filing a court submission.136 Interlocutory injunctions may be challenged before the Court of Appeal and finally before AT.101 the Supreme Court in Austria.137

(4) Court/Attorney’s  Fees The court fees (in the form of fixed fees for the entire proceedings in one instance) are AT.102 determined according to the amount at issue and must be paid by the plaintiff at the time of filing the lawsuit. If the action is successful, they are refundable by the losing defendant.138 The attorney fees are also subject to refund by the losing party. They are determined accord- AT.103 ing to the Attorneys’ Scale of Fees Act (RATG) and the Attorneys’ Scale of Fees Directive (AHK), and depend on the amount at issue. The scale is also based on the individual services required (pleadings and court hearings). Proceedings involving sign law conflicts have a minimum basis for assessing the attorney’s fee AT.104 of €36.000 under the AHK.

IX.  Domain Names as Items of Property (1)  Assignment and Licence Rights to Domain Names In Austria, domain names can be assigned by the registrant issuing a corresponding declar- AT.105 ation to the registry. The background for such assignments can be one of many types of civil law agreement. As an item of property, domain names are not subject to any special legal features. In practice, domain name licensing occurs quite frequently. As part of a corresponding civil AT.106 law agreement the holder of a domain name can permit a third party to use the domain name by permitting him to set up a website under the domain name or to set up e-mail boxes using the domain name.139

  See also Kodek/Leupold in Wiebe/Kodek (eds), UWG-Kommentar (2009), s 24 Rz 22 ff.   Seeibid., s 24 Rz 7 ff. 136  Ibid., s 14 Rz 15 ff. 137  Ibid., s 24 Rz 119 ff. 138  For usual amounts at issue in AUC and trademark cases, they amount to €1,082 for the first instance. 139 See Thiele in Festschrift für Irmgard Griss (2011), ed Schenk/Lovrek/Musger/Neumayr, 675 ff. 134 135

189

Austria (‘.at’) AT.107 In this context, ‘dullinger.at’140 is a case in point: Mr Dullinger mandated in the name of

his company, ‘Dullinger Stefan KEG’, a web designer to establish a website and register the domain name ‘dullinger.at’. Upon completion of the mandated work the web designer had to transfer domain and website to the company ‘Dullinger Stefan KEG’. The Supreme Court held that because of the authorization by a rights-holder the web designer was entitled to register the disputed domain name. The plaintiff (Dullinger GmbH) therefore had no better right in the domain name at issue—hence, the claim was dismissed.

(2) Execution of Domain Names AT.108 The Supreme Court held that the execution of domain names has to meet the Enforcement

Regulation, s 331 ff., which means that the execution of domain names is directed solely against the domain owner but not against the registry.141

AT.109 In ‘geonet.at’ the Supreme Court confirmed the complainants’ application for taking several

domain names of the respondent (a UK-based company), registered with NIC.AT, in execution.142 The Supreme Court confirmed the international jurisdiction and ordered that the relevant court for the execution action was the local court in Salzburg, in which the Registry (NIC.AT) is situated.

X.  International Conflicts (1) Jurisdiction AT.110 Since the misuse of trademarks, designs, or other signs (eg domain names) which occur

on the Internet generally leads to a conflict between parties from different countries, the question arises as to which law and jurisdiction is applicable. With regard to jurisdiction, the Jurisdiction Regulation (JR) and/or the European Regulation on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the European Jurisdiction Regulation, EJR) apply.143 Within the EU (except Denmark) EJR, Article 5 governs the international jurisdiction.144

AT.111 If the defendant has its registered office in a Member State of the EU (except Denmark)

international jurisdiction for the place of the offence is determined by the EJR, Article 5, No 3. In this case Article 5, No 3 not only orders the international jurisdiction but also the local court competence.145 According to that, actions based on tort, which include infringements of intellectual property rights, can be asserted before the court at the place ‘at which the unlawful event occurred’. This is understood by the ECJ in a broad sense as indicating both the place of the causal event and the place at which the damage has occurred, thereby   Supreme Court 29 May 2001—‘dullinger.at’—ecolex 2001, 758.   Supreme Court 25 March 2009 = lex:itec 2009/3, 24 ff. (Feichtinger); see also Thiele, Pfändung von Internet Domains, ecolex 2001, 38 and Burgstaller, Pfändung von Internet Domains—(k)ein Problem!, ecolex 2001, 197 and Oberkofler, (Ver-)Pfändung von Internet-Domains—Neue Entwicklungen im Domain-Recht, MR 2001, 185. 142  Supreme Court 21 September 2012, 3 Nc 26/12x—geonet.at = ZIR 2013/3. 143 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters dated 22 December 2000 (OJ 2001 No L 12 p 1 ff.). The Regulation entered into effect on 1 March 2002 and its geographical and temporal scope of application takes priority over the Brussels EEC Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (European Jurisdiction Convention); see in general, Burgstaller/Minichmayr, E-Commerce Law und international Jurisdiction (2011), 239 ff., 285 ff. 144 See Burgstaller/Minichmayr, E-Commerce Law and International Jurisdiction (2011), 243. 145  Ibid., 244 ff. 140 141

190

X.  International Conflicts granting the injured party a choice between these two legal venues.146 Outside the scope of the EJR, the Austrian courts apply the JR, s 83(c) as the provision for the special jurisdiction for torts. As in the EJR, Article 5, No 3 the plaintiff also has the choice between the place of perpetration and the place of the effect within the framework of the JR, s 83(c). In the case of an infringement of sign rights, there are, however, special features resulting AT.112 from the territoriality principle of intellectual property law. According to this, proprietary rights in signs as national monopoly rights only have substantive effect on the territory of the country granting them.147 The exclusive right therefore ends geographically at the borders of the relevant state territory. Due to this territorial limit on the substantive application of an intellectual property right in a sign, it can by definition only be infringed in the relevant country of issue. Acts committed in Austria can therefore not infringe a foreign sign right and vice versa. Foreign acts can only establish a risk of first offence for Austria in particular cases and hence establish international jurisdiction for the place of perpetration pursuant to the European Jurisdiction Regulation, Article 5, No 3 and the JR, s 83(c) for a preventive injunction.148 In the final analysis, this also means that a place of perpetration in Austria establishing jurisdiction can only be with respect to the infringement of an Austrian sign right. The legal venue for tort in the JR, s 83(c) and the EJR, Article 5, No 3 is limited to actions based on Austrian sign rights.149 Above all, the legal venue of the place of the effect, which as a matter of principle is estab- AT.113 lished globally at all the places where the infringing website can be accessed, contains the risk of an escalation of legal venues. The question whether and how global legal venues can be restricted under intellectual property law on signs has been already decided not only by the courts in Austria150 but also by the ECJ151 as to whether the website is objectively intended for the domestic market and thus also ‘accessible as intended’ in Austria. Following the ECJ decision in L’Oreal v eBay,152 the mere accessibility of a website is not suf- AT.114 ficient to confer international jurisdiction in all countries in which the website is accessible. The Supreme Court followed this ruling specifically in Wintersteiger III,153 where it was held that for trademark infringement on a website the complainant has to show that the website at issue is (also) intended to refer to Austrian users in the sense that there must be a ‘not insubstantial commercial effect’ (at least predicted) on the Austrian market.154 In examining this effect and the Court’s intention one has to apply an objective point of view.155

146   EuGH, 12.07.2011, Rs C-234/09—‘L’Oreal v eBay’ = MR-Int 3/2011, 95 ff. (Burgstaller); Supreme Court 10 July 2012—‘Wintersteiger III’—wbl 2012, 526 ff.; see also the German Supreme Court ‘BGH’, Beschluss 10.112009, VI ZR 217/08 = lex:itec 2010/4. 147   Lurger, IZVR und IPR bei Domain Namen, in Mayer-Schönberger, Galla, and Fallenböck, Das Recht der Domain Namen, 111; Bettinger and Thum, Territoriales Markenrecht im Global Village, GRUR Int 1999, 659, 663. 148  Lurger, IZVR und IPR bei Domain Namen, in Mayer-Schönberger, Galla, and Fallenböck, Das Recht der Domain Namen, 111; Bettinger and Thum, Territoriales Markenrecht im Global Village, GRUR Int. 1999, 659, 663. 149  On comparable questions for Art 5, No 3 of the European Convention, see Stauder, GRUR Int 1976, 465, 474. 150  Supreme Court 10 July 2012—‘Winterreifen’—wbl 2012/9; Supreme Court 28 February 2012—wbl 2012, 353 ff.; Supreme Court 10 July 2012—‘Wintersteiger III’—wbl 2012, 526 ff. 151  EuGH, 12 July 2011, Rs C-234/09—‘L’Oreal v eBay’ = MR-Int 3/2011, 95 ff. (Burgstaller); EuGH 25.10.2011, Rs C-509/09, C-161/10 –’ eDate Advertising’—wbl 2012, 28 ff.; EuGH Rs C-68/93—‘Shevill.’ 152  ECJ 12 July 2011, C-324/09—L’Oreal v eBay = MR-Int 2011, 95 (Burgstaller). 153  Supreme Court 10 July 2012, 4 Ob 82/12f = wbl 2012/201. 154  See also German Supreme Court 13 October 2003, IZR 163/02—hotel-maritime.dk = GRUR 2005, 431. 155  The geographical restriction of website-accessibility by using ‘geotargeting’ might be relevant when examining the international jurisdiction—however, there are no published decisions or articles in Austria so far.

191

Austria (‘.at’) AT.115 In the case of ‘geonet.at’,156 the Supreme Court had to deal with a case in which an Austrian

court ordered that an UK-based company had to refrain from using an ‘.at’ domain and pay the relevant litigation costs. Because the respondent did not follow the court order, the complainant applied to take several domain names of the respondent in execution. The Supreme Court confirmed the international jurisdiction and ordered that the relevant court for the execution action was the local court in Salzburg, where the Registry (NIC.AT) is situated.

AT.116 Under EJR, Article 5, No 3, the Austrian courts have competent jurisdiction over inter alia

a domaingrabbing case between the Austrian sign-holder and the user of this sign who is located in the European Economic Area (EEA).157

(2) Applicable  Law AT.117 The substantive law principle of territoriality that applies to sign rights throughout the world

corresponds at the level of the conflict of laws with the country-of-protection principle. This states that the question of whether, and to what extent, protection can be granted against specific cross-border uses is determined by the law of the country for which the protection of the sign is claimed. Since the territoriality principle means that domestic sign rights can only have effect in the country of protection, the question whether an Austrian sign right has been infringed is ultimately determined exclusively by Austrian sign law, while the question whether a foreign sign right has been infringed is determined solely according to the relevant foreign sign law. There is no occasion within the framework of the Internet for abandoning this conventional country-of-protection principle for intellectual property rights in signs by developing completely new rules of reference.

AT.118 The Directive on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic

commerce in the Internal Market (Directive on Electronic Commerce)158 does not cover domain names and e-mail addresses.159

AT.119 For international conflicts ex contractu and/or ex delicto the ROME-Regulations I160

and/or II161 are applicable—for example, Rome II, Article 6 for claims under the AUC or Article 8 for claims under the Copyright Act.162

  Supreme Court 21 September 2012, 3 Nc 26/12x—geonet.at = ZIR 2013/3.   Supreme Court 20 March 2007—‘palettenbörse.com II’—RZ 2007/14. 158  Directive 2000/31/EC, 8 June 2000. 159  Burgstaller/Minichmayr, E-Commerce Law and international Jurisdiction (2011), 2; Burgstaller/ Feichtinger, Internet Domain Recht, 17 ff. 160  Regulation (EC) 593/2008, 17 June 2008, entered into force on 17 December 2009. 161  Regulation (EC) 864/2007, 11 July 2007, entered into force on 11 January 2009. 162  Supreme Court 20 September 2011—‘Rohrprodukte’—wbl 2011, 681 ff. 156 157

192

BELGIUM (‘.be’) Alain Strowel and Benjamin Docquir*

I. Overview of the National System of Protection of Trademarks, Industrial Property Rights, and Domain Names  (1) Trademarks  (2) Commercial Designations (Trade Names)  (3) Company Names  (4) Domain Names 

II. The ccTLD (‘.be’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

(1) The Registry  (2) Registration Conditions  (3) Rights of the Domain Holder  (4) Registration Fees  (5) WHOIS Service  (6) Agreement to Submit to Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Commercial Designations by Domain Names  (5) Infringement of Personal Names by Domain Names  (6) Infringement of Titles  (7) Infringement of Town Names and Other Public Law Institutions  (8) Infringement of Geographical Designations, Indications of Source, and Other Geographical Terms by Domain Names  (9) The Use of Descriptive Terms as Domain Names 

BE.01 BE.01 BE.14 BE.17 BE.19 BE.22 BE.22 BE.23 BE.27 BE.29 BE.30

BE.77 BE.79 BE.80 BE.81

BE.83 BE.84

V. Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name 

BE.85 (1) Older Domain Name v More Recent Trademark  BE.86 (2) Older Domain Name v More Recent Commercial Designation  BE.90

BE.32

III.  ADR Mechanism for the ‘.be’ Domain Space 

BE.33 (1) Abusive Registration of Domain Names (Cybersquatting, Domaingrabbing)  BE.33 IV.  Court Litigation  BE.52 (1) Abusive Domain Name Registrations  BE.53 (2) Infringement of Trademarks Based on a Likelihood of Confusion  BE.72 (3) Infringement of a Well-Known Trademark  BE.74 (4) The Infringement of Trade Names, Company Names, and Other

VI. The Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers  VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law  (1) Jurisdiction of the Courts  (2) Applicable Law (3) Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments

BE.91 BE.93 BE.94 BE.94 BE.101 BE.102

Links Benelux Trademark Office: http://www.boip.int DNS BE (Registry ‘.be’): http://www.dns.be ‘.be’ registration conditions (‘End-user Terms and Conditions’): http://www.dnsbelgium.be/ en/documents/enduser-terms-and-conditions-be(English) CEPANI/CEPINA (Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation, hereinafter ‘CEPANI’): http://www.cepina.be; Rules for Domain Name Dispute Resolution (2013-English): http:// www.cepani.be/en/domain-names-be/domain-names-be

*  The first version of this chapter was prepared with Erik Daems. We thank Erik Daems for allowing us to adapt and update the version he co-authored with Alain Strowel in 2004. We also thank Sarah Forest (lawyer at the Brussels bar) for her research to update this chapter.

193

Belgium (‘.be’) CEPANI Règlement pour la Résolution des Litiges concernant des noms de domaine (2013-French): http://www.cepani.be/fr/noms-de-domaine-be/règlement-noms-de-domaine-be

I.  Overview of the National System of Protection of Trademarks, Industrial Property Rights, and Domain Names (1) Trademarks (a)  Conditions for Protection and Claims in the Event of Infringement BE.01 Since the Benelux Trademark Act (BTA) was adopted by the three Benelux countries in

19691—now replaced by the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (Trademarks and Designs) of 25 February 20052 (BCIP)—Benelux trademarks are registered with the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property in The Hague (Netherlands), which automatically and uniformly covers the territory of all three Benelux countries.

BE.02 Under the BCIP, protection is available to all source-indicating signs, including shapes, col-

ours, patterns, and so on. Since 1988, service marks have also been protectable. The distinctive character required for trademark protection3 can either exist per se or be acquired by secondary meaning.

BE.03 The owner of a Benelux trademark is entitled to the exclusive use, transfer, or licensing of

the trademark and to take legal steps against infringers. Pursuant to Article 2.20.1 of the BCIP, this exclusive right allows its owner to prohibit any third party, acting without the trademark owner’s consent, from using the trademark in the course of business and, in some instances, in more expansive circumstances.4 Subject to certain exceptions,5 the four grounds for protection are: (i) any commercial use of an identical trademark for identical goods or services; (ii) any commercial use of the trademark or a similar sign for identical or similar goods or services if there is a likelihood of confusion, including the risk of association by the public;6 (iii) any commercial use, without valid reason, of a trademark well-known in the Benelux or of a similar sign for goods or services which differ from those for which the trademark is registered, where such use may confer an unfair advantage, or cause damage to the reputation of the trademark;

1  The Belgian legislature implemented the Benelux Treaty concerning Trademark Rights into Belgian law through the Act dated 30 June 1969 (Belgian Official Gazette dated 14 October 1969). 2 The Belgian legislature implemented the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (Trademarks and Designs) into Belgian law through the Act dated 22 March 2006 (Belgian Official Gazette dated 26 April 2006). 3  As follows from Art 2.1(1) of the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (Trademarks and Designs). 4  See Art 2.20.1(d), BCIP. 5  For instance, pursuant to Art 2.23(1) BCIP, the trademark holder cannot prevent a third party using (a) his name or address; (b) details about the kind, quality, quantity, purpose, value, geographical origin, time of manufacture of the goods, or provision of the services or other characteristics thereof; (c) the trademark if such is necessary as an indication of the purpose of a product or service, in particular as an accessory or spare part, in the course of business, provided that the use corresponds to fair practices in in industry or business. 6  It should be pointed out that in the case of Sabel v Puma (decision of the CJEU dated 11 November 1997, Case No C-251/95, NJ 1998, No 523), the CJEU held that purely mental associations that the public might establish in the light of the semantic content of two trademarks do not establish a likelihood of confusion in the trademark sense.

194

I.  Overview of the National System (iv) any use (commercial or not), without valid reason, of a trademark or a similar sign for any reason other than to distinguish the goods, where the use may confer an unfair advantage or may be detrimental to the distinctiveness or reputation of the trademark (BCIP, Article 2.20.1(a) to (d)).

(b)  Civil Law Remedies7 (i)  Summary Proceedings  In the event of urgency, a trademark owner may lodge a claim BE.04 in summary proceedings before the President of the Commercial Court (Rechtbank van Koophandel/Tribunal de Commerce). On the basis of this claim, the trademark owner may request the court to issue an injunction BE.05 prohibiting further infringement. Additionally, lump-sum penalties can be imposed on a daily basis in case of non-compliance. The trademark owner can also request the President of the Court to appoint a sequestrator or BE.06 trustee to store the infringing items until the Commercial Court has decided on the merits of the case, and to appoint an expert to create a list of all infringing items, tools used for infringing activities, and relevant business-related data.

(ii) Proceedings on the Merits  On the basis of Article 2.21 of the BCIP, actions for BE.07 injunctions and compensation for damages may be sought before the Commercial Court. The calculation of damages is based on the profit generated by the infringing party, as well as the loss of market by the trademark owner. Given the difficulties in assessing damages (including absence of data), courts are often BE.08 inclined to only grant ex aequo et bono (fair) compensation, which may vary depending on the specific circumstances of the case. In such proceedings it is occasionally open for a party (i.e. the defendant) to challenge BE.09 another party’s trademark registration. The court has the power to remove a Benelux trademark registration from the register, award compensation for damages, order infringing goods to be handed over and destroyed, mandate the delivery of commercial data, and require the defendant to publish the court’s judgment.

(iii)  Action for an Injunction  Since the Act of 20 May 2007, on procedural law aspects BE.10 of the protection of intellectual property rights,8 and according to the decision of the Belgian Court of Arbitration dated 9 January 2002,9 the trademark owner can, pursuant to the Code of Economic Law (CEL)10 obtain an injunction in interlocutory proceedings ordering the user of the sign to refrain from any further unlawful activities (Stakingsvordering—action en cessation). Such injunction may be obtained following the procedural rules for summary proceedings, but constitutes a final decision on the merits, which is enforceable notwithstanding the lodging of an appeal or opposition recourse. Failure to comply may lead to a fine. (iv) Costs  As a rule, the losing party bears the court costs in Belgium. The losing party is BE.11 also liable to pay a lump-sum indemnity to cover the attorney’s fees of the successful party,

7  To the extent possible, this text takes account of the entry into force of the Code of Economic Law, which replaces and integrates the MPA and several other laws such as the Law of of 26 June 2003 on Cybersquatting (Cybersquatting Act). 8  Belgian Official Gazette, dated 10 May 2007, 25694, now enacted following Art 3 of the Act of 6 April 2010 on procedural aspects of the Market Practices and Consumer Protection Act. 9  Court of Arbitration (Arbitragehof/Cour d’Arbitrage), 9 January 2002, No 2/2002. 10  Article XVII.14, Code of Economic Law, which entered into force on 1 January 2015.

195

Belgium (‘.be’) which varies depending upon the subject matter of the proceeding and the amount of damages requested. BE.12 Criminal trademark infringement proceedings may only be initiated if a criminal complaint

is filed by the plaintiff, which must be filed prior to the prosecution procedure initiated by the district attorney.

(c)  Penal Sanctions BE.13 In criminal proceedings, the court can impose the following sanctions for trademark infringement on the basis of the CEL:11 (i) Fines ranging from €500 to €100,000, and imprisonment ranging from one to five years. (ii) Confiscation, in whole or in part, of the products bearing an infringing mark, and/or the defendant’s tools used for infringing activities. Any confiscated goods can be allocated to the rights holder, and their value is deducted from the indemnity. (iii) Destruction of the goods bearing a counterfeited trademark, at the defendant’s cost. (iv) Display of the judgment, inside or outside the premises of the infringing party, and its publication in a newspaper or magazine, both at the defendant’s expense.

(2) Commercial Designations (Trade Names) BE.14 Commercial designations are protected from the time of their first public use without reg-

istration or other formalities, according to Article VI.104 of the new CEL and Article 8 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Unanimous Belgian doctrine and case law states that there is public use from the moment the trade name has acquired distinctiveness and publicity.12 Case law requires that the use of the trade name is a public and permanent use.13

BE.15 On the basis of a combination of the aforesaid legal provisions, a trade name holder can

file an action for injunction. Such injunction may prohibit the use of a trade name that creates ‘confusion’ vis-à-vis another existing trade name within the territory in which it is publicly known.

BE.16 In the event of successful unfair trade practice proceedings, the trade name holder may obtain

an injunction, and the court may order publication of the judgment. However, the court cannot order the transfer of a domain name that creates a likelihood of confusion with the trade name, but only order the defendant to cease its use.

(3) Company  Names BE.17 In Belgium, company names are granted protection by the Belgian Company Act, Article 65,

as well as by abbreviated versions specified in a company’s by-laws. The first entity that publishes a company name in the Belgian Official Gazette is granted protection thereto.

BE.18 Infringement claims are also based on the Belgian Company Act, Article 65, and may be

lodged against anyone who causes confusion with an existing company name.

  Article XV.103, Code of Economic Law.   President of the Brussels Commercial Court, 21 June 1993, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken 1993, 431; President of the Liège Commercial Court, 18 August 1994, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken 1994, 348. 13  President of the Brussels Commercial Court, 18 September 1989, T.B.H. 1990, 261; Brussels Court of Appeal, 29 March 1988, Ing. Cons 1988, 181. 11 12

196

II.  The ccTLD (‘.be’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (4) Domain  Names As a general principle, domain names can also be protected according to the provisions of BE.19 the CEL14 or can be registered with the Benelux Trademark Register. The aforementioned principles of trademarks and trade names thus apply, mutatis mutandis, to domain names. Additionally, specific provisions of the CEL are designed to combat cybersquatting by cre- BE.20 ating an injunction procedure before the President of the Court of First Instance or the Commercial Court (Article XVII.23). This provision is without prejudice to existing trademark, trade name, company name, geographical indication, copyright, or personal name laws. The procedure enables the plaintiff to obtain a rapid decision on the merits, with remedies including injunction and domain transfer (Article XVII.23). Unlike the standard summary procedures, or ‘référé/kort geding’, no proof of urgency is required. An injunction is available where: (i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to one of the names or indications listed in Article 4 belonging to a third party; (ii) the registrant has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name (Article XII.22); and (iii) the registration has been made in order to cause prejudice to a third party or at least to obtain some undue benefit (Article XII.22). The plaintiff must establish relevant intellectual property rights and the defendant must be BE.21 domiciled or established in Belgium, although the President of the Court is also competent to handle any abusive registration cases concerning ‘.be’ domains regardless of the defendant’s domicile (Article XVII.23). The court may order the cancellation or transfer of the domain, and publication of the judgment (Article XVII.23).

II.  The ccTLD (‘.be’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1)  The Registry Responsibility for issuing domain names under the ccTLD ‘.be’ lies with DNS Belgium BE.22 (‘DNS BE’). This is an independent, not-for-profit organization founded by an association of Belgian Internet service providers (ISPA), the Belgian Telecommunications Users Group (BELTUG), and the federation of the ICT industry (Agoria). DNS BE has contracted a number of registrars for the ccTLD ‘.be’.15 As at April 2013, more than 1,300,000 domain names had been registered in ‘.be’.16

(2) Registration Conditions The registration of domain names is regulated by the terms and conditions of domain name BE.23 registration under the ‘.be’ domain dated 1 January 2013 (the ‘Registration Conditions’).17 Registration in the ‘.be’ domain is open to Belgian and foreign natural and legal persons irre- BE.24 spective of whether they have a place of residence or business in Belgium. Registration is on a first-come, first-served principle (Registration Conditions, s 2). An application is complete

14  Articles XII.22. and XII.23. See also Roox, Het merkenrecht: problemen in de digitale wereld, XXVIIe Postuniversitaire Cyclus Willy Delva 2000–2001: Privaatrecht in de reële en de virtuele wereld; see http:// www.crowell.com/pdf/names.pdf. 15  A list of the authorized registrars can be found at: http://www.dns.be. 16 See http://www.dnsbelgium.be/en/domain_name. 17  The Registration Conditions can be found at: http://www.cepani.be/sites/default/files/files/regl-ndd-enall.pdf.

197

Belgium (‘.be’) when it is received by DNS BE (not when it was sent), and if it contains all the required data. A refused applicant does not acquire any priority over later applicants. BE.25 There is no examination of any third-party conflicting rights in signs, but pursuant to s 2 of

the Conditions, domain names cannot be registered which:

(i) consist of characters other than ‘a–z’, ‘A–Z’, ‘0–9’ and ‘–’, or that begin or end with ‘–’ (in accordance with Request For Comments 1035); (ii) consist of fewer than two, or more than 63 characters; or (iii) contain hyphens in third and fourth position. BE.26 Domains in ‘on hold’ status may not be registered, if they are out-of-support or in quaran-

tine. This is the case if:

(i) legal proceedings regarding the name, in court or otherwise, are pending; or (ii) the registrar’s agreement with DNS BE has been terminated.

(3) Rights of the Domain Holder BE.27 Upon completion of the registration process and payment of the fees, DNS BE grants an exclu-

sive licence to the domain name holder. The licence is granted for one year and is renewable.

BE.28 According to the latest version of the Conditions, ‘.be’ domains can be transferred to third

parties (Article 6, Registration Conditions). To transfer a domain, the holder (or acquiring party) must contact either its registrar or the registrar of the acquiring party to request a transfer code from DNS BE. The domain name holder must provide this code (valid for seven calendar days) to the acquirer, who in turn passes it to its registrar. The latter uses this code to complete the transfer.18 If the domain name holder infringes the registration conditions, or fails to pay the required fees, DNS BE can terminate the entitlement.

(4) Registration  Fees BE.29 Each registrar is free to define the amount charged per domain. DNS BE charged its reg-

istrars €3.025 (including VAT) in 2013 for new registrations, transfers, and renewals. The acting registrar will charge more to the applicant. It is worth noting that a domain is placed in ‘quarantine’ when the holder or its registrar asks DNS BE to delete the domain. The quarantine period lasts for 40 calendar days from the initial request, following which the domain becomes available for re-registration.

(5) WHOIS Service BE.30 The holder must immediately inform DNS BE, through the registrar, of any change in name,

address, e-mail, or telephone and fax numbers. An omission or delay in informing DNS BE of such changes may result in the termination of the registration. The registrant also authorizes DNS BE to publicize relevant WHOIS data,19 including the registrant’s name, address, e-mail, telephone and fax numbers; the date of registration and status of the domain name; and the language chosen for the dispute resolution procedure.

BE.31 The registrant may inform DNS BE that his personal data may not be transferred to third

parties. Thereafter, the registrant’s name, address, telephone and fax number will not be accessible through the WHOIS search facility, provided the holder is a private person.20

 See http://www.dnsbelgium.be/en/domain-name-maintenance/change-registrant.   For WHOIS information related to a given domain name queries can be addressed at:  http://www. dnsbelgium.be. 20  DNS BE will provide this information on a case-by-case basis when requested to do so and for the sole purposes of legal proceedings or ADR disputes. 18 19

198

III.  ADR Mechanism for the ‘.be’ Domain Space (6) Agreement to Submit to Alternative Dispute Resolution The DNS BE Registration Conditions provide for an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) BE.32 procedure to deal with disputes arising from abusive domain registrations. The domain holder automatically accepts the procedure by recognizing the registration rules.21 The ADR process is managed by the Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (CEPINA/CEPANI), a recognized institution for arbitration proceedings founded in 1969 at the initiative of the Belgian National Committee of the International Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Belgian Enterprises.22 Proceedings are subject to the dispute resolution policy in force at the time the complaint is filed. Details of the ADR proceedings, which are based on the ICANN Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) procedure, are set out below.23

III.  ADR Mechanism for the ‘.be’ Domain Space (1)  Abusive Registration of Domain Names (Cybersquatting, Domaingrabbing) (a)  Principal Characteristics of the Procedure As mentioned above, DNS BE provides for swift and efficient proceedings to resolve disputes BE.33 based on abusive domain name registration or use,24 conducted by CEPANI.25 Like the UDRP, the procedure is a summary dispute resolution procedure aimed at the rapid decision of uncomplicated cases of domain piracy. Since the procedure was instituted, more than 250 complaints have been filed and some 200 decisions have been rendered (as at April 2013). The procedural rules are regulated in the Rules for Domain Name Dispute Resolution (the BE.34 ‘Procedural Rules’).26 Pursuant to Article 2(2) of these Rules, the complaint must be submitted to CEPANI in electronic form and hard copy. The President of CEPANI, or an appointments committee, appoints an independent adjudicator from a publicly available list. The complaint must be drafted in the language selected during the domain’s registration, BE.35 unless the parties agree on a different language or the independent adjudicator makes an alternate election in light of the particular circumstances. To date, decisions have been rendered in English, French, and Dutch. The complaint must, in particular, contain a request to submit the complaint for decision BE.36 pursuant to the CEPANI Procedural Rules and the DNS BE Policy, identify the domain holder, state the grounds for the complaint, the relevant claims and evidence, indicate the desired remedy, and show proof of payment (Article 2(2) of the Rules). Complainants are generally trademark holders. CEPANI adjudicators generally allow distrib- BE.37 utors or licencees to invoke trademarks registered by their principals, although the latter are not party to the proceedings,27 making their assessment on the basis of the relevant licence or agency agreements.

  Cf. Art 10a of the Registration Conditions, available at: http://www.dns.be/en/library/documents.   Further information available at: http://www.cepani.be/en. 23  See Section III.E in this volume. 24  The procedural rules can be found at: http://www.cepani.be/en/domain-names-be/domain-names-be. 25 See http://www.cepani.be. 26  The procedural rules can be found in English, French, and Dutch at: http://www.cepani.be. 27  CEPANI, Case 44077, ‘kuota.be’; Case 44043, ‘mitsubishi.be’. 21 22

199

Belgium (‘.be’) BE.38 Pursuant to Article 13 of the Procedural Rules, a hearing is held only if ordered by the inde-

pendent adjudicator.

(b)  Substantive Principles and Burden of Proof BE.39 A domain name holder must submit to the CEPANI procedure if a third party (a ‘complain-

ant’) asserts, in compliance with the rules of procedure, that:

(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, a trade name, a registered name or a company name, a geographical designation, a name of origin, a designation of source, a personal name or name of a geographical entity in which the complainant has rights (Article 10(b)(1)(i)); (ii) the domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name (Article 10(b)(1)(ii)); or (iii) the domain name holder’s domain name has been registered in bad faith or is being used in bad faith (Article 10(b)(1)(iii)). BE.40 Under the Registration Conditions, the trademark invoked by the complainant need not

have been registered at the time the domain was selected.28 However, the trademark must be registered, and not merely filed, at the time the complaint is lodged.29

BE.41 The evidence of bad faith registration or use of a domain name can be demonstrated inter

alia where:

(1) the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of transferring it to the complainant (the relevant rights-holder), or to a competitor of the complainant, for a price that exceeds the defendant’s acquisition costs (Article 10(b)(2)); (2) the domain name was registered in order to prevent the relevant rights-owner from using the domain, where the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct (Article 10(b)(2)); (3) the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor (Article 10(b)(2)); (4) the domain name was intentionally used to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the registrant’s website by creating confusion with the complainant’s protectable rights as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the registrant’s online location or of a product or service displayed thereon (Article 10(b)(2)); or (5) the domain holder has registered one or more personal names without a demonstrable link to those names (Article 10(b)(2)). BE.42 A finding for the complainant also requires that the respondent has no right or legitimate

interest in the domain name. The respondent can demonstrate such right or interest if:

(1) prior to any notice of the dispute, he used the domain name or a name corresponding thereto in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or made demonstrable preparations for such use (Article 10(b)(3)); (2) (as an individual, business, or other organization) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if he has no trademark (Article 10(b)(3)); or (3) he is making a legitimate and non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent to misleadingly divert consumers for commercial gain or to tarnish the complainant’s protectable rights (Article 10(b)(3).

28  CEPANI, Case 44021, ‘napster.be’; Case 44092, ‘pointposte.be’; Case 44095, ‘sublimsport.be’; Case 44238, ‘pneus-online.be’; Case 44260, ‘sputnik.be’. 29  CEPANI, Case 44097, ‘infrasigna.be’.

200

III.  ADR Mechanism for the ‘.be’ Domain Space Since the registration of descriptive terms as domain names is authorized, in the event of dis- BE.43 putes, the CEPANI adjudicator will closely review the facts to assess the rights or legitimate interests of the registrant. For instance, in the ‘voetbalkrant.be’ decision,30 the adjudicator found in favour of the registrant due to the descriptive nature of the domain. The fact that the registrant was deeply involved in football associations (‘voetbalkrant’ means ‘football-related news’) provided evidence of his legitimate interests. Defendants commonly argue that they use their domains to contribute to public debate on BE.44 social or cultural issues.31 The majority of the CEPANI adjudicators are reluctant to quash complaints solely on such reasoning. In the ‘pointposte.be’ case,32 the adjudicator considered whether the registrant had a legitimate interest in expressing opinions about the complainant’s postal services. The adjudicator found against the defendant, noting that although he had legitimate reasons to express his views, he did not demonstrate a right or legitimate interest in relation to the subject matter of the domain. CEPANI adjudicators have heard several cases of ‘domain name parking’, the vast majority of BE.45 which result in transfer of the domain to the trademark holder.33 However, some adjudicators have found that the mere monetization of a generic or descriptive term (which also happens to be a registered trademark) is not a per se violation of the Registration Conditions, unless the complainant proves bad faith on the part of the registrant.34

(c) Procedure The basic stages in a CEPANI procedure are:

BE.46

(i) filing of a complaint with CEPANI; (ii) verification of the formal requirements of the complaint and communication to the respondent within seven calendar days; (iii) filing of a response by the respondent within 21 calendar days of notification; (iv) appointment of an independent adjudicator; (v) issuance of the independent adjudicator’s decision within 14 calendar days of receipt of the parties’ submissions (may be extended in exceptional circumstances); and (vi) implementation of the decision by the registrar within 14 calendar days.

(d) Decision Only three types of decision can be made by the independent adjudicator: if in favour of BE.47 the complainant, an order for transfer or cancellation of the domain; and if in favour of the respondent, dismissal of the complaint. The independent adjudicator cannot grant monetary awards, whether for lawyers’ fees or otherwise. (e)  Relationship between ADR and Court Proceedings The dispute resolution procedure is a binding administrative procedure, but does not limit the BE.48 parties’ right to submit the issue to an ordinary court for decision during, before or after the proceeding. (f ) Fees The complainant bears the procedural costs, which amount to €1,750 if one to five domains BE.49 are in dispute, and €2,110 if between five and ten domain names are involved. If more than   CEPANI, Case 44165, ‘voetbalkrant.be’.   CEPANI, Case 44242, ‘lamirho.be’. 32  CEPANI, Case 44092, ‘pointposte.be’. 33  CEPANI, Case 44078, ‘porthault.be’; Case 44140, ‘maisondupneu.be et al.’; Case 44167, ‘present.be’. 34  CEPANI, Case 44106, ‘argente.be’; Case 44120, ‘sintniklaas.be’; Case 44161, ‘clips.be’. 30 31

201

Belgium (‘.be’) ten domains are concerned, CEPANI will assess the procedural fees. If the complaint is successful, DNS BE refunds the costs and claims the amount from the defendant.

(g)  Comparison with the UDRP BE.50 As compared with actions before the ordinary courts, CEPANI proceedings are rapid and

inexpensive. Like the UDRP, these are ADR procedures and not classic arbitrations. However, the scope of application is much broader than the UDRP, covering not only bad faith registration or use of trademarks, but also abusive use of indications of origin, commercial or geographical designations, and company, personal, and place names. Additionally, unlike the UDRP, the CEPANI proceedings do not require both bad faith use and registration. Moreover, under the CEPANI rules, bad faith may be shown where the registrant owns a number of domains comprising personal names without any relationship thereto.

BE.51 Another significant difference is the possibility to lodge an appeal in front of a panel of three

independent adjudicators. The appeal costs are higher than the first instance proceedings (€4,050) with no opportunity for refund. As of April 2013, only two such appeals had been lodged, and only one resulted in an annulment of the initial decision.

IV.  Court Litigation BE.52 While the infringement of a commercial designation by a domain name is determined

according to the Market Practices Act, the infringement of a trademark by a domain name can be subject to the BCIP or the Market Practices Act (MPA). Under the CEL, an additional injunction procedure is also available, the conditions of which are similar to those applicable under the DNS BE Registration Conditions (see para BE.20).

(1) Abusive Domain Name Registrations (a)  Infringement of Trademarks BE.53 Article 2.20 BCIP lays down the principles governing the content and scope of trademark

law within the Benelux countries. These principles also apply if a trademark is infringed through the use of a domain name.35

(i)  Infringement Claims BE.54 (A)  Use for Similar Goods or Services (Article 2.20(1)(b), BCIP)  According to this provi-

sion, a trademark holder can oppose any commercial use of an identical or similar sign for goods or services that are the same or similar to those for which the trademark is registered, provided there is a likelihood of public confusion. If there is no such risk due to lack of similarity, there can be no claim for an injunction. This was the result in the ‘XXLINK.nl’ case. The President of the Court held that there was no trademark infringement because the parties offered dissimilar services under the Benelux Trademark Act (now replaced by the BCIP).36 In another case, the Brussels Court of Appeal found that there was no likelihood of confusion where the signs involved comprised merely descriptive elements, and the geographical markets were different.37 Thus, the case law in relation to domain names mirrors traditional

35  Evrard and Peters, La défense de la marque dans le Benelux, Brussels, Larcier, 2000, 150; see, eg Brussels Court of Appeal, 31 January 2012; Antwerp Court of Appeal, 30 June 2010; Brussels Court of Appeal, 20 November 2011, IC-IP, 2011/4, 397. 36  President of the Amsterdam Court, 19 August 1996 I.E.R. 1997, 18. 37  Brussels Court of Appeal, 2 December 2004, IC-IP, 2004/5, 537.

202

IV.  Court Litigation trademark law in respect of the similarity between the signs38 and the products or services at stake.39

(B) Use for  Non-Similar Goods or Services (Article 2.20(1)(c),  BCIP)  On the basis of BE.55 Article 2.20(1)(c), BCIP, the holder of a well-known trademark can oppose any commercial use, without a legitimate reason, of an identical or similar sign, for goods or services that are not similar to those for which the trademark has been registered, provided such use generates unjustified advantage, or impairs the distinctiveness or reputation of the trademark (see also para BE.74 ff.). In the Unilever case40 the President of the Amsterdam Court held that Name-Space’s registra- BE.56 tion of a number of ‘.nl’ domain names containing famous Unilever trademarks was of itself an infringement within the meaning of Article 13A(1)(c) of the Benelux Trademark Act (now Article 2.20(1)(c), BCIP).

(C)  Other Use of  Trademarks (Article 2.20(1)(d),  BCIP)  Article 2.20(1)(d) of the BCIP BE.57 is of particular importance with respect to cybersquatting. According to this provision, the holder of a trademark that is well known in the territory of the Benelux countries can oppose any use of a similar mark or sign without legitimate reason for purposes other than to distinguish goods if the use of the sign dishonestly exploits or impairs the distinctive character or reputation of the trademark. Since 2004, there is no longer a requirement that the use of the sign be ‘in the course of busi- BE.58 ness’.41 Unanimous case law and doctrine, however, used to consider the mere registration of a domain name as ‘use in the course of trade’, where a third party registered a similar or identical domain name, without authorization, with the intent to sell the domain. The reasoning followed from the Benelux Court of Justice’s definition of ‘use in the course of trade’ as ‘an activity with the intention to obtain an economic advantage’. The actus reus was satisfied where the cybersquatter had merely made an offer to sell.42

(D)  The Market Practices Act and the General Liability Principle  Abuse of trademarks can BE.59 also be subject to the CEL and the general liability principle. Under the CEL, a person who obtains a domain registration in order to sell it gains an unfair commercial advantage.43 Where the complainant has a trademark (or trade name) and shows that there is a risk of confusion with a third party’s domain name, taking into account the nature of the complainant’s activities and geographical scope of use, an injunction may be obtained. The CEL also offers additional possibilities to challenge domain registrations, when a registrant harms the commercial interests of the complainant in other ways.

38  See, eg President of the Ghent Commercial Court, 18 June 2010, A.P.C., 2010, 799; Brussels Court of Appeal, 29 June 2012, Glu4 and 647 Activations v Mia Studio; Brussels Court of Appeal, 31 January 2012, Tempur v Bemo et al. 39  Brussels Court of Appeal, 31 January 2012, Tempur v Bemo; President of the Ghent Commercial Court, 18 June 2010, A.P.C., 2010, 799; Brussels Court of Appeal, 29 June 2012, Glu4 and 647 Activations v Mia Studio. 40  Vz. Hof Amsterdam, 7 April 2000, I.E.R. 2000, 151. 41  See the Brussels Court of Appeal, 20 November 2011, IC-IP, 2011/4, 397. 42  Brussels Court of Appeal, 1 April 1998, J.L.M.B. 1998, 1586 or Computerrecht 1998, 76. 43 President of the Brussels Commercial Court, 24 December 2001, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken & Mededinging, 2001, 708; President of the Brussels Commercial Court, 28 October 2002, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken & Mededinging, 2002, 662; Ghent, 7.6.2004, IRDI, 2004, 413; President Commercial Court Bruges, 30 June 2006, APC, 2006, 544; President of the Hasselt Commercial Court, 9 May 2008, APC, 2008, 598; President of the Courtrai Commercial Court, 10 May 2004, APC, 2004, 562; Brussels Court of Appeal, 31 March 2009, RABG, 2009, 1404; Brussels Court of Appeal, 31 January 2012, Tempur v Bemo et al.

203

Belgium (‘.be’) BE.60 The general civil liability principle can also be applied if the registrant selected the domain in

bad faith and the registration has caused damage to the trademark owner.44

BE.61 (ii)  Jurisdiction of the Courts  Case law and doctrine have established that Belgian courts

can assert jurisdiction on the basis of trademark law with respect to cybersquatting, provided the infringing domain name is directed to the Benelux countries.45 The courts take all factual circumstances into account, including the language of the relevant website, the location of contact persons, and the nationality of website visitors. It is imperative to provide the court with sufficient evidence linking the domain with the Benelux countries in order to establish jurisdiction, unless the domain in question is a ‘.be’ or the complainant’s rights have territorial effect in Belgium.46

BE.62 (iii) Remedies  When faced with a cybersquatter, a trademark owner can lodge a claim in

the Commercial Court where the infringement is established. In establishing jurisdiction, the plaintiff may ask a bailiff to assess which country a website is targeting. A plaintiff may request an injunction, but pursuant to trademark law, the court may not order the transfer of the domain. Transfer must be requested either through the specific injunction procedure (see para BE.20) or the CEPANI procedure (see paras BE.33 ff.).

BE.63 As mentioned above, trademark owners may also initiate injunction proceedings under the

CEL. If such proceedings are successful, the court may additionally order publication of the judgment or its display at the defendant’s premises (at the defendant’s expense), and under the new CEL, transfer of the domain may also be ordered.

(b)  Infringement of Trade Names BE.64 (i)  Infringement Claims  Under Article 2.19(3) of the BCIP, the user of a sign that does not qualify as a trademark (as defined in Article 2.1(1) and (2) of the Convention) can invoke the common law (CEL or general tort law) to oppose unlawful use of the sign. Additionally, Article 8 of the Paris Convention mandates that:  ‘A trade name shall be protected in all the countries of the Union without the obligation of filing or registration, whether or not it forms part of a trademark.’ Article 8 thus serves as a basis for protection of a trade name (including its use as a domain name). BE.65 If a company’s trade name is not registered as a trademark, the CEL nevertheless provides for a

possible remedy, at least where the domain is registered by an undertaking (ie any person pursuing an economic purpose with relative permanence). Occasional acts of cybersquatting will now fall under the scope of the CEL, which integrates the prior so-called ‘Cybersquatting Act’.

BE.66 The Brussels Court of Appeal held that confusion arises if the questioned practice causes the

public to be misled (see the Tractebel case47). The court decided that the public is misled if a third party misrepresents itself as the owner or authorized user of the name incorporated in the domain name.48 The court decided that the defendant had infringed Article 93 of the (then current) Trade Practices Act (TPA) by ‘grabbing’ the complainant’s ‘Tractebel’ trade name, using that name deceptively, and preventing the plaintiff from using the disputed domain.

  See Ghent Court of Appeal, 26 March 2012, Citrix v Solit.   President of the Antwerp Commercial Court, 7 January 1999, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken, 1999, 565. 46  Brussels Court of Appeal, 2 December 2004, IC-IP, 2004/5, 537. 47  Brussels Court of Appeal, 1 April 1998, J.L.M.B. 1998, 1586 or Computerrecht 1998, 76. 48  Other examples: President of the Gent Commercial Court, 4 January 2002, unpublished; President Commercial Court Hasselt, 15 June 2001, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken & Mededinging, 2001, 628; Court of Appeal Antwerp, 5 June 2002, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken & Mededinging, 2000, 413. 44 45

204

IV.  Court Litigation However, case law and doctrine indicate that, under the CEL (and its predecessor, the MPA), BE.67 a trade name owner can also oppose the use of said name as a domain, even in the absence of confusion. Infringement under the general rule of the CEL occurs when the registration of a domain is contrary to ‘fair practices’ and harms the commercial interests of the plaintiff.49 Recent case law has accepted that the mere registration of a domain name is sufficient to BE.68 establish use. Launching an actual website connected to the domain is not a precondition for infringement.50

(ii)  Jurisdiction of the Courts  With respect to the jurisdiction of the Belgian courts in BE.69 violations of the CEL, the same issues arise as under the BCIP (see para BE.61). However, in the Tractebel case (involving a US cybersquatter and a Belgian company), the BE.70 court decided that the TPA (now CEL) is applicable to all unfair trade practices conducted in Belgium. It is important to note that in the Tractebel case the American cybersquatter had a contact person resident in Belgium. Although the court did not explicitly state that it asserted jurisdiction on that basis, it can be concluded that some link with Belgium (albeit a minor one) seems to be required.

(iii)  Enforcement of Rights  Thus, the holder of a trade name can lodge an injunction BE.71 claim via summary proceedings before the President of the Court of First Instance or the Commercial Court, provided the domain holder registered his domain name after the use of the trade name was established. Under the CEL, the publication of the decision may be ordered, and transfer of the domain may be secured via the latter. (2) Infringement of Trademarks Based on a Likelihood of Confusion One of the basic rules of trademark law is the ‘principle of speciality’; that is, trademark BE.72 protection is limited to the types of products/services for which the trademark has been registered. There is no way of preventing an identical mark being used by different companies for different products/services. This principle does not apply to domain names. Domain names are unique and are granted BE.73 on a first-come, first-served basis. Hence, if one company holds a trademark for certain products, and a second company holds an identical trademark for different goods, the trademark holder who first registers the corresponding domain prevents the other from so doing. No trademark infringement action is possible in such circumstances. The Brussels Court of Appeal confirmed these principles.51

(3) Infringement of a Well-Known Trademark In general, a trademark is considered well known in accordance with Article 6bis of the Paris BE.74 Convention if it is recognized by a large section of the public beyond the scope of its industry. However, Article 16(2) of the TRIPS Agreement defines ‘well-known’ marks more broadly, requiring an assessment of ‘the knowledge of the trademark in the relevant sector of the public’.52

49  President Mechelen Commercial Court, 5 Feburary 2002, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken & Mededinging, 2002, 540 (competitor relationship); President Ghent Commercial Court, 11 March 2001, I.R.D.I. 2003, 68 (former business partner). 50  Brussels Court of Appeal, 1 April 1998, J.L.M.B. 1998, 1588. 51  Brussels Court of Appeal (SA Société commerciale européenne/SPRL Mezquita & Associates), 4 March 2010, Ing. Cons., 2010, 95. 52  In the Chevy case, the CJEU held that the reputation of a trademark in one of the Benelux countries was sufficient (decision of the CJEU dated 14 September 1999, Case No C-375/97, NJ 2000, No 376 (Chevy); Evrard and Peters, La défense de la marque dans le Benelux, Larcier, 1997, No 150).

205

Belgium (‘.be’) BE.75 As noted, Article 2.20(1)(c), BCIP is instrumental in evaluating infringement of well-known

trademarks. Cybersquatting is a major issue for famous mark owners, as discussed in the leading Ben & Jerry’s decision.53 The defendant had registered a trademark for the words ‘Ben & Jerry’s’ in the Benelux countries before the famous American company had done so. After investigating the facts, the court held that the plaintiff ’s mark had been well-known for ten years, and the mark was assumed to be well-known within the Benelux countries. The court noted that the defendant was a trade broker who sold trademarks to interested companies. The defendant’s mark was filed for the same classes of goods and services, and the plaintiff was intending to expand into Europe.

BE.76 The court decided that Mayfair must have been aware of the trademark ‘Ben & Jerry’s’, and

that the registration thereof in Benelux was made with the intention of damaging the interests of Ben & Jerry’s (and thus in bad faith).

(4) The Infringement of Trade Names, Company Names, and Other Commercial Designations by Domain Names BE.77 The owner of a trade name, company name, or other commercial designation can take action

against abusive domain registrations by way of the CEPANI procedure54 (see Section III)55 or before the ordinary courts. If the case is taken before the ordinary courts, the principles of trade name law explained above will also apply mutatis mutandis to conflicts with domain names, and the provisions of the CEL regarding cybersquatting will apply.

BE.78 Belgian case law holds that the prior user of a trade name may take action against a third

party using the name as a domain.56 Furthermore, case law has confirmed that cybersquatting is a ‘use’ (or more correctly, an abuse) of a trade name.57

(5) Infringement of Personal Names by Domain Names BE.79 CEPANI has already rendered decisions in domain name disputes involving the personal name

of famous persons.58 In the ‘filipdewinter.be’ case, a cybersquatter registered two domains corresponding to the name, and an abbreviation thereof, of a Belgian politician. The plaintiff was able to show that he was well known under the name and its abbreviation, and the panel therefore held that there was a likelihood of confusion. Furthermore, the defendant did not enjoy any rights in the names, and his website was used to host an online game which caused damage to the plaintiff.

(6) Infringement of  Titles BE.80 The titles of works of literature, films, pictures, and so on can enjoy copyright if they are orig-

inal.59 If a copyrighted title is used by a third party as a domain name, the copyright owner can file an action for an injunction. If the title is registered as a trademark, infringement proceedings can be initiated. The Cybersquatting Act 2003 is also available to deal with domain names which constitute copyright infringement (Article 4).

  Gerichts’ Gravenhage, 29 September 1995, I.E.R. 1995, 218.   See CEPANI, Case 44109, 3 August 2007, ‘alternatieva.be’; Case 44241, 28 September 2001, ‘eventsee.be’. 55  For recent examples of CEPANI decisions involving trade names, see eg CEPANI, Case 44097, 14 February 2007, ‘infrasigna.be’; Case 44099, 10 April 2007, ‘oracleconsulting.be’; Case 44119, 30 November 2007, ‘maxim.be’; Case 44210, 20 October 2010, ‘controles-energetiques.be’. 56  President of the Antwerp Commercial Court, 7 January 1999, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken, 1999, 565. 57  Brussels Court of Appeal, 1 April 1998, Computerrecht 1998, 76 (Tractebel-Fall). 58  Cases No 4015 ‘filipdewinter.be / fdw.be’ and No 44207 ‘geens.be’, available at: http://www.cepani.be/ en/domain-names-be/decisions-past-cases. 59  de Visscher and Michaux, Précis de droit d’auteur, Bruylant, 2000, 30; Gotzen (ed), Belgisch auteursrecht van oud naar nieuw, Bruylant, 1996, 18; Berenboom, Le nouveau droit d’auteur, Larcier, 2005 3rd edn, No 49. 53 54

206

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name (7) Infringement of Town Names and Other Public Law Institutions To date, there have been no court decisions considering whether town names and other state BE.81 corporations and institutions may be protected against registration as domain names. In a case decided by the Brussels Court of Appeal,60 the Brussels International Airport Company (known as BIAC) had filed an action against Brussels South Charleroi Airport (known as BSCA) based on unfair competition. The plaintiff opposed the use of the term ‘Brussels South’ in an advertisement by the BSCA. The court ruled that the public was not misled because BSCA added the words ‘the other airport’ and the name ‘Charleroi’. However, there have been CEPANI proceedings concerning the protection of a public law BE.82 institution against the use of its name as a domain name.61 In the ‘stubru.be’ case,62 concerning a public radio broadcaster, the panel found in favour of the complainant. In other cases, public institution names were regarded as ‘personal names’, where the name corresponded to the institution’s designation in legislation.63 Where the designation did not have its source in legislation and the public institution had no legal personality, the adjudicator found against the complainant.64

(8) Infringement of Geographical Designations, Indications of Source, and Other Geographical Terms by Domain Names To date, only one CEPANI decision has been issued concerning the use of geographical BE.83 indications of source and geographical designations.65 The provisions of the CEL concerning cybersquatting could also apply in such cases.

(9) The Use of Descriptive Terms as Domain Names Since the ‘liberalization’ of its policy on 11 December 2000,66 DNS BE has allowed the reg- BE.84 istration of descriptive domain names.

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name A domain registrant may acquire rights by use of the domain name, enabling him to attack BE.85 subsequent uses of the same or confusingly similar names as trademarks and trade names.

(1) Older Domain Name v More Recent Trademark In this case, the domain name holder has, depending on the circumstances, two possibilities BE.86 to enforce his rights:

(a)  Cancellation of the Trademark on the Grounds of Registration in Bad Faith As explained above in the Ben & Jerry’s case,67 a domain name registrant may lodge a nullity BE.87 action under Article 2.28, BCIP against the holder of a more recent Benelux trademark,   Brussels Court of Appeal, 25 June 2001, J.T. 2002, 371.   Case No 4015, available at: http://www.cepani.be/en/domain-names-be/decisions-past-cases. 62  The panel held that the registration by the defendant had been in bad faith on the basis of the fact that the plaintiff was a business operation that held the rights to the trademark ‘StuBru’. 63  CEPANI, Case 44152, 20 March 2009, ‘zilverfonds.be’. 64  CEPANI, Case 44211, 24 January 2012, ‘cadastre.be’. 65  CEPANI, Case 44120, 23 January 2008, ‘sintniklaas.be’. 66 The Registration Conditions can be found at: http://www.dnsbelgium.be/en/news/new-version-te rms-conditions-be-domain-names (Terms and Conditions for .be Domain Names). 67  See para BE.75. 60 61

207

Belgium (‘.be’) provided (i) the domain holder has registered his domain name as a Benelux trademark; (ii) the domain is well known in the relevant territory; and (iii) the registrant of the trademark was aware of the name. In order to support his claim, the domain registrant may look to the nationality of website traffic.

(b) Coexistence BE.88 Pursuant to Article 2.23(2), BCIP, trademark owners cannot prevent the use of an older,

similar sign whose protection is territorially limited, provided this right has been recognized according to the statutory provisions in one of the Benelux countries.

BE.89 Despite the fact that this Article was adopted by the Benelux legislature to protect trade name

holders (which are not subject to registration) from trademark owners, this principle also applies to domain names, provided such domains are publicly used. Hence, an earlier domain registrant could oppose an infringement action by a subsequent trademark on the basis of coexistence, in accordance with Article 2.23(2), BCIP.

(2) Older Domain Name v More Recent Commercial Designation BE.90 In a conflict between an older domain name and a more recent commercial designation, the

domain holder can file injunction proceedings under Article VI.104 of the CEL.68

VI.  The Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers BE.91 As mentioned above, DNS BE liberalized its restrictive registration policy in 2000, following

industry complaints and a conviction for abuse of a dominant position.69

BE.92 In 2010, the Brussels Court of Appeal found DNS BE to be liable for not abiding by its own

(then-applicable) terms and conditions in respect of domain registration.70 Interestingly, the Court decided that DNS BE was liable for damages, but did not order the transfer of the relevant domain name.

In a decision of 9 August 2013, the President of the Commercial Court of Brussels71 held the Registry to qualify as an ‘intermediary’ under the Copyright Act, whose services are used by a third party to infringe upon copyrights or neighbouring rights. As a consequence, an injunction may be ordered to have the Registry put an end to such infringing acts, although the latter is not regarded as personally liable for the same acts.

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property BE.93 The original prohibition on the assignment of domain names was repealed in 2002.

The DNS BE decision was a welcome improvement, since non-transferability had been a major restriction on the commercial exploitation of domain names and only played a minor role in preventing abuse. For the details of the procedure for assignment, see para BE.28.

  See para BE.64 ff.   President of the Brussels Civil Court dated 8 November 2000, unpublished. 70  Brussels Court of Appeal, 20 October 2010, IC-IP, 2011, 397. 71  Brussels Commercial Court, 9 August 2013, 2012/12072/A, unpublished, available at:  http://www. rdc-tbh.be. 68 69

208

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (1)  Jurisdiction of the Courts There are no specific jurisdiction rules for the field of the Internet. Either the European BE.94 Regulation 44/2001 on Jurisdiction, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, the Lugano Convention72 or the Belgian Code of Civil Procedure applies. European Regulation 44/2001 applies if the domain holder has his place of residence or business in an EU Member State (with the exception of Denmark). According to Article 5(3) of the European Regulation, in the case of an infringement of IP BE.95 rights through registration and use, an action can be brought before the courts where the harmful event occurs. By this, the CJEU is understood to mean either the place of the causal event or the place at which the harm occurred.73 With respect to IP infringement on the Internet, it is argued that the infringement takes BE.96 place wherever the corresponding website can be accessed. This broad approach appears to have been confirmed by the Belgian courts. In a cybersquatting case, the President of the Brussels Commercial Court held that the infringement had effects worldwide and hence also in Belgium.74 In another conflict, the President of the Brussels Commercial Court held that jurisdiction was proper if Internet access was established via Belgian telephone lines.75 Additionally, the President of the Ghent Commercial Court held that Belgian courts enjoyed jurisdiction since the Internet was usable nationally and locally.76 Other decisions and legal literature77 require at least a ‘minimum connection to the territory BE.97 in which jurisdiction is to be established’. According to this view, jurisdiction is proper only if the website is specifically directed to the public of a certain country. This may be determined by the language of the website, the currency stated, and the relevant contact details.78 Since cybersquatters often passively hold domains, the website’s target audience is usually BE.98 inapplicable. The principles developed in Belgian case law nevertheless leave sufficient scope for establishing a connection between the domain name and Belgium. The President of the Antwerp Commercial Court held in the Infosupport case79 that the registration of the disputed domain was to be regarded as a ‘cross-border activity with a reference to Belgium particularly in the light of the Internet and computer-related activities, a fortiori in the country immediately bordering Belgium, the Netherlands’. The decision can therefore also be regarded as a confirmation that the mere registration of a domain can constitute infringement. The Belgian courts assume that they enjoy jurisdiction for disputes concerning both ‘.be’ and BE.99 ‘.com’ domain names. They may even have jurisdiction if the defendant is a foreign enterprise

72  The Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters dated 16 September 1998, OJ 1988 L 304/36. 73  By way of illustration, see Brussels Court of Appeal, 2 December 2004, IC-IP, 2004/5, 537. 74  Cockerill Sambre v Capricorn, President of the Brussels Commercial Court dated 23 October 1997 and 27 November 1997, A.J.T. 1997–98, p 335. 75  President of the Brussels Commercial Court dated 3 January 1997, Computerrecht 1997, 227. 76  President of the Ghent Commercial Court dated 22 December 1997, T.G.R. 1999, 26. 77 Bogaert and Maeyaert, Handelsnaam—Vennootschapsnaam—Merk—Bescherming en onderlinge conflicten, Rechtspraak (1990–1997), T.B.H. 1999, 95; Wefers Bettink, Domeinnamen: merk of handelsnaam?, I.E.R. 1997, 168. In cases involving ‘.be’ domains, Belgian courts tend to assert jurisdiction. 78  President of the Antwerp Commercial Court, 7 January 1999, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken 1999, 565. 79  President of the Antwerp Commercial Court, 9 January 1999, Computerrecht 1999, 76.

209

Belgium (‘.be’) with no place of business in Belgium.80 In the Tractebel case, jurisdiction was held to be appropriate where the defendant was a US cybersquatter, where the defendant maintained an agent in Belgium (see para BE.70). BE.100 Finally, Belgian courts can assert jurisdiction where the plaintiff is a trademark owner and the

trademark is used in Belgium by the defendant. As with the previous discussion, a minor link with Belgium should be established for Belgian courts to properly assert jurisdiction.

(2) Applicable  Law BE.101 According to Belgian international private law, the applicable law is to be determined accord-

ing to the place where the infringement takes effect (lex loci delicti commissi). Here, too, it is necessary to account for the nature of the Internet, and to establish a minimum connection to Belgium. Belgian courts take into account the language of the website, the location of contact persons, and the nationalities of website visitors when assessing reference to Belgium. Such connection will be readily determined for ‘.be’ domains.

(3) Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (a)  Recognition of Judgments BE.102 According to Regulation 44/2001, judgments rendered in one Member State shall as a matter of principle be recognized in the other Member States without any special procedure being required,81 although Article 34 thereof provides a number of exceptions. Exceptions include where such recognition would violate public policy in the other Member State,82 or where recognition is irreconcilable with a judgment rendered as between the same parties in the requested Member State.83 (b)  Enforcement of Judgments BE.103 Similar to the above, Article 38 of Regulation 44/2001 provides that a judgment rendered in a Member State shall be enforced in another Member State when, upon the request of any interested party, it has been declared enforceable in such state. The procedure for such request will be determined by the Member State in which enforcement of the judgment is sought.84 BE.104 However, the judgment shall be immediately declared enforceable when a party seeking rec-

ognition or applying for a declaration of enforceability produces an authentic copy of the judgment.85

BE.105 Similarly, the problems relating to non-EU Member States and the territorial scope of such

judgments, as discussed above, also apply to the enforcement of such judgments.

80  Bluebox case, President of the Brussels Commercial Court, 3 January 1997, 37; Cockerill-Sambre case, President of the Brussels Commercial Court, 23 October 1997, A.J.T. 1997–98, 335; Tractebel case, Brussels Court of Appeal, 25 June 2001, J.T. 2002, 371. 81  This follows from Art 33, Regulation 44/2001. 82  Exception pursuant to Art 34(1), Regulation 44/2001. 83  Exception pursuant to Art 34(3), Regulation 44/2001. 84  Art 40, Regulation 44/2001. 85  This follows from an overall consideration of Arts 41 and 53, Regulation 44/2001.

210

BRAZIL (‘.br’) Karin Grau-Kuntz and Bernardo Guitton Brauer

(8) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Procedure  BR.81 (9) Decision and Implementation of the Decision  BR.82 (10) Principal Differences Between the SACI-Admin and the UDRP  BR.86

I. Overview of the National System of Trademark and Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names  BR.01 (1) Types of Protected Intellectual Property Rights  (2) Development of Domain Name Law 

BR.01 BR.07

IV. Court Litigation and National Laws 

BR.90 (1) Specific Anticybersquatting Legislation  BR.90 (2) Unfair Competition  BR.92 (3) Preference of an Earlier Trademark in Connection with the Registration of a Subsequent Domain Name BR.102 (4) Unjust Enrichment BR.103 (5) Protection of Well-Known Trademarks on the Internet BR.105 (6) Protection of Civil Names, Cities, and Public Organizations BR.107 (7) Company Names and Business Identification Signs BR.110 (8) Dilution of Goodwill BR.112 (9) Previous Domain Name BR.114 (10) Geographical Indication and Titles of Literary Works  BR.115 (11) Comparison of the SACI-Admin Procedure and Actions Before the Courts  BR.117 (12) Outline of Court Proceedings and Available Remedies  BR.119

II. The ccTLD (‘.br’) Registration Conditions and Procedures BR.10 (1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry  BR.10 (2) The Structure of the Name Space  BR.11 (3) Requirements and Registration Restrictions  BR.17 (4) Documents Required for Registration and Basic Features of the Registration Process  BR.26 (5) Transfer of Domain Names and the Release of Registration  BR.31 (6) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding  BR.38 (7) Statistics  BR.39

III. Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms for the ccTLD Space 

BR.41 (1) Principal Characteristics of the Procedure  BR.42 (2) Material Scope of the Procedure  BR.48 (3) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement  BR.63 (4) Overview of the ADR-Procedure  BR.64 (5) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider  BR.71 (6) Role of the Administrative Panel  BR.77 (7) Costs  BR.79

V. Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  BR.122 VI. Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers  BR.123 VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  BR.126 VIII.  International Conflicts  BR.131

Links Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (INPI—Instituto Brasileiro da Propriedade Industrial): http://www.inpi.gov.br Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil- CGI.br): http:// www.cgi.br Brazilian Network Information Center (Núcleo de Informação e Coordenação do Ponto br—NIC.br): http://www.nic.br Registr.br (Registro.br): http://www.registro.br

211

Brazil (‘.br’) Law No 9.279 of 14 May 1996 (Industrial Property Law): http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/ text.jsp?file_id=125397

I.  Overview of the National System of Trademark and Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names (1)  Types of Protected Intellectual Property Rights BR.01 In Brazil the ownership of distinctive signs (including trademarks and other related rights)

is considered related to social use, and in that capacity to the social interest, technological development, and economy of the country. Thus, the ownership of such rights is guaranteed by Article 5, item XXIX of the Brazilian Constitution.1

BR.02 Despite doctrinal discussions addressing the legal characterization of property law and intel-

lectual assets, the Brazilian Constitutional Court has characterized the essential property right in a trademark as that which guarantees, within the limits of a competitive environment, an exclusive right to use the sign.2 Property or not, trademarks in Brazil fall under the umbrella of the framework of competition and its corresponding legal provisions.

BR.03 Ordinarily, Article 122 of Law 9.279/96 (the Law of Intellectual Property-LPI/96) deter-

mines eligibility for registration of those trademarks with visually distinctive signs, provided that they are not prohibited by law, and are intended to distinguish identical or similar products or services of different origins. The registration of signs not capable of being visually perceptible as trademarks, such as scent-based ‘marks’, is not possible in Brazil. Trademarks formed by patronymics cannot be registered without the consent of the holders, where the names are those of third parties. Conversely, any person may register their own name as a trademark when there is no conflicting name.

BR.04 The ownership of trademarks is acquired essentially through registration, which must be car-

ried out via the National Institute of Intellectual Property (INPI) (Article 129, Law 9.276/96). The obligatory registration of trademarks indicates the adoption of a registration-based system within Brazil.

BR.05 Unregistered trademarks are protected in Brazil by the rules of unfair competition. In the

terms of Article 124, XXIII of Law 9.279/96 (LPI), protection is based on the precedence of the use of the sign within the market, and on how well known it is. Furthermore, unregistered signs are subject to the rules of international treaties of which Brazil is a signatory.3

BR.06 Brazilian law does not provide registration for titles of establishment, insignias, expressions,

and signs for use as propaganda. As unregistered signs, these signs are, however, protected by the rules of unfair competition. Trade names are protected in Brazil according the Civil Code, which only provides for state-wide ownership, although such ownership may be extended internationally. The application of Article 8 of the Paris Convention may, in certain cases, ensure direct national protection for foreign holders, especially where the trade name in question was already effectively being used within Brazil.

(2) Development of Domain Name Law BR.07 The interface between trademarks and domain names is not regulated by any legal device in

Brazil. Moreover, Law 9.279/96 (LPI) mentions nothing about domain names.

  Art 5, item XXIX of Brazilian Constitution of 1988.   Supremo Tribunal Federal, Rp 1397. 3  It is important to note that Art 10bis of the Paris Convention has no direct application and thus only addresses states without creating rights and obligations on private parties. 1 2

212

II.  The ccTLD (‘.br’) Registration Conditions and Procedures Domain names are regulated by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, CGI.br. Through BR.08 Resolution No 001/2005, the implementation of registration, allocation of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, and the administration of top level domains was assigned to the Brazilian Network Information Center, NIC.br. Registr.br is a key component of the infrastructure of NIC.br; it acts directly in the registration and proper maintenance of domain names within the ‘.br’ space, and the distribution of IP addresses. There is no statutory provision covering either the issuance of or conflicts involving domain names. The regulations in force are minor federal administrative norms which do not create private rights. The inevitable conflicts between trademarks and domain names were, until 2010, resolved solely BR.09 by the judiciary or by agreement between the parties. After 2010, the ‘Administrative System of Conflict Resolution from the Internet relating to Domains under .BR—Admin-SACI’ was introduced to cover new domain name registrations.

II.  The ccTLD (‘.br’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1)  Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry The Brazilian Network Information Centre, NIC.br, is a non-profit civil organization BR.10 created to implement decisions and projects developed by the Management Committee of the Internet in Brazil (CGI.br). CGI.br is an entity created by the Ministries of Communication and of Science and Technology. CGI.br is responsible for the use and development of activities linked to the Internet in Brazil. Domain name registration within the top level country code ‘.br’ is carried out by NIC.br through a service named Registro.br. Domains in the ‘.br’ ccTLD are registered on a first-come, first-served basis. The Registro.br service offers a screening process to determine equivalence between any applied-for domain name and ‘.br’ domain names which have already been granted. In mid October 2012, statistics showed more than 3,000,000 registered domains within the ‘.br’ space.4

(2) The Structure of the Name Space Domain name registrations in Brazil are undertaken at the third level within established BR.11 second-level spaces that must be selected from an extensive list of categories,5 with the exception of universities, which are able to register under the ‘.edu.br’ domain space, although some elect to use ‘.com.br’ or simply ‘.br’. Different domains entail different bureaucracy levels:  for instance, the registration of BR.12 an ‘.adv.br’ domain requires proof that the applicant is a lawyer, while a ‘.mil.br’ would require military authorization. However, other than proving identity based on a tax identification number, ‘.com.br’ domain registrations do not require any additional proof or authorization. The requirements for a ‘.com.br’ registration are: (i) a full Brazilian address and phone num- BR.13 ber, and (ii) a Tax Identification number. Other requirements include the addresses of two Domain Name System (DNS) servers; the servers must be configured before the registration of the domain because a DNS query will be made during the registration process. Given its greater simplicity, this category is favoured by 90 per cent of registrants.6

 See http://registro.br/estatisticas.html.   For the categories see http://registro.br/dominio/categoria.html. 6  Statistics are available at: http://www.registro.br/estatisticas.html. 4 5

213

Brazil (‘.br’) BR.14 A name cannot be registered by the same entity in different generic TLDs.7 For example, if

the company XYZ registered the name XYZ under ‘.com.br’, it is not possible for them to also register XYZ under ‘.ind.br’. This restriction is aimed at maintaining the diversity of the namespace, and allowing for the coexistence of homonyms under different TLDs.

BR.15 Foreign companies without a Brazilian Tax Identification number may only register a ‘.com.

br’ domain in restricted circumstances, and provided they comply with specific requirements, such as the appointment of a legally established proxy in the country, which must be registered with a Personal or a Company Tax number.

BR.16 To avoid problems with homonymous names, the registration of a ‘.nom.br’ (for

names) requires the choice of two names at the third and fourth level (ie Name1. Name2.nom.br).

(3) Requirements and Registration Restrictions BR.17 Registration of domain names within ‘.br’ is conditional upon satisfaction of the conditions

set out in Resolution CGI.br 008/2008, relating to the procedures for registration of domain names.8

BR.18 The applicant is responsible for selecting a satisfactory domain name. Accordingly, in apply-

ing to register a ‘.br’ domain name, each applicant must declare that he or she is aware that any chosen name cannot disregard the applicable laws, violate the rights of any third parties, or be selected or used in a manner designed to induce third parties to violate existing law. Moreover, the textual string of the selected domain name may not represent predefined concepts on the Internet, for example names like ‘internet’, ‘website’, and so on, nor involve profanities. Symbols representing states, ministries, and so on are also out of bounds for domain names.

BR.19 In the terms of the Resolution, domain names may contain a minimum of two characters and

a maximum of 26, may consist of a combination of letters and numbers (domains cannot, however, be constructed solely of numbers), hyphens (provided that they are not at the beginning of the chosen sign), and certain accented characters.9

BR.20 The registration of a ‘.br’ domain is only permitted when there is no equivalence between the

applied-for domain and any pre-existing name within the ‘.br’ space, or when in the same top level, there is a match between the applicant and the entity that already owns the registered domain. To avoid confusion between terms whose sole difference in spelling results from accent marks, a registration for ‘á.com.br’ will also cover ‘a.com.br’.10 Conversely, the registration of a ‘.br’ domain is granted only when there is no confusion between the applied-for domain and any pre-existing name within the ‘.br’ space, or when in the same top level, there is a match between the applicant and the entity that already owns the registered domain. By comparing the applied-for domain and any pre-existing names, accented characters and the cedilla will be converted respectively in their non-accented versions and ‘c’. A domain with accent and/or cedilla may only be registered by the same entity that owns the equivalent domain without accent and/or cedilla.

7  With the exception of ‘.am.br’, ‘.coop.br’, ‘.edu.br’, ‘.fm.br’, ‘.gov.br’, ‘.g12.br’, ‘.mil.br’, ‘.org.br’, and ‘.psi.br’; all considered to be generic top-level domains. 8 See http://www.cgi.br/regulamentacao/resolucao2008-008.htm. 9  The accented characters are all vowels: à, á, â, ã, é, ê, í, ó, ô, õ, and ú. The cedilla (ç) can also be used. 10  A  domain without accented characters and/or cedillas (ç) will not be automatically converted to an accented version. If a user wants to use a domain with an accent and/or cedilla (ç) they need to register it.

214

II.  The ccTLD (‘.br’) Registration Conditions and Procedures Individuals, professionals, and entities legally operating in Brazil are authorized to register BR.21 ‘.br’ domain names. Foreign companies can only be granted ‘.br’ domains in limited circumstances and provided that they comply with specific requirements, such as the appointment of an attorney legally established in the country, as well as compliance with documentation requirements. The documents required for registration of a ‘.br’ domain by a foreign entity include a statement of commitment from the company (which must be duly recognized in its country of origin) indicating the company’s intent to establish activities permanently in Brazil within 12 months of the delivery of the documents. This means that for foreign companies to be granted a permanent registration within the top-level country code ‘.br’, they are obliged to establish themselves in the country. Foreign companies with no interest in establishing themselves in Brazil must ensure that BR.22 their domain names are registered by third parties in Brazil, which can be accomplished by hiring representatives in the country to register ‘.br’ domains in their own names. Thus, the Brazilian representatives—generally lawyers or intellectual property agents—appear as the legal registrants of these ‘.br’ domains on the face of the WHOIS records, and act as the legal holders of those domains within the context of their contractual relationships with the Registro.br service. The use of a local agent for the purpose of registering a ‘.br’ domain name is not without BR.23 legal risk. There have, for example, been several actions demanding compensation for moral damages brought against Brazilian attorneys, owing to the content offered on websites connected to domain names owned by foreign applicants via these local agents. The tendency of the courts is to hold that the attorneys are not legitimate parties for inclusion in these actions, since they are not directly responsible for the content offered on the Internet, but are merely the registered name holders. Courts are inclined to find that these agents are responsible only for their own actions, and not for any content placed on the relevant websites by the third-party beneficial owners.11 Essentially, although the rules governing registration of ‘.br’ domain names state that foreign BR.24 companies can hold ‘.br’ domains only if they are permanently established in Brazil, this requirement is being circumvented by the artifice of domain name registration in the name of attorneys. This practice has led some commentators to question to what extent the provision, which limits the scope for the competitive exercise of foreigners in contrast to nationals, would have legal effect. The issue has not yet been addressed by judicial decisions. Ultimately, the provisions of the House of Representatives Project of Law 835/201112 BR.25 were established to determine, by law, compliance with the requirements of CGI.br. Regarding the issue of foreign companies, it was determined that registration can proceed

11  See, eg TJ-RS, Ap.Civ.70020252532, involving Google Inc. In this case, the plaintiff claimed that a Google search for her name resulted in a link to a web page containing obscene words, causing damage to her reputation. At that time Google Inc was not established in Brazil and, in order to comply with the necessary requirements, it had hired a law firm as a representative, which registered the domain name ‘google.com. br’ in its own name. The plaintiff filed a claim for damages with the Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Sul (TJ-RS) against the representative, which was listed in the WHOIS as the domain holder. The Court decided that the representative was not a legitimate party for inclusion in the actions, since: (i) it was not part of the conglomerate managed by Google Inc; (ii) it did not provide any services related to Google’s core activities; and (iii) there was no connection between the registration of the domain name by the representative—which was effected to prevent cybersquatting—and the Google Internet search services for which the plaintiff was claiming damages. Therefore, the Court found no causal link between the alleged damage suffered by the plaintiff and the representative’s registration, ruling that the representative was responsible only for its own actions, not for the content placed on the relevant websites. 12 See http://www.camara.gov.br/proposicoesWeb/fichadetramitacao?idProposicao=496040.

215

Brazil (‘.br’) if the company is legally established or represented in Brazil. Such companies would be able to register domain names which correspond to their company name, in addition to the country-code extension ‘.br’. The Opinion of the Committee for Economic Development, Industry and Trade of the lower chamber, of February 2012, proposed, however, a substitute for the guidelines established by the Project, which maintains the current infra-constitutional rule.

(4) Documents Required for Registration and Basic Features of the Registration Process BR.26 The documents required for registration vary based on the type of entity applying for a ‘.br’

domain name. For individuals and legal representatives, only proof of the applicant’s civil name is required. In the case of corporations, the corporate name of the entity and the names of the responsible representatives must be provided, along with the company’s tax registration number, physical address, e-mail, and telephone number. Within 14 days from the date and time listed on the ticket for domain registration, at least two DNS servers configured and answering to the domain intended for registration must also be declared. Finally, it is required in case of corporations that the relevant contact information for four persons also be provided. These contacts represent: (a) the responsible individual within the registering organization who is authorized to manage details related to the domain name; (b) an administrative contact, who may make decisions about certain aspects of the registration and any associated nameservers, websites, and so on; (c) a billing contact, who is responsible for handling any financial aspects of the registration; and (d) a technical contact, who should be an individual with appropriate technical knowledge.

BR.27 All communication with the CGI.br occurs by e-mail. Parties communicating with the

CGI.br office should maintain records of electronic transmission of such correspondence. Where the CGI.br office contacts the registrant of a domain name, all e-mails sent to the registered e-mail address for the registrant (and its contacts, where appropriate) will be considered valid.

BR.28 The registration of a ‘.br’ domain name is completed after providing proper documentation

and the subsequent verification of the information via the Registro.br system. Additionally, the registration fees must be paid on an annual basis, which at the time of writing amount to $R30.13

BR.29 The domain holder assumes all responsibility for the chosen name and is obliged to provide

accurate and verifiable information to NIC.br. Moreover, the holder must fulfil any requests for data updates, maintain the DNS servers and promptly pay the annual fees to the domain name registry. Due to the declaratory nature of the registration, and for security considerations, a public system for determining registration of information was adopted in Brazil. Thus, it is not possible to conceal information relevant to the identity of a domain name holder in the WHOIS for ‘.br’. In other words, privacy services are not allowed in the ‘.br’ ccTLD space.

BR.30 The cancellation of a registered domain name may occur for several reasons: (i) by the express

renunciation of the holder; (ii) by missing punctual payment of the annual maintenance fee; (iii) by court order; (iv) by non-compliance within a designated time frame regarding irregularities in the information supplied; and (v) for foreign companies, if after the requisite

  Annual fee, as at July 2013.

13

216

II.  The ccTLD (‘.br’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 14  days the company has failed to deliver a declaration of commitment to the definitive establishment of its activities in Brazil.

(5) Transfer of Domain Names and the Release of Registration In order to transfer a ‘.com.br’ domain from one registrar to another, the registrar must BR.31 approve the transfer and unlock the domain for that purpose. The domain name must have been registered or active for at least 30 days. Given the simplicity of the process, this second-level category is favoured by 90 per cent of all registrants.14 To transfer a domain name from one holder to another it is necessary to request a change of BR.32 the Personal or Company Tax number from Registro.br.15 An online form is available from the Registro.br website. Notarization of the signature, a copy of the respective Tax Number card and, for legal entities, a copy of the social contract or the company’s by-laws and the executive board election minutes are required. Domains cannot be transferred between the categories relating to individual and legal enti- BR.33 ties. The only exceptions are ‘.com.br’ domains, which may be registered by individuals or corporate entities. Domain names which are not renewed, have been cancelled at the request of the holder, or BR.34 have been found to contain irregularities in the registration data for the holder, become available for release. The release process is carried out by the registry—and not by the individuals’ registrars—three times a year. In applying to register a recently released domain name the new applicant should inform the BR.35 registry if it is the owner of a trademark which is identical to the liberated domain, or if any word (or words) of their business name is identical to the domain name (provided that such word or words are not generic or descriptive in nature). Domain names that have two or more applicants will not be released and will stay guarded BR.36 until the next release process. A domain that is offered in more than six consecutive release processes without successful registration (owing to the number of applicants attempting to register it) will be excluded from the process for an indeterminate period of time. Registro.br may reserve for itself any names that were offered but not selected for registration BR.37 during the release process and which, for some reason, are considered to be of interest to Brazilian Internet operations.

(6) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding Similar to the requirements imposed upon registrars under paragraph 8 of the Uniform BR.38 Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), from the time of the notification of the initial proceeding by the SACI-Admin to NIC.br, until the completion of an ADR dispute, neither the registry nor the registrars will be permitted to transfer ownership of a disputed domain name, except if so ordered by a court or Arbitral Tribunal.16 Transfers of domain names subject to court actions are also prohibited during the pendency of the relevant disputes.

  Statistics are available at: http://www.registro.br/estatisticas.html.   See above section II.2. 16  Art 7 SACI-Admin. 14 15

217

Brazil (‘.br’) (7) Statistics BR.39 The number of domain name registrations in the ‘.br’ ccTLD has been steadily increasing.17

This is shown in Table BR.1.

Table BR.1: Number of ‘.br’ Domain Name Registrations Year

Number of ‘.br’ Domain Name Registrations

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

851 7,998 27,592 70,882 163,659 369,857 417,610 425,121 558,408 715,152 866,969 1,037,296 1,240,931 1,553,940 1,968,709 2,338,849 2,763,360 3,098,531

Source: Cetic.br

BR.40 Although ‘.com.br’ is by far the most popular second-level extension, a number of the more

specialized categories are gaining registrations.18 The percentages are shown in Table BR.2.

Table BR.2 Percentage of ‘.br’ Domain Name Registrations Generic Second-Level Spaces

Percentage of Total ‘.br’ Domain Name Registrations

‘.com.br’ ‘.eco.br’ ‘.emp.br’ ‘.net.br’ Total, Generic Second-Level Spaces Second-Level Spaces for Individuals Second-Level Spaces for Compulsory Use Second-Level Spaces for Legal Entities Second-Level Spaces for Self-Employment Second-Level Spaces for Education

90.96 0.38 0.08 3.02 94.44 0.30 0.02 3.32 1.80 0.12

  Statistics can be found at: http://cetic.br/pesquisas/.  Statistics are available at:  http://fapesp.org/registro-de-dominio/estatisticas/, and are current as at October 2012. 17 18

218

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms for the ccTLD Space

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms for the ccTLD Space Disputes that involve a domain name holder and any third party regarding the legitimacy of a BR.41 domain name registration can be solved via the Administrative System of Dispute Resolution relating to Internet Domains under .br-SACI-Admin, which was introduced in Brazil in 2010.19 The system was heavily inspired by the UDRP, and is designed to provide speedy, effective resolution of domain name disputes.

(1) Principal Characteristics of the Procedure The ADR system is implemented by several dispute resolution service providers, which are BR.42 contractors and institutions accredited by NIC.br.20 Currently, there are three accredited providers, namely: the Chamber of Commerce Brazil-Canada (CCBC), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and the Brazilian Association of Intellectual Property (ABPI). At the moment of registration of a ‘.br’ domain, the owner of the domain is automatically BR.43 bound by contract to participate in the procedure proscribed by the SACI-Admin.21 This ADR mechanism should not be confused with the process of arbitration, which is provided for under the general rules of Brazilian private law. An ADR decision can only result in one of three outcomes—the panel may order that the BR.44 domain name remain with the original holder, may order its transfer to the appropriate holder, or may order the cancellation of the domain name. The decision cannot order due compensation or the reimbursement of costs.22 The process of resolving SACI-Admin disputes is considered to be a public function and accord- BR.45 ingly such procedures are conducted solely in the Portuguese language.23 Communications in the dispute process are conducted only through e-mail,24 with the exception of the final decision, which may be transmitted to the parties via post, facsimile, or e-mail.25 The proceedings must be guided by the principles of due process of law, impartiality, and equal treatment of the parties. Since the Regulation says nothing about the period in which a complainant must initiate the BR.46 procedure for resolving a SACI-Admin dispute, the complainant can file its complaint at any time. The procedure itself must be completed within 90 days of the filing date. In appropriate circumstances, the dispute resolution provider may extend the deadline, which may not in any case exceed 12 months.26 Finally, similar to the procedure under the UDRP, the SACI-Admin procedure does not BR.47 require in-person hearings, unless the experts deem it necessary for the resolution of the conflict.27

 See http://registro.br/dominio/saci-adm.html.   Art 1 s 3 and Art 4 SACI-Admin. 21  Art 1 s 2 SACI-Admin. 22  Art 1 s1 SACI-Admin. 23  Art 33 SACI-Admin. 24  Art 8 SACI-Admin. 25  Art 11(b) SACI-Admin. 26  Art 28 SACI-Admin. 27  Art 14 SACI-Admin. 19 20

219

Brazil (‘.br’) (2) Material Scope of the Procedure (a)  Grounds for Complaint BR.48 The granting of the request for the opening of procedure will depend on the satisfaction of the SACI-Admin and proof of four requirements listed in the body of the Resolution, all linked to the risk of confusion. The satisfaction and proof of one of the requirements is a prior condition for the commencement of the dispute. There are types of rights which may be protected through the SACI-Admin procedure, which will be discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. BR.49 The first category of protectable rights concerns marks registered in Brazil, and thus the first

element of the Policy concerns the proof of identity, or sufficient similarity to cause confusion, between the disputed domain name and the complainant’s trademark. The first element of the SACI-Admin policy is relevant where the complainant’s mark is registered with the Brazilian agency responsible for the registration of trademarks—the INPI.

BR.50 The second requirement concerns proof of identity, or sufficient similarity to create confu-

sion, between the disputed domain name and a complainant’s trademark which is not registered in Brazil, but which can be characterized as a well-known trademark in the relevant field of activity.28 Thus, where a mark holder’s trademark is not registered in Brazil, it may still be possible to seek redress via the SACI-Admin procedure if the mark has become well-known within the jurisdiction of Brazil.

BR.51 It is noteworthy that, as set out above, only a trademark registered in Brazil can be accepted

as grounds for initiating the SACI-Admin procedure, unless the mark is well-known in the specific industry.

BR.52 The third grounds for relief under the SACI-Admin procedure deals with situations in which

the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the title of an establishment or previously-utilized business name, civil or patronymic name, pseudonym, well-known nickname, or stage name, in the singular or collective, which has been used by the complainant.

BR.53 Finally, the fourth component of the procedure requires proof of identity or confusing sim-

ilarity between the disputed domain name and a domain name which the complainant has held since an earlier date.29

(b)  The Concept of Confusing Similarity BR.54 Under Brazilian trademark law, the legal concept of confusion is inherently linked to the idea of error with respect to a competitive identity. That is to say that trademark protection is strictly circumscribed to the necessary boundaries which will ensure the effective performance of the economic market.30 Thus, it is argued that the similarity sufficient to create confusion under Brazilian law must be understood in light of the economic realities of the given market. Only where consumers are reasonably likely to confuse the business activities or products of two entities, due to those entities’ use of similar trademarks to identify their goods or services, can confusing similarity be said to exist.

28  See Art 126 Law 9.279/96 (LPI), this provision corresponds to the well-known trademark provided, for example, in Art 6bis of the Paris Convention. 29  Art 3 SACI-Admin. 30  See STJ—Recurso Especial 862.067—RJ (2006/0098983-6), https://ww2.stj.jus.br/revistaeletronica/Abre_ Documento.asp?sLink=ATC&sSeq=14713005&sReg=200600989836&sData=20110510&sTipo=51&formato=PDF.

220

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms for the ccTLD Space (c)  Standing to Initiate the SACI-Admin Procedure Under the Brazilian system it is not only the holder of a registered trademark or of a well-known BR.55 brand that is authorized to initiate the dispute resolution procedure. That is because trademarks are not the only rights protected under the SACI-Admin procedure. The procedure is also open to individuals whose civil names, patronymics, nicknames (if  well-known), ­ singular stage names or known artistic names, have been registered as domain names by unrelated third parties. In addition, those who, prior to registration of the domain name that is impugned, have already been identified in the market under a related business name, may invoke the SACI-Admin procedure. It should be noted that the Resolution does not provide any guidance concerning the possi- BR.56 bility of invoking the SACI-Admin procedure to prevent a later domain name holder from using a sign which is not registered as a mark with INPI and which cannot be said to be well known. It is interesting to note this fact, given that along the lines of protection afforded to the owners of businesses and trade names, the unregistered trademark is also guaranteed protection against unfair competition in Brazil. The reasons that give rise to such omissions within the SACI-Admin policy documents remain unclear. A  literal interpretation of the text of the Resolution suggests that such unregistered signs BR.57 (which are not well-known in Brazil) cannot be protected via the SACI-Admin procedure. If this view of the Resolution is adopted, then such unregistered marks could only be protected under national law, via the courts, in actions for unfair competition. Thus, these cases could only be opened by the courts.

(d)  Substantive Elements of the SACI-Admin Policy In line with the structure of the UDRP, the complainant under the SACI-Admin procedure BR.58 must provide convincing arguments and evidence to show that all of the substantive elements of the policy are met. Thus, the complainant must indicate the reasons that moved it to actuate the system of dispute resolution, demonstrating that the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith so as to cause him harm, as well as to demonstrate the complainant’s legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.31 It is important to note that the SACI-Admin procedure does not require the complainant to dem- BR.59 onstrate that the holder of the disputed domain name has no rights or interests in relation to it. The complainant is simply required to show that there is presumptive bad faith on the part of the domain name owner, and to demonstrate that the complainant itself is suffering losses. The concept of bad faith in Brazilian trademark law is linked to malicious conduct, which is BR.60 defined as conduct which contemplates not only the immediate positive effects of an act—for example, the registration of a domain name containing a third party’s trademark in order to realize commercial benefit—but is innately connected to some indirect negative benefit from a legal standpoint.32 Along these lines, the SACI-Admin Regulation provides several express examples which may BR.61 be considered to constitute evidence of bad faith in the registration of a domain name. They are as follows: (i) the registration was undertaken in order to sell, rent, or transfer the domain; (ii) the registration was undertaken in order to prevent the complainant from using the domain name;

  Art 2 SACI-Admin.   See Tribunal Regional Federal da 2ª Região- Ap. Civ. 2008.51.01.803883-6.

31 32

221

Brazil (‘.br’) (iii) the domain was registered with the purpose of disrupting the business of the complainant; and (iv) the domain was registered in order to enable the domain name holder to intentionally attract, for financial gain, Internet users to its website.33 BR.62 Even if the facts of the case directly correspond to one of the above-listed examples, however,

the expert is not released from its duty of providing a reasoned decision. The expert must, in any event, conduct a specific analysis of the case, making sure that there would be no circumstances that would justify the domain name registration or in any way remove the presumption of bad faith.34

(3) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement BR.63 In accordance with Clause 11 of the Registry Agreement, the registrant agrees that all dis-

putes arising from its use of a ‘.br’ domain will be solved via the Administrative System of Dispute Resolution relating to Internet Domains under .br-SACI-Admin.35

(4) Overview of the ADR-Procedure (a)  The Complaint BR.64 The complainant must indicate its desired remedy, whether it is the transfer or cancellation of the domain, within the body of its complaint. Failure to comply with this requirement within a period determined by the accredited dispute resolution provider will result in the termination of the procedure.36 BR.65 The complainant is further required to inform the panel of the existence of any other pro-

ceeding, whether judicial or extrajudicial, already started or completed related to the disputed domain name.37 Failure to comply with this requirement will lead to the termination of the procedure38 or, if made known after the decision and in applying the general principles of Brazilian law, the annulment of the decision.

BR.66 Any interested third party can initiate the SACI-Admin procedure, and the complaint itself

may be filed either directly by the complainant or by its authorized attorney. A prospective filing party has the right to choose any one of the registered institutions that may receive a complaint. Once a provider is chosen, the complainant (or its representative) should submit its complaint, clearly detailing the applicable domain name or domain names which are contested, and provide all available information about the registrant (which is available via a WHOIS search of the Registro.br database).

(b)  The Response BR.67 The registration holder must prove in his defence, attaching the necessary documents, its

rights or legitimate interests in the disputed name. The deadline for the submission of the response will be established by the relevant dispute resolution provider.39 The respondent is

  Art 3(a)–(d).  See the considerations that support the decision of the Arbitration and Mediation Center of the Chamber of Commerce Brazil-Canada in the Procedure No 01.2012.090312.001, available at:  ftp://ftp. registro.br/pub/saci-adm/20120523-ccrd-01.2012.010903.001.pdf. 35 See http://registro.br/dominio/contrato.html. 36  Art 6 s 1 SACI-Admin. 37  Art 2, (h) SACI-Admin. 38  Art 6 s 1 SACI-Admin. 39  Art 10 SACI-Admin. 33 34

222

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms for the ccTLD Space able to request a single or three-member panel, and this specification must be made clear in the response.40 If the domain name holder does not file its defence before the deadline given by the accred- BR.68 ited institution chosen, NIC.br shall, within a maximum of ten days after the expiration of the term referring to the presentation of defence, suspend the registration of the domain name. The procedure will run in the absence of the party.41 The lack of submission of defence may not, however, imply a decision founded in the absence BR.69 of the party. The expert(s) should analyze the conflict and the evidence presented and render on the basis of these subsidies, a decision that composes the conflict.42

(c) Procedural Issues It is possible for parties under the ADR mechanism for the ‘.br’ to settle their disputes. If the BR.70 parties are able to amicably settle upon mutually agreeable terms after the initial proceedings of SACI-Admin have commenced, there is no obstruction to the process being terminated with a statement of such facts by the appointed expert.43 (5) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider The SACI-Admin will be implemented by institutions previously approved and duly accred- BR.71 ited by NIC.br, which are registered for the resolution of disputes. The role these institutions play, in the application of the relevant regulations, has been approved by NIC.br, and must always be in line with the Regulation of the administrative system for conflicts in Internet domain names under ‘.br’.44 The accredited institution (ADR provider) declares the opening of the SACI-Admin proce- BR.72 dure by notifying the holder and forwarding a copy of all documents and papers submitted by the complainant. The institution shall announce the initiation of the procedure simultaneously to NIC.br,45 in order to notify NIC.br that it may not allow the transfer of ownership of the domain name in dispute.46 If the institution verifies any irregularities in the application, or a lack of any of the require- BR.73 ments (information needed to initiate the procedure), it must immediately notify the complainant, giving it time to correct them.47 If the period of time designated for the curing of any deficiencies passes without the correc- BR.74 tion of the application, the procedure of the SACI-Admin will be terminated. In this case, the claimant is entitled to a refund of the amount paid at the percentage set by the accredited institution.48 Having completed the SACI-Admin procedure (after the decision is issued), the institution BR.75 must communicate the entire content of the decision rendered by the expert(s) to the parties and to NIC.br within five days.49

  Art 2(e) SACI-Admin.   Art 13 s 2 SACI-Admin. 42  Art 14, s 2 SACI-Admin. 43  Art 23 SACI-Admin. 44  Art 1, s3 SACI-Admin. 45  Art 6 SACI-Admin. 46  Art 7 SACI-Admin. 47  Art 6, s 1 SACI-Admin. 48  Art 6, s 2 SACI-Admin. 49  Art 20 SACI-Admin. 40 41

223

Brazil (‘.br’) BR.76 The institution and expert(s) will ensure that the procedure of the SACI-Admin elapses

quickly, meeting all deadlines outlined in the Regulation, which may only be extended in reasonably permitted situations.50 The institution may implement additional rules to compliment the Regulation, provided they are not in conflict with it.51

(6) Role of the Administrative Panel BR.77 The complainant, invoking the dispute resolution system and choosing the accredited insti-

tution, must indicate its choice of one or three experts.52 As noted above, the respondent may also state its preference for a single or three-member panel, although where the respondent elects a three-member panel (and the complainant had chosen a single-member panel) the respondent will be responsible for the fees of the remaining two panellists. The accredited institution shall appoint the panel in each dispute.

BR.78 The expert appointed by the dispute resolution provider to hear a case cannot have any con-

flict of interest as regards either party in the matter. That is, the expert cannot have acted as a representative of either party, served as a witness in any related matter, nor have worked with either party to resolve any conflict. Similarly, any expert who may have a relationship with one of the parties or the lawyers involved in the dispute resolution process, or who has any personal, business, or employment connection with either party, will be disquali­ fied. Likewise, experts cannot be employees of either NIC.br or CGI.br.53 To ensure the enforcement of these prohibitions, the Resolution provides that either party may challenge the appointment of an expert by communicating his or her concerns to the dispute resolution provider shortly after the name(s) of the appointed panel is announced.54 Where the dispute resolution provider determines that the challenge is valid, the expert will be replaced in due course by an alternative panel member selected by the accredited provider.55

(7) Costs BR.79 Regarding the costs of the SACI-Admin proceedings, accredited institutions are required to

maintain on their web pages current tables of fees and expenses related to the procedure.56 The fee of the expert shall be stipulated as a fixed amount, regardless of the time taken to resolve the conflict.57

BR.80 The general rule that applies is that the complainant bears all costs involved in the process.

But if it chooses a panel composed of one expert, while the owner of the registration opts for three experts, the complainant will bear the fees of the single expert, while the domain name holder will bear the fees of the other two.58

(8) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Procedure BR.81 According to its contractual nature, the SACI-Admin procedure does not exclude the possi-

bility of parallel proceedings in the national courts. In this way, the SACI-Admin procedure functions similarly to the UDRP system.

  Art 29 SACI-Admin.   Art 29, s único. SACI-Admin. 52  Art 2(e), SACI-Admin. 53  Art 5, SACI-Admin. 54  Art 5, s 2 SACI-Admin. 55  Art 5, s 3 SACI-Admin. 56  Art 25, SACI-Admin. 57  Art 25, s 1 SACI-Admin. 58  Art 26, s 1 and s 3 SACI-Admin. The costs of the Câmara Brazil-Canada are listed at: http://www.ccbc. org.br/default.asp?categoria=3&id=17; the costs of the Brazilian Association of Intellectual Property are listed at: http://www.csd-abpi.org.br/custas.asp?ativo=True&idioma=Português&secao=Custas&subsecao=Descritivo. 50 51

224

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms for the ccTLD Space (9) Decision and Implementation of the Decision If the procedure has been conducted by a panel of three experts, the decision must be made BR.82 by a majority vote.59 Following the decision, the SACI-Admin procedure will end as there is no mechanism for an BR.83 appeal on the merits of the decision. The accredited institution must then communicate the content of the decision, within five days, to the parties and to NIC.br. The parties can, for a period of five days, request the correction or clarification of any material errors which appear in the text of the published decision.60 In case of a transfer decision (ordering the domain name to be granted to the complainant), BR.84 NIC.br will wait for a period of 15 days before allowing the transfer to proceed.61 If during this lapse of time, one of the parties proves that it has begun legal action or arbitration proceedings, NIC.br will not implement the transfer pending the court decision or arbitrator’s order.62 The content of the decision is public. The only possible outcomes of a decision under the BR.85 SACI-Admin procedure are either the transfer or cancellation of the domain name (where the complainant is successful), or an order that the domain name registration should remain with the original holder (where the respondent is successful). There is no provision allowing for the allocation of costs or damages.

(10) Principal Differences Between the SACI-Admin and the UDRP The SACI-Admin procedure was heavily inspired by the UDRP and the differences between BR.86 the systems are minimal. The key differences which deserve mention include the following: (1) the expressed expansion of the list of legitimate rights-holders authorized to initiate the procedure (ie the mechanism for ‘.br’ is not limited only to holders of trademark rights); (2) the adoption of Portuguese as the mandatory language of the procedure; (3) the registration of the trademark that supports the claim of the complainant must necessarily be prior to the registration of the domain name; and (4) the period of implementation of the decision is 15 days compared with ten days under the UDRP. As an accredited ADR Dispute Resolution Provider, WIPO decided several ‘.br’ conflicts BR.87 between 2011 and 2013. All of the panels’ decisions ordered that the disputed domain names be transferred to the respective complainants, which means no complaints were denied. In most cases, the respondents did not reply to the complaints. In all of the cases, the panels found that the respondents had used the respective disputed domain names in bad faith. One example is Vonage Marketing LLC v Intervia Tecnologia Ltda, WIPO Case No BR.88 DBR2013-0005, concerning the disputed domain names ‘vonagebrasil.com.br’, ‘vonagebr. com.br’, and ‘vonage.net.br’. In that case, the complainant was the owner of numerous registrations worldwide for the well-known trademark VONAGE. The panel noted that the disputed domain names incorporated the trademark in its entirety, and that the respondent offered the same services as the complainant. The respondent failed to produce any evidence to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and the panel found that the respondent had used the domains to attract Internet users to its website for

  Art 14, s 2 SACI-Admin.   Art 21, SACI-Admin. 61  Art 22, SACI-Admin. 62 Ibid. 59 60

225

Brazil (‘.br’) commercial gain. Thus, the panel ordered the transfer of all three disputed domain names, as all three elements of the Policy were satisfied. BR.89 Another illustrative case is Petróleo Brasileiro SA—Petrobras v Regina Machado G, WIPO Case

No DBR2012-0004, concerning the disputed domain name ‘petrobrasnacopa.com.br’.63 In this case, the complainant was a Brazilian energy company. The panel decided that the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s PETROBRAS trademark, since the element ‘nacopa’ (in the World Cup) was a non-distinctive term, and thus did not alter the overall impression of the domain name. The panel held that the respondent intentionally registered the disputed domain name which reproduces in its entirety the complainant’s PETROBRAS mark. In addition, the disputed domain name was being passively held, which was deemed further evidence of bad faith.

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (1)  Specific Anticybersquatting Legislation BR.90 In Brazil, in the absence of specific legislation, cybersquatting is being fought through law-

suits under traditional trademark and unfair competition statutes.

BR.91 The Brazilian civil courts characterize domain names as distinctive signs64 which are thus

subject to the rules, principles, and criteria of analysis developed and applied to other categories of unregistered distinctive signs. Through this line of reasoning, cybersquatting has been considered in Brazil to constitute an act of unfair competition.65

(2) Unfair Competition BR.92 In Brazil, acts which constitute unfair competition are criminalized under intellectual prop-

erty law.66 Despite its categorization as a criminal matter, the action at law is of a private nature. The cases involving domain names where criminal laws are implicated are quite rare, and there have been no reports of any relevant criminal action that involved domain names. This is explained primarily because the criminal prosecutors did not bring claims involving patrimonial satisfaction, and generally cases involving domain names are intended to achieve reparation of the damage and also the imposition of fines. It is also understandable because criminal prosecution cannot grant the cancellation or transfer of domain names. Indeed, within the full context of intellectual property law, criminal prosecution is only relevant when it comes to taking counterfeit products off the market.

BR.93 In the civil context, Article 209 of Law 9.279/96 (LPI) establishes the right to seek damages

in compensation for damage caused by acts of unfair competition that harm the reputation or business of others, or which create confusion among businesses, industrial entities or service providers, or between products and services within the same trade.

63  It is perhaps worth noting that the format of decisions issued under the SACI-Admin procedure and the UDRP are structurally very similar. For example, compare Petróleo Brasileiro SA—Petrobras v Regina Machado G, WIPO Case No DBR2012-0004 (‘petrobrasnacopa.com.br’) decided under the SACI-Admin Policy, with Petróleo Brasileiro SA—Petrobras v Helder Rodrigues, WIPO Case No D2013-0187 (‘petrobras-juntos.com’) decided under the UDRP. 64  In this sense, see the decision of the TJ-SP in Acumuladores Moura S/A v Comércio Bateria Garcia Ltda. This involved the disputed domain name ‘bateriasmoura.com.br’. TJ-SP, Agravo de Instrumento 0119981-09.2012.8.26.0000. 65  Applicable rule: Art 195, especially items III, IV, and V, Law 9.279/96 (LPI). 66  Art 195, especially items III, IV, and V Law 9.279/96 (LPI).

226

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws Regarding conflicts involving domain names, the Brazilian courts have developed a two-prong BR.94 test for unfair conduct. Thus, the elements for unfair competition in a domain name context are: (a) risk of confusion, and (b) the misleading of clientele.

(a)  Risk of Confusion Under Article 195, item IV of the Intellectual Property Law, the crime of unfair competition BR.95 is committed where an unauthorized entity undertakes to mimic the expressions or advertising signs of a third party, or to create confusion between its products or business activities and those of another organization. Under item V, the crime of unfair competition is also committed by those who misuse the trade names, establishment titles, or insignias of others. The ‘confusion’ element is also mentioned in Article 209, Law 9.279/96 (LPI). Risk of confusion is generally defined as any situation in which an entity or individual uti- BR.96 lizes the distinctive signs of a third party, which are recognized within the consumer market, to imply a relationship between the entity or individual and the established third party for financial gain. The assessment of confusion is highly fact-based, and must be determined in consideration of the limits of the competitive relationship and the target audience. The notion of risk of confusion presupposes, therefore, the use of the sign in the market, and, BR.97 as a consequence of this, is directly linked to competitive identity. This being so, the risk of confusion will be strictly determined within the limits which are necessary to guarantee the effective action of the economic agent in the market.67

(b)  Misleading of Clientele On the subject of diversion of clientele, Brazilian intellectual property law criminalizes the BR.98 act of using fraudulent means to divert, for the economic gain of oneself or another, the clientele of others. The characteristic elements of this conduct are: (a) the use of fraudulent means (which generally involves the creation of a situation that misleads consumers); (b) the creation of such fraudulent means; and (c) the objective of gaining an advantage over others.68 Within the scope of civil law, misleading clients falls under the category of acts which unfairly BR.99 harm the business of others.

(c)  Jurisprudence: Unfair Competition Within the Scope of Civil Law In the case of Baterias Moura,69 the court held that the domain names of the plaintiff and BR.100 defendant were considered highly similar, which was linked to the fact that both web pages were intended to trade in similar products and to target the same consumers. In these circumstances, the court found that the domain name registrant’s intent to mislead Internet users as to the identity of the business controlling the domain name was evident. The court further held that the defendant’s actions also demonstrated its desire to intentionally mislead the plaintiff ’s clientele, and as such that the defendant had committed an act of unfair competition. Likewise, the opinion of the court in the Premiere case70 concerned unfair competition in BR.101 domain names under Brazilian civil law. The Premiere case dealt with the use of invented company names as part of a domain name, which in turn clashed with the former trading

67 See STJ—Recurso Especial 862.067—RJ (2006/0098983-6), available at:  https://ww2.stj.jus.br/ revistaeletronica/Abre_Documento.asp?sLink=ATC&sSeq=14713005&sReg=200600989836&sData=20110510&sTipo=51&formato=PDF. 68  Art 195, III, Law 9.279/96 (LPI). 69  TJ-SP, Agravo de Instrumento 0119981-09.2012.8.26.0000. 70  TJ-SP—Ap. Civ. 0216432-24.2011.8.26.0100.

227

Brazil (‘.br’) name of a third party. Since both involved companies acting in the same business sector and in the same city, upon review of the domain name registration documents, the court held that the requirement of misleading customers was satisfied and that the use of the domain name was therefore an act of unfair competition.

(3) Preference of an Earlier Trademark in Connection with the Registration of a Subsequent Domain Name BR.102 In a case of conflict between a previously registered trademark and a subsequent domain

name, Brazilian jurisprudence indicates the importance of observing whether the owner of the domain name is able to provide any reasonable or objective justification for its choice of a domain name which is identical or similar to the previously registered sign.71 The tendency, however, is to give preference to trademark law and to characterize the later domain name registration as an act of unfair competition.

(4) Unjust Enrichment BR.103 With regard to the selection of domains consisting of identical or similar signs to

earlier-registered trademarks for the purpose of resale or rental, courts have consistently held that this practice is considered evidence of unjust enrichment.

BR.104 This was the judgment in the Power Ranger case.72 The owner of the domain name had not

linked the domain to any active website content, thus could not provide any reasonable or objective reasons that justified the use of the earlier-registered trademark. The São Paulo Court determined that the unjustified registration could be considered an appropriation for the seeking of unjust enrichment.

(5) Protection of Well-Known Trademarks on the Internet BR.105 The Court of Appeal of Sao Paulo, in the case of Yelp,73 did not recognize that the trade-

mark was well-known in the country as the plaintiff had never acted in the national territory, did not contain any dedicated content on its website for Brazil, and did not demonstrate the company’s intention to expand its service network into the country. The court, however, recognized that the trademark was well known on the Internet generally. Accordingly, because it was well-known in ‘virtual’ space, the registration by the domain name holder (who could offer no reasonable or objective reasons for the selection of the domain name) was characterized as abusive and therefore constituted an act of unfair competition. The court held that there was an evident risk of misleading the clients of the trademark owner.

BR.106 The Mappin case74 dealt with a highly reputed trademark in Brazil, which lent its name to

a chain of department stores which had closed ten years previously, when the owner had declared bankruptcy. The court held that the defendant could not have ignored the existence of the earlier trademark, and that it elected to register the domain names ‘mappin.com. br’ and ‘novomappin.com.br’ in order to leverage the idea of a possible return of the brand in the commercial field. The court held that the domain names were registered in order to exploit the reputation of the trademark, and to profit from its potential re-entrance to the market.

71 TJ-SP, Agravo de Instrumento 0050385-35.2012.8.26.0000, Embargos de Declaração 005038535.2012.8.26.0000/50000. 72  TJ-SP—Ap. Civ. 9102818-96.2008.8.26.0000. 73  TJ-SP, Ap. Civ. 0184813-76.2011.8.26.0100. 74  TJ-SP, Ap. Civ. 0053375-64.2010.8.26.0001.

228

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (6) Protection of Civil Names, Cities, and Public Organizations As noted throughout this chapter, under the laws of Brazil domain names are categorized as BR.107 distinctive signs. Therefore, the rules, principles, and criteria of analysis developed for and related to other categories of unregistered distinctive signs also apply to the registration of domain names. Thus, the registration of domains which are composed of civilian names (unrelated to the name of the domain name registrant), the artistic names of third parties, and the names of cities and of public organizations, are constrained in Brazil. This guidance follows the provisions of the LPI regarding trademarks, which prevents the registration or use of a civil registry name, the patronymic of a family, of a pseudonym or a notoriously known nickname, or an individual or collective artistic name, unless such registration or use is undertaken with the consent of the owner, or his heirs or successors.75 For instance, the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro ruled that the domain ‘carolinaferraz.br’ BR.108 be transferred to the Brazilian actress Carolina Ferraz. The disputed domain was registered by a third party and was being linked to a page with pornographic content.76 Regarding the abbreviation of states, ministries, and other public agencies, it should be noted BR.109 that in the terms of Resolution 008/2008 of the CGI.br, their registration in domain names with the Registro.br is prohibited.

(7) Company Names and Business Identification Signs When the conflict involves a domain name and a company name or previous business sign, BR.110 proving that the domain holder had no objective reason to adopt the sign, the courts will generally ensure the previous right prevails. This understanding is consistent with the provisions of the Law 9.279/96 (LPI) regarding trademarks, which prohibit the registration of any trademark which is a reproduction or imitation of a prior mark, characteristic or differentiating element of an establishment, or the company name of a third party, which is likely to cause confusion or association with such distinctive signs. If, however, the holder of the domain name has legitimate reasons for selecting the domain BR.111 name, then the disagreement will be resolved by applying the first-come first-served rule, which applies generally to the registration of ‘.br’ domain names.77

(8) Dilution of Goodwill The acts intended to damage the reputation or business of others are restrained as unfair BR.112 competition.78 In the aforementioned Premiere case79 the owner of the domain name, a travel agency, worked BR.113 with the company Citroen to organize a promotion that linked the purchase of a new car with the prize of a round-trip ticket to Paris. The regulations of the promotion contained, however, a number of clauses that actually made the trip impossible. The domain name holder, in registering the domain, had utilized the former trade name of a rival travel company. The court held that the failure of the promotion in connection with the association created by the misappropriation of a third party’s former trading name could cause extensive damage to the goodwill of the latter. This activity could, furthermore, affect the credibility

  Art 124, XV and XVI, Law 9.279/96 (LPI).   More information about this case can be found at: http://www.conjur.com.br. 77  TJ-SP, Ap. Civ. 0250402-58.2010.8.26.0000. 78  Art 209, Law 9.279/96 (LPI). 79  See para BR.101. 75 76

229

Brazil (‘.br’) of the relevant travel industry, which the court held was an additional reason to order the immediate cessation of the defendant’s use of the domain name.

(9) Previous Domain Name BR.114 When conflict occurs between a previously-registered domain name and a later domain name

which is determined to be confusingly similar, where no other applicable rights are involved, the rule to be applied is that of first-come first-served.80

(10) Geographical Indication and Titles of Literary Works BR.115 With regard to the trademark regulations found in Article 124, item X of the LPI, signs that

induce a false indication as to the source, origin, nature, quality, or utility of a product or service may not be registered as trademarks. Since under Brazilian law domain names are regarded as distinctive signs, it may be interpreted that the courts would order that a domain name which induces a false impression concerning the information, products, or services offered thereon must have its registration cancelled.

BR.116 The same conclusion can be reached when one holds in mind the provisions of the Article

124, item XVII, which prohibits the registration as a trademark of any title protected by copyright which may be likely to cause confusion or false association.

(11) Comparison of the SACI-Admin Procedure and Actions Before the Courts BR.117 The nature of the SACI-Admin procedure is contractual, and the request is limited to the

transfer or cancellation of the registered domain name. Damages can only be sought through the courts.

BR.118 Regarding time and cost, the SACI-Admin procedure is generally faster and less expensive

than court proceedings.

(12) Outline of Court Proceedings and Available Remedies BR.119 With regard to legal measures for the protection of domain names used by third parties, the

holder has the opportunity to file a nullity action and abstention from use of domain names in the State Courts. Decisions can determine that domain names be immediately blocked and suspended by the Center for Information and Coordination BR—NIC.br, which is responsible for maintaining records of Internet domain names. Moreover, decisions may also order the transfer of the domain name ownership, allowing the prevailing party to register the domain name on its behalf.

BR.120 Admittedly, the use of a domain name can cause damages—both moral and material—for

which a plaintiff may generally request relief via court action. If there is particular urgency in the matter, the domain name holder may request the protection effects in advance via a preliminary injunction, and to thereby prevent any ongoing harm which may occur before the final decision is made.

BR.121 The costs associated with legal proceedings regarding trademark and domain name issues

varies by state in Brazil. Such costs may be borne by the party bringing the lawsuit; however, these costs can be reimbursed in the case of success where deemed appropriate by the courts.

  TJ-SP, Ap. Civ. 0250402-58.2010.8.26.0000.

80

230

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name Taking into account the fact that domain names are considered as distinctive signs, and that BR.122 the abuse of unregistered distinctive signs in Brazil is restrained by the rules of unfair competition, the use of a domain name may be challenged via this type of protection. There is no ‘per se’ intellectual property right granted by the mere registration of a domain name within Brazil.

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers In this sense, it is important to note that under the applicable registration agreements for BR.123 ‘.br’ domain names, the domain holder assumes all responsibility for the chosen name. Furthermore, domain name holders must agree to present accurate and verifiable information to NIC.br. Accordingly, the registry, the registrar, the domain parking provider, and any privacy or proxy service providers are not liable for contributory trademark infringement. In Brazil there is no specific law regarding ISP liability. Based on the constitutional right to BR.124 privacy, in civil cases for copyright infringement ISPs have refused to hand over subscriber details. The STJ—Superior Court of Justice ruled on May 201381 that although an ISP shall not be held strictly liable for the copyright infringement conducted by a third party—since the ISP may not be capable of controlling the lawfulness of user-generated content available on its platforms—it shall promptly remove the alleged infringing content when notified, otherwise they will be subject to joint liability. There is no formal censorship or filtering of online content in Brazil, however, there have been BR.125 numerous private legal cases that have resulted in specific online material being removed. A famous case involved a Brazilian model named Daniela Cicarelli, who was secretly filmed with her boyfriend on a beach in Spain. Cicarelli alleged violation of her right of privacy, image rights and intimacy. The TJ—SP—Court of Justice of São Paulo—ordered YouTube to permanently block the intimate video from being uploaded on its servers. Despite YouTube’s efforts to withdraw the clip it kept appearing on the site. As a result, the Court made a new order for its permanent removal.82

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property Any individual or entity who registers a ‘.br’ domain name within the pre-established reg- BR.126 ulatory conditions can use, enjoy, and dispose of the domain name. The holder’s rights are limited by the terms and conditions of the registry and registration agreement, by third-party rights, and by technical conditions of the electronic environment in which the domain name exists.83 81  STJ—AREsp-2285388-60-2008.8.13.0024. The case involved a publishing house, which determined that certain blogs had been using its copyright-protected work in their posts. The plaintiff notified the ISP (Google) requesting the removal of the infringing content. The ISP refused to take down the content and only did so after receiving a court notice. 82  TJ-SP, Ap.Civ. 556.090.4/4-00. 83  Fontes, Marcos Rolim Fernandes. Nomes de Domínio no Brasil: Natureza, Regime Jurídico e Solução de Conflitos. São Paulo: Quartier Latin, 2006, p 109.

231

Brazil (‘.br’) BR.127 There is, however, a certain reticence on the part of scholars when analyzing the nature of law

on domain names. The legal nature of a domain name can be seen differently, depending on the individual perception.

BR.128 Nevertheless, it seems clear that the legal nature of domain names can be defined as a kind

of property right, which is governed and affected by the numerous enforceable policies and documents regarding the domain name registration.

BR.129 Domain names have economic value and are sometimes the object of thousands of transac-

tions. The transfer and licensing of domain names generally occurs through contracts made between the parties, and must be properly attested and endorsed.

BR.130 An interesting situation occurs when a company that has registered a domain name declares

bankruptcy. Domain names remain valid while their records are current, and thus any such domains would need to be evaluated by the competent body overseeing the bankruptcy proceedings. Owing to the economic value of domain names, they will be treated as assets to be executed in the bankruptcy.

VIII.  International Conflicts BR.131 The Introductory Law to the Brazilian Civil Code (LICC) stipulates in Article 9 that any

conflict shall be governed by the law of the country in which it originates. The principle that applies here is the lex loci celebrationis. The resulting obligations of a contract, still under Article 9 of the LICC, shall be made in the location where the applicant resides. Moreover, if the obligations imposed by the contract are intended to be performed in Brazil, and they are deemed to be essential, conflicts regarding such provisions shall duly observe Brazilian law. In other words, portions of the contract (or the acts proscribed thereunder) may be evaluated according to foreign law where applicable, but when it comes to the essential form of the obligation, the contract as a whole will be evaluated cumulatively under Brazilian law.

BR.132 Regarding the violation of law, this applies to Article 9 as lex loci delicti. This rule provides

that the appropriate law be applied in cases of tort is the law applicable to the location where the activity occurred. As yet there have been no cases where these issues of jurisprudence have been considered in Brazil.

BR.133 One can merely speculate how the Brazilian courts will face the inevitable questions concern-

ing jurisdiction in the context of the Internet.

232

CANADA (‘.ca’) Eric Macramalla

(3) Infringement of Personal Names  (4) Infringement of Literary Titles  (5) Name of Cities and Other Public Law Corporations  (6) Infringement of Geographical Indications, Indications of Source, and Other Geographical Terms 

I. Overview of the National System of the Protection of Trade-marks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs  CA.01 II. The ccTLD (‘.ca’) Registration Conditions and Procedures  CA.06 (1) Registration of ‘.ca’ Domain Names  (2) Canadian Presence Requirements  (3) Grace Period Following Expiration  (4) Misleading Expiration Dates in the ‘.ca’ Space 

III. ADR Mechanism for the ‘.ca’ Domain Space 

CA.06 CA.07 CA.10

IV. Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  V.  The Use of Descriptive Terms as Domain Names  VI. The Liability of Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers  VII.  Remedies

CA.11 CA.12 CA.14 CA.15

(1) Eligible Complainants  (2) Provider Selection  (3) Submission of Complaint and Response  CA.16 (4) Nomination of Panel and Official Fees  CA.19 (5) Remedies and the Implementation of the Decision  CA.29 (6) Parallel Proceedings  CA.32 (7) Concealment of Ownership Information at Registry Level  CA.33 (8) Basis for Complaint  CA.34 IV. Court Litigation  CA.56 (1) Infringement of Trade-marks  CA.56 (2) Trade Names and Other Commercial Designations  CA.87

CA.89 CA.91 CA.92 CA.95

CA.97 CA.98

CA.99 CA.100 CA.100

(1) Court Action (2) Canadian Internet Registration Authority Dispute Resolution Policy

CA.106

VIII. Domain Names as Items of Property 

CA.113

(1) Assignment and Licensing of Domain Names (2) Execution of Domain Names 

IX. International Conflicts and Choice of Law  (1) International Jurisdiction

CA.113 CA.114 CA.117 CA.117

Links Canadian Intellectual Property Office:  http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/tm/tm_main -e.html Registry: Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA)—http://www.cira.ca Registration Conditions:  CIRA Policies, Rules, and Procedures—General Registration Rules, Version 3.21, available online at:  http://cira.ca/sites/default/files/attachment/policies/registrationrules.pdf; WHOIS: http://whois.cira.ca/public ADR Policy: http://cira.ca/sites/default/files/attachment/policies/cdrppolicy_-_en.pdf ADR Procedural Rules: http://cira.ca/sites/default/files/attachment/policies/cdrprules_-_en.pdf Dispute Resolution Providers: British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre (BCICAC):  http://www. bcicac.com Resolution Canada Inc: www.resolutioncanada.ca

233

Canada (‘.ca’)

I.  Overview of the National System of the Protection of  Trade-marks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs CA.01 In Canada, trade-marks are governed by both the federal statute, the Canadian Trade-marks

Act,1 and by the common law. A trade-mark can consist of a word, slogan, logo, or any combination thereof, used to distinguish those wares or services manufactured, sold, leased, hired, or performed by a person from those manufactured, sold, leased, hired, or performed by others.2 Traders need not register their trade-marks to enjoy proprietary rights in their marks, as

CA.02 trade-marks may also enjoy common law protection. However, there are substantial benefits

to seeking a trade-mark registration in Canada. A registration provides the owner with the exclusive right to use the mark in association with the related goods or services across Canada, is prima facie evidence of ownership in Canada, and serves as a means to deter third parties from adopting similar marks by virtue of their existence on the public record. In contrast, the rights possessed by the owner of an unregistered trade-mark are limited to where the owner has managed to establish a reputation. The federal agency responsible for the registering of trade-marks in Canada is the Trade-marks

CA.03 Office, directed by the Registrar of Trade-marks. The Trade-marks Office is a part of the

Canadian Intellectual Property Office, and falls within the responsibility of Industry Canada.3 The interface between domain names and trade-marks has not been clearly decided at

CA.04 Canadian law. Unlike the US Lanham Act, which has been amended to deal with the domain

name/trade-mark interface, the Trade-marks Act has no specific provisions dealing with domain names. Accordingly, counsel is faced with attempting to fit the registration and use of domain names into the Trade-marks Act and the developing jurisprudence.

Depending upon the circumstances, it is open to an aggrieved Canadian trade-mark owner

CA.05 seeking to object to an impugned domain name registration to (a) commence an action in a

Canadian court of competent jurisdiction; (b) launch a complaint pursuant to the Canadian Internet Registration Authority Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP); (c) initiate proceedings pursuant to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP); and/or (d)  commence an action pursuant to the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

II.  The ccTLD (‘.ca’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1)  Registration of ‘.ca’ Domain Names The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) is a not-for-profit Canadian corporation

CA.06 mandated to operate the ‘.ca’ country code top-level domain name. CIRA sets policy for, manages,

and operates the ‘.ca’ domain space for registrars and registrants. Domain names in the ‘.ca’ space are registered on a first-come first-served basis and there is no screening process, much like the ‘.com’ registration process. As of the first quarter of 2013, there were 2 million ‘.ca’ domain names registered.

(2) Canadian Presence Requirements In order to qualify to register a ‘.ca’ domain name, a registrant must satisfy one of the Canadian

CA.07 Presence Requirements as set out in the CIRA Policies, Rules, and Procedures Canadian Presence

Requirements For Registrants Version 1.3,4 which sets out various citizenship, residency,   Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13.   Ibid., at s 2. 3  The Canadian Intellectual Property Office may be visited online at: http://www.cipo.gc.ca. 1 2

234

III.  ADR Mechanism for the ‘.ca’ Domain Space ownership, location, and membership requirements, all of which require a connection with Canada. A Canadian citizen, a permanent resident of Canada ordinarily resident in Canada, and a Canadian corporation are among those that qualify for a ‘.ca’ domain name registration. A foreign party, who would not otherwise qualify, can register a ‘.ca’ domain name so long as the domain name corresponds to one of its Canadian trade-mark registrations (a Canadian CA.08 trade-mark application is not sufficient). It is important to note, however, that such permission is limited to an application to register a ‘.ca’ domain name consisting of, or including, the exact word component of that registered trade-mark.5 By way of example, a US-based entity which owns a Canadian trade-mark registration for TAMPA BAY EXPOS is permitted to register ‘tampabayexpos.ca’ and ‘mytampabayexpos.ca’, but may not register ‘expos.ca’, even if this company has acquired Canadian common law rights in the mark EXPOS. The owner of this mark may still file a complaint pursuant to the CDRP in respect of ‘expos. ca’, alleging bad faith registration. However, if successful, the complainant would have to transfer the domain name to a nominee, who satisfies a Canadian Presence Requirement (it is somewhat curious that the drafters of the CDRP have provided that a trade-mark owner may protect a domain name it is not qualified to register). Foreign parties who wish to register a ‘.ca’ domain name, but who do not own a corresponding Canadian trade-mark registration, do have the option of incorporating a company in CA.09 Canada and having that Canadian-based entity register the ‘.ca’ domain name.

(3) Grace Period Following Expiration CIRA provides a registrant with a 30 calendar day grace period within which to renew an expired domain name.6 If the domain name is not renewed during this period, it is posted on CIRA’s CA.10 website under the heading ‘Dot-CA Names to be Released’,7 and released soon thereafter.

(4) Misleading Expiration Dates in the ‘.ca’ Space Certain registrars submit domain name registrations to CIRA one year at a time, even if the subject domain name has been registered for multiple years. As a consequence, the expiration CA.11 date that appears on CIRA’s WHOIS database8 may be misleading, for example, indicating a one-year registration when in fact the domain name has been registered for five years. To verify the expiration date, the responsible registrar should be contacted directly.

III.  ADR Mechanism for the ‘.ca’ Domain Space In November 2001, CIRA implemented the CDRP, which addresses instances of bad faith registration in the ‘.ca’ space.9 Registrants agree to submit to a complaint pursuant to the CA.12 CDRP if an aggrieved trade-mark owner elects to challenge a ‘.ca’ domain name registration. Disputes arising out of the registration of ‘.ca’ domain names must also be conducted in

4  CIRA Policies, Rules, And Procedures Canadian Presence Requirements For Registrants Version 1.3, available at: http://cira.ca/sites/default/files/attachment/policies/cprregistrants-en.pdf. 5  Ibid., at para 2(Q). 6  General Registration Rules Version 3.21 available at:  http://cira.ca/sites/default/files/attachment/policies/registrationrules_0.pdf. 7  This list of domain names is available at: http://tbr.cira.ca/. 8  CIRA’s WhoIs Database is located at: http://whois.cira.ca/public/. 9  CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, Version 1.3, online: http://cira.ca/sites/default/files/ attachment/policies/cdrppolicy_-_en.pdf.

235

Canada (‘.ca’) accordance with the CIRA Dispute Resolution Rules (CDRR).10 The CDRP and CDRR were amended on August 22, 2011. CA.13 The CDRP is modelled on the UDRP, although as will be discussed below, there are signifi-

cant differences between the two policies.

(1) Eligible Complainants CA.14 A trade-mark owner (complainant) initiating a proceeding must, at the time of submitting a

complaint, satisfy one of the previously discussed Canadian Presence Requirements. If it does not satisfy any of these requirements, the complainant is nevertheless permitted to rely upon a Canadian trade-mark registration that is confusingly similar to the disputed domain name.

(2) Provider Selection CA.15 A complaint is submitted to the provider of the complainant’s choosing.11 Currently, there are

two providers, namely, the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre (BCICAC), and Resolution Canada Inc.12

(3) Submission of Complaint and Response CA.16 After the complainant has filed its complaint, the provider has three calendar days to review it

in order to determine whether it complies with the CDRP and CDRR.13 Once the provider deems the complaint to be in compliance, the provider serves it on the registrant,14 who then has 20 calendar days to respond, subject to an extension of time, which is only available if the registrant can demonstrate exceptional reasons warranting the extension, or if the parties agree in writing to the extension.15 In practice, providers have granted extensions even in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

CA.17 Submissions may be filed entirely online and parties are not required to issue hard copies of

materials.

CA.18 Should either party wish to make further submissions, leave of the panel is required.16 Those

submissions may only relate to a new issue raised by either party and supplemental submissions may not address issues already canvassed.

(4) Nomination of Panel and Official Fees CA.19 Once the provider is satisfied that the response is in compliance with the CDRP and CDRR,17

it appoints a three-member panel in accordance with a procedure involving nominations from the parties.18 The roster of panellists is available on the providers’ websites.19

10  CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Rules Version 1.4, online: http://cira.ca/sites/default/files/ attachment/policies/cdrprules_-_en.pdf. 11  Ibid., at para 3.1. 12  The list of providers may be accessed at: http://cira.ca/content/dispute-resolution-process or through the websites located at http://bcicac.com/domain-name-disputes/ and http://www.resolutioncanada.ca/ rescms/?page_id=191 for the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre and Resolution Canada Inc, respectively. 13  Above note 10 at para 4.1. 14  Ibid., at paras 4.3, 4.4. 15  Ibid., at paras. 5.1, 5.4. 16  Ibid., at para 11.1. 17  Ibid., at para 5.5. 18  Ibid., at para 6.4. 19  For provider website addresses, see above note 12.

236

III.  ADR Mechanism for the ‘.ca’ Domain Space If a response is not filed by the registrant, the complainant is given the option of converting CA.20 the three-member panel to a less costly single-member panel.20 In such cases, the panel bases its decision solely on the submissions of the complainant. The case, however, will still be decided on its merits. Panellists are engaged by the providers. They are lawyers that generally practice in the field of CA.21 trade-marks. However, that is not always the case. Decisions are provided within 21 calendar days of the appointment of the panel, or within CA.22 28 calendar days if the proceeding is conducted in two languages.21 Submissions by either party may be made in English or French.22 As per the CDRR, there are CA.23 standard format submissions for both the complaint23 and the response.24 Failure to follow the standard format will result in the submissions being deemed non-complaint, in which case the party will be provided an opportunity to cure the deficiencies within ten calendar days of notice.25 A complaint may include more than one domain name. There is no limit to the number of CA.24 domain names that may be included in a complaint. A party is not required to retain a lawyer to prepare and submit a complaint or response. CA.25 However, given the highly technical and legal nature of the proceedings, it is recommended that legal counsel be retained. There are no in-person hearings. The panellists render their decisions based entirely and CA.26 exclusively on written submissions. The submissions are confidential. However, the decisions are posted on CIRA’s website and CA.27 are therefore public. Unlike the UDRP, the cost of the panel is entirely borne by the complainant. The fees struc- CA.28 ture was amended in 2011. Complainants are no longer required to pay the full filing fee at the start of proceedings. Rather, the cost is divided into (1) an initial filing fee; and (2) an arbitrator fee paid following the close of pleadings to account for one or three arbitrators. Table CA.1 is a table summary of the total filing fees associated with filing a complaint: Table CA.1: Total Filing Fees for Filing a Complaint

Number of Domain Names 1 2–5 6–10 over 10

BCIAC

Resolution Canada

1 Panellist 3 Panellists $3,080.00 $4,480.00 $3,640.00 $6,160.00 $3,920.00 $7,000.00 To be reviewed on a case-bycase basis

1 Panellist 3 Panellists $2,750.00 $4,000.00 $3,250.00 $5,500.00 $3,500.00 $6,250.00 To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis

(5) Remedies and the Implementation of the Decision For remedies, a panel has the power to order that a domain name be transferred or can- CA.29 celled. The complainant indicates in its complaint which remedy it is seeking. Decisions are   Above note 10 at para 6.5.   Ibid., at para 12.2. 22  Ibid., at para 10.1. 23  Ibid., at para 3.2. 24  Ibid., at para 5.2. 25  Ibid., at para 4.2 for complaints and para 5.6 for responses. 20 21

237

Canada (‘.ca’) implemented by CIRA no sooner than 30 calendar days after the panel has made its decision. This delay is designed to ensure that the parties are provided sufficient time to pursue alternate legal remedies, such as injunctive or declaratory relief through the courts.26 Under the initial dispute policy, the challenge period was 60 calendar days. This was changed to 30 calendar days in the revised policy on the basis that the challenge period was disproportionally long. CA.30 There is no specific appeal process contemplated by the CDRP. Should a party wish to chal-

lenge a decision, it must file an application or action in a court of competent jurisdiction.

CA.31 A complainant is not entitled to monetary damages or an award of costs. However, the regis-

trant may get an award of costs. If the registrant can prove on a balance of probabilities that the complaint was commenced by the complainant for the purpose of attempting, unfairly and without colour of right, to cancel or obtain a transfer of the registration, the panel may order the complainant to pay the registrant an amount of up to CDN$5,000.00 to defray the costs incurred by the registrant in preparing and filing material in the proceeding.27

(6) Parallel Proceedings CA.32 The CDRP allows for either the registrant or the complainant to initiate court proceedings in

a court of competent jurisdiction at any time. However, ‘unless otherwise agreed among the complainant, the registrant and the provider, neither the complainant nor the registrant will take any action to cause or permit the provisions of any foreign or domestic legislation relating to arbitration of disputes to apply to the conduct of any proceeding’.28 If parallel court proceedings are launched dealing with the similar subject matter of a pending CDRP dispute, the CDRP proceedings may be stayed or terminated by the arbitrator.29 This is not an uncommon occurrence.

(7) Concealment of Ownership Information at Registry Level CA.33 By default, the registry conceals the identity of domain name owners who are individuals.

This rule does not apply to corporations, and accordingly, that contact information is publicly available. While the name and details of individuals who own ‘.ca’ domain names is unavailable (unless the individual opts out of having its name concealed), the registry does provide an online messenger service for interested parties seeking to contact the domain name owner. As per the messenger service, the registry will deliver an interested party’s letter to the domain name owner via its website at www.cira.ca. If a response is not received within 14 calendar days, the registry will provide the identity of the domain name owner to the interested party should it make that request. In order to be eligible to make such a request, the interested party must be the owner of a Canadian trade-mark registration that could be confused with the domain name at issue. When making the request for the identity, the interested party must submit a certified copy of the corresponding trade-mark registration.30 A CDRP complaint may be filed against a registrant whose identity is concealed.   Above note 9 at para 4.5.   Ibid., at para. 4.6; Globe Media International Corporation v Bonfire Development, Inc, Resolution Canada, Case No 00124: The complainants engaged in parasitic behaviour whereby they had engaged in an extensive pattern of registering the trade-marks of others as domain names and filing trade-mark applications for those same marks; this level of abusive behaviour together with seeking the transfer of the descriptive domain name forsale.ca resulted in a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. 28  Ibid., at para 1.7. 29  Above note 10 at para 13.2. 30 Request for Disclosure of Registrant Information—Rules and Procedures Version 1.7; available at: http://cira.ca/sites/default/files/attachment/policies/request_for_disclosure_of_registrant_information_-_ rules_and_procedures_version_1.7.pdf. 26 27

238

III.  ADR Mechanism for the ‘.ca’ Domain Space (8) Basis for Complaint The CDRP sets out the substantive terms and conditions by which a party may pursue a CA.34 complaint regarding the registration of a domain name in bad faith in the ‘.ca’ space. As per the CDRP, the complainant must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that: (1) the registrant’s ‘.ca’ domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant had rights prior to the date of registration of the domain name, and continues to have such rights; (2) the registrant has registered the domain name in bad faith; and (3) the registrant does not have a legitimate interest in the domain name. If a complainant proves the first and second elements, the registrant may nevertheless succeed CA.35 in a proceeding if it proves on a balance of probabilities that it has a legitimate interest in the domain name.31

(a)  Confusingly Similar—Paragraph 3.3 Under the CDRP, the complainant must establish that the subject domain name is ‘confus- CA.36 ingly similar’ to a ‘mark’ in which the complainant had ‘rights’ prior to the date of registration and continues to have such ‘rights’. This test can be broken down into two parts: marks/ rights and confusingly similar.32 (aa)  Mark and Rights  As defined by the CDRP, a ‘mark’ is a trade-mark, be it a common CA.37 law mark or a registered mark, a trade name, an official mark, or a certification mark.33 The timing of trade-mark rights vis-à-vis the date of the domain name registration is crucial CA.38 under the CDRP (which is unlike the UDRP, where timing of rights is often a bad faith consideration). In this regard, if a complainant’s mark is unregistered, the complainant must establish that the mark was used in Canada by the complainant for the purpose of distinguishing its wares, services, or business prior to the domain name registration date. This also applies to a trade-mark which matured to registration only after the registration date of the impugned domain name. This timing requirement leaves marks that are the subject of proposed use (or intent to use) applications vulnerable to an enterprising cybersquatter in cases where the subject mark is not distinctive at the time of the domain name registration. Accordingly, parties should register those ‘.ca’ domain names that they intend to use. On the other hand, if the complainant’s mark has matured to registration in Canada prior to CA.39 the domain name registration date, the complainant is not required to establish distinctiveness or use; the mere registration of the trade-mark is sufficient to establish rights in the mark within the meaning of the CDRP.34

(bb) Confusion  A domain name is ‘confusingly similar’ to a mark if the domain name so CA.40 nearly resembles the mark in appearance, sound, or in the ideas suggested by the mark so as to be likely to be mistaken for the mark.35   Above note 9 at para 4.1.   Ibid., at para 3.1. 33  Ibid., at para 3.2; Official marks are filed under Section 9 of the Trade-marks Act by government organizations or organizations fulfiling the criteria of being a public authority. Official marks benefit from special protection. When determining whether a trade-mark could be confused with an official mark, differences in the wares and services are not considered. Rather, the focus is on whether a mark so nearly resembles the official mark as to be likely to be mistaken for it. 34  Government of Canada, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada v David Bedford, British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre, Case No 00011; Viacom International Inc v Harvey Ross Enterprises, Ltd, British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre, Case No 00015. 35  Above note 9 at para 3.3. 31 32

239

Canada (‘.ca’) CA.41 There has been some inconsistency in the decisions rendered to date with respect to what is

meant by ‘confusingly similar’. Some panels have held that the test is one of resemblance, based upon first impression and imperfect recollection,36 while other panels have concluded that it is the same test of confusion that is applied in cases of trade-mark infringement under the Trade-marks Act or passing off at Canadian common law.

CA.42 The proper test to be applied is one of resemblance. The drafters of the CDRP have purposely

adopted only one of the criteria from the test for source confusion set out in subsection 6(5) of the Trademarks Act, namely, ‘the degree of resemblance between the trade-marks or trade-names in appearance or sound or in the ideas suggested by them,’37 while excluding the remaining criteria. These include considering the inherent distinctiveness of the trade-marks or trade names and the extent to which they have become known, the length of time the trade-marks or trade-names have been in use, the nature of the wares, services or business, and the nature of the trade.38 Clearly, the CDRP is not well suited for those types of factual determinations involved in a conventional confusion analysis applied in trade-mark infringement disputes.39

(b)  Bad Faith Registration—Paragraph 3.5 CA.43 (aa)  General Remarks  The first version of the CDRP provided for an exhaustive list of

bad faith registration factors. However, given that the list was too limited, the indicia of bad faith registration were expanded in the revised CDRP to be non-exhaustive and to include a new bad faith factor, mainly the last in the following list:40 (a) the registrant registered the domain name, or acquired the registration, primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, licensing, or otherwise transferring the registration to the complainant, or the complainant’s licensor or licensee of the mark, or to a competitor of the complainant or the licensee or licensor, for valuable consideration in excess of the registrant’s actual costs in registering the domain name, or acquiring the registration; (b) the registrant registered the domain name or acquired the registration in order to prevent the complainant, or the complainant’s licensor or licensee of the mark, from registering the mark as a domain name, provided that the registrant, alone or in concert with one or more additional persons, has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names in order to prevent persons who have rights in marks from registering the marks as domain names; (c) the registrant registered the domain name or acquired the registration primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the complainant, or the complainant’s licensor or licensee of the mark, who is a competitor of the registrant; or (d) the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the registrant’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the registrant’s website or location or of a product or service on the registrant’s website or location.

36  Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Société Radio-Canada v William Quon, British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre, Case No 00006; Trans Union LLC v 1491070 Ontario Inc, Resolution Canada, Case No 00008. 37  Above note 1 at s 6(5)(e). For a comprehensive discussion supporting the proper test for confusion see Government of Canada, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada v David Bedford, above note 34. 38  Government of Canada, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada v David Bedford, ibid. 39 Ibid. 40  Above note 9 at para 3.5.

240

III.  ADR Mechanism for the ‘.ca’ Domain Space Although the initial burden to prove the registrant’s bad faith lies squarely on the shoulders CA.44 of the complainant, such an obligation does not need to be more than to make out a prima facie case. Once this has been done, there is a shift in onus and it is then incumbent upon the registrant to either justify or explain its conduct, if not to demonstrate the contrary.41

(bb)  Acquired Domain Name to Sell for a Profit—Paragraph 3.5(a)  This bad faith fac- CA.45 tor captures the classic cybersquatting case, where a registrant has purchased a domain name primarily with the intent of selling it for an amount which exceeds its out-of-pocket expenses. Under the CDRP, as with the UDRP, an express offer to sell need not be made for a finding of bad faith to be made. In Red Robin International, Inc v Greg Tieu,42 the panel held that the registrant’s intimation that the complainant could buy the impugned domain name, ‘redrobin.ca’, which the registrant characterized as a ‘beautiful bird’,43 supported a finding of bad faith registration. (cc)  Pattern of Registrations—Paragraph 3.5(b)  Bad faith registration will be established CA.46 if the complainant can show that the registrant has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names that incorporate the marks of third parties to which it has no entitlement. Although the term ‘pattern’ is not defined under the CDRP, it has been held that as few as two domain name registrations may be sufficient to establish a pattern of bad faith registration, a holding which is consistent with the UDRP case law.44 It is unclear as to whether a panel could rely on generic top level domain name registrations CA.47 to establish a pattern (eg ‘.com’ registrations) in a CDRP complaint.45 However, it would appear reasonable to take the position that this should be a relevant consideration, particularly given that it goes directly to the registrant’s conduct, and given that cybersquatters may not limit their registrations to the ‘.ca’ space. Further, the CDRP does not expressly limit the domain names relied upon to establish a ‘pattern’ to strictly ‘.ca’ domain names. In order to obtain a list of a registrant’s portfolio of ‘.ca’ domain names, one must request the CA.48 information from CIRA by filling out a prescribed form.46 There is no official fee associated with such a request.

(dd)  Disrupting a Competitor—Paragraph 3.5(c)  The CDRP does not define ‘competi- CA.49 tor’. The panel in Trans Union LLC v 1491070 Ontario Inc47 held that a ‘competitor’ is one who offers goods or services that compete with, or rival, the goods or services offered by the trade-mark owner. The panel favoured this narrow interpretation over the broader definition of ‘competitor’, where a ‘competitor’ is someone who simply acts in opposition to another,   Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Société Radio-Canada v William Quon, above note 36.   Red Robin International, Inc v Greg Tieu, British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre, Case No 00001. 43  Ibid., at para 9. 44  Great Pacific Industries Inc v Ghalib Dhalla, British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre, Case No 00009:  the registrant registered ‘saveonfoods.ca’ and ‘hockeynightincanada.ca’. See also Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Société Radio-Canada v William Quon, above note 36. For UDRP cases, see New York Life Insurance Company v Arunesh C Puthiyoth, WIPO, Case No D2000-0812; Volvo Trademark Holding AB v Cup International Limited, WIPO, Case No D2000-0338; Sony Kabushiki Kaisha also trading as Sony Corporation and Sony Computer Entertainment Inc v Salvatore Vetro, WIPO, Case No D2001-0575. 45  The panel in Government of Canada, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada v David Bedford, above note 34, did not deem it ‘necessary nor appropriate’ to make any determination as to whether the requisite pattern of bad faith registrations may be established by reference to domain names registered spaces other than the ‘.ca’ space. 46  A copy of this form is found as part of the document Registration Information Access Rules and Procedures, Version 1.7, available at:  http://cira.ca/sites/default/files/attachment/policies/request_for_ disclosure_of_registrant_information_-_rules_and_procedures_version_1.7.pdf. 47  Trans Union LLC v 1491070 Ontario Inc., above note 36. 41 42

241

Canada (‘.ca’) including competing for the attention of Internet users, which does not require that the registrant be a commercial business competitor, or that the parties sell competing products. However, the definition of ‘competitor’ became broader as the case law evolved with panels finding that bad faith as per paragraph 3.5(c) exists in cases where the use of a domain name was likely to cause confusion among Internet users as to affiliation or sponsorship. CA.50 The development in the case law was necessary as the indicia of bad faith, when strictly inter-

preted, did not account for the most common type of cybersquatting: pointing a domain name to a pay-per-click website featuring sponsored links. This was a glaring omission in the first edition of the CDRP, and on this basis, many panellists sought to interpret the CDRP broadly.

CA.51 This oversight was addressed in 2011, when the CDRP was amended to include a new bad

faith factor: registering a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the registrant’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s trade-mark as to the source or sponsorship. This mirrors paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP. As a result of this amendment, paragraph 3.5(c) could return to its narrow interpretation and likely stated purpose.

CA.52 (ee)  Intentionally Confuse To Reap Commercial Gain—Paragraph 3.5(d)  This indicia

of bad faith will exist in cases where the use of a domain name is likely to cause confusion among Internet users as to affiliation or sponsorship, and where such use puts a registrant in a position to reap some type of commercial benefit or financial reward.48 Further, it is not necessary for a disputed domain name to be associated with an active website for a finding of bad faith to be made under paragraph 3.5(d) so long as it can be shown that the domain name, if ever put to use, would ultimately result in consumer confusion.49

CA.53 (ff )  Surrounding Circumstances  A registrant’s purpose in registering a domain name

may be determined by common-sense inferences from the registrant’s conduct and the ­surrounding circumstances.50 Factors that have been found to support a finding of bad faith registration under the CDRP include the registrant having constructive or actual knowledge of the complainant’s trade-mark rights,51 the failure of a domain name to resolve to an active website,52 the unrelated nature of domain names that make up the registrant’s domain name portfolio,53 and the failure to respond to a complainant’s demand correspondence.54

48  HMV (IP) Ltd and HMV Canada Inc v Michael Mateescu, British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre, Case No 00185; Dr AC Daniels Co Ltd v 9097-2340 Quebec Inc, Resolution Canada, Case No 00218; Alpargatas SA v Essi Nikulainen, British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre, Case No 00215. 49  Research in Motion Limited v Andy Drews, British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre, Case No 00204. 50  Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Société Radio-Canada v William Quon, above note 36; see also Biogen, Inc v Xcalibur Communication, British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre, Case No 00003, and Coca-Cola Ltd v Amos B Hennan, British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre, Case No 00014. These cases follow the well-established principle of the ubiquitously cited case of Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO, Case No D2000-0003, where the panel held that the surrounding circumstances were relevant to its determination of bad faith. 51 See Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Société Radio-Canada v William Quon, ibid., and Coca-Cola Ltd v Amos B Hennan, ibid. 52  Great Pacific Industries Inc v Ghalib Dhalla, above note 44; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Société Radio-Canada v William Quon, ibid.; Coca-Cola Ltd v Amos B Hennan, ibid. 53  Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Société Radio-Canada v William Quon, ibid. 54 See Biogen, Inc v Xcalibur Communication, above note 50.

242

III.  ADR Mechanism for the ‘.ca’ Domain Space (c)  Legitimate Interest—Paragraph 3.4 The CDRP provides a non-exhaustive list of what a registrant may rely upon to legitimize CA.54 its registration.55 The CDRP contains explicit provisions protecting good faith commercial use of domain names, good faith non-commercial use of domain names, such as websites engaged in legitimate critical commentary, good faith use of generic or descriptive domain names, and domain names that refer to a person’s name or to a geographical location. If the registrant demonstrates a legitimate interest in a domain name, it is entitled to retain the domain name even if the complainant has proven confusion and bad faith registration. Protection in cases where domain names are used in association with critical commentary websites would not extend to a case where a registrant is using a domain name that suggests an affiliation and/or sponsorship with a trade-mark owner (ie website located at ‘[trademark]. com’), as such use is not likely to constitute bona fide or good faith use.56 (d)  Comparison Between the CDRP and the UDRP While the CDRP was modelled on the UDRP, there are significant differences between the CA.55 two policies. As stated by the panel in Government of Canada, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada v David Bedford, ‘while UDRP decisions may provide some guidance regarding the interpretation of the Policy, UDRP decisions must be read with caution given the substantial differences’57 between the UDRP and the CDRP. The key differences between the policies are as follows: • The CDRP has adopted language specific to the Trade-marks Act and Canadian trade-mark law (ie, the CDRP refers to Section 9 marks, clearly descriptive marks, geographical indicators, and names). • A complainant must be a Canadian resident, or the owner of a trade-mark registered in Canada. • The CDRP protects trade names, while the UDRP does not (unless, of course, the trade name has been elevated to trade-mark status). • The complainant’s trade-mark registration or trade-mark rights must predate the domain name registration. • The CDRP only requires that bad faith registration be shown, while the UDRP requires that bad faith registration and use be established (however, under the UDRP, it is a well-established principle that a showing of bad faith registration is sufficient for a finding of bad faith to be made). • The standard of proof is set out in the CDRP. The complainant must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the impugned domain name is confusing to its mark, and that it was registered in bad faith. The complainant need only show ‘some evidence’58 that the registrant does not have a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Even if the complainant proves these elements, the registrant will succeed in the proceeding if the registrant proves, on a balance of probabilities, that it has a legitimate interest in the domain name. • Disputes under the CDRP are resolved by a mandatory three-person panel unless converted to a single-member panel if the registrant fails to file a response. Irrespective of the number of panellists presiding over a case, the complainant pays the entire official filing fee. • A CDRP decision will be implemented within 30 calendar days from the date of the decision, compared to ten calendar days under the UDRP.

  Above note 9 at para 3.4.   Mckee Homes Ltd v Gerlinde Honsek, Resolution Canada, Case No 00079. 57  Above note 36 at para 17. 58  Above note 9 at para 4.1(b). 55 56

243

Canada (‘.ca’)

IV.  Court Litigation (1)  Infringement of Trade-marks CA.56 While the jurisprudence with respect to domain names in Canada has been slow to develop,

recent cases provide some guidance.

(a)  Risk of Confusion Between Domain Names and Trade-Marks CA.57 The Trade-marks Act provides that trade-mark owners may bring actions for infringement, depreciation of goodwill and passing off. CA.58 (aa) Imitation  Section 19 of the Trade-marks Act provides the owner of a registered

trade-mark the right to its exclusive use throughout Canada in respect of the wares and services for which it is registered. This section does not require that a likelihood of confusion be established. However, its scope is narrow, applying exclusively to the use of identical marks and only when the subject mark is used in association with the wares or services in the registration.59

CA.59 (bb) Infringement  If the impugned mark is not identical to the owner’s registered

trade-mark, and the wares or services are not the same as those associated with the registration, recourse should be had to the broader section 20 of the Trade-marks Act. Pursuant to this section, the right of the owner of a registered trade-mark to its exclusive use is deemed to be infringed by a person who uses a confusing trade-mark or trade name in association with the sale, distribution, or advertising of its wares or services.

CA.60 (cc) ‘Use’  Establishing that trade-mark use has occurred is critical to a claim under sec-

tions 19 and 20. The Trade-marks Act defines ‘use’ in association with wares and services differently. A trade-mark is deemed to be ‘used’ in association with wares if, at the time of the transfer of wares in the normal course of trade, the trade-mark is marked on the wares or packaging, or in some other way brought to the attention of the purchaser.60 In contrast, a trade-mark is deemed to be used in association with services if it is used or displayed in the performance or advertising of those services.61

CA.61 Based upon traditional principles, use of a trade-mark in a domain name to advertise services

on a website in Canada would constitute ‘use’. The Trademarks Office has allowed the registration of numerous trade-marks used as domain names based upon their use in association with services.62 In granting interlocutory relief in Bell Actimedia v Puzo,63 the Court accepted the proposition that the use of a trade-mark in a domain name (ie ‘lespagesjaunes.com’) constituted ‘use’ in the context of infringement.

CA.62 The Court of Appeal in Pro-C Ltd v Computer City Inc64 confirmed that traditional trade-mark

principles apply to determining whether use has occurred in the Internet context. The plaintiff was the registered owner of the trade-mark WINGEN in Canada for use in association with computer software. The US-based defendant sold a line of WINGEN computers. The plaintiff operated a website at ‘wingen.com’, and soon became inundated with Internet users

  Cie General des Etablissements Michelin v CAW Canada (1996), 71 C.P.R. (3d) 348 at p 363–4 (F.C.T.D.).   Above note 1 at s 4(1). 61  Ibid., at s 4(2). 62  Examples include NBA.COM, registration No TMA 503,662 and idirect.com, registration No TMA 517,005. 63  Bell Actimedia Inc v Puzo (Communications Globe Tete), [1999] F.C.J. No 683 (F.C.T.D.). 64  Pro-C Ltd v Computer City Inc (2001), 14 C.P.R. (4th) 441 (Ont.C.A). 59 60

244

IV.  Court Litigation looking for the defendant’s product. The defendant’s website was not an interactive site through which Canadian consumers could purchase the WINGEN product. In overturning the trial decision, the Court of Appeal held that maintaining a passive website CA.63 that advertises and provides information about a product does not constitute trade-mark use in association with wares, as no transfer of ownership is possible through that medium. The Court of Appeal stated that it would be ‘much more sensible to apply tort principles to accommodate new technology than to distort statutory trade-mark rights’.65

(dd) Confusion  The use of a trade-mark causes confusion with another trade-mark if the CA.64 use of both trade-marks in the same area would be likely to lead to the inference that the wares or services associated with the trade-marks are manufactured, sold, leased, hired, or performed by the same person, whether or not the wares or services are of the same general class.66 As such, a trade-mark causes confusion with another trade-mark as long as the inference of a common origin is likely.67 In order to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion, the Court shall have regard CA.65 to all of the surrounding circumstances, including those described in subsection 6(5) of the Trade-marks Act: (i) the inherent distinctiveness of the marks and the extent to which they have become known; (ii) the length of time the marks have been in use; (iii) the nature of the wares, services, or businesses; (iv) the nature of the trade; and (v) the degree of resemblance between the marks in appearance or sound or in the ideas suggested by them.68 In considering whether the use of a domain name constituted infringing use, the Court in CA.66 ITV Technologies v WIC Television69 applied the test for confusion as set out in subsection 6(5) of the Trade-marks Act. As such, while domain names present novel legal challenges, the Court found that it was nevertheless appropriate to apply traditional trade-mark principles.70

(ee) Initial Interest Confusion  The doctrine of initial interest confusion has received very CA.67 limited attention from Canadian courts. Initial interest confusion refers to the use of another’s trade-mark in a manner reasonably calculated to capture initial consumer attention even though no actual sale is completed as a result of the confusion.71 This test of confusion carries with it a lower threshold than the traditional test of confusion captured by subsection 6(5) of the Trade-marks Act. In cases where a domain name functions merely as a surrogate for an Internet IP address, or where confusion as to source is not likely, initial interest confusion merits consideration. In Law Society of British Columbia v Canada Domain Name Exchange Corp,72 the defend- CA.68 ant resolved the domain names ‘lawsocietyofbc.ca’ and ‘lsbc.ca’ to websites displaying adult

  Ibid., at para 16.  Above note 1 at ss 2, 6.  See also ITV Technologies v WIC Television (2003), 29 C.P.R. (4th) 182 (F.C.T.D.); Miss Universe Inc v Bohna, [1995] 1 F.C. 614 (F.C.A.); Canadian Schenley Distillers Ltd v Canada’s Manitoba Distillery Ltd (1975), 25 C.P.R. (2d) 1 (F.C.T.D.). 67  Polo Ralph Lauren Corp v United States Polo Assn (2000), 9 C.P.R. (4th) 51 (F.C.A). 68  Above note 1 at s 6(5). See also United Artists Corp v Pink Panther Beauty Corp (1998), 80 C.P.R. (3d) 247 (F.C.A.); Polysar Ltd v Gesco Distributing Ltd (1985), 6 C.P.R. (3d) 289 (F.C.T.D.); Canadian Schenley Distilleries Ltd v Canada’s Manitoba Distilleries, above note 66; Park Avenue Furniture Corp v Wilkes/ Simons-Bedding Ltd (1991), 37 C.P.R. (3d) 413 (F.C.A.). 69  ITV Technologies v WIC Television, above note 66. 70  ITV Technologies v WIC Television is also noteworthy as the Court held that the Way Back Machine website, located at https//archive.org, which allows end users to view websites as they had existed at a relevant time period, was reliable, and that the Court could rely on this digital library for an accurate representation of a website at a relevant time period. 71  Brookfield Communications Inc v West Coast Entertainment Corp, 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir 1999). 72  Law Society of British Columbia v Canada Domain Name Exchange Corp, [2002] B.C.J. No 1909 (B.C.S.C.). 65 66

245

Canada (‘.ca’) content. The Court held that the defendant had used the disputed domain names to attract members of the public to its websites for the purpose of generating income, a misrepresentation which constituted passing off. Although there was no mention of initial interest confusion, the Court did find that the disputed domain names were being used to divert Internet traffic to the defendant’s websites, the contents of which were likely to result in the immediate dispelling of confusion among Internet users looking for the plaintiff. This finding appears to be compatible with the doctrine of initial interest confusion. CA.69 Understandably, certain courts have expressed dissatisfaction with initial interest confusion,

holding that it leads to a finding that trade-mark holders have an exclusive right to their marks irrespective of the manner in which the domain name is used, a notion which is incompatible with traditional trade-mark principles.73

CA.70 (ff )  Passing Off  A passing off claim can be asserted as a common law tort or by virtue of

the statutory codification of section 7 of the Trade-marks Act. In both instances, the foundation of an action for passing off is the protection of the plaintiff ’s goodwill or reputation that has come to be associated with the mark. The three necessary components of a passing off action are the existence of goodwill, deception of the public due to a misrepresentation, and actual or potential damage to the plaintiff.74

CA.71 In a case that has become widely recognized as the leading Internet-related case in Canada,

the British Columbia Supreme Court in BCAA et al. v Office and Professional Employees’ Int Union et al.75 applied the principles of passing off to the Internet.

CA.72 The defendant was a trade union that represented some of the plaintiff ’s employees in various

service centres throughout British Columbia. In January 1999, the BCAA employees, represented by the defendant, began a lawful strike action. The defendant established three successive websites to publicize the strike by employees. The first website, located at ­‘bcaaonstrike. com’ and ‘picketline.com’, was fundamentally similar in look and feel to the plaintiff ’s website, utilizing the same colours, frames, and toolbars, while also including the plaintiff ’s meta­ tags on its website,76 as well as the trade-marks of the plaintiff and the Canadian Automobile Association (CAA). Faced with objections from the plaintiff, the defendant redesigned its website twice. The second website was similar in appearance to the plaintiff ’s website, but removed references to the CAA logo and other marks owned by the plaintiff. The third website, which could be accessed at ‘bcaabacktowork.com’, as well as ‘bcaaonstrike.com’ and ‘picketline.com’, differed in appearance to the plaintiff ’s website.

CA.73 The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s use of the domain names ‘bcaaonstrike.com’ and

‘bcaabacktowork.com’ and the metatags in connection with the defendant’s website constituted passing off.

CA.74 Following an extensive review of US and UK jurisprudence, which the Court noted as being

of ‘some guidance’77 (presumably in light of the dearth of Canadian case law), Sigurdson J

73  Hasbro Inc v Clue Computing Inc, 66 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D. Mass. 1999), affirmed [2000] US App. Lexis 27856 (1st Cir. 2000); The Network Network v CBS Inc, CV-98-1349 (C.D. Cal. 2000). 74  Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd v Apotex Inc (1992), 44 C.P.R. (3d) 289 (S.C.C.). 75  British Columbia Automobile Assn et al. v Office and Professional Employees’ International Union, Local 378 et al., [2001] B.C.J. No 151 (B.C.S.C.). 76  A metatag is the information contained in the source code of a website document, and is specifically designed to be machine readable by search engines. The information generally appears at the beginning of the source code, and is not seen by Internet users unless they view the source code of the page. Many web pages include these metatags as key word summaries of the contents of a document to increase its searchability by search engines, thereby making it easier for users to locate the sites on the Internet. 77  Above note 66 at para 69.

246

IV.  Court Litigation held that the current version of the website, including its domain names, did not constitute passing off as there was no likelihood of confusion between the competing sites. The Court held that a number of factors obviated a likelihood of confusion, including the addition of ‘backtowork’ or ‘onstrike’ in the domain names and the fact that the defendant was not competing commercially with the plaintiff, but rather attempting to communicate its message to the public about its labour relations campaign.78 Freedom of speech was invoked as a defence. The Court agreed that the common law should CA.75 be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,79 stating that when ‘a website is used for expression in a labour relations dispute, as opposed to commercial competition, there is, I think, a reasonable balance that must be struck between legitimate protection of a party’s intellectual property and a citizen’s or a Union’s right of expression’.80 A  number of decisions rendered by foreign courts reflect a general intolerance for cyber- CA.76 squatters, and provide some guidance, with a number of courts adopting an expansive view of trade-mark law in order to accommodate the vagaries of domain names. One such case, which was relied upon by the Court in BCAA et al. v Office and Professional Employees’ Int. Union et al., is the widely cited case of British Telecommunications plc v One in a Million.81 The defendants were dealers in domain names comprised of well-known trade-marks. The English Court of Appeal held that the mere registration of the disputed domain names constituted ‘use’ and supported a claim for passing-off in cases where a defendant was using a domain name as an ‘instrument of fraud’ by registering it and then offering it for sale to the corresponding trade-mark owner.82 In Panavision International LP v Toeppen,83 the defendant registered the domain names ‘pana- CA.77 vision.com’ and ‘panaflex.com’ and then attempted to sell them to the plaintiff trade-mark owner. The defendant had also registered other third-party trade-marks to which he was not entitled, including domain names incorporating marks owned by Delta Airlines, Neiman Marcus, and Eddie Bauer. The Court held that for the purposes of trade-mark dilution, mere registration of a domain name without more is not typical commercial use, although in this case the defendant had gone beyond the mere registration of domain names as he had registered the domain names with the intention of selling them for a profit to the trade-mark owners. In the view of the Court, such activity constituted a ‘scheme’ qualifying as ‘commercial use’.84 The finding by US and UK courts that the mere registration of domain names in a cyber- CA.78 squatting context constitutes commercial use may be of some relevance in Canada, where such activity is not captured by the definition of ‘use’ under the Trade-marks Act. Accordingly, depending upon the factual matrix at play, the somewhat more expansive interpretation of ‘use’ is worthy of consideration.

78  However, the Court held that the defendant’s first website constituted passing off, finding the website to be ‘very similar’ to the plaintiff ’s website, and demonstrating ‘an intention to mislead people looking for the BCAA site in order to get the public to read what appeared on its website’ (see para 211). 79  Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982 (UK) c. 11. 80  Above note 75 at para 130. 81  British Telecommunications plc v One-in-a-Million Ltd; Ladbroke plc v same; Sainsbury plc v same; Virgin Enterprises Ltd v same; Marks & Spencer plc v same [1999] F.S.R. 1. 82  Ibid., at p 497. 83  Panavision International LP v Toeppen, 945 F. Supp. 1296 (C.D. Cal. 1996), affirmed 141 F. 3d 1316 (9th Circuit, 1998). 84 Ibid.

247

Canada (‘.ca’) CA.79 (gg) Depreciation of Goodwill  Section 22 of the Trade-marks Act provides a further

remedy in addition to those available under sections 19 and 20, prohibiting the use of a trade-mark registered by another person in a manner that is likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attaching to the mark. Depreciation of goodwill occurs when there has been a reduction of the esteem in which the mark itself is held.85

CA.80 In BCAA et al. v Office and Professional Employees’ Int Union et al., the plaintiff alleged that the

defendant’s use of its marks depreciated the value of the goodwill attaching to them.

CA.81 In rejecting the plaintiff ’s claim that the Union depreciated the value of its trade-marks, the

Court held that the Union was not using the marks in association with an offering of ‘services’ for a commercial purpose. Instead, the Union was using the marks as part of a website that provided services to its members and information to the public. No fees were charged, no services were sold, and no profits were intended to be earned. The Court also concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant’s use was likely to depreciate the goodwill attaching to its registered trade-marks.

CA.82 The Court’s interpretation of section 22 was not entirely accurate. To properly invoke

section 22, there is no requirement that a defendant use the trade-mark as a trade-mark, although a commercial context is likely necessary. In other words, there is no need for the defendant to be using the plaintiff ’s trade-mark to indicate falsely the source or origin of the wares or services, which appears to have been the Court’s interpretation in this case.86

CA.83 The Court held that the Union was entitled to express its position and speak freely provided

it did not violate section 22: ‘I think that to accept the plaintiff ’s argument, that the reference to an employer’s trade-mark to identify a Union site depreciates goodwill associated with that trade-mark, would be a result that goes far beyond what Parliament intended by s. 22.’87

(b)  Infringement of Famous Marks CA.84 The US Federal Trademark Dilution Act88 protects famous marks from uses that dilute

their distinctiveness, even in the absence of any likelihood of confusion or competition.89 Therefore, it is possible to use a dilution cause of action against users of the same mark even when the defendant’s goods and services bear no relation to the goods or services of the famous mark.

CA.85 Unlike the US, Canadian law does not specifically provide for the protection of famous marks.

Canadian courts have generally shown a reluctance to extend exclusivity to a trade-mark beyond the class of wares or services in respect of which it has been used. A famous mark is entitled to a broad ambit of protection, although what is meant by this is that it is ‘necessary to adjust the weight given to the individual criteria or to the surrounding circumstances’.90 In cases of famous marks ‘the courts have held that the distinction between the wares and the   Clairol Int’l Corp et al. v Thomas Supply & Equipment Co Ltd et al. (1968), 55 C.P.R. 176 (Ex. Ct.).   Kelly Gill and R Scott Jolliffe, Fox on Canadian Law of Trade-marks and Unfair Competition 4th edn (Toronto: Carswell, 2001). 87  British Columbia Automobile Assn et al. v Office and Professional Employees’ International Union, Local 378 et al., above note 75 at para 167. 88  The Federal Trademark Dilution Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051. 89  The Federal Trademark Dilution Act, ibid., defines trade-mark dilution as ‘the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services regardless of the presence or absence of (1) competition between the owner of the famous mark and other parties; or (2) the likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception’. The Act provides for injunctive relief to owners of famous marks against another’s use of the mark if: (1) the use of the mark is commercial; (2) the use began after the senior mark became famous; and (3) the use dilutes the distinctive quality of the mark. 90  United Artists Corp v Pink Panther Beauty Corp, above note 68 at p 265. 85 86

248

IV.  Court Litigation nature of the trade of the two competing marks becomes less important’.91 However, some connection between the goods or services is needed for a finding of confusion; where ‘no such connection is established, it is difficult to justify the extension of property rights into areas which do not remotely affect the trade-mark holder, save in exceptional cases’.92 As held by the Court in United Artists Corp v Pink Panther Beauty Corp: ‘No matter how famous a mark is, it cannot be used to create a connection that does not exist.’93 Canadian Courts have not ruled on the issue of famous marks in the context of the Internet. CA.86 However, based upon the case law, it would be reasonable to conclude that a nexus between the goods and services would be necessary in most cases.

(2) Trade Names and Other Commercial Designations The Trade-marks Act defines a trade-name as the ‘name under which any business is car- CA.87 ried on, whether or not it is the name of a corporation, a partnership or an individual’. Trade names do not identify or distinguish goods or services.94 The Trade-marks Act does not provide for the registration of trade names.95 Trade names are protected under the common law doctrine of passing off. In addition to identifying a business, if a trade name distinguishes its wares or services from those of others, it is also a trade-mark and may be protected as such.96 Unlike the UDRP, the CDRP expressly provides for the protection of trade names.97

CA.88

(3) Infringement of Personal Names In general, a person may only restrain the use of his name as a trade-mark where either the CA.89 name is used by someone not bearing the name or by someone who does bear the name but is acting fraudulently. The plaintiff will need to show that the name is being used in a trade-mark sense. CIRA’s registration rules do not prevent the registration of personal names as domain names. CA.90 Further, the CDRP provides that a registrant can legitimize its registration by showing that the domain name comprises the legal name of the registrant or is a name, surname, or other reference by which the registrant is commonly identified.98

91  Leaf Confections Ltd v Maple Leaf Gardens Ltd (1986), 12 C.P.R. (3d) 511 (F.C.T.D.), affirmed 19 C.P.R. (3d) 331 (F.C.A.). 92  United Artists Corp v Pink Panther Beauty Corp, above note 68 at p 268. 93  United Artists Corp v Pink Panther Beauty Corp, ibid., at p 267. See also Lexus Foods Inc v Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha ata Toyota Motor Corp (2000), 9 C.P.R. (4th) 297 (F.C.A.); Jaguar Cars Ltd v Remo Imports Ltd (2001), 12 C.P.R. (4th) 393 (F.C.A.); Berry Bros & Rudd Ltd v Planta Tabak-Manufactur Dr (1980), 53 C.P.R. (2d) 130 (F.C.T.D.); Joseph E Seagram & Sons Ltd v Seagram Real Estate Ltd (1990), 33 C.P.R. (3d) 454; Miss Universe, Inc v Bohna, above note 66. 94  Optagest Canada Inc v Services Optométriques Inc (1991), 37 CPR (3d) 28 at p 35 (F.C.T.D.): the registration of a trade-name or the formation of a company under a particular name, without more, does not constitute use of a trade-mark. For discussion on concurrent trade name and trade-mark use, see Playboy Enterprises, Inc v Germain (1979), 43 C.P.R. (2d) 271 (F.C.A.); Lefrance & Bourgeois (Can) Ltee-Ltd v Societe des coureurs Lefrance & Bourgeois (1979), 65 C.P.R. (2d) 131 (T.M.O.B.); Dubiner v Cheerio Toys & Games Ltd (1964), 44 C.P.R. 134 (Ex. Ct.), affirmed [1966] S.C.R. 206 (S.C.C.). 95  Trade names may be registered under applicable provincial or federal legislation. 96  Pizza Pizza Ltd v Canada Registrar of Trade-marks (1989), 26 C.P.R. (3d) 355 (F.C.A.). 97  Above note 9 at para 3.2(a): ‘Mark’ is defined as including a trade name. See also Browne & Co Ltd v Bluebird Industries, Resolution Canada Inc, Case No 00002. 98  Above note 9 at para 3.6(e).

249

Canada (‘.ca’) (4) Infringement of Literary Titles CA.91 Generally, causes of action may arise by reason of the misuse of trade-marks that consist of

the titles or names of literary or artistic works, including newspapers, periodicals, magazines, books, paintings, and films, if distinctive.99

(5) Name of Cities and Other Public Law Corporations CA.92 As per the General Registration Rules, CIRA has reserved for registration in the ‘.ca’ space

the names, and abbreviations of names, of Canadian provinces and territories, as well as the names of cities, towns, villages, hamlets, and other municipal or district references appearing in the Canadian Geographical Names Database for the corresponding municipalities.100 The process of registering such names is outlined in the Registration of Municipal Names Policy, Rules and Procedures.101

CA.93 The CDRP provides that a registrant may legitimize its registration by showing that

the disputed domain name is ‘the geographical name of the location of the registrant’s non-commercial activity or place of business’.102

CA.94 Generally, these types of indicators will be considered non-distinctive unless a secondary

meaning can be established, in which case passing off principles would apply.

(6) Infringement of Geographical Indications, Indications of Source, and Other Geographical Terms CA.95 As with city names, geographical indicators are inherently non-distinctive, but if a secondary

meaning can be established, they could be entitled to protection.

CA.96 In a case involving the domain name ‘canadian.biz’, the Ontario Superior Court in Black v

Molson Canada103 overturned a decision made pursuant to the Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (STOP), where the panel had ordered the transfer of the disputed domain name to Molson Canada. Black indicated that he intended to use the domain name in connection with a ‘profit-seeking venture’, which did not conflict with Molson Canada’s field of interest. In reversing the panel’s decision, the Court found that Molson Canada did not have an exclusive right to use the word ‘Canadian’ beyond the scope of its registration, and that if such a finding of exclusivity were made, the only person who could legitimately register ‘canadian.biz’ was Molson Canada.

IV.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name CA.97 A domain name will acquire trade-mark rights if it is used in the trade-mark sense, namely,

to distinguish the goods and services of one trader from those goods and services of others.

99 Canadian case law suggests that titles and headlines may not be protected by copyright:  British Columbia v Mihaljevic (1989), 26 C.P.R. (3d) 184; affirmed (1991), 36 C.P.R. (3d) 445 (B.C.C.A.); Shewan v Canada (1999), 87 C.P.R. (3d) 475 (Ont. S.C.J.). 100  Above note 4 at para 3.3(d). 101  Registration of Municipal Name Policy, Rules and Procedures, online: Canadian Internet Registration Authority http://cira.ca/sites/default/files/attachment/policies/caarmn-01_0.pdf. 102  Above note 9 at para 3.6(f ). 103  Black v Molson Canada (2002), 60 O.R. (3d) 457, 21 C.P.R. (4th) 52 (Ont. S.C.J.). This is the first Canadian Court case where an arbitration award regarding a domain name has been considered. Although the finding in this case was ultimately correct, the Court carried out its own examination of the STOP factors, rather than conducting a judicial review of the case and considering the applicability of Canadian trade-mark principles.

250

VII. Remedies However, the mere registration or use of a domain name as a surrogate for an Internet Protocol (IP) address, which is a numeric address such as 192.131.42.2 that a server translates into a domain name, will not give rise to trade-mark rights.

V.  The Use of Descriptive Terms as Domain Names There are no restrictions with respect to the registration of descriptive ‘.ca’ domain names. CA.98 Further, under the CDRP, a registrant can legitimize its registration if it can show that it has been using a descriptive or generic domain name in good faith.104

VI.  The Liability of Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers To date, Canadian courts have not addressed the liability of CIRA. Absent gross negligence CA.99 or wilful misconduct, courts may hesitate to impose liability on the registry, as by doing so, CIRA would be in the burdensome and impractical position of having to police its registrations and registrars. In somewhat analogous circumstances, US courts have avoided making a finding of registrar liability.105

VII. Remedies (1)  Court Action Thus far, there have only been a handful of court decisions dealing with domain names. The CA.100 majority of these cases involved applications for interlocutory relief and did not call for a determination of the cases on their merits.106 Courts have considered a number of remedies, including declaratory and injunctive relief.107 In Itravel2000.com Inc (c.o.b. Itravel) v Fagan,108 the first Canadian court case dealing with a CA.101 ‘.ca’ domain name, the plaintiff was a travel retailer and wholesaler, which carried on business as ‘itravel’ and operated a website at ‘itravel2000.com’. The defendant, who was not in the travel

  Above note 9 at para 3.6(d), (e).   Lockheed Martin Corp v Network Solutions, Inc, 985 F. Supp. 949 (C.D.Cal. 1997), affirmed 194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999); Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences v Network Solutions Inc, 989 F. Supp. 1216 (C.D. Cal. 1997). 106  Software Guy Brokers Ltd v Hardy, [2004] B.C.J. No 95 (B.C.S.C.); Law Society of British Columbia v Canada Domain Name Exchange Corp., above note 72; Canadian Fly-In Fishing (Red Lake) Ltd v Lac Seul Airways Ltd, [2002] O.J. No 1988 (Ont. S.C.J.); Innersense International Inc v Manegre, [2000] A.J. No 613 (Alta. Q.B.); Itravel2000.com Inc. (c.o.b. Itravel) v Fagan (2001), 11 CPR (4th) 164 (Ont. S.C.J.); Rolls-Royce plc v Fitzwilliam, [2002] F.C.J. No 788 (F.C.T.D.); Weight Watchers International, Inc v Vale Printing Ltd (2000), 7 C.P.R. (4th) 92 (F.C.T.D.); Airline Seat Co v 1396804 Ontario Inc (2000), 8 C.P.R. (4th) 12 (Ont. S.C.J.); Bell Actimedia Inc v Puzo (Communications Globe Tete), above note 63; Canada Post Corp v Epost Innovations Inc, [1999] F.C.J. No 1297 (F.C.T.D.); Epost Innovations Inc v Canada Post Corp, [1999] B.C.J. No 2060 (B.C.S.C.); Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc v Canadian Business Online Inc, [1997] F.C.J. No 1387 (F.C.T.D.); Toronto.com v Sinclair (c.o.b. Frienship Enterpises), [2000] F.C.J. No 795; Peinet Inc v O’Brien, [1995] P.E.I.J. No 68 (P.E.I.S.C.). 107  Bell Actimedia Inc v Puzo (Communications Globe Tete), ibid.; Law Society of British Columbia v Canada Domain Name Exchange Corp., ibid.; Itravel2000.com Inc. (c.o.b. Itravel) v Fagan, ibid.; Innersense International Inc v Manegre, ibid.; Black v Molson Canada, above note 104. 108  Itravel2000.com Inc (c.o.b. Itravel) v Fagan, ibid. 104 105

251

Canada (‘.ca’) business, registered ‘itravel.ca’, and indicated that he would sell the domain name to a third party if the plaintiff did not purchase the domain name for CDN$75,000.00. The plaintiff was successful in its application for interlocutory relief, with the Court granting an order restraining the defendant from selling, transferring, disposing of, pledging or encumbering, dealing with, or using the domain name. This is the typical interlocutory relief sought in cybersquatting cases. CA.102 In Innersense International Inc v Manegre,109 the defendant, a consultant who developed the ‘innersense.

com’ website for the plaintiff, resigned from her position. The defendant’s brother registered the domain name when it expired and proceeded to offer it back to the plaintiff for CDN$20,000.00, as well as advertising it for sale. In granting an interim injunction on an ex parte basis restraining the use of the domain name, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that the ‘possibly simple and quick transferability and marketability’110 of the domain name resulted in a finding that the balance of convenience was best served by granting the application for interim relief.

CA.103 As is typical of trade-mark cases, damages are infrequently awarded in domain name cases,

and when they are, they tend to be nominal amounts. In granting permanent injunctive relief in an undefended action in Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group Inc v Noton,111 the Court awarded the plaintiff CDN$5,000.00 in the way of general damages.

CA.104 In awarding punitive damages in the amount of CDN$5,000.00 in the undefended action

of eGalaxy Multimedia Inc v Bailey,112 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that the defendant’s ‘conduct deserves public censure, that he committed multiple independent actionable wrongs and that an award of punitive damages would serve the rational purpose of discouraging others from engaging in similar conduct’.113

CA.105 This case follows the Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group Inc v Noton decision, where the Court

noted that an award of punitive damages ‘may be appropriate in the future if, after several decisions such as this, the defendant or others persist in the activity’.114

(2) Canadian Internet Registration Authority Dispute Resolution Policy (a)  Transfer or Cancellation CA.106 The CDRP provides for the cancellation or transfer of the disputed domain name should the com-

plainant meet with success. In a case where the complainant does not fulfil a Canadian Presence Requirement, the domain name may be transferred to a nominee of the complainant,115 who itself must satisfy a Canadian Presence Requirement. From a reading of the CDRP, it is unclear what, if any, relationship the nominee must have with the complainant or to the domain name.

(b)  Cancellation of Domain Name by CIRA CA.107 Trade-mark owners may wish to consider seeking the cancellation of a ‘.ca’ domain name, which

is only available in limited circumstances. CIRA can request that a registrant, through its registrar, verify the accuracy of the registrant information. If the registrant does not provide the necessary confirmatory update, CIRA has the discretionary authority to cancel the domain name registration.116 If no response is received from the registrant, the entire process from beginning to end takes approximately 90 calendar days, which includes a 60 calendar day suspension period.   Innersense International Inc v Manegre, above note 107.   Ibid., at para 17. 111  Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group v Noton, [2001] S.J. No 275 (Sask. Q.B.). 112  eGalaxy Multimedia Inc v Bailey, [2002] O.J. Nos 5002 and 5003. 113  Ibid., at para 1. 114  Above note 112 at para 20. 115  Above note 9 at para 4.3. 116  Registrant Agreement, Version 1.5, available at:  http://cira.ca/sites/default/files/attachment/policies/ registrantagreement_-_en.pdf. 109 110

252

VII. Remedies Upon the expiration of the domain name, CIRA will not hand the domain name over to the CA.108 moving party; rather, the domain name will be dropped into the public pool for registration on a first-come first-served basis. As such, it is incumbent upon the trade-mark owner to take all reasonable steps to attempt to secure the registration, which includes placing a back-order.

(3)  Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act The US statute, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), provides a civil CA.109 cause of action against anyone who, with a bad faith intent to profit, registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that is confusingly similar, or identical, to a distinctive mark, or confusingly similar, or dilutive of, a famous mark. Courts have the authority to grant injunctions, award damages, including statutory damages between CDN$1,000.00 and CDN$100,000.00 per domain name, order the forfeiture, transfer, or cancellation of a domain name, as well as costs and attorney fees.117 From a Canadian perspective, the most salient feature of the ACPA is the availability of an CA.110 in rem action.118 The ACPA allows a trade-mark owner to file an in rem action against the domain name itself if personal jurisdiction is unavailable, or if the infringer cannot be located following a diligent effort to do so. The judicial district in which the domain name registrar or registry is located determines where the action is filed.119 The remedies in an in rem action are limited to a court order for the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark.120 The Heathmount AE Corp v Technodome.com121 case illustrates the broad applicability of the CA.111 ACPA, which involved a Canadian plaintiff and a Canadian defendant. The defendant’s only connection to the US was that its domain name was registered with Network Solutions, Inc, located in Virginia. The plaintiff brought an in rem action against the domain name ‘technodome.com’. In denying the registrant’s motion to dismiss the claim based upon forum non conveniens grounds, the Court held that an in rem action is available where a plaintiff has shown that personal jurisdiction cannot be asserted over a defendant.122 Canadian parties with a presence in the US, or who are dealing with a registrant with some CA.112 connection to the US, be it either through commerce or through the registration of a domain name, should consider availing themselves of the ACPA, be it through attempting to assert in personam jurisdiction over the defendant, or in rem jurisdiction over a domain name.

  Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. s 112(d).   Ibid., at s 1125(d)(2). 119  Ibid., at s 1125(d)(2)(a). 120  Ibid., at s 1125(d)(2)(d). The in rem provisions of the ACPA have been held to be constitutional and do not violate due process: Caesar’s World, Inc v Caesar’sPalace.com, 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1121 (E.D. Va. 2000); FleetBoston Financial Corp v FleetBostonFinancial.com, 138 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D. Mass. 2001). 121  Heathmount AE Corp v Technodome.com, 2000 US Dist. LEXIS 10591 (E.D. Va. July 24, 2000). 122 Ibid. Subsequent decisions have extended the statute further by allowing claims based on foreign trade-marks and foreign domain name registrations—Barcelona.com v Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, 189 F. Supp. 2d. 367, 376 (E.D. Va. 2002): the Court held that the ACPA makes no distinction between US and foreign marks within the statute’s text; Cable News Network v CNNews.com, Cable News Network v CNNews.com, 162 F. Supp. 2d 484 (E.D.Va. September 18, 2001): the plaintiff was located in Georgia, the Registrant and Registrar in China and the Registry in Virginia. The Court found that in rem jurisdiction was constitutionally proper when a court sits in the same district in which the Registry is located; Globalsantafe Corp v Globalsantafe.com, 250 F. Supp. 2d 610, 612 (E.D.Va. 2003): the Court ordered the domain name Registry to remove a domain name from the Registry. In an earlier decision, a US court had found that the domain name infringed a trade-mark and had ordered the cancellation of the domain name registration. The Registrar, located in Korea, then secured a Korean Court ruling barring it from complying with the cancellation order. The US Court dismissed any claim of comity, holding that the first court to take jurisdiction over property in rem may exercise that jurisdiction. 117 118

253

Canada (‘.ca’)

VIII.  Domain Names as Items of Property (1)  Assignment and Licensing of Domain Names CA.113 Subject to CIRA’s registration rules, ‘.ca’ domain names may be assigned and licensed.

(2) Execution of Domain Names CA.114 To many, domain names appear to be property as they are valued, bought,123 sold, licensed,

and ‘lend’ themselves to exclusive ‘ownership’. Initially, there was no clear determination as to whether a domain name was a property right or a contract right for registration services in Canada.124 However, that has changed and there is now good support for characterizing a domain name as intangible property.

CA.115 In Easthaven Ltd v Nutrisystem.com Inc,125 Nordheimer J writing for the Ontario Superior

Court of Justice, stated that while it ‘does seem difficult to characterize a domain name as property’,126 a ‘domain name, like a copyright or a trade-mark, could be properly characterized as intangible property’.127 In seeking to deposit a disputed domain name into the control of the Court in Molson Breweries v Kuettner,128 Madam Prothonotary Aronovitch appeared willing to accept that a domain name could be characterized as intangible property.129

CA.116 In 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Tucows.Com Co v Lojas Renner SA served

as a fairly persuasive authority for the proposition that domain names are indeed intangible property.130 Relying on the Kremen case, the Court concluded a domain name was intangible property as it satisfied a three-part test for the existence of a property right: (1) it is an interest capable of precise definition; (2) it is capable of exclusive possession or control; and (3) it is capable of giving rise to a legitimate claim for exclusivity. Further, the decision supports the position that a domain name is considered personal property under statutes such as the Personal Property Security Acts or the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

IX.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (1)  International Jurisdiction CA.117 Canadian courts traditionally exercise jurisdiction where a ‘real and substantial connection’

exists between the subject matter of an action and the jurisdiction.131

  The domain name ‘creditcards.com’ recently sold for USD$2.75 million.  In Lockheed Martin Corp v Network Solutions, Inc, above note 106, the Court held that the domain names in issue were not a tangible property, and the Registrar only provided a service, characterizing the service as a ‘rote translation service’. See also Network Solutions, Inc v Umbro Int’l, Inc, 529 S.E.2d 80, 86 (Va. Supr. Ct. 2000), where the Supreme Court of Virginia held that domain names should be considered services rather than property and concluded that domain names are not proper subjects for garnishment. The Court overturned the South Carolina federal district court in Umbro International, Inc v 3263851 Canada, Inc, 1999 W.L. 117760 (Va. Cir. Ct.), where the Court held that domain names are property and may be judicially disposed of, and ordered the domain name turned over to the Registry of the court for sale. See also Wornow v Register.Com Inc, NY App. Div., No 3817-3818, (6/8/04). 125  Easthaven Ltd v Nutrisystem.com Inc (2001), 55 O.R. (3d) 334 (Ont. S.C.J.). 126  Ibid. The Court also held that Ontario did not have a real and substantial connection to the subject matter of a domain name dispute by virtue of the fact that the Registrar was located in the province. 127  Ibid., at para 24. 128  Molson Breweries v Kuettner (1999), 3 C.P.R. (4th) 479 (F.C.T.D.). 129 In Kremen v Cohen, CV-98-20718-JW (9th Cir. Jul. 25, 2003), the Court held that the plaintiff had an intangible property right in his domain name susceptible to a claim for conversion. The defendant, Network Solutions, Inc, agreed that a domain name was an intangible form of property. 130  Tucows.Com Co v Lojas Renner SA, 2011 ONCA 548. 131  Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye (1990), 76 D.L.R. (4th) 256 (S.C.C.). 123 124

254

IX.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law Canadian courts have adopted the lex loci delicti rule in connection with a determination of CA.118 choice of law for tort actions (eg passing off). This rule provides that the law to be applied to torts should be the law where the activity occurred.132 Canadian jurisprudence relating to jurisdiction continues to develop in Canada, with CA.119 Canadian courts borrowing heavily from US case law in attempting to define what is meant by a ‘real and substantial’ connection in the Internet context. Courts have applied the Zippo sliding scale test in determining whether to assert CA.120 jurisdiction.133 At one end of the scale are active websites, which include cases where a defendant clearly does business over the Internet by entering into contracts with residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet. Courts are likely to assert jurisdiction in these types of cases. At the other end of the scale are passive websites, which do little more than make information available to those who are interested. These websites provide insufficient grounds for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. Between these two extremes are those websites characterized as interactive. Interactive web- CA.121 sites enable a user to exchange information with the host computer. In some instances, these sites may tailor their own output to reflect the user’s indicated interests. The exercise of jurisdiction in these cases is determined by examining the level of interactivity and the commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs over the web. In considering the issue of a real and substantial connection, the British Columbia Court of CA.122 Appeal in Braintech v Kostiuk134 relied on the Zippo test. The Court reversed the lower court’s order enforcing a judgment obtained in the United States against a Canadian citizen who had posted an allegedly defamatory statement on an Internet bulletin board. The Court held that the bulletin board was essentially a passive site and that the mere fact that a US resident read the statement on the Internet was an insufficient ground for the American court to exercise jurisdiction. Some US courts have shifted their focus away from the characteristics of the website to CA.123 the actual effects of the website. This has become known as the ‘targeted’ or ‘effects-based’ test. The Illinois District Court in Ty v Baby Me135 held that it had jurisdiction over the Hawaii-based defendant since the website targeted individuals outside of Hawaii, and sold its product to at least one Illinois resident.136 At this point, it is not evident whether Canadian courts will move toward the effects-based test.137 As discussed more fully above, Canadians may avail themselves of the ACPA under the right CA.124 circumstances. Please refer to Section VII for a discussion on the applicability of the ACPA, as well as the national law chapter for the United States.

  Tolofson v Jensen (1994), 120 D.L.R. (4th) 289 (S.C.C.).   Zippo Manufacturing v Zippo, 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D.Pa. 1997). 134  Braintech v Kostiuk (1999), 171 DLR (4th) 46 (B.C.C.A.). 135  Ty v Baby Me (N.D. Ill. 2001), Case No 00 C 6016. 136  See also Millennium Enterprises, Inc, d/b/a Music Millennium, et  al. v Millennium Music, et  al., 33 F. Supp. 2d 907 (D. Or., Jan. 4, 1999). 137  For a comprehensive discussion on Internet jurisdiction in Canada, please see Michael Geist’s paper entitled Is There a There There? Toward Greater Certainty for Internet Jurisdiction, located at: http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/geistjurisdiction-us.pdf. 132 133

255

CZECH REPUBLIC (‘.cz’) Radka MacGregor Pelikánová and Ladislav Jakl

I. Overview of the National System of the Protection of Trademarks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs 

(1) Principal National Sources of Law for the Protection of Marks and Signs  (2) Types of Protected IP Rights  (3) Protection Via Unfair Competition Laws  (4) Domain Names 

II. The ccTLD (‘.cz’) Registration and Conditions and Procedures 

(1) The Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry for ‘.cz’  (2) Registration Principles and Structure of the Name Space  (3) Registration Procedure  (4) Transfer of Domain Names  (5) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding  (6) Statistics 

(7) Role of the Administrative Panel  CZ.81 (8) Costs  CZ.86 (9) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceeding  CZ.94 (10) Appeals  CZ.95 (11) ADR Decision  CZ.98 (12) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by Administrative Panel CZ.101 (13) Comparison Between ADR and UDRP CZ.111 IV.  Court Litigation CZ.115 (1) Abusive Domain Registration CZ.118 (2) Infringement of Trademarks CZ.121 (3) The Registration of Generic and Descriptive Terms as Trademarks CZ.133 (4) Infringement of Personal Names, Names of Cities, and Other Public Law Corporations CZ.134 (5) Geographical Indications of Source CZ.138 (6) Remedies CZ.139

CZ.01 CZ.01 CZ.04 CZ.20 CZ.23 CZ.27 CZ.27 CZ.32 CZ.36 CZ.41 CZ.43 CZ.47

V. Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  CZ.151 VI. Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers  CZ.153 VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  CZ.155 VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law  CZ.156

III. ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.cz’ Domain Space 

CZ.50 (1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding  CZ.50 (2) Statistics  CZ.53 (3) Material Scope of the Proceeding  CZ.56 (4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding  CZ.57 (5) Overview of the ADR-Procedure  CZ.60 (6) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider  CZ.77

(1) International Jurisdiction (2) Choice of Law (3) Substantive Law

Links Institutions: Industrial Property Office of the Czech Republic: http://www.upv.cz1 CZ.NIC (Czech Registry): http://www.nic.cz2 Prague Arbitration Court: http://en.soud.cz/

1 2

  Also available in English and German.   Also available in English.

257

CZ.156 CZ.158 CZ.160

Czech Republic (‘.cz’) Registration and ADR Rules: Rules of Domain Names Registration under the TLD.cz (Registration Rules): http://www.nic. cz/files/nic/doc/Registration_rules_CZ_ADR_rules_20150301.pdf CZ.NIC Rules for Alternative Dispute Resolution (Rules of ADR): http://www.nic.cz/files/nic/ doc/Registration_rules_CZ_ADR_rules_20150301.pdf Business Terms and Conditions for Registrars (Business Terms): http://www.nic.cz/files/nic/doc/Business_Terms_20140101.pdf Prague Arbitration Court Rules for .cz dispute resolution (‘.cz’ Rules):  http://en.soud.cz/ downloads/cz_rules.pdf The Rules of the Arbitration Court—Prague Arbitration Court General ADR Rules (General ADR Rules): http://en.soud.cz/rules/rules-in-effect-since-1st-july-2012 Additional procedures for online arbitration (On-line Rules): http://en.soud.cz/rules/additional-procedures-for-on-line-arbitration-1st-june-2004 Alternative Dispute Resolution Decisions: ADR Decisions regarding ‘.cz’ domains: http://domeny.soud.cz/adr/decisions/index.php

I.  Overview of the National System of the Protection of Trademarks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs (1)  Principal National Sources of Law for the Protection of Marks and Signs CZ.01 Czech national law belongs to the Continental (Civil) law family and, similar to other national

laws sharing the Roman tradition, there is a hierarchy of legal sources and norms with a strong drive towards legislation and codification. Thus, constitutional law, including the Constitution3 and Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, is of paramount importance, and all other statutes (including the new Civil Code,4 and Acts dealing with intellectual property rights (IPR)) must comply with it.

CZ.02 In the Czech Republic there is no unified intellectual property law, but rather a series of individ-

ual laws governing intellectual property rights. Some of these are Czech national statues, while others are invoked due to Czech participation in international conventions and treaties, as well as membership in the European Union (EU).5 As of 2014, the Czech Republic’s former Civil Code6 and Commercial Code7 were terminated, replaced by a single, expanded new Civil Code.8 This conceptual change may have an impact on IPR, although it would appear that the practical consequences will be limited.

CZ.03 Currently, the Czech national legal basis regarding marks and signs is included in the new

Civil Code9 and in a myriad of particular IP statutes and ordinances, such as the Trademark Act10 and the Ordinance,11 the Act on the Protection of Designation of Origin,12 and so on.

  Act No 1/1993 Coll., Constitution of the Czech Republic.   Act No 89/2012 Coll., (new) Civil Code. 5 MacGregor Pelikánová, Radka, Intellectual property rights and their enforcement in the Czech Republic. Journal on Legal and Economic Issues of Central Europe London, UK: STS Science Centre Ltd, Fall 2010, Vol 1/2010, No1, pp 15–18. 6  Act No 40/1964, Civil Code (CC). 7  Act No 513/1991 Coll., Commercial Code (ComC). 8  Act No 89/2012 Coll., (new) Civil Code. 9  Act No 89/2012 Coll., (new) Civil Code. 10  Act No 441/2003 Coll., Trademark Act. 11  Ordinance No 97/2004 Coll., to implement the Trademark Act. 12  Act No 452/2001 Coll., on Protection of Designation of Origin. 3 4

258

I.  Overview of the National System The procedural aspects are governed by the Civil Court Proceedings Order,13 Administrative Proceedings Order,14 Administrative Court Proceedings Order,15 and the Act on the Enforcement of Industrial Property Rights.16

(2) Types of Protected IP Rights Under the laws of the Czech Republic, there are three types of protection for signs and indi- CZ.04 cators of origin provided under the Act No 441/2003 Coll. on Trademarks (Trademarks Act), the Designations of Origin and Geographical Indications Act (in tandem with the amendment to the Act for Consumer Protection), and via the protections for business names under the new Civil Code. Additionally, rights holders may protect their signs from abuse by third parties through the laws of unfair competition. The Czech law belongs to the continental legal family and stresses the formal requirements with respect to IP. Generally, protection is provided to registered names, although there are a few notable exceptions.

(a) Trademarks In the Czech Republic, trademarks are governed by a number of Acts and regulations includ- CZ.05 ing: Trademarks Act, the Amendments to Act No 6/2002 Coll. on judgments, judges, assessors and state judgment administration, the Amendments to some other Acts (eg The Act on Courts and Judges), and the wording of later regulations based on Directive No 89/104/ EEC dated 21 December 1988, to harmonize the Laws of the Member States Relating to Trademarks.17 A trademark can consist of any sign capable of being represented graphically, particularly in CZ.06 words, including personal names, colours, designs, letters, and numerals, as well as the shape of goods or their packaging, provided that such sign is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of another undertaking.18 According to the Act, signs which are deemed to be, inter alia, non-distinctive, common-usage terms describing the designated product or service, mere functional components of a design, likely to deceive the public, or contrary to public morality, cannot be registered as trademarks within the Czech Republic.19 The following trademarks are protected in the territory of the Czech Republic: (a) trademarks registered by the Industrial Property Office; (b) trademarks registered with the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), on the basis of the Madrid Protocol, with effect in the Czech Republic; (c) trademarks registered by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM); and (d) trademarks which are well known in the territory of the Czech Republic within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property

  Act No 99/1963 Coll., Civil Court Proceedings Order.   Act No 500/2004 Coll., Administrative Proceedings Order. 15  Act No 150/2002 Coll., Administrative Court Proceedings Order. 16  Act No 221/2006 Coll., on Enforcement of Industrial Property Rights and on the Amendment of Industrial Property Protection Acts (Enforcement of Industrial Property Rights Act). 17  Act No 441/2003 Coll., on Trademarks dated 3 December 2003. An English translation is available at the website of the Czech Industrial Property Office at: http://www.upv.cz. 18  Jakl, Ladislav, Ochranné známky a označení původu. Praha: Úřad průmyslového vlatnictví, 2002; Jakl, Ladislav, Právní ochrana duševního vlastnictví při podnikání. Praha: Metropolitní univerzita Praha, 2011. 19  Some illustrative and helpful decisions concerning trademark registrations and validity are available in the following collections of administrative and court decisions, eg Pítra, Vladimír, Vybraná rozhodnutí z vynálezeckého práva. Praha: ÚPV, 1979; Jakl, Ladislav, Sbírka správních rozhodnutí ve věcech průmyslových práv. Praha: ÚPV, 1999; Horáček, Roman, Macek, Jiří and Biskupová, Eva, Sbírka správních a soudních rozhodnutí ve věcech průmyslového vlastnictví. Praha: C.H.Beck, 2007. 13 14

259

CZ.07

Czech Republic (‘.cz’) (the Paris Convention) and of Article 16 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (well-known trademarks). CZ.08 The agency responsible for registering trademarks in the Czech Republic is the Industrial

Property Office (IPO).20 The Office accepts trademark applications both in hardcopy and electronically, and forms are made available on the Office’s website.21

CZ.09 The proprietor of a trademark shall have the exclusive right to use the trademark in relation to

the relevant goods or services, and may utilize the ® symbol. The proprietor of the trademark may demonstrate his rights by means of an abstract from the official register or a certificate of registration.

CZ.10 Third parties may not use (without consent) in the course of trade: an identical sign for the

same goods or services; a sign likely to cause confusion with the trademark, due to the similarity of goods or services offered; a sign likely to cause confusion on the basis of the trademark’s well-known reputation, regardless of the goods or services in question.

CZ.11 In case of an infringement of trademark rights, the proprietor of the trademark has the

right to apply to the court for an injunction order to prohibit the infringement (current or impending) and remedy any resulting harm. The trademark holder may claim appropriate satisfaction, including pecuniary measures, in addition to requesting the surrender of unjustified enrichment, the destruction of infringing goods, and damages.

CZ.12 The Municipal Court in Prague acts as the court of first instance in disputes involving indus-

trial property claims, as well as for matters relating to Community trademarks under Article 92 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/1994 of 20 December 1993 on Community Trademarks, and on all matters relating to Community (industrial) designs pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community (industrial) designs. This court also has the capacity to review the final administrative decisions of the Industrial Property Office22 by virtue of a special regulation.23 Proceedings before the Municipal Court in Prague are always conducted by a specialist three-member panel.24 Cassation appeals can be filed with the Supreme Administrative Court.25

CZ.13 Trademark proceedings require, for certain foreigners, compulsory legal representation.

Persons who have an enterprise, permanent residency or seat in a state which is party to the Paris Convention, or a state which is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), or persons who are nationals of any such state, have the same rights as persons who are Czech nationals or who have their enterprise, permanent residency, or seat in the Czech Republic. Where a person is a national of a state which is not a party to the Paris Convention or a WTO

20  The Industrial Property Office is located at Antonina Cermaka str.2a, Praha 6, Czech Republic, and online at: http://www.upv.cz. 21  The Office’s website is available at: http://www.upv.cz. 22  The final decisions of the IPO can be challenged before the Municipal Court in Prague because it is the district court of the IPO and has jurisdiction for it pursuant to Act No 150/2002 Coll., Administrative Court Proceedings Order. Cassation appeals against such decisions can be ultimately decided by the Supreme Administrative Court in Brno. The jurisdiction of the Municipal Court in Prague is specially proclaimed by Act No 221/2006 Coll., on Enforcement of Industrial Property Rights and on the Amendment of Industrial Property Protection Acts (Enforcement of Industrial Property Rights Act), Section 6. 23  Act No 150/2002 Coll., Administrative Court Proceedings Order, Section 7 ff. Act No 221/2006 Coll., on Enforcement of Industrial Property Rights and on the Amendment of Industrial Property Protection Acts (Enforcement of Industrial Property Rights Act), Section 6, Act No 6/2002 Coll., on judges, Section 39 Al. 2. 24  Act No 221/2006 Coll., on Enforcement of Industrial Property Rights and on the Amendment of Industrial Property Protection Acts (Enforcement of Industrial Property Rights Act), Section 6. 25  Section 102 ff. Act No 150/2002 Coll., Court Administrative Proceedings Order, Section 102.

260

I.  Overview of the National System member, or where the person has an enterprise, permanent residency, or seat in such a state, the rights pursuant to the Trademark Act may be granted only on a condition of reciprocity. Any person who does not have an enterprise, permanent residency, or seat in the territory of the Czech Republic has to be represented by an active member of the Czech Bar Association in any proceedings on trademarks pursuant to special laws.26 This provision does not apply to either legal or natural persons who are nationals of a Member State of the EU, or of a state party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and who are domiciled in the territory of the Czech Republic or render services in the territory of the Czech Republic. These persons are merely required to appoint an address for service in the Czech Republic for any proceedings before the Office.27

(b)  Designation of Origin and Geographical Indications In the Czech Republic, designations of origin and geographical indications are governed CZ.14 by Act No 452/2001 Coll., on the Protection of Designations of Origin and Geographical Indications, and on the Amendment to the Act on Consumer Protection. The terms ‘designation of origin’ and ‘geographical indication’ refer to the name of a region CZ.15 (meaning a specific place or country, hereinafter ‘territory’) used for identification of the goods originating from this territory, provided that the quality or characteristics of these goods are exclusively or predominantly given by the special geographical environment unique to that territory, and provided that production, processing, and preparation of such goods takes place within the defined territory. Designations of origin and geographical indications are registered by the Industrial Property Office. Designation of origin for agricultural products also includes traditional geographical (or CZ.16 non-geographical) indications relating to the goods originating from the defined territory if such goods fulfil the required conditions.28 An indication which is identical to an already-protected designation of origin, geographical CZ.17 indication, well-known or registered trademark; an indication which is identical to the name of a plant variety or an animal breed; or any other designation which could lead to deceptive assumptions about the true origin of goods, may not be registered as a designation of origin or as a geographical indication for identical goods.

(c) Commercial Names Names of natural persons (people)29 and of artificial persons (legal entities)30 were protected CZ.18 by Act No 40/1964 Coll. of the Civil Code. In addition, persons conducting business and considered entrepreneurs pursuant to Act No 513/1991 Coll. of the Commercial Code had in principle to be registered in the Czech Commercial Register and use the commercial firm name as their registered name.31 Hence, according to the Czech Civil Code and Commercial Code, names and registered commercial firm names were protected against unauthorized use by third parties. The rights conferred by a firm name were absolute, and allowed the owner to   Act No 85/1996 Coll., on advocacy (attorneys at law).   Section 46 of Act No 441/2003 Coll., on Trademarks and on amendments to Act No 6/2002 Coll. on judgments, judges, assessors and state judgment administration and on amendments to some other Acts (Act on Courts and judges). 28  According to Section 2 Act No 452/2001 Coll., the designation of origin for agricultural products or foodstuffs can include traditional labelling provided there is a link between the quality features and the place of origin, thus even a non-geographical designation per se can become a designation of origin (appellation of origin). 29  Sections 11–16 of Act No 40/194 Coll., Civil Code. 30  Sections 18–20a of Act No 40/194 Coll., Civil Code. 31  Section 8 Act No 513/1991 Coll., Commercial Code. 26 27

261

Czech Republic (‘.cz’) forbid the use of a confusingly similar name by a third party. In the case of an infringement of such rights, the Commercial Code provided the injured party with a claim for an injunction, cancellation of the infringing commercial name registration and reasonable compensation. The particular requirements for the registration of commercial names by various types of business entities were provided in the Commercial Code. Since 1 January 2014, the names, including commercial firm names, have been covered by the new Civil Code and particularities about commercial companies and corporations are included in Act No 90/2012 Coll., on business corporations (Business Corporation Act). However, the new legislation does not mean that there have been any dramatic changes regarding commercial firm names; that is, the former regulation has not been dramatically changed. CZ.19 Any person or entity whose rights have been affected by the unauthorized use of a commercial

name may demand that the unauthorized user desist from further use of the commercial name. As in the case of the unfair competition, the rights-holder may also demand the surrender of any unjust enrichment and request appropriate satisfaction, as well as damages, from the courts.32 The court may also determine the extent, form and manner in which the judgment should be published, and may assess costs to the defendant.

(3) Protection Via Unfair Competition Laws CZ.20 Protection against unfair competition was based on the Commercial Code,33 but since 1 January,

2014, it has been regulated by the new Civil Code.34 The term ‘unfair competition’ (nekalá soutěž) refers to potentially detrimental economic practices which conflict with market-accepted competition. The definition of unfair competition is broad and requires only three conditions (acting in commercial competition, in breach of good manners, with potential to cause damage to other competitors, consumers, or clients).35

CZ.21 A non-exhaustive list of actions prohibited under the laws of unfair competition includes: mis-

leading advertising; misleading marking of goods and services; conduct contributing to mistaken identity; parasitic use of the reputation of a competitor’s enterprise, products or services; bribery; disparagement; comparative advertising; violation of trade secrets; and endangering the health of consumers and the environment.36

CZ.22 Persons whose rights have been violated or jeopardized as a result of unfair competition can

demand a cessation of the conduct, amelioration of damage, appropriate satisfaction, compensation for damage (ie damages), and the surrender of unjust enrichment.37

(4) Domain  Names CZ.23 The Czech legislature has not yet adopted specific statutory provisions concerning the registra-

tion or use of domain names, nor concerning the management of the ‘.cz’ domain space, since the overwhelming view is that the legal issues raised by, or in connection with, domain names can be resolved on the basis of existing law.38 In addition, it should be noted that several Czech IP academic authorities are inclined to undervalue domain names and consider them only in

  Section 423 and foll. Act No 89/2012 Coll., (new) Civil Code.   Sections 41–55 Act No 513/1991 Coll., Commercial Code. 34  Sections 2976–2990 Act No 89/2012 Coll., (new) Civil Code. 35  Sections 2976 Act No 89/2012 Coll., (new) Civil Code. 36  Sections 2976–2987Act No 89/2012 Coll., (new) Civil Code. 37  Sections 2988–2990 Act No 89/2012 Coll., (new) Civil Code. 38  Pelikánová Radka, Čermák Karel, Právní aspekty doménových jmen. Praha:  Linde, 2000; MacGregor Pelikánová, Radka, New top level domains-pending success or disaster? Legal and economic issues of Central Europe. London: STS Science Centre Ltd, Spring 2012, Vol 3/2012, No1; Disman, M Právní úprava domény 32 33

262

II.  The ccTLD (‘.cz’) Registration and Conditions and Procedures the in personam regime, while others believe that domain names can also benefit from the in rem regime.39 An aggrieved Czech trademark owner or other IP beneficiary seeking to object to an infring- CZ.24 ing domain name registration may enforce its rights either via adjudication or Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Adjudication entails action in a Czech court of competent jurisdiction based on the general regulations of the Civil or Commercial Codes or special regulation by the Trademark or other special IP Act. ADR is an umbrella term covering the various types of available arbitration proceedings. CZ.25 The Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic (Prague Arbitration Court or CAC)40 decides domain names disputes under a number of different policies. 41 In the context of the ‘.cz’ ccTLD,42 ADR disputes may arise either between the registry and CZ.26 the holder (based on the Rules of Domain Name Registration) or between the domain name holder and a third party (based on the Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules).43 In such disputes, the Prague Arbitration Court44 utilizes the Rules for ‘.cz’ domain name dispute resolution (‘.cz’ Rules),45 which are part of the additional procedures for online arbitration (On-line Rules).46

II.  The ccTLD (‘.cz’) Registration and Conditions and Procedures (1)  The Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry for ‘.cz’ As is the case in many other ccTLD spaces, the ‘.cz’ TLD utilizes a structure comprising CZ.27 the registry, called ‘.cz’ TLD administrator (CZ.NIC), accredited registrars, and registrants. Registration requests are processed by approved registrars which entered into a contract with CZ.NIC,47 and the dispute resolution policy roughly follows the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) mechanism.48 CZ.NIC is the Internet Registration and Administration Authority of the Czech Republic, CZ.28 and is a special interest association of legal entities founded in 1998 by industry leaders, namely the former Registry, EUNET Czechia, s.r.o., and 14 other Internet service providers.49 Thus CZ.NIC is a legal entity and currently has 112 members.50

‘EU’ Praha: Linde, 2011; MacGregor Pelikánová, Radka, Právní a ekonomické aspekty domény nejvyšší úrovně ‘.eu’, Acta MUP. Praha: Metropolitan University Prague, roč.2, č. 2/2011, pp 14–37. 39 MacGregor Pelikánová, Radka, Domain names—Their nature, functions, significance and value, Saarbrucken, GE: Lambert Academic Press, 2014, p 273 ISBN 978-3-659-62653-1. 40 See http://en.soud.cz/. 41  MacGregor Pelikánová, Radka, Ekonomické, právní a technické aspekty doménových jmen v globální perspektivě. Ostrava, CZ: Key Publishing, 2012. 42 See http://en.soud.cz/domain-name-disputes#cz. 43 See http://www.nic.cz/page/314/pravidla-a-postupy/z. 44 See http://en.soud.cz/domain-name-disputes#cz. 45 See http://en.soud.cz/downloads/cz_rules.pdf. 46 See http://en.soud.cz/rules/rules-consolidated-text-1st-february-2007. 47 See http://www.nic.cz/whois/registrars/list/1/. 48  MacGregor Pelikánová, Radka, Ekonomické, právní a technické aspekty doménových jmen v globální perspektivě. Ostrava, CZ: Key Publishing, 2012. 49  MacGregor Pelikánová, Radka, Ekonomické, právní a technické aspekty doménových jmen v globální perspektivě. Ostrava, CZ: Key Publishing, 2012. 50 See http://www.nic.cz/page/351/.

263

Czech Republic (‘.cz’) CZ.29 CZ.NIC was established by the Founder agreement on 21 May 1998, registered on 27

May 1998,51 and its current Bylaws, called Statutes, are dated June 2012.52 The cooperation between the Czech Republic and CZ.NIC was established on the basis of four agreements—the Agreement with Ministry of Informatics of the Czech Republic (2006),53 the Agreement with the National Security Authority of the Czech Republic (2010),54 the Agreement with the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Czech Republic (2012),55 and the Agreement with the National Security Authority of the Czech Republic (2012).56

CZ.30 Based on the current version of the CZ.NIC Statutes, approved by the General Assembly in

2012,57 the scope of CZ.NIC’s business activities predominantly include establishing and maintaining the framework for the registration and operation of domain names within the ‘.cz’ TLD. CZ.NIC is responsible for the operation of the ‘.cz’ registry and the 0.2.4.e164. arpa (ENUM) domain,58 and for providing public education. CZ.NIC concluded an Accountability Framework Agreement with ICANN on 1 November 2006, and utilizes a standard contract framework to bind ‘.cz’ accredited registrars to the regulations of the ‘.cz’ space. Via the registrars’ registration agreements, registrants are similarly bound to such requirements.59 In addition, CZ.NIC has entered into agreements with the Czech state ministries, and thus its activities are endorsed by the Czech state.

CZ.31 The registration requirements and restrictions are covered by the Rules of Domain Name

Registration under ccTLD ‘.cz’ (Registration Rules)60 and the Rules for Alternative Dispute Resolution (Rules of ADR),61 and the CZ.NIC Terms and Conditions for Registrars (Business Terms)62 which were issued by CZ.NIC. The current version of the Registration Rules and Rules of ADR is fairly new, as it was issued with effect since 1 March 2015. The current version of the Business Terms has been in effect since 1 January 2014. As noted above, domain names are registered through approved registrars (s 4 Registration Rules) and the registrar is obliged to obtain the consent of every applicant to the current version of the Registration Rules and Rules of ADR as a condition of registration (s 4.5 Registration Rules).

(2) Registration Principles and Structure of the Name Space CZ.32 From a technical point of view, domain names in the ‘.cz’ space must conform to regulations

RFC1 1034, 1035, 1122, 1123, and any regulations superseding or amending these (s 4.6 Registration Rules). Accordingly, ‘.cz’ domains may only contain letters (a to z), numbers (0 to 9) and the hyphen (-) symbol. Hyphens cannot be placed at the beginning or ending of a name, and domains may not exceed 63 characters.63 Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) cannot be registered within the ‘.cz’ space.64  See http://www.nic.cz/files/nic/doc/zakladatelska_smlouva.pdf.  See http://www.nic.cz/files/nic/Stanovy_20120626_AJ.pdf. 53 See http://www.nic.cz/files/nic/doc/Memorandum_CZ.NIC-MICR_EN.pdf. 54 See http://www.nic.cz/files/nic/NBU_Memorandum_12-12-AJ.pdf. 55 See http://www.nic.cz/files/nic/img/Memorandum_MPO_en.pdf. 56 See http://www.nic.cz/page/351/. 57 See http://www.nic.cz/files/nic/Stanovy_20120626_AJ.pdf. 58 See https://www.nic.cz/enum/. This resource is an Internet database of Czech phone numbers (prefix 420). 59  MacGregor Pelikánová, Radka, Ekonomické, právní a technické aspekty doménových jmen v globální perspektivě. Ostrava, CZ: Key Publishing, 2012. 60 See http://www.nic.cz/files/nic/doc/Registration_rules_CZ_ADR_rules_20150301.pdf. 61 See http://www.nic.cz/files/nic/doc/Registration_rules_CZ_ADR_rules_20150301.pdf. 62 See http://www.nic.cz/files/nic/doc/Business_Terms_20140101.pdf. 63  For example, ‘prvni-nejdelsi-domena-v-ceske-republice-ktera-ma-prave-63-znaku.cz’ and ‘stanislav-motlnova-motolska-nemocnice-kauza-mrtva-voda-kojence.cz’. 64 See http://www.nic.cz/page/575/diakritika-v-domenach-.cz-opet-dostala-cervenou-/. 51 52

264

II.  The ccTLD (‘.cz’) Registration and Conditions and Procedures There are no special limitations or additional registration prohibitions beyond these regula- CZ.33 tions. CZ.NIC does not perform any clearing house tasks and is not responsible for publishing lists of reserved or prohibited names or terms. Once an individual or an entity has settled on its desired domain name text, it should under- CZ.34 take a WHOIS registry search. If the domain is available, the individual or entity may simply purchase the registration from an accredited registrar. If not, and the individual or entity believes it possesses a legal right to the name, it may have recourse through the dispute resolution procedure. There are no restrictions either on the number of registered domain names which may be CZ.35 owned by one person, or concerning foreign registrants. So long as the contact information and name server data are provided, and the relevant fee is paid to the registrar, anyone can register as many available domains as they wish.

(3) Registration Procedure As CZ.NIC is not permitted to register domains, a registrar must be chosen (s 4.1 Registration CZ.36 Rules). CZ.NIC publishes a list of registrars with information about their services.65 The relationship between CZ.NIC and the registrar is regulated by an individual agreement CZ.37 and the Business Terms and Conditions for Registrars (Business Terms).66 A  registrar for ‘.cz’ domains must be a legal entity (not an individual) with a registered seat located in the EU, in the European Economic Area, or in the European Free Trade Association, or must be an ICANN-accredited registrar (2.1., Business Terms).67 By signing the agreement with CZ.NIC, the registrar accepts the Business Terms (3.1, Business Terms). When registering a domain name within the ‘.cz’ TLD, the registrar shall follow the CZ.NIC rules, including the Registration Rules, and shall ensure that the domain name holder accepts them (6, Business Terms). CZ.NIC may terminate the agreement with a registrar upon breach of these obligations (3, Business Terms). Thus an applicant has a wide choice of registrars. Only one registrar may be utilized at a time CZ.38 for any domain registration (1.2, Business Terms). Due to the well-known and generally accepted contractual mechanism introduced by CZ.39 ICANN (namely, the Registry–Registrar–Registrant regime and framework), certain provisions are included in agreements and contracts on each level. Namely, the registrar is obliged to obtain the consent of every applicant to the current version of the Registration Rules issued by CZ.NIC as a condition of obtaining the desired domain (ss 3 and 4.5 Registration Rules and 5 Business Terms). In order to register a domain, contact information must be specified for the domain holder, CZ.40 administrative contact and technical contact. These may be different persons or one person, and the roles differ as follows: the domain holder may change the domain name; the administrative contact may change all domain name information with the exception of the identity of the domain holder; and the technical contact may change the domain’s technical settings. For each function it is necessary to specify the name, organization (if applicable), address, e-mail and other contact information for the entity listed. The e-mail address must be current and functional, since this is where domain-related communications will be sent, including expiration notifications, exclusion of domain from zone notices, technical test results, and so on.

 See http://www.nic.cz/whois/registrars/list/1/.  See http://www.nic.cz/files/nic/doc/Business_Terms_20140101.pdf. 67 See http://www.nic.cz/page/744/registry-system/. 65 66

265

Czech Republic (‘.cz’) (4) Transfer of Domain Names CZ.41 CZ.NIC will register a change of the domain name holder (a domain transfer) upon request

when submitted through the appointed registrar (s 7.1 Registration Rules). The appointed registrar may submit a transfer request upon written consent of the current and future holders (s 7.1 Registration Rules). The future holder must consent to the current version of the Registration Rules and the Rules of ADR on the date of the transfer (s 7.2 Registration Rules).

CZ.42 If a domain name is transferred, the original holder is not entitled to a refund of the regis-

tration fee or any part thereof (s 7.3 Registration Rules). Moreover, the transfer of a domain does not affect its expiration date (s 7.4 Registration Rules).

(5) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding CZ.43 CZ.NIC blocks (ie by suspending a domain for four months, with no extension or renewal

possible (s 20.1 and 20.4 Registration Rules)) the transfer or cancellation of a domain at the request of any person who has initiated dispute proceedings against the holder. The request needs to be accompanied by a copy of the motion to institute the proceedings as filed with the general court, arbitration court or arbitrator, with confirmation that the proceedings have been instituted (s 20.2 Registration Rules). The person requesting the blocking (ie suspension), must be ready to prove to CZ.NIC at any time that the proceedings have not been terminated (s 20.3 Registration Rules). The requestor shall be liable for any damage incurred by the holder or CZ.NIC as a result of the blocking (s 20.9 Registration Rules).

CZ.44 In the event that the decision in the proceedings calls for the transfer of the domain, CZ.NIC

shall cancel the blocking and transfer the domain name in accordance with the decision (s 20.5 Registration Rules). The same domain cannot be blocked during the following 12 months (s 20.2 Registration Rules).

CZ.45 Alternatively, the injured party may seek a preliminary or interim measure to block the

domain, which may be used to extend the maximum blocking period (s 20.8 Registration Rules).

CZ.46 Under the Registration Rules, when a certified and enforceable copy of an appropriate exe-

cutable court, arbitral, or administrative decision is presented to CZ.NIC, the registry will cancel the registration of the disputed domain name and transfer the domain name to the successful rights-holder. CZ.NIC does not need to be a party to the proceedings (s 18.1 and 18.2 Registration Rules). Such an action does not entitle the domain holder to a refund of any payments received by CZ.NIC (s 18.3 Registration Rules).

(6) Statistics CZ.47 According to CZ.NIC, as of January 2013 over 1,011,000 ‘.cz’ domain names were registered,

and are hosted on over 8,000 servers. Roughly one-third of these registrations (300,000) employ Domain Name System Security Extensions. The Annual Reports issued by CZ.NIC are good resources for further information and a copy of the most current versions (2011, 2012 and 2013) are available online.68

CZ.48 According to the reports issued by CZ.NIC,69 particularly the 2011 report,70 the distribution

of domain names is roughly even—58 per cent of holders are individuals and 42 per cent of holders are entities. According to the 2011 report, the single-character and two-character ‘.cz’ 68 See http://www.nic.cz/files/nic/doc/CZNIC_annual_report_2011.pdf, http://www.nic.cz/files/nic/ CZNIC_vyrocni-zprava-2012_AJ.pdf, and http://www.nic.cz/files/nic/doc/CZNIC_AR-2013.pdf. 69 See http://www.nic.cz/page/322/information-for-media/. 70 See http://www.nic.cz/files/nic/doc/DR2011_EN.pdf.

266

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.cz’ Domain Space domains have all been registered, as well as over one third of the three-character domains.71 The majority of holders have only one domain name (over 425,000 holders) and the majority of new registrations occur in March and November. CZ.NIC has been proactive with respect to the move from Interent Protocol version 4, CZ.49 (IPv4), to Internet Protocol version 6, (IPv6),72 and one half of ‘.cz’ domains already use IPv6 records. 73

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.cz’ Domain Space (1)  Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding As mentioned above, there are a number of mechanisms by which a rights holder may seek CZ.50 to resolve disputes related to ‘.cz’ domains. Considering the parties involved, there are two broad types of disputes which may arise: (i) disputes between the registrant and the registry, typically concerning registration issues; or (ii) disputes between the registrant and a third party, typically over rights to a certain domain name. Both types of disputes can be decided either by the general courts or by the Prague Arbitration Court.74 As noted above, the Prague Arbitration Court administers a number of domain name dispute policies, each of which follows its own procedural rules.75 A dispute between a registrant and CZ.NIC may be brought before the district court for CZ.51 Prague 2 or the Municipal Court in Prague. Additionally, the holder can opt to challenge CZ.NIC before the Prague Arbitration Court in arbitration proceedings. CZ.NIC must accept the jurisdiction of the Prague Arbitration Court, and it is up to the holder to elect the venue in which he or she wishes to bring the dispute (s 23.1 Registration Rules). If ADR is selected, the dispute will be administered on the basis of the Registration Rules, the ‘.cz’ Rules,76 and the On-line Rules,77 and with reference to the General Rules of the Prague Arbitration Court.78 Similarly, disputes between the holder and a third party are subject to the jurisdiction of the CZ.52 general courts of the Czech Republic and, in principle, to the court where the defendant is located. Since ‘.cz’ domain holders must agree to ADR dispute resolution, an aggrieved third party may elect either venue (s 24 Registration Rules and s 2 Rules of ADR). The Rules of Alternative Dispute Resolution (Rules of ADR), their last version in force since 1 January 2014,79 establish the framework for ADR disputes arising between a registrant and a third party concerning the domain name or its registration (s 1.1 Rules of ADR). The Rules of  See ibid.   MacGregor Pelikánová, Radka, New top level domains-pending success or disaster? Legal and economic Issues of Central Europe. London:  STS Science Centre Ltd, Spring 2012, Vol 3/2012, No 1; Disman, M. Právní úprava domény ‘.EU.’ Praha: Linde, 2011; MacGregor Pelikánová, Radka, Právní a ekonomické aspekty domény nejvyšší úrovně ‘.eu’, Acta MUP. Praha: Metropolitan University Prague, roč.2, č. 2/2011, pp 14–37; MacGregor Pelikánová, Radka. Ekonomické, právní a technické aspekty doménových jmen v globální perspektivě. Ostrava, CZ: Key Publishing, 2012. 73 See http://www.nic.cz/files/nic/doc/CZNIC_annual_report_2011.pdf. 74 See http://en.soud.cz/. 75  MacGregor Pelikánová, Radka, New top level domains—pending success or disaster? Journal on Legal and Economic Issues of Central Europe. London, UK:  STS Science Centre Ltd, Spring 2012, Vol 3/2012, No 1, pp 75–81. 76 See http://en.soud.cz/downloads/cz_rules.pdf. 77 See http://en.soud.cz/rules/additional-procedures-for-on-line-arbitration-1st-june-2004. 78 See http://en.soud.cz/rules/rules-consolidated-text-1st-february-2007. 79 See http://www.nic.cz/files/nic/doc/ADR_rules_20140101.pdf. 71 72

267

Czech Republic (‘.cz’) ADR80 are posted on the CZ.NIC webpage. Such proceedings are additionally governed by the ‘.cz’ Rules,81 the On-line Rules,82 and the Rules of the Prague Arbitration Court83 (s 3 Rules of ADR). Such disputes before the Prague Arbitration Court are conducted electronically (s 3.3 Rules of ADR).

(2) Statistics CZ.53 Since 2004, the arbitrators from the Prague Arbitration Court have decided a significant

number of disputes over ‘.cz’ domains, and in recent years the number has reached approximately 100 cases annually.84

CZ.54 The Prague Arbitration Court keeps a list of over 300 Czech and foreign arbitrators who are

mainly attorneys-at-law and legal professors. Only 21 of them are authorized to hear ‘.cz’ disputes, all of whom have legal backgrounds.85

CZ.55 ADR proceedings concerning ‘.cz’ domains before the Prague Arbitration Court take approxi-

mately three to four months.86

(3) Material Scope of the Proceeding CZ.56 As mentioned above, there are two types of ‘.cz’ disputes; those between the holder and the

registry, and those concerning the holder and a third party. Both types of cases can be decided via adjudication or through special ADR procedures before the Prague Arbitration Court. In the first instance, CZ.NIC is required to accept the jurisdiction of the arbitration court (s 23 Registration Rules), whereas in the second it is the holder who is so bound, by virtue of its registration agreement (s 24 Registration Rules).

(4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding CZ.57 The contractual basis for ADR disputes over ‘.cz’ domain names is included in the Registration

Rules; namely Article 24, regarding disputes between the holder and CZ.NIC, and Article 25, regarding disputes between a third party and the holder. The latter process is additionally covered by the Rules of ADR, which provide additional information concerning the holder’s submission to the ADR mechanism.

CZ.58 The acceptance of the Registration Rules and the Rules of ADR is a condition sine qua non

for registration of a ‘.cz’ domain name, and thus contractual recognition of the ADR procedure applies to all holders (s 24.2 Registration Rules and s 2.1 Rules of ADR). This contractual mechanism was the subject of much discussion, and ultimately the Czech Superior Court ruled, in 3 Cmo 367/2010 ‘suzuki.cz’ (April 2011), that the current practice is permissible and in accordance with Czech law.87 Therefore, registrars must obtain the consent of all prospective registrants to the provisions of the registration agreement, ensuring that the registrant will comply with the applicable rules (5.2.4., Business Terms). Naturally, the parties remain free to conclude an independent arbitration agreement and submit their dispute to the Prague Arbitration Court based on the Act. No 216/1994 Coll., on Arbitration Proceedings and Enforcement of the Arbitral Awards. However, an exceptional (certiorari)

 See ibid.  See http://en.soud.cz/rules/rules-for-cz-domain-name-dispute-resolution-2010. 82 See http://en.soud.cz/rules/additional-procedures-for-on-line-arbitration-1st-june-2004. 83 See http://en.soud.cz/rules/rules-consolidated-text-1st-february-2007. 84 See http://en.soud.cz/arbitration-court. 85 See http://domeny.soud.cz/adr/panelists/index.php. 86 See http://domeny.soud.cz/html/cz/adr/faq/1.pdf. 87 See http://domeny.soud.cz/html/cz/adr/decisions/Rozsudek.pdf. 80 81

268

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.cz’ Domain Space appeal was filed and in December 2013 the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic decided in this very same case, relabelled 23 Cdo 3895/2011 ‘suzuki.cz’, to reject this mechanism and ruled that the general public offer regarding the arbitration included in the Registration Rules is not per se a sufficient act by the registrant to be taken.88 That is, its acceptance by a potential third party claimant does not establish per se the arbitration clause or arbitration agreement.89 It seems that the new 23 Cdo 3895/2011 ‘suzuki.cz’ rejects the arbitration jurisdiction merely based on the Registration Rules and Rules for ADR and the case law and arbitration practice will soon confirm this conclusion or modify it. At the same time, it should be pointed out that both cases were decided based on the no longer valid Commercial Code and thus a further shift may be caused by the application of a provision of the new Civil Code in this arena. In fact, the amendment of the Registration Rules and Rules for ADR with effect from 1 March 2015 should address these issues. Imminent case law will provide clarification. Regarding disputes between a holder and CZ.NIC, it is the Regulation Rules which stip- CZ.59 ulate that CZ.NIC must accept the jurisdiction of the Prague Arbitration Court (s 23.1 Registration Rules).

(5) Overview of the ADR-Procedure All ‘.cz’ ADR disputes decided by the Prague Arbitration Court are regulated by the CZ.60 Registration Rules and the ‘.cz’ Rules, although panellists may consider any other laws deemed applicable. Of course, the On-line Rules and the general Rules of the Arbitration Court are similarly applicable. Communications during ADR proceedings under the ‘.cz’ Rules are made by the preferred CZ.61 means stated by the parties, or in the absence of such specification:  (a)  online (provided transmission records are available); (b) by fax (with transmission records); or (c) by registered postal or courier service (s 3.3 ‘.cz’ Rules). A strong preference is given to the electronic form, which is the default method, and the Prague Arbitration Court has developed a secure online platform90 (s 3.4 ‘.cz’ Rules). In order to use the online platform, it is necessary to receive a unique login (s 3.5 ‘.cz’ Rules). The CZ.62 log records of the platform are generally considered valid records of transmission (s 3.8 ‘.cz’ Rules). The language of the proceeding is Czech, while Slovak is also allowed, and the appointed CZ.63 arbitrators may disregard any documents submitted in a different language (s 4 ‘.cz’ Rules). The arbitrators are selected from the Prague Arbitration Court’s list in accordance with estab- CZ.64 lished internal procedures.91 The dispute is decided by a sole arbitrator unless the parties request and pay for an arbitral panel consisting of three arbitrators (s 9 ‘.cz’ Rules). The arbitrator (or the arbitral tribunal) provides the Prague Arbitration Court with the arbitral award within 30 calendar days of their appointment (s 16 ‘.cz’ Rules).

(a)  Legal Framework The ‘.cz’ Rules govern the dispute resolution procedure if the jurisdiction of the Arbitration CZ.65 Court is based on the Registration Rules or a specific agreement between the parties (s 1.1 ‘.cz’ Rules).

88 See http://www.nsoud.cz/Judikatura/judikatura_ns.nsf/WebSearch/3B223B1337699200C1257C7E00 3D58A4?openDocument&Highlight=0. 89 See http://www.soud.cz/downloads/aktualita1.pdf. 90  The platform is available at: https://domeny.soud.cz. 91 See http://domeny.soud.cz/adr/panelists/index.php.

269

Czech Republic (‘.cz’) CZ.66 The ‘.cz’ Rules are part of the additional procedures for online arbitration (On-line Rules).

Issues not provided for in the ‘.cz’ Rules are governed by the provisions of the general Rules of the Arbitration Court, and ultimately by the Rules of the Arbitration Court governing Domestic Disputes, depending upon the dispute type (s 1.2, ‘.cz’ Rules). Additionally, in cases concerning a ‘.cz’ domain holder and a third party, the Rules of ADR also apply (s 1.1 and 1.2 Rules of ADR).

CZ.67 A proceeding is commenced with the filing of a complaint via the online platform of the

Prague Arbitration Court,92 and the proceedings take place in Prague, Czech Republic (s 3.3 Rules of ADR).

CZ.68 No appeals can be filed against an issued arbitration ruling, unless both parties agree to have

the ruling reviewed by other arbiters in a new arbitration proceeding. Delivered arbitration rulings take legal effect and are executable (s 3.7 Rules of ADR).

(b)  ADR Complaint CZ.69 Any individual or entity may initiate an ADR proceeding regarding a ‘.cz’ domain name by submitting a statement of claim to the Prague Arbitration Court (s 6.1 ‘.cz’ Rules). The complaint must identify the parties, provide their preferred communication methods (default being electronic means), state the grounds for the complaint, specify the remedies sought, and contain a statement confirming the completeness and accuracy of the information (s 6.2 ‘.cz’ Rules). CZ.70 The statement of claim may include more than one domain name, provided that the involved

parties are the same (s 6.3 ‘.cz’ Rules).

CZ.71 After the submission of the claim and the payment of fees, the Prague Arbitration Court will

acknowledge their receipt (6.4 ‘.cz’ Rules).

(c)  ADR Response CZ.72 The Prague Arbitration Court formally reviews the claim and, if all the elements required by

the ‘.cz’ Rules are met, the Prague Arbitration Court will forward notice of the dispute to the defendant in the prescribed manner, along with the explanatory cover sheet, within five calendar days following receipt of the fees from the claimant (s 7.1 ‘.cz’ Rules). Additionally, the Arbitration Court will notify the parties and the registry of the commencement date for the proceeding (s 7.3 ‘.cz’ Rules).

CZ.73 The requirements for the statement of defence to some extent mirror the requirements for

the statement of claim. The response is due within 30 calendar days of commencement (s 8.1 ‘.cz’ Rules), and must include the respondent’s contact details, the respondent’s substantive claims, a statement averring the completeness and accuracy, and must annex any documentary evidence (s 8.2 ‘.cz’ Rules).

CZ.74 The Prague Arbitration Court will forward the administratively-compliant statement of

defence to the claimant (s 8.4 ‘.cz’ Rules).

CZ.75 If a defendant does not submit a statement of defence, or submits an administratively deficient

pleading, the panel will evaluate the deficiency in its sole discretion (ss 8.5 and 8.6 ‘.cz’ Rules).

(d) Procedural Issues CZ.76 In principle, there are no in-person hearings (including via teleconference, videoconference,

and web conference) and the decision is entered on the basis of written evidence. Nevertheless,

  Available at: http://en.soud.cz/domain-name-disputes#cz and http://domeny.soud.cz/.

92

270

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.cz’ Domain Space in exceptional circumstances, the arbitral tribunal may determine that an in-person hearing is necessary (s 14.1 ‘.cz’ Rules).

(6) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider All ADR disputes concerning domain names in the ‘.cz’ ccTLD are administered by the CZ.77 Prague Arbitration Court, which is also the authorized provider for domain name disputes under the regional TLD ‘.eu’ and an ICANN-accredited provider for UDRP dispute resolution.93 The Prague Arbitration Court is a permanent arbitration court for the oversight of arbitration CZ.78 proceedings and the execution of arbitration rulings pursuant to Czech Act No 216/1994 Coll. and Act No 301/1992 Coll. on the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and the Agriculture Chamber of the Czech Republic. The Prague Arbitration Court is competent to hear a wide range of different dispute types, CZ.79 including property and consumer disputes, online arbitration matters, and domain disputes regarding the ‘.cz’ and ‘.eu’ TLD spaces, and UDRP cases. Considering the diversity of disputes, the Prague Arbitration Court employs, in addition to CZ.80 its general rules (General ADR Rules),94 special rules tailored to address the specific needs of these various dispute types. Some of these specialized rule-sets include the additional procedures for online arbitration (On-line Rules),95 the Rules for ‘.cz’ domain name dispute resolution (‘.cz’ Rules),96 the Rules for Domestic Healthcare Payments Disputes,97 and the Additional Procedures for Consumer Disputes.98 In the case of ‘.cz’ domain names, it should be noted that the Rules of ADR were issued by the registry, CZ.NIC.99

(7) Role of the Administrative Panel Disputes over ‘.cz’ domain names are generally decided by a sole arbitrator, appointed by the CZ.81 President of the Prague Arbitration Court from its list of arbitrators, unless the parties agree on and pay for an arbitral tribunal composed of three arbitrators (s 9.2 ‘.cz’ Rules). Only disputes against CZ.NIC must be decided by a panel of three arbitrators (s 23.1 Registration Rules). The Prague Arbitration Court forwards the case file to the arbitral tribunal as soon as it is CZ.82 appointed, following receipt of any compliant response (s 11, ‘.cz’ Rules). The arbitral tribunal proceeds according to the ‘.cz’ Rules and enjoys relatively large discre- CZ.83 tion in conducting its own investigation, admitting evidence and ordering or accepting further statements (ss 12 and 13 ‘.cz’ Rules). The arbitrators must be impartial and independent, and parties can challenge their appointment. The Prague Arbitration Court makes all final decisions on such challenges (s 10 ‘.cz’ Rules). The arbitral tribunal must ensure that the parties are treated fairly and equally (s 12.2 ‘.cz’ CZ.84 Rules), and that there are no unnecessary delays in the proceeding (s 12.3 ‘.cz’ Rules). The proceedings are document based, and there no in-person hearings before the arbi- CZ.85 tral tribunal (s 14.1  ‘.cz’ Rules), unless the tribunal determines that, due to exceptional

  The CAC’s website for ‘.cz’ dispute resolution is located at: http://www.domeny.soud.cz.  See http://en.soud.cz/rules/rules-in-effect-since-1st-july-2012. 95 See http://en.soud.cz/rules/additional-procedures-for-on-line-arbitration-1st-june-2004. 96 See http://en.soud.cz/rules/rules-for-cz-domain-name-dispute-resolution-2010. 97 See http://en.soud.cz/rules/rules-for-domestic-healthcare-payments-disputes-2011. 98 See http://en.soud.cz/rules/additional-procedures-for-consumer-disputes-2008. 99 See http://www.nic.cz/files/nic/Pravidla_ADR_20120401-en.pdf. 93 94

271

Czech Republic (‘.cz’) circumstances, a hearing is necessary (s 14.2 ‘.cz’ Rules). In such a case, the hearing is to be carried out by teleconference, videoconference, or web conference, or in-person at the Prague Arbitration Court. The arbitral tribunal will give the parties at least seven calendar days notice that a hearing will be held, providing the date, time, and location (s 14.2 ‘.cz’ Rules).

(8) Costs CZ.86 The arbitration proceeding fee is paid by the complainant, which can also be called the claim-

ant, in the amount established in the schedule of the fees of the Prague Arbitration Court (s 5.1 ‘.cz’ Rules). A schedule (referred to as a ‘Tariff ’) outlining the costs is annexed to the ‘.cz’ Rules, published by the Prague Arbitration Court.100

CZ.87 According to the Tariff, the total fixed fee consists of two components: compensation for the

arbitrators(s) and an administrative fee payable to the Prague Arbitration Court. The lowest fixed total fee is set at CZK 34,000 (slightly under €1,500), and covers disputes concerning up to five domain names decided by one arbitrator.

CZ.88 The highest fixed total fee is CZK 184,500 (over €7,000), and covers disputes concerning up

to 50 domain names by three arbitrators.

CZ.89 In exceptional circumstances, such as an in-person hearing, an additional fee can be requested

by the Prague Arbitration Court (s 5.2 ‘.cz’ Rules). The fees paid are not reimbursable (s 5.3 ‘.cz’ Rules).

CZ.90 In challenges by a third party against a domain name holder, if the claim includes monetary

compensation, the complainant must also pay a fee which is proportionate to the amount of compensation sought (s 3.4 Rules of ADR). This is to be calculated as a percentage of the requested monetary compensation.101

CZ.91 Additionally, if the holder raises an objection against the competence of the Prague Arbitration

Court, an additional fee may be due (s 3.4 Rules of ADR).

CZ.92 The ADR Rules also include a legal expense reimbursement clause. Naturally, the parties

may incur legal fees and expenses resulting from the proceeding. The winning party can be awarded compensation for these expenses from the losing party (s 3.5 Rules of ADR).

CZ.93 Despite the clear wording of section 3.5 of the Rules of ADR, and likely due in part to enforce-

ment difficulties, the reimbursement of legal expenses is unusual, and neither CZ.NIC102 nor the Prague Arbitration Court provides for such an award.

(9) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceeding CZ.94 Although the ADR and court procedures are independent mechanisms for resolving a ‘.cz’

domain dispute, there may be some overlap concerning the blocking of the disputed domain name. Anyone initiating proceedings against a holder can request suspension (blocking) of the disputed domain name for a period of four months. A longer blocking period, or other preliminary measures, can be achieved on the basis of the motion filed with a competent court. Hence the ADR proceedings concerning the merits can be paralleled by court proceedings to issue preliminary measures (s 20 Registration Rules and 2.3. Rules of ADR). Otherwise, ADR and court proceedings are separate and exclusive of one another.

 See http://en.soud.cz/tariff#czdomain-disputes.  See http://en.soud.cz/tariff. 102 See http://www.nic.cz/page/314/rules-and-policies/. 100 101

272

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.cz’ Domain Space (10) Appeals According to the Prague Arbitration Court General ADR Rules (General ADR Rules), CZ.95 the proceedings before the Prague Arbitration Court are single-instance proceedings (s 1.4 General ADR Rules). Arbitration awards take legal effect and are executable (s 3.7 Rules of ADR and s 43 General ADR Rules). Therefore, the parties are obliged to comply with issued arbitral awards within set time frames. After such time, arbitral awards become enforceable in conformity with the laws of the country of enforcement. According to Act No 216/1994 Sb., on Arbitration Proceedings and Enforcement of CZ.96 Arbitration Awards (Arbitration Act), and special provisions regarding disputes over domain names, the parties may agree that an arbitral award concerning a ‘.cz’ domain may be reviewed (Art 27 Arbitration Act; s 1.5 General ADR Rules; s 3.7 Rules of ADR). Unless the parties have agreed to appeal, the only way to re-open the ADR proceedings is to CZ.97 demonstrate that significant procedural flaws were present in the initial proceedings, resulting in a violation in accordance with the Arbitration Act. It is therefore possible to request cancellation of an arbitral award based on the Arbitration Act (Art 31 Arbitration Act).

(11) ADR Decision Unlike other types of domain-name disputes conducted by the Prague Arbitration Court CZ.98 (including UDRP and ‘.eu’ disputes), the grounds for a ‘.cz’ dispute are not limited. The disputes usually concern Czech trademark law or unfair competition. The Prague Arbitration Court has published over 60 ‘.cz’ ADR decisions103 in an anonymized CZ.99 manner (s 17.2 ‘.cz’ Rules). Although protecting the privacy of the parties, this does make study and analysis of the decisions more challenging. Arbitral awards take effect and become enforceable on the day of their delivery to the par- CZ.100 ties or on the day stipulated by the arbitration award for the performance. However, more interestingly, according to the recently updated version of the Rules of ADR: ‘Dispute resolution under these ADR Rules does not prevent any of the parties from referring the relevant petition concerning the Domain Name to the competent court at any time before, during or after such dispute resolution. The same applies to arbitration proceedings where a permanent arbitration court or an arbitrator has jurisdiction under the regulations governing arbitration’ (s 7.2 Rules of ADR).104 Enforceability is guaranteed by the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, which has been signed by over 140 countries including the Czech Republic. The time it takes to arbitrate a dispute and enforce an arbitral award in the Czech Republic is substantially shorter than the length of average litigation.

(12) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by Administrative Panel The Prague Arbitration Court has decided hundreds of cases concerning ‘.cz’ domain names. CZ.101 Currently, approximately 60 arbitration decisions are published by the Prague Arbitration Court.105 Due to their limited number and anonymization (s 17.2 ‘.cz’ Rules), it is impossible to present a comprehensive overview of decision trends. Nevertheless, the flow of argumentation in these cases allows for some analysis.

 See http://domeny.soud.cz/adr/decisions/index.php.  See http://www.nic.cz/files/nic/doc/Registration_rules_CZ_ADR_rules_20150301.pdf. 105 See http://domeny.soud.cz/adr/decisions/index.php. 103 104

273

Czech Republic (‘.cz’) CZ.102 The oldest available decision, Decision No 13, was decided in September 2010,106 and is

based on a rather typical factual situation including a lack of good faith and a suspicion of parasitism. The defendant registered a domain name and used it for an Internet page with erotic content. The complainant argued that its product, a similarly-labelled vodka, enjoyed popularity in the Czech Republic, and produced a preliminary order from the Municipal Court in Prague prohibiting the defendant from transferring the domain name to a third party. The arbitrator concluded that the domain name was indeed confusingly similar to the trademarks of the complainant and that, in addition, this domain name and its use constituted a breach of protection of unfair competition. The arbitrator further determined that the protection against unfair competition covers acts undertaken by entities who are not direct competitors.

CZ.103 The arbitrator referred to Act No 221/2006 Coll., on the enforcement of industrial property

rights, and to Article 53 of the Commercial Code, noting that both provide measures to stop the use of improper domain names, but that neither provision expressly allows for the transfer of a domain. The arbitrator pragmatically concluded that transfer was the logical solution in the case. He stopped short of issuing a global prohibition on the defendant, however, preventing it from future registration of certain ‘.cz’ domains. Since the complainant did not clearly establish its expenses, the arbitrator granted only the reimbursement of the arbitration proceeding fees, in the amount of CZK 34,000.

CZ.104 Not all cases are clear and involve mere abuse or even parasitism. A significant number of

ADR cases are very complicated and, therefore, fact-determinative. A  typical example is Decision No 47 (2011),107 regarding a dispute between a sports equipment manufacturer and a non-exclusive seller. In this case, the defendant used a domain name similar to the complainant’s trademarks and sold the sports equipment of the complainant, as well as that of other manufacturers. The fight over the domain name was acrimonious and both parties referred not only to Czech national law (Trademark Act, Commercial Code), but also to UDRP decisions, including DaimlerChrysler AG v Donald Drummonds,108 America Online v Vadim Eremeev,109 and Caterpillar Inc v Off Road Equipment Parts.110 The arbitrator not only considered this external case law, he even explicitly acknowledged and decided the case based on criteria set for the establishment of bad faith (under the third element of the UDRP) by reference to them.

CZ.105 In this case, the panel stated its belief that, in the context of the Internet, informal unfair

competition law is stronger than the formal trademark law. He considered UDRP reseller precedent, noting that in the case the holder had failed to abide by the two critical conditions of ‘exclusivity’ and honesty, as the holder did not confine its retail activity to the complainant’s products and was not candid about its relationship to the complainant, which the panel took as evidence of unfair competition. The panel also found that the respondent had violated the complainant’s trademark rights.

CZ.106 Interestingly, although the panel considered UDRP precedent, the panel did not elect to

grant a transfer remedy. Instead, the arbitrator compared the claims and remedies offered by the UDRP and by Registration Rules, Rules for ADR, and ‘.cz’ Rules, noting the broad array of claims and remedies available for ‘.cz’ domains. The arbitrator held that the transfer was

 See http://domeny.soud.cz/html/cz/adr/decisions/00013.pdf.  See http://domeny.soud.cz/html/cz/adr/decisions/00047.pdf. 108  DaimlerChrysler AG v Donald Drummonds, WIPO Case No D2001-0160. 109  America Online v Vadim Eremeev, WIPO Case No D2001-0003. 110  Caterpillar Inc. v Off Road Equipment Parts, NAF Claim No 095497. 106 107

274

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.cz’ Domain Space appropriate only for black-and-white cases (eg cases of blatant parasitism), and thus did not order transfer in this complex case and did not grant the reimbursement of legal expenses. The arbitrator suggested that the complainant was ‘greedy’ in requesting transfer and noted that, had a ‘softer’ remedy been sought, the arbitrator would have been more inclined to grant it. In the light of the Globtour court case111 and the subsequent change of the Registration Rules, CZ.107 Decision No 47 may look prima facie obsolete. However, it is important as an example of the interplay between UDRP and ‘.cz’ dispute processes, and the willingness of Czech arbitrators to recognize important differences between them (particularly with regard to claims of unfair competition, potential remedies, etc). Another interesting case is Decision No 149 (2012).112 In that matter, the arbitrator noted CZ.108 the respondent’s acceptance of responsibilities for the domain name under the CZ.NIC rules for domain name registration (s 13 Registration Rules), and held that the scope of applicable business name, trademark and unfair competition protection included not only identical but also similar terms. The arbitrator expressly rejected the consideration of UDRP precedent, noting the broader scope of the ‘.cz’ procedure. After finding in favour of the complainant, the arbitrator ordered the respondent to transfer the domain name and pay the complainant’s legal expenses. Decision No 171 (August 2012)113 concerned a generic-word domain name comprising a CZ.109 common expression. The arbitrator noted, however, that the defendant did not establish any legitimate reason for the registration of the domain name, as he did not have a similar trademark or business name. The arbitrator prohibited the defendant from transferring the domain to anyone other than the complainant, and granted reimbursement of the complainant’s procedural fees. A similar matter was Decision No 175 (2012),114 although the outcome was slightly differ- CZ.110 ent. In this case, the respondent failed to reply to the complaint (whereas the respondent in Decision No 171 defended its registration), and accordingly the arbitrator did not hesitate to label him ‘a speculator’ based on the complainant’s evidence. The arbitrator ruled in favour of the complainant on the basis of both trademark and unfair competition regulations, and ordered the defendant to seek cancellation of the domain. The arbitrator declined to prohibit the defendant from registering additional domain names corresponding to the complainant’s mark, as well as other requested relief beyond the scope of the proceeding, but did grant the complainant reimbursement of its procedural fees.

(13) Comparison Between ADR and UDRP In comparing the above cases to UDRP case law, a number of trends become apparent. With CZ.111 regard to the first element, ‘.cz’ arbitrators (similar to UDRP panels) may find confusing similarity despite the introduction of spaces, dots and other technical elements, as well as changes to the order of words (ADR Decision No 13 and ADR Decision No 149). Concerning the second element, ‘.cz’ arbitrators seem willing to go into more detail (and CZ.112 conduct greater research) regarding the lack of rights of the defendant (ADR Decision No 13 and ADR Decision No 171). Where a defendant replies and suggests even a tenuous interest in the domain, arbitrators are likely to seriously consider it. This trend forces complainants   23 Cdo 3407/2010, ‘Globtour.cz’ from 19 April, 2012 (Supreme Court of the Czech Republic).  See http://domeny.soud.cz/html/cz/adr/decisions/00163.pdf. 113 See http://domeny.soud.cz/html/cz/adr/decisions/00171.pdf. 114 See http://domeny.soud.cz/html/cz/adr/decisions/00175.pdf. 111 112

275

Czech Republic (‘.cz’) to be very proactive in establishing the strength of their IP portfolios and in developing any unfair protection competition arguments (ADR Decision No 13). CZ.113 With regard to the final element, arbitrators will carefully consider the factual circumstances

of the case to assess bad faith. Some arbitrators infer a certain degree of responsibility and knowledge from the defendant’s acceptance of the CZ.NIC rules (s 13 Registration Rules; ADR Decision No 149).

CZ.114 In terms of procedural differences between the UDRP and the ‘.cz’ ADR procedure, arbitra-

tors under the latter mechanism are more open to an expansive application of the law and to the granting of claims not expressly recognized by law (ADR Decision No 13 versus the court case Globtour115). Neither arbitrators nor judges are bound by previous decisions in different cases and the doctrine of stare decisis does not officially apply. However, neither arbitrators nor judges are precluded from referring to previous decisions and even to relevant legal literature, including from foreign sources (ADR Decision No 47).

IV.  Court Litigation CZ.115 Court litigation involving domain name issues may either be commenced at the district or

regional court of the defendant or, utilizing the new IP rights-protection mechanism, via the Municipal Court in Prague.

CZ.116 As noted above, the Czech Republic has not enacted any specific anticybersquatting legisla-

tion, and thus all domain name disputes are resolved through the ADR procedure administered by the Prague Arbitration Court (based on the CZ.NIC regulations, national IP laws and the rules of the Arbitration Court), or through the Czech courts on the basis of IP and unfair competition legislation.116

CZ.117 The courts’ decisions are published on their websites or in printed books.117 These websites

include those of the Czech Constitutional Court,118 the Czech Supreme Court119 and websites containing decisions of the Superior Court in Prague and Olomouc. Additionally, there is also the website of the Prague Arbitration Court, which publishes key Czech Court decisions regarding ‘.cz’ domain names (3 Cmo 367/2010).120 Unfortunately, many decisions are neither published nor posted, and thus they remain out of the reach of the public.

  23 Cdo 3407/2010, ‘Globtour.cz’ from 19 April, 2012 (Supreme Court of the Czech Republic).   According to Section 6 Act No 221/2006 Coll., on Enforcement of Industrial Property Rights and on the Amendment of Industrial Property Protection, the Municipal Court in Prague shall act as the court of first instance in disputes relating to industrial property, including claims resulting from the endangering and infringement of industrial property rights and claims for the surrender of unjust enrichment acquired to the detriment of the rights-holder. The Municipal Court shall act as the court of first instance in the Czech Republic on matters relating to Community trademarks under Article 92 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/1994 of 20 December 1993 on Community Trademarks. The court shall likewise act as the court of first instance in the Czech Republic on matters relating to Community (industrial) designs pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community (industrial) designs and shall review final administrative decisions of the Industrial Property Office. The proceedings of the Municipal Court in Prague shall be conducted and decided by specialist panels composed of a presiding and two additional judges. 117  Horáček, Roman, Macek, Jiří, and Biskupová, Eva, Sbírka správních a soudních rozhodnutí ve věcech průmyslového vlastnictví. Praha: CH Beck, I and II, 2007. 118 See http://www.usoud.cz/en/. 119 See http://www.nsoud.cz/. 120 See http://domeny.soud.cz/html/cz/adr/decisions/Rozsudek.pdf. 115 116

276

IV.  Court Litigation (1) Abusive Domain Registration Abusive domain registration cases can be decided by the court either based on unfair competi- CZ.118 tion protection (including business name protection, etc), or IP regulations. The former type are generally brought before the national courts in the defendant’s jurisdiction, while the latter may instead be heard by the Municipal Court in Prague, following recently-enacted IP legislation. Unfair competition is the most common resolution mechanism for abusive domain registration, due to the broad scope and historical interpretation of competition law. An abusive domain registration may violate the new Civil Code provisions concerning unfair CZ.119 competition and concerning the protection of business names or names per se, as well as special IP laws. Additionally, where a trademark or business name is registered as a domain by a compet­ itor with the intent to obstruct or cause confusion, and the domain is used in connection with identical or similar goods and services and an infringing sign, the case may be brought on the basis of particular as well as general introductory provisions of the new Civil Code. The Czech concept of good manners is a version of a standard of expected good behaviour, called in Latin ‘boni mores’. Where an infringement claim is brought under the Trademark Act, it may also be possible to CZ.120 file for an injunction and damages under the new Civil Code if the domain was registered for resale or obstruction. Although the Commercial Code generally required the concerned parties to be market competitors, injunctions have occasionally been granted in competition law claims concerning domain names where the holder was engaged in a different trade sector. In one striking case, concerning a trademark owner whose mark was registered as a domain name (‘paegas. cz’) by a third party and used for pornographic content, a competitive relationship was upheld simply due to the fact that both parties were offering their services online.121 Thus, the ability for trademarks to co-exist, due to their registration for different classes of goods or services, does not necessarily apply in the digital context.

(2) Infringement of  Trademarks (a)  Risk of Confusion Between a Trademark and a Domain Name Pursuant to the Trademark Act, a third party may not use, in the course of trade, any sign which CZ.121 is identical to another trademark for the sale of goods or services which correspond to those for which the trademark is registered, without the consent of the trademark owner. In such cases, the trademark owner may request an injunction, so long as he is able to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion amongst relevant consumers. If the domain name is identical to another’s trademark but used for different goods or services, there is no infringement under trademark law, although competition law provisions may apply if the registration was intended to obstruct.122 These principles also apply in domain name disputes. As in conventional trademark conflicts, CZ.122 likelihood of confusion must be demonstrated by taking into account the distinctive character of the mark, the identity or similarity of the sign and domain name, as well as the nature of the goods or services offered under the mark and domain.123 Nonetheless, the virtual world raises a number of unique and complex issues. In the context of domains, the examination of the likelihood of confusion is based exclusively on the second-level (or higher) text, since 121  Decision of the Prague District Court (19 Cm 247/2001) dated 19 June, 2001 (Decision No 11 in the collection of decisions at ‘nic.cz’). 122  Case No Nc 1072/200, ‘Paegas.cz’, 12 April, 2001 (Municipal Court)—R v T. 123 Examples of decisions are collected in Pítra, Vladimír, Vybraná rozhodnutí z vynálezeckého práva. Praha: ÚPV, 1979; Jakl, Ladislav, Sbírka správních rozhodnutí ve věcech průmyslových práv. Praha: ÚPV, 1999; Horáček, Roman, Macek, Jiří and Biskupová, Eva, Sbírka správních a soudních rozhodnutí ve věcech průmyslového vlastnictví. Praha: CH Beck, 2007.

277

Czech Republic (‘.cz’) only this portion has an identifying function. The top-level domain suffix is of no relevance for the evaluation. CZ.123 One of the earliest Czech court cases regarding a ‘.cz’ domain (‘oskar.cz’) presented a challenge

as the defendant was not an obvious speculator, but instead the holder of a business name and a trademark owner (for the term ‘oscar’).124 Surprisingly, in 2001 the Superior Court in Prague granted a preliminary measure temporarily prohibiting CZ.NIC from transferring the domain name to any party other than the complainant. The final decision was eagerly awaited in this case, but the complainant (an important mobile phone provider—Český Mobil), decided to avoid risk or delay and settled the case in April 2003 for an unprecedented amount (CZK 10,000,000 (€400,000)). There are numerous interpretations of this case, and many have questioned which trademark owner acted in bad faith—the older, smaller defendant or the newer, larger complainant.125

CZ.124 A similar case arose five years later, regarding ‘telefonica.cz’ but since the defendant did not

have a trademark and had not proven good faith, the case was quickly concluded following the issuance of a preliminary measure (in the complainant’s favour) by the Municipal Court in Prague.126 Additionally, the ‘ceskapojistovna.cz’ case illustrates the impact that a strong IP portfolio may have when a complainant is attempting to secure transfer of a domain from a holder who is not, prima facie, a speculator.127

CZ.125 Another category of disputes involves former business partners, including cases concern-

ing dishonest representatives or ex-partners who have registered domain names containing relevant names or trademarks in order to harm their former business associates and impinge or usurp their reputations. A case of this nature was recently heard by the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic. At all levels the rulings were in favour of the complainant, resulting in the transfer of ‘wacom.cz’ and a prohibition barring the defendants from using the ‘wacom’ name.128

CZ.126 In light of the above decisions, the ruling in ‘globtour.cz’, issued by the Supreme Court of

the Czech Republic, was highly surprising.129 Although the Court considered arguments based on trademark law, unfair competition, and business name protection, along with questions of bad faith, and found in favour of the complainant, they did not elect to grant transfer of the disputed domain. The Court instead noted important distinctions between constitutive and declaratory decisions, and suggested that cancellation (rather than transfer) was the appropriate remedy in such cases. This approach is, in some ways, impractical since it enables third parties an equal chance to register a cancelled domain as the successful complainant.

CZ.127 Fortunately, this issue was resolved by CZ.NIC within eight months, by amending its

Registration Rules. The new version of the Rules provides for a period of one month, after

  Oskar.cz (Superior court, Prague)—Český mobil v Comfor—settled on 28 April, 2003.   MacGregor Pelikánová, Radka, Ekonomické, právní a technické aspekty doménových jmen v globální perspektivě. Ostrava, CZ: Key Publishing, 2012. 126 Ibid. 127  2 Cm 290/2001 Ceskapojistovna.cz from 10 August, 2004 (Municipal and Superior courts)—Česká pojišťovna v X and CZ.NIC. 128  23 Cdo 4407/2011 Wacom.cz from 28 February, 2012 (Supreme Court of the Czech Republic)— Wacom v ConQuest and UMAX. 129 23 Cdo 3407/2010 Globtour.cz from 19 April, 2012 (Supreme Court of the Czech Republic)— GLOBTOUR v Globtour and CZ.NIC—See http://www.nsoud.cz/Judikatura/judikatura_ns.nsf/WebSearch/ 4083762A80E4C100C1257A4E006ACD3A?openDocument&Highlight=0. 124 125

278

IV.  Court Litigation the forced cancellation of a domain, during which time the winning complainant has a guaranteed right to register the disputed domain name (s 16.4 Registration Rules).

(b)  The Protection of Well-Known Trademarks Against Use as Domain Names By virtue of the Trademark Act, the proprietor of a well-known mark can prevent third par- CZ.128 ties from using ‘any sign identical with or similar to the trademark for goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trademark is registered, where the use of that sign would without due cause take advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the good reputation of the trademark’ (ss 2, 3, and 7 Trademark Act).130 This wording is rather broad and overcomes both limits for trademark protection—the compulsory registration of a trademark and the limitation of the scope of protection to the indicated classes. However, the courts enjoy wide discretion in applying the provision and, in practice, the appeal and supervisory courts have traditionally preferred to uphold the decisions of the lower courts, especially where they are in keeping with the Court of Justice of the European Union.131 At this point, the protection of well-known trademarks against use as domain names has not CZ.129 yet been developed in Czech case law. There are only a few decisions available and they are very fact-dependent, although future cases will offer additional opportunities for the courts to interpret the Trademark Act.

(c)  Comparison of ADR v Court Action Both the ADR and Court mechanisms for resolving ‘.cz’ conflicts have their advantages and CZ.130 disadvantages. Current practice appears to favour the use of ADR over court proceedings for these types of disputes. Certainly, the courts have been instrumental in the issuance of preliminary measures, including domain blocking.132 In terms of the substantive review, however, the updated versions of CZ.NIC Rules and the Prague Arbitration Court Rules make ADR proceedings very effective, fast, and private. In addition, the Prague Arbitration Court’s arbitrators have substantial experience in deciding domain name disputes. That said, the most significant conceptual decisions regarding ‘.cz’ domain names have been CZ.131 issued by the courts, particularly the Superior Court in Prague and the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic. New legislation, which will concentrate IP cases at the first instance in the Municipal Court in Prague, will enhance court-based relief as a specialized corpus of judges will become available through the court system. In the authors’ view, the ease and rapidity of the ADR process suggests that the bulk of CZ.132 future disputes will be decided via ADR, and that courts will decide only non-standard or complex cases.

(3) The Registration of Generic and Descriptive Terms as Trademarks Generic and descriptive terms cannot be registered as trademarks pursuant to the Trademark CZ.133 Act, both because they lack the necessary distinctive character and because there is a legitimate interest in their free use.133 However, where distinctiveness can be established, a mark

130  Decisions of the Municipal Court in Prague No 11 Ca 407/206, dated 25 July, 2008; of the Highest Administration Court in Brno No 5 A 128/2001, dated 14 August 2008; of the Superior Court in Prague No 3 Cmo 64/2009, dated 23 September, 2009. 131  4 As 90/2006-123, K Classic, 23 July, 2008 (Highest Administrative Court)—Nestlé v ÚPV, Kaufland. 132  See approximately 100 preliminary, interim, and interlocutary court decisions concerning ‘.cz’ domain names posted at: http://www.nic.cz/page/314/rules-and-policies/. 133  Decision of the Industrial Property Office No OZ 55687-88, dated 22 December, 1992; No OZ 80862-93, dated 13 April, 1995; No OZ 82258, dated 14 June, 1995; No OZ 67337, dated 26 January, 1996; No O-164305, dated 18 August, 2004.

279

Czech Republic (‘.cz’) containing an otherwise descriptive term can successfully proceed to registration (ss 4 and 5 Trademark Act). There is no established law or policy specifically restricting the registration of such descriptive terms as domain names.

(4) Infringement of Personal Names, Names of Cities, and Other Public Law Corporations CZ.134 If the use of another’s name as a domain creates the false impression of a relationship, the

entitled natural person can, pursuant to the Civil Code, demand that the legal person cease use of the improper domain name.134

CZ.135 If the use of another’s commercial or firm name as a domain creates the false impression of a

relationship, the entitled person or entity can (pursuant to the Commercial Code on unfair competition), demand that the holder cease use of this domain. In this context, it should be noted that the Highest Administrative Court in Brno overruled a decision of the Industrial Property Office on a related point, expressly stating that a business name is protected by Czech national law as well as international law and that the right to a business name is stronger than the rights of a trademark applicant. The Court held that this distinction applies even when the disputed terms are not absolutely identical.135

CZ.136 Where a domain name incorporates the name of a celebrity or a well-known person or entity,

it will normally be assumed that the adoption of the domain name was not accidental, even if the associated website does not indicate a relationship between the holder and the bearer of the name. However, the most cited case on this point, the dispute regarding the domain ‘dagmarhavlova.cz’, was highly controversial.136 The case was a criminal matter, decided by a district criminal court out of Prague. The victim was the wife of the President of the Czech Republic, Dagmar Havlova, and the accused persons were men operating the domain-website ‘dagmarhavlova.cz’ for pornographic content. The defendants had secured permission from a Czech retiree, also named Dagmar Havlova, authorizing them to use her name. Nevertheless, the criminal court found in favour of Mrs Havlova, and sentenced the defendants to suspended imprisonment.

CZ.137 The new Civil Code provides protection for a legal persons, including legal entities and towns

(s 7 ff. new Civil Code). Thus, town names also enjoy protection against unauthorized use. To date, there have been no judicial decisions concerning the registration of town names, although the press occasionally reports that speculators or other bad actors have registered domains in this manner. Obviously, the holders of such domains may be in violation of the CZ.NIC rules (s 16 Registration Rules).

(5) Geographical Indications of Source CZ.138 In the Czech Republic, geographical indications of source are protected by Law No

452/2001 Sb., on the Protection of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications of Source, by the amendment to the Consumer Protection Act, and pursuant to Article 22 of TRIPS. According to the Act on the Protection of Designations of Origin and Geographical 134  Decision C 16/06 Céline SARL v Céline SA; decisions of the Industrial Property Office No OZ 83873, dated 29 September, 1995; No OZ 70591, dated 2 February, 1996; No OZ 70944, dated 6 March, 1996; No OZ 61760, dated 4 April 1996; No OZ 74952, dated 12 April 1996; No 76651, dated 12 April, 1996. 135  7 A 160/2000 P from 24 August, 2007 (the Highest Administrative Court)—Pt v PP. 136  The conflict involving the wife of the Czech President, Dagmar Havlova, whose name was registered as a ‘.cz’ domain name (‘dagmarhavlova.cz’) for the presentation of pornographic content, led to intense debate in the Czech Republic. An English translation of the Act can be found on the Industrial Property Office website, at: http://www. upv.cz.

280

IV.  Court Litigation Indications of Source, they must not be used for goods or services that do not originate from the territory that is identified by the geographical indication, if such use would result in consumer deception.137 The use of geographical indications of source as trademarks has been discussed in a number of Industrial Property Office decisions.138

(6) Remedies The most common remedy in court proceedings concerning domain names is the issuance of CZ.139 a preliminary (interlocutory) order for the blocking of a given domain name until the final disposition on the merits. Final decisions can recognize a number of claims, and may order relief including the termination or transfer of the domain name,139 damages, satisfaction, and the reimbursement of costs and legal fees.

(a) Interlocutory Relief In domain name conflicts, the enforcement of remedies under Czech intellectual property CZ.140 law is generally achieved through the use of interlocutory actions. Pursuant to the Civil Court Proceedings Order, the court is obliged to decide whether a CZ.141 request for provisional measures is justified within seven days (s 75c, Civil Court Proceedings Order). In addition, the petitioner is required to file an action on the merits with a competent court within a specified period. If it becomes apparent that an interlocutory injunction was issued wrongly, the applicant must compensate the registrant for any resulting loss. As a rule, the court will not request the applicant to lodge any security at the time the action is filed.140 In practice, the petition for an interlocutory injunction is usually preceded by an attorney’s CZ.142 warning letter, placing the infringer on notice of the mark owner’s rights. Such warnings, however, are not obligatory. In interlocutory domain name disputes, the courts have restricted themselves to imposing CZ.143 a prohibition on the use of the domain name and forbidding the infringing registrant from transferring the domain name to a third party. Courts have not ordered the cancellation or transfer of the domain name, since this would anticipate the action on the main issue. As indicated in Section VI, where CZ.NIC has been brought as a co-defendant alongside the registrant, the courts have ordered the registry to prevent the transfer of the domain name to a third party.141 An application by a rights holder for an interlocutory injunction ordering the registry to pre- CZ.144 vent the infringing domain name from being used to offer specific goods or services on the Internet was dismissed by the Brno District Court, on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction to make such an order as against the registry.142 However, the updated version of the CZ.NIC

  Decision of the Upper Court in Prague No 3 Cmo 155/2003.   Examples of decisions are collected in Jakl, Ladislav, Sbírka správních rozhodnutí ve věcech průmyslových práv. Praha: ÚPV, 1999: Decision Nos 74, 78, 83, 90, 91, 94, 95, 97, 98, 102, 103, 107, 109, 203, 245, 250, 252, and 290. 139  Noting, however, the Supreme Court’s decision in the ‘globtour.cz’ case; 23 Cdo 3407/2010, ‘Globtour. cz’ from 19 April, 2012. 140  Decision of the Upper Court in Prague No 3Cmo 431/2008, dated 12 November, 2008 and No 3 Cmo 142/2005 dated 31 August, 2005. 141 Decision of the Prague District Court (Nc 1060/2003) dated 5 June, 2003 (Decision No 30 in the collection of decisions at ‘nic.cz’); likewise Prague District Court (2 Cm 93/2003) dated 7 July, 2003 (Decision No 34 in the collection of decisions at ‘nic.cz’) and Brno District Court (11Cm 15/2002) dated 27 November, 2002 (Decision No 18 in the collection of decisions at ‘nic.cz’); decisions of the Upper Court in Prague No 3Cmo 142/2005 and 3Cmo 321/2005. 142  Brno District Court (8Nc 3/2003) dated 14 February, 2003. 137 138

281

Czech Republic (‘.cz’) rules may place this issue in a different light, as the co-suing of CZ.NIC is no longer necessary (s 18.1 Registration Rules) and the dispute resolution framework has been streamlined (ss 18 and 19 Registration Rules). CZ.145 From the point of view of foreign plaintiffs, it should be noted that all documents and plead-

ings submitted to the Czech Courts must be filed in Czech.

CZ.146 The popularity of interlocutory relief can be demonstrated by statistics, including the nearly

100 decisions published by CZ.NIC.143

(b)  Specific Issues with Regard to Interlocutory Remedies CZ.147 (i)  ‘Trademark’ Injunction  A claim for an injunction against the use of a domain name

pursuant to the general principles of the Trademark Act would, in theory, be possible, provided that there was a risk of the infringing act being committed or repeated.144 To date, the courts have not granted any type of limited injunction claim designed to prevent a specific form of use with regard to particular goods or services in line with the provisions of the Trademark Act. Courts have instead used a blanket-form injunction, preventing all use of the disputed domain name.145

CZ.148 (ii)  Cancellation or Transfer  As discussed above, a claim for the cancellation or transfer

of a domain name cannot be enforced in interlocutory proceedings, and the courts may only enjoin the registrant from transferring the domain name to a third party.146

(c)  Claims for Damages and Domain Name Transfer CZ.149 A  claim for damages pursuant to the Trademark Act and Act No 221/2006 Coll., on

Enforcement of Industrial Property Rights,147 is intended to compensate for the loss incurred through trademark infringement. According to this section, the injured trademark owner is entitled to compensation for both tangible and intangible loss. A similar regulation is provided by the Commercial Code with respect to the protection against unfair competition.

CZ.150 As noted, the Czech courts have not granted any claims for transfer in interlocutory proceed-

ings. In ordinary proceedings, the Czech Courts have often ordered the transfer of domain names, but this trend was reversed in 2012 by the highly controversial ‘globtour.cz’ decision of the Supreme Court.148 Fortunately, CZ.NIC found a satisfactory solution by updating its rules, and thus gave successful complainants a chance to obtain the disputed domain name (s 19 Registration Rules).

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name CZ.151 Domain names do not constitute intellectual property rights merely by virtue of registration.

At the same time, however, they can have identifying functions and may act ‘like a name’.149

  Please see the Court verdicts archive at: http://www.nic.cz/page/314/rules-and-policies/.   Pelikanova, Cermak, Pravni aspekty domenovych jmen, Linde Praha, 2000, p 188. 145  Municipal Court in Prague No 19 Cm 247/2001. 146  Decision of the Upper Court in Prague No 3Cmo 64/2009 dated 23 September, 2009. 147  Also available in English at: http://www.upv.cz. 148  23 Cdo 3407/2010 Globtour.cz from 19 April, 2012 (Supreme Court of the Czech Republic)—GLOBTOUR v Globtour and CZ.NIC. 149  For rights of unregistered signs see decisions of the Upper Court in Prague No 3 Cmo 329/2009 and No 3 Cmo 403/2008 and decision of the Municipal Court in Prague No 7Ca 180/2008. 143 144

282

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law If the domain name is used as a name or company name, it may be possible for this use to establish protection, provided the legal requirements for, inter alia, a business name, are met and satisfied. There is no prohibition on the registration of domain names as trademarks. As with any other CZ.152 sign, a domain name can only be registered as a trademark if it has the necessary distinctive character in combination with the goods and services claimed.150 This assessment is made on the basis of the textual string which comprises the second-level portion of the domain name, and ignores the domain suffix and any ‘www’ prefix.151 These general statements apply since the Czech courts have not specifically adopted any particular policy or trend regarding IP rights arising from domain names.

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers CZ.NIC proclaims that it is not liable either for the use or misuse of a registered domain CZ.153 name, or for any infringement of trademarks, brand names, names or business designations of third persons arising from the registration or use of a domain name (s 21 Registration Rules). CZ.NIC attempts to maintain neutrality and to conduct an exclusively technical review of applied-for strings, and thus the ultimate responsibility for the selection and use of a domain remains with the holder. This attitude has been criticized, and it is questionable whether CZ.NIC is an Internet service provider subject to certain obligations and duties under Act No 127/2005, on electronic communications. In addition to the above-mentioned exclusion of liability, domain holders are made liable to CZ.154 CZ.NIC for any damages which may result from their provision of wrong or misleading data, or through the use of the domain name in a way that contravenes the Registration Rules or infringes third-party rights (s 13 Registration Rules).

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property The trade in domain names is permissible as long as no trademark or other third-party rights are CZ.155 infringed. In the legal literature it has been argued that domain names constitute ‘another asset’ within the meaning of Article 118 of the old Civil Code. The re-codification extended the definition of the item and so domain names can be considered items according to Article 489 and Article 1011 of the new Civil Code, and so they should be available for licensing and transferring.

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (1)  International Jurisdiction Since its accession to the EU, the Czech Republic has been bound by the European Convention CZ.156 on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as well as

150  Compare with WIPO decisions ‘buyambientwithoutprescription.com’ v Ambien; ‘discountdavidoff.com’ v Davidoff; ‘buyaccutaneonlinenorx.com’ v Roaccutane; ‘mercurevaldisere.com’ v MERCURE; ‘porschetravelclub. com’ v Porsche; ‘lemeridienjaipur.com’ v Le Meridien; ‘swissotel-online.com’ v Swissotel. 151  See the decision of the Czech Industrial Property Office, No 0-114783, regarding the domain name ‘www.centrum.cz’.

283

Czech Republic (‘.cz’) the Council Regulation on Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. Before that, international jurisdiction for dealing with infringements of intellectual property rights in signs was determined according to the rules governing the relevant local jurisdiction. Although in international conflicts concerning online intellectual property rights the alleged infringer generally does not maintain any relevant contacts within the Czech Republic, the Czech courts are usually able to establish jurisdiction if the special legal venue of torts is available. The provision enabling jurisdiction in such circumstances is found in the Code of Civil Procedure, and is available either where the tort in question was committed in the Czech Republic or the damaging effect occurred therein. CZ.157 As yet, neither the legal literature nor case law has discussed how international jurisdiction

may be exercised in light of the global nature of the Internet, and what limits may apply. It can be assumed, however, that Czech courts will have jurisdiction if the website accessible under the disputed domain name has a commercial effect in the Czech Republic.152

(2) Choice of Law CZ.158 The principle of substantive territoriality applicable to intellectual property rights in signs

worldwide corresponds with the country-of-protection principle recognized in the Czech Republic. Thus, the question of whether (and to what extent) intellectual property protection will be granted, in the context of a particular cross-border use of a sign, is determined according to the law of the country wherein the sign is protected. Since under the principle of territoriality only domestic sign rights can have an effect in the specific country of protection, the question as to whether a Czech sign right has been infringed is ultimately determined according to Czech sign law, while potential infringement of a foreign sign right must be evaluated on the basis of applicable foreign law.

CZ.159 In the Czech Republic the ‘place-of-market principle’ applies in competition law. Accordingly,

claims based on unfair competition are to be determined according to the law of the country where the competition has an effect. If a number of national markets are affected by the alleged dishonest registration of a domain name, the action is to be determined separately according to each of these laws. Accordingly, Czech unfair competition law will not apply if the website accessible under the contested domain name is not capable of affecting the interests of a Czech plaintiff who is a competitor.

(3) Substantive  Law CZ.160 As a matter of principle, Czech law grants a trademark holder the right to prohibit any unau-

thorized third party from using an identical or confusingly similar sign. Infringing activities may include not only the offering of goods or services bearing the sign within the Czech market, but also use of the sign in business papers or in advertising. That is, any outward advertising use of the sign, including online, may be deemed an infringement.

  Decision of the Upper Court in Prague No 3 Cmo 304/2004 dated 16 May, 2005.

152

284

DENMARK (‘.dk’) Knud Wallberg

I. Overview of the National System of the Protection of Trademarks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs  (1) Trademarks  (2) Company Names  (3) Other Business Signs  (4) Personal Names  (5) Development of Domain Name Law and the Domain Names Act 

(7) Role of the Administrative Board  DK.52 (8) Procedural Costs  DK.54 (9) Relationship between the ADR and Court Proceedings  DK.55 (10) ADR Decisions  DK.57 (11) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Complaints Board  DK.62 (12) Remedies  DK.64 (13) Case Law  DK.67 IV.  Court Litigation  DK.91 (1) Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation  DK.91 (2) Infringement of Trademarks  DK.92 (3) Use of Personal Names as Domain Names DK.125 (4) Infringement of Titles DK.126 (5) Remedies and Procedural Law Issues DK.127

DK.01 DK.04 DK.10 DK.15 DK.20 DK.22

II. The ccTLD (‘.dk’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

DK.25 (1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry  DK.25 (2) The Structure of the Name Space  DK.27 (3) Registration Restrictions  DK.28 (4) Statistics: Number of Domain Name Registrations and Growth  DK.30

III. ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.dk’ Domain Space. Klagenævnet for Domænenavne 

(1) Principal Characteristics of the Procedure  (2) Statistics  (3) Scope of the Procedure  (4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement  (5) Overview of the ADR Procedure  (6) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider 

V. Acquisition of Industrial Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  VI.  Liability of the Registry VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law 

DK.31 DK.31 DK.33 DK.40 DK.41 DK.42

(1) International Jurisdiction (2) Substantive Law

DK.140 DK.143 DK.145 DK.146 DK.146 DK.150

DK.50

Links Dansk Internet Forum (Danish Registry, DIFO): http://www.difo.dk/en/ Registration Conditions: https://www.dk-hostmaster.dk/english/laws-conditions/ WHOIS: https://www.dk-hostmaster.dk Alternative Dispute Resolution: The Complaints Board for Domain Names (Klagenævnet for Domænenavne): https://www.domaeneklager.dk/uk/ Published Decisions: https://www.domaeneklager.dk Danish Patent and Trademark Office: http://www.dkpto.dk Danish Business Authority (The Companies Act):  http://danishbusinessauthority.dk/ file/249079/danish_companies_act.pdf Danish Consumer Ombudsman (The Marketing Practices Act): http://www.consumerombudsman.dk/Regulatory-framework/Danish-Marketing-Practices-Act/marketingpractisesact

285

Denmark (‘.dk’)

I.  Overview of the National System of the Protection of Trademarks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs DK.01 Trademarks and other types of business signs are protected by a variety of laws in Denmark.

The most important pieces of legislation are the Trademark Act,1 the Companies Act,2 The Commercial Undertakings Act,3 which contains the rules on company names, and the Marketing Practices Act,4 which contains the general rules prohibiting acts of ‘unfair competition’.

DK.02 The provisions of the laws on the exclusive rights in commercial designations and unfair compe-

tition law protection of signs can be applied separately or alongside each other without difficulty. Actions based on infringements are frequently based both on unfair competition law rules and on the other provisions under trademark law.

DK.03 Court practice has shown that the above-mentioned laws apply to domain name conflicts and

that these laws and principles of law address many of the relevant issues. Nevertheless, a specific piece of legislation, namely the Domain Names Act has been in force since 1 July 2005. A revised version of the Act entered into force on 1 March 2014.5 For more information about the Danish Domain Names Act, see below under Section I.5.

(1) Trademarks DK.04 The 1992 Danish Trademark Act, with later amendments, implements the EU Trademark

Directive.6 The main provisions of the Act, such as the definition of a trademark, the rights conferred by a trademark, infringements, and so on, thus follow the harmonized EU definitions as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

DK.05 Trademark rights can be established in two ways: either through registration or through use.

Section 3 of the Trademark Act reads as follows:

(1) A trademark right may be established either (i) by registration of a trademark in accordance with the rules of this Act for the goods or services comprised by the registration; or (ii) by commencement of use of a trademark in this country for the goods or services for which the trademark has commenced to be used and for which it is continuously used. (2) Use of a trademark which according to its nature is excluded from registration shall not establish any trademark right. (3) If the trademark is devoid of the required distinctive character on commencement of use, the right shall not be established until a distinctive character is created by the use of the mark. DK.06 A registration is obtained by applying for a trademark at the Danish Patent and Trademarks

Office (DKPTO).7 The DKPTO follows the same examination practice as the Office for   Varemærkeloven, Consolidated Act No 109 of 24 January 2012.   Selskabsloven, Act No 470 of 12 June 2009. 3  Lov om erhvervsdrivende virksomheder, Consolidated Act No 559 of 19 May 2010. 4  Markedsføringsloven, Consolidated Marketing Practices Act No 58 of 20 October 2012. 5  Act No 598 of 24 June 2005 on Internet Domains Specifically Allocated to Denmark. The Supreme Court has ruled in a decision of 20 April 2010 published in U 2010.1942 H that the Act was not unconstitutional as the plaintiff had otherwise claimed. The current Act is Act No 164 of 18 February 2014 on Internet Domains. 6  Directive 2008/95/EC of The European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version). 7  Trademark protection in Denmark can also be acquired by an international registration according to the Madrid Protocol, or by registration of a Community Trademark. Trademarks registered nationally or through designations of Denmark via the Protocol filed on or after 11 January 2011 are valid in Greenland. Only 1 2

286

I.  Overview of the National System Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) in that a distinction is made between absolute and relative grounds for refusal. If all the formalities are satisfied when the application is lodged, the result of the examination is usually communicated within four to six weeks. If there is no absolute ground for refusal such as lack of distinctiveness, the applicant can ask the DKPTO to register the mark immediately, regardless of the contents of the search report showing possible conflicting marks. Thus a registration can be obtained within two months of filing. The registration can be opposed within a two-month period from publication and can also be the subject of an action for revocation on both absolute and relative grounds at any time. A particular feature of the Danish Trademark Act is that a trademark right can be acquired DK.07 simply through the commencement of use of the mark if the mark is inherently distinctive and if the use of the mark has countrywide significance.8 Such trademarks acquired through use as a matter of principle enjoy the same protection as registered trademarks. The rights conferred by a mark are laid down in section 4 of the Act which reads as DK.08 follows: (1) The proprietor of a trademark right shall be entitled to prohibit all persons not having his consent from using in the course of trade any sign if (i) the sign is identical with the trademark, and the goods or services for which the sign is used are identical with the goods or services for which the trademark is protected, or (ii) the sign is identical with or similar to the trademark, and the goods or services are identical with or similar to those covered by the trademark, if there is a likelihood of confusion including the likelihood of association with the trademark. (2) Irrespective of the limitation in subsection (1) to goods or services being identical with or similar to those covered by the trademark, the proprietor of the trademark shall be entitled to prohibit the use of the trademark also in relation to goods or services which are not identical or similar where the trademark is well known in this country and the use would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trademark. (3) Use in the course of trade means in particular: (i) affixing the sign to the goods or to the packaging thereof; (ii) offering the goods for sale, putting them on the market or stocking them for that purpose or offering or supplying services under the sign in question; (iii) importing or exporting the goods under the sign in question; or (iv) using the sign on business papers and in advertising.

The actual wording of this section does not restrict the application of the law to any specific DK.09 media. The list of acts that can constitute an (infringing) use of a trademark in section 4(3) is not exhaustive (cf. the term ‘in particular’). There can thus be no doubt that oral use of trademarks, for example, in radio advertisements, announcements at trade fairs or sports events, and via digital media such as TV, are covered by these rules. Although the Internet in general and domain names in particular have given rise to some very specific problems that do not

trademarks registered under the national procedure are valid on the Faeroe Islands. Greenland manages its own ccTLD (‘.gl’) and so does the Faeroe Islands (‘.fo’). 8  Cf. the decision of the Supreme Court dated 21 May 2000 published in U 2000.1351 H: An insurance company sent marketing material to its members for a new insurance product under the name ‘Elysium’ on 12 March 1996. On 18 March a corresponding press release was published, which was reproduced in newspaper articles throughout the country on 19 March. A competitor’s application dated 20 March 1996 for registration of an identical sign for identical services was held to be an infringement of the trademark already acquired through use.

287

Denmark (‘.dk’) occur within other media, it is generally accepted both in theory and practice that trademark law applies to these types of conflict as well.

(2) Company  Names DK.10 Commercial enterprises are subject to special provisions for protection of their names (com-

pany name protection) based on provisions in the Companies Act9 or the Commercial Undertakings Act.10 The latter Act deals with personal companies, partnerships and the like. Since the rules on company names are the same in both Acts, the principles can all be dealt with here on the basis of the Companies Act, section 2. This provision reads as follows: (1) Only public and private limited companies have the right and duty to use in their names the designations ‘aktieselskab’ (in English, public limited company) and ‘anpartsselskab’ (in English, private limited company) respectively, or the abbreviations ‘A/S’ and ‘ApS’ respectively. (2) The name of a limited liability company must be clearly distinguishable from the names of other businesses registered with the Danish Business Authority (Erhvervsstyrelsen). The name may not include any family name, business name, distinctive name of real property, trademark, distinctive mark or similar feature not belonging to the limited liability company, or anything likely to cause confusion with such name or mark. (3) The name of a limited liability company must not be capable of being misleading. Where the name of a limited liability company indicates a specific activity, the company may not continue using that name if the company significantly changes its principal activity. (4) Limited liability companies must specify their name, registered office and Central Business Register (CVR) number on letters and other business papers, including electronic messages, and on their website.

DK.11 The Companies Acts require a company to have a name and that the name be registered with

the Companies Register.11 The main objective of the protection of company names is of a public nature. The name serves to identify a legal entity and serves to ensure that mail and other types of communication are sent to the right entity. This means that identical names cannot exist even if the companies are involved in different sectors.12

DK.12 A company name must be distinctive and must not be confusingly similar to other company

names, trademarks, business signs, or personal names. Unlike under the previous Company Names Act, registration is now handled by a central Trade Register. However, the registry does not check who is entitled to the right to a designation. The business designation is registered if it is not entirely descriptive and if there is no identical sign. The registration cannot be contested by means of administrative proceedings; instead any decision concerning the lawfulness of the registration lies with the courts.

DK.13 The right conferred on the holder of a registered company name is an exclusive right through-

out the country. The holder can prohibit the use of a company name or other business

9  Act No 470 of 12 June 2009, available at: http://danishbusinessauthority.dk/file/249079/danish_companies_act.pdf. 10  Consolidated Act No 559 of 19 May 2010, in English, may be found at: http://danishbusinessauthority. dk/file/248999/executive_order_act_certain_commercial_undertakings.pdf. 11  These provisions also apply to subsidiaries of foreign companies. 12  Cf. the decision of the Supreme Court in the ‘Multichoice case’ published in U 1999.1406 H. The Supreme Court subsequently modified the decision in its ‘Medicon/Medicon Valley Capital’ decision, published in U 2003.107 H and commented upon by Janne Glæsel in U 2003.405 B, and Knud Wallberg in NIR 2003. 612 f.; on company names in general, see Jacob Rasmussen and Jesper Clausen: Beskyttelse af virksomhedsnavne, 2003 and Martin Sick Nielsen: Grundlæggende Immaterialret, 2009, ­chapter 3.3.

288

I.  Overview of the National System sign that is confusingly similar to his name based on sections 1 and 18 of the Marketing Practices Act. A company can register an unlimited number of ‘secondary names’, see section 3.13 Secondary DK.14 names are often used in the context of mergers or demergers. They allow a merged company to keep all the previous names of the merging companies, while in the case of a demerger the company can reserve all of its future names in advance. Secondary names can also be registered outside these situations. In principle these names enjoy the same broad protection as the main name, but if the name is not in actual use it is assumed that it enjoys a very limited protection.14

(3) Other Business Signs The Marketing Practices Act15 is the legislative act that lays down the general principles of DK.15 ‘good behaviour’ also referred to as the principles of ‘(un)fair competition’ as defined in Article 10bis of the Paris Convention.16 Two provisions are of particular interest in this context, namely section 1 and section 18:

DK.16

Section 1. (1) Traders subject to this Act shall exercise good marketing practice with reference to consumers, other traders and public interests. (2)  Marketing in respect of consumers’ economic interests may not be designed to significantly distort their economic behaviour. … Section 18. Traders must not use business emblems and similar devices that do not belong to them, nor use their own business emblems in a manner likely to cause confusion with others.

Section 1 is the general clause prohibiting all acts of unfair competition. Both in theory and DK.17 in practice, section 1 also covers the (mis)use of business signs and trademarks, but this particular type of unfair competition is nevertheless set out explicitly in section 18. The practice of the courts and the Complaints Board for Domain Names (see below) has generally been to use section 1 as the basis for decisions dealing with domain name conflicts. Most of these cases are now decided on the basis of section 12 of the Domain Names Act. The basic principle of sections 1 and 18 is that a business sign, whether registered or used as DK.18 a trademark or company name or not, should enjoy protection against unfair appropriation, dilution, and so on. The condition for obtaining protection under the Act is that the sign must be distinctive, DK.19 although not necessarily as distinctive as required under the Trademark Act, sections 2 and 13. Business signs that have only been used in a geographically limited part of Denmark can also be protected under the Act against the use of a similar mark within the same geographical market.

13  Which reads: ‘(1) Section 2 also applies to any secondary names of limited liability companies, (2) If a limited liability company registers more than five secondary names, an amount of DKK 1,000 will be payable for each secondary name. However, this requirement does not apply to secondary names that pre-date any reorganisation, merger or division.’ 14  It therefore cannot constitute the basis for a claim for an injunction; cf. the decision of the Supreme Court for the Eastern Region dated 27 May 1992, published in U 1992.810 Ø, wherein registration of the secondary name ‘Tandlaegerens Inkasso A/S’ by a company called Tandlaegernes Data A/S did not establish a claim to an injunction against the use of the business name ‘Praktiserende Tandlaegers Inkasso’. 15  Consolidated Marketing Practices Act No 58 of 20 January 2012. 16 For details of Danish competition and advertising law, see Kur and Schovsbo, in Schricker (Ed.) Recht der Werbung in Europa, pp 1–167, Borcher & Bøggild:  Markedsføringsloven, 3rd edn, 2013 and Møgelvang-Hansen, Riis and Trzaskowski: Markedsføringsretten 2nd edn, 2011.

289

Denmark (‘.dk’) (4) Personal  Names DK.20 The rules governing the entitlement to use of Personal Names are found in the Act on Personal

Names.17 The primary purpose of the Act is to lay down the principles on how a person becomes entitled to bear a name, but the Act also contains a provision directed against misuse of names, namely section 27, which reads: An individual who can present evidence that another person is using his or her name, or a name which is so similar that it may be confused with his or her name, without being entitled to do so, may demand that the other person be ordered to cease using said name by a court ruling.

DK.21 The said provision has been applied by the Complaints Board for Domain Names a number

of times in cases where a disputed domain name contains a personal name or part of a personal name of another person than the registrant.18

(5) Development of Domain Name Law and the Domain Names Act DK.22 As mentioned above in para DK.03, the Domain Names Act has been in force since 1 July

2005 with the revised Act entering into force on 1 March 2014.19 The Act is a framework law very similar to the Council Regulation on the ‘.eu’ top-level domain.

According to Section 1 the purpose of the Domain Names Act is ‘to provide a framework for access to and use and administration of Internet domains in order to foster an innovative Internet development in society’. DK.23 In this context the most important part of the Act is the substantive provision in section 25,

which is identical to section 12 of the former Act, which reads:

(1) Registrants must not register and use Internet domain names contrary to good domain name practice. (2) Registrants must not register and maintain registrations of Internet domain names solely for the purpose of selling or renting to other parties. DK.24 Through this provision the legislature intended to ‘fill the gaps’ in the then—and still—

existing legal framework, such as non-commercial registration and use of domain names containing other trademarks and warehousing, and to have a flexible provision that will give the courts and other relevant bodies the possibility of addressing and solving such conflicts that may arise in the future. Court practice and practice from the Complaints Board for Domain Names has proven the Act to be a very useful tool. See examples below in Sections III.5 and IV.

II.  The ccTLD (‘.dk’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1)  Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry DK.25 Dansk Internet Forum (DIFO) is the organization that is responsible for the administration

of the ‘.dk’ name space. DIFO is a non-profit association that was established in 1999 on the initiative of the then Minister of Research, the minister responsible for the telecommunications sector, with the participation of the ‘Internet community’ in Denmark. ICANN approved DIFO as the ‘.dk’ Registry in February 2000,20 and in 2009 DIFO won the tender

  Consolidated Act 1098 of 7 October 2014, at present not available in English.   See below paras DK.44–46. 19  Act No 164 of 18 February 2014 on Internet domains. 20  IANA first transferred responsibility to the DKUUG association, which founded a company called DKNet for registration activities. This company and its holdings were acquired by DIFO in 2000. 17 18

290

II.  The ccTLD (‘.dk’) Registration Conditions and Procedures for the ‘.dk’ domain name space that was called for in accordance with the Domain Names Act. Most of DIFO’s members are representatives of the various interest groups within the Internet community and the IT industry. DIFO’s main task as administrator of the ‘.dk’ name space is to lay down the rules for the DK.26 registration of domain names under the ‘.dk’ top-level domain and to technically implement those domain names so that the ‘.dk’ name space actually works. DIFO has set up a fully owned limited liability company, DK Hostmaster A/S, to handle the actual registration and administration of the ‘.dk’ Registry.

(2) The Structure of the Name Space The ‘.dk’ domain name space does not operate with sub-domains, and all registrations are DK.27 available at the second level. The ‘.dk’ domain space is just as open and unrestricted as the ‘.com’ domain.21 This means that anybody can register any domain name that is available. The registrant can be a natural or legal person irrespective of nationality and there are no restrictions as to the type of name that can be registered. Generic names, geographical names, and personal names can thus be registered, provided that they do not infringe third-party rights. Domain names containing the following non-English characters æ, ø, å, ä, ö, ü, and é have been available for registration from 1 January 2004.

(3) Registration Restrictions By registering a domain name under ‘.dk’ the registrant accepts the General Terms22 which in DK.28 its first paragraph describes the registration procedure as follows: An application for a domain name must be made through a registrar approved by DK Hostmaster. The assignment and registration of a ‘.dk’ domain name is effected by entering into an agreement thereon with DK Hostmaster. The assignment and registration of a ‘.dk’ domain name is effected on a ‘first-come, first-served’ basis. Registration solely acquires the right of use of the registered ‘.dk’ domain name. DK Hostmaster shall not undertake any verification of whether a ‘.dk’ domain name infringes a third party’s trademark rights or rights to names or other distinctive marks, or infringes a third party’s right in any other way in connection with the application for a ‘.dk’ domain name. According to paragraph 9 of the general terms a domain name may be transferred to a third party. It is recommended to use the transfer form that is available at DK Hostmaster’s home page.23 Both the current and the future registrant shall sign the form before it is submitted to DK Hostmaster and through the transfer, the new registrant assumes all the previous registrant’s rights and obligations under the agreement. If a domain name is subject to a dispute before the Dispute Board or before the courts trans- DK.29 fer is not possible. When a dispute is filed with the Dispute Board an entry to that effect is automatically noted in the register and the domain name is locked. In case of a dispute before the courts it is up to the parties to inform DK Hostmaster of the dispute, after which an entry is made and the domain name is locked.

(4) Statistics: Number of Domain Name Registrations and Growth At present, the ‘.dk’ domain is not divided into sub-domains. As of May 2015, more DK.30 than 1,250,000 domain names are registered under the ccTLD ‘.dk.’ of which 64,000 are Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) registrations.

  The rules for the ‘.dk’ domain can be found in English at: http://www.difo.dk/en.   The terms that apply as of 1 March 2015 can be found at: https://www.dk-hostmaster.dk/fileadmin/ generelle_vilkaar/General_Conditions_07.pdf. 23 See https://www.dk-hostmaster.dk/english/self-service/forms/transfer/. 21 22

291

Denmark (‘.dk’)

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.dk’ Domain Space. Klagenævnet for Domænenavne (1)  Principal Characteristics of the Procedure DK.31 As mentioned above, the ‘.dk’ domain is an open and unrestricted domain. As under other

open TLDs, this openness and the fact that there is no examination procedure during registration has meant that there have been a number of disputes.

DK.32 Such disputes can and most often will be resolved through negotiations, but if this fails there

are basically two options: the case can be submitted either to the ordinary courts, or to alternative dispute resolution proceedings before the Complaints Board for Domain Names that has been established by the Minister of Business and Growth in accordance with Section 26 of the Domain Names Act. The Board’s proceedings are inexpensive and reasonably fast, and can be used to obtain the transfer of the domain name. Damages, however, must be claimed before the ordinary courts.

(2) Statistics DK.33 The Board commenced its activities at the beginning of 2000. Since then an estimated 3,500

complaints have been filed and more than 1,900 decisions have been rendered (as of May 2015) concerning about 2,700 domain names.24

DK.34 The Board derives its powers from section 28 of the Domain Names Act from which it fol-

lows that the following issues may be:

(1) disputes between registrants and third parties; or (2) disputes concerning decisions made by the administrator(s) of the registry. A complaint may be lodged by any person who has an individual and significant interest in the outcome of the case, cf. section 28(3). According to section 28(4) The Complaints Board may decide: (1) to suspend, withdraw or transfer a domain name registered and used contrary to section 25, business conditions and terms specified under section 14, or contrary to other legislation; and (2) to uphold, cancel, change, or remit the administrator’s decision. DK.35 According to the procedural rules25 each party is allowed two submissions (a complaint or

a response, and one additional reply each). Extensive guidelines, as well as templates for the filing of a complaint and or a response, are available at the home page of the Complaints Board.26 A complaint may include more than one domain name provided, of course, that all the domain names are owned by the same respondent.

DK.36 The language of proceedings before the Complaints Board is Danish and documents drafted

in other languages must be accompanied by a translation, which in certain cases must be certified by a translator. The Board has, however, allowed complaints and responses to be filed in other Scandinavian languages as well as English provided that the other party does not

24  One decision can thus involve one or more domain names. The decisions can be found online at http:// www.domaeneklager.dk, but only in Danish. 25 The rules are available in English at: https://www.domaeneklager.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/dokumenter/Klagenaevnet/Forretningsorden_EN2014.pdf. 26 See https://www.domaeneklager.dk/uk/guidelines/.

292

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.dk’ Domain Space.  Klagenævnet for Domænenavne object to it. Complaint and response templates are available in English at the Board’s website. In addition, the chair of the Complaints Board may allow one party to present evidentiary material written in languages other than Danish if the content is assumed to be immediately comprehensible to the other party as well as to the Complaints Board. Before deciding the case, the secretariat of the Board may suggest that the case be settled by DK.37 mutual agreement.27 This is not done on the initiative of the secretariat, but only if one of the parties—typically the respondent—indicates a willingness to solve the matter amicably. In such cases the secretariat asks both parties whether they want to stay the proceedings until a settlement is reached and in the affirmative the secretariat issues a decision to stay the proceedings. It is entirely up to the parties to negotiate the terms of the settlement and the secretariat plays no role in this. The Complaints Board comprises a Supreme Court judge and two members with special DK.38 knowledge of trademark law and practice. The Board is enlarged by the addition of two further members if the dispute involves consumer interests or if the dispute is of principal interest. It is always the Board that makes the decisions, not a panel or a panellist appointed for the specific case. There is no appeal system, but the decision by the Complaints Board can be submitted to the DK.39 ordinary courts for review. Such a case shall be filed by the dissatisfied party against the other party to the dispute and thus not against the Board. A small handful of decisions have been challenged in Court and in all of them the court upheld the decision.28

(3) Scope of the Procedure In terms of the substantive issues, the complaints proceedings have a broader scope of appli- DK.40 cation than the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP). This expanded competence means that complaints are not restricted to cybersquatting cases and other cases concerning infringement of business signs but can include any type of conflict that involves the entitlement to the disputed domain name such as exercise of liens, bankruptcy proceedings, and unauthorized transfers.

(4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement It follows from section 28 of the Domain Names Act that a registrant of a ‘.dk’ domain name DK.41 is subject to the powers of the Dispute Board. This obligation is also reflected in section 9.2 of the General Conditions,29 to which the registrant is bound when registering the domain name, where it is said that: If the Complaints Board for Domain Names or a Danish court of law or Danish arbitration has come to a decision that the domain name is to be transferred to a third party, DK Hostmaster shall transfer the domain name on receipt of a signed information form from the coming registrant.   See s 11 of the Rules of Procedure.   Court decisions reviewing decisions made by the Complaints Board: Supreme Court Xinox Danmark A/S (Dracco Scandinavia A/S) v 365 Media Scandinavia A/S under konkurs and Nyhedsavisen A/S under konkurs. H.D. 30 March 2009, published as U 2009.1592 H (‘nyhedsavisen.dk’); The Maritime & Commercial Court: Havemøbelland ApS v Damborg Havemøbelland ApS (Damborg Shopping ApS) S.H.D 02 July 2012, Case No V-101-11, (‘have-moebelland.dk’ and ‘have-møbelland.dk’); Netdenmark A/S v Advokatsamfundet, S.H.D. 12 September 2011, published as U 2012.1 SH (‘advokat.dk’, ‘advokater.dk’, and ‘advokaterne.dk’); Statisten.dk Aps v Bravo SE, S.H.D.12 April 2011, Case No V-4-10 (‘statisten.dk’). 29 See the General Conditions for the Assignment, Registration and Administration Of .dk Domain Names available at: https://www.dk-hostmaster.dk/fileadmin/generelle_vilkaar/General_Conditions_07.pdf. 27 28

293

Denmark (‘.dk’) (5) Overview of the ADR-Procedure (a)  Legal Framework DK.42 The legal framework for the procedure before the Complaints Board consists of the relevant provisions in the Domain Names Act (ss 26 to 31), the ‘Rules on the Complaints Board for Internet Domain Names’,30 and the ‘Rules of Procedure for the Complaints Board’.31 (b)  ADR Complaint DK.43 An ADR complaint under the ‘.dk’ dispute procedure may be submitted online through the website of the Complaints Board.32 The complainant is required to provide its identity, and to specify the name of the domain name holder as recorded in the WHOIS records.33 Where the domain holder is listed anonymously in the WHOIS records, the complaint form also provides a section wherein the complainant may indicate the name of any underlying or beneficial registrant. The complainant must then specify the legal grounds upon which its complaint is based, and the reasons why the domain name holder is not entitled to retain its registration. All annexes and evidence may be submitted as attachments through the website portal. DK.44 The language of all proceedings before the Complaints Board must be Danish but the Board

has allowed complaints to be filed in other Scandinavian languages as well as English provided that the other party does not object to it. A complaint template is available in English at the Board’s website.

(c)  ADR Response DK.45 The respondent has two weeks from his receipt of the complaint to file a response. A standard-form response is provided on the Complaint Board’s website,34 which offers some practical tips as to how a response should be prepared. In order to be complete, the response must provide details of the respondent’s identity and contact information, and the name of the complainant and of the dispute number, as well as all legal defences the respondent feels may entitle it to retain ownership of the disputed domain name. The respondent must indicate what outcome it seeks from the case (including a statement of any and all counterclaims it may wish to lodge against the complainant), and must annex any and all relevant documentary information. All documents submitted in conjunction with the response must be filed via email with the Complainants Board, although if such electronic transmission is impossible the respondent’s materials may be sent in hardcopy, with four copies sent via ordinary mail to the office of the Complaints Board. If the respondent wishes to request that his name be ‘anonymized’ in the decision this request, along with any supporting arguments, must be submitted separately to the Board. DK.46 The language of proceedings before the Complaints Board is Danish but the Board has

allowed responses to be filed in other Scandinavian languages as well as English provided that the other party does not object. A response template is available in English at the Board’s website.

30 See https://www.domaeneklager.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/dokumenter/Klagenaevnet/Vedtaegt_for_ Klagenaevnet_for_Domaenavne_EN-2014.pdf. 31 See https://www.domaeneklager.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/dokumenter/Klagenaevnet/Forretningsorden_ EN2014.pdf. 32  The submission form, in English, is located at: http://www.domaeneklager.dk/uk/guidelines/file_a_complaint/. 33  The WHOIS is available from the front page of https://www.dk-hostmaster.dk/english. 34 For the defence filing guidelines and submission form, see http://www.domaeneklager.dk/uk/ guidelines/.

294

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.dk’ Domain Space.  Klagenævnet for Domænenavne (d) Procedural Issues There is no requirement that the parties be represented by a lawyer or other professional DK.47 representative under the ‘.dk’ dispute procedure. The party that puts forward a claim has the burden of proof in the sense that he has to put for- DK.48 ward evidence or other types of information in support of that claim. The Board does, however, have an obligation to resolve the ambiguities of a case and can ask the relevant party for further information. If such information is not provided, it follows from Article 14(3) of the Rules of Procedure that the Board may decide for the opposing party in its assessment of evidence. Further, it should be noted that in person hearings are not provided for, and that all decisions DK.49 by the Board are published on the Board’s website.35

(6) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider The Dispute Resolution Provider is the Complaints Board for Domain Names which is DK.50 an independent complaints board that was set up by the Danish Minister of Business and Growth under Section 26(1) of the Danish Act on Internet Domains. The Complaints Board hears and decides in cases relating to complaints that a ‘.dk’ domain DK.51 registration is contrary to Danish legislation or in contravention of the general registration terms laid down by DK Hostmaster as well as cases relating to decisions made by DK Hostmaster. The Complaints Board, or rather the secretariat of the Board, can settle disputes between registrants and third parties and between registrants and DK Hostmaster.

(7) Role of the Administrative Board The Complaints Board for Domain Names is a permanent Board that decides all complaints. DK.52 The Complaints Board consists of three members and their substitutes, each appointed by the Danish Minster of Science, Technology, and Innovation for a four-year term. In cases involving non-commercial users and non-commercial registrants, and in cases of fundamental importance, the Complaints Board must be joined by two members representing consumer and commercial interests, respectively. As of May 2015 the members of the Board are:

DK.53

• Chair: Lene Pagter Kristensen, Supreme Court Judge • Chair’s substitute: Kaspar Linkis, High Court Judge • Member with special knowledge of intellectual property law:  Jens Schovsbo, Professor, Doctor of Laws Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen • Member with special knowledge of intellectual property law: Knud Wallberg, Lawyer • Substitutes for members with special knowledge of intellectual property law:  Lisbeth Andersen, Lawyer; Thomas Riis, Professor, Doctor of Laws, PhD • Consumer representative: Jeppe Juul, Active Consumers Denmark • Consumer representative substitute: Anne-Katrine Nørholm, Danish Consumer Council • Business representative: Mette M Andersen LEGO A/S • Business representative substitute: Henrik Kramshøj

(8) Procedural  Costs The official fee for filing a complaint is as little as DKK 500 (€70)—DKK 200 (€30) in DK.54 non-commercial matters—which is refunded if the complainant prevails. Apart from this the Board cannot decide on costs, which in practice means that each party bears its own costs.  See https://www.domaeneklager.dk.

35

295

Denmark (‘.dk’) (9) Relationship between the ADR and Court Proceedings DK.55 If a national court case is initiated during the ADR the Chair of the Board has the discretion-

ary power to decide whether to stay the complaint or not. If the two cases are in effect identical or if the outcome of court case is likely to have an effect on the case before the Board, the proceedings before the Board will be stayed.

DK.56 If a losing domain name registrant files a lawsuit after the ADR decision has been rendered,

the Complaints Board may grant a stay of execution provided that before the date of enforcement of the decision, the secretariat of the Complaints Board is notified by the defendant of the action brought and provides the necessary documentation for the institution of such proceedings. In other cases where a matter is brought before the courts, the Complaints Board may grant a stay of execution if this is found to be appropriate.36

(10) ADR Decisions DK.57 The Complaints Board can decide whether the registration of a domain name is to be deleted,

suspended, or transferred to the complainant. For complaints relating to decisions by DIFO or DK Hostmaster in accordance with section 11(3) of the Danish Act on Internet Domains, the Complaints Board may uphold, cancel, change, or remit the decision.

DK.58 The Complaints Board cannot order any payment of damages, remuneration, or compensation. DK.59 The time from filing of a complaint until a decision is made varies depending on the com-

plexity of the matter but the average time is four and a half months. All decisions are made public (in Danish) at the website of the Complaints Board.

DK.60 A decision by the Complaints Board is implemented by DK Hostmaster when the deadline

for implementation stated in the decision is reached. The Complaints Board usually sets the deadline for implementation to four weeks. In some cases, where the contested domain name is used, for example, in a fraudulent manner, the deadline for implementation is set to the date of the decision of the Board (‘immediate transfers’).

DK.61 The decisions of the Board are not subject to appeal. If a party to the case wants to challenge

the decision this must be done by filing a lawsuit, not against the Board but against the other party to the complaint. The decision must be brought before the courts within eight weeks of the date on which the decision was communicated to the parties.37

(11) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Complaints Board DK.62 The Complaints Board hears and decides in cases relating to complaints that a ‘.dk’ domain

registration is contrary to Danish legislation or in contravention of general registration terms laid down by DK Hostmaster.

DK.63 By referring to ‘Danish legislation’ in general the process is thus not restricted to cases involving

cybersquatting or the like, and as outlined under Section III.13 the Board has made decisions involving a wide variety of different legal issues such as cases dealing with exercise of liens, registration by resellers or former business partners, defamatory domain names, and warehousing.

(12) Remedies DK.64 The remedies available to the complainant are the transfer or cancellation of the domain

name. If the complaint is dismissed, the domain name registration, of course, remains with the current registrant.   See Section 24(3) of the Rules of procedure for the Complaints Board.   Cf. the Danish Act on Internet Domains, Section 30(2).

36 37

296

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.dk’ Domain Space.  Klagenævnet for Domænenavne The Board also has the option of suspending the contested domain name. This remedy has been DK.65 used in cases where a partnership has been split up. If two (or more) of the former partners claim to have the rights to the name of the partnership and thus to the corresponding domain name and the Board is not able to come to a decision on this,38 the domain name will be suspended until the matter of who owns the name is resolved amicably or through the courts.39 The Board cannot award damages.

DK.66

(13) Case  Law Many of the decisions by the Complaints Board40 have dealt with clear-cut cybersquatting DK.67 cases such as ‘mercedesbenz.dk’,41 ‘uefa.dk’,42 ‘presario.dk’,43 ‘battery.dk’,44 and ‘walmart. dk.’45 Such registrations are considered either to infringe the respective trademark rights if the use is commercial and within the scope of the trademark, or being contrary to good domain name practice if the registration and use is passive or non-commercial. The disputed domain name in question does not have to be identical to the trademark. The DK.68 typosquatted registrations of ‘goggle.dk’ and ‘guugle.dk’ were thus held to infringe the trademark rights in the mark, ‘GOOGLE’.46 Also the confusingly similar domain name ‘hmfamily. dk’ was found to infringe the trademark rights of Hennes & Mauritz,47 and ‘bodyshop.dk’48 to infringe the rights of The Body Shop. Further, the domain name ‘gate2net.dk’49 was found to be confusingly similar to the registered trademark and the corresponding domain name containing the text ‘get2net’ and the company name El-Gros ApS filed a complaint against a sole trader operating under the name Sæby Elgross on the basis of its prior company name and prior use of the business sign ‘el-gros.dk’. Although the contested domain name ‘elgross.dk’ was not registered or used in bad faith, the Complaints Board found that the two signs were confusingly similar and thus ruled that the domain name should be transferred to the complainant.50 There have also been several instances where former business partners have split up and where DK.69 one of the partners has then registered a domain name similar to the domain name of other party and created a site or used the domain name to forward visitors to their own site. This is, of course, an infringement of the trademark or at least of the rights to the business name of the other party and is not allowed. It was on such facts that cases like ‘dentdevils.dk’,51 ‘hydroplant.dk’,52 and ‘prchokolade.dk’53 were based.   See, eg Case No 339 ‘detsyngendeselskab.dk’.   It is also possible to get one or more domain names suspended and blocked administratively, that is by the administrator DK Hostmaster if a registrant is engaged in a pattern of conduct of typosquatting, cybersquatting etc. See paras 8.3.1–8.3.7 in General Conditions for the Assignment, Registration and Administration of Domain Names under the .dk Top Level Domain, available in English at: https://www. dk-hostmaster.dk/fileadmin/generelle_vilkaar/General_Conditions_07.pdf. 40  Due to the very large number of decisions by the Complaints Board, the following section is only intended to give a general impression of the types of cases that have been subject to decisions by the Board in recent years. 41   Case No 070. 42   Case No 102. 43   Case No 043. 44   Case No 209. 45  Case No 087. 46  Cases Nos 199 and 200. 47  Case No 465. 48  Case No 297. 49  Case No 068. 50  Case No 073. 51  Case No 097. 52  Case No 057. 53  Case No 072. 38 39

297

Denmark (‘.dk’) DK.70 Another common practice is to register a trademark as part of a domain name where the

domain holder is a reseller and sells such products or spare parts for them. This, too, has been held to be a trademark infringement as in ‘volvodele.dk’54 (‘volvoparts.dk’) and ‘bmwimport. dk’.55 The ‘fair use defence’, in the Trademarks Act, section 5 thus does not give the seller of spare parts, the importer, etc, any right to register or use the trademark as part of their own business name regardless of whether they are an authorized or an unauthorized reseller of the branded products or services. If the proprietor of the trademark authorizes one of his resellers to file a complaint and gives his consent that the reseller can stand as registrant of the domain name, this is accepted by the Board as in ‘cartec.dk’.56

DK.71 A further scenario concerns situations where a company (usually an Internet Service Provider)

has registered a domain name on behalf of a client but in its own name, and then withholds the transfer of the domain name until the client has paid his (alleged) debt. Such exercise of liens is only allowed if the two claims are interrelated. In ‘skiltetommy.dk’57 and several other decisions this was not the case and the refusal to transfer the domain name was held to be contrary to good domain name practice.

DK.72 According to the Danish Act on Personal Names section 27 a person who has no right to

bear a particular family name is not allowed to use the name for private or business purposes. Consequently, domain names like ‘gyldenvang.dk’,58 ‘gerkvist.dk’,59 and ‘lillienskjold.dk’60 have been transferred to complainants who were, in each case, individuals entitled to bear the name in question.

DK.73 In these cases the family names were all uncommon. As to common names, the Board has

dealt with the issue of the registration of such names as domain names by a registrant who has no right to the name but who uses it in particular for e-mail services for bearers of the said name. In ‘thomsen.dk’61 and ‘hansen.dk’62 the Board said that such use of a common family name (patronymic) does not infringe the complainant’s right in the name and that the described use serves a legitimate purpose.

DK.74 The principles of the Danish Act on Personal Names also apply to domain names that incor-

porate the full name of a specific person as in ‘sorenpind.dk’,63 ‘henrik-knudsen.dk’,64 and ‘lotte-rubini-thamestrup.dk’.65

DK.75 Descriptive or generic terms such as ‘netboghandel.dk’ (‘netbookshop.dk’), ‘udstillingshus.dk’

(‘exhibitionhouse.dk’), and ‘børnehuset.dk’ (‘thechildrenshouse.dk’) are in principle free for anyone to register. The Board has however stressed that the actual use of the site can nevertheless be in breach of good domain name practice or the previously used term ‘general principles of law’. This was emphasized in the ‘frederiksborgheste.dk’ case, for example.66 Frederiksborghest is a special breed of horses and the registrant bred such horses. The Union of Frederiksborghest

  Case No 111.   Case No 310. 56  Case No 2013-0116. 57  Case No 2013-0042. 58  Case No 134. 59  Case No 128. 60  Case No 096. 61  Case No 392. 62  Case No 461. 63  Case No 372. 64  Case No 451. 65  Case No 2011-0128. 66  Case No 089. 54 55

298

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.dk’ Domain Space.  Klagenævnet for Domænenavne Breeders filed a complaint, but was unsuccessful. The Board held that the registrant had a legitimate interest in the name and was not giving the impression on the actual website that it was the official website or that it was the only website dealing with such horses. Similar wording was used in a more recent decision concerning ‘vikoeberguld.dk’ (‘webuygold.dk’).67 Another exception is when an entity has acquired trademark rights to a non-distinctive term, DK.76 for example through long-term use, and where the domain name is used for competing products. This was the case, for instance, in ‘haven.dk’68 (‘garden.dk’) and ‘netdoktoren.dk’69 (‘thenetdoctor.dk’). A borderline case was the case of  ‘faust.dk’,70 where a company under the name Maskinfabrikken DK.77 Faust filed a complaint on the grounds that the domain name ‘faust.dk’ was registered in breach of their rights. The complainant was a very small company and the Complaints Board was convinced that the respondent had never heard of it when he had registered the domain name. In addition, the domain name was used for a pornographic site and the Complaints Board held that choosing Faust as the name for such a site was a ‘natural choice’. ‘Polle fra Snave’ is the name of a character used regularly in TV commercials for a mobile DK.78 telephone company. The registration of the domain name ‘pollefrasnave.dk’71 by a private person was held to be in bad faith. The registration was thus seen to be contrary to general principles of law and was transferred to the mobile telephone company. ‘Katja Kean’ was the pseudonym of an actress in pornographic films. A Swedish company DK.79 registered the domain name ‘katjakean.dk’72 and put a picture of the actress on the page. When approached by the complainant they offered to sell the domain name for an undisclosed amount of money. The Board held that the name Katjakean was a well-known name that functioned just like any other trademark. The domain name had been registered in bad faith and with the obvious intention of selling it to the complainant. In addition, the holding of the domain name prevented the complainant from having an Internet presence under her artist’s name. The registration was therefore held to be in violation of the the applied general principles of law and the Marketing Practices Act, section 1. The practical consequences of the first-come, first-served rule which applies to the ‘.dk’ DK.80 domain name space becomes apparent when two entities apply for the same domain name and both have a legitimate interest in it (homonymous names). This was, for instance, the case in ‘playmaker.dk’,73 where both parties had ‘playmaker’ as part of their business name. In ‘ecco.dk’74 it was a question of two companies both having trademark rights to the mark ‘ecco’, and ‘calli.dk’75 was a case dealing with a trademark right and a family name. In all cases the Board applied the first-come, first-served principle and the domain name remained with the first registrant. After the entry into force of section 12.1 of the Domain Names Act in 2005 (now section DK.81 25.1) this is, however, no longer the mandatory outcome. In such cases the Board shall now weigh the two parties’ interests and if the complainant’s interests clearly outweigh those of the respondent, the domain name may be transferred.   Case No 2011-0111.   Case No 012. 69  Case No 156. 70  Case No 149. 71  Case No 118. 72  Case No 193. 73  Case No 054. 74  Case No 182. 75  Case No 435. 67 68

299

Denmark (‘.dk’) DK.82 By way of example, this was the case in ‘capow.dk’. The registrant was a one-person service

company called Bmaerk who had registered the domain name with the specified intention to publish drawings and cartoons on the corresponding website—hence the choice of a ‘soundword’. The complainant was a hairdresser operating under the business name Capow. The Board recognized that the registrant could have a certain interest in the domain name as claimed, but noted that the domain name was never used in the specified way, but instead for a website containing only the basic contact details for the company Bmaerk. On the other hand, the interest of the complainant was obvious and creditable since the domain name reflects the name of the business. Based on a weighing of interests the Board found that the respondent’s refusal to transfer the domain name to the complainant was contrary to good domain name practice.76

DK.83 An example of the opposite outcome, that is, that the complainant’s legitimate interest did

not outweigh those of the respondent’s interest, is the ‘sunset.dk’ decision. In this decision the Danish franchisor of the Sunset Boulevard restaurant chain did not succeed in getting the domain name ‘sunset.dk’ transferred from the registrant who used the domain name for a web blog on ‘current and future trends’.77

DK.84 As to the names of cities, municipalities, and public bodies, the Board has found that the

registration of the name of the municipality of the city of Kolding—‘koldingkommune. dk’—by a private entity was contrary to public order.78 Such cases are now decided on the basis of section 12(1) (25(1)) of the domain names act as in ‘socialstyrelsen.dk’79 and ‘taarnbykommune.dk’.80

DK.85 The same legal principle, which is reflected in the Trademarks Act, section 14(1) also applies

to the registration of domain names containing the names and titles of members of the Royal Family, as in ‘kronprinsfrederik.dk’ and others.81

DK.86 The use of domain names in the course of business to defame a trademark holder may con-

stitute an infringement of the trademark which was the situation in the case of ‘svendborgavis.dk’ where a former editor of the newspaper Svendborg Avis registered the domain name and used it for a combination of competing on-line publications and a criticism site.82 This must be distinguished from the use of a domain name for a non-commercial website which publishes a dissatisfied customer’s criticism or complaint about a product. This question was the subject matter of a complaint Board decision regarding the domain name ‘lorte-seat.dk’ (‘shitty-seat.dk’),83 which concerned a domain holder who used the domain name to express his dissatisfaction with a Seat car and to set out his specific case. The Board held in favour of the domain holder, giving three reasons: (1) It was a website that was not used in the course of business. (2) The website was clearly recognizable as a so-called ‘hate site’, with the result that the Internet users could easily identify the purpose of the website and accordingly there was no likelihood of confusion.

  Case No 2011-0143.   Case No 2011-0198. 78  Case No 497. 79  Case No 2011-0229. 80  Case No 2011-0029. 81  Cases Nos 429 to 434. 82  Case No 2010-0084. 83  Case No 208. 76 77

300

IV.  Court Litigation (3) The criticism expressed on the website did not qualify as defamation in the criminal law sense. If however, the domain name itself does not contain an expression but is confusingly sim- DK.87 ilar to the complainant’s rights such registrations will usually be regarded as contrary to good domain name practice. This was the situation in the ‘solskovmink.dk’ case where an animal activist group had registered the name and used it to post harsh criticism of the Complainant’s company Solskov Minkfarm.84 This practice has been confirmed in later cases such as those involving ‘balkan-lorterejser.dk’85 DK.88 and ‘eurodan-erfa’.86 If these criteria are not all met, the registration will usually be regarded as an infringement and transferred (as in ‘vailant.dk’87) or cancelled (as in ‘valiant.dk’88), both of these cases being between the same parties and the complainant being the owner of the mark ‘vaillant’. In the case of ‘absolutsex.dk’,89 the Board concluded that the trademark ‘absolut’ for Swedish DK.89 vodka did not have such a reputation that its use in the domain name could be prevented, particularly since the term ‘absolut’ was a descriptive term frequently used in combination with an adjective. Section 25.2 of the Domain Names Act that specifically prohibits warehousing of domain DK.90 names was used for the first time in ‘itnyheder.dk’ (‘itnews.dk’). The complainant had used the term ITNYHEDER as part of the address for his web blog: ‘www.itnyheder.favoritlinks. dk’. He ordered the registration of the contested domain name but the order failed, and the very same day the domain name was registered by the respondent and was offered explicitly for sale on the corresponding website.90 Another example of use of section 12.2 was the registration of the domain name ‘code.dk’ and the subsequent offering for sale via Sedo.com.91

IV.  Court Litigation (1)  Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation As indicated above, there is no specific Anticybersquatting legislation currently in force in DK.91 Denmark.92 All domain name disputes are handled either through the ADR mechanism for the ‘.dk’ space, discussed above under Section III, or through the national courts under the Domain Names Act. Further discussion of how trademarks may be protected from misuse in domain names under the Act may be found in the following section.

(2) Infringement of  Trademarks (a)  Risk of Confusion (i)  Use of Domain Names Identical or Similar to Another’s Trademark  The Danish DK.92 courts have taken a number of decisions in cases involving alleged trademark infringements and in which domain names are included as part of the conflict.   Case No 2011-0114.   Case No 293. 86  Case No 460. 87  Case No 386. 88  Case No 446. 89  Case No 233. 90  Case No 949. 91  Case No 2011-0202. 92  An overview and an analysis of the judicial practice can be found in Chapter 8 in Kragelund, Pedersen and Rasmussen: Domænenavne—en håndbog, 2nd edn, 2009. 84 85

301

Denmark (‘.dk’) DK.93 (A)  The Supreme Court  In Danske Familierestauranter A/S og Jensen’s Bøfhus A/S mod Sæby

Fiskehal ApS og Jacob Jensen93 the use of ‘Jensens Fiskerestaurant’ for a restaurant was found to take unfair advantage of the reputation of the rights to the well-known trademark ‘Jensens Bøfhus’, which is the name of a chain of restaurants in the Scandinavian countries. The defendant was also ordered to transfer the two domain names ‘jensensfisk.dk’ and ‘jensensfiskerestaurant.dk’ to the plaintiff.

DK.94 In Innocent Pictures ApS, tvpc.dk A/S and Claus Sørensen v Tivoli A/S 94 the use of ‘Tivoli

Night’ as title of a film with adult content and the use of the corresponding domain names ‘tivolinight.dk’ and ‘tivolinight.com’ for related content was found to infringe the rights of the company behind the Tivoli Gardens amusement park. The owner of the park was the rightful holder of the trademark TIVOLI, registered in a number of classes including class 41.

DK.95 In Broadcom ApS (formerly BC Drift ApS) and Broadcom Bolignet ApS v Broadcom Corporation,95

the use of Broadcom as a company name and the use of the corresponding domain name ‘broadcom.dk’ by Broadcom Aps for telecommunication services were found to infringe the rights to the trademark BROADCOM registered in classes 9 and 42.

DK.96 In Københavns Golf Klub v Royal Copenhagen Golf Center A/S,96 the use of Royal Copenhagen

Golf Center as a company name and the use of the corresponding domain name ‘royalcopenhagengolfcenter.dk’ was found to infringe the rights to the trademark ROYAL COPENHAGEN to which the plaintiff had a licence from the company Royal Copenhagen A/S to use the mark in their name Royal Copenhagen Golf Club.

DK.97 In Digital Marketing Support ApS v Dagbladet Børsen A/S,97 the registration and use of the

domain names ‘borsen.com’ and ‘boersen.com’ for a website with various business-related material was found to infringe the rights to the trademark BØRSEN, which is the name of the leading Danish financial newspaper. The defendant’s statement that he would exclude access to the websites for computers with Danish Internet Protocol (IP) addresses was not considered to be an acceptable defence. The Supreme Court further stated that it does not have the power to review the decision in the same matter between the same parties given by a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) UDRP Panel.

DK.98 (B)  The Maritime and Commercial Court  In Universal Music Group International v CSE,

CS Entertainment ApS et al 98 the plaintiff was found to be entitled to terminate an unpaid licensing agreement with the consequence that the defendants’ continued use of titles ‘ABBA The Show’ and ‘ABBA The Music’ violated the rights to the ABBA trade mark. The defendants were also ordered to assign the domain names ‘abba-the-show.com’, ‘abba-the-music. com’, and ‘abba-the-music.dk’ to the plaintiff.

DK.99 In Kvik Trafik v Kvik Trafikskole99 the plaintiff had used Kvik Trafik as business name, trade-

mark, and the domain name ‘kviktrafik.dk’ since 2002 for a driving school. The court found that this was sufficient to establish trademark rights in the name, but that the scope of

  H.D. 19 September 2014, published as U.2014.3658H (‘jensensfisk.dk’ and ‘jensensfiskerestaurant.dk’).   H.D. 6 September 2010, published as U 2010.3203 H (‘tivolinight.dk’ and ‘tivolinight.com’). 95  H.D. 25 March 2010, published as U 2010.1643 H (‘broadcom.dk’). 96  H.D. 13.02.2006, published as U 2006.1486 H (‘royalcopenhagengolfcenter.dk’). 97  H.D. 30 August 2005, published as U 2005.3262 H (‘borsen.com’ and ‘boersen.com’). 98  S.H.D. 4 June 2013 Case No V-26-2011 (‘abba-the-show.com’, ‘abba-the-music.com’ and ‘abba-themusic.dk’). 99  S.H.D. 29 November 2013, Case No V-0091-2012 (‘kviktrafikskole.dk’). 93 94

302

IV.  Court Litigation protection was limited and that the defendant’s use of the business name and domain name ‘kviktrafikskole.dk’ did not infringe the plaintiff ’s rights. A similar case, but with the opposite outcome, was Bynet Danmark K/S v Slagelsetryk A/S,100 DK.100 ‘bynet.dk’ (‘citynet.dk’) was registered as a trademark in 1998 in classes 35, 38, 41, and 42. The Court held that the domain ‘bynet-slagelse.dk’ was confusingly similar to the trademark ‘bynet.dk’, and also held that the other types of use of the name ‘bynet’ were an infringement of the plaintiff ’s rights.

(C)  The High Courts  In K1 and Foreningen af Aktionærer i Bbanken v Bbanken A/S,101 the DK.101 use of ‘bbanken.as’ as a domain name by a group of dissatisfied stockholders of BBanken A/S was found by the Bailiff ’s Court to infringe the plaintiffs’ rights in the trademark BBANKEN. The defendant, however, did not follow the decision of the Bailiff ’s Court and was fined DKK 10.000. In Sky Radio A/S v DR,102 the use of SKY RADIO P5 as a company name and trademark for DK.102 a radio station and the use of the corresponding domain name ‘skyradiop5.dk’ was found to infringe the rights to the trademark P5 held by the largest Danish broadcaster. In Installationsfirmaet L ApS v El-Salg A/S,103 the continued use of ‘El-Salg’ by a former mem- DK.103 ber of the El-Salg retail chain and the use of the corresponding domain name ‘elsalg.dk’ was found to infringe the plaintiff ’s rights in the collective trademark EL-SALG.

(D)  The Bailiff ’s Courts  In Fyns Stifttidende A/S, Århus Stifttidende A/S, Aalborg Stifttidende DK.104 A/S, and Jydske Vestkysten A/S v Søndagsavisen A/S,104 the use of the domain name ‘jobdanmark.dk’ for a job-index on the Internet was found to infringe the trademark Jobdanmark, which was used for a similar index published as a special advertising section in a number of newspapers. In Yellow Page Reklamebureau v/Anne Blædel v Tele Net Danmark Internet Fagbog ApS,105 the DK.105 use of the domain name ‘yellowpage.dk’ for marketing services was found to infringe the trademark YELLOWPAGE registered in classes 35 and 42. In Tele Danmark A/S v Itcom A/S,106 the use of the domain names ‘118.dk’ and ‘1118.dk’ DK.106 for telephone directory services on the Internet was found to infringe the trademark 118, which was the telephone number used for directory services by the now-privatized national telephone company. In Tele2 A/S v Team Internet,107 the holder of the registered trademark GET2NET was DK.107 awarded a preliminary injunction against a company who used the designation Net2net and the corresponding URL address ‘www.net2net.dk’. The court held that GET2NET was a distinctive mark, and that Net2net and ‘net2net.dk’ were confusingly similar to this mark. In Semco Danmark A/S v Semcon Danmark A/S,108 the use of Semcon as a trademark and part DK.108 of the company name and the use of the corresponding domain names ‘semcon-danmark.dk’ and ‘semcon.com’ were found to infringe the rights to the trademark SEMCO.   S.H.D. 21 February 2002, published as U 2002.1056/2 S (‘bynet-slagelse.dk’).   Ø.L.D. 4 March 2004, published as U 2004.1682 Ø (‘bbanken.as’). 102  Ø.L.D. 3 March 2004, published as U 2004.1673 Ø (‘skyradiop5.dk’). 103  V.L.D. 11 June 2002, published as U 2002.2303 V (‘elsalg.dk’). 104  Fogedretten i Gladsaxe 25 February 1997, Case No FS 16/97 (‘jobdanmark.dk’). 105  Københavns Fogedret 31 October 1997, Case No FS 18066-97 (‘yellowpage.dk’). 106  Københavns Fogedrets 22 January 1998, Case No FS 25688/97 (‘118.dk’ and ‘1118.dk’). 107  Fogedretten i Køge19 November 1998, Case No FS 1945/98 (‘net2net.dk’). 108  Københavns Fogedret 17 September 2002, Case No FS 13324 (‘semcon-danmark.dk’). 100 101

303

Denmark (‘.dk’) DK.109 (ii)  Cybersquatting—Registration and Use Contrary to Good Domain Name Practice 

The courts have only addressed the issue of cybersquatting in a few cases. This is probably due to the fact that it was established quite early on in the process that such acts were contrary to Danish law. By far the most cases are decided by the Complaints Board for Domain Names, through the application of section 25.1 of the Domain Names Act (see the outline of the Board’s practice in paras DK.67–68 above).

DK.110 (A)  The Supreme Court  In United Parcel Service of America Inc v Data4u v/Jan Nordmand

Andersen,109 the registration and more or less passive holding of the domain name ‘ups.dk’ for seven years was held to be contrary to good domain name practice and was transferred to the plaintiff. In this case, the statement of the defendant, to the effect that he intended to use the domain name for a website on which he would sell ‘uninterrupted power supplies’, was not recognized.

DK.111 In Top-Toy A/S v d Icom Data ApS,110 a marketing agency, Icom Data, which had done some

work for the parent company of BR (BR is by far the biggest chain of toy shops in Denmark) Top Toy, registered the domain name ‘br.dk’ in 1998, but never used it. The parties failed to achieve an amicable solution since the registrant demanded an excessive sum for the transfer. The Maritime and Commercial Court held that the BR trademark was a well-known mark within the meaning of the Trademark Act, section 4(2) and that a considerable number of Internet users would therefore expect ‘br.dk’ to be the plaintiff ’s domain name.111 The defendant’s holding and passive use of the domain name was therefore seen to be ‘use in the course of trade’ in violation of the Marketing Practices Act, sections 1 and 5. The Maritime and Commercial Court further found that the registration was a trademark infringement of section 4(2) of the Trademark Act, the domain name must be considered to be an exclusive right of Top Toy, and Icom Data was therefore ordered to transfer the domain name ‘www. br.dk’ to Top Toy without compensation. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court came to the same conclusion, but seems to have based its decision upon the provisions of the Marketing Practices Act alone.112 The decision was rendered before the entry into force of the Domain Names Act.

DK.112 (B) The High  Courts  In Dennis Willardt Zewillis v Baan Nordic A/S (formerly Beologic

A/S),113 the registration of the domain name ‘beologic.com’ by a law student was a breach of the Danish Marketing Practices Act, section 1, and ‘general principles of law’. The court emphasized the fact that the defendant had registered a number of domain names and clearly intended to sell the domain names to the owners of the trademarks. The court did not find that the mere registration of a domain name constituted an infringement of the trademark ‘Beologic’. The decision was rendered before the entry into force of the Domain Names Act.

DK.113 (iii)  Use by Resellers and Others  There is only one leading court case on this issue: Montres

Rolex SA v John Fogtmann,114 decided by the Maritime and Commercial Court, wherein the defendant had purchased and resold used Rolex watches for many years. In 1996 he registered the domain name ‘rolex.dk’ and set up a website advertising his services under ‘www.rolex.dk’. On the site he used the Rolex mark to describe his services. In addition, he

  H.D. 18 April 2007, published as U 2007.1857 H (‘ups.dk’).   H.D. 24 March 2004, published as U 2004.1561 H (‘br.dk’). 111  Maritime and Commercial Court, decision dated 8 May 2002. 112  Decision of 24 March 2004, published in U 2004.1561 H. 113  Ø.L.D. 26 November 1999, published as U 2001.697 Ø (‘beologic.com’). 114  S.H.D. 18 August 2000, published as U 2000.2300 SH (‘rolex.dk’). 109 110

304

IV.  Court Litigation also told the story behind Rolex and had put a disclaimer on the site saying that the trademarks belonged to Montres Rolex in Switzerland, and that he did not represent nor have any connection with Rolex. The Court decided in favour of the plaintiff. It held that the defendant was allowed to use the Rolex trademark for information purposes.115 However, by putting up a website under the name ‘www.rolex.dk’ he used Rolex as a ‘shopping facade’ on the Internet, and by doing so he took unfair advantage of the goodwill associated with the mark. Under these circumstances it was not sufficient to ‘disclaim’ the rights to the trademark as described above. Consequently, the defendant was held to have infringed the trademark rights belonging to Montres Rolex. His actions were also held to be in breach of the rule in section 1 of the Marketing Practices Act, which requires businesses to exercise ‘good marketing practice’.

(iv)  Homonymous Signs (A)  The Maritime and Commercial Court  In Digital Marketing Support ApS v Procter & DK.114 Gamble Company116 the plaintiff, Digital Marketing Support, was the holder of the trademark ALWAYS, registered for services in classes 35, 38, and 42. The defendant, Procter & Gamble, held the mark ALWAYS, registered for classes 3, 5, and 16. The reason for the case was that the defendant had demanded that the plaintiff hand over the domain name ‘always.dk’. In its claim, the plaintiff petitioned that the defendant should be ordered to recognize that their trademark right was not infringed by the plaintiff ’s rights to the mark ALWAYS, and that it was entitled to use this mark for Internet services including as a domain name. The court decided in favour of the plaintiff. Both parties had rights to the mark ALWAYS, but for different goods and services, and the defendant had not filed evidence that showed that its mark was so well-known and highly reputed that it should also enjoy protection for Internet services. The court also took into consideration the fact that the name ‘Always’ was also used by other entities as a trademark for other goods and services. (v)  Descriptive Terms (A)  The Supreme  Court  In Medieforlaget Danmark A/S v TDC Forlag A/S,117 the use DK.115 of ‘itfagbogen.dk’ as a domain name for a website containing information on IT and IT-related companies did not infringe any rights of the plaintiffs since the plaintiffs did not have exclusive rights to the term FAGBOG, which is the Danish dictionary term for ‘the yellow pages.’ (B)  The Maritime and Commercial Court  In Lån ApS (Faktum ApS) v Vordingborg Bank DK.116 A/S118 the registration of ‘lån.dk’ as a domain name did not infringe any rights of the plaintiffs since they did not have rights to the term LÅN (‘loan’). The case was a result of the opening of the ‘.dk’ domain for domain names containing non-English characters, in which process the rightsholders had a privileged position to domain names corresponding to their name rights. The plaintiffs had registered the name LÅN as a trademark for services in classes 35, 38, and 42 and as a company name, but since the registrant (the defendant) was a bank, it was apparent that the bank had registered and intended to use the domain name in its generic sense. In Deutsche Bank AG v Din Bank A/S,119 the use of ‘bank24.dk’ as a domain name for a DK.117 website containing the defendant’s online-banking services did not infringe any rights of 115  Cf. Art 6(1) of the EU Trademark Directive as construed by the ECJ in Case No C-337/95, Dior/ Evora. 116  S.H.D. 8 January 2002, Case No V-107-00 (‘always.dk’). 117  H.D. 22 October 2003, published as U 2004.140 H (‘itfagbogen.dk’). 118  S.H.D. 29 November 2005, published as U 2006.645 S, (‘lån.dk’). 119  S.H.D. 17 August 2004, published as U 2004.2774 S (‘bank24.dk’).

305

Denmark (‘.dk’) the plaintiff, who used the term and had registered a figurative mark for BANK24, since ‘bank 24’ was held not to be distinctive. DK.118 In Albatros Travel A/S v Nyhavn Rejser A/S (and five other travel agencies)120 the use of ‘adven-

ture rejser’ (‘adventure travels’) as a description of certain travel arrangements offered by the defendants, and use of ‘adventurerejser.dk’ as domain name by one of the defendants, did not infringe any rights of the plaintiff since the plaintiff ’s rights to the registered trademark ADVENTURE REJSER was deemed to have become generic.121

DK.119 (C)  The High Courts  In Danlaw Advokater, Danish Lawyers v Advokaterne Ole F Nielsen,

Jacob Nørager-Nielsen et  al.,122 the High Court of the Eastern District (Østre Landsret) held that the use of the commercial identifier, ‘Danlaw’ by an attorney’s chambers based in London calling itself Danlaw Advokater was of itself not distinctive and hence did not establish trademark rights to this designation in Denmark (the Trademark Act, § 3(2)). For this reason, the use of the domain name ‘danlaw.com’ by a Danish chambers could not be prohibited.

DK.120 (D) Bailiffs Courts  In Dansk Renseri Forening v Sober Rens ApS,123 the court decided that

the domain ‘rentextilservice.dk’ did not constitute an infringement of the registered collective trademark, RENO TEXTIL SERVICE, since the designation ‘Ren Textil service’ (‘clean textile service’) was purely descriptive. Moreover, the mere registration and passive holding of a domain name could be regarded neither as a trademark infringement nor as a breach of the Marketing Practices Act, sections 1 and 5. This is no longer true, however: see section 12.1 of the Domain Names Act.

DK.121 (vi) Defamatory Sites  The Lyngby Bailiff ’s court has, in an unpublished decision

dated 12 May 2000, held that the use of the domain name ‘amagerbanken.as’ constituted an infringement of the trademark AMAGERBANKEN and was also in breach of the Marketing Practices Act, section 5. The domain holder was a shareholder in the bank, which he felt had treated him unfairly. He used the website under this domain name to discredit the bank and was acting not only as a private person but also as a representative of the Association of Amagerbanken Shareholders, and in addition the website contained banner advertising.

(vii)  Metatagging, Hidden Texts, and Search Words DK.122 (A)  The Supreme Court  In Coffilter International v Melitta SystemService GmbH & Co KG and Melitta Haushaltprodukte GmbH & Co KG,124 the Supreme Court confirmed the lower court’s decision, ordering the company, Coffilter, to refrain from using the famous trademark ‘Melitta’ for filters in connection with its home page. The court enjoined Coffilter from using the trademark Melitta in three different ways: (i) as a registered search term with the search providers Jubii and/or Kvasir, which worked together with Alta Vista; (ii) as a metatag or in any way that is hidden to the visitor; or

  S.H.D. 10 April 2002, Case No V-0015-00 (‘adventurerejser.dk’).   A  more recent but very similar case is Statisten.dk Aps v Bravo SE where the court denied that the plaintiff had acquired rights to the term ‘statisten.dk’ for a service of recruiting statister (‘extras’) and therefore also dismissed the claim that the use of the domain name ‘statist.dk’ was an infringement cf. S.H.D. 29 April 2011, Case No V-0004-10. 122  Ø.L.D 26 June 1998, published as U 1998.1464 Ø (‘danlaw.com’). 123  Fogedretten i Hillerød 26 May 2000, Case No FS 895/2000 (‘ren-textilservice.dk’). 124  H.D. 11 February 2003, published as U 2003.020 H (‘Melitta’ used as metatag and search word). 120 121

306

IV.  Court Litigation (iii) as a part of the text on the home page itself in a manner which is not obvious to the visitor. In this case, Coffilter had repeated a sentence in hidden text on the home page three times. The hidden text itself was fair use, as expressed in the Danish Trademark Act, Article 5, but the fact that the text was hidden to the visitor (it was written in the same colour as the background) and repeated three times made it illegal. The court based its decision on the Trademark Act, Article 4 and ruled that the special effects DK.123 used to hide the trademark from the visitor meant that the use was unfair.

(viii)  Back-End Use (A)  The Maritime and Commercial Court  In The Morgan Crucible Company Plc and Magna DK.124 Industrial Company Ltd v AB, Svejseteknik ApS,125 the trademark ‘Magna’ was registered in 1982 and used for welding electrodes in Denmark by the plaintiff, The Morgan Crucible Company Plc. The defendant had previously been the plaintiff ’s authorized reseller, and later engaged in the parallel importation and sale of Magna welding electrodes, which were advertised both in printed material and on the defendant’s website under a sub-directory named ‘/magna’. The use of the name ‘Magna’ as the name of the sub-directory affected the result of a search for the brand, ‘Magna’ on one of the most popular search engines in Denmark. This was held to constitute a use in the course of business of the Magna mark and trademark infringement, despite the fact that, of itself, the parallel importation and sale of the Magna products was legal. However, the fact that the defendant had started production and sale of a competing product at the same time, and that he had previously also registered and used ‘Magna’ as a keyword with a number of search services, might have influenced the court. (3) Use of Personal Names as Domain Names (a)  The Supreme Court In Louise Lego (formerly Louise Lego Andersen) v Lego Holding A/S,126 Louise Lego’s use of DK.125 GALLERI LEGO as the name of her art gallery and as a domain name (‘galleri-lego.dk’) for a website containing information on and depictions of her paintings, her use of the domain name ‘louiselego.dk,’ and the her use of ‘LEGO’ as a metatag and in connection with Google AdWords did not infringe the plaintiff ’s rights to the well-known trademark LEGO, since ‘Lego’ formed part of the appellant’s personal name and the use was considered to be in accordance good marketing behaviour; see Article 5(3) of the Danish Trademarks Act corresponding to Article 6 (1)(3) of the EU Trademarks Directive. (4) Infringement of  Titles There is no relevant case law issued by the Danish courts concerning the infringement of DK.126 titles in domain names.

(5) Remedies and Procedural Law Issues (a) Remedies The remedies that are available to the holder of a protected trademark or business sign are the DK.127 same regardless of the basis for their protection.127 These primary remedies are interlocutory

125  S.H.D. 21 November 2000, published as U 2001.432 SH (http://home6.inet.tele.dk/magna—‘Magna’ used as a ‘backend’ of URL). 126  H.D. 6 November 2007, published as U 2008.372 H (‘galleri-lego.dk,’ ‘louiselego.dk;’ ‘LEGO’ used in metatags and AdWords). For a critical review of the decision, see: Wallberg Knud: ‘Are you always allowed to use your own name as trademark?’ in Juristen 2008, 126 ff. 127  The damage amounts awarded, as well as the maximum penalties, are higher under the Trademark Act than under the Companies Act or the Marketing Practices Act.

307

Denmark (‘.dk’) injunctions, permanent injunctions against the use of the conflicting sign, damages, and the confiscation or destruction of infringing products. Deliberate infringements can also be subject to penal sanctions, namely fines and imprisonment. DK.128 It is for the mark or sign owner to decide whether to enforce his rights by means of interloc-

utory injunction or to commence an action in the main issue immediately. If the petition for an interlocutory injunction is granted, the ‘confirmatory action’ in the main issue must be filed within two weeks, unless the defendant in the interlocutory proceedings acknowledges the injunction as being final. In the absence of specific legislation on domain names, the general civil procedure regulations128 apply to such cases. These are outlined in the remainder of this section.

(b)  Interlocutory Injunction DK.129 Petitions for interlocutory injunctions are handled by the same court that has competence in

the main proceedings, which in most cases dealing with domain name disputes will be the Maritime and Commercial Court (which is the designated court for trademark disputes, and disputes concerning unfair competition), or else it will be the Municipal Court (Byretten).

DK.130 Interlocutory injunctions are processed very quickly, often within a few weeks from the filing

of the plaintiff ’s writ. The defendant has the opportunity to file a reply and if necessary further submissions by the parties are allowed, but within a very narrow time limit.

DK.131 The proceedings before the Court are oral proceedings and both parties have the opportunity

to present witnesses.

DK.132 The court can issue an interlocutory injunction but cannot award damages. To ensure that

the injunction is effective the court can order the defendant to take certain specific measures, or can order confiscation.

DK.133 The court may also order the plaintiff to provide security, corresponding to the possible

damages that the defendant may be awarded if the interlocutory injunction is held to be unjustified.

DK.134 The decision of the Court as to whether to grant an interlocutory injunction or not can be

appealed to either the Eastern or Western High Court, depending on the venue of the interlocutory injunction hearing.

(c)  Infringement Actions DK.135 Standard infringement cases, as well as actions to confirm interlocutory injunctions, should

be pursued in the Maritime and Commercial Court in Copenhagen, since this special court is laid down in the Trademark Act, Article 44. If the legal basis for the dispute is the Marketing Practices Act, the venue for such litigation is the relevant Municipal Court, which will usually be the venue of the defendant’s domicile.

DK.136 The case is started by the plaintiff through the filing of a writ, after which the defendant can

file a reply. Usually further submissions are filed in response.

DK.137 The preparatory stages are completed with the filing of written submissions, and the date for

the oral hearing is then set. An average time of one to one and a half years is to be expected before these proceedings take place.

DK.138 The remedies that are available are a permanent injunction, damages, confiscation and/or

other special preventive measures, as well as criminal sanctions. While the Trademarks Act is   Retsplejeloven, Act No 90 of 1916 with numerous subsequent alterations.

128

308

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property silent on the question of whether the plaintiff can request the transfer of a conflicting mark, the Domain Name Act is clear: a domain name can be suspended, withdrawn, or transferred, see section 28(4)(1) of the Act. The decisions of the Maritime and Commercial Court can be appealed to the Supreme Court DK.139 (Højesteret). However, the Supreme Court may refuse to accept the appeal if the case is not of a principle nature or has a general significance for the application of the law and legal developments or has significant social dimensions. If the Supreme Court denies the case, the decision can—as is the case with decisions of the Municipal Courts—be appealed to either the Eastern or Western High Court, depending on the venue of the municipal court.129

V.  Acquisition of Industrial Property Rights by Using a Domain Name There is no doubt that the mere registration of a domain name does not in itself establish DK.140 any intellectual property right. The registration is technically speaking just a data entry in the domain name database of DK Hostmaster A/S. If a domain name is used in the course of trade, however, it will be regarded like any other DK.141 type of business sign or mark. If the domain name is inherently distinctive or acquires distinctiveness through use it will qualify for protection as a trademark under the Trademark Act or as a business sign under the Marketing Practices Act. It should be noted that it is quite common to register a domain name as a whole, or the dom- DK.142 inant part of the name (ie—the part before the ‘.dk’ denomination), as a trademark.

VI.  Liability of the Registry As yet no claims have been raised against the Registry (DIFO) claiming contributory trade- DK.143 mark infringement. The Trademark Act does not address the question of contributory liability. The general principles in Danish law on torts and damages are based on the principle of culpa, which means that the registry can only be deemed to be liable if it acts in breach of its duty of care so as to cause losses. The general obligations of the Registry in relation to the administration of the ‘.dk’ domain space DK.144 are laid down in the Domain Names Act in particular in sections 6 to 8.

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property Irrespective of whether a domain name qualifies as a protected trademark or business sign, it may DK.145 also be regarded as an item of property that can be assigned and licensed, and subject to liens and other types of proceedings by the holder’s creditors.130 The same applies if the domain name acquires protection through use.

129  Or in case of appeal from the Maritime and Commercial court ‘what would have been the venue if a municipal court had heard the case.’ 130  Knud Wallberg: Immaterialretlige problemstillinger på Internettet, U.2000.139 B. On domain names as an object for security (‘hypothecation’) see Thomas Rasmussen: Domænenavnet som pantsætningsobjekt, U 2003.7 B and Mads Bryde Andersens reply to this in U 2003.187 B.

309

Denmark (‘.dk’)

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (1)  International Jurisdiction DK.146 On questions of international jurisdiction three sets of rules may apply, depending on the domi-

cile of the defendant.131

DK.147 If the defendant is domiciled in the EU the ‘old’ Brussels Convention has traditionally applied.132

However, this Convention was replaced in 2001 by the ‘new’ Council Regulation on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.133 Originally, the ‘new’ Regulation did not apply to Denmark due to its civil law opt-out.134 On 20 September 2005, however, a parallel agreement was signed between Denmark and the EU135 and on 1 July 2007 the agreement entered into force in Denmark.136 Accordingly, proceedings can be filed in Denmark if the damage occurred there within the meaning of Article 5(3),137 or if one of a number of the defendants is domiciled in Denmark within the meaning of Article 6(1).138 Article 22(4) does not apply to domain names since such names are not exclusively rights within the meaning of Article 22(4).

DK.148 If on the other hand, the defendant is domiciled in the European Free Trade Association

(EFTA) the ‘old’ Lugano Convention of 16 September 1988 has traditionally applied.139 However, this Convention was replaced by the ‘new’ Lugano Convention of 10 June 2009.140 The ‘new’ Lugano Convention entered into force on 1 January 2010 in Denmark as well as in every EFTA Member State. The ‘new’ Lugano Convention therefore applies in the relations between Denmark and Norway, Switzerland and Iceland. Similar to the rules under the Brussels Regulation proceedings can be filed in Denmark if the damage occurred there within the meaning of Article 5(3)141-2 or if one of a number of defendants is domiciled in Denmark within the meaning of Article 6(1). Article 22(4) does not apply to domain names since such rights are not exclusivity rights within the meaning of Article 22(4).

131  The paragraphs on International Jurisdiction have been written by my colleague, Torsten Bjørn Larsen postdoc PhD, to whom I extend my thanks. 132  Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels Convention). 133  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels Regulation). 134  Ibid., Art 1(3). 135  L299/62: Agreement of 16 November 2005 between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. 136  Jens Schovsbo og Morten Rosenmeier, Immaterialret, 3rd edn DJØF 2013, p 659 and Jan Trzaskowski: Internetretten, 2012, ch 12. 137  See Case C-523/10, Wintersteiger requiring that the plaintiff has a registered right in Denmark being sufficient to establish jurisdiction according to Art 5(3). 138  See U 2003.898 V which concerned the application of Art 6(1) to the infringement of a European (EPO) patent. The Appeal Court of Western Denmark found that Art 6(1) did not apply to the infringement of separate national EPO patents since there was not ‘same law’ as required in Art 6(1). Thus, summary of these cases was not possible. Similarly, in V-151-04 where the Danish Maritime and Commercial Court found that infringement of separate national identical trademark rights as well as infringement of a Community Trademark (CTM) in more Member States did not meet the requirement of ‘same law’ within the meaning of Art 6(1). Again, therefore, summary of these cases was not possible. 139  88/592/EEC: Convention of 16 September 1988 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Old Lugano Convention). 140  L147/5: Convention of 10 June 2009 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (New Lugano Convention). 141-2  See U 1998.1078 Ø where the Appeal Court of Eastern Denmark rejected jurisdiction in Denmark based on Art 5(3) since the harmful event was committed abroad.

310

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law If, finally, the defendant is domiciled outside the EU/EFTA the rules in the Danish DK.149 Administration of Justice Act apply.143 Accordingly, proceedings can be filed in Denmark if the damage occurred there.144

(2) Substantive  Law Denmark has signed and implemented the World Trade Organization/Agreement on DK.150 Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (WTO/TRIPS) Agreement. With respect to the WIPO/Paris Union Joint Recommendation concerning the Protection of Marks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs on the Internet dated 3 October 2001, it can be assumed that Danish law corresponds with the proposals and that there is no need for statutory implementation. On this basis, the principles to be applied in the event of international conflicts based on the use of signs on the Internet can be summarized as follows. The fact that a website can be accessed worldwide from all national territories and legal systems DK.151 leads to the fundamental question of the territory in which a website is used. It is generally accepted in Danish legal literature that the mere presence of a website does not mean that the site including the domain name under which the site is accessible is being used globally.145 First of all the technical nature of the Internet implies that it is exclusively up to the users of the net to choose to visit a particular website. In theory, therefore, there can be a website with no visitors. A more legally-based explanation is that for the use to be recognized as use in country X, the use must be genuine and produce a commercial or other legal effect in that territory. The question to be answered therefore is: when does a website produce such an effect in a DK.152 given territory? There is no easy and straightforward answer to this question, and Danish courts have not addressed the problem specifically in relation to domain names. The following considerations are therefore not to be regarded as definitive. It is relatively obvious that a website is used in countries from which orders are received and DK.153 executed (which includes allowing downloads) via the website. This is equivalent to other types of sale in those countries, for example by mail order or via TV shopping. If no orders have as yet been executed but there are clear indications of an intent to serve customers in a given country via the website, for example by an explicit reference to the URL of the website in marketing material directed to country X, or by banner advertisements on local websites, this is probably enough to constitute use in that country. If, on the other hand, the website or legal disclaimers clearly state that there is no intent to DK.154 serve customers from country X, and if in addition there are technical blocks that prevent orders being accepted and executed from country X, that jurisdiction probably does not apply. Between these two extremes, there are also other ways of indicating which markets a given DK.155 website is intended to serve. A small national company that chooses the national language and currency clearly states its local presence. It is thus very unlikely that it will infringe the rights of a holder of a similar mark in a country with another language and another currency. If, in addition to this, the company’s domain name is registered under its own ccTLD, this is a factor that can point in the same direction.

143 Danish Administration of Justice Act, ‘retsplejeloven’ (lovbekendtgørelse nr. 1063 af 17/11/2011) Art 246. 144  Ibid., Art 243. 145  Trzaskowski, Jan: Internetretten, 2nd edn, 2012, ­chapter 12; Knud Wallberg: Om Domænenavne og varemærker på Internettet, U 1997 24 B; Knud Wallberg: Immaterialretlige problemstillinger på Internettet, U 2000 139 B. See also Case No 324/09, L’Oreal, para 64.

311

FRANCE (‘.fr’) David Taylor*

I. Overview of the National System of Trade Marks and Other Industrial Property Rights 

(1) Types of Protected Rights  (2) Scope of Protection of Trade Marks  (3) Development of Domain Name Law 

II. The ccTLD (‘.fr’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

(1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry  (2) The Structure of the Name Space  (3) Registration Restrictions  (4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement  (5) Domain Name Operations  (6) Statistics: Number of Domain Name Registrations and Growth 

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.fr’ Domain Space  (1) Former Proceedings  (2) Current Proceedings

IV.  Court Litigation

(1) Absence of Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation (2) The Qualification of Domain Names under French Law

(3) Conflicts Between Domain Names and Trade Marks (4) Conflicts Between Domain Names and Company Names, Trade Names, and Signboards (5) Conflicts Between Domain Names and Personal Names (6) Conflicts Between Domain Names and Names of Cities and Other Public Law Corporations (7) Conflicts Between Domain Names and Copyrighted Works (8) Registration of Domain Names as Acts of Unfair Competition (9) Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available

FR.01 FR.02 FR.19 FR.23 FR.31 FR.31 FR.33 FR.37 FR.62 FR.66

V. Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  VI. Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers  VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law 

FR.76 FR.81 FR.83 FR.103 FR.197 FR.198

FR.203 FR.220 FR.223 FR.228 FR.232 FR.235 FR.237

FR.242

FR.247 FR.253 FR.257

FR.200

Links French Industrial Property Office: Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle (INPI): http://www.inpi.fr French Registry: Association française pour le nommage Internet en coopération (AFNIC): http://www.afnic.fr Dispute Resolution Service Providers (DRSP): Paris Arbitration and Mediation Center (CMAP):  http://www.cmap.fr; http://www. aegisolutions.fr Syreli ADR Procedure: https://www.syreli.fr/; http://www.syreli.fr/decisions World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center: http:// www.wipo.int/amc/fr/domains/cctld/fr/ *  David Taylor would like to take this opportunity to thank his entire team, who work tirelessly on domain name issues and without whom a dedicated domain name practice could never have been built. Thus David would like to specifically thank Laetitia Arrault, Soraya Camayd, Vincent Denoyelle, Estelle Hertemann, Simon Kedgley, Sean Kelly, Daniel Madden, Cindy Mikul, Jane Seager, Lionel de Souza, Tony Vitali, and Sarah Taieb, with special thanks in this instance to Lionel de Souza and Soraya Camayd for their enthusiastic assistance in the preparation of this chapter.

313

France (‘.fr’)

I.  Overview of the National System of Trade Marks and Other Industrial Property Rights FR.01 In France, the protection of trade marks is regulated by Chapter VII (Articles L. 711-1 to

L. 716-16) of the French Intellectual Property Code (the Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle— (IPC))1 which codified Act No 91-7 of 4 January 1991,2 implementing the EU Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks. The main recent evolution of French trade mark law came in 2007 with the adoption of the Act implementing European Directive n° 2004/48/EC of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, significantly amending the rules regarding counterfeiting.3

(1) Types of Protected Rights (a)  Acquisition of Trade Mark Rights FR.02 Protection under French trade mark law can only be acquired by registration with the

French Industrial Property Office, the Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle (INPI).4 Unregistered trade marks do not enjoy protection, with the only exception of well-known trade marks, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.5

FR.03 For a trade mark to enjoy protection in France, two substantive requirements must

be met:  first, the trade mark must be capable of being represented graphically, and secondly, the trade mark must be capable of distinguishing the products or services of a natural or legal person.6 Article L. 712-1 of the IPC sets out a non-exhaustive list of signs that may acquire trade mark protection: (a) verbal marks, such as a word or combination of words, surnames and geographical names, pseudonyms, letters, numerals, acronyms; (b) sounds, musical phrases; and (c) figurative marks, such as designs, labels, seals, holograms, logos, the shape of goods or their packaging, and combination or shades of colours.

FR.04 Articles L. 711-2 and L. 711-3 of the IPC set the absolute grounds for refusal of a trade mark.

In particular, Article L. 711-2 excludes from trade mark protection signs that are devoid of distinctive character, namely signs that:

(a) are necessary, generic or customary of the goods or services; (b) are descriptive of the goods or services, in particular as regards the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, or the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service; and (c) consist exclusively of a shape imposed by the nature or function of the goods, or which gives substantial value to the goods.7 FR.05 Distinctiveness may be acquired by use of the trade mark, except in cases of signs consisting

of a shape imposed by the nature or function of the goods or which give substantial value to

1  Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle, Commenté, 12th edn, Dalloz, (2012) (Commentary and annotations by Pierre Sirinelli, Sylviane Durrande, Antoine Latreille, and Jeanne Daleau). 2  Loi n° 91-7 du 4 janvier 1991 relative aux marques de fabrique, de commerce ou de service. 3  Loi n° 2007-1544 du 29 octobre 2007 de lutte contre la contrefaçon. 4  Art L. 712-1 of the IPC. 5  Art L. 711-4 of the IPC. 6  Art L. 712-1 of the IPC. 7  Art 3(1)(e) of European Directive 89/104/EEC.

314

I.  Overview of the National System the goods.8 The distinctive character of a mark is assessed in consideration of the goods or services with which the trade mark is associated.9 The registration of certain terms as a trade mark is prohibited. The main prohibited signs are FR.06 listed in Article L. 711-3 of the IPC. These include marks: (a) protected by Article 6ter of the Paris Convention, namely armorial bearings, flags, other emblems, abbreviations and names of international intergovernmental organizations; or by Article 23.2 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), namely signs containing or consisting of a geographical indication identifying wines or spirits with respect to wines or spirits not having this origin; (b) contrary to public order or to accepted principles of morality, or otherwise prohibited by law; and (c) deceptive as to the nature, quality, or geographical origin of the goods or service. An earlier or prior right may constitute a ground to invalidate the registration of a trade FR.07 mark.10 Article L. 711-4 of the IPC provides a non-exhaustive list of prior rights that may be invoked against a trade mark:  (a)  a prior registered trade mark or a well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property; (b) a prior registered company name (dénomination sociale); (c) a prior trade name (nom commercial) or signboard (enseigne); (d) protected designations of origin (appellations d’origine protégées); (e) a prior copyrighted work; (f ) a prior protected industrial design; (g) personality rights, particularly a person’s surname, pseudonym, or image (droit à l’image); and (h) the name, image, or repute of a local administrative authority (collectivités territoriales).

(b)  Company Name (dénomination sociale) A prior registered company name (dénomination sociale) can be invoked against a trade mark FR.08 under Article L. 711-4(b) of the IPC where there is a likelihood of confusion between both signs. The right to a company name is acquired only once the company (and therefore its name) has been registered with the Registrar of Commerce and Companies (Registre du Commerce et des Sociétés), in accordance with the provisions of the French Commercial Code. Consequently, the name of a company that is in the process of incorporation, known in France as a ‘société en formation’, can not constitute a ground to oppose the registration of a trade mark. (c)  Trade Names (nom commercial) and Signboards (enseigne) French law also grants protection to business designations other than the company name, FR.09 in particular trade names (nom commercial), that is, names used by businesses in the course of trade (and which may differ from their company names), and signboards (enseigne), that is, the sign used by a business to indicate the location of its premises. In both cases, protection is acquired by use of the sign. In order to be successfully invoked as a prior right against the registration of a trade mark, in accordance with Article L. 711-4(c) of the IPC, the right holder must demonstrate that the trade name or signboard is known throughout the national territory11 and that there is a likelihood of confusion between the earlier right and the trade mark.

  Art L. 711-2 of the IPC.   Art L. 711-2 of the IPC. 10  Art L. 714-3 of the IPC. 11  The law does not require the trade name or signboard to be widely known by the public. 8 9

315

France (‘.fr’) (d)  Designations of Origin (appellations d’origine) FR.10 The protection of designations of origin is particularly strong in France. A designation of origin is the name of a country, region, or place used to designate a product originating from that specific country, region, or place and the quality or characteristics of which are due to that specific geographical environment, with its inherent natural and human factors.12 In France, rights in a protected designation of origin are not acquired but rather granted by decree based on a proposal submitted by the French administrative authority in charge of regulating designations of origins, the ‘Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité ’ (formerly the ‘Institut National des Appellations d’Origine’ (INAO)).13 The right is generally not granted to an individual entity (whether a natural or legal person) but rather to a group of producers. FR.11 The right holders of a designation of origin are entitled to prevent the registration of a sub-

sequent trade mark consisting of their designation,14 even if the trade mark is registered for different goods or services.15

(e) Copyrights (droit d’auteur) FR.12 Original works of authorship are protected under French copyright law (droit d’auteur) by the mere fact of their creation, without the need for any formalities.16 Authors are granted patrimonial and moral rights17 which may be infringed by the unauthorized reproduction or public display of the copyrighted work. FR.13 Copyrighted works can therefore be invoked against the registration of a trade mark.18

Accordingly, French courts have invalidated the registration of trade marks consisting of a title of a copyrighted work or a phrase or name of a character from a copyrighted work.19

(f ) Personality Rights FR.14 In France, personality rights, in particular the right of an individual to his or her name (nom

patronymique), pseudonym or image (droit à l’image), are protected by virtue of the French Civil Code.20 Traditionally, the rights in a person’s name have enjoyed a strong protection in France and are conceived as non-economic, inalienable rights which cannot be transferred or assigned. Nevertheless, a person’s name or surname can be lawfully used in the course of business as a company name, trade name and, as previously mentioned, as a trade mark.21 In this respect, the French Supreme Court recognized the validity of assignments of a person’s name to a third party for commercial purposes.22

12  Art L. 721-1 of the IPC; Art L. 115-1 of the Consumer Code; Art L. 641-2 of the Rural Code; see also Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs; Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs; Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration of 31 October 1958, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). 13 See http://www.inao.gouv.fr. 14  Art L. 711-4(d) of the IPC. 15 See, for example, Paris Court of Appeal, 15 December 1993, Comité Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne (C.I.V.C) v Société Yves Saint Laurent (invalidating Yves Saint Laurent’s trade mark in the term ‘Champagne’ to designate perfume and cosmetics). 16  Art L. 111-1 of the IPC. 17  Art L. 111-1 of the IPC. 18  Art L. 711-4(e) of the IPC. 19  See, for instance, Paris Court of First Instance (TGI), 28 March 1993, Aujourd’hui Madame. 20  Art 9 of the French Civil Code. 21  Art L. 711-1 of the IPC. 22  See Supreme Court (Cass. Com.), 12 March 1985, Bordas. See also Cass., 6 May 2003, Ducasse.

316

I.  Overview of the National System A person’s name may be invoked against the registration of a trade mark, where there is a FR.15 likelihood of confusion between the name and said trade mark. Thus, trade marks corresponding to well-known names are more likely to be revoked. For example, in 2011 the French Supreme Court ruled that a construction company’s trade mark comprising the word ‘Eiffel’ infringed the personality rights of Gustave Eiffel, known for creating the Eiffel Tower, and his heirs.23

(g)  Names of Local Government Authorities (collectivités territoriales) French legislation affords special protection to names of local government authorities (collec- FR.16 tivités territoriales).24 However, the right to use the name of a local government authority is not an absolute, exclusive right. The name of a local government authority can be used in the course of trade, including as a trade mark, by third parties other than the local government authority, provided that no prejudice is caused to the name, image, or repute of the local government authority,25 or that no likelihood of confusion is created as to the source of the services provided. (h)  Other Prior Rights Article L. 711-4 of the IPC provides a non-exhaustive list of prior rights that has been further FR.17 developed by French courts. Accordingly, other signs such as the acronym of a public institution (établissement public),26 the name of non-profit organizations (associations) or political parties,27 geographical indications,28 and domain names29 have been recognized as prior rights capable of overriding a later trade mark. Any objection to the registration of a trade mark based on one of the prior rights set out FR.18 above may only be raised by the holder of such prior right.30 However, an action to obtain the cancellation of a trade mark based on a prior right, as per Article L. 711-4, will be prevented in the event that two cumulative conditions are met: first, the trade mark has been registered in good faith, and secondly, the use of the trade mark has been tolerated by the earlier right holder for a period of at least five years.31

(2) Scope of Protection of Trade Marks Registration of a trade mark confers to the holder an exclusive property right in that mark FR.19 for the designated goods and services32 for a period of ten years, renewable indefinitely.33 The right is subject to the principle of specialty, that is, protection is limited to the class of goods and services designated in the trade mark registration.

23  Bordeaux Court of Appeal, 16 May 2011, SAS Compagnie Française Eiffel Construction métallique v Philippe Jean Michel Couperie Eiffel. 24  The term ‘collectivité territoriale’ is a ‘catch-all’ term for French communes, departments, and regions. 25  Art L. 711-4(h) of the IPC and commentary. 26  Paris Court of Appeal, 18 September 1998, SARL BNF Diffusion v Etablissement Bibliothèque Nationale de France (concerning the acronym BNF which stands for ‘Bibliotèque Nationale de France’). 27  Paris Court of First Instance, 11 March 2010, Europe Ecologie (holding that the name of a political party can, where there is a likelihood of confusion, be invoked as a prior right against a trade mark, given that the list of Art L. 711-4 is not numerus clausus). 28  Paris Court of Appeal, 22 November 2006, Darjeeling. 29  See below paras FR.23 et seq. 30  Art L. 714-3 of the IPC. An earlier right can only be invoked in a cancellation proceeding (once the trade mark has been registered) and not in an opposition proceeding, which is reserved for prior trade mark holders, as regulated by Art L. 712-4 of the IPC. 31  Art L. 714-3 of the IPC. 32  Art L. 713-1 of the IPC. 33  Art L. 712-1 of the IPC.

317

France (‘.fr’) FR.20 A trade mark right holder is entitled to prohibit:

(i) the unauthorized reproduction, use, or affixation of the protected trade mark for goods and services identical to those set out in the registration;34 (ii) the unauthorized removal or modification of a mark regularly affixed on a product;35 (iii) the unauthorized reproduction, use, or affixation of the protected trade mark for goods and services similar to those set out in the registration if there is a risk of confusion in the public’s mind;36 and (iv) the unauthorized imitation of a protected trade mark for goods or services similar to those set out in the registration if there is a risk of confusion in the public’s mind.37 FR.21 For well-known trade marks within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention,

Article L. 713-5 of the IPC provides that the use of an identical or similar trade mark in connection with goods or services that are not similar to the goods or services for which the trade mark has been registered may constitute infringement where such use: (a) is likely to cause harm to the trade mark holder; or (b) constitutes an unjustified exploitation of the famous or well-known trade mark.

FR.22 Whilst the scope of the rights granted to a trade mark holder is considerable, Article L. 713-6

of the IPC sets out certain limitations on trade mark rights. First, registration of a trade mark does not prevent the use of an identical or similar sign used as a company name, trade name, or signboard, where such use is either earlier than the registration, or made by another person using his or her own surname (nom patronymique) in good faith. Secondly, trade mark right holders cannot prohibit necessary references to a trade mark to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service.

(3) Development of Domain Name Law FR.23 French domain name law38 is governed by the provisions of the Posts and Electronic

Communications Code (CPCE).39 The creation and growth of French domain name law has, however, been relatively recent and somewhat chaotic. Domain name law in France initially developed through case law based on existing intellectual property laws and civil law, in particular tort law (responsabilité civile délictuelle), based on Articles 1382 and 1383 of the French Civil Code, as well as competition law. It was not until the enactment of Act No 2004-669 of 9 July 200440 that the notion of a ‘domain name’ became hard law in France. The decree implementing said Act was adopted on 6 February 200741 and created a new legal framework for French domain names. In accordance with these legal and regulatory acts,

  Art L. 713-2(a) of the IPC.   Art L. 713-2(b) of the IPC. 36  Art L. 713-3(a) of the IPC. 37  Art L. 713-3(b) of the IPC. 38  France has not only been allocated the ‘.fr’ extension corresponding to its national territory but also the following 11 extensions corresponding to its overseas territories: ‘.fr,’ for France; ‘.re’ for Reunion Island; ‘.mq’ for Martinique; ‘.gp’ for Guadalupe; ‘.gf ’ for French Guyana; ‘.tf ’ for French Southern and Antarctic Territories; ‘.nc’ for Caledonia; ‘.pf ’ for French Polynesia; ‘.wf ’ for Wallis and Futuna; ‘.pm’ for St Pierre and Miquelon; and ‘.yt’ for Mayotte. Even though the statistics relating to the extensions other than ‘.fr’ remain relatively insignificant, it is worth pointing out that all these extensions are not managed by the same registry and that, accordingly, some of the rules may differ from one extension to the other. Reference to ‘.fr’ shall be deemed to include the aforementioned extensions, unless otherwise noted. 39  In French, ‘Code des postes et des communications électroniques’ (CPCE). 40  Loi n° 2004-669 du 9 juillet 2004 relative aux communications électroniques et aux services de communication audiovisuelle. 41  Décret n° 2007-162 du 6 février 2007 relatif à l’attribution et à la gestion des noms de domaine de l’internet et modifiant le code des postes et des communications électroniques. 34 35

318

I.  Overview of the National System by order of 19 February 2010,42 the Association française pour le nommage Internet en ­coopération (AFNIC) was designated as the registry for ‘.fr’ domain names. However, in 2010, the entire legal framework based on the 2004 Act was declared unconstitutional by the French Constitutional Court (the Conseil Constitutionnel) and a new legal framework was put in place.

(a)  Initial Legal Framework Domain names started to appear in the French legal landscape at the end of the 1990s in the FR.24 early stages of development of the Internet and, more specifically, of the World Wide Web. At the time, the registry for ‘.fr’ domain names, AFNIC, was setting independently, without any statutory control, the rules for the registration, renewal, and transfer of French domain names. French courts began encountering issues related to the registration and use of domain names and could only rely on existing legal concepts to address disputes relating to a type of identifier which was not covered by any piece of legislation. As mentioned in para FR.23, the first piece of legislation regulating French domain names FR.25 was Act No 2004-669 of 9 July 2004, codified as Article L. 45, of the CPCE. The provision only addressed domain names in the French name space. Article L. 45 of the CPCE provided, first, that the designation of the entity in charge of the allocation and management of domain names under the ‘.fr’ space, the registry, would be under the responsibility of the Minister for Electronic Communications. Secondly, the text defined the general principles according to which domain names had to be allocated by the registry, namely ‘in the general interest, according to non-discriminatory rules that shall be made available to the public, and shall respect intellectual property rights’. Finally, Article L. 45 of the CPCE delegated to a statutory instrument the specific conditions for allocation of French domain names. This statutory instrument, a decree, was adopted more than two and a half years later, in February 2007.43 The Decree No 2007-162 of 6 February 2007, adopted pursuant to the 2004 Act, specified FR.26 the rules for the designation of the registries and the registrars, and their respective roles. In this respect, the Decree opened up the ‘.fr’ registry appointment process to EU-based ­entities,44 created new accountability obligations for the registry45 and granted the registry the power to cancel or transfer domain names at its own discretion.46 The text, adopted without any specific consultation with AFNIC or the domain name community, raised a number of questions, especially with regard to the registry’s liability.47 The Decree also defined new rules for the allocation of ‘.fr’ domain names, thereby significantly modifying the substantive requirements for the recuperation of domain names. By Order of 19 February 2010, AFNIC was officially re-designated by the French Ministry FR.27 for Industry and Electronic Communications to act as the registry for the ‘.fr’.48 The Order

42  Arrêté du 19 février 2010, désignant l’office d’enregistrement chargé d’attribuer et de gérer les noms de domaine au sein des domaines de premier niveau du système d’adressage par domaines de l’internet correspondant au ‘.fr’ JO 2 mars, p 4258. As a result of AFNIC’s designation as France’s registry, AFNIC and the French state entered into an Agreement; see Convention entre l’Etat et l’AFNIC portant sur l’attribution et la gestion du nom de domaine de premier niveau correspondant au ‘.fr’ (2010), available at: http://www.afnic. fr/data/divers/public/convention-etat-afnic-fr.pdf. 43  Decree No 2007-162 of 6 February 2007. 44  Ibid., Art R 20-44-39. 45  Ibid., Art R 20-44-40. 46  Ibid., Art R 20-44-49. 47  AFNIC Press Release, ‘L’AFNIC réagit à la publication d’un Décret relatif aux noms de domaine’ (8 February 2007), available at:  https://www.afnic.fr/fr/l-afnic-en-bref/actualites/actualites-generales/2638/ show/l-afnic-reagit-a-la-publication-d-un-decret-relatif-aux-noms-de-domaine.html. 48  Order of 19 February 2010, above.

319

France (‘.fr’) prescribed new eligibility conditions for the registration of ‘.fr’ domain names49 and required AFNIC to maintain a list of prohibited and reserved terms50 as well as to implement a dispute resolution procedure51 and an accessible mechanism for the public to report domain names that were unlawful or against public order.52 Finally, the Agreement between the Ministry and AFNIC as well as AFNIC's Naming Policy (Charte de nommage)53 established additional rules for the allocation and management of French domain names.

(b)  Constitutional Ruling of 6 October 2010 FR.28 The entire legal framework for French domain names, based on Article L. 45 of the CPCE,

was declared unconstitutional by the French Constitutional Court (Conseil Constitutionnel) in 2010. In a decision of 9 July 2010,54 the French Administrative Supreme Court (Conseil d’Etat) referred to the Conseil Constitutionnel a request for a preliminary ruling (question prioritaire de constitutionnalité or QPC) on the constitutionality of Article 45 of the CPCE, the core provision of the entire legal framework for domain names under ‘.fr’. In a decision of 6 October 2010,55 the Conseil Constitutionnel ruled that the legislature, by delegating in Article L.  45 of the CPCE the task of defining the conditions for the allocation, renewal, cancelation and deletion of French domain names to the executive branch through the 2007 Decree, had unduly and unconstitutionally relinquished part of its powers. Indeed, Article 34 of the French Constitution provides that the power to regulate activities affecting the ‘fundamental principles relating to civil and commercial obligations’, which include freedom of communication and of entrepreneurship (liberté d’entreprendre), falls exclusively within the scope of powers of the legislative branch. In this respect, the Conseil Constitutionnel held that the use of Internet domain names affects not only intellectual property rights but also freedom of communication and freedom of entrepreneurship. However, Article L. 45 of the CPCE only provided that the allocation and management of domain names under the French extension had to respect ‘intellectual property rights’, without protecting freedom of communication and entrepreneurship, which are both elements of the ‘fundamental principles relating to civil and commercial obligations’. Therefore, the Court determined that, by delegating the task of defining the rules relating to the allocation, renewal and cancellation of French domain names to the executive branch without providing statutory protection to the aforementioned constitutional rights, the French legislature had failed to exercise its powers and thus the entire legal framework associated with Article L.  45 of the CPCE was declared unconstitutional.56 Nevertheless, in order to prevent voiding all acts taken prior to the decision (eg designation of AFNIC as the registry, registrations of domain names, etc), the Conseil Constitutionnel maintained the validity of acts taken under the previous legal framework and gave the French legislature until 1 July 2011 to adopt a new legal framework.

 Ibid., Art 2.  Ibid., Art 3. 51 Ibid., Art 4. 52 Ibid., Art 5. 53  AFNIC Naming Policy (16 March 2010), available at:  http://www.afnic.fr/data/chartes/ charte-fr-2010-03-16.pdf. 54  Décision No 337320 du 9 juillet 2010 du Conseil d’Etat. The decision is based on Art 61-1 of the French Constitution, which—since March 2010—allows private individuals to contest a posteriori the constitutionality of enacted laws. 55  Décision n°2010-45 QPC du Conseil Constitutionnel du 6 octobre 2010, déclarant l’article L. 45 du Code des Postes et des Communications électroniques inconstitutionnel, available at: http://www.conseilconstitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/root/bank/pdf/conseil-constitutionnel-49663.pdf. 56  David Taylor et al. ‘Rules Applicable To “.fr” Domain Names Found To Be Unconstitutional’, World Trademark Review (November 2010). 49 50

320

II.  The ccTLD (‘.fr’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (c)  Current Legal Framework On 30 June 2011, the French Parliament adopted a new legal framework as a direct conse- FR.29 quence of the decision of the Conseil Constitutionnel. The new (and current) legal framework for French domain names introduced new Articles L. 45 to L. 45-8 to the CPCE57 as well as Articles R. 20-44-34 to R. 20-44-44 of the CPCE.58 Finally, a Ministerial Order of 25 June 201259 once again designated AFNIC as the registry in charge of the allocation and management of ‘.fr’ domain names. The relationship between the Ministry and AFNIC was formalized by means of an Agreement published on 20 July 2012.60 Whilst some provisions under the prior legal framework have remained unchanged, a number of FR.30 them have introduced substantial changes in respect of: (a) the conditions regarding the registry and rules for the accreditation of registrars; (b) the eligibility requirements for registrants; (c) the rules for the refusal or cancellation of the registration of a domain name by the registry; and (d) dispute resolution procedures.

II.  The ccTLD (‘.fr’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1)  Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry The entity in charge of the management of the ‘.fr’ space is the Association française pour le FR.31 nommage Internet en coopération (AFNIC). AFNIC was founded in 1998 as a non-profit organization after the French National Institute for Research in Computer Sciences and Automation (Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique or INRIA),61 which was initially appointed in 1986 by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to manage the ‘.fr’ space, decided it was more suitable to externalize the management of the French ccTLD. As explained in para FR.29, AFNIC’s appointment for a five-year term62 came as a direct FR.32 result of the Decree of 25 June 2012.63 AFNIC was not only appointed to manage the ‘.fr’ space, but also ‘.re’, ‘.tf ’, ‘.yt’, ‘.pm’, and ‘.wf ’.64 57  Act No 2011-302 of 22 March 2011/Loi n° 2011-302 du 22 mars 2011 portant diverses dispositions d’adaptation de la législation au droit de l’Union européenne en matière de santé, de travail et de communications électroniques. 58  Decree No 2011-296 of 1 August 2011/Décret no 2011-926 du 1er août 2011 relatif à la gestion des domaines de premier niveau de l’internet correspondant aux codes pays du territoire national, amended by Order No 2014-329 of 12 March 2014 and by Decree No 2012-951 of 1 August 2012 (modifying numbering of Articles R.20-44-34 to R.20-44-44; the new numbering corresponds to Articles R. 20-44-38 to R. 20-44-47 of the CPCE). 59  Arrêté du 25 juin 2012 désignant l’office d’enregistrement chargé d’attribuer et de gérer les noms de domaine au sein des domaines de premier niveau du système d’adressage par domaines de l’internet correspondant au ‘.fr’ JORF n°0149 du 28 juin 2012 p 10578, texte n° 86. 60  ‘Convention entre l’Etat et l’AFNIC portant sur la gestion du nom de domaine de premier niveau correspondant au “ .fr”’, available at: http://www.afnic.fr/medias/Convention_Etat_AFNIC_17072012_def.pdf. 61  INRIA’s website is available at: http://www.inria.fr. 62  AFNIC’s Internal Regulation (Règlement intérieur associatif  ) (21 November 2011) is available at: https:// www.afnic.fr/medias/documents/vieasso/Statuts_et_RIA/RIA-afnic-20140606.pdf (French version) and https://www.afnic.fr/medias/documents/vieasso/Statuts_et_RIA/AFNIC_Internal_Regulation_2014.pdf (English version). 63  Arrêté du 25 juin 2012 désignant l’office d’enregistrement chargé d’attribuer et de gérer les noms de domaine au sein des domaines de premier niveau du système d’adressage par domaines de l’internet correspondant au ‘.fr’ JORF n°0149 du 28 juin 2012 p 10578, texte n° 86. Under the previous legal framework: Arrêté du 19 février 2010, désignant l’office d’enregistrement chargé d’attribuer et de gérer les noms de domaine au sein des domaines de premier niveau du système d’adressage par domaines de l’internet correspondant au ‘.fr’, JO 2 mars, p 4258. 64  AFNIC manages the following ccTLDs:  ‘.wf ’ for Wallis and Futuna, ‘.tf ’ for the French Southern and Antarctic Territories, ‘.re’ for Reunion Island, ‘.pm’ for St Pierre and Miquelon, and ‘.yt’ for Mayotte.

321

France (‘.fr’) (2) The Structure of the Name Space FR.33 The structure of the ‘.fr’ name space is divided into the ‘.fr’ top-level domain (TLD) and

second-level domains (SLD), which, in turn, is subdivided into descriptive second-level domains and sector based second-level domains.65 Currently, the other French extensions do not offer SLD registrations.

FR.34 Initially, the descriptive second-level domains included:  ‘.asso.fr’ (for non-profit organiza-

tions); ‘.presse.fr’ (for press publications); ‘.nom.fr’ (for natural persons); ‘.prd.fr’ (for research and development programmes); ‘.tm.fr’ (for holders of registered trade marks); and ‘.com.fr’ (for anyone without any requirements).66 However, as of March 2009, only ‘.prd.fr’ remained available. The rest of the descriptive SLDs are no longer available for registration as a result of the relaxation of the registration requirements for ‘.fr’ domain names as well as the relative lack of success of these descriptive SLDs. Existing domain names registered in these naming zones prior to March 2009 have, however, been maintained.

FR.35 The sector-based second-level domains comprise the following: ‘.aeroport.fr’ (for airports);

‘.assedic.fr’ (for French employment agencies); ‘.avocats.fr’ (for attorneys-at-law or barristers); ‘.avoues.fr’ (for solicitors); ‘.cci.fr’ (for the French Chamber of Commerce);67 ‘.chambagri. fr’ (for members of the Agriculture Department); ‘.chirurgiens-dentistes.fr’ (for dental surgeons); ‘.experts-comptables.fr’ (for accounting firms); ‘.geometre-expert.fr’ (for surveyors); ‘.gouv.fr’ (for the French administration); ‘.greta.fr’ (for an association of national educational institutions); ‘.huissier-justice.fr’ (for bailiffs); ‘.medecin.fr’ (for the medical profession); ‘.notaires.fr’ (for notaries); ‘.pharmacien.fr’ (for pharmacists); ‘.port.fr’ (for ports and harbours); and ‘.veterinaire.fr’ (for veterinarians).

FR.36 On 30 March 2009, AFNIC technically and administratively migrated most of the

sector-based second-level domains, with the exception of the ‘.gouv.fr’ second-level domain.68 Most sector-based second-level domains are thus no longer managed by AFNIC but by the corresponding professional associations (ordres professionnels). Many of these professional associations have delegated the management of their second-level domains to a private entity.69 The registration rules for these sector-based second-level domains are determined by the corresponding professional association.

(3) Registration Restrictions (a)  Eligibility Requirements FR.37 Eligibility requirements for ‘.fr’ domain names have been gradually relaxed since 1998. Initially, registration of domain names under the ‘.fr’ space was subject to a strict registration policy which relied on the notion of ‘right in the name’ (droit au nom). This meant that an eligible entity could only register a ‘.fr’ domain name which strictly corresponded to its Historically, the other French extensions have been delegated to other service providers and, thus far, such delegation has been maintained. Management of ‘.gp’ has been delegated to the Networking Technologies Group, ‘.gf ’ to Netplus, ‘.mq’ to Mediaserv, ‘.nc’ to the Posts and Telecommunications Office of New Caledonia and ‘.pf ’ to the Posts and Telecommunications Office of French Polynesia. 65  See AFNIC's Naming Policy (2007). 66 Ibid. 67  This domain name is administered by the ‘Assemblée des Chambres Françaises de Commerce et d’Industrie’ (ACFCI). 68  See the AFNIC website and Art 2.5 of the Naming Policy (May 2012 version). 69  Promopixel is the entity that currently administers the following sector-based second-level domains: ‘.aeroport.fr’, ‘.avocat.fr’, ‘.chambagri.fr’, ‘.chirurgiens-dentistes.fr’, ‘.experts-comptables.fr’, ‘.geometre-expert. fr’, ‘.medecin.fr’, ‘.notaires.fr’, ‘.pharmacien.fr’, ‘.port.fr’, and ‘.veterinaire.fr’. See https://www.smallregistry. net/.

322

II.  The ccTLD (‘.fr’) Registration Conditions and Procedures company name or registered trade mark, a practice intended to avoid cybersquatting and to help AFNIC keep the ‘.fr’ extension ‘French-specific’.70 However, this strict regulation policy resulted in an underdeveloped market for the ‘.fr’ extension, in comparison to other ccTLDs, such as the ‘.de’ space.71 AFNIC therefore proceeded to liberalize the ‘.fr’ following a two-stage process. During the FR.38 first stage, beginning on 11 May 2004, the requirement of a ‘right in the name’ was abandoned. It then became possible for any legal entity which was either registered in France, or had a trade mark covering France (eg a French trade mark, Community Trade Mark or International Registration covering France), or was a registered non-profit association to register a ‘.fr’ domain name. As of 20 June 2006, registration of domain names under the ‘.fr’ space was opened to all natural persons of legal age, residing within the French territory.72 In 2010, registration of domain names under the ‘.fr’ ccTLD was opened to French citizens residing abroad.73 The relaxation of eligibility requirements resulted in a dramatic increase in registrations under ‘.fr’ (as discussed in Section II.6 below). The most recent developments in French domain name legislation have resulted in the adop- FR.39 tion of new eligibility registration criteria. Under the current legislation, pursuant to Article L. 45-3 of the CPCE,74 in conjunction with Article 5.1 of the Naming Policy,75 registration of ‘.fr’ domain names is open to any individual or legal entity residing or having its headquarters or principal place of business: (i) within the territory of one of the Member States of the European Union; or (ii) within the territory of one of the following countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, or Switzerland.76 The fact that the only requirement is that the registrant, whether a natural or legal person, FR.40 must be based in the European Union or in Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, or Switzerland is a significant development as, despite the gradual relaxation in relation to ‘.fr’ eligibility requirements over the years, AFNIC has traditionally sought to reserve the ‘.fr’ extension for entities having a legal connection (un lien juridique) with France.77 However, the current eligibility registration criteria may be considered a step back with FR.41 regard to the previous rules as, under the new scheme, neither French citizens living outside the European Union nor non-EU legal entities without a presence in the European 70 Meredith H Croyle, and François Josse, The Impact of .Fr Liberalization on the French Domain Market (22 April 2005), available at:  http://www.sedo.com/e/news/1063/Domains-around-the-world-. FR/?tracked=&partnerid=&language=e. 71 Ibid. 72  Until then, individuals were allowed to register domain names only under the ‘.nom.fr’ extension (and ‘.com.fr’). 73  See Art 2 of the 19 February 2010 Decree, which provided that eligibility for registering ‘.fr’ domain names was limited to: (i) legal entities with an office or branch within French territory; (ii) individuals residing in France; (iii) French citizens residing outside France; and (iv) holders of a trade mark registered with the French Industrial Property Office (INPI) or outside France and covering the French territory. 74  Act No 2011-302 of 22 March 2011. 75  AFNIC’s Naming Policy (May 2012), is available at: http://www.afnic.fr/medias/AFNIC_charte_de_ nommage__04-2012-_version_francaise.pdf (in French). However, AFNIC has recently revised its Naming Policy (December 2014), available at:  https://www.afnic.fr/medias/documents/Cadre_legal/afnic-chartede-nommage-2014-12-08.pdf (in French), further to the adoption of Decree No 2012-951 of 1 August 2012, which changed the numbering of the CPCE. 76  The Decree of 19 February 2010, Art 2, para 2, already provided for the opening of the ‘.fr’ extension to individuals residing within the EU and legal entities established within the EU, as part of the registry’s commitments within a period of two years from the date of its designation. 77  David Taylor and Laetitia Arrault, ‘.fr and other French TLDs to open up to the EU’ World Trademark Review Daily (22 November 2011).

323

France (‘.fr’) Union, even if they hold a trade mark covering France, are eligible to register ‘.fr’ domain names.78 FR.42 AFNIC appears to have enforced these new eligibility requirements on then existing domain

name registrations (acquired before the new eligibility requirements came into force) at the time of renewal of a domain name.79

(b) Attribution/Naming Rules FR.43 Article L. 45-1 of the CPCE establishes the general principle for the allocation and management of domain names: ‘domain names shall be allocated and managed in the general interest according to non-discriminatory and transparent rules that guarantee the protection of freedom of communication, freedom of entrepreneurship, and intellectual property rights’.80 FR.44 Domain names under ‘.fr’ are registered according to the ‘first-come, first-served’ principle.81

The only exception to this general rule is where a domain name is contrary to the provisions of Article L. 45-2 of the CPCE, as discussed in para FR. 140.

FR.45 Registration for a French domain name is currently valid for a period of 12 months and up to

ten years, in accordance with Article 2.8 of the Naming Policy. AFNIC automatically renews domain name registrations, unless a request for deletion is sent by the registrar, but most registrars deactivate domain names upon expiration. Long-term or multi-year registrations became available in March 2015, as provided by the Agreement between the Ministry and AFNIC.82 Until then, ‘.fr’ domain names could only be registered for 12 months.

(c)  Documents Required for Registration FR.46 Registrants of domain names under the ‘.fr’ extension, whether individuals or legal entities,

must provide their contact information for each domain name. Although the Registrar does not require supporting documents at the time of registration, AFNIC may perform verifications to ensure the registrant satisfies the registration eligibility requirements83 and thus may request supporting documents at any time.

FR.47 AFNIC also requires additional documentation for domain names subject to prior review to

demonstrate that the registrant is entitled to register the domain name and in compliance with the other requirements prescribed by law.84

(d)  Terms Subject to Prior Review FR.48 In accordance with the provisions of the current legislation and AFNIC’s agreement

with the Ministry, AFNIC has set an evolving list of terms subject to review prior to allocation.85

FR.49 The first category of terms subject to prior review includes formerly ‘prohibited’ and ‘reserved’

terms, also known as ‘fundamental terms’, which were not available for registration under the

 Ibid.  Ibid. 80  Act No 2011-302 of 22 March 2011. 81  Art 2.3 of the Naming Policy; Art L. 45-1 of Act No 2011-302 of 22 March 2011. 82  Art 6(4), Convention entre l’Etat et l’AFNIC portant sur la gestion du nom de domaine de premier niveau correspondant au ‘.fr’ (2012). See also AFNIC Press Release ‘Le .fr, une histoire d’amour qui s’écrit désormais sur plusieurs années’ (6 April 2015), available at: https://www.afnic.fr/fr/l-afnic-en-bref/ actualites/actualites-generales/8945/show/le-fr-une-histoire-d-amour-qui-s-ecrit-desormais-sur-plusieurs-a nnees-1.html. 83  Art 3.2 of the Naming Policy. 84  Art 2.4(28) of the Naming Policy. 85  Art 2.4(22) of the Naming Policy. 78 79

324

II.  The ccTLD (‘.fr’) Registration Conditions and Procedures previous regime.86 These terms are no longer ‘prohibited’ or ‘reserved’ as, in accordance with the new legislation and the Constitutional Court’s ruling, the allocation of French domain names must respect freedom of entrepreneurship and communication.87 Prohibited terms were terms considered unlawful or contrary to public order, such as racist FR.50 or rude terms or terms related to illegal activities.88 Reserved terms included, for instance, technical Internet terms, terms designating regulated professions, names of countries that are members of the Paris Convention, and names of international organizations, as well as the names of collectivités territoriales (French communes, departments, and regions), and could only be registered by the relevant entity.89 Under the new regime, such domain names consisting of formerly prohibited or reserved FR.51 terms can be registered, provided that the registrant has a legitimate interest in the term and acts in good faith.90 Pursuant to Article 2.4 of the Naming Policy, in order to register a term subject to prior FR.52 review, the registrant is responsible for ensuring that the domain name does not: (i) disrupt public order or is not against the principles of morality, or does not violate rights guaranteed by French law or the French Constitution; or (ii) infringe intellectual property rights or personality rights; nor can the domain name be identical or similar to the name of the French Republic, a local authority or group of local authorities, of a local or national institution or public service, unless the applicant demonstrates a legitimate interest and is acting in good faith, as defined by Article R. 20-44-46 of the CPCE.91 The list of domain names subject to prior review is available on the AFNIC website.92 It is FR.53 important to note that this list is not exhaustive as certain names are not published simply because they are likely to be offensive to the public. In addition, AFNIC provides an online tool that allows any person to report a domain name FR.54 that may be unlawful or against public order, pursuant to Article R. 20-44-39 of the CPCE.93 Finally, the second category of domain names subject to prior review under similar condi- FR.55 tions includes the following domain names governed by AFNIC’s Naming Policy:94 (i) ‘.agglo-name.fr’, where ‘name’ is the name of the metropolitan area authority (Communauté d’agglomération); (ii) ‘.cc-name.fr’, where ‘name’ is the official name of the community of municipal authorities (Communautés de communes); 86  See AFNIC Press Release announcing the release of ‘fundamental terms’ as of 1 July 2011, available at: https://www.afnic.fr/fr/l-afnic-en-bref/actualites/actualites-generales/5538/show/comment-enregistrer-lestermes-soumis-a-examen-prealable-2.html. 87  See David Taylor and Jane Seager, ‘Anyone may now apply for “fundamental” terms under “.fr” ’ World Trademark Review Daily (7 July 2011). 88 Art 14.3.1 of the Naming Policy (16 March 2010), available at:  http://www.afnic.fr/data/chartes/ charte-fr-2010-03-16.pdf. 89  Art 14.3.2 of the Naming Policy (16 March 2010), above. See also David Taylor and Jane Seager, ‘Anyone may now apply for “fundamental” terms under “.fr”’, World Trademark Review Daily (7 July 2011). 90  Art 2.4 of the Naming Policy. 91  Decree No 2011-926 of 1 August 2011. 92 The list of terms subject to prior review is available at:  http://www.afnic.fr/fr/ressources/ documents-de-reference/chartes/termes-soumis-a-examen-prealable/. 93  See Decree No 2011-926 of 1 August 2011; the form is available at: http://www.afnic.fr/en/dispute-resolution/ tools-and-procedures/reporting-a-domain-name-that-is-unlawful-or-contravene-public-policy/. 94  Art 2.4 of the Naming Policy.

325

France (‘.fr’) (iii) ‘.cg-xx.fr’, where ‘xx’ is the number or official directory name of the department (Conseils généraux); (iv) ‘.cr-name.fr’, where ‘name’ is the official name of the regional council (Conseils régionaux); and (v) ‘.mairie-name.fr’ and ‘.ville-name.fr’, where ‘name’ is the official name of the municipality or city (Communes).

(e)  Syntactic Constraints FR.56 Until recently, ‘.fr’ domain names could only consist of alphanumeric characters in the French alphabet without diacritics, the numbers 0 to 9, and the hyphen ‘-’, known as ASCII domain names. FR.57 On 3 May 2012, AFNIC began allowing the registration of ‘internationalized domain

names’ (IDNs) under the ‘.fr’ space.95 IDNs are domain names that contain characters with diacritics, such as accents (eg ‘é’), cedillas (eg ‘ç’) and ogoneks (eg ‘ą’). AFNIC introduced the following 30 additional characters shown in Table FR.1, bringing the total number of characters available to 67: Table FR:1 Additional Available Characters ß é ô

à ê õ

á ë ö

â ì ù

ã í ú

ä î û

å ï ü

æ ñ ý

ç ò ÿ

è ó œ

FR.58 The list is not limited to characters used in the French language as it includes, for example,

the German ‘ß’ and the Spanish ‘ñ.’ However, characters from other alphabets, such as the Cyrillic and Greek alphabets, are currently not allowed.

FR.59 In order to protect the rights of holders of ASCII domain names under the ‘.fr’ extension

against cybersquatting, AFNIC opted to follow a two-phased sunrise period for the introduction of IDNs.96 During the first period, from 3 May to 3 July 2012, registrants of existing domain names could register the corresponding IDNs under the same extension (eg, the registrant of ‘cafe.fr’ would have been able to register ‘café.fr’ but not ‘café.re’). Since 3 July 2012, the registration of IDNs has been opened to all on a ‘first-come, first-served’ basis.

FR.60 ASCII and IDN domain names are still subject to structuring restrictions. FR.61 Article 2.2 of the Naming Policy provides that ASCII and IDN domain names cannot be

registered if they:

(i) begin or end with a hyphen (‘-’); (ii) are more than 63 characters long; or (iii) contain a hyphen (‘-’) in the third or fourth position, except for ASCII encoded versions of IDN labels (‘xn - -’). Registration of ASCII and IDNs consisting of one or two alphabetic or numeric characters became available in March 2015. 95 See AFNIC website at:  http://www.afnic.fr/fr/produits-et-services/les-idns-7.html. The introduction of IDNs not only concerned the ‘.fr’ extension but also the other five extensions managed by AFNIC: ‘.re’ (Reunion), ‘.tr’ (French Southern Territories), ‘.wf ’ (Wallis and Futuna), ‘.pm’ (St Pierre and Miquelon), and ‘.yt’ (Mayotte). 96  See Art 9.7 (Section C), of the Naming Policy (May 2012 version) then in effect.

326

II.  The ccTLD (‘.fr’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement French domain names managed by AFNIC may only be registered through accredited registrars. FR.62 The registration agreement is concluded directly with the registrar and imposes that the registrant must abide by the terms of AFNIC’s Naming Policy, the Data Publication and Access Policy,97 and the Dispute Resolution Policy. AFNIC maintains a WHOIS database containing the details relating to the registrations of the FR.63 domain names it administers in accordance with Article 8.2 of the Naming Policy,98 and publishes daily a list of newly registered domain names. Private individuals may select the ‘restricted information’ option to protect their personal data FR.64 as required by the French Data Protection Act,99 in accordance with Article 8.4 of the Naming Policy. This option allows the registrant to conceal his or her personal information on the WHOIS database. The ‘restricted information’ option is also available for the administrative contact, if it is a natural person. In such a case, only the technical contact information will be publicly available. AFNIC may, however, disclose the identity of a registrant in the following cases:100

FR.65

(i) upon request by a judicial authority (ordonnance sur requête ou réquisition judiciaire); (ii) upon request by an authority entitled to submit such request, such as the French Competition Authority (DGCCRF) or customs; or (iii) further to a ‘request for the disclosure of personal data’101 which can be submitted using a form available on the AFNIC website (the request has to be justified, for example, on the basis of trade mark infringement).

(5) Domain Name Operations AFNIC’s policy regarding domain name operations, including the transfer, blocking or locking FR.66 of ‘.fr’ domain names, is discussed in detail throughout this section.

(a)  Transfer of Domain Names Transfers of ‘.fr’ domain names may be made on either a voluntary or compulsory basis. ‘.fr’ FR.67 domain names only became freely transferable on a voluntary basis by registrants in May 2004 further to the relaxation of the registration policy. This represented a major step towards the valorization of ‘.fr’ domain names as real and transferable assets. Previously, a voluntary transfer or assignment of a domain name was not strictly possible and could only come about by means of cancellation and re-registration of the domain name, thus creating uncertainty and risk in ‘.fr’ domain name operations.102 Currently, AFNIC only approves voluntary transfers provided that registrants have agreed FR.68 to such transfer in accordance with Article 6.4 of the Naming Policy (ie by signing and 97 See ‘Politique de publication et d’accès à l’information sur les enregistrements de noms de domaine Règles applicables aux extensions .fr, .pm, .re, .tf, .wf et .yt,’/‘Policy for publication and access to data concerning domain name registrations’, available at:  http://www.afnic.fr/medias/documents/ AFNIC-_politique_publication_et_acces_aux_donnees_2012_.pdf. 98  The conditions for using the database are defined in the ‘Policy for publication and access to data concerning domain name registrations’, above. 99  Act No 78-17 of 6 January 1978 on Data Processing, Files and the Protection of Individual Liberties. 100  Art 8.4 of the Naming Policy. 101  Personal data disclosure request form/Demande de divulgation de données personnelles, available at: http://www.afnic.fr/fr/resoudre-un-litige/actions-et-procedures/demande-de-divulgation-de-donneespersonnelles-4.html. 102  David Taylor et al. ‘.fr domain name new opportunities’, Anchovy News (May 2004).

327

France (‘.fr’) submitting the relevant transfer form). Naturally, transferees must meet the eligibility requirements in order for the transfer to be effective. In the event of insolvency proceedings, a voluntary transfer form must be signed by the designated administrator.103 FR.69 Third parties are entitled to prevent the transfer of a domain name by means of a ‘lock’ in the

event of an ADR or court proceeding.

(b)  Locking a Domain Name FR.70 Pursuant to Article 6.2 of the Naming Policy, a domain name may be locked (an operation known as ‘gel’ in French) only as a result of one of the following: (i) a court decision ordering the locking of the domain name; (ii) the initiation of an alternative dispute resolution procedure administered by AFNIC;104 or (iii) the initiation of a verification procedure.105 FR.71 A ‘lock’ only has the limited effect of preventing any voluntary transfer of the domain name

by the registrant to a third party. The locked domain name therefore remains active and can be exploited during the entire lock period. Locked domain names are identified as such in the WHOIS database.

(c)  Blocking a Domain Name FR.72 A  domain name may be blocked, according to Article 6.3 of the Naming Policy, in the

following cases:

(i) a court decision orders the blocking of the domain name; (ii) a verification procedure initiated by AFNIC;106 or (iii) ‘orphan’ domain names (ie domain names that are no longer administered by a registrar in a contractual relationship with AFNIC).107 FR.73 A blocked domain name is deactivated, and will no longer resolve. Blocked domain names

are identified as such in the WHOIS database.

(d)  Compulsory Transfers FR.74 Compulsory transfers are regulated by Article 6.5 of the Naming Policy. According to the

Policy, AFNIC will transfer a domain name as a result of:

(i) a decision to transfer further to an alternative dispute resolution procedure administered by AFNIC; (ii) a court decision ordering the transfer of the domain name; (iii) a corporate operation, such as a merger, if the original holder is no longer able to transfer the domain name voluntarily); or (iv) the original holder no longer being able to transfer the domain name voluntarily, provided there is a legal or commercial link between the original holder and the new holder.   Art 6.4 of the Naming Policy.   See also Art II(iii) Syreli Rules. 105  Art 3.2 of the Naming Policy. AFNIC may verify the eligibility requirements or the contact information submitted by a registrant at its own initiative or by third-party request by submitting an online form available on the AFNIC website. See http://www.afnic.fr/fr/resoudre-un-litige/actions-et-procedures/ demande-de-verification-11.html. 106  Art 3.2 of the Naming Policy. 107  Art 6.6 of the Naming Policy provides that ‘orphan’ domain names are domain names administered by a registrar that is no longer in a contractual relationship with AFNIC for any of the following reasons: (i) failure to renew its agreement with AFNIC; (ii) insolvency proceedings; (iii) ceasing of commercial activities in the field; or (iv) termination of its agreement with AFNIC. 103 104

328

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.fr’ Domain Space A compulsory transfer implies that the new registrant must satisfy all requirements prescribed FR.75 by AFNIC, including identification and eligibility requirements.108

(6) Statistics: Number of Domain Name Registrations and Growth The ‘.fr’ space was the seventh ccTLD created and delegated in 1986.109 It has slowly but FR.76 steadily grown over its more than 25 years of existence. In the beginning, AFNIC’s stringent registration policy was very successful in limiting the cybersquatting that had plagued other extensions with unrestricted registration policies. However, this approach had a direct effect on the number of ‘.fr’ domain name registrations. For example, by May 2004, registrations had reached a mere 181,000. The gradual relaxation of AFNIC’s domain name registration policy led to a steady growth FR.77 over the years in ‘.fr’ domain name registrations. In May 2004, after having abandoned the ‘right in the name’ requirement, domain name registrations increased by over 30 per cent in the first month alone. Moreover, between 2006 and 2008, following the opening of ‘.fr’ to individuals, domain name registrations doubled from 500,000 to 1,000,000. By 18 April 2011, AFNIC had reached its two millionth ‘.fr’ domain name registration.110 ‘.fr’ registrations reached 2.5 million by the end of 2012, 2.7 million by the end of 2013, and 2.8 million by the end of 2014. According to AFNIC’s 2014 French Domain Name Industry Report111 the annual growth FR.78 rate for ‘.fr’ domain names was 8.2 per cent in 2013, compared with 17 per cent in 2011 and 25 per cent annual growth rate in 2009.112 The resale market for ‘.fr’ domain names has also taken off in recent years, with a growth rate FR.79 well above the average compared to other extensions. The average purchase price in 2010 was €5,000 (due in part to the resale of the ‘credit.fr’ for €587,500) and in 2011, this amount fell to €1,000.113 2015 statistics show ‘.fr’ to be the tenth largest ccTLD and the fifteenth largest TLD.114 FR.80 The high number of ‘.fr’ domain name registrations may be attributable to the recent developments in ‘.fr’ registration conditions, including the opening to European citizens and European-based entities in December 2011, and the introduction of IDNs.115

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.fr’ Domain Space The liberalization of the ‘.fr’ naturally led to an increased risk of cybersquatting practices and FR.81 other domain name conflicts. Thus, alternative procedures for ‘.fr’ domain name disputes were immediately implemented.

  Art 6.5 of the Naming Policy.   See ‘History of the Internet. ccTLDs in chronological order of Top Level Domain creation at the Internic’, available at: http://www.ccwhois.org/ccwhois/cctld/ccTLDs-by-date.html. 110  For AFNIC statistics, see http://www.afnic.fr/en/resources/statistics/. 111 AFNIC Industry Report (2014), available at:  https://www.afnic.fr/en/resources/publications/ french-domain-name-industry-report/2014-online-edition/. 112 AFNIC French Domain Name Industry Report (2011), available at:  https://www.afnic.fr/medias/2011VEn_observatoireWEB.pdf. 113 Ibid., p 11. 114  Verisign Domain Name Industry Brief, Volume 11, Issue 4, January 2015. 115  AFNIC Industry Report (2011), p. 28. 108 109

329

France (‘.fr’) FR.82 The alternative dispute resolution procedures for ‘.fr’ domain name disputes have been

revised on several occasions, further to the adoption of the 2007 Decree and, most recently, following the enactment of Act No 2011-302 of 22 March 2011. This new legislation completely reformed the legal framework for the resolution of domain name disputes, resulting in the suspension of the then-applicable PARL and PREDEC dispute resolution procedures and the implementation of a new procedure called Syreli.116

(1) Former Proceedings (a)  The Former PARL Procedures FR.83 Under the previous system, three different alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures

(Procédures Alternatives de Résolution des Litiges), known as PARL, were developed to resolve domain name conflicts under ‘.fr’.117 These procedures were administered by three different entities: the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Centre, the Internet Rights Forum (Forum des Droits de l’Internet or FDI)118 and the Paris Arbitration and Mediation Centre (Centre de Médiation et d’Arbitrage de Paris or CMAP). Whilst the first two PARLs are currently no longer applicable, the procedure before CMAP is still in force.

FR.84 AFNIC’s role remained neutral during the course of these proceedings. FR.85 (i)  PARL Administered by WIPO  The PARL administered by WIPO, also known as the

PARL ‘by technical decision’ (PARL par décision technique) was the first ADR available for ‘.fr’ domain names. It was launched on 11 May 2004 and was suspended on 15 April 2011 for an indefinite period.

FR.86 The evolution of this PARL procedure was also influenced by the evolution of French legisla-

tion. Indeed, a first version of the PARL was available to individuals or entities disputing the registration of a ‘.fr’ domain name from 11 May 2004 to 22 July 2008. This first version of the PARL provided that a complainant could initiate a proceeding to request the cancellation or transfer of a domain name if the registration constituted an ‘infringement of third party rights’, defined as ‘an infringement of third party rights protected in France and, in particular, intellectual property (literary and artistic property and/or industrial property), laws of unfair competition and fair trading, and the right in the name, first name or pseudonym of a person’.119

FR.87 This first version of the PARL was a variation of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute

Resolution Policy (UDRP). However, the PARL was much broader in scope, as a claim requesting the transfer or cancellation of a ‘.fr’ domain name could be based on other grounds, such as unfair competition and parasitism.

FR.88 The adoption of the 2007 Decree establishing a new regime for ‘.fr’ domain names led

AFNIC to revise the PARL procedure in order to conform to the new legislation.

FR.89 On 22 July 2008, a new version of the WIPO PARL rules therefore came into force. Under

these new rules, a complainant would succeed if he or she established that:

(a) the domain name infringed third-party rights, that is, when the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a term protected by rights, unless the domain name holder 116  David Taylor and Lionel de Souza, ‘Alternative dispute resolution procedures for “.fr” suspended’, World Trademark Review Daily (18 May 2011). 117 See http://www.afnic.fr/doc/ref/juridique/parl. 118  FDI’s website was available at: http://www.foruminternet.org. 119  Art 1, PARL Rules (version of 11 May 2004).

330

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.fr’ Domain Space could prove a right or legitimate interest in the domain name and had acted in good faith; or (b) the domain name was violating rules of fair competition or trade.120 Whilst these new rules remained relatively similar to the previous rules, the notion of infringe- FR.90 ment of third-party rights closely resembled the UDRP criteria. Nevertheless, the scope of the WIPO administered PARL remained much wider than that of the UDRP. Decisions issued by the PARL expert (single expert panels) were binding unless proceedings FR.91 were brought before a competent French court within 20 calendar days of the decision. The expected revision of French domain name legislation further to the 2010 Decision of the FR.92 Conseil Constitutionnel led AFNIC and WIPO to suspend this PARL as of 15 April 2011. A new WIPO administered PARL should, however, be put in place in 2015. Decisions under the WIPO administered PARL are still available on the WIPO website.121

FR.93

(ii)  PARL Administered by the FDI  In 2006, as a result of the opening of ‘.fr’ to individ- FR.94 uals, AFNIC implemented a new dispute resolution procedure in conjunction with the FDI, a non-profit organization sponsored by the French government, created in 2001.122 Since 2004, the FDI had been involved in the resolution of Internet-related disputes, particularly regarding e-commerce, defamation, and conflicts with Internet service providers. The procedure administered by the FDI for ‘.fr’ domain names was a mediation procedure, FR.95 available to individuals with a claim against a company or another individual. The service was provided free of charge and was accessible via a platform on the website ‘www.mediateurdunet. fr’. As a mediation procedure, the procedure administered by the FDI attempted to offer parties a forum to discuss and amicably settle their disputes in relation to ‘.fr’ domain names. However, the FDI was closed in December 2010 due to government funding cutbacks.123

(iii)  The PREDEC Procedure  Along with the new version of the WIPO administered FR.96 PARL, AFNIC implemented, on 22 July 2008, a simplified administrative procedure known as the PREDEC. The procedure was intended solely for cases where registrations constituted a blatant infringement of the provisions of the 2007 Decree.124 The PREDEC was administered by AFNIC and complemented the other PARL proceedings and in particular the WIPO administered PARL. The recuperation of a domain name under the PREDEC required a domain name to be: (a) identical to the name of the French Republic, state and public institutions, or national public services;125 (b) identical to the name of a local authority (collectivité territoriale) or a public institution (établissement public), except by prior authorization;126 (c) detrimental to the name, image, or reputation of the French Republic, state institutions, public institutions or public services of the French Republic, local authorities or a group of local authorities, or creating confusion in the mind of the public;127   Arts 1 and 12, PARL Rules (version of 22 July 2008).   See the WIPO website at: http://www.wipo.int/amc/fr/domains/decisionsx/index-cctld.html. 122  David Taylor et al. ‘New Dispute Resolution Procedure for .fr’, Anchovy News (July/August 2006). 123  ‘Le Forum des droits sur l’internet est dissous’ (7 December 2010). 124  In French, ‘Règlement de la procédure de résolution des cas de violations manifestes des dispositions du décret du 6 février 2007’. 125  R. 20-44-43, I of Decree No 2007-162 of 6 February 2007. 126  Ibid., R. 20-44-43, II. 127  Ibid., R. 20-44-44. 120 121

331

FR.97

France (‘.fr’) (d) identical or confusingly similar to a an intellectual property right protected under national or community law, unless the owner has a right or legitimate interest and is acting in good faith;128 or (e) identical to the surname of an individual, unless the owner has a right or legitimate interest and is acting in good faith.129 FR.98 In respect of intellectual property rights and personality rights, the substantive requirements

were very similar to those under the UDRP.

FR.99 Under PREDEC, a decision was usually rendered within approximately 45  days by a

three-member panel consisting of the CEO and senior members of AFNIC. The remedies were limited to the transfer, blocking, or cancellation of the domain name.130

FR.100 The PREDEC and the coexisting PARL could not be commenced simultaneously. However,

once the PREDEC decision was notified, the parties were able to file a complaint under the PARL or refer the matter to court within a period of 15 calendar days before the PREDEC decision was implemented.

FR.101 PREDEC offered a number of advantages when compared with the coexisting PARL meth-

ods available for recuperation of a ‘.fr’ domain name, such as a simpler online application process and lower filing fees (€250 per domain name as opposed to €1,500 for the PARL administered by WIPO).

FR.102 Like the WIPO administered PARL, the PREDEC procedure was suspended on 15 May

2011, as a result of the new legislation. Decisions rendered under the PREDEC procedure are still available on the AFNIC website.131

(2) Current Proceedings (a)  The PARL Procedures FR.103 (i)  PARL Administered by the CMAP  The PARL administered by the Paris Arbitration

and Mediation Centre (CMAP),132 also known as ‘PARL par recommendation en ligne’, aims to help the parties involved in a ‘.fr’ domain name conflict reach an amicable agreement, following a recommendation provided by an independent panellist (‘tiers aviseur’).133

FR.104 Unlike the WIPO administered PARL, in order to initiate a CMAP administered PARL the

consent of both parties is required, and results in a recommendation by the CMAP panellist, which may include not only the transfer or cancellation of a domain name but also damages. Although the panellist’s recommendation is not binding, it can serve as a basis for a transactional agreement in order to put an end to the dispute.

FR.105 The PARL administered by the CMAP is a fast (a recommendation is usually rendered within

16 days from the filing date of the complaint) and cost-effective alternative that is particularly useful in cases in which both parties have acted in good faith. For instance, this procedure has commonly been used for domain name disputes involving local authorities (collectivités

  Ibid., R. 20-44-45.   Ibid., R. 20-44-46. 130  Ibid., R. 20-44-49. 131 See the Archive of PREDEC decisions at:  http://www.afnic.fr/fr/resoudre-un-litige/la-jurisprudencedu-fr/archive-des-decisions-predec-3.html; see also the Summary of PREDEC Cases for the 2008–2010 period, available at: http://www.afnic.fr/data/divers/public/afnic-bilan-predec-2008-2010.pdf. 132  The Paris Arbitration and Mediation Centre’s website is available at: http://www.cmap.fr. 133  See the AFNIC website, available at: http://web.archive.org/web/20101231131347/http://www.afnic. fr/doc/ref/juridique/parl. 128 129

332

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.fr’ Domain Space territoriales) and commercial entities, in which both parties are willing to put an end to the dispute. Thus, the PARL administered by CMAP is not a suitable alternative for cybersquatting cases which usually involve bad faith registration of a domain name. The PARL administered by the CMAP was the only procedure available during the transi- FR.106 tional period between the suspension of the PARL administered by WIPO and the PREDEC and the new Syreli procedure. It is currently still available. Given the confidential nature of the procedure, recommendations issued by the CMAP are FR.107 not published.

(ii)  Future PARL Administered by WIPO  As part of the agreement concluded with the FR.108 Ministry, AFNIC was required to implement, before 30 September 2013, a new WIPO administered PARL meeting the requirements of Article L.45-6 of the CPCE, following a public consultation.134 AFNIC announced that the new PARL administered by WIPO will be available in 2015. The new PARL (or ADR) administered by WIPO will be adapted to conform to the new FR.109 legislation for French domain names. It will be a parallel procedure to the Syreli procedure and both are mutually exclusive. Similar to the Syreli procedure, under the new PARL administered by WIPO, a complaint FR.110 must be based on the grounds set forth in Article L. 45-2 of the CPCE, as discussed in the following section, and, like Syreli, the procedure will also be fully electronic via a platform developed by AFNIC. The main differences between the new PARL administered by WIPO and the Syreli proce- FR.111 dure relate to costs (for instance, the fees will be set by the WIPO Centre and complainants will not benefit from the fee reimbursement available under the Syreli procedure) and to the appointment of the panel: whilst Syreli decisions are delivered by the AFNIC panel, as discussed in the following section, decisions under the new PARL administered by WIPO will be delivered by the designated expert selected by the WIPO Centre and AFNIC. No further details regarding this procedure are available thus far.

FR.112

(b)  The Syreli Procedure Syreli (Système de résolution de litiges) is the new dispute resolution system that was imple- FR.113 mented in accordance with the new legal framework imposed by Act No 2011-302 of 22 March 2011. AFNIC’s Rules and Regulations of the Dispute Resolution System (‘Syreli Rules’) were approved by the Ministry in Charge of Electronic Communications by Order of 21 October 2011 and published on 3 November 2011.135 Syreli became available on 21 November 2011. At the time of writing, Syreli is the only binding alternative dispute resolution procedure FR.114 available for the resolution of conflicts under the ‘.fr’ ccTLD.

134  Art 10.3 of the Agreement between AFNIC and the Ministry (2012). For more details regarding the public consultation, see ‘Présentation et état d’avancement du projet PARL OMPI Experts’ (2013), available at:  http://www.afnic.fr/medias/documents/consultations/presentation-et-etat-avancement-du-projet-Afnic-PARL-OMPI-EXPERTS.pdf. 135 Règlement du système de résolution de litiges Syreli/available at:  http://www.afnic.fr/medias/ documents/Reglement_du_Systeme_de_resolution_des_litiges_VA.pdf (English version); also available at: http://www.afnic.fr/medias/documents/Reglement_du_systeme_de_resolution_de_litiges_VF.pdf (French version).

333

France (‘.fr’) FR.115 (i) Material Scope of the Proceeding  Under the Syreli Rules, the disputed domain

name must meet the following requirements in order to fall within the material scope of the proceeding:

(a) the domain name must be registered under the ‘.fr’ extension; (b) the domain name must have been created or renewed after 1 July 2011; (c) the domain name must not be subject to any current judicial or extrajudicial proceedings;136 (d) the domain name must be active; and (e) the disputed domain name is likely to infringe Article L. 45 of the CPCE in accordance with Article II (vi)(b) of the Syreli Rules (as discussed in para FR.140).137 FR.116 (ii)  Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration

Agreement  All registrants of ‘.fr’ domain names, when entering into a registration agreement with their registrar, undertake to abide by the terms of the AFNIC Naming Policy which provides in its Article 7.2 that the holder of a domain name agrees to submit to the Syreli procedure. (iii)  Overview of the Syreli Procedure

FR.117 (A) Standing (l’intérêt à agir)  Article L. 45-6 of the CPCE provides that ‘any person with

standing may submit a request to the competent registry to delete or transfer to his name a domain name when the disputed domain name falls within the scope of Article L. 45-2’. A complainant must thus demonstrate that it is the holder of an intellectual property right (trade mark, copyrighted work, patent, or design), a personality right, or any other right stemming from Article L. 45-2 of the CPCE, as discussed in para FR.140, that is identical or similar to the disputed domain name.138 In addition, AFNIC has held that a complainant has standing to bring a complaint under the Syreli proceeding if it demonstrates that it has a company name or domain name (under the ‘.fr’ or any other extension) that is identical or similar to the disputed domain name.139

FR.118 (B) Complaint  The complaint is submitted electronically using the Syreli platform avail-

able on the provider’s website.140 The complainant must complete the standard form available in the Syreli platform, which includes the following information: (1) identification of the disputed domain name; (2) identification of the registrar; (3) name and address of the complainant; (4) name and address of the holder/registrant; (5) payment information; (6) requested remedy, which is limited to the transfer or cancellation of the domain name; and (7) grounds for the complaint, namely reasons why the disputed domain name violates Article L. 45 of the CPCE in accordance with Article II(vi)(b) of the Syreli Rules.

136  See Syreli Decision No FR-2012-00041 (‘la-cote-argus.fr’) (the panel refused the transfer of a domain name subject to a judicial proceeding at the time of filing of the complaint). 137  Art II of the Syreli Rules. 138  AFNIC's Syreli Trends (2012), available at: http://www.afnic.fr/medias/documents/tendances_syreli. pdf. AFNIC has also recently released a trimestrial publication entitled ‘ADR Trends: AFNIC alternative dispute resolution Procedures’ (Q1 2015), available at: https://www.afnic.fr/medias/documents/RESOUDRE_ UN_LITIGE/brochuresjuridiques/Tendances_PARL_2015_1er_trimestre_VEN-2.pdf. 139 Ibid. 140  Available at: https://www.syreli.fr.

334

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.fr’ Domain Space The Syreli Rules do not provide for consolidation of disputes.141 Thus, a complaint can only FR.119 relate to one domain name.

(C) Response  The respondent must submit a response using the Syreli platform within 21 FR.120 calendar days of the date of notification of the proceedings.142 Within this 21-day period, the respondent is entitled to submit additional evidence, even after having submitted the response. (d) Procedural Issues The proceedings are conducted in French143 and the parties’ submissions must therefore be in FR.121 French. Any exhibit in a language other than French must be translated by a sworn translator. The panel may (but is not required to) exclude any submission that has not been translated, is incomplete or otherwise invalid.144 The parties may only communicate in writing by email or regular mail as provided for in FR.122 the complaint by the complainant or as provided for by the respondent in the AFNIC WHOIS database.145 The Syreli Rules specifically exclude the possibility of any other form of communication, including meetings in person, by telephone, video, Internet, or in-person hearings.146

(iv)  Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider  AFNIC is the ADR dispute resolu- FR.123 tion provider. A ‘rapporteur’ is assigned to each case, who is in charge of ensuring that the proceedings are properly carried out.147 The rapporteur ensures the file is complete prior to forwarding the case to the panel for a FR.124 decision. The file is declared ‘complete’ once the rapporteur finds that: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

the complaint form has been duly completed; the fees have been paid by the complainant; the domain name is active; the domain name has been created or renewed on or after 1 July 2011; and the domain name is not subject to any current judicial or extrajudicial proceedings.148

Once the rapporteur determines the file is complete, the proceedings are formally initiated. FR.125 In the event the rapporteur finds any deficiencies in the complaint, the complainant will be informed electronically within 15 calendar days from the date of filing of the complaint and will have seven calendar days to correct any such deficiencies. If the complainant fails to correct any deficiencies in time and under the conditions specified, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.149

(v)  Role of the Administrative Panel  Under the Syreli system, decisions are taken by FR.126 AFNIC, as was the case under the PREDEC.

141  See Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00065, Association des Centres Distributeurs E Lecler v Aurelien P (‘leclerc-location.fr’); and Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00064, Association des Centres Distributeurs E Lecler v Aurelien P (‘leclerclocation.fr’). 142  Art II(v) of the Syreli Rules. 143  Art I(iv) of the Syreli Rules. 144  See Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00120 (‘licitor.fr’) (the panel refused to consider submissions in a language other than French). 145  Art I(i) of the Syreli Rules. 146 Ibid. 147  Art II(ii) of the Syreli Rules. 148 Ibid. 149 Ibid.

335

France (‘.fr’) FR.127 The panel is composed of three members:  AFNIC’s CEO, who serves as the chair of

the panel, and two members appointed by the CEO, from AFNIC’s legal department, who have legal expertise in domain names.150 In addition, two substitute members are appointed by the CEO in case any of the appointed members is unable to fulfil his or her duties.

FR.128 Decisions are taken by a majority vote of the members of the panel and are delivered by

AFNIC’s CEO on behalf of AFNIC.151

FR.129 (vi) Costs  The complainant bears the costs of the procedure. The fees for a Syreli proceed-

ing are currently set at €250.00 excluding taxes. However, complainants that have succeeded in their complaint are entitled to a reimbursement of €150.00.152

FR.130 (vii)  Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings  Article I(i) of the Syreli

Rules provides that the complainant must certify that no judicial or extrajudicial proceeding concerning the disputed domain name is taking place at the time of the filing of the complaint.153

FR.131 Syreli rules do not contain a specific provision regarding the initiation of a court proceeding

once the ADR procedure has been initiated. However, Article I (ii) of the Syreli Rules does provide that that the complainant may, at any time, terminate the Syreli procedure after informing the panel.

FR.132 In the event a domain name registrant files a court proceeding within 15 calendar days of the

ADR decision, enforcement of the decision will be suspended until the court decision has been delivered.154

FR.133 (viii)  ADR Decision  The panel must issue a decision resolving the dispute within two

months from the date of filing of the complaint, as provided by Article L. 45-6 of the CPCE and Article II (i) and (iv) of the Syreli rules or, as previously mentioned, upon determination by the rapporteur that the file is ‘complete’.

FR.134 The panel’s decision must be based exclusively on the statements and the evidence submitted

by the parties, without conducting any further research.155

FR.135 The remedies, as regulated in Article I(iii) of the Syreli rules, are limited to the cancellation or

transfer of the domain name. The panel may therefore not award any damages.

FR.136 The decisions are subject to appeal before a court of law, in accordance with Article L. 45-6

of the CPCE.

FR.137 Once the appeal period has elapsed, the decisions are published on the AFNIC website. The

details concerning the identity of private individuals are, however, concealed to protect their privacy rights.156

FR.138 Enforcement of the decisions is regulated by Article II(viii) of the Syreli Rules. The panel’s

decision will be enforced once the 15 calendar day appeal period has expired. The transfer

  Art II(vi) of the Syreli Rules.  Ibid. 152  Art 10, Agreement between AFNIC and the Ministry, above. 153  See Syreli Decision No FR-2012-00041, Société Nouvelles d’Etudes, d’Edition et de Publicité v Société Muse Media (‘la-cote-argus.fr’) (the panel denied the transfer of a domain name subject to a judicial proceeding at the time of filing of the complaint). 154  Art II(viii) of the Syreli Rules. 155  Art II(iv) of the Syreli Rules. 156  Art II(viii) of the Syreli Rules. 150 151

336

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.fr’ Domain Space of a domain name will take place in accordance with the terms of the Naming Policy and, in particular, with the provisions regarding compulsory transfers. Finally, AFNIC may delete the disputed domain name if the panel’s decision is not imple- FR.139 mented within 60 calendar days.157

(ix) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by Administrative Panel  In order to FR.140 consider whether a complaint filed under the Syreli procedure should succeed, the panel is required to examine the following criteria, pursuant to Article L. 45-2 of the CPCE,158 namely whether the domain name: (1) is likely to disrupt public order or to violate principles of morality, or to violate any rights protected by the French Constitution or by French law; or (2) is likely to infringe intellectual property rights or personality rights, unless the holder has a legitimate interest in the domain name and is acting in good faith; or (3) is identical or similar to the name of the French Republic, of a local authority or group of local authorities, of a local or national institution or public service, unless the holder has a legitimate interest and is acting in good faith. In addition to these requirements, the rules of procedure for the Syreli procedure as adopted FR.141 by AFNIC and validated by the French government, require that the panel first evaluate the complainant’s standing in the case (l’intérêt à agir).

(c)  The Complainant’s Standing (l’intérêt à agir) The complainant’s standing to bring a case is assessed by the AFNIC panel at two different FR.142 levels: first, the panel considers whether the complainant has rights in a name that are identical or similar to the disputed domain name159 and, secondly, whether the complainant satifies the eligibility registration requirements for ‘.fr’ domain names. When assessing whether the complainant has standing in a case, AFNIC considers first the FR.143 complainant’s rights, such as intellectual property rights (including trade marks, copyrighted works, patents or designs) or personality rights;160 business designations such as a company name,161 trade name,162 or signboard; a domain name163 or any right stemming from Article L. 45-2 of the CPCE. Thus, in this respect, the Syreli procedure has a broader scope than the UDRP, as the rights on which a complainant may rely to file a complaint are not limited to trade marks or service marks. In addition, like the UDRP, it is irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether a complainant has standing to bring a complaint when these rights were acquired.164

 Ibid.   Art II(vi)(b) of the Syreli Rules. 159  Art L. 45-6 of the CPCE; see also Syreli Trends, above at fn. 138. 160  Syreli Decision N° FR-2011-00008, Dominique DV v Yakhia D (‘villepin2012.fr’); Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00076, M Edouard F v M Thomas WP (‘edouard-fillias.fr’); and Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00289, Mr Thierry Repentin, Ministre délégué à la formation professionnelle et l’apprentissage v société BL Conseil Patrimoine (‘thierryrepentin.fr’). 161  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00050, Century 21 France v M Eric G (‘century.fr’); see also Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-0034, Société Daiwa France v Philippe B (‘daiwa.fr’); and Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00103, Société Daiwa France v Philippe B (‘daiwa.fr’). 162  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00230, Studyrama-Vocatis v Société Andrzej Wegrzyn (‘studyrama.fr’). 163  Syreli Decision N° FR-2011-00016, Crédit Agricole Loire Haute Loire v Edmunds G (‘caloirehauteloire. fr’). See also ‘Syreli Trends’, above. 164  Syreli Trends, above at fn. 138. 157 158

337

France (‘.fr’) FR.144 Where a complainant fails to provide adequate evidence supporting its rights to bring

a  ­complaint the panel will generally find that it lacks standing and will thus dismiss the complaint.165 However, such a finding of lack of standing for failure to provide sufficient or adequate evidence does not prevent the complainant from filing the complaint again.166

FR.145 It should be noted that this preliminary assessment does not replace the substantive review

conducted by the AFNIC panel regarding whether a domain name is identical or similar to a protected term.

(d)  Eligibility Requirements FR.146 AFNIC also considers prior to examining the grounds for obtaining the transfer or cancellation of a domain name whether a complainant meets the eligibility requirements for registration of a ‘.fr’ domain name, in accordance with Article L. 45-3 of the CPCE and AFNIC’s Naming Policy, which require registrants to be either natural persons residing in or legal entities having their headquarters or principle place of business in a Member State of the European Union or in Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, or Switzerland, as discussed in para FR.39. FR.147 In Sonos v Tomes J,167 the complainant, a company based in the United States, was the holder

of a Community trade mark that was identical to the disputed domain name. However, whilst the complainant had standing to file the complaint from the trade mark rights standpoint, the panel dismissed the complaint given that the complainant was not based in the European Union and thus did not meet the eligibility requirements for registration of a ‘.fr’ domain name in accordance with Article L. 45-3 of the CPCE.

FR.148 AFNIC panels have reached a similar decision in denying the transfer of domain names, in spite

of a complainant’s proven rights, for failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements for registration of ‘.fr’ domain names, in disputes involving the domain names ‘americaneagleoutfitters.fr’,168 ‘harley-davidson-online.fr’,169 ‘ge-concept.fr’,170 ‘appsto.re’,171 and ‘monaco.fr’.172

FR.149 However, in Société YAHOO! Inc v David T173 the AFNIC panel held that a complainant that

does not meet the eligibility requirements for registration of a ‘.fr’ domain name may request the transfer of the disputed domain name in favour of a company that does satisfy the eligibility requirements, provided that there is a legal connection (or lien juridique) between both companies.

FR.150 It follows from the aforementioned Syreli case law that legal entities that do not meet the eli-

gibility requirements for registration of ‘.fr’ domain names may: (i) request the cancellation174

165  See, for instance, Syreli Decision N° FR-2011-00015 (‘societe.fr’) (the panel held that the complainant did not have standing in the case for failure to provide supporting documentation); and Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00163, Société Planete Bio Nature v M. Philippe C (‘natureo.fr’) (the panel held that the complainant did not have standing in the case as the complainant was not the holder of the submitted trade mark and the complainant’s company name was neither identical nor similar to the disputed domain name). In the case of French collectivités territoriales, see the following cases dismissed for lack of standing: Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00239 (‘sololehavre.fr’); Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00243 (‘solo-le-havre.fr’); Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00244 (‘lehavresolo.fr’); and Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00245 (‘le-havre-solo.fr’). 166 See, for example, Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00163, Société Planete Bio Nature v M Philippe C (‘natureo.fr’) and Syreli Decision N FR-2012-00212, Société Planete Bio Nature v M Philippe C (‘natureo.fr’). 167  Syreli Decision N° FR-2011-00013, Sonos v Tomes J (‘sonos.fr’). 168  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00148, Retail Royalty Company v MFD (‘americaneagleoutfitters.fr’). 169  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00149, H-D Michigan v M Bernard Guy C (‘harley-davidson-online.fr’). 170  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00167, General Electric Co v GE Concept (‘ge-concept.fr’). 171  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00157, Apple Inc v APC SARL (‘appsto.re’). 172  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00274, Marques de l’Etat de Monaco SA v M Nicolas V (‘monaco.fr’). 173  Syreli Decision N° FR 2012-00119, Société YAHOO! Inc v David T (‘yahoomag.fr’). 174  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00131, Société Stella & Dot v M Marc R (‘stelladot.fr’).

338

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.fr’ Domain Space of the disputed domain name; or (ii) request the transfer of the domain name in favour of an affiliated company that satisfies the eligibility requirements for registration of ‘.fr’ domain names.175

(e) Grounds (i) Disruption of Public Order or Violation of French Laws or Constitution  The FR.151 ground of ‘disruption of public order or violation of principles of morality or any rights protected by the French Constitution or by French law’ set out in Article L. 45-2-1 of the CPCE is a broad provision that has seldom been invoked and thus far only in disputes involving the registration of domain names related to highly regulated activities or professions, such as the sale of tobacco products or health-related professions, as well as for fraudulent activities based on criminal law. In the disputes involving the domain names ‘achat-cigarettes.fr’176 (which would translate FR.152 into English as ‘purchase-cigarettes.fr’) and ‘cigarettes-enligne.fr’ (which would translate into English as ‘cigarettes-online.fr’),177 the French Directorate-General for Customs and Indirect Taxes obtained the deletion of these two domain names. The AFNIC panel ruled that the use of a domain name to resolve to a website selling cigarettes and aimed at the French public disrupted the public order and violated Article 568 of the French Tax Code, which confers to the State a monopoly over the conditions of sale of such products. This argument was, however, not successful in the disputes involving the domain names FR.153 ‘pharmacie.fr’178 and ‘pharmacies.fr’,179 which were formerly ‘reserved’ terms (and thus unavailable for registration). In these cases, there was no indication on the website to which the domain names were pointing that suggested the existence of an offer to sell pharmaceutical products or of any activity of the exclusive competence of the members of the pharmacy profession. Consequently, the panel determined that the holders of the domain names were not using them in violation of the provisions of the French Public Health Code, which regulates the pharmacy profession. Furthermore, the panel held in both cases that, although the notion of public health is intrinsically linked to the notion of ‘public order’, the complainant had failed to provide sufficient evidence and relevant case law demonstrating that the use of the disputed domain names disrupted the ‘public order’.180 Finally, Article L.  45-2-1 of the CPCE has also been invoked in cases of domain names FR.154 used in connection with identity theft or other type of fraudulent activity, on the basis that the domain name infringes French criminal law, in particular of Article 313-1 of the French Criminal Code, which regulates the offence of fraud, for instance, in the cases involving the domain names ‘logica-france.fr’,181 ‘cadware-systemes.fr’,182 ‘csc-france.fr’,183 and ‘bmb-medical.fr’.184

  See ADR Trends (2015), above, at fn. 138.   Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00229, DGDDI v Société Marcaria.com (‘achat-cigarettes.fr’). 177  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00236, DGDDI v Société Marcaria.com (‘cigarettes-enligne.fr’). 178  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00267, Conseil National de l’Ordre des Pharmaciens v Société Landager SA (‘pharmacie.fr’). 179 Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00266, Conseil National de l’Ordre des Pharmaciens v Société SARL LOGISTIK France (‘pharmacies.fr’). 180 Ibid. 181  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00045, LOGICA France v Eric B (‘logica-france.fr’). 182  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00078, Cadware Systems v Thierry ML (‘cadware-systemes.fr’). 183  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00135, CSC Computer Science v M Claude C, (‘csc-france.fr’). 184  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00268, BMB Medical v M Franck K (‘bmb-medical.fr’). 175 176

339

France (‘.fr’) FR.155 It should be noted that, contrary to the provisions of Article L. 45-2-2 and L. 45-2-3 of the

CPCE, the ground for disruption of public order or violation of principles of morality or infringement of any rights protected by the Constitution or by French legislation, in accordance with Article L. 45-2-1 does not provide for a legitimate interest and good faith exception, most likely as there is a public interest at stake.

Article L. 45-2-2 of the CPCE provides that the disputed domain name must be ‘likely to infringe intellectual property rights or personality rights, unless the holder has a legitimate interest in the domain name and is acting in good faith’. Thus this provision borrows heavily from the language of Article 4(a) of the UDRP. However, as previously mentioned, whilst under the UDRP a complainant may only rely on trade mark rights or service marks, the French text has been broadly drafted to include any intellectual property rights, such as copyrighted works185 or registered trade mark rights,186 as well as personality rights, such as a surname (nom patronymique),187 or a company name, although usually in conjunction with trade mark rights.188

FR.156 (ii)  Intellectual Property Rights or Personality Rights 

FR.157 (A)  Identity or Similarity  In assessing whether a domain name is likely to infringe an intel-

lectual property right or personality right, the panel examines first whether there is identity or similarity between the complainant’s rights and the disputed domain name.

FR.158 AFNIC panels have found similarity with the complainant’s intellectual property rights

or personality rights where a domain name contains misspellings or typographical errors (eg ­‘credi-agricole.fr’, ‘credditmutuel.fr’, ‘crediitmutuel.fr’)189 or consists of a mark and the addition of a descriptive or generic term (eg ‘optic2000chezvous.fr’, ‘leclerclocation.fr’, ‘scooter-vespa.fr’, ‘legogames.fr’),190 a geographical name (eg ‘paris-eiffel-tour.fr’),191 numbers (eg ‘villepin2012.fr’)192 or accents (eg ‘goéland.fr’, ‘arté.fr’).193

FR.159 As a rule, the suffix of a domain name, such as ‘.fr’ or ‘.re’, is immaterial in assessing whether

a domain name is identical or similar to a trade mark (or any other right) given that it is a functional element. However, the suffix may be taken into account in the assessment of identity or similarity in certain cases, as was the case with domain names such as ‘appsto.re’, where the suffix in combination with the second level domain reproduced the complainant’s

  No Syreli decision is available at the time of writing.   Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00025, Société Galeries Lafayette v Benjamin (‘galerielafayette.fr’); Syreli Decision N° FR-2011-00019, Société Credit Agricole SA v Sergey B (‘credi-agricole.fr’); Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00047, Société La Banque Postale v M Alexandre V (‘la-banquepostale.fr’); Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00049, Société Décathlon SA v M. Lucien B (‘decathlon.re’). 187  Syreli Decision N° FR-2011-00008, Dominique DV v Yakhia D (‘villepin2012.fr’) (the panel held that the complainant, presidential candidate for the French elections and a public figure, had demonstrated rights in the name ‘Villepin’). See also Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00076, M Edouard F v M Thomas WP (‘edouard-fillias.fr’) (the panel held that the complainant had demonstrated rights in the name by submitting a copy of his passport). 188  Syreli Decision No FR-2012-00210, Société LDLC.COM v M Allan W (‘ldlc-sa.fr’). 189  Syreli Decision N° FR-2011-00019, Société Credit Agricole SA v Sergey B (‘credi-agricole.fr’) (the panel held that the disputed domain name was similar to the complainant’s trade mark and domain names and so was likely to infringe the complainant’s rights). See also Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00124 (‘creditmuteul. fr’); Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00113 (‘credditmutuel.fr’); and Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00110 (‘crediitmutuel.fr’). 190 Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00053 (‘optic2000chezvous.fr’); Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00065, Association des Centres Distributeurs E Lecler v Aurelien P (‘leclerc-location.fr’); Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00064, Association des Centres Distributeurs E Lecler v Aurelien P (‘leclerclocation.fr’); and Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00206, Lego Juris AS v M Jerome P (‘legogames.fr’). 191  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00031 (‘paris-eiffel-tour.fr’). 192  Syreli Decision N° FR-2011-00008, Dominique DV v Yakhia D (‘villepin2012.fr’). 193  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00132 (‘goéland.fr’); and Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00301 (‘arté.fr’). 185 186

340

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.fr’ Domain Space trade mark. In that case, the AFNIC panel stated: ‘the domain name ‘appsto.re,’ consisting of the second level domain name ‘appsto’ and the first level domain ‘.re,’ is similar to the trade marks held by the Complainant’ namely community trade marks ‘APP STORE’ and ‘APPSTORE’.194 A domain name that is identical or similar to a complainant’s intellectual property rights or FR.160 personality rights will be deemed by the AFNIC panel as ‘likely to infringe the rights of the complainant’ (susceptible de porter atteinte aux droits du Réquerant). The panel requires complainants to clearly establish a likelihood of infringement. Mere state- FR.161 ments of such likelihood, if they are not supported by adequate evidence, will result in the panel not finding in favour of the complainant. In addition, AFNIC will examine whether a domain name was likely to infringe the rights FR.162 of the complainant at the time of registration of the domain name. Accordingly, a domain name that has been registered prior to the registration date of a trade mark will most likely not be deemed ‘likely to infringe the rights of the complainant’ at the time of registration.195 It should be noted that in cases where the AFNIC panel finds that the complainant has not FR.163 established a likelihood of infringement of its rights by the domain name in question at the time of registration, the case is not analyzed further and is simply dismissed. Once the AFNIC panel determines that a domain name is likely to infringe a complainant’s FR.164 intellectual property rights or personality rights, the panel will then examine whether the holder has a legitimate interest in the domain name and has acted in good faith.

(B)  Legitimate Interest  The concepts of legitimate interest and good faith, as defined in FR.165 Article R. 20-44-46 of the CPCE,196 are also analogous to the notions of legitimate interest and good faith, as provided in paragraphs 4(c) and (b), respectively, of the UDRP.197 Pursuant to Article R. 20-44-46 of the CPCE, a legitimate interest within the meaning of FR.166 Article L. 45-2 of the CPCE, can be established, inter alia, where the domain name holder: (1) uses the domain name, or an identical or similar name, in connection with an offering of goods or services, or has made demonstrable preparations to do so; (2) is known by an identical or similar name to the domain name, even in the absence of recognized rights in said name; or (3) is making a non-commercial use of the domain name or of a similar name without any intention to deceive consumers or to impair the reputation of a name in respect of which a right has been recognized or established. AFNIC panels have found a legitimate interest derived from an offering of goods or services, FR.167 for instance, in the cases involving the domain names ‘silencio.fr’198 and ‘brasilhair.fr.’199 The mere allegation of intended use of a domain name, without supporting evidence, is FR.168 insufficient to demonstrate that the holder has made preparations to use the domain name

  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00157, Apple Inc v APC SARL (‘appsto.re’).  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00133, M Didier G v Société Eddo Communications (‘kaveri.fr’); see also Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00249, Nathalie A  v 3 ZACH (‘perlesdange.fr’); and Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00080 (‘ateliersdart.fr’). 196  See Decree No 2011-296 of 1 August 2011, as amended, above. 197  See David Taylor, Lionel de Souza, and Jane Seager, ‘New decree for ‘.fr’ defines legitimate interest and bad faith’ World Trademark Review Daily (20 September 2011). 198  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00300 (‘silencio.fr’). 199  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00106 (‘brasilhair.fr’). 194 195

341

France (‘.fr’) in connection with an offering of goods or services,200 particularly where a domain name is a descriptive term but also corresponds to a well-known trade mark, as was the case in the dispute involving the domain name ‘decathlon.re’.201 FR.169 A legitimate interest in a domain name may also be established if a respondent demonstrates

that it is known by said name. However, there are no Syreli precedents at the time of writing whereby a respondent has successfully demonstrated that it is ‘known’ by a particular name used in a domain name.202

FR.170 In addition, a legitimate interest in a domain name may be found if a respondent is using the

domain name for non-commercial purposes, without any intention to deceive consumers or to damage the reputation of a right holder, as would be the case for criticism or parody of a trade mark. Most Syreli decisions upholding a legitimate non-commercial use of a domain name have involved informational websites, whether related or unrelated to the trade mark.203

FR.171 The wording of Article R.  20-44-46 (in particular the term ‘notamment’) indicates that

the circumstances set therein, which may indicate the existence of a legitimate interest, are non-exhaustive. Accordingly, AFNIC panels have found a legitimate interest by the domain name holder where the domain name is descriptive and the goods or services offered on the website to which the domain name resolves are related to the generic or descriptive meaning of the domain name, as was the case with ‘petitbeguin.fr’204 and ‘simplydrive.fr’.205

FR.172 Finally, AFNIC panels have found that the following cannot give rise to a legitimate interest

in a domain name:

(i) the domain name corresponds to a well-known trade mark, which is not held by the domain name holder;206 (ii) the domain name redirects to the complainant’s website;207 (iii) the domain name holder does not hold any intellectual property rights in a mark or name;208 or (iv) the domain name holder has not been authorized or licensed by the right holder to use the mark or name in the domain name.209   Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00154 (‘elleshop.fr’).   Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00049, Société Décathlon SA v M Lucien B (‘decathlon.re’). See also French Supreme Court (Cass. Com) 20 February 2007, Decathlon v Valley, (‘decathlon.pl’), discussed in Section V.3 of this chapter. 202  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00208 (‘christianmoreau.fr’) (the complainant’s Google search demonstrated that the respondent was not known by the disputed domain name); and Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00130 (‘vente-prive.fr’) (the complainant’s search results from the INPI, Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) and societe.com databases demonstrated that the respondent was not known by the disputed domain name). 203  See, for example, Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00047 (‘la-banquepostale.fr’) (the panel held that the respondent’s use of the domain name to provide information on the services provided by the complainant constituted a non-commercial use of the domain name); and Syreli Decision N° FR-2011-00011 (‘leclerc.fr’) (the panel found that the respondent’s use of the domain name for a website to provide information unrelated to the complainant’s trade mark did not suggest an absence of a legitimate interest). 204  Syreli Decision N°FR-2011-00005 (‘petitbeguin.fr’) (according to the panel, the domain name was descriptive of the goods or services offered—that is, the sale of bonnets or hats—and so the respondent had a legitimate interest in the domain name). 205 Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00281 (‘simplydrive.fr’) (the panel held that the domain name was descriptive of car hire or rental services). 206  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00025, Société Galeries Lafayette v Benjamin (‘galerielafayette.fr’). 207  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00118 (‘fnacspectacle.fr’). 208  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00208 (‘christianmoreau.fr’). 209 Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00214 (‘mmafinance.fr’); Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00206 (‘lego­ games.fr’). 200 201

342

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.fr’ Domain Space Finally, it should be noted that the case of resellers or distributors has been dealt with by FR.173 AFNIC panels under the bad faith element, as discussed in the following section.

(C) Bad  Faith  Article R.  20-44-46 of the CPCE also provides a non-exhaustive list of FR.174 circumstances that can amount to bad faith, including where the domain name was acquired or registered primarily for the purpose of: (i) selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name to a public institution, local authority, or to the right holder of a name that is identical or similar to the domain name, and not to actively use it; (ii) impairing the reputation of a right holder who has a legitimate interest or a right in the name or a similar name or that of a good or service associated with the name in the mind of consumers; or (iii) benefiting from the reputation of the right holder who has a legitimate interest or right in the name or a similar name or that of goods or services associated with the name by causing consumer confusion. Bad faith resulting from the acquisition or registration of a domain name by a respondent FR.175 primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to a complainant will generally be inferred from a direct210 or indirect211 offer to the complainant. Likewise, bad faith may be presumed from an offer to sell the domain name to a third party or a competitor of the complainant212 or to the general public, whether through an auction platform213 or directly on the website associated with the domain name.214 However, an offer to sell a domain name by itself does necessarily support a finding of bad FR.176 faith where other circumstances indicate that the respondent, prior to the offer to sell, used the domain name legitimately and in good faith and thus did not acquire the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling or otherwise transferring it to the complainant.215 Finally, mere allegations of an offer to sell a domain name, without supporting evidence, are FR.177 insufficient to demonstrate bad faith registration of a domain name.216 The second element of bad faith set forth in Article R. 20-44-46 of the CPCE requires the FR.178 AFNIC panel to assess whether the domain name was primarily registered for the purpose of impairing the reputation or goodwill of the complainant or that of a product or service associated with that mark or name, taking into account the level of recognition of the mark in the mind of the public and the reputation and goodwill attached to the complainant and its rights.217 Although at the time of writing there are no Syreli decisions concerning the registration of a domain name for the purpose of impairing the reputation of a complainant, this ground may be invoked against ‘defamatory’ domain names, including those suggesting fraud (for example, ‘arnaque’),218 domain names consisting of a trade mark or a person’s name and a pejorative term (‘sucks cases’), or domain names consisting of a trade mark or name which point to a website displaying, for instance, pornographic content.   Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00155 (‘eki.fr’); and Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00301 (‘arté.fr’).   Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00154 (‘elleshop.fr’). 212  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00147 (‘print-carrier.fr’). 213  Syreli Decision N° FR2011-00013, Sonos v Tomes J (‘sonos.fr.’) (the disputed domain name was offered for sale on the auction platform www.sedo.co.uk); and Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00130 (‘vente-prive.fr’). 214  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00225 (‘topsanté.fr’). 215  Syreli Trends, above, at n. 138. 216  Syreli Decision No FR-2012-00212 (‘natureo.fr’). 217  Syreli Trends, above. 218  Société Française du Radiotéléphone, SFR contre Zeev Arzoine, WIPO Case No D2007-1505 (‘sfrarnaque. com’). 210 211

343

France (‘.fr’) FR.179 The most commonly upheld ground by the AFNIC panel concerning bad faith registration of

a domain name is that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name with the intention of benefiting from the reputation attached to the complainant or its rights by causing confusion, in accordance with the third element set forth in Article R. 20-44-46 of the CPCE.

FR.180 Such an intention to cause confusion with the purpose of benefiting from the complainant’s

reputation or renown may be inferred from a domain name consisting of a trade mark containing misspellings or typographical errors219 or containing the prefix ‘www’ (which stands for ‘World Wide Web’—a practice known as dotsquatting)220 or a domain name consisting of a trade mark in conjunction with a term that is descriptive of the products or services for which the trade mark has been registered.221

FR.181 The following circumstances, whether by themselves or jointly, have been found by AFNIC

panels to indicate bad faith with the purpose of benefiting from the complainant’s reputation:

(i) a domain name reproducing a trade mark is used in connection with a website offering identical products and services for which the complainant’s trade mark has been registered222 or that are in direct competition with those of the complainant; 223 or (ii) a domain name is used to redirect to a third party website offering products or services identical to those of the complainant;224 (iii) the website associated with a domain name does not contain a disclaimer or any other indication that the respondent wishes to distinguish its service from those of the complainant225 or reproduces the same layout and design (‘charte graphique’) of the complainant’s official website, including its logo;226 and (iv) a domain name is used for a parking page containing links referring to the complainant’s same business activity.227 FR.182 In the case of resellers or distributors, AFNIC panels have found that the unauthorized use

by a reseller of a domain name consisting of a trade mark amounts to bad faith registration of a domain name with the purpose of benefiting from the reputation of the right holder, as was the case with the domain names ‘scooter-vespa.fr’,228 ‘scooter-piaggio.fr’,229 and ‘scooter-gilera.fr’.230 This approach adopted by the AFNIC panel seems consistent with French court case law.231

219  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00240 (‘lapostes.fr’) (the panel held that typosquatting creates a risk of confusion in the mind of the consumer). 220  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00060 (‘wwwcaf.fr’). 221  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00064, Association des Centres Distributeurs E Lecler v Aurelien P (‘leclerclocation.fr’); and Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00260 (‘laposte-online.fr’). 222 Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00214 (‘mmafinance.fr’); and Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00200 (‘revue-technique-automobile.fr’). 223  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00118 (‘fnacspectacle.fr’). 224  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00198 (‘sarenza-lando.fr’). 225  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00200 (‘revue-technique-automobile.fr’). 226  Syreli Decision N° FR-2011-00009 (‘rexele.fr’). 227  Syreli Decision N° FR-2011-00013, Sonos v Tomes J (‘sonos.fr.’); Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00053 (‘optic2000chezvous.fr’); Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00124 (‘creditmuteul.fr’); Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00225 (‘topsanté.fr’); Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00233, Société Paris Saint-Germain Football v La Société Andrzej Wegrzyn (‘allpsg.fr’); Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00230 (‘studyrama.fr’); and Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00208 (‘christianmoreau.fr’). 228  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00151, Société Piaggio & C SpA v SARL France Scooter (‘scooter-vespa.fr’). 229  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00150, Société Piaggio & C SpA v SARL France Scooter (‘scooter-piaggio.fr’). 230  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00152, Société Piaggio & C SpA v SARL France Scooter (‘scooter-gilera.fr’). 231  Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre, 20 March 2000, Sony Corporation, SA Sony France v Alifax Sarm (‘espace-sony.com’); and Versailles Court of Appeal, 14 September 2000, Alifax Sarl v Sony Corporation, SA Sony France.

344

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.fr’ Domain Space Finally, there are other circumstances that may suggest that a domain name holder did not FR.183 register a domain name for the purpose of benefiting from the reputation of a complainant, for instance, where: (i) the domain name consists of a generic term, as was the case with ‘coccinelle. fr’;232 and (ii) there is not any specific content on the website233 or the content of the website is unrelated to the products or services for which the trade mark was registered; and (iii) the domain name holder has persistently refused to sell a domain name.234 In addition to the circumstances set forth in Article R.  20-44-46 of the CPCE, AFNIC FR.184 ­panels have found a number of circumstances or converging elements pointing towards a finding of bad faith. Such circumstances include but are not limited to: (i) registering a domain name in order to prevent the owner of a trade mark from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name or for the purpose of disrupting the business activity of a competitor,235 which correspond to paragraphs 4(b)(ii) and (iii), respectively, of the UDRP; (ii) having prior knowledge or awareness of the complainant’s rights;236 (iii) providing false or inaccurate contact information on the WHOIS database;237 or (iv) engaging in a pattern of registering infringing domain names as demonstrated by prior domain name dispute decisions finding against the respondent.238 Thus, it seems that French lawmakers ‘are increasingly passing the principles of the UDRP FR.185 into hard law, at least for French domain name extensions’.239 Consequently, UDRP case law may be useful for complainants before the AFNIC panel, although Syreli case law seems to be increasingly developing its own identity.

(iii)  Names of French State Authorities and Institutions  Article L.  45-2-3 of the FR.186 CPCE proscribes the registration of a domain name that is identical or similar to the name of the French Republic, of a local authority or group of local authorities (collectivités territoriales) or of a local or national institution or public service, unless the holder has a legitimate interest and is acting in good faith, as defined in Article R. 20-44-46 of the CPCE. This provision has been most frequently invoked by the French communes, departments, FR.187 and regions (collectivités territoriales) against the registration of their names as domain names. However, most of the domain name cases against the registration of names of French communes, departments, and regions have been rejected for failure to demonstrate that the

232  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00242 (‘coccinelle.fr’) (in English ‘ladybird’). In the case of generic or descriptive terms that also correspond to well-known trade marks, see Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00049, Société Décathlon SA v M Lucien B (‘decathlon.re’). 233  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00242 (‘coccinelle.fr’). 234 Ibid. 235 Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00223 (‘reminiscence-paris.fr’); Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00222 (‘reminiscence-parfum.fr’); and Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00221 (‘reminiscence-bijoux.fr’). 236  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00260 (‘laposte-online.fr’) (the panel held that the respondent, who was residing in France, could have not ignored the complainant’s trade mark rights in the term ‘La poste’). 237  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00019 (‘credi-agricole.fr’); Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00240 (‘lapostes. fr’); and Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00208 (‘christianmoreau.fr’). 238  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00130 (‘vente-prive.fr’). 239  See David Taylor, Lionel de Souza, and Jane Seager, ‘New decree for “.fr” defines legitimate interest and bad faith’, World Trademark Review (20 September 2011).

345

France (‘.fr’) domain name holder lacked a legitimate interest and registered the domain name in bad faith.240 FR.188 AFNIC panels have found a legitimate interest where a domain name consisting of the name

of a collectivité territoriale is used to provide a range of commercial or non-commercial services, including online advertising, personalized URLs, and email services241 and have found insufficient evidence of bad faith where a domain name points to a website that contains a disclaimer as to its relationship with the French commune, department, or region in question and offers services that do not fall within the competence of said French commune, department, or region.242

FR.189 Only very few exceptional cases have resulted in a decision to transfer the domain name

consisting of the name of a French commune, department, or region, as was the case involving the domain name ‘jura.fr’,243 in which the panel found that the domain name holder registered the domain name in bad faith for the purpose of benefiting from the reputation attached to the French department of Jura based on the use of the domain name for a parking page containing links related to services that fell within the scope of competence of the French department (promoting tourism in the region).

FR.190 Finally, Article L. 45-2-3 of the CPCE has also been invoked by national institutions, as

was the case with the domain name ‘pharmaciens.fr’ (in English, ‘pharmacists’).244 In this case, the AFNIC panel held that the domain name was similar to that of the National Order of Pharmacists (Ordre National des Pharmaciens), the entity in charge of regulating the profession, and found that the domain name holder had registered the domain name for the purpose of benefiting from the institution’s reputation by causing a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the public. The AFNIC panel held that, whilst the use of the disputed domain name for a directory of pharmacists was not proscribed by any statutory provision and thus it could not be said that the domain name holder lacked a legitimate interest in the domain name, the domain name holder, a pharmacist, could not have ignored the existence of the institution and its official website at ‘www.ordre.pharmaciens. fr’ and its services.

FR.191 (iv) Statistics  Under the new legislation, AFNIC is required to publish the statistics under

the new dispute resolution procedure. Whilst the Syreli procedure has only been in effect since 21 November 2011, the number of decisions has been steadily increasing.

FR.192 In 2011, there were only 12 admissible cases, three for the month of November and nine

for the month of December; ten requesting transfer of the domain name and two requesting deletion.245

240  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00122, Mairie de Balma v Société Dataxy (‘balma.fr’); Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00175, Conseil Général de Saône-et-Loire v Société Dataxy (‘saoneetloire.fr’); Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00176, Conseil Général de Saône-et-Loire v Société Dataxy (‘saone-et-loire.fr’); Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00241 (‘guyancourt.fr’); and Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00302, Mairie de La Rochelle v Bernezac Communication (‘la-rochelle.fr’). 241  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00209 (‘luce.fr’); and Syreli Decision No FR-2012-00262, La commune de Floirac v Société Dataxy (‘floirac.fr’). 242  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00175, Conseil Général de Saône-et-Loire v Société Dataxy (‘saoneetloire. fr’); and Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00176, Conseil Général de Saône-et-Loire v Société Dataxy (‘saone-etloire.fr’). 243  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00169 (‘jura.fr’) (transfer); see also Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00046, Mairie du Saint Pierre du Vauvray v M Arnaud B (‘vivezsaintpierre.fr’) (transfer). 244  Syreli Decision N° FR-2012-00265 (‘pharmaciens.fr’). 245 See AFNIC Statistics (August 2012) at http://www.afnic.fr/medias/Statistiques_SYRELI_August_ 2012.pdf.

346

IV.  Court Litigation By August 2012, there had been 113 admissible cases (111 for ‘.fr’ and two for ‘.re’), of FR.193 which 110 requested transfer and three deletion of the domain name. Between the months of February and May, an average of 13 cases were filed per month.246 Ninety-six decisions had been rendered by August 2012: 70 ordering the transfer or cancellation of the domain name (eight with the consent of the domain name holder) and 26 rejecting the complaint.247 By the end of October 2012, 135 Syreli decisions had been delivered, with 66 per cent of the decisions ordering the transfer of the domain name to the complainant.248 By March 2013, the total number of decisions rendered since the Syreli dispute resolution FR.194 procedure was implemented was 231,249 averaging more than 20 decisions per month since July 2012. More than half of the domain name holders did not submit a response to a Syreli complaint. The most recent Syreli statistics show that, as of April 2015, there have been 643 Syreli FR.195 decisions delivered.250 Seventy-nine per cent of the decisions were based on Article L.45-2-2 of the CPCE, nine per cent were based on Article L.45-2-1 of the CPCE and seven per cent were based on Article L. 45-2-3 of the CPCE. Only 58 per cent of the decisions delivered granted the complainant’s request.251 Thus the success rate for complainants under the Syreli procedure is substantially lower compared to the general outcome under the UDRP. Only 0.3 per cent of the Syreli decisions have been appealed thus far before a French court.252 FR.196

IV.  Court Litigation Domain name court disputes are quite common in France, in spite of the availability of FR.197 faster and low-cost alternatives, such as the UDRP or the above-described ADRs for ‘.fr’ domain name disputes. This is mainly due to the fact that compensation for damages is generally not available under alternative dispute resolution procedures (as opposed to court proceedings). In addition, the grounds to bring an action before French courts are, by nature, more diverse and broader than those available in alternative dispute resolution proceedings.

(1) Absence of Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation In France, cybersquatting of ‘.fr’ domain names was for some time quite limited due to FR.198 AFNIC’s strict registration policy. However, the 2004 liberalization of ‘.fr’ registrations increased the risk of cybersquatting practices and other domain name conflicts. Whilst the new rules set out in Articles L. 45 ff. of the CPCE cannot be described as an FR.199 anticybersquatting regulation per se, they establish clear principles regarding the legitimacy

 Ibid.  Ibid. 248  See AFNIC Statistics (October 2012) at: http://www.afnic.fr/medias/infographie_syreli_oct_2012-fr.png and http://www.afnic.fr/fr/ressources/publications/observatoire-du-marche-des-noms-de-domaine-en-france/ edition-2012/83-de-succes-pour-les-plaintes-liees-aux-noms-de-domaine-crees-entre-3-a-6-mois.html. 249 See AFNIC Statistics (March 2013) at: http://www.afnic.fr/medias/images/scope/infographie_ syreli_mars_2013-fr.jpg; and https://www.afnic.fr/medias/images/scope/infographie_syreli_fevr_2013-fr.png. 250  Syreli Statistics (April 2015), available at:  https://www.afnic.fr/medias/images/scope/SCOPE_2015/ Scope_avril_2015.jpg. 251  See ADR Trends, above, at n. 138. 252 Ibid. 246 247

347

France (‘.fr’) of registrations of ‘.fr’ domain names. As a consequence, French courts have dealt with the issue of cybersquatting by resorting to standard legal principles.

(2) The Qualification of Domain Names under French Law FR.200 The legal status of domain names in comparison with other distinctive signs was immediately

raised before French courts. As early as 2000, the Paris Court of Appeal acknowledged the possibility for domain names to enjoy protection, stating that ‘a domain name, in consideration, most notably, of the commercial value it has for the company that owns it, can enjoy protection against infringement’.253 Nevertheless, this decision did not clearly establish the status of domain names.

FR.201 In 2002, the Bastia (Corsica) Court of Appeal clarified that the registration of a domain name

did not grant its registrant any right similar to that granted by the registration of a trade mark.254 Later, the Paris Criminal Court ruled that a domain name was akin to a signboard. However, this analysis was very particular as it was within the specific context of a criminal action.

FR.202 As a consequence, it can be argued that, under French law, domain names enjoy a specific

protection, disconnected from other distinctive signs that can potentially conflict with other protected signs.

(3) Conflicts Between Domain Names and Trade Marks FR.203 Conflicts between domain names and trade marks arose early in the development of the

Internet. As explained earlier, conflicts between trade marks and domain names in France are handled by French courts based on trade mark law, as codified in the French Intellectual Property Code as well as French civil law, in particular tort law (Article 1382 of the Civil Code) and unfair competition law.

FR.204 French courts have acknowledged that the registration of a domain name, regardless of the

extension, can constitute trade mark infringement (contrefaçon) pursuant to Articles L. 713-2 and L. 713-3 of the IPC, which prohibits the unauthorized reproduction or use of a sign identical or confusingly similar to a protected trade mark in relation to goods or services for which the trade mark is registered.

FR.205 When assessing whether the registration of a domain name constitutes trade mark infringe-

ment, French courts consider several elements, discussed in more detail below.

(a)  Identity or Similarity of the Domain Name and Protected Trade Mark FR.206 First, French courts assess whether the domain name that is the subject of an action for trade

mark infringement is identical or confusingly similar with the trade mark invoked, which is generally a straightforward comparison between the domain name and the trade mark in question. The only potential issue in this respect relates to the addition of the extension (for instance, ‘.fr’) and whether such addition can constitute a sufficiently distinctive element to negate identity or similarity of a domain name with a registered trade mark. However, French courts have found that the extension of a domain name, such as ‘.fr’, does not prevent a finding of identity or similarity with a trade mark. For example, in a first instance court decision relating to the registration of the domain name ‘milka.fr’ which reproduced the trade mark MILKA (a chocolate brand), the Nanterre Court noted that ‘the addition of the “.fr” suffix

  Paris Court of Appeal, 18 October 2000, Virgin Interactive v France Telecom and BDDP-TBWA.   Bastia Court of Appeal, 28 January 2002, SARL A Buttea v SARL Corsica colis.

253 254

348

IV.  Court Litigation does not alter the identity of the signs as it corresponds to the “extension”, a necessary part of the domain name which allows the characterization of its nature or geographic origin’.255

(b)  'Anteriority' of Registration The second element taken into consideration by French courts relates to the question of FR.207 'anteriority' (anteriorité) or priority of a trade mark or domain name registration. As a general rule, French courts tend to consider that a trade mark registered prior to a FR.208 domain name, regardless of its notoriety, will have priority over that domain name, subject, however, to the principle of speciality of trade marks, as discussed below. In addition, even in cases where the domain name was registered prior to the trade mark, French courts can grant priority to a later registered trade mark: in order for the domain name to enjoy priority over the trade mark it has to be effectively exploited.256

(c) Goods and Services Covered by the Trade Mark and the Domain Name (Principle of Specialty) French courts also take into consideration the principle of specialty of trade marks, as dis- FR.209 cussed in para FR.19. The question raised before French courts was whether the registration of a domain name FR.210 identical or similar to a registered trade mark by itself constituted trade mark infringement, regardless of the class(es) in which the trade mark in question was registered. French courts have established that trade mark infringement cannot be inferred from the FR.211 registration of a domain name alone; rather, the principle of specialty has to be taken into consideration. In this respect, French courts have rejected the argument that the registration of a trade mark in Class 38 (mainly including telecommunications services) could constitute a means to ensure that any domain name registration would constitute infringement of that trade mark.257 The French Supreme Court (the Cour de Cassation) confirmed this view in a 2005 decision FR.212 involving the trade mark ‘locatour’ and the domain names ‘locatour.fr’ and ‘locatour.com’.258 The Court ruled that the registration of a domain name could only constitute infringement of a prior trade mark if the website at the disputed domain name offers goods or services that are identical or similar to those for which the trade mark has been registered and if there is a likelihood of confusion in the public’s mind. In the ‘Locatour’ case, a French travel agency called ‘Le Tourisme Moderne’ had registered FR.213 two French trade mark registrations for the term ‘Locatour’ in various classes relating to travel and leisure services and telecommunication services (Class 38), and had also registered the domain name ‘locatour.fr’. Another French company, ‘Soficar’, specialized in financial activities, subsequently registered ‘locatour.com’ but was not actively using the website. Le Toursime Moderne brought action against Soficar for trade mark infringement. The Cour de Cassation reversed the Paris Court of Appeal decision, which had ruled in favour of Le

255  Nanterre Court of First Instance, 14 March 2005, SA Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG v Madame Milka B. See also TGI Paris, 27 June 2003, Gandi where the court ruled that domain names ‘consisting of a radical and an extension, designating the generic domain, only the radical, Gandi, must be taken into consideration to evaluate infringement’. 256  See, for instance, Paris Court of First Instance, 9 July 2002 (‘looxor.com’); TGI Paris, 3e Chambre, 21 October 2002, (‘planetland.com’); or TGI Nanterre, 2e Chambre, 4 November 2002, (‘e-qualite.com’). 257  See Nanterre Court of First Instance, 21 January 2002, Sté Publications Bonnier c/ Sté Saveurs et Senteurs Créations or CA Bastia, 28 January 2002, SARL A Buttea v Corsica Colis SARL. 258  French Supreme Court (Cass. Com.) 13 December 2005, Soficar v Le Tourisme moderne.

349

France (‘.fr’) Tourisme Moderne. According to the Court, ‘locatour.com’ was used for different goods or services than those for which the prior trade mark and domain name were registered and, therefore, there was no likelihood of confusion in the public’s mind. Thus, if the goods and services offered on the website differ from the goods or services for which the trade mark is registered, there should not be a finding of trade mark infringement. This ruling, however, only considers the use of a domain name for the purpose of a website while use of a domain name can also derive, for instance, from email usage. FR.214 However, the Decree of 6 February 2007 introduced a new provision, Article R. 20-44-45

of the CPCE, which generated much debate with regard to ‘.fr’ domain names, as it did not make any reference to the principle of specialty.259 The then-applicable Article R. 20-44-45 of the CPCE provided that ‘a domain name cannot be chosen it if is identical or confusingly similar to a name protected by an intellectual property right conferred by French or community law, unless the registrant has a right or legitimate interest in the name and has acted in good faith’. This provision, although adequate for classical cases of cybersquatting and typosquatting, failed to address other domain name conflicts.260

FR.215 French courts addressed the issue of the principle of specialty in relation to trade mark and

domain name conflicts in the ‘sunshine.fr’ case.261 The disputed domain name, ‘sunshine. fr’, was registered in 2005 by a private individual on behalf of a company in the process of incorporation, Sunshine Productions, which specialized in photography. Another French company that had registered in 2001 the trade mark ‘Sunshine’ for clothing items brought a claim solely based on the alleged violation of the then-applicable Article R. 20-44-45 of the CPCE. The Paris Court of First Instance, in application of the principle of specialty, refused the transfer of the domain name in view of the different activities carried out by both parties and the absence of a likelihood of confusion. However, the Paris Court of Appeal strictly applied the then new provision and ordered the transfer of the domain name based on the existence of the prior trade mark alone and the absence of a legitimate interest. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the decision on the basis that the provision introduced was not applicable to the domain name in question as it had been registered prior to the entry into force of the 2007 Decree.

FR.216 The Paris Court of Appeal addressed a similar question in a 2012 decision.262 However, the

decision was based on Article R. 20-44-45, which was part of a legislative framework that had been declared unconstitutional after the first instance. The Court did not seem to take into consideration that this article provided the possibility for a defendant to invoke a legitimate interest in the domain name. Consequently, these decisions must be taken cautiously as they were rendered under a regime which has now been replaced. Even though the provisions replacing the article in question use similar wording, it is uncertain whether French courts would follow the same analysis today.

FR.217 Finally, as regards the principle of specialty in relation to well-known or famous trade marks,

Article L. 713-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code provides that ‘any person who uses

  Féral-Schuhl, Christiane, Cyberdroit: le droit à l’épreuve de l’internet, Dalloz (2010) at 616.  Ibid. 261  Paris Court of First Instance, 13 July 2007, Sunshine, AFNIC v Andre D, OVH, Paris Court of Appeal, 16 January 2008, M Andre D v Sté Sunshine, AFNIC, OVH, (Cass. Com.) 9 June 2009. See also, David Taylor et al., ‘Don’t Blame It On The Sunshine (.Fr)!’, Anchovy News (July/August 2009). 262  Paris Court of Appeal, 4 January 2012, Ingess Ingénierie et Gestion v Philippe X… , s. n. c. Hôtellerie Arcotel Mulhouse A 36, (‘arcotel.fr’) Paris Court of First Instance, 13 January 2010. See David Taylor and Vincent Denoyelle, ‘Valid Trade mark defence not valid domain name defence’, World Trademark Review (6 June 2012). 259 260

350

IV.  Court Litigation a trade mark with a reputation for goods or services that are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered shall be held liable if such use is likely to cause a prejudice to the owner of the mark or if such use constitutes an unjustified exploitation of the mark’.263 Thus, the aforementioned provision excludes the applicability of the principle of speciality for well-known or famous trade marks. Article L. 713-5 of the IPC has been successfully invoked by trade mark holders in disputes FR.218 with domain name holders. The most famous case in this respect concerned the trade mark for chocolates MILKA, held by Kraft Foods. In this case, a seamstress, Mrs Milka Budimir, had been running a business under the name ‘Milka Couture’ since 1991 and, ten years later, in 2001, decided to register the domain name ‘milka.fr’.264 In its ruling, the Versailles Court of Appeal found that the seamstress had ‘made unjustified use of the registered trade mark MILKA owned by Kraft Foods’ for milk chocolates even though the domain name was used in connection with dressmaking services. According to the court, consumers inevitably associated the domain name ‘milka.fr’ with Kraft Foods’ MILKA trade mark, particularly since the website displayed the same purple colour-scheme used by Kraft for the packaging of their MILKA products. In addition, the Court held that the fact that Mrs Budimirs’s first name was ‘Milka’ did not confer upon her any rights in the name, as she had not demonstrated that her first name was well-known in relation to the services provided. Nevertheless, the well-known status of a trade mark does not imply that the trade mark enjoys FR.219 absolute protection, particularly where said trade mark consists of a common or generic term. For instance, in 2007, the French Supreme Court ruled against the well-known French sports shops ‘Decathlon’ in a dispute involving the domain name ‘decathlon.pl’ on the basis that ‘the ownership of a trade mark, even if well-known, consisting of a generic noun, does not prevent the use of this term in its ordinary sense’.265

(4) Conflicts Between Domain Names and Company Names, Trade Names, and Signboards French courts have acknowledged that the registration of a domain name can infringe a com- FR.220 pany name, provided that there is a likelihood of confusion between the domain name and the company name. For instance, as early as 1998, the Versailles Court of First Instance ruled, in an interim deci- FR.221 sion, that ‘the registration of the domain name champagnecereales or champagne-cereales prevents the cooperative from using its company name for that very purpose’.266 In 2003, the Paris Court of First Instance also found that ‘the company name of the claimant is reproduced in the disputed domain name; that the extensions .INFO and .BIZ are not likely to prevent the likelihood of confusion’ and that ‘the domain name “gandi-biz”, which does not appear to point to any active website also affects the claimant’s company name’.267 These decisions were based on tort law, as company names are not protected by any specific legislation under French law.

263  Art L. 713-5 of the IPC is based on Art 5(2) of the Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks. 264  Nanterre Court of First Instance, 14 March 2005, Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG v Milka B, Versailles Court of Appeal, 27 April 2006 (‘milka.fr’). 265  French Supreme Court (Cass. Com.) 20 February 2007, Decathlon v Valley, (‘decathlon.pl’). 266  Versailles Court of First Instance, 14 April 1998, Société Cooperative Agricole Champagne Cereales v Gérard J. 267  Paris Court of First Instance, 27 June 2003, Gandi v Inexpensive Domains et autres.

351

France (‘.fr’) FR.222 French courts do not seem to have ruled on conflicts between a domain name and a trade

name or signboard. However, it seems likely that they would enjoy a protection similar to that granted to company names, even though it is possible that the level of protection awarded would be slightly lower than for company names.

(5) Conflicts Between Domain Names and Personal Names FR.223 French law provides protection for personality rights, which include, most notably, a person’s

first and last name. Personality rights are even protected under trade mark law since Article L. 711-4(g) of the IPC expressly prohibits trade marks that may violate the personality rights of an individual (including name, pseudonym, or image).

FR.224 With regard to domain names, Article L. 45-2-2 of the CPCE states that the registration or

renewal of a domain name can be rejected or a registered domain name can be deleted if it infringes ‘personality rights, unless the holder has a legitimate interest and acts in good faith’.

FR.225 Prior to the adoption of this text, French courts had already ruled in favour of natural persons

who had their names registered as domain names by third parties.

FR.226 In 2004, the Paris Court of First Instance ordered the transfer of the domain name

‘francois-bayrou.fr’ consisting of the name of French Presidential candidate François Bayrou, as it ruled, in an interim decision, that he had the right ‘to the respect of the attributes of his personality and, in particular, his first and last name’.268

FR.227 In a more recent case, French journalist Christine Kelly obtained the transfer of the domain

name ‘christine-kelly.fr’269 on the basis of the 2007 Decree, in particular Article R. 20-44-46 of the CPCE. Under the former legislation, the aforementioned provision prohibited the registration of a domain name ‘identical to a surname … unless the registrant demonstrates a right or a legitimate interest in the name and has acted in good faith’. On that basis, the Commercial Court of Pontoise held that Christine Kelly was the ‘exclusive proprietor’ of the domain name ‘christine-kelly.fr’ and therefore ordered the transfer of the domain name to the journalist.

(6) Conflicts Between Domain Names and Names of Cities and Other Public Law Corporations FR.228 The repealed Decree No 2007-162 of 6 February 2007 regulating domain names under ‘.fr’

conferred strong protection to the names of local government authorities (collectivités territoriales), as it provided that the name of a local authority could only be registered as a domain name by the local authority itself.270 However, under the new French domain name legislation a domain name that is identical or similar to the name of a local government authority can be registered if the registrant demonstrates a legitimate interest and has acted in good faith.271

FR.229 Prior to the enactment of laws regulating French domain names, French courts had ruled

against the registration of domain names infringing the rights of local authorities. For instance, the Paris Court of First Instance ordered the cancellation of the domain names ‘paris-sansfil. fr’, ‘paris-sansfil.info’, ‘paris-sansfil.org’, and ‘paris-sansfil.com’ (in English, ‘Paris-Wireless’), which had been registered by a private company, on the basis of Article 1382 of the Civil Code272 (the decision also ordered the cancellation of the trade mark PARIS SANS FIL in   Paris Court of First Instance, 12 July 2004, François Bayrou v Stéphane H.   Pontoise Commercial Court, 18 September 2007, Christine Kelly v Kapado, Serge N. 270  Art R. 20-44-43, Decree No 2007-162 of 6 February 2007. 271  Art L. 45-2(3), Act No 2011-302 of 22 March 2011. 272  Paris Court of First Instance, 6 July 2007, Ville de Paris v Paris-sans fil. 268 269

352

IV.  Court Litigation accordance with the provisions of Article L. 711-4(h) of the IPC). The Court held that the City of Paris had established that the use of the domain name created a likelihood of confusion with or was likely to cause harm to its services. Accordingly, given that the City of Paris was involved in the development of wireless service for the city, the Court reasoned there was a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the services provided by the City of Paris and by the registrant of the trade marks and domain names containing the terms ‘paris sans fil’. The same Court also determined that the registration of the domain names ‘paris2016.fr’, FR.230 ‘paris2020.fr’, ‘paris2024.fr’, and ‘paris2028.fr’273 was fraudulent and created a risk of confusion as to the source of the websites, given that the City of Paris had applied to host the Summer Olympic Games, and owned the trade mark ‘Paris 2012’. However, in a decision dated 13 September 2007, the Court of Appeal of Versailles did not cen- FR.231 sure the use of the name of the town ‘Issy-les-Moulineaux’ as a domain name as the registrant had taken measures to make clear that his website was unrelated to Issy-les-Moulineaux.274

(7) Conflicts Between Domain Names and Copyrighted Works Conflicts between domain names and copyrighted works are rather unusual due to the gen- FR.232 eral limited length of domain names. Nevertheless, the title of a work can, on its own, enjoy protection if it meets the requirements for protection under copyright, that is, a sufficient level of originality. In such instances, the registration of a domain name corresponding to said title can constitute copyright infringement. In 2006, the Paris Court of Appeal held that a title of a software product could be invoked FR.233 against the registration of a domain name (‘carview.fr’).275 Where the title lacks originality, for example, the title ‘Saveurs’ (‘flavours’ in English) for a food magazine, courts will deny protection against the registration of a domain name.276 In addition, it must be pointed out that the new provision of Article L. 45-2 of the CPCE, FR.234 which regulates French domain names, provides that registration or renewal of a domain name may be refused or the domain name may be deleted if the domain name infringes intellectual property rights, which, of course, includes copyrighted works.

(8) Registration of Domain Names as Acts of Unfair Competition French courts have also held that domain name registrations can constitute acts of unfair FR.235 competition. For instance, in 2004, the Cour de Cassation ruled that ‘the use of a trade name in a domain name, which affects the identification or advertising function of the trade name previously used by a competitor operating in the same field of activity and on the same geographical zone constitutes an act of unfair competition’.277 The Paris Court of First Instance ruled in a similar fashion on 29 October 2010 in a matter FR.236 relating to the domain name ‘freewifi.fr’,278 which had been registered by the French company Osmozis. French Internet service provider Free brought an action against this registration relying on its trade marks consisting of or including the term FREE as well as its domain 273  Paris Court of First Instance, 14 March 2007, Comité national olympique et sportif français (CNOSF), Ville de Paris v Gilbert L. 274  Versailles Court of Appeal, 13 September 2007, Sem Issy Média et autres v Mohamed E. 275  Paris Court of Appeal, 17 February 2006, Microsoft, Carpoint v 3D Soft. 276  Nanterre Court of First Instance, 21 January 2002, Sté Publications Bonnier v Sté Saveurs et Senteurs Créations. 277  French Supreme Court (Cass. Com.) 7 July 2004, Société Bretagne Ventes Immobilier (BVI) v Société Véronique Le Helley. 278  Paris Court of First Instance, 29 October 2010, Free SA v Osmozis.

353

France (‘.fr’) name ‘free.fr’. Free filed an action against Osmozis for trade mark infringement and tortious liability for violation of its company name, trade name, and domain name. In this case, although the Court determined that the use of the disputed domain name did not constitute trade mark infringement, it held that the registration and use of the domain name constituted unfair competition as Osmozis was unjustly trading on Free’s goodwill and reputation.

(9) Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available FR.237 The basic rules relating to jurisdiction in France are set out in Article 46 of the Code of Civil

Procedure which provides that a claimant may bring an action either before the court where the defendant resides, where the harmful event occurred or where the damage was suffered. In cases relating to domain names, the ubiquitous nature of the Internet allows for an action to be brought anywhere in France, as the damage suffered can be materialized on the entire territory.

FR.238 Most domain name disputes are initiated within an interim proceeding (procédure de référé),

as regulated by Article 809 of the French Code of Civil Procedure. An important aspect to be noted concerns the remedies which can be sought in interim proceedings.

FR.239 In the previously mentioned ‘sunshine.fr’ case, the French Supreme Court ruled that the

transfer of a domain name could not be ordered as an interim measure. Indeed, Article 809 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, which defines the conditions for obtaining interim relief, provides that interim relief can only restore the parties to the situation which existed prior to the harm caused by the registration. In this respect, transferring a domain name did not meet this requirement as the claimant was not the registrant of the domain name prior to the action.

FR.240 Only a limited number of French first instance courts have jurisdiction to hear trade mark

infringement actions, as defined by decree.279

FR.241 Where a case is brought on the merits, courts may not only order the transfer or cancellation

of a domain name, but also award damages and attorney’s fees. These remedies are naturally not available under ADR proceedings.

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name FR.242 French courts have established that the registration of a domain name can generate rights

allowing its holder to claim protection against certain uses of that domain name.

FR.243 First, as early as 1999, a French court granted priority to a domain name over a trade mark

which had been registered after a corresponding domain name. In the ‘Oceanet’ case,280 a Court of First Instance invalidated a trade mark in the term OCEANET because it had been registered two years after the domain name ‘oceanet.fr’. The court therefore ruled that the domain name in question could constitute a valid prior right capable of preventing the registration of a trade mark; thereby adding domain names to the non-exhaustive list of prior rights set out in Article L. 711-4 of the IPC. 279  See the following decrees, in force since November 2009: Décret no 2009-1204 du 9 octobre 2009 relatif à la spécialisation des juridictions en matière de propriété intellectuelle; and Décret no 2009-1205 du 9 octobre 2009 fixant le siège et le ressort des juridictions en matière de propriété intellectuelle. 280  Le Mans Court of First Instance, 29 June 1999, Microcaz SARL v Oceanet, SA.

354

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers However, the court found that in order for the domain name to constitute a valid prior right, FR.244 it had to be effectively and actively exploited prior to the registration of the trade mark. This analysis, which has been confirmed in other decisions,281 is in line with French law which requires other distinctive signs, such as trade names or signboards, to be exploited to be able to enjoy protection. In addition, French courts have also conferred protection to domain names against cer- FR.245 tain uses. For instance, in a famous Louis Vuitton case of 2006, the Paris Court of Appeal found that the sale by Google of keywords which corresponded to domain names could be sanctioned.282 In another case, the Paris Court of First Instance ruled that the registration of domain names could constitute an act of parasitism of the registration of another domain name.283 In the ‘Locatour’ decision of 2005, the Cour de Cassation also acknowledged that registration FR.246 of a domain name generates ‘rights’ that can be infringed by registration of a similar or identical domain name, provided that the companies are operating in the same field.284

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers French courts have addressed the liability of the registry for domain names under the ‘.fr’ FR.247 extension in a decision involving the domain name ‘francelot.fr’. In a decision dated 15 September 2011, the Versailles Court of Appeal ruled that AFNIC FR.248 could not be held liable for refusing to disclose the information relating to a registrant and for failure to freeze a domain name.285 The claimant argued that, by refusing to disclose the details of the registrant (a private individual) of the domain name ‘francelot.fr’ which was allegedly infringing its rights in the French trade mark FRANCE LOTS and the domain name ‘francelot.com’, AFNIC had violated its own Naming Policy, had acted negligently and forced the claimant to incur substantial costs. While the Court of First Instance found AFNIC liable for failing to freeze the domain name, the Court of Appeal held that AFNIC had not breached any of the provisions of its Naming Policy by refusing to freeze the domain name and, therefore, could not be held liable. The decision seems reasonable as it would have otherwise implied that AFNIC has a duty to FR.249 investigate, outside the scope of a dispute resolution procedure, the legitimacy of the registration and use of each domain name subject to a freeze request.

281  See, for instance, Paris Course of First Instance, 9 July 2002, (‘looxor.com’); Paris Court of First Instance, 21 October 2002, (‘planetland.com’); Nanterre Court of First Instance, 4 November 2002, (­ ‘e-qualite.com’); Paris Court of First Instance, 13 June 2003, Anne-Marie BS v TI Systems, Provoyance. 282  Paris Court of Appeal, 28 June 2006, Google France v Louis Vuitton Malletier, where €150,000 was awarded for the damage resulting from the violation of the Louis Vuitton company name and the violation of the domain names ‘vuitton.com’ and ‘louisvuitton.com’. 283  Paris Court of First Instance, 19 December 2007, Netuneed/Marie Louise C v Sébastien C (‘onvasortir.com’). 284  Cass. Com., 13 December 2005, Soficar v Le Tourisme moderne; see also David Taylor et al, ‘Inactive Domain Names: No Trade Mark Infringement for French Court’ Anchovy News (January 2006). 285  Versailles Court of Appeal, 15 September 2011, Afnic v Francelot, EuroDNS; see also David Taylor, Sarah Taieb, and Jane Seager ‘.AFNIC not Liable for Failing to Freeze Domain Name’, World Trademark Review (13 December 2011); ‘.AFNIC Incurs Liability for Failure to “Freeze” A  Domain Name’, World Trademark Review (11 January 2010).

355

France (‘.fr’) FR.250 The latest version of the AFNIC Naming Policy expressly excludes AFNIC’s liability with

regard to any requests it may receive in that respect.286 Thus, the only binding obligations in this respect result from court orders or decisions under an alternative dispute resolution procedure.287

FR.251 French courts have also held that a registrar is not liable for failing to monitor the registration

of potentially infringing domain names, even in the case of well-known trade marks.288

FR.252 Finally, it must also be noted that online domain name auction platforms have been held

liable where the auctioned domain names infringed the trade mark rights of third parties.289

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property FR.253 Under French law, the status of domain names as items of property is unclear, contrary

to trade marks, which are explicitly recognized as such in the French Intellectual Property Code.290 Whilst there is a decision from the European Court of Human Rights characterizing domain names as items of property,291 the French Constitutional Court avoided examining the legal nature of domain names when confronted with the question.292 Furthermore, the French doctrine seems divided as to the status of domain names as items of property.293

FR.254 AFNIC’s Naming Policy provides in Article 2.7 that ‘the registrant has the right to use the

domain name it has registered for the entire term of its validity in accordance with the terms of the naming policy’. This cautious approach is similar to that taken by the legislature as Article L. 45-5 of the CPCE provides that the rights to the WHOIS database created by the registries remain the property of the French state.

FR.255 French case law has not specifically addressed the question of whether domain names

are items of property or not either but it is worth noting that in the case involving the domain name ‘christine-kelly.fr’ considered above,294 the domain name in question, which was successfully recovered, was deemed an asset within a French bankruptcy proceeding (as the company which had registered the domain name was undergoing such proceedings). According to Article L. 624-9 of the French Commercial Code, a right holder can file a claim against a moveable asset within a bankruptcy proceeding and, in its decision, the Pontoise

  Art 7.1 of the Naming Policy (2014).   In 2012, the Paris Court of Appeal also ruled that AFNIC is not liable for failing to freeze or block an infringing domain name upon simple notification by an interested party without a court order. See Paris Court of Appeal, 19 October 2012, Air France et al v AFNIC and EuroDNS. 288 Ibid. 289  Cass. Com. 21 October 2008, Sedo GmbH v Hôtels Méridien, Stéphane H. See David Taylor et al., ‘Sedo Loses Battle Over Liability In France’, Anchovy News (January 2009). 290  Art L. 713-1 and Art L. 712-1 of the IPC. 291  European Court of Justice, 18 September 2007, Paeffgen GmbH v Germany, 25379/04, 21688/05, 21722/05, and 21770/05. See David Taylor et al., ‘European Court of Human Rights Rules on Legal Status of Domain Names’, Anchovy News (April 2008). 292  Commentary on Decision No 2010-45 QPC, 6 October 2010, Cahiers du Conseil constitutionnel, Cahier No 30, at p 3, available at: http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/root/bank/ download/201045QPCccc_45qpc.pdf. 293  See further, Cédric Manara, Le droit des noms de domaine, at 211 (observing that new forms of property can only be created by statutory provisions, in accordance with the French Constitution and, furthermore, noting that the qualification of domain names as items of property is a ‘fallacious analogy’); see also Christophe Caron, ‘A la recherche de la nature juridique du nom de domaine’, Communication Commerce Electronique no 60 (2001). 294  Nanterre Commercial Court, 18 September 2007, Christine Kelly v Kapado. 286 287

356

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law Commercial Court considered that Christine Kelly was the ‘exclusive owner’ of the domain name ‘christine-kelly.fr’. There is therefore no certainty as regards the status of domain names as items of property FR.256 under French law. However, the importance attributed to domain names in the 2010 decision of the Conseil Constitutionnel, which associated domain names with the notion of freedom of entrepreneurship, may be interpreted as an indication in favour of such an idea.295

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law The registration of domain names under ‘.fr’ has until recently been limited to individuals or FR.257 legal entities having a link with France and thus jurisdiction of French courts to hear cases has been based on Article 46 of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides that a claimant may bring a case before the court where the defendant resides, where the harmful event occurred, or where the damage was suffered, as previously discussed. With the expansion of the eligibility requirements for registration under ‘.fr’ to individuals FR.258 and legal entities based in the European Union, the jurisdiction of French courts where the parties reside in different Member States of the European Union, shall be regulated by Regulation 44/2001 of 12 December 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. French courts have traditionally held that the mere fact that a website is accessible from France FR.259 is sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of French courts.296 Accordingly, there has been ample case law involving infringement of French trade marks by foreign websites in which French courts have had no qualms about asserting their jurisdiction, even when the products or services are not sold in France, as demonstrated by the ‘Payline’ case involving a French trade mark and a German website, and the ‘Cristal’ case involving a Spanish website offering sparkling wine for sale under the same trade mark as the French company Louis Roederer.297 However, more recent French case law has established that a ‘sufficient, substantial or signifi- FR.260 cant link’ with the French territory, as opposed to the mere ‘accessibility’ criteria, is necessary to establish jurisdiction, as established in Hugo Boss v Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken298 in 2005 and confirmed by subsequent decisions.299 The determination of whether there is a ‘sufficient, substantial or significant link’ centres on whether the website is aimed at the French public, as indicated by, for instance, the following: the language of the website,300 the nationality of the company that operates the website, the currency for prices appearing on the website or the extension of the disputed domain name,301 among other factors. 295  For an opposing view, see Manara, Le droit des noms de domaine, at p 179 (discussing how certain authors consider that the fact that the Conseil Constitutionnel refused to clarify the legal nature of domain names suggests that the Court was indirectly ‘rejecting the thesis that assimilates domain names to a property right’). 296  Nanterre Court of First Instance, 13 October 1997, Société SG2 v Brokat Informations Systems GmbH (‘Payline’ case); Cass. Com., 9 December 2003, Société Castellblanch v Société Champagne Louis Roederer (‘Cristal’ case). 297 Ibid. 298  Cass. Com., 11 January 2005, Hugo Boss v Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken. 299  See, for example, Paris Court of Appeal, 22 May 2012, Würzburg Holding v eBay; see also Paris Court of Appeal, 26 April 2006, Fernand S, Normalu v Acet. 300  See, for example, Cass. Com, 11 January 2005, Hugo Boss v Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken (holding that the website was not targeting the French public given that the website was in German). 301  Paris Court of Appeal, 22 May 2012, Würzburg Holding v eBay; see also Paris Court of Appeal, 6 June 2007, Google v AXA.

357

France (‘.fr’) FR.261 Consequently, it seems that French court rulings are gradually aligning with WIPO’s Joint

Recommendation concerning the Protection of Marks and other Industrial Property Signs on the Internet, dated 3 October 2001.302 However, no explicit reference to this international text has been made by French courts, although it has been recently receiving more attention in the French domain name doctrine.303

302  ‘WIPO’s Joint Recommendation concerning the Protection of Marks and other Industrial Property Signs on the Internet’, 3 October 2001, available at:  http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/marks/845/ pub845.pdf. 303  For a discussion on ‘WIPO’s Joint Recommendation’, see Manara, Le droit des noms de domaine, above, at p 230.

358

GERMANY (‘.de’) Torsten Bettinger

I. Overview of the National System of Protection of Trademarks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs  DE.01

V. The Infringement of Company Symbols by Domain Names

(1) General Principles (2) Infringing Use of a Company Symbol (3) Use in the Course of Trade (4) Likelihood of Confusion (Section 15(2), Trademark Act) (5) Supplementary Name Law Protection of Company Names against the Registration and Use of Domain Names (Section 12 Civil Code) (6) Conflicts between Companies’ Names which Consist of Identical Family Names (7) Remedies

(1) Development of Law on Domain Names  DE.01 (2) System of Trademark Protection in Germany  DE.04 (3) Trademark Protection  DE.08 (4) Protection of Company Symbols  DE.09 (5) Protection of Titles of Works  DE.13 (6) Protection of Geographic Indications of Origin  DE.14 (7) Supplementary Trademark Protection under the Law of Unfair Competition and Civil Law  DE.15 (8) Protection of the Names of Natural Persons under Civil Law, Non-Commercial Associations of Persons, and the Names of Legal Persons Governed by Public Law  DE.17

II. The ccTLD (‘.de’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

(1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry  (2) Structure of the Namespace and Other Registration Requirements  (3) Eligibility Restrictions  (4) Proxy Services and Privacy Services  (5) Legal Nature of a Domain Name  (6) Registration Process and ‘.de’ Registration Agreement  (7) Transfer of a Domain Name  (8) Registrar-to-Registrar Transfers  (9) Dispute Entry (Dispute-Eintrag)  (10) Obligations of DENIC Under Antitrust Law  (11) Statistics 

VI. Infringement of Work Titles by Domain Names (Section 15, Trademark Act) 

(1) Likelihood of Confusion (Section 15 of the Trademark Act) (2) Protection of Titles which have a Reputation (Section 15(3), Trademark Act) (3) Remedies

DE.21 DE.21 DE.28 DE.32 DE.38 DE.43

DE.142 DE.142 DE.143 DE.146 DE.148

DE.157 DE.168 DE.173

DE.179 DE.179 DE.186 DE.188

VII. The Infringement of Indications of Geographical Origin by Domain Names (Sections 126 et seq, Trademark Act)  DE.194 (1) The Definition of the Indication of Geographical Origin (2) The Protection of Indications of Geographical Origin Against Use as Domain

DE.45 DE.52 DE.57 DE.59

VIII. The Protection of the Names of Natural Persons, Associations of Individuals not Commercially Active, and Public Institutions or Authorities under Public Law (Section 12, Civil Code) 

DE.60 DE.63 DE.64

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution  IV. Trademark Infringement Through Domain Names (Section 14 German Trademark Act (MarkenG))  DE.67

(1) General Principles (2) The Domain Holder’s Own Sign or Name Rights (3) Remedies

(1) System of Protection  DE.67 (2) General Requirements  DE.72 (3) Infringing Use  DE.83 (4) Likelihood of Confusion (Section 14(2)(2) German Trademark Act (MarkenG))  DE.95 (5) Protection for Trademarks which have a Reputation (Section 14(2)(3) German Trademark Act (MarkenG)) DE.114 (6) Remedies for Infringement DE.135

DE.194 DE.195

DE.201 DE.201 DE.213 DE.214

IX. Limits to Protection and Defences under Trademark Law  DE.219 (1) Use of Names and Descriptive Indications; Trade with Spare Parts (Section 23, Trademark Act) (2) Spare Parts (Section 23 No 3, Trademark Act)

359

DE.219 DE.224

Germany (‘.de’) (3) Exhaustion (Section 24, Trademark Act) (4) Limitation and Forfeiture (Sections 20 and 21, Trademark Act)

X. Competition Law Claims (Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the German Act Against Unfair Competition) 

(1) Scope of Application (2) Concrete Competitive Relationship (Sections 2 and 3, Act Against Unfair Competition) (3) Deliberate Obstruction of Competitors (Section 4(10), Act Against Unfair Competition) (4) Remedies

XI. Claims under Tort (Sections 823 and 826, Civil Code) 

(1) Scope of Application (2) General Principles (3) Cybersquatting/Typosquatting (4) Trade in Domain Names (5) Use of Domain Names for Product and Company Criticism (6) Remedies

XII. Claims Pursuant to Article 21 of Regulation (EC) 874/2004  XIII.  Criminal Law Protection XIV. Acquisition of a Right in a Trademark or Commercial Designation through the Use of a Domain Name  (1) Protection as Company Name or Business Symbol (Section 5(2) Trademark Act) (2) Protection as a Work Title (Section 5(3), Trademark Act)

(3) Protection as a Trademark (Section 4, Trademark Act)

DE.226

XV. Law Governing Infringement Proceedings 

DE.234

(1) Enforcement of Claims Out of Court  (2) Legal Action  (3) Preliminary Legal Protection (Sections 916 et seq., German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO))  (4) Costs of Proceedings 

DE.235 DE.235

DE.284 DE.286 DE.286 DE.296 DE.322 DE.326

XVI. Liability of the Registry, Registrar, Internet Service Provider, and the Administrative Contact of a Domain Name  DE.334

DE.238 DE.241 DE.246

(1) Secondary Liability of DENIC and gTLD Registries  (2) Secondary Liability of the Internet Service Providers  (3) Secondary Liability of the Domain Parking Provider  (4) Secondary Liability of the Administrative Contact 

DE.250 DE.250 DE.253 DE.255 DE.257

XVII. Domain Names as Property Rights 

DE.258 DE.265

(1) Domain Names as the Object of Legal Transactions  (2) Transfer of the Right to a Domain Name by Operation of the Law  (3) Enforcement Proceedings Against Domain Names 

DE.268 DE.269

XVIII.  International Conflicts

(1) International Jurisdiction (2) Law Applicable to Trademark Infringements on the Internet  (3) Substantive Law Governing Trademark Infringements on the Internet 

DE.270 DE.270 DE.280

Links Germany Patent and Trademark Office: http://www.dpma.de Domain Name System (DNS) DENIC e. G.: (Registry ‘.de’): http://www.denic.de DENIC Domain Guidelines: http://www.denic.de/en/denic-domain-guidelines.html WHOIS: http://www.denic.de Federal Supreme Court: http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de DENIC Terms and Conditions: http://www.denic.de/en/bedingungen.html Case Law: http://www.internetrecht.de

360

DE.334 DE.342 DE.350 DE.363 DE.374 DE.374 DE.377 DE.379 DE.381 DE.381 DE.388 DE.392

I.  Overview of the National System

I.  Overview of the National System of Protection of Trademarks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs (1)  Development of Law on Domain Names Disputes arising under trademark and competition law owing to the registration and use of DE.01 domain names have become commonplace in German courts. Following a phase of widespread legal uncertainty, in the meantime the core problems of domain names under trademark and competition law have been resolved. There are more than 50 judgments from the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) and a multitude of decisions from the courts of the lower instances in disputes concerning domain names. Like the legislatures in most countries, the German legislature has not yet enacted specific DE.02 statutory provisions on the law governing domains. As regards conflicts based on the infringement of trademark rights through domain names, the consequence is that such conflicts have to be resolved on the basis of the existing offences under trademark law (ss 14 and 15 German Trademark Act (MarkenG)), the law governing the protection of names (s 12, German Civil Code (BGB)), competition law (ss 3, 4, and 5, German Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG)) and the law of torts (ss 823 and 826, German Civil Code (BGB)). Similar to many other areas of intellectual property law and unfair competition law that were DE.03 developed predominantly by the case law of the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH), domain name law is purely judge-made law.

(2) System of Trademark Protection in Germany The protection of trademarks and other distinctive signs is based on the German Act on the DE.04 Protection of Trade Marks and other Symbols of October 1994 (hereinafter: the German Trademark Act),1 which adopted the requirements of the European Trade Mark Directive2 and has been amended several times. The terminology used in the German Trademark Act distinguishes between ‘trademarks’, DE.05 ‘commercial designations’, and geographic indications of origin. Commercial designations fall into two sub-categories, namely company symbols and titles of works, which both enjoy protection without registration or secondary meaning as soon as use commences, provided they have sufficient distinctive character. Geographic indications of origin enjoy a special status since their protection is either based DE.06 on requirements of national trademark law or on state treaties and Community law. German trademark law is influenced in many respects by the law of the European Union. DE.07 First, the European Trade Mark Directive (Annex 9)  has to be observed by the national legislature as binding Community law, and places an obligation on the German courts to adopt an interpretation that is in line with the Directive insofar as the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) implements mandatory or optional requirements of the Directive,3 the 1  An English translation of the German Trademark Act is available at: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ englisch_markeng/englisch_markeng.html#p0032. 2  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks. 3  CJEU, Judgment of 12 November 2002, Arsenal Football Club (C-206/01, ECR 2002 I-10273); CJEU, Judgment of 20 November 2001, Zino Davidoff and Levi Strauss (C-414/99 to C-416/99, ECR 2001 I-8691); CJEU, Judgment of 16 July 1998, Silhouette International Schmied/Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft (C-355/96, ECR 1998 I-4799); CJEU, Judgment of 29 April 2004, Björnekulla Fruktindustrier (C-371/02, ECR 2004 I-5791).

361

Germany (‘.de’) interpretation being subject to scrutiny by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) pursuant to Article 267 TFEU (ex Article 234 TEC) upon a referral from a German Court. Apart from the European Trade Mark Directive, other EU Directives play an important role, especially the Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (Enforcement Directive),4 implemented particularly in ss 18 to 19c.

(3) Trademark Protection (a)  Creation and Acquisition of Rights in Trademarks DE.08 Trademark protection accrues through an application for and registration of a trademark pursuant to s 4(1) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG). It is a formal right that in principle does not depend on actual use as long as the five-year grace period for use (see in detail s 25(5) et seq.) has not expired (regarding the requirement of an intention to use, see s 3(12) et seq.). The date of filing determines priority (s 6(2)) irrespective of the registration date, which in some cases can be years later. (4) Protection of Company Symbols DE.09 Section 5 of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) regulates the protection of commer-

cial designations as the second category of designations after trademarks, and distinguishes here between ‘company symbols’ and ‘titles of work’.5 According to s 5(2) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG), company symbols are ‘signs used in the course of trade as names, company names or special designations of business establishments or enterprises’. Company symbols therefore include the name in its various forms as well as the company name entered in the Commercial Register, abbreviations, and individual elements of company names as well as special designations of a business establishment or enterprise used independently of the company name and capable of serving as a company designation in the course of trade. The latter include figurative marks, for example, provided they are capable of designating an enterprise, as well as domain names. Business symbols (without the function of a name, such as colours or colour combinations, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, advertising slogans and the like) are placed on the same footing as special business designations under s 5(2), second sentence, German Trademark Act (MarkenG).

(a)  Acquisition of Rights to Company or Business Symbols DE.10 Section 5(2), first sentence, German Trademark Act (MarkenG), provides protection to signs used as names, company names, and special business designations, that is, signs with a name function, upon the commencement of use, and to business symbols and other business designations without a name function only where they have acquired secondary meaning according to s 5(2), first sentence, German Trademark Act (MarkenG). What holds true for both

4  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. 5  The provision reads as follows: Commercial Designations: (1) Company symbols and titles of works shall enjoy protection as commercial designations. (2) Company symbols are signs used in the course of trade as a name, company name or special designation of a business operation or an enterprise. Business symbols and other signs intended to distinguish the business operation from other business operations which are regarded as symbols of the business operation within involved trade circles shall be deemed equivalent to the special designation of a business operation. (3) Titles of works are the names or special designations of printed publications, cinematic works, music works, stage works or other comparable works.

362

I.  Overview of the National System types of business designations is that their protection requires original distinctive character or distinctive character of the name that is acquired through secondary meaning. The distinctive character of the name is generally assumed where company symbols are DE.11 formed using a surname, non-descriptive terms or letter combinations. The mere fact that the meaning of a company symbol indicates the business activities of the enterprise or is evidently the distortion of a descriptive term or generic designation only justifies an assumption of a complete lack of distinctive character if the meaning of the designation is easily understandable for trade circles and consumers as a descriptive term, or if the distortion of the descriptive term is so minimal that it will not be understood as such. A company designation consisting of several elements that as such are purely descriptive can acquire distinctive character if the combined designation is not consistent with normal language usage, that is, is not purely descriptive in its specific constellation. Where company symbols without distinctive character of the name are concerned, and busi- DE.12 ness symbols in the sense of s 5(2), second sentence, German Trademark Act (MarkenG), rights only accrue where a secondary meaning has been acquired. The principle applies that the requirements made of the degree of secondary meaning of a company symbol are higher depending on the degree to which the term is descriptive (as regards the Standards for Infringement and Company Symbols regulated in s 15(1)–(3), German Trademark Act (MarkenG), see Section V below).

(5) Protection of Titles of Works According to the wording of s 5(3) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG), the des- DE.13 ignations of ‘printed publications, cinematographic works, musical works, dramatic works and other comparable works’ are protected as the titles of works. According to case law, this non-exhaustive catalogue of works includes not only the titles of books, newspapers, magazines, radio broadcasts, and so on, but also intellectual achievements requiring separate protection of their titles, that is, also the titles of computer programs, games, trade fairs, and events as well as the contents of websites if they constitute intellectual creations.

(6) Protection of Geographic Indications of Origin According to the legal definition in s 126 of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG), geo- DE.14 graphic indications of origin are the ‘names of places, areas, regions or countries as well as other indications or signs used in the course of trade to identify the geographical origin of goods or services’. Such indications include indications of direct geographical origin, that is, both national and international geographical product designations that have become a reference to a certain geographical region, as well as indirect indications of geographical origin such as depictions of famous buildings, heraldic insignia, or national colours that have become references to a certain geographical region.

(7) Supplementary Trademark Protection under the Law of Unfair Competition and Civil Law According to the established case law of the Federal Supreme Court (BGH), the protection DE.15 provided for under the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) is a comprehensive, integrated regulation of specific law which supersedes the protection of signs under competition or tort law. Insofar as the provisions of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) apply to an infringement of trademark rights, there is no scope for the application of provisions of the Act Against Unfair Competition or the general law of torts (ss 823 and 826, German Civil Code (BGB)). Offences falling within the ambit of the Act Against Unfair Competition or ss 823 and 826 of the German Civil Code (BGB) only arise where the infringement of a trademark

363

Germany (‘.de’) as such does not fall within the ambit of the trademark regulations, or where particular features of unfair practices arise additionally which are not fully covered by the provisions of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG). If the use of a trademark falls within the scope of application of ss 14 and 15 of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) and if claims under trademark law fail to fulfil the individual prerequisites of an offence, it is essential to examine in an individual case whether the prerequisites for protection and the restrictions on protection under the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) would be undermined if claims were granted under competition law, or whether there is a gap in protection that justifies recourse to the provisions of the Act Against Unfair Competition. DE.16 Such supplementary application of ss 823 and 826 of the German Civil Code (BGB) (in

addition to the specific provisions of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG)) comes into question in domain name disputes especially where a domain name has been registered solely with abusive intent without being used, since in that case a constituent element of trademark infringement is not satisfied. In the absence of use as a trademark the scope of application of ss 14 and 15 of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) is not concerned from the outset. Furthermore, recourse to trademark protection under general civil law can be necessary where a domain name is used outside the course of trade with intent to cause harm.

(8) Protection of the Names of Natural Persons under Civil Law, Non-Commercial Associations of Persons, and the Names of Legal Persons Governed by Public Law DE.17 The protection of the names of natural persons under civil law, of non-commercial associa-

tions of persons and of the names of legal persons governed by public law is based on s 12 of the German Civil Code (BGB). The provision reads as follows: If the right of a person to use a name is disputed by another person, or if the interest of the person entitled to the name is injured by the unauthorised use of the same name by another person, the person entitled may require the other to remove the infringement. If further infringements are to be feared, the person entitled may seek a prohibitory injunction.

DE.18 The term ‘name’ in the sense of s 12 of the German Civil Code (BGB) is understood in the

broadest sense in case law. In addition to company names and abbreviations thereof (see in this respect para DE.157), it covers names for the individualization of a natural person, and names of non-commercial associations of persons, of legal persons governed by public law and designations similar to names such as landmarks, heraldic insignia, seals, club emblems,6 and the names of buildings,7 provided they have distinctive character. Domain names used outside the course of trade can warrant protection as names under s 12 of the German Civil Code (BGB).

DE.19 Under s 12 of the German Civil Code (BGB), protection of names is afforded to foreign

persons and associations of foreign persons irrespective of a national domicile or a guarantee of reciprocity, that is, irrespective of application of the Paris Convention in relation to their home country.8

DE.20 As a matter of principle, protection of a name under s 12 of the German Civil Code (BGB)

only accrues if the designation has original distinctive character, that is, has the effect of a

6  Federal Supreme Court Mitt. 2002, 535, 536–Düsseldorfer Stadtwappen; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1994, 844, 845–Rotes Kreuz; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1993, 151, 153–Universitätsemblem. 7 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 534, 535–Landgut Borsig; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1976, 311, 312–Sternhaus; District Court Düsseldorf, GRUR-RR 2001, 311–Skylight; KG NJW 1988, 2892–Esplanade. 8 Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 8, 318–Pazifist; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1991, 517, 518–SWOPS.

364

II.  The ccTLD (‘.de’) Registration Conditions and Procedures name.9 If this requirement is not met, protection of a name under s 12 of the German Civil Code (BGB) will not accrue until the name has acquired secondary meaning.10

II.  The ccTLD (‘.de’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1)  Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry The registry responsible for the administration of the name zone below the country code DE.21 top-Level domain (ccTLD) ‘.de’ is DENIC e. G. located in Frankfurt a. M. DENIC’s legal structure is that of a private cooperative which currently has 110 staff DE.22 members. It consists of three entities: the executive board, the supervisory board, and the general assembly. A technical advisory board appointed by the management board, a legal advisory board consisting of representatives of industry associations (Deutsche Industrie und Handelstag) and trademark association (Markenverband e.V.), academics, lawyers, and civil servants from the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology and from the Federal Ministry of Justice (as observers), also advise the management board on issues of registration policies. According to the cooperative statutes of DENIC, membership can be acquired by anyone:

DE.23

(a) who administers Internet domains under the top-Level Domain ‘.de’ and (b) who is not affiliated, as defined by s 15 of the Aktiengesetz (Stock Corporations Act) with s 36(3) of the Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (Act Against Restraints of Competition) being applied mutatis mutandis, with more than two other members of the cooperative with the exception of members of the Supervisory Board or the Executive Board, and (c) whose financial stability is not subject to any reasonable doubt. Membership in DENIC is acquired by submitting a written declaration of joining. The DE.24 executive board then decides on admission as a member. If membership is refused, the applicant may submit a written complaint within one month. In that case the supervisory board makes a final decision on membership having heard the executive board. DENIC currently has more than 280 members, mostly Internet service providers and telecommunications enterprises (as at 1 August 2013).11 According to its own understanding, DENIC performs its function as a registry as a ‘desig- DE.25 nated administrator’ in the public interest (‘for the benefit of all who are interested in the internet’), and for legitimation purposes invokes the Internet standard RFC 1591 published in 1994, which regulates the prerequisites for delegation of the administrative responsibilities of ccTLDs. According to its statutes, DENIC does not pursue the purpose of realizing a profit (No 1 DENIC Domain Guidelines). There has been no statutory regulation of the administration of the ‘.de’ name zone or trans- DE.26 fer of DENIC’s powers, despite the undisputed classification of domain administration as a public duty and contrary to the situation in most other legal systems.

9  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 517, 518–Literaturhaus; Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 155, 273, 276 f.–maxem.de. 10 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 517, 518–Literaturhaus; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1953, 446, 447; Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 43, 245, 253; Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 155, 273, 278–maxem.de. 11 A  list of all DENIC members is available at:  http://www.denic.de/en/denic/members/list-of-denic-members.html.

365

Germany (‘.de’) DE.27 Furthermore, DENIC has not been subject to government regulation.12 This means that the

lawfulness of DENIC’s activities can be reviewed solely under the criteria of antitrust law (see below Section II.10).

(2) Structure of the Namespace and Other Registration Requirements DE.28 The ccTLD ‘.de’ is not divided into sub-levels so that registrations are allowed only at the

second level.

DE.29 Since 1 March 2004, in addition to the registration of ASCII code signs (letters of the Latin

alphabet without umlauts and other special letters, numbers 0–9 and hyphens), the registration of so-called internationalized domain names has been possible. Therefore, domain names may now consist of the 92 special signs of the Unicode Latin-1 supplement and the Latin Extended-A set of signs (eg ä, ö, ü, ć, č, ç, è).13

DE.30 A  domain may only be comprised of digits (0–9), hyphens, the letters A–Z of the Latin

alphabet and the other letters listed in the Annex. It may neither begin nor end with a hyphen, nor may it have a hyphen as both its third and fourth characters. The minimum length of a domain is one character and its maximum length is 63 characters.14

DE.31 A blacklist of certain terms exists, which are capable of being used in connection with con-

tents that are racial, demagogic, or endanger young persons, and which are therefore excluded permanently from registration or are delegated on request to enterprises or organizations that guarantee responsible use of the domain name.

(3) Eligibility Restrictions DE.32 National and legal persons from both within and outside Germany may apply to register

domain names in the ‘.de’ area. However, insofar as the domain holder does not have its domicile or company seat within Germany, according to No VIII of the DENIC Domain Guidelines and s 3 of the DENIC Domain Terms and Conditions, a natural person domiciled in Germany has to be appointed as the administrative contact (so-called Admin-C) and person authorized to accept service in the sense of s 174 et seq. of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). This authorized person of the domain holder is entitled and obliged to make binding decisions on all matters relating to the domain (on the legal status and liability of the Admin-C, see para DE.334).

DE.33 Insofar as the domain holder is not domiciled in Germany and insofar as service from a

third party to the authorized person has failed in two consecutive attempts, or insofar as the domain holder does not appoint an authorized person domiciled in Germany having relinquished its seat or domicile there, even after a warning notice coupled with a deadline, DENIC reserves the right to terminate the domain registration contract (s 7(2)(h) and (i) of the DENIC Domain Terms and Conditions).

DE.34 In practice, employees of the Internet service provider or lawyers sometimes act as Admin-C

of the domain holder where ‘.de’ domains are registered by foreign domain holders.

12  Section 66(4) of the German Telecommunications Act explicitly exempts the administration of domain names at the top or subordinate levels from the scope of responsibilities of the Federal Network Agency. This means that DENIC is one of the few ccTLD registries in the world that are not subject to direct government control. 13  A list with all 93 characters which are allowed in the ‘.de’ namespace is available at: http://www.denic. de/en/domains/internationalized-domain-names/idn-list.html. 14  Until October 2009, domain names consisting of numerals, or one or two characters as well as domain names consisting of letters that are used for road vehicle licence plates were blocked from registration. In a highly disputed procedure these strings were made available for public registration on 23 October 2009.

366

II.  The ccTLD (‘.de’) Registration Conditions and Procedures Since the beginning of the commercial use of domain names, DENIC has pursued a liberal DE.35 registration strategy which does not provide for any restrictions as regards the circle of persons entitled to register or for other substantial registration restrictions.15 Domain registration takes place according to ‘first come, first served’ principle (No III of DENIC Guidelines). The domain holder’s data are stored in the DENIC WHOIS database and are accessible DE.36 in electronic form on the Internet for all domain names registered with DENIC (so-called public WHOIS). The domain public availability of the data in the WHOIS database was the subject of a more DE.37 detailed inspection by the data protection authorities in the year 2000.16 The authorities did not raise objections against publication of the domain holder’s name and address at DENIC since the storage of that data was necessary for technical and legal reasons in order to ensure reliable operation of the net in Germany.

(4) Proxy Services and Privacy Services Proxy services which allow a domain name to keep certain identity and contact details from DE.38 appearing in public WHOIS information and become the registered name holder of record, are not explicitly specified in the DENIC’s Registrar Agreement. It therefore appears that such services are accepted by DENIC. The same applies for privacy services which allow a domain name holder to be listed as the DE.39 registrant of record but with alternate, valid contact information (such as a mail-forwarding service address) published in place of the registrant’s home address. However, neither privacy nor proxy services are currently offered by any of the DENIC DE.40 ­registrars or their resellers. It also should be noted that No VIII of the DENIC Domain Guidelines and s 3 of the DE.41 DENIC Domain Terms and Conditions require that if a domain holder does not have its domicile or company seat within Germany, a natural person domiciled in Germany has to be appointed as the Admin-C and person authorized to accept service in the sense of ss 174 et seq. of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). This authorized person of the domain holder is entitled and obliged to make binding decisions on all matters relating to the domain (on the legal status and liability of the Admin-C, see para DE.346). In practice, employees of the registrars or lawyers sometimes act as Admin-C of the domain DE.42 holder where ‘.de’ domains are registered by foreign domain holders.

(5) Legal Nature of a Domain Name By concluding the registration contract with DENIC or with a registrar competent in the DE.43 area of the gTLDs, the domain applicant does not obtain ownership of or another absolute right similar to an intellectual property right to the domain name, but, rather, merely a contractual right with relative effect to use a certain domain name for a certain IP address.17 This contractually granted use right constitutes an asset which is exclusively attributed to the domain holder similar to ownership of property and is therefore governed by protection   For an overview of the different registration models for ccTLDs see the National Reports in Part II.  See the Report of the Government of the German Federal Land Hessen, p 13. Bericht der Landesregierung über die Tätigkeit der für den Datenschutz im nicht-öffentlichen Bereich in Hessen zuständigen Aufsichtsbehörden of 30 August 2000, Drucksache 15/1539 des Hessischen Landtags, Section 9.2. 17  Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) NJW 2005, 589–ad-acta.de; Federal Supreme Court, MMR 2005, 685, 686–Pfändbarkeit von Domainnamen; for the fiscal categorization of domain names see Supreme Tax Court (Bundesfinanzhof ) MMR 2007, 310. 15 16

367

Germany (‘.de’) under constitutional law by virtue of Article 14 of the Constitution (Grundgesetz). The authorization of DENIC or of the registrar to terminate the contract for good cause does not conflict with the classification of the contractual right of use as a constitutionally protected property right, but, rather, merely restricts the scope of the right.18 DE.44 Irrespective of this contractual right of use to domain names, a trademark right or name right

to the sequence of letters of digits forming the second-level domain may accrue to the holder of a domain name, which according to the case law of the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) also enjoys protection under constitutional law by virtue of Article 14(1), first sentence, of the Basic Law (GG).19 However, the status under trademark law or the law governing the protection of names does not arise merely through conclusion of the registration contract, but, rather, only where use of the domain name satisfies one of the relevant requirements for obtaining trademark protection or protection of a name (ss 4(2) and 5(2), German Trademark Act (MarkenG); s 12, German Civil Code (BGB))20 (as regards the accrual of trademark rights in or protection of a domain name, see para DE.270).

(6) Registration Process and ‘.de’ Registration Agreement (a) Registration through a DENIC-Accredited Registrar or Direct Registration with DENIC (DENICdirect) DE.45 Applications for domains may be submitted either through a DENIC member or directly to DENIC (DENICdirect). As regards conclusion of the registration contract, the general rules of civil law apply. Based on its monopoly position as regards the grant of domain names in the area of the ccTLD ‘.de’, DENIC is under an obligation to contract, that is, applications for registration may not be refused without an objective reason (regarding the obligations of DENIC under antitrust law, see below para DE.60). DE.46 Unlike the registration of a domain name in the area of generic TLDs, where the registrar commis-

sioned to register by the domain holder acts in his own name and where a contractual relationship is brought about between the registrar and the domain applicant rather than with the registry, through registration of the domain name, Nos II and VII of the DENIC Domain Guidelines, as well as s 1(2) of the DENIC Terms and Conditions provide that the DENIC members acting as registrars merely forward the application for registration of the domain applicant to DENIC so that the contractual relationship on registration of the domain name is brought about directly between DENIC and the domain holder. The DENIC member entrusted with the registration hence merely transmits a declaration of a contractual offer or acceptance on behalf of DENIC.

(b)  Information and Documents Required for Registration DE.47 All registrants are required to provide through their registrars basic registration information

to the registry. The minimum required information is:

- the domain name registered; - the Internet Protocol address (IP address) and corresponding names of the primary and secondary name servers for the registered name; 18 Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) NJW 2005, 589–ad-acta.de, referring to Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 123, 166, 169; see also European Court of Human Rights, Decision of 18  September 2007, Application nos 25379/04, 21688/05, 21722/05, and 21770/05 by Paeffgen GmbH against Germany, also assuming that the rights resulting from the contract between the domain name ­registrant and DENIC constitutes ‘property’ within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. 19 Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfGE 51, 193, 216; Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfGE 78, 58, 71. 20  Federal Constitutional Court, NJW 2005, 589–ad-acta.de.

368

II.  The ccTLD (‘.de’) Registration Conditions and Procedures – the registrar name and URL; – the original creation date and term of the registration; – the name and postal address of the domain name registrant; – the name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the name holder for the name registered; – the name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the name registered; and – the name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the Admin-C for the name registered. In submitting the application for registration of a domain, the domain holder gives an expli- DE.48 cit assurance that all the data about them in the application is correct and that they are entitled to register and/or use the domain and, in particular, that the registration and intended use of the domain does not infringe anybody else’s rights nor break any general law. If the domain holder is not domiciled in Germany, they must appoint an Admin-C domi- DE.49 ciled in Germany; this administrative contact is also the domain holder’s authorized representative for receiving the service of official or court documents for the purposes of s 184 of the German Code of Civil Procedure, s 132 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure, s 56 (3) of the Rules of the Administrative Courts, and s 15 of the Administrative Procedures Act and the corresponding provisions of the Administrative Procedures Acts of the respective states of the Federal Republic of Germany.

(c)  Termination of the Registration Contract The registration contract may be terminated in accordance with the general provisions. According DE.50 to s 7(1) of the DENIC Domain Terms and Conditions, the registration contract can be terminated by the domain holder at any time with immediate effect. Registration fees already paid will not be reimbursed in this case (s 7(4), DENIC Domain Terms and Conditions). (d)  Redemption Grace Period According to s 7(2) of the DENIC Domain Terms and Conditions, DENIC reserves the DE.51 right to terminate the registration contract for good cause. Effective from December 3, 2013, DENIC implemented a 30-day cooling-off phase (Redemption Grace Period (RGP), which now applies for all second-level domain names in the ‘.de’ name space. This procedure protects domain holders against an unintentional loss of their domain(s) as a result of accidental deletion. During RGP, the deleted domain can only be re-registered on behalf of the last domain holder or in the name of a third party defined by the domain holder. While it is in RGP, no fee shall be charged for the deleted domain.

(7) Transfer of a Domain Name Pursuant to s 6 DENIC Domain Terms and Conditions a domain is transferable unless it is DE.52 subject to a dispute entry. A domain name is transferred in accordance with the general provisions of the German Civil DE.53 Code (BGB). According to the fundamental German principle of abstraction, a distinction has to be made between the causal transaction under the law of obligations and the material transfer agreement. The provisions in the DENIC Domain Terms and Conditions on the legal handling of the trans- DE.54 fer procedure are unclear. According to s 6(2) of the DENIC Domain Terms and Conditions, a change in the domain holder is effected through termination of the registration contract by the domain holder, followed by the conclusion of a new registration contract by DENIC with the party acquiring the domain. This conflicts with s 6(1) of the DENIC Domain Terms and

369

Germany (‘.de’) Conditions, which explicitly states that domain names are transferable and hence assumes the option of transferring the entire contractual status by way of assumption of the contract. DE.55 For this reason, the details of the transfer of a domain name, that is, the transfer of claims

arising under the registration contract to the party acquiring a domain name, are disputed in the literature. In some cases s 6(2), first sentence, of the DENIC Domain Terms and Conditions are understood as a ban on transfer by way of a legal transaction according to s 399 of the German Civil Code (BGB), and it is assumed that the transfer of the domain name by way of assumption of the contract is excluded and that a change in the holder can only take place by way of cancellation and re-registration. Others, however, view s 6(2), first sentence, of the DENIC Domain Terms and Conditions as a mere reference to the requisite cooperation of DENIC in handling the transfer, but not as a requirement of termination of the registration contract in the sense of s 7(1) of the DENIC Domain Terms and Conditions, hence the change in holders can take place by way of assumption of the registration contract while upholding it. The requisite consent of DENIC as the remaining contracting partner pursuant to ss 182 et seq., German Civil Code (BGB), is to be implied since DENIC connects the domain name to the IP address of the acquiring party. This is in line with the technical handling of the transfer by DENIC, in which the entries in the primary name server are upheld and the domain names merely attributed to the IP address of the acquiring party.

DE.56 In legal practice, the different constructions for transferring the rights to a domain name have

not yet played a role since interim registrations by third parties, which are conceivable in a case of cancellation and re-registration of domain names, are excluded by the technical handling of reassignment and re-attribution of the domain name to the acquiring party’s IP address by DENIC.

(8) Registrar-to-Registrar Transfers DE.57 According to s 1(4) of the DENIC Domain Terms and Conditions, the domain holder may

transfer the administration of the domain from DENIC to a DENIC member or vice versa, or from one DENIC member to another (‘provider change’) without a change in ownership of the domain name taking place. The administration changes hands in that the domain holder also grants corresponding permission for installation of the requisite name server entries to the provider who is to administer the domain name in future, and terminates his agreement with the previous provider.

DE.58 The Internet provider that administers the domain name is unable to prevent a provider

change and, in particular, enjoys no right of retention regarding the registration fee it received from the domain holder as an auxiliary in order to fulfil the payment obligations under the registration contract with DENIC. However, a right of retention can arise regarding the other performance owed under the provider contract (hosting, Internet connectivity, etc) if the domain applicant is in default on his payment obligations in this respect.

(9) Dispute Entry (Dispute-Eintrag) DE.59 In order to prevent a domain being transferred to a third party during a pending legal dis-

pute, holders of trademark rights and rights to a name may place a dispute entry on a domain name in accordance with s 2(3) of the DENIC Domain Terms and Conditions, if they present a credible case suggesting that they have a right to the domain or that their rights are being infringed by the domain, and if such third party declares that they are taking steps to enforce their resultant claims against the domain holder.21 The dispute entry takes effect for

21  According to information from DENIC approximately 5,000 requests for dispute entry have been filed; see para DE.287 for the protection against illicit requests for a dispute entry.

370

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution one year, but DENIC will extend it, provided the party in whose name it has been entered requests such an extension and submits evidence that the dispute has still not been resolved. A domain that has had a dispute entry placed on it can continue to be used by its domain holder, but it is not possible to transfer it to anyone else.22 The consequence of cancellation of the domain name is that the party in whose name the dispute entry was placed will automatically become the new domain holder.

(10) Obligations of DENIC Under Antitrust Law As an undertaking with a dominant market position in the sense of s 19(2)(1) of the German DE.60 Act Against Restraints on Competition (GWB), DENIC is undisputedly subject to the provisions of antitrust law with respect to the registration and administration of domain names in the area of the ccTLD ‘.de’.23 The categorization as an undertaking with a dominant market position means that when DE.61 determining the registration terms, DENIC has to be guided by objective principles and, in particular, may not refuse applications for the registration of domain names on the basis of arbitrary considerations. Such an objective reason arises where the registration of a domain name would clearly violate the rights of third parties or would clearly be unlawful. However, the status of an undertaking with a dominant market position does not give rise DE.62 to an obligation to conduct a legal examination when granting domain names or to a claim of third parties to the revocation of unlawful registrations pursuant to ss 20(1) and 33 of the German Act Against Restraints on Competition (GWB).

(11) Statistics Increasing use of the Internet for commercial purposes has also triggered a steady growth in DE.63 the number of second-level domains registered under the ‘.de’ TLD. At the present time the number of second-level domains registered under the ‘.de’ TLD is over 15.8 million (as at 1 July 2015). There are approximately 90,000 new registrations each month, with a rising tendency. The ccTLD ‘.de’ therefore has by far the most domain registrations in the world.

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution Contrary to the majority of European ccTLDs, there is no dispute resolution procedure out DE.64 of court for the name region ‘.de’ so that conflicts involving trademarks that are caused by the registration and use of domain names in the area of the ccTLD ‘.de’ have to be decided in the courts of ordinary jurisdiction. Where the domain holder is domiciled or has its company seat in Germany, claims for DE.65 injunctive relief under trademark law against the abusive registration of domain names by cybersquatters can generally be enforced within a few days by way of interim measures (as regards details of interim protection in domain disputes, see para DE.322). In case of abusive registration of domain names by enterprises or private persons in foreign countries, a complaint, or if appropriate a court order, can be served on the natural person acting as the Admin-C of the domain holder who, according to No VIII of the DENIC Domain Guidelines, must be domiciled in Germany and who is authorized and under an obligation

  For further details see para DE.59.  See Federal Supreme Court, MMR 2001, 671, 674–ambiente.de; OLG Frankfurt, BeckRS 2010, 18056, x.de. OLG Fankfurt, MMR2011, 176 –sr.de. 22 23

371

Germany (‘.de’) to make binding decisions on all matters relating to the domain name, as the authorized representative of the domain holder. DE.66 Furthermore, in certain circumstances the Admin-C of the domain holder can himself be

sued as the party bearing secondary liability (Störer) for the infringements caused by the registration and use of the domain name (on the secondary liability of the administrative contact, see below para DE.363).

IV.  Trademark Infringement Through Domain Names (Section 14 German Trademark Act (MarkenG)) (1)  System of Protection DE.67 The offences of trademark infringement regulated in s 14(2) to (4) of the German Trademark

Act (MarkenG) apply equally to trademarks registered at the German Patent and Trademark Office (s 4(1) German Trademark Act (MarkenG)) and to trademarks acquired through use and public recognition (s 4(2) and (3) German Trademark Act (MarkenG)). According to s 4(1) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG), internationally registered trademarks the protection of which extends to the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany (ss 112 and 124 German Trademark Act (MarkenG)), are deemed to be equal to trademarks entered with the German Office.

DE.68 The constituent elements of trademark infringement also apply to all kinds of infringing

signs, that is, including the use of domain names. The protection regulated in s 14(2) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) includes cases of double identity of goods or services and the mark (s 14(2)(1) German Trademark Act (MarkenG)) and cases involving a likelihood of confusion (s 14(2)(2) German Trademark Act (MarkenG)). Where all three types of well-known trademarks are concerned, the protection is extended through s 14(2)(3) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG), in that the trademark proprietor is entitled to prohibit third parties from using a sign identical or similar to the trademark for goods or services that are not similar if the trademark is well known nationally and if use of the sign takes unfair advantage of or impairs the distinctive character or reputation of the well-known trademark without due cause.

DE.69 The provision in s 14(1) to (4) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) amounts to an

almost word-for-word implementation of Article 5 of the EU Trademark Directive of 21 December 1988 as regards registered trademarks.24 Hence they have to be interpreted in conformance with the Directive and this has to be verified by the CJEU upon a referral made by a German court according to Article 267 TFEU (ex Art. 234 EC Treaty).

DE.70 As regards trademarks obtained through use or public recognition (s 4(2) and (3) German

Trademark Act (MarkenG)), the provisions of s 14(1) to (4) constitute non-aligned, autonomous national law. Since s 14(1) to (4) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) applies indiscriminately to all types of trademarks and was drafted in implementation of the EU Trademark Directive, it does, however, have to be interpreted while taking into account the binding case law of the CJEU relating to registered trademarks.25

24  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks. 25 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 151, 153–Farbmarkenverletzung I; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 1063, 1065–Aspirin; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 992, 995–BIG PACK referring to s 23 No 2 MarkenG.

372

IV.  Trademark Infringement Through Domain Names For community trademarks, Article 9(2), (3) Community Trade Mark Regulation contains pro- DE.71 visions which are identical to s 14(1) to (4) German Trademark Act. In principle, these provisions of the Community Trade Mark Regulation constitute a system that is independent of harmonized national trademark law so that the case law rendered under the Community Trade Mark Regulation is not binding when a situation is evaluated under the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) and vice versa.26 However, the CJEU does, of course, strive to find a uniform answer to the legal questions arising under both sets of rules. Hence, when applying the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) within the context of an interpretation in line with the Trademark Directive, the provisions of the Community Trade Mark Regulation are also taken into account.

(2) General Requirements (a)  Existing Trademark Protection The fundamental requirement for claims based on trademark infringement is a valid German DE.72 trademark that enjoys priority under one of the three categories set out in s 4, German Trademark Act (MarkenG) (registered trademark, trademark obtained through use, or trademark obtained through public recognition), a Community trademark or an International Registration that enjoys protection in Germany. Where a registered trademark is subject to absolute grounds for refusal to grant protection DE.73 in the sense of s 8(2) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG), this cannot be raised as a defence in infringement proceedings as during those proceedings the court addressing the infringement is bound by the fact of registration. However, the plaintiff may file a request for cancellation of the trademark with the German Patent Office or Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) and request the court to suspend the proceeding until a decision has been rendered in the cancellation proceeding. It is important to note that the court addressing the infringement is only bound by the reg- DE.74 istration decision with regard to the trademark as a whole. The eligibility for protection of individual elements of the trademark in suit has to be judged by the court within its own competence. This is important especially where the close similarity between the trademark in suit and the contested domain name is restricted to a word element of a word-figurative mark that as such is not eligible for protection, or to the descriptive element in a word mark (see in detail para DE.103).27

(b)  Independent Competing Right of Domain Holder A domain holder sued for trademark infringement under s 14 of the German Trademark Act DE.75 (MarkenG) may raise the defence of priority rights to the contested designation against the plaintiff ’s claims based on infringement,28 and may cause the trademark in suit to be cancelled by way of a complaint or a cross-complaint.29 Competing rights coming into question are based on the principle of the equal value of trademark rights and other rights in the

26  European Court of First Instance, Judgment of 7 February 2006, Alecansan, SL ./. OHIM; European Court of First Instance Judgment of 15 March 2006, Athinaiki Oikogeniaki Artopoiia AVEE v OHIM; European Court of First Instance, Judgment of 7 September 2006, L & D, SA v OHIM. 27 District Court Cologne MMR 2006, 412–wahltipp.de; District Court Frankenthal GRUR-RR 2006, 13–günstig.de; District Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2003, 342–schuelerhilfe.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 778, 779–Urlaub Direkt; Higher Regional Court Cologne, GRUR-RR 2003, 42, 44–Anwalt-Suchservice; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2001, 1158, 1160–Dorf Münster; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 1040, 1043–Kinder. 28  District Court Nürnberg-Fürth, Judgment of 24 July 2002, Az. 3 O 5970/01–medbook.de; Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), CR 2004, 301, 302–arena-berlin.de; District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 25 February 2004, Az. 2a O 247/03–ratiosoft.com. 29  Higher Regional Court Munich, CR 1999, 778–tnet.de; District Court Munich I, CR 1999, 451–fnet.de.

373

Germany (‘.de’) sense of s 13(2) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG), in particular rights of the domain holder to a trademark (s 4 German Trademark Act (MarkenG)), to a commercial designation (s 5(2) German Trademark Act (MarkenG)), or to the title of a work (s 5(3) German Trademark Act (MarkenG)). DE.76 The domain holder’s right does not have to relate to the domain name as such, it can also

be a right to a different sign that is likely to be confused with the trademark in suit.30 Nor does the right raised against the plaintiff have to exist in identical form, rather, it will suffice if the scope of protection of the competing right encompasses the trademark in suit, that is, if the domain holder can enforce claims for cancellation against the trademark based on the competing right.

DE.77 It is undisputed that a competing right will not accrue to the domain holder by way of mere

registration of the domain name, since this only gives rise to a contractual right of use in relation to DENIC or the relevant ICANN registrar, but not to a trademark right to the domain. It is also irrelevant whether the domain holder commenced use of the contested domain name before the priority date of the trademark in suit if such use failed to generate trademark rights or other industrial property rights to the domain name31 (regarding the prerequisites for acquiring trademark rights through use of a domain name, see para DE.287).

(c)  Use in the Course of Trade DE.78 (i)  General Principles  Claims based on infringement generally arise under s 14 of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) only where signs are used ‘in the course of trade’. The term is based on Community law and has to be interpreted in accordance with the Directive with regard to both trademarks and commercial designations.32 According to the opinion of the CJEU, there is use in the course of trade where use ‘takes place in the context of commercial activity with a view to economic advantage and not as a private matter’.33 This corresponds to the interpretation of the term in German case law, according to which the requirements made of an assumption of use in the course of trade are not to be overly strict, so that in principle ‘any business activity with participation in the labour market in exercising or promoting one’s own or another’s business interests’ is to be considered use in the course of trade.34 The matter does not depend on the intention to make a profit or on use against payment,35 or on the existence of competition,36 nor does it depend on whether or not actions take place in commerce or within one of the so-called ‘professions’. Legal entities within the scope of the German Commercial Code are always deemed to act in the course of trade.37 On the other hand, the use of a domain name by

  District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 25 February 2004, Az. 2a O 247/03–ratiosoft.de.   Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2006, 608, 609–ahd.de; Higher Regional Court Hamm, MMR 2005, 381–juraxx.de. 32 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 1063, 1065–Aspirin, referring to s 24 MarkenG; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 1063, 1065–BIG PACK, referring to s 23 MarkenG. 33  EJC, Judgment of 25 January 2007, Adam Opel (C-48/05, ECR 2007 I-1017); CJEU, Judgment of 12 November 2002, Arsenal Football Club (C-206/01, ECR 2002 p I-10273); EJC, Judgment of 23 March 2010, Google France (C-236/08). 34  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 860–Internet-Versteigerung; Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, MMR 2005, 458. 35  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1987, 438, 440–Handtuchspender; Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, GRUR 2004, 1042–Cartierschmuck. 36  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1960, 550, 551–Promonta. 37  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 888, 889–Euro Telekom. 30 31

374

IV.  Trademark Infringement Through Domain Names a private individual is deemed to be a private use, if there is no concrete evidence that the domain name is used for commercial purposes.38 (ii)  Use for Private Purposes  As regards classification of the use of a domain name as DE.79 being ‘use in the course of trade’, this depends on the apparent goal aimed at by the person acting. If his behaviour is not aimed at promoting his own or another’s profit-making or other professional activities, there is no use in the course of trade. His behaviour is then attributable exclusively to the private sphere outside the framework of gainful and professional activities.39 Banner advertising of the provider on the website accessible under the domain name, via DE.80 which the website is partly financed, can indicate classification of a website as being used for business purposes;40 however, since advertising banners have also become commonplace on private websites, it does not necessarily lead to an assumption of use in the course of trade41 and therefore does not negate the duty to examine the question of whether the website serves private or business purposes from all angles, in view of the circumstances of the individual case. Where domain names are used by natural persons in order to obtain ‘pay-per-click’ fees through a parking website, there is always an assumption of use in the course of trade, however, since such activities are directed exclusively at obtaining financial gains. (Regarding the issue whether the use of a domain name for a parking website is ‘use as a trademark’, see para DE.89; regarding the secondary liability (Störerhaftung) of the parking provider, see para DE.350.)

(iii)  Criticism of Enterprises and Products  The use of the trademark of a third party as DE.81 a domain name for an online forum serving public but not commercial interests in order to criticize enterprises or products,42 or in order to critically address certain business practices of an enterprise through a non-profit association,43 is not judged under the aspect of trademark law in the absence of use in the course of trade, but, rather, exclusively under the provisions of tort law in ss 823(1) and (2), 824, and 826 of the German Civil Code (BGB), or (where the mark is used at the same time as a company symbol) on the basis of the law protecting names (s 12, German Civil Code (BGB)). The matter can only be judged on the basis of trademark law if, in addition to criticism of DE.82 an enterprise or product serving private, political or other non-profit objectives, commercial   Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2008, 1099, 1100–afilias.de.  Federal Supreme Court, MMR 2002, 382, 384–shell.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2001, 1038, 1041–ambiente.de; District Court Munich I, Judgment of 5 September 2001–Az. 7 HK O 10964/01–infoversum.de, (non-commercial site with philosphical content); Higher Regional Court Cologne, WRP 2002, 244–lotto-privat.de, (website of a private community of gamblers); District Court Munich I, CR 2001, 555–saeugling.de, (website for the exchange of information about newborn babies). 40  District Court Hamburg, MMR 2000, 436–luckystrike.de. 41  Higher Regional Court Schleswig CR 2001, 465–Swabedoo, (the assumption that a website is used for non-commercial purposes does not conflict with the fact that a website contains links to commercial websites or contains banner advertisements); District Court Munich I, MMR 2001, 545–saeugling.de. 42  Higher Regional Court Hamm, GRUR 2003, 722–castor.de, (use of the domain ‘castor.de’ by a group of Anti-Nuclear activists); District Court Cologne GRUR-RR 2006, 372–quaktie.de, (use of the domain ‘qaktie.de’ for a non-commercial free speech site); District Court Bremen ZUM-RD 2003, 360–bsagmeckerseite. de; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2005, 118–awd-aussteiger.de, (use of a domain name for a criticism site considered ‘use in the course of trade’ (arguable)); District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 30 January 2002, Az. 2 a O 245/01, JurPC Web-Dok. 267/2002–scheiss-t-online.de, holding that the use of the domain name ‘scheiss-t-online.de’ for a criticism site for T-Online clients may be regarded as ‘use in the course of trade’ because the criticism site also serves the commercial interests of the competitors of T-Online (arguable). 43  Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), MMR 2002, 686–oil-of-elf.de; District Court Hamburg, MMR 2003, 53–stoppesso.de. 38 39

375

Germany (‘.de’) interests—of one’s own or of promoted third parties—emerge. This criterion can be met where an Internet forum for the criticism of an enterprise or product is also used commercially in order to place advertising banners or for other forms of Internet advertising.44

(3) Infringing  Use (a)  Use of a Domain Name with Distinctive Character on the Internet for an Active Website DE.83 Where a domain name is evidently not a generic designation or merely descriptive, its use for a website containing offers of goods or services or for advertising purposes always constitutes use as a trademark.45 For an assumption of use as a mark it is irrelevant whether the domain name is understood as a company symbol or in an exceptional case as a product designation, since the use of a domain name as a company symbol implies an at least indirect reference to the origin of the relevant goods and services, and is therefore not limited to identifying a company or designating a business but can usually also be considered as ‘use in relation to the goods or services offered on the website’.46 The same applies to the use of a domain name as the title of an online magazine, an online portal or a computer game, since in that case the domain name serves as a reference to company origin. (b)  Domain Registration/Empty Websites DE.84 According to the general opinion, the mere registration of a domain name does not con-

stitute use as a trademark since it is merely aimed at establishing a contractual right of use in relation to the competent registry and does not serve to distinguish goods or services in the sense of the definition of use under s 14 of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG).47 The same applies where a domain name has been connected but merely refers to an empty page or a ‘construction site’.48 In these cases trademark law provisions may only be applied for the purpose of preventive actions for injunction if announcements, preparatory acts or boasts suggest a future infringing use. However, the mere registration of the domain name may constitute an infringement of a name within the meaning of s 12 German   Cf. District Court Bremen ZUM-RD 2003, 360–bsagmeckerseite.de.  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2009, 1055–airdsl; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2011, 617– SEDO; Cf. Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), GRUR-RR 2001, 180–CHECK IN; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR 2001, 838, 839–1001buecher.de; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-RR 2002, 100, 102–derrick.de; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2000, 544, 545–kulturwerbung.de; Higher Regional Court Munich, CR 1998, 556, 557–freundin.de; Higher Regional Court Munich, MMR 2000, 277–intershopping.com; Higher Regional Court Dresden, CR 1999, 589, 590–cyberspace.de; Higher Regional Court Rostock, K&R 2000, 303–mueritz-online.de; Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe WRP 1998, 900–zwilling.de. 46  See CJEU, Judgment of 11 September 2007, Céline (C-17/06, ECR 2007 I-7041), stating that ‘where the use of a company name, trade name or shop name is limited to identifying a company or designating a business, such use cannot be considered as being “in relation to goods or services”’; CJEU, Judgment of 16 November 2004, Anheuser-Busch (C-245/02, ECR 2004 I-10989), holding that the use of a trade name does not always prejudice, or is liable to prejudice, the functions of the trade mark, in particular its essential function of guaranteeing to consumers the origin of the goods; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 512, 514–Leysieffer. 47  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2013, 294, 296–dlg.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2009, 685, 689– ahd.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 687–weltonline.de; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, Judgment of 12 April 2007, Az. 312 O 332/06–original-nordmann.eu; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2006, 608, 609–ahd.de; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2006, 476–metrosex.de; Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe GRUR-RR 2002, 138, 139–dino.de; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, ZUM-RD 2002, 349, 351–pizza-connection.de; Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, a. M. WRP 2000, 645, 646–weideglueck.de; District Court Cologne, GRUR-RR 2006, 372–quaktie.de; for a different opinion see Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR 2000, 519, 521–rolls-royce.de; Higher Regional Court Dresden, NJWE-WettbR 1999, 133, 135–cyberspace.de; District Court Frankfurt, CR 1998, 364, 365–deta.com. 48  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2006, 609–ahd.de; Higher Regional Court Munich, MarkenR 2000, 428–TEAMBUS; different view see District Court Cologne MMR 2000, 625, 626–wdr.org. 44 45

376

IV.  Trademark Infringement Through Domain Names Civil Code (BGB),49 or may be considered an intentional obstruction (ss 3 and 4(10), Act Against Unfair Competition) or harm contrary to accepted moral principles (s 826, German Civil Code (BGB).

(c)  Use of a Generic or Descriptive Term as a Domain Name An “infringing use of a mark” does not exist where the mark is used for descriptive purposes DE.85 in the circumstances of an individual case.50 This principle also applies unreservedly to the use of domain names. The fact that a domain name which describes the goods or services offered on a website is allocated exclusively to a certain domain holder does not mean that the use of a domain name is always to be considered use as a trademark and does not permit the presumption of use as a trademark.51 In accordance with the general rules, the requirement of use as a trademark is not met where DE.86 the domain name consists of a generic term or is descriptive in nature according to the general understanding of the language, since it will then be understood by trade circles as an objective reference to contents matching the generic term and not as a reference to origin. This holds true even where a domain name consisting of an element with distinctive character and a descriptive element is understood as the description of a certain species of services in the sense of a negative distinction (‘schufafreierkredit.de’).52

(d)  Use of a Domain Name for Redirection—Domain Parking—Linking of Websites An assumption of use as a trademark is not excluded by the mere fact that a domain name DE.87 is not used directly in order to access a website, but merely for redirection (‘domain redirection’/‘URL forwarding’) to a different website available under a different domain name of the domain holder. If redirection takes place by means of a ‘refresh Meta Tag’ in the source code of the website53 DE.88 or through configuration of the DNS Server, this means that only the domain name of the target website is displayed in the Internet user’s browser and the domain name entered is not visible for the Internet user or at the most for a fraction of a second prior to accessing the target website. However, this does not exclude an assumption of use as a trademark, as made clear by the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) in a case concerning use of a trademark as a metatag in the source code of a website.54 In order to qualify as use as a trademark, it is sufficient that the Internet user is redirected to the user’s website having entered the domain name. That is, the domain name serves to refer the Internet user to the offers available on the website.55 The requirement of use as a trademark is also unproblematic where redirection 49  The term ‘name’ in the sense of s 12 of the German Civil Code (BGB) is understood in the broadest sense in case law. In addition to company symbols it covers names for the individualization of a natural person, and names of non-commercial associations of persons; trademarks, however, do not fall under the concept of a ‘name’ within the meaning of s 12 Civil Code. 50 CJEU, Judgment of 18 June 2009, L’Oreal Bellure (C-487/07); Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 775, 778–EURO 2000; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 963, 964–AntiVir/AntivVirus; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 812, 814–Früstücks-Drink; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 814, 815–Festspielhaus; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 238, 239–Tour de culture; Higher Regional Court Cologne, GRUR-RR 2003, 42, 43–Anwalts-Suchservice; Higher Regional Court Munich, MMR 1999, 547–Buecher.de/Amazon. 51  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 832, 835–ZAPPA; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 1040, 1042–pjur/pure. 52  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-RR 2004, 178, 181–schufafreierkredit.de. 53  Higher Regional Court Cologne, MMR 2006, 629–Ecolab. 54  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 65, 67–Impuls, holding that the use of a mark as a ‘metatag’ in the source code of a website can be considered ‘use as a trademark’. 55  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2009, 1055, 1059–airdsl; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2011, 617, 618–SEDO; Higher Regional Court Cologne, MMR 2006, 629–Ecolab; see also Federal Supreme Court,

377

Germany (‘.de’) takes place in the form of a so-called FRAME Redirect. Since in this case the domain name of the target address is not displayed when the website is accessed, but, rather, the domain name entered in the browser, the redirection is not visible to the Internet user so that the domain name typed in is understood as a business reference to the origin of the offers on the target website. It is therefore important to establish while taking into account the content of the target website, as where other use of domain names is concerned, whether the domain name is understood by affected trade circles as a descriptive term or as a reference to origin. DE.89 Similarly, there is use ‘in relation to goods’ within the meaning of s 14(2) German Trademark Act

where a domain name is used merely to access a ‘parking website’ on which sponsored links to websites of third parties are placed,56 since the Internet user who reaches a parking website by typing in such a domain name considers the compilation of sponsored links to be a service provided by the trademark proprietor and therefore understands the domain name as a source identifier.57

(e)  Use for Criticism of a Product or Enterprise/Trademark Parody DE.90 The question whether use of a domain name in order to criticize an enterprise or a product is

to be considered use as a trademark is relevant only where such use takes place in the course of trade.

DE.91 Cases where a trademark is used as a domain name in the course of trade in identical form

without descriptive additions for criticism of an enterprise or product (eg criticism of the oil company Esso under ‘esso.de’) is automatically classified as use as a trademark. Use as a trademark lies in the fact that the domain name is used to direct Internet users to the ­relevant website when the trademark is typed in as a domain name or by displaying the domain name in a search engine search, that is, where the domain name serves to refer Internet users to the commercial offers of the domain holder made under the domain name.58 The same has to apply where the domain name does include descriptive additions which, however, do not indicate clearly to trade circles whether or not the domain name can be attributed to the trademark proprietor (eg ‘oil-of-elf.de’).59

DE.92 The legal assessment is more complicated where a trademark is distorted in parody (‘lust­

hansa.de’) or used as a domain name with descriptive, in particular pejorative additions which indicate to trade circles that the domain name cannot be attributed to the trademark proprietor (eg ‘awd-aussteiger’ (=awd-dropout.de), ‘stoppesso.de’, etc).60

DE.93 Based on the extended functional term ‘use’ in the more recent case law of the CJEU and

the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH), according to which use as a trademark falling within the ambit of s 14(2)(3) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) is given where an association is made with the well-known trademark,61 use of a well-known trademark as

GRUR 2007, 65, 67–Impuls, regarding the issue whether the use of a sign as a metatag in the source code of a website may be considered ‘use as a trademark’; unclear Higher Regional Court Munich, MMR 1999, 547–buecher.de. 56  For a more detailed description of the business model of domain parking, see para DE.350. 57  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2011, 617, 618–SEDO; similarly Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2007, 384–test24.de. 58  Cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 65, 67–Impuls. 59  Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), MMR 2002, 686–oil-of-elf.de (as the domain name was used for a non-commercial criticism site the decision was based on s 15(2) Trademark Act). 60  See also Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2005, 117–awd-aussteiger.de, concerning a non-­ commercial product criticism site; District Court Hamburg, MMR 2003, 53–stoppesso.de. 61  CJEU, Judgment of 23 October 2003, Adidas-Salomon and Adidas Benelux (C-408/01, ECR 2003 I-12537); Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 583, 585–Lila Postkarte; see also the AIPPI-Report, GRUR Int. 2005, 413.

378

IV.  Trademark Infringement Through Domain Names a domain name with critical additions or satirical modifications can be qualified as use as a trademark if it is apparent that such use serves the purpose of criticizing the product or the enterprise, or that it is satirical. The reason is that although in such cases the domain name is not attributed to the trademark proprietor by trade circles or the proprietor’s consent to such use is not assumed, such use of the domain name does create the association with the well-known trademark that is required by the CJEU and the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH).62 This holds true even where the domain name contains blatantly derogatory additions.63 (See for further details, para DE.119, and on the existence of unfair exploitation or impairment of the repute or distinctive character of well-known trademarks, para DE.127.) Within the scope of application of s 14(2)(2) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG), DE.94 according to the case law of the CJEU and the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH), one may only assume use as a trademark where the mark is used such that it distinguishes the trademarked goods or services from the goods or services of other enterprises within the context of product sales.64 This aspect is lacking where the descriptive or pejorative additions indicate that the trademark proprietor’s website cannot be expected under the domain name.65 However, it is then necessary to examine with consideration to the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press (Art 5(1) of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz)) whether use of the domain name amounts to interference with established and active business operations (s 823(1), German Civil Code (BGB); see in this respect para  DE.81), or, insofar as the trademark also enjoys protection as a company name and is protected against unauthorized commercial and non-commercial use pursuant to s 12, German Civil Code (BGB) (see for further details para DE.157).

(4) Likelihood of Confusion (Section 14(2)(2) German Trademark Act (MarkenG)) (a)  General Principles According to established case law, the protection of trademarks against the likelihood of con- DE.95 fusion under s 14(2)(2) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) depends on all relevant circumstances, in particular the degree of recognition of the trademark on the market and its distinctive character, the degree of similarity of the conflicting marks as well as the similarity between the goods and services. These factors are interdependent, so that a lower degree of recognition on the market or reduced distinctive character of the trademark and a reduced degree of similarity between the marks can be compensated by heightened similarity between the goods or services at issue, and vice versa. However, this interdependence does not mean that one of these two requirements can be lacking completely and can be fully compensated by the existence of the other requirement.66

62  Different view Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2005, 117–awd-aussteiger.de; District Court Hamburg, MMR 2003, 53–stoppesso.de. 63 District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 1 January 2002, Az. 2 a O 245/01, JurPC Web-Dok 267/2002–scheiss-t-online.de. 64  CJEU, Judgment of 23 February 1999, BMW (C-63/97, ECR 1999 I-905); CJEU, Judgment of 12 November 2002, Arsenal Football Club (C-206/01, ECR 2002 I-10273); Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 162–SodaStream; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 583, 585–Lila Postkarte. 65 See Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2005, 117–awd-aussteiger.de; District Court Bremen ZUM-RD 2003, 360–bsagmeckerseite.de, which denies trademark infringement in the absence of a likelihood of confusion. 66  CJEU, Judgment of 24 March 2014, Linea Natura (C-306/11); CJEU, Judgment of 29 September 1998, Canon Kabushiki Kaisha/Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (C-39/97, ECR 1998 I-5507); Federal Supreme Court, WRP 2002, 537, 539–BANK 24; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 245, 246–LIBERO, with further references.

379

Germany (‘.de’) DE.96 According to the established case law of the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH), the

likelihood of confusion is a legal question that does not permit evidence to be taken and that is subject to legal scrutiny on appeal, which relates to the views in affected trade circles and depends on experience and the actual circumstances.67 The factual issues include, in particular, the degree of recognition enjoyed by a mark within trade circles, the frequency with which confusion arises, and the importance of an element of the mark for the mark in its entirety.68 Contrary to the risk of consumers being misled as laid down in competition law, the likelihood of confusion in trademark law does not require the trade circles addressed to succumb to the wrong idea and thus to be influenced directly in their economic behaviour.

DE.97 When assessing the likelihood of confusion, in case law the matter depends on a reasonably

well-informed and reasonably observant consumer interested in the relevant type of goods and services,69 which in trade circles with particular knowledge can lead to an assumption of a higher degree of awareness for differences between marks and hence to a lower likelihood of confusion as compared with the general public.70

DE.98 According to s 14(2), final clause, German Trademark Act (MarkenG), in addition to the

direct likelihood of confusion in the narrower sense of the term, where one mark is mistaken for another, there is also a risk that consumers will not directly confuse one mark with another, but will nevertheless associate the two marks with one another (regarding the likelihood of confusion based on such an association, see para DE.110).

(b)  Distinctive Character DE.99 The term ‘distinctive character’ describes the ability of a mark to be remembered by consum-

ers owing to its originality and striking nature as well as its degree of recognition obtained through use, that is, its ability to remain in consumers’ memories and be recognized. Since the degree of distinctive character (‘weak’, ‘average’, or ‘strong’) determines the scope of protection of a trademark, it is an essential requirement and basis for assessing the likelihood of confusion. According to the established case law of the CJEU, trademarks which as such or owing to their recognition on the market possess strong distinctive character, enjoy broader protection than do trademarks with lower distinctive character.71 The principle applies that the higher the distinctive character of a mark, the larger is the scope of protection granted to it against the likelihood of confusion.

DE.100 The decisive factor in determining the degree of distinctive character of a trademark is its

original distinctive character, that is, its originality, striking nature and capacity to be remembered, in conjunction with underscoring factors such as the trademark’s share on the market, geographical reach and the duration of its use, advertising investments made by the

67  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1998, 830–Les-Paul-Gitarren, with further references; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2000, 506, 509–ATTACHÉ/TISSERAND; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 61–ComputNet/ComNet II. 68  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 167, 169–Bit/Bud; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 61–ComputNet/ComNet II. 69   CJEU, Judgment of 22 June 1999, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer (C-342/97, ECR 1999 I-3819); Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2000, 506, 508–ATTACHÉ/TISSERAND. 70   Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR-RR 2001, 107, 108–mbp.de. 71   CJEU, Judgment of 22 June 2000, Marca Mode (C-425/98, ECR 2000 I-4861); CJEU, Judgment of 22 June 1999, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer (C-342/97, ECR 1999 I-3819); CJEU, Judgment of 11 November 1997, SABEL/Puma, Rudolf Dassler Sport (C-251/95, ECR 1997 I-6191); Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1996, 198, 199–Springende Raubkatze.

380

IV.  Trademark Infringement Through Domain Names enterprise in order to promote it as well as the degree of recognition enjoyed by the trademark, that is determined through public opinion surveys.72 Distinctive character can be weakened by the fact that other, third-party trademarks exist DE.101 in commerce and trade,73 however, such third-party trademarks have to appear in the same or a closely related area of goods or services and to an extent that could cause trade circles and consumers to become familiar with the existence of other trademarks within the field.74 The above-mentioned, general rules also apply to conflicts between trademarks and domain DE.102 names according to the established case law. Trademarks that evidently derive from descriptive terms only have reduced original distinctive DE.103 character, so minor divergences in a domain name can suffice in order to exclude the likelihood of confusion.75 For example, such distinctive character ‘at the lowest threshold of eligibility for protection’ was assumed by the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Hamm76 with regard to the trademark ‘Pizza-Direct’ that was entered in Classes 39 and 42 for the ‘delivery of food and beverages as well as the provision thereof for guests’. The court therefore refused to recognize a likelihood of confusion with the domain name ‘pizza-direkt.de’ (spelt using ‘k’), that was used for a pizza guide (including an advertising platform for pizza suppliers on the Internet). With reference to the stricter requirements made of the evaluation of confusion where domain names are concerned, protection was also refused to the word mark ‘SEETOURS’ (entered for the ‘organization of trips, in particular cruise trips’) against the use of the domain name ‘seetour.de’ (spelled without an ‘s’),77 for travel agency services. Similarly, the mark ‘CHECK IN’ (registered for the ‘brokering of travel, transport services and the organization of guided city tours’) was not protected against use of the domain name ‘checkin.com’ for a tourism database containing addresses and links78 (regarding the question whether stricter standards have to apply to the evaluation of the likelihood of confusion where domain names are concerned, see para DE.95). Incidental examination of the protection of the word element is required where DE.104 word-figurative marks are concerned. The principle that the court addressing the infringement is bound by registration of the trademark only precludes refusal to recognize the eligibility of the mark as a whole for protection, but not an examination as to whether the word element as such has the requisite distinctive character when considered in isolation.79 Hence the word element of a word-figurative mark which is only eligible for trademark protection

  Cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 1040, 1044–Kinder.   See Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 626–IMS; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2000, 1028, 1029–Ballermann; referring to s 15 German Trademark Act, District Court Mannheim, ZUM-RD 2000, 74, 75–nautilus; cf. District Court Nürnberg-Fürth, MMR 2000, 629, 630–pinakothek.de. 74 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1990, 367, 368–alpi/Alba Moda; referring to s 15(2) MarkenG Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 898, 900–defacto; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2001, 1161, 1162–CompuNet/ComNet; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2006, 608, 609–ahd.de; Higher Regional Court Cologne, MMR 2002, 475–gus.de: the use of the acronym GUS (English: CIS (Commonwealth of )) for the association of countries of former Soviet republics during the break-up of the Soviet Union does not weaken the distinctive character of the trademark GUS. 75 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 963, 965–AntiVir/AntiVirus; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1989, 264, 265–REYNOLDS R1/EREINTZ; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1989, 349, 350–ROTH-HÄNDLE-KENTUCKY; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 1040, 1043–Kinder; Higher Regional Court Hamm, NJW-RR 1999, 632–pizza-direkt.de. 76  Higher Regional Court Hamm, NJW-RR 1999, 632–pizza-direkt.de. 77  Higher Regional Court Cologne, GRUR-RR 2005, 16, 18 f.–Kreuzfahrten. 78  Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), GRUR-RR 2001, 180–CHECK IN/checkin. com, because of the weak distinctive character of the term. 79  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2001, 1159, 1160–Dorf Münsterland; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2000, 1031, 1032–Carl Link. 72 73

381

Germany (‘.de’) on the basis of its graphic design or in combination with a figurative element will not be eligible for protection against use as a domain name.80

(c)  Similarity of Marks DE.105 If one applies general principles to the examination of similarity between trademarks and

domain names, in line with the prevailing opinion in the literature and in case law, the acoustic impression and the spelling as well as the meaning of the mark and the domain name are the decisive factors. In this respect one may assume that the trade circles and consumers accord a solely functional meaning to top-level domains so that the second-level domain alone is of relevance in the comparison, so that both the generic TLD81 and the ccTLD ‘.de’82 as well as foreign ccTLDS can be disregarded.83 Corresponding considerations apply to the other elements of the URL (Uniform Resource Locator) ‘www’ or ‘http’.84

DE.106 In a comparison between a trademark and a second-level domain, the prevailing principle in

trademark law is that the matter depends on the overall impression made by each of the conflicting marks.85 Individual elements are not relevant although they have distinctive character and characterize the mark as a whole, unless they alone determine the overall impression.86 Such a determining influence on the overall mark is excluded where the mark has several elements of equal value, since as a rule trade circles and consumers will not be swayed by one single element.87 Whether elements of a mark are equal in value or whether one or more of such elements is capable of determining the overall impression of the mark depends on their distinctive character and their relationship with the other components.88 Descriptive terms or elements which describe the product will not have a determining influence on the overall impression made by the mark owing to their reduced original distinctive character, so that in such cases the other, non-descriptive elements will determine the impression made by the mark. However, this does not mean that a generic term will never have a strong influence on a mark.89

DE.107 Similarity of signs was found to exist between the following marks:

– Pelikan (word mark) and ‘musikschule-pelikan.de’;90 – METRO and ‘metrosex.de’;91   Cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 963, 964–AntiVir/AntiVirus.   District Court Cologne MMR 2000, 625–wdr.org; Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR 2000, 518, 519–buecherde.com; concerning the risk of confusion between the domain name ‘xtra.net’ and the trademark ‘Xtranet’, District Court Hamburg, JurPC Web-Dok. 43/2000–xtra.net. 82   See Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 262–soco.de; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2006, 226–combit/kompit.de; Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR-RR 2002, 107, 108–mbp.de; Higher Regional Court Cologne, GRUR-RR 2003, 40, 41–night loop; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2001, 612, 614–startup.de; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-RR 2002, 100, 102–derrick.de; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2002, 682, 683–siehan.de; Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe MMR 1999, 171, 172–zwilling.de. 83   District Court Hamburg, MMR 2005, 190–sartorius.at. 84   Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2006, 476–metrosex.de; Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR-RR 2002, 107–mbp.de. 85  Cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 235, 237–Davidoff II; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 240–MIDAS/medAS; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 1047, 1049–Kellogg’s/Kelly; for further details see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.214. 86  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 880, 881–City Plus; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 626, 628–IMS; Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR 2000, 518–buecherde.com, (finding similarity between ‘buecher.de AG’ and ‘buecherde.com’); District Court Mannheim, MMR 2000, 47, 48–nautilus; for further details see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.214. 87  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 880, 881–City Plus; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 865, 866–Mustang; District Court Munich, MMR 2000, 832, 833–biolandwirt.de. 88  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2013, 10140, 1043–pjur/pure. 89  Federal Supreme Court, WRP 2002, 537, 540–BANK 24; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2000, 544, 545–kulturwerbung.de. 90  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 1145, 1147–Pelikan. 91  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2008, 912–Metroxex. 80 81

382

IV.  Trademark Infringement Through Domain Names – ‘Viagra’ and ‘viaguara.de’;92 – Creditolo (word mark) and ‘kredito.de’;93 – ‘Combit’ (word mark) and ‘kompit.de’;94 – ‘T-Mobile’ and ‘be-mobile.de’;95 – ‘Xtranet’ and ‘xtra.net’;96 – ‘AIDA’ and ‘aidu.de’;97 – ‘BMW’ and ‘bmw4you.de’;98 – ‘Juris’ and ‘juris-solvendi.de’;99 – ‘Logoland’ and ‘logofant.de’;100 – ‘fun fun radio 95.0’ and ‘funfunradio.de’;101 – ‘Playmate’ and ‘playmatemoni96.de’ and ‘playmate-moni96.de’;102 – ‘Intershop’ (word-figurative mark) and ‘intershop-portal.de’;103 – ‘Intershop’ and ‘intershopping.com’;104 – ‘24translate’ and ‘24-translation.de’ and ‘translation-24.de’;105 – ‘Müritz’ and ‘mueritz-online.de’;106 – ‘Digamma’ (word-figurative mark) and ‘digamma-portal.de’;107 and – ‘Deutsche Post’ and ‘city-post.de’ (‘similarity at the lowest possible threshold’),108 and was rejected between the following signs: – – – – – – –

METRO and ‘metrobus.de’ and ‘hvv-metrobus.de’;109 ‘BIT’ (word mark) and ‘bitbau.de’;110 ‘Seetours’ (word mark) and ‘seetour.de’ and ‘seetour24.de’;111 ‘Test’ (word-figurative mark) and ‘test24.de’;112 ‘MB&P’ and ‘mbp.de’;113 ‘Job Scout’ and ‘cityscout.de’;114 and ‘Bioland’ and ‘biolandwirt.de’ (based on the different meanings of the terms).115

  Higher Regional Court of Munich, PharmaR 2010, 528–Viagra and viaguara.de.   Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2013, 101–kredito.de. 94   Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2006, 226, 227–combit/kompit.de. 95 Higher Regional Court Hamburg, Judgment of 7 July 2003, Az. 3 W 81/03 JuRPC Web-Dok. 238/2003–be-mobile.de. 96  District Court Hamburg, JurPC Web-Dok. 43/2000–xtra.net. 97  District Court Cologne, Judgment of 1 June 2007, Az. 6 U 35/07–aidu.de. 98  District Court Munich CR 2005, 532–bmw4u.de. 99  District Court Munich I, MMR 1999, 234–juris-solvendi.de. 100  District Court Nürnberg-Fürth, Judgment of 5 December 2001, Az. 3 O 10751/00. 101  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-RR 2001, 7–funfunradio.de. 102  District Court Stuttgart, WRP 2002, 347–playmatemoni96.de. 103  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-RR 2001, 126–Intershop. 104  Higher Regional Court Munich, MMR 2000, 277–intershopping.com. 105  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-RR 2002, 256–24translate. 106  Higher Regional Court Rostock, K&R 2000, 303–mueritz-online.de. 107  District Court Frankfurt, Judgment of 10 October 2002, Az. 3/8 O 86/01–digamma-portal.de. 108 Higher Regional Court Cologne, Judgment of 8 May 2002, Az. 6 U 195/01, JurPC Web-Dok. 233/2002–citipost.de. 109  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2009, 484–Metrobus. 110  Higher Regional Court Cologne, GRUR-RR 2005, 82, 83–bit. 111  Higher Regional Court Cologne, GRUR-RR 2005, 16, 18 f.–Kreuzfahrten. 112  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2007, 384–test24.de. 113  Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR-RR 2002, 107–mbp.de. 114  District Court Hamburg, MMR 2003, 128–cityscout.de. 115  District Court Munich I, MMR 2002, 832–biolandwirt.de. 92 93

383

Germany (‘.de’) (d)  Identity or Similarity of Goods and Services of the Branch of Industry DE.108 Protection against use as a domain name requires that the products offered or advertised under the domain name are similar to those for which the trademark enjoys protection. The opinion that placement of a website on the Internet is always to be viewed as telecommunications services (Class 38) irrespective of its contents has been rightly rejected in case law as being far-fetched. DE.109 According to the unanimous case law of the CJEU116 and the German Federal Supreme

Court (BGH),117 the distinctive character of the earlier trademark, and in particular its reputation, must be taken into account when determining whether the similarity between the goods or services covered by the two trademarks is sufficient to give rise to the likelihood of confusion.118

(e)  Likelihood of Confusion Through Association DE.110 (i)  Likelihood of Confusion in the Broader Sense of the Term  In addition to the direct likelihood of confusion in the narrower sense of the term, where one trademark is mistaken for another, protection against the likelihood of confusion under s 14(2), final clause, of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG), also covers the risk that trade circles and consumers will not directly confuse the trademarks, but will nevertheless associate them with one another. DE.111 Such an association can consist of the mistaken impression that owing to the similarity

between the marks, the distinctive character or the similarity between the goods or services, special economic or organizational links exist between the proprietors of the marks (likelihood of confusion in the broad sense of the term).119 However, such a likelihood of confusion in the broader sense of the term requires that the trademark has become a reference to the trademark proprietor’s enterprise. As a rule this can only be assumed where the pre-existing mark is at the same time a company symbol.120

DE.112 The likelihood of confusion in the broader sense of the term has not played an important role

so far in domain name disputes. The likelihood was affirmed between: – – – – –

‘Peugeot’ and ‘peugeot-tuning.de’;121 ‘Zweitausendeins’ and ‘1001buecher.de’;122 ‘METRO’ and ‘metrosex.de’;123 ‘StudiVZ’ and ‘börsevz’;124 and ‘T-VZ’, ‘T1VZ’, and ‘CVZ’,125

116  CJEU, Judgment of 29 September 1998, Canon Kabushiki Kaisha/Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (C-39/97, ECR 1998 I-5507). 117  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 731, 733–Canon II; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 544, 545–BANK 24. 118  For further details see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.220. 119  For further details see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.226. 120 Cf. CJEU, Judgment of 30 November 1993, Deutsche Renault/AUDI (C-317/91, ECR 1993 I-6227); CJEU, Judgment of 22 June 1999, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer (C-342/97, ECR 1999 I-3819); Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 598, 599–Kleiner Feigling; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2000, 608, 609–ARD-1; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 171, 175–Marlboro-Dach. 121  Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2007, 188–peugeot-tuning.de. 122  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, CR 2001, 552, 553–1001buecher.de. 123  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, NJOZ 2005, 4080, 4088 f.–metrosex.de. 124  District Court Hamburg, MMR 2009, 135–börsevz. 125  District Court Cologne MMR 2009, 201–BewerberVZ.

384

IV.  Trademark Infringement Through Domain Names and rejected between – ‘MB&P’ and ‘mbp.de’ (without grounds being stated);126 – ‘AWD’ and ‘awd-aussteiger.de’ (based on the negative content of the statement);127 – ‘Deutsche Post’ and ‘citipost.de’ (with reference to the particularities of the historical development of the postal market);128 and – ‘Loop’ and ‘nightloop.de’.129

(ii)  Indirect Likelihood of Confusion  An association can also be made on the basis of DE.113 the fact that trade circles and consumers distinguish between the marks as such, but assume owing to an identical, permanent element present in both marks that they both derive from a series of marks of the proprietor of the older mark (indirect likelihood of confusion). In case law strict requirements apply to the affirmation of an indirect likelihood of confusion under the aspect of a series of marks, since otherwise the decisive factor of the overall impression would be circumvented without due cause in the sense of the unlawful protection of individual elements of the mark.130 The significance of this form of a likelihood of confusion in practice has been minor so far in domain name disputes. It was affirmed between: – ‘METRO’ and ‘metrosex.de’;131 – ‘LOTTO’ and ‘freelotto.de’;132 and – ‘LOTTO’ and ‘lottoteam.de’,133 and rejected between – Capital letter ‘T’ of the Deutsche Telekom and ‘t-box.de’;134 – ‘Jobscout’ and ‘cityscout.de’;135 and – ‘Deutsche Post’ and ‘citipost.de’.136

(5) Protection for Trademarks which have a Reputation (Section 14(2)(3) German Trademark Act (MarkenG)) (a)  General Principles The constituents of an infringement as set out in s 14(2)(3) of the German Trademark Act DE.114 (MarkenG) expand the protection beyond the similarity of goods and services, and hence beyond the likelihood of confusion, to include the use of marks without due cause which takes undue advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive character or the reputation of a trademark which has a reputation. The provision is a word-for-word implementation of the optional provision in Article 5(2) of the Trademark Directive. Despite the non-binding nature of the

  Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR-RR 2002, 107–mbp.de.   Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2005, 118–awd-aussteiger.de. 128 Higher Regional Court Cologne, Judgment of 8 May 2002, Az. 6 U 195/01, JurPC Web-Dok. 233/2002–citipost.de. 129  Higher Regional Court Cologne, GRUR-RR 2003, 40, 42–night loop. 130 Higher Regional Court Cologne, Judgment of 8 May 2002, Az. 6 U 195/01, JurPC Web-Dok. 233/2002–citipost.de. 131  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, NJOZ 2005, 4080, 4088 f.–metrosex.de. 132  Higher Regional Court Cologne, WRP 2002, 249, 253–freelotto.de. 133  Higher Regional Court Cologne, MMR 2003, 114, 117–lottoteam.de. 134  Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, GRUR-RR 2002, 2022–T-Box. 135  District Court Hamburg, MMR 2003, 128–cityscout.de. 136 Higher Regional Court Cologne, Judgment of 8 May 2002, Az. 6 U 195/01, JurPC Web-Dok. 233/2002–citipost.de. 126 127

385

Germany (‘.de’) Trademark Directive, the provision in German law has to be interpreted in accordance with the Directive and is subject to the scrutiny of the CJEU as regards interpretation.137 DE.115 According to the case law of the CJEU and of the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH),

in order to enjoy protection extending to non-similar products or services, a trademark must be known by a significant part of the public concerned by the products or services which it covers.138 According to the case law of the CJEU, the question whether the requisite level of reputation is achieved within the relevant trade circles does not depend on a rigid level of reputation and attribution established through public opinion surveys. Rather, it has to be established while taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, in particular the trademark’s market share, the intensity, geographical reach, and duration of its use as well as the extent of the investments made in its promotion by the enterprise.139

DE.116 The level of reputation required under s 14(2)(3) of the German Trademark Act has to be sat-

isfied nationally, but it can also be traced back to use in a foreign country if there is a national reputation based on cross-border advertising on the Internet or other media.140

(b)  Use as a Trademark DE.117 Like protection against a likelihood of confusion under s 14(2) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG),141 the special protection of well-known trademarks under s 14(2)(3) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) is only granted if the domain name was used as a trademark. Mere registration of a domain name for abusive purposes (domaingrabbing or cybersquatting) or use of a domain name for empty websites will therefore not fall within the ambit of s 14(2)(3) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG), but will have to be judged solely under application of the provisions of the law of competition (ss 3 and 4(10) Act Against Unfair Competition) or under the law on torts (s 826, German Civil Code (BGB)), and insofar as parallel protection as a company symbol exists, under s 12 of the German Civil Code (BGB).142 DE.118 According to the most recent case law handed down by both the CJEU and the German

Federal Supreme Court (BGH), the term ‘use as a trademark’ has to be given a far broader interpretation than it was under German case law prior to the entry into force of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG).143 Within the scope of application of s 14(2)(3) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG), an assumption of ‘use as a trademark’ will be made where the trademark is used in a way that may create the impression that there is a commercial connection between the other undertaking and the trademark proprietor.144

137  CJEU, Judgment of 14 September 1999, General Motors (C-375/97, ECR 1999 I-5421); Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 340, 341–Fabergé; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 428, 432–BIG BERTHA. 138  CJEU, Judgment of 14 September 1999, General Motors (C-375/97, ECR 1999 I-5421); Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 340, 341–Fabergé. 139  CJEU, Judgment of 14 September 1999, General Motors (C-375/97, ECR 1999 I-5421); Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 340, 341–Fabergé; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MarkenR 2004, 413, 416–Kinder/Kinderzeit. 140  Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.233. 141  Referring to Art 5(1) and (2) Trademark Directive cf. CJEU, Judgment of 23 February 1999, BMW (C-63/97, ECR 1999 I-905); with regard to s 14(2)(3) Germany Trademark Act: Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 583, 584–Lila-Postkarte. 142  Cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 687, 689–weltonline.de; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2006, 476–metrosex.de; Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR 2000, 519, 521–rolls-royce.de; Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, NJW-WettbR 1999, 626–ufa.de. 143  For further details see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.154. 144  CJEU, Judgment of 23 February 1999, BMW (C-63/97, ECR 1999 I-905); CJEU, Judgment of 23 October 2003, Adidas-Salomon and Adidas Benelux (C-408/01, ECR 2003 I-12537); CJEU, Judgment of 12 November 2002, Arsenal Football Club (C-206/01, ECR 2002 I-10273); Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 583, 584–Lila-Postkarte.

386

IV.  Trademark Infringement Through Domain Names Based on this understanding, a number of constellations in domain name conflicts in which DE.119 use as a trademark was questionable under the previous case law, will now automatically fall within the ambit of the term ‘use’ pursuant to s 14(2)(3) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG). In particular, this includes cases in which a third-party mark is used as a domain name for the purpose of criticizing a product or enterprise, in conjunction with a descriptive, especially pejorative addition (eg ‘awd-aussteiger.de’, ‘stoppesso.de’, etc), since trade circles and consumers will at least make an association with the relevant mark.145 The same has to apply where blatantly derogatory additions are used since, in that case, trade circles and consumers will not attribute the domain name to the trademark proprietor or presume that he granted his consent to such use, yet here again the association with the well-known trademark required by both the CJEU146 and the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH)147 will be made148 (regarding the question of the use of domain names as trademarks for the purpose of criticizing an enterprise or product within the scope of application of s 14(2)(2) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG), see para DE.95; on the justification for using a mark for the purpose of criticizing a business or product based on the fundamental rights of communication under Article 5 of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz), see para DE.132).

(c)  Exploitation or Impairment of Distinctive Character or Reputation (i)  Identity Between Trademark which has a Reputation and Domain Name  According DE.120 to the unanimous opinion of the lower-instance courts and the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH), the broader protection afforded to trademarks which have a reputation is also afforded against their use as a domain name. If the general public automatically attributes a certain domain name to the owner of an outstanding well-known trademark (the BGH came to this conclusion in a conflict between Shell Oil and a small company which used the domain name ‘shell.de’ for a website offering translation and text editing services),149 the requirements for a dilution of distinctive character will usually be satisfied. The requisite impairment of the advertising value of the well-known trademark does not lie in the fact that the website creates an association with the trademark holder but is considered by the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) to lie in the fact that use of the domain name entices the public interested in the Internet presence of the proprietor of the well-known trademark onto the wrong path and that the proprietor of the well-known trademark is prevented from using its trademark as an Internet address.150 This covers not only cases in which well-known trademarks are intentionally registered identi- DE.121 cally as domain names in order to channel traffic to the registrant’s own website or to so-called parking websites (cybersquatting), but also case constellations in which a domain name identical to a well-known trademark is used without any intent to obstruct or harm, for one’s own goods or services or for the purpose of criticizing a product or an enterprise (regarding the requirement of unfair use without good cause, see para DE.128). The mere fact that the domain name is identical to the well-known trademark will indicate unfair use.151 145  For a different view, see District Court Hamburg, MMR 2003, 53–stoppesso.de, which denies that the use of the domain name ‘stoppesso.de’ as a critisism site is ‘use as a trademark’. 146  CJEU, Judgment of 23 October 2003, Adidas-Salomon and Adidas Benelux (C-408/01, ECR 2003 I-12537). 147  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 583, 584–Lila-Postkarte. 148 District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 30 January 2002, Az. 2 a O 245/01, JurPC Web-Dok. 267/2002–scheiss-t-online.de, which applies s 14(2), (3)  German Trademark Act, without mentioning the requirement of ‘use as a trademark’. 149  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 622, 625–shell.de. 150  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 622, 625–shell.de, in a conflict between Shell Oil and a small company which used the domain name ‘shell.de’ for translation and text editing services. 151  District Court Hamburg, MMR 2000, 436, 437–luckystrike.de.

387

Germany (‘.de’) DE.122 (ii)  Use of a Trademark which has a Reputation as a Domain Name with Additions

or With Modified Spelling  Where a well-known trademark is used by a third party as a domain name with additions or with modified spelling, or if the domain name is not automatically attributed to the well-known trademark by trade circles and consumers, the decision as to whether or not one of the constituents of an infringement pursuant to s 14(2)(3) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) has been met will depend on the specific use made of the domain name.152

DE.123 An ‘exploitation of distinctive character’ comes into question where, as where the domain

name ‘1001buecher.de’ was used for an online bookstore,153 advantage is taken of the attention-grabbing effect inherent in the well-known trademark (‘Zweitausendeins’).154 The same offence can arise where a trademark is used in parody in a distorted form as a domain name (eg ‘lusthansa.de’), or where a domain name consisting of a well-known trademark and a descriptive term is used for the purpose of criticizing an enterprise or a product. This also holds true where the descriptive addition indicates that the domain name user is not the trademark proprietor, since in that case the attention-grabbing effect and hence an advertising communications advantage is also gained.155 However, in this context it is always important to examine whether, taking into account fundamental rights, namely freedom of speech and freedom of the press (Art 5, German Basic Law (Grundgesetz)), such use of the trademark can be considered ‘unfair use of a mark without due cause (see in this respect para DE.128).

DE.124 The distinctive character of a trademark is impaired (diluted) where use of the domain name

conveys associations with the well-known mark, thus impairing its advertising value. This requirement is always satisfied where a well-known trademark is registered with typical typing errors (typosquatting), since in that case the advertising value of the well-known trademark is harmed irrespective of the contents available under the domain name or the branch of industry simply because the public interested in the website presence of the proprietor of the well-known trademark is enticed onto the wrong path. If the domain name contains descriptive additions or additions with distinctive character or is otherwise distinguished from the well-known trademark, dilution of the distinctive character can only be affirmed if there is a significant impairment of the advertising value,156 which as a rule is the case only where the branches of industry are similar or where the trademark enjoys considerable notoriety.

DE.125 An examination of the constituents of exploitation or impairment of reputation definitely

has to take place on the basis of the general principles. Where, as in the case of use of ‘viaguara.de’ for advertising for an alcoholic drink157 or use of the domain name ‘aldireisen. de’ for advertising for a travel agency, there is an image transfer, that is, a shift of ideals to the infringer’s goods, use of the domain name can justify an accusation taking unfair advantage of the repute enjoyed by the well-known trademark.158 As a rule, however, a lack of similarity with the branch of industry159 and the use of an addition which has distinctive character160   For further details see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.247.   Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR 2001, 838, 841–1001buecher.de. 154  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1994, 808, 811–Markenverunglimpfung I. 155 District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 30 January 2002, Az. 2 a O 245/01, JurPC Web-Dok. 267/2002–scheiss-t-online.de; different view District Court Hamburg, MMR 2003, 53–stoppesso.de. 156  For further details see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.247. 157  Higher Regional Court Munich, PharmaR 2010, 528—Viagra and viaguara.de. 158  Higher Regional Court Hamm, Judgment of 1 April 2003, Az. 4 U 157/02–aldireisen.de; but cf. also Higher Regional Court Cologne, Judgment of 8 May 2002, Az. 6 U 195/01, JurPC Web-Dok. No 233/2002–citipost.de. 159  Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, GRUR 2000, 1063, 1065–Spee Fuchs. 160 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 992, 994–BIG PACK; Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, GRUR 2000, 1063, 1065. 152 153

388

IV.  Trademark Infringement Through Domain Names next to the well-known trademark will not lead to an assumption of exploitation of that mark’s reputation. Harming the reputation enjoyed by a well-known mark by using it as a domain name comes DE.126 into question where the domain name is used for a website with derogatory contents (eg pornographic contents) or where the domain name as such is distorted in a derogatory manner (eg ‘lusthansa.de’) or where obscene terms are added (eg ‘scheiss-t-online.de’, ‘walmartsucks. com’, etc.).161 In all the above-mentioned constellations the proprietor of the well-known trademark can DE.127 only demand cancellation of the domain name if any use whatsoever of the domain name constitutes unfair exploitation or an impairment of the distinctive character or repute of the well-known trademark so that mere registration of the domain name constitutes an infringement.162

(d)  Unfair Use Without Due Cause A  weighing of interests is required in order to establish whether there are circumstances DE.128 which justify the unfair advantage taken, in view of all circumstances relevant in the specific case at hand. Where the reputation of the trademark is impaired or unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character, the unfair nature is indicated and a claim will only fail in the face of grounds justifying such an attack on the well-known trademark.163 The impairment or exploitation of the distinctive character or reputation of a well-known DE.129 trademark through use of a domain name can be justified if the domain holder is able to invoke its own trademark rights or rights to a name, or if the specific use made of the domain name is covered by the fundamental rights of free speech or freedom of the press (Art 5(1), German Basic Law (Grundgesetz)).

(i)  Domain Holder has Own Trademark Rights or Other Industrial Property Rights in the Signs  Where the distinctive character or the reputation enjoyed by a trademark DE.130 are impaired or exploited by use of a domain name, the domain holder may justify such use by presenting proof of its own trademark rights or other industrial property rights to the disputed mark. Where the right to the surname of the domain holder is concerned, the conflict will be resolved according to the principles of identical family names (Recht der Gleichnamigen). According to these principles, the proprietor of the well-known trademark cannot demand that the bearer of the name abandon use of his or her surname as a business designation; however the proprietor may require the bearer of the name more recently used to make every effort to prevent any impairment or exploitation of the reputation or distinctive character of the trademark, or to reduce the impairment to an acceptable level, by adding clarifying terms.164 In principle, this obligation has to be imposed on a party using his or her name as a domain name.165 However, it does not necessarily mean that the person bearing the same name has to abandon that name as a domain name. Rather, a weighing of interests can require the domain holder to prevent or limit the impairment or exploitation of the distinctive character of the well-known trademark by explaining to Internet users on his or her home page that it is not the home page of the well-known trademark proprietor.166 The use of   Cf. also the UDRP decision overview in Part III para IIIE.339.   Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 888, 889–Euro Telekom. 163  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 583, 584–Lila-Postkarte. 164  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1966, 623, 625–Kupferberg. 165 With regard to outstanding well-known trademarks, Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 622, 626–shell.de; see also Higher Regional Court Hamm, CR 1998, 241–krupp.de; District Court Hamburg, MMR 2000, 620, 622–joop.de. 166  In this effect Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 622, 626–shell.de. 161 162

389

Germany (‘.de’) one’s own surname as a domain name without distinguishing additions is always an infringement in the sense of s 14(2)(3) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) where the domain name is identical to a trademark which is exceptionally well known167 (on the weighing of interests in cases concerning bearers of the same name within the context of s 14(2)(3) and s 15(3) of the German Trademark Act). DE.131 Where a domain holder is unable to rely on his or her surname but is entitled to use a

mark identical to a trademark which has a reputation as a trademark or company symbol, that domain holder is also entitled to use the mark as a domain name.168 The matter does not depend on which company holds senior rights to the mark in the sense of s 6(3) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG). An exception to this principles applies, as in the case of bearers of the same name, where a trademark is exceptionally well known or where use of the domain name is intended to realize an infringement falling within the ambit of s 14(2)(3) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG).

DE.132 (ii)  Due Cause Based on Fundamental Rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the

Press (Article 5 German Basic Law (GG))  If one assumes, on the basis of the broader sense of the term ‘use’ in more recent case law, that use of a domain name is use as a trademark in order to criticize an enterprise or a product and is therefore capable of damaging the reputation or exploiting the attention paid to a well-known trademark, then a further examination has to verify whether such use of the domain name is covered by freedom of speech or freedom of the press (Art 5(1), German Basic Law (GG)) such that the harm caused to the reputation or the exploitation of the attention cannot be considered ‘unfair use without good cause’ in the sense of s 14(2)(3) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG).

DE.133 As a matter of principle, the use of a domain name for the purpose of criticizing an enterprise

or a product is not covered by freedom of speech or freedom of the press where the domain name is identical to a well-known trademark. According to the prevailing opinion in theory and practice, freedom of speech and information under Article 5(1), first sentence, of the German Basic Law (GG) also applies to commercial statements of opinion insofar as they include evaluative and opinion-forming remarks.169 An enterprise therefore has to accept third parties invoking their fundamental right to free speech under Article 5(1), first sentence, German Basic Law (GG) or freedom of the press under Article 5(1), second sentence of the same Law for the purpose of a critical, disparaging or even polemic debate,170 even where the criticism also pursues economic interests. However, neither freedom of speech, freedom of information nor freedom of the press guarantee that a statement of opinion or information will be disseminated in the most effective manner possible.171 Hence an enterprise does not have to tolerate a domain name that is identical to a well-known trademark being registered by a third party in order to state views under the domain name, but may enforce claims for injunctive relief and cancellation against the identical registration and use of its trademark as a domain name, notwithstanding the specific contents concerned. Cases in which the domain name includes descriptive additions that do not indicate clearly whether it is attributable to the proprietor of the well-known trademark or is being used by a third

  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 622, 626–shell.de.   Higher Regional Court Frankfurt a.M. WRP 2000, 773 774–alcon.de. 169  Federal Constitutional Court, GRUR 2001, 170, 172–Schockwerbung; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 442–Benetton-Werbung II; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2001, 1058–Therapeutische Äquivalenz; Federal Constitutional Court, WRP 1997, 424, 426–Rauchen schadet der Gesundheit. 170  BVerfG 24, 278, 286; Federal Supreme Court NJW 1994, 124. 171  Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe NJW 1972, 1810, 1811. 167 168

390

IV.  Trademark Infringement Through Domain Names party have to be assessed accordingly.172 (Regarding the legal assessment under s 12, German Civil Code (BGB), where acts outside the course of trade are concerned, see para DE.18.) Use of the trademark can be covered by freedom of speech or freedom of the press if the DE.134 domain name makes it clear due to descriptive or pejorative additions that it is not attributable to the proprietor of the well-known trademark as an indication of origin, but, rather, is being used by a third party for the purpose of criticizing an enterprise or a product. The necessary weighing of interests in order to find the right balance between the fundamental right of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and the proprietary rights to the trademark which are protected under constitutional law pursuant to Article 14 of the German Basic Law (GG) according to the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), has to take into consideration that use of the trademark as a component of a domain name is not necessary in order to enter into a critical or satirical debate with the trademark proprietor on the Internet. However, this issue is not decisive when weighing the interests concerned. Recourse to the right of free speech or freedom of the press is not subject to a general caveat of the principle of necessity.173 In the interest of easier recollection and detection, it is general practice to use domain names for products and information offered on the Internet which describe the relevant products or information. This option must also be available to a party that takes up a critical or satirical debate about certain business practices, an enterprise or a product, while at the same time pursuing commercial purposes.174 This assessment can change where the criticism is made exclusively or predominantly for commercial purposes, or where the domain name contains defamatory additions.175

(6) Remedies for Infringement (a)  Injunctive Relief (Section 14(5) German Trademark Act (MarkenG)) Unlawful use of a domain name in the sense of s 14(2) to (4) of the German Trademark Act DE.135 (MarkenG) gives rise to a claim for injunctive relief accruing to the trademark proprietor under s 14(5) of the same Act insofar there is a risk of repeated offences (regarding the prerequisites for the risk of repeated offences, see para DE.302). If an act of infringement has not yet taken place but has to be seriously and immediately expected (risk of first offence, see para DE.303), then the trademark proprietor has a preventive claim for injunctive relief. In both cases the claim for injunctive relief is not dependent on fault, that is, it does not depend on whether or not the domain holder was or could have been aware of the infringed trademark at the time the domain name was registered (regarding enforcement of the claim for injunctive relief in court, see para DE.301; regarding capacity to be sued, see para DE.296). Like other claims based on the infringement of a trademark, the claim for injunctive relief DE.136 under s 14(5) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) against the unlawful use of a domain name is directed against the specific form of the infringement or essentially the

172  See Higher Regional Court Hamburg, Decision of 31 May 2007, Az. 327 O 332/07–firmennameblog. de, regarding claims based on s 12 Civil Code in a case concerning a non-commercial criticism site; differentiating Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), MMR 2002, 686–oil-of-elf.de, concerning claims of the oil company Elf Oil based on the protection of names pursuant to s 12 German Civil Code against the use of the domain ‘oil-of-elf.de’ for a non-commercial criticism site by Greenpeace. 173  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1979, 564, 566–Metall-Zeitung. 174  See Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2005, 118–awd-aussteiger.de, which denies trademark infringement on the grounds that the use of the domain name ‘awd-aussteiger.de’ (=awd-dropout.de) was not used as a trademark; District Court Bremen ZUM-RD 2003, 360–bsagmeckerseite.de, which denies trademark infringement because the use of the domain name ‘bsagmeckerseite.de’ for a criticism site by a forum of clients of BSAG (Tramway Bremen) did not cause a risk of confusion. 175 District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 30 January 2002, Az. 2 a O 245/01, JurPC Web-Dok. 267/2002–scheiss-t-online.

391

Germany (‘.de’) same infringements. As a rule the trademark proprietor cannot resort to a blanket ban, that is, injunctive relief against use of the domain name without specifying the goods or services to which the risk of a first or repeated offence relates (eg ‘to use the domain name….de in the course of trade’), within the scope of application of s 14(2)(1)–(3) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG), since it is still possible that the domain name will be used in a manner that does not give rise to a likelihood of confusion in the sense of s 14(2)(2) or to unfair exploitation or dilution of the distinctive character or reputation of the trademark.176

(b)  Transfer of a Domain Name DE.137 In contrast to the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) as a matter

of principle, the trademark proprietor under German trademark law does not have a claim for transfer of the infringing domain name (see in this respect the remarks at para DE.177).

(c)  Cancellation of the Domain Name DE.138 According to the unanimous opinion adopted by the courts of the lower instances177 and

parts of the literature,178 in addition to a claim for injunctive relief, the trademark proprietor is to have a claim for cancellation of the infringing domain name in the main proceedings. Claims for cancellation are rightly denied by the majority of lower-instance courts in proceedings for a preliminary injunction since an order to cancel the offending domain name would anticipate the main proceedings if the domain name were registered by a third party after being cancelled, thus resulting in a permanent loss of rights.179

DE.139 Where a trademark is infringed in the sense of s 14(2)(1)–(3) of the German Trademark Act

(MarkenG) by the use of a domain name in relation to specific goods or services, there is generally no basis for a claim for cancellation. The reason is that, other than trademarks, a domain name does not refer to a product or branch of industry, so that it is possible for the domain name to be used outside the sphere of similarity of products in a manner which no longer gives cause for complaint. Since the grant of a claim for cancellation of the domain name also excludes possible lawful acts of use, it goes beyond product-related trademark protection and hence goes beyond what is necessary in order to remove the impairment of the infringed trademark.

DE.140 Consequently, a claim for cancellation in addition to a claim for injunctive relief is only justi-

fied if the use of the domain name, irrespective of the goods or services offered at the website available under the domain name, amounts to an infringement, that is, that the use of the domain name outside similarity of goods and services or trade proximity amounts to an infringement of the trademark.180 The latter only comes into question where an infringement

  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, NJOZ 2005, 4080, 4048–metrosex.de.   Higher Regional Court Munich, MMR 2000, 104–rolls-royce.de; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-RR 2002, 100, 102–derrick.de; Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, MMR 2000, 424–weideglueck.de; Higher Regional Court Hamm, CR 2002, 217, 219–veltins.com; Higher Regional Court Munich, MMR 2001, 381–kuecheonline.de; Higher Regional Court Munich, MMR 1998, 668, 670–freundin.de; Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, WRP 1999, 343–ufa.de; Higher Regional Court Stuttgart, MMR, 1998, 543–steiff.com; District Court Frankfurt a.M., CR 1997, 287, 288–das.de; District Court Braunschweig, CR 1998, 364, 367–deta.com; District Court Mannheim, K&R 1998, 558, 560–brockhaus.de; District Court Munich I, ZUM-RD 2002, 105–fordboerse.de; District Court Mannheim, MMR 2000, 47–nautilus; District Court Berlin, K&R 1998, 557–technomed.de; District Court Hamburg, MMR 2000, 620–joop.de. 178  For references see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.272. 179 Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, CR 2001, 412–mediafacts.de; Higher Regional Court Hamm, MMR 2001, 695. 180  Cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 888, 889–Euro Telekom; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2009, 685 para 36–ahd.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2010, GRUR 235 para 24–AIDA/AIDU; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 304, 305–Basler Haar-Kosmetik; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, Judgment of 12 April 2007, Az. 312 O 332/06–original-nordmann.eu. 176 177

392

V.  The Infringement of Company Symbols by Domain Names of an outstanding well-known trademark is concerned (überragend bekannte Marke), where trade circles and consumers automatically attribute the domain name in dispute to the infringed, well-known trademark since in that case the distinctive character of the trademark in the sense of s 14(2)(3) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) is impaired simply because a third party entices the interested public onto a false path by using the domain name, irrespective of the contents available under such name, thus excluding the trademark proprietor from use of its own mark as a domain name.181 (Regarding the special protection of well-known trademarks against use as domain names, see para DE.114.) The mere fact that a legal person under commercial law always acts in the course of trade does not justify the assumption that use of the domain name always amounts to an infringement of the trademark and hence gives rise to a claim for cancellation182 (but see para DE.163 in cases where the trademark is identical to the company name, which falls within the scope of the protection of ‘names’ according to s 12 Civil Code and gives right to a cancellation of a domain name if the domain name registered under the top-level domain ‘.de’ is identical to the company name and if the domain holder has no rights of his own to the name).

(d)  Damages (Section 14(6) German Trademark Act (MarkenG)) In addition to claims for injunctive relief and cancellation, a trademark proprietor whose DE.141 trademark has been infringed is entitled to claim compensation from the domain holder for the damage sustained through the trademark infringement pursuant to s 14(6) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG). The claim for damages requires that the infringement was intentional or grossly negligent.

V.  The Infringement of Company Symbols by Domain Names (1)  General Principles Section 15 of the Trademark Act regulates the rights to which the holder of a company name DE.142 or other business designation within the meaning of s 5 of the Act is entitled if it is used by third parties. It addresses infringing signs of all kinds, hence also the infringing use of a company name as a domain name. Since the protection of company names is not based on the requirements of the European Trademark Directive, both the standard for the acquisition of a company name under s 5 of the Trademark Act and the infringement provision of s 15 of the Act can be determined autonomously by the German legislature. For the purpose of the ‘unity of trademark law’, the preconditions for the protection of commercial designations is, however, now assessed by the Federal Supreme Court on the basis of the legal principles of the judicial practice of the CJEU that are binding for registered trademarks and community marks.183

(2) Infringing Use of a Company Symbol When a company symbol is used as a domain name, established judicial practice assumes DE.143 that a domain name is as a matter principle capable of referring to the company’s commercial origin and business activity, and that the use of the domain name for a website offering goods and services is to be assessed as being used as a source identifier.184

181  On the basis of these criteria, the Federal Supreme Court considers the use of the domain name ‘shell. de’ to be detrimental to the distinctive character of the well-known trademark SHELL. 182  Cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 888, 889–Euro Telekom. 183  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2001, 344–DB Immobilienfond. 184  Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), ZUM 2001, 74, 75–berlin-online.de; Higher Regional Court Munich, MMR 1999, 547–buecher.de.

393

Germany (‘.de’) DE.144 The use of a domain name cannot be considered as infringing if the domain name is used

to describe the goods and services offered on the website or to criticise the product or the company. The principles applicable in this respect correspond to those that have already been set out in connection with the infringing use of registered trademarks pursuant to s 14 Trademark Act. Reference can therefore be made to the general statements made there that also apply to the infringement of company symbols (on the descriptive use of a domain name, see para DE.85; on the use of a trademark as a domain name for company and product criticism, see para DE.90). On claims based on the protection of company names pursuant to s 12 Civil Code, see para DE.157.

DE.145 In addition, there are a number of Internet-specific forms of the use of domain names in

which use as a means of identification is problematic. These include in particular the mere registration of a domain name, the use of the domain name for a website under construction, the use of the domain name to redirect or as an e-mail address, the use of a sign as third-level domain or as an element of a URL datapath and the implementation of what is known as a catch-all function. The principles relevant here likewise correspond to those that apply to the cases of trademark infringement pursuant to s 14 Trademark Act, with the result that reference can be made to the explanations there (see paras DE.67 to DE.71).

(3) Use in the Course of Trade DE.146 The infringement constellation of s 15 of the Trademark Act protects company names and

other company symbols only against uses made in the course of trade. If a domain name is registered and used outside the course of trade, there may be protection pursuant to s 12 of the Civil Code which protects company names against unauthorised commercial or non-commercial use, or on the basis of the principles of tortious liability pursuant to ss 823 and 826 of the Code (on protection under s 12 Civil Code, see para DE.157; on protection pursuant to ss 823 and 826 of the Civil Code, see para DE.250).

DE.147 The distinction between the use of a sign in the course of trade and private or other

non-commercial uses of a sign is subject to the same principles as the infringement of trademarks by registering and using domain names. Accordingly, reference can be made to the comment on this under para DE.79.

(4) Likelihood of Confusion (Section 15(2), Trademark Act) (a)  General Principles DE.148 The protection of company symbols against a likelihood of confusion pursuant to s 15(2) of

the Trademark Act is, like trademark protection, dependent on all the relevant circumstances, and in particular on the three elements to be assessed: the distinctive character of the older sign, the identity or similarity of the conflicting designations, and the distance between the fields of activity of the parties (trade similarity).185 These factors are interdependent so that a lower degree of recognition on the market or reduced distinctive character of a company symbol and a lower degree of similarity between the signs can be compensated by a greater commercial proximity of the fields of activity, and vice versa.186 Accordingly, reference can be made to the comment under para DE.95.

185  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 61–ComputNet/ComNet II; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 898, 900–defacto.de. 186  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 635 METRO/ROLLER; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2010, 738, 742 Peek & Cloppenburg; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2009, 685, 687—ahd.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 898, 900–defacto; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 492, 494–Altberliner; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2001, 1161, 1162–CompuNet/ComNet.

394

V.  The Infringement of Company Symbols by Domain Names The determination of distinctive character requires consideration of all the circumstances of DE.149 the individual case. Although the law on company names is not harmonized law, for reasons of the ‘unity of trademark law’ the criteria applied are those developed by the CJEU in the Lloyd decision187 concerning the assessment of the distinctive character of registered trademarks (for details see para DE.99). In contrast, there is no likelihood of confusion between a company name based on a generic DE.150 term or an objective indication for which there is a legitimate interest in free use and a domain name used as a generic term or objective indication.

(b)  Identity and Similarity of Signs The general practical principles used by the CJEU and the Federal Supreme Court when DE.151 comparing signs under the protection of trademarks pursuant to s 14 Trademark Law also apply as a matter of principle to the protection of company symbols (see para DE.105).188 As within the framework of s 14(2) No 2 of the Trademark Act, the assumption is that DE.152 the public merely attaches functional significance to the top-level domain and therefore the examination of similarity must only compare the second-level domain with the older company symbol, and should leave out of account both a generic top-level domain189 and the country code top-level domain ‘.de’190 and foreign country code top-level domains.191 The same also applies to the further elements of the URL ‘www’ or ‘http’.192 As an element of a company name, where the use of a top-level domain is still unusual in the course of trade, the attachment of a TLD to a company keyword can however contribute to creating or strengthening distinctive character.193 The decisive element for the examination of similarity between a company symbol and a DE.153 domain name is the principle that prevails in trademark law generally, that the individual elements of the conflicting word marks or combination work marks must not be regarded in isolation but instead the conflicting signs are as a matter of principle to be assessed on the basis of their overall acoustic, visual and conceptual impression.194 Special features as compared with the trademark law assessment of the similarity of signs in DE.154 the case of claims based on s 15(2) of the Trademark Act result from the fact that a distinctive element of a company designation can claim the protection derived from the protection as business symbol that is enjoyed by the company name as a whole within the meaning of s 5(2)   CJEU, Judgment of 22 June 1999, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer (C-342/97, ECR 1999 I-3819).   Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.338. 189  District Court Cologne MMR 2000, 625–wdr.org; regarding the use of the top-level domain (‘.de’) as part of a second-level domain see Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR 2000, 518, 519–buecherde.com; District Court Hamburg, JurPC Web-Dok. 43/2000–xtra.net, regarding the risk of confusion between the domain name ‘xtra.net’ and the trademark ‘Xtranet’. 190 Cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 262–soco.de; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2006, 226–combit/kompit.de; Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR-RR 2002, 107, 108–mbp.de; Higher Regional Court Cologne, GRUR-RR 2003, 40, 41–night loop; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2001, 612, 614–startup.de; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-RR 2002, 100, 102–derrick.de; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2002, 682, 683–siehan.de; Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe MMR 1999, 171, 172–zwilling.de; see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.338. 191  District Court Hamburg, MMR 2005, 190–sartorius.at; where a foreign top-level domain is used, however, each case must be examined to determine whether the website accessible under the domain name has a sufficient domestic reference. 192  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2006, 476–metrosex.de; Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR-RR 2002, 107–mbp.de. 193  Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR 2000, 518–buecherde.com. 194  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 235, 237–Davidoff II; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 240–MIDAS/medAS; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 1047, 1049–Kellogg’s/Kelly. 187 188

395

Germany (‘.de’) of the Trademark Act. This is the case even where there is no separate use and no secondary meaning, if this element is, in comparison with the other elements of the company name, capable of prevailing in the trade as a keyword-like reference to the company.195 In such a case, the examination of the identity or similarity of the company symbols is as a matter of principle to be based on the element of the company symbol that enjoys separate protection.196 DE.155 Applying these principles, a similarity of signs was upheld between:

− ‘METRO’ and ‘metrosex.de’, ‘metrosexuality.de’, and ‘metro-sex.de’;197 − ‘defacto marketing GmbH’ and ‘defacto.de’;198 − ‘Soco’ as company keyword and ‘soco.de’;199 − ‘L.I.T. Logistik-Information-Transport-Beratungs- und Speditions GmbH’ and ‘lit.de’;200 − ‘Sieh an! Handelsgesellschaft mbH’ and ‘siehan.de’;201 − ‘Nazar Holiday Reiseveranstaltung GmbH’ and ‘nazar.de’;202 − ‘Vallendar-Brennereitechnik GmbH’ and ‘vallendar.de’;203 and − ‘Deta-Akkumulatorenwerk GmbH’ and ‘deta.com’.204

(c)  Trade Proximity DE.156 According to established judicial practice, the likelihood of confusion within the meaning of

s 15(2) of the Trademark Act requires both the similarity of the signs and that there is a certain trade proximity between the fields of activity of the conflicting companies. This requirement is intended to ensure that the conflicting signs are actually capable of encountering each other on the market to a significant extent and that, in the light of the goods, relevant parts of the public at least expect there to be business relationships between the parties. However, the requirement of trade proximity does not require there to be a competitive relationship between the parties, or the goods and services supplied by them to be similar within the meaning of s 14(2) of the Trademark Act.205

(5) Supplementary Name Law Protection of Company Names against the Registration and Use of Domain Names (Section 12 Civil Code) DE.157 The holder of a commercial designation which is distinctive and functions as a name (com-

pany name and abbreviations thereof ), is as a matter of principle also entitled to a name right under s 12 of the Civil Code,206 protecting him against a third party’s unauthorized commercial or non-commercial use of the name207 (see the wording of s 12 of the Civil Code at DE.17).

195  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 65, 67–Impuls; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 898, 900–defacto; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 262–soco.de. 196 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 898, 900–defacto; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 262–soco.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2001, 1161, 1162 f.–CompuNet/ComNet. 197  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2008, 912, 913–Metrosex 198  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 898, 900–defacto. 199  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 262–soco.de. 200  District Court Frankfurt a.M., MMR 1998, 151–lit.de. 201  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2002, 682, 683–siehan.de. 202  District Court Düsseldorf, NJW-RR 1999, 623, 624–nazar.de. 203  Higher Regional Court Koblenz MMR 2002, 466, 467–vallendar.de. 204  Higher Regional Court Rostock, K&R 2000, 303–mueritz-online.de. 205 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 635–METRO/ROLLER; Federal Supreme Court GRUR 2009, 484, 490–METROBUS; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 898 – defacto. 206  See para DE.17 for a translation of s 12, German Civil Code. 207  In contrast, no claims can be derived from s 12 of the Civil Code if a sign asserted is purely a product designation that is merely protected as a trademark or work title.

396

V.  The Infringement of Company Symbols by Domain Names Judicial practice assumes that the use or registration of a domain name constitutes the unau- DE.158 thorized use of a name if: (1) the use of a name is not vested, that is, the user of the name has no right of his own to the name or can rely on the right of a third party; (2) the use of the name leads to a risk of false attribution; and (3) the legitimate interests of the holder of the name are impaired. With regard to domain names, irrespective of goods and services for which the domain name DE.159 is used, the preconditions for an unauthorized use of a name are always satisfied if the domain name used or registered under the top-level domain ‘.de’ is identical to another’s company name and if the domain holder has no rights of his own to the name.208 Since the public regards a domain name as a reference to the holder of the name, according DE.160 to the established case law of the Federal Supreme Court the use of a domain name that is identical to a third party’s company name leads to false attribution affecting the rights holder even if the Internet user notices when looking at the home page that he has not reached the Internet page of the holder of the name. Furthermore, the registration or use of a domain name which is identical to company name by someone who has no rights of his own to the name, also impairs the legitimate interests of the holder of the name as the holder of the company name is prevented from using his company name as a domain name, thus denying him a the possibility of contacting Internet users and communicating the offer of his products by means of a domain name that corresponds to his business symbol.209 A precondition for the assumption of the unauthorized use of the name in the above-mentioned DE.161 sense is, however, that the company name already existed before the registration by the domain holder. If the right to the company name is only created after the registration of the domain name, the balancing of interests should as a rule be to the benefit of the domain holder.210 The right in a company name or other industrial property right in a sign arising subsequently thus as a rule does not, within the scope of s 12 Civil Code, prevail against a domain registration made previously. It is only in the case of an abuse of the law that the domain holder should be prevented from relying on his rights resulting from the registration, for example, if the domain holder registered the domain name without a serious intention to use it in order to sell it to the holder of a corresponding sign right. The application of s 12 of the Civil Code to the use of domain names outside the scope of DE.162 protection of the company name against a likelihood of confusion constitutes a significant expansion of protection of company names against the registration and use of domain names.

208  According to judicial practice, filling the gap by recourse to s 12 of the Civil Code is only justified if the company symbol and the domain name are completely identical. If the domain name differs even only slightly from the company symbol, s 12 of the Civil Code cannot be used outside the scope of protection of the company name since the domain registration in such a case does not prevent the holder of the company symbol from registering the company symbol as a domain name. 209  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 304, 305–Basler Haar-Kosmetik; it has not been finally clarified whether the above-mentioned principles also apply if a domain name is registered under a generic TLD. However, in its ‘Solingen.info’ decision, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the city of Solingen’s name law claims against the registration of its name by an unauthorized party under the generic top-level domain ‘.info’. This suggests that the judicial practice developed by the Federal Supreme Court on the supplementary application of s 12 of the Civil Code can also apply to the infringement of business symbols in individual cases where a domain name has been registered under the generic top-level domains; to this effect Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 259–solingen.info; see also Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), MMR 2007, 600–teschechische-republik.at/.ch/.com. 210  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2008, 1099–afilias.de, para 33; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 304, 306–Basler Haar-Kosmetik.

397

Germany (‘.de’) DE.163 Even if a domain name which is identical to a company name is merely registered or used

outside the course of trade, on the basis of s 12 of the Civil Code the holder of a company name can claim the cancellation of the registration of the domain name if the domain holder cannot rely on his own right or the right of a third party.211

DE.164 If the domain holder wishes to avoid actions for an injunction and cancellation, he must

prove that at the time of the registration of the domain he himself was already entitled to a company symbol or other name right212 or a trademark or work title to the sign213 from which the domain name is formed. If this is not the case, the registration of a domain name that is identical to a company name as a matter of principle constitutes an infringing use of the name within the meaning of s 12 Civil Code. This applies even if the domain name corresponding to the company name is used for purposes of company or product criticism. Although a company must accept third parties addressing it critically, negatively, or even polemically in reliance on their fundamental right to freedom of opinion based on Article 5(1), first sentence of the Constitution,214 it is not obliged to accept the opinion being expressed under a domain name that is identical to its name. Article 5(1), first sentence of the Constitution, namely, does not grant a right to an expression of opinion being disseminated in the most effective manner.215

DE.165 The significant expansion of the protection of company names against the registration and

use of identical domain names by the jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court has been restricted to some extent in a more recent decision.

DE.166 In a decision concerning a conflict between the Marienhospital Osnabrück which used the

acronym MHO as a company symbol and an advertising agency which claimed to have used the domain name ‘mho.de’ for the construction of a database system for clients (where MHO would be the abbreviation of ‘Media House Osnabrück’) but had not yet provided evidence of any rights in the business symbol ‘mho.de’ or ‘MHO’, the Federal Supreme Court came to the conclusion that in exceptional cases, the subsequent acquisition of the right can be

211 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 622–shell.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 897–maxem.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 430, 431–mho.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2008, 1099–afilias.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 304, 305–Basler Haar-Kosmetik. 212 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 430–mho.de; Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 155, 273, 275–maxem.de, regarding claims based on s 12 German Civil Code against the private use of a domain name; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2006, 158–segnitz.de. 213  Admittedly, the Federal Supreme Court has as yet not determined whether the domain holder can rely on rights to a work title or a trademark right or a trademark application in defence against claims based on s 12 of the Civil Code. The assumption that the domain holder can raise rights to a trademark or a work title against claims based on s 12 of the Civil Code is supported by the fact that the holders of these rights also have a legitimate interest in their use as domain names and there is no occasion for denying them a right to register and use their trademarks or work titles as domain names outside the prohibition constellations of s 15(2) and (3) of the Trademark Act. 214  Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfGE 24, 278, 286; Federal Supreme Court, NJW 1994, 124. 215  Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe, NJW 1972, 1810, 1811; District Court Frankfurt a.M., MMR 2004, 113, 114–mormonen.de; claims based on s 12 Civil Code for an injunction and cancellation were rejected in the case of the use of the domain names ‘awd-aussteiger.de’ for a customer forum targeted against the financial services provider AWD, and ‘bsagmeckerseite.de’ for a customer forum directed against the Bremen local transport enterprise BSAG; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2005, 117–awd-aussteiger.de (in this case claims were not based on s 12 of the Civil Code but on ss 824 and 826 of the Civil Code on the grounds of an infringement of company personality rights as the domain holder used a number of comparable domain names for purposes of criticizing AWD); Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), MMR 2002, 686–oil-of-elf.de, on the use of the domain name ‘oil-of-elf.de’ by Greenpeace for a website for a criti­ cal discussion about drilling for oil by ‘Elf Oil’ in Russia; cf. however, District Court Düsseldorf, decision of 30 January 2002, Az. 2 a O 245/01, JurPC Web-Dok. 267/2002–scheiss-t-online.de; District Court Bremen, ZUM-RD 2003, 360–bsagmeckerseite.de.

398

V.  The Infringement of Company Symbols by Domain Names sufficient if the registration of the domain name constitutes the first step in the course of the commencement of a corresponding use as a company symbol, the registration of the trademark or the acquisition of a work title.216 This ruling is based on the consideration that the holder of an identical company symbol can in general not prevent the acquisition of a right in a company in a different trade sector upon the commencement of use. Once such a right has arisen, the registration of the corresponding domain name must also be accepted. Since it is reasonable commercial practice to secure the corresponding domain name before starting use of a company symbol, the result of the necessary balancing of interest is that a registration immediately preceding the acquisition of a sign right cannot be regarded as the unauthorised use of the name.217 The protection of company names against the registration and use of identical domain names DE.167 pursuant to s 12 of the Civil Code has an important effect in practice in cases where domains have been registered for purely speculative reasons (eg for sale or for pay-per-click advertisements). Since the registration of a domain name which is identical to a company name in the ccTLD ‘.de’ already constitutes an unauthorized use of the company name, the latter can assert claims to an injunction and cancellation against the registration and use of a domain name which has been registered for the purpose of sale or on speculation if the domain name is identical to the company name. If the domain holder who at the time of registration is not entitled to any rights in the corresponding string wishes to avoid an action for an injunction and cancellation, he must use the domain name in a way that establishes protection as a commercial designation within the meaning of s 5(2), first sentence of the Trademark Act or as a name within the meaning of s 12 of the Civil Code.

(6) Conflicts between Companies’ Names which Consist of Identical Family Names According to the judicial practice of the Federal Supreme Court, the holder of an older DE.168 industrial property right in a sign which corresponds to his family name must tolerate the use of the family name in a more recent company symbol in the course of trade despite the likelihood of confusion if the more recent name holder has a legitimate interest in the use, acts honestly and within the limits of what is reasonable, and does what is appropriate and necessary to prevent confusion as far as possible. What is necessary and reasonable in terms of clarifying additions in the individual case in order to prevent a likelihood of confusion is to be determined in each case on the basis of a comprehensive balancing of interests. This can mean that the party with older priority must accept an unavoidable residual likelihood of confusion.218 These general principles applicable to identical names also apply to the use of domain DE.169 names.219 The more recent name holder is therefore as a matter of principle entitled to use his family or other name as a domain name provided that, within the limits of what is reasonable, he does everything necessary and appropriate to prevent confusion. If the more recent holder of the name was entitled to use his name without distinctive addi- DE.170 tions, the owner of the prior right in the name cannot take measures against the registration of his name as a domain name by a company which also consist of a family name, either in

216 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 430–mho.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 304, 306–Basler Haar Kosmetik. 217 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 430–mho.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 304, 306–Basler Haar Kosmetik. 218  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2013, 638–Völkl; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2010, 738–Peek & Cloppenburg. 219  For further details and references see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.418.

399

Germany (‘.de’) the form of a claim for an injunction or in the form of a claim to distinctive additions. If on the other hand, the holder of the name is obliged to use his name in the course of trade only with a distinctive addition, he must also take account of the interests of the older priority when selecting the domain name and do everything necessary and appropriate to prevent the likelihood of confusion. This obligation to take account can be satisfied by the more recent holder attaching a distinctive addition to his name in the Internet address.220 The balancing of the interests of the parties involved to be applied in cases of identical names can, however, also require that the more recent holder of the name is not prohibited from using the domain name without distinctive additions but instead is merely required to declare on the home page of his online presentation that the website is not the site of the holder of the identical name with prior rights and—if the other holder of the name is interested in such an indication—stating in addition under which URL this site is available on the Internet.221 DE.171 This does not, however, mean that the holder of the prior rights is always required to use dif-

ferentiating indications on the website. In particular, where the trade sectors are the same and the older sign enjoys a greater reputation, the balancing of interests can also mean that the more recent bearer of the name is to be prohibited entirely from using his name as a domain name in the course of trade without differentiating additions.222

DE.172 As a matter of principle the holder of the prior rights in a name is not entitled to a claim

to the cancellation of the domain name, since the holder of a family name has a legitimate interest in the use of the corresponding domain name for private purposes.

(7) Remedies (a)  Claim to an Injunction (Section 15(4) Trademark Act) DE.173 Where a company symbol has been used as a domain name unlawfully pursuant to s 15(2) and (3) of the Trademark Act, the holder of the sign is entitled to a claim to an injunction pursuant to s 15(4) of the Act if there is a risk of repeated offences (on the preconditions for a risk of repeated offences see para DE.302). If the infringement has not yet been committed but is genuinely and imminently expected (risk of a first offence), the holder of the sign can enforce a preventive claim for injunctive relief (on the procedural enforcement of claims to an injunction see para DE.322). DE.174 Like claims based on the infringement of a trademark pursuant to s 14 German Trademark

Act, the claim for injunctive relief under s 15(4) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) against the unwful use of a domain name is directed against the specific form of the infringement or essentially the same infringements. As a rule the proprietor of the company symbol cannot resort to a blanket ban, that is, injunctive relief against use of the domain name without specifying the trade sector to which the risk of a first or repeated offence relates (eg ‘to use the domain name….de in the course of trade’), within the scope of application of s 15(2) and (3) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG), since it is still possible that the domain name will be used in a manner that does not give rise to a likelihood of confusion pursuant to s 15(2)(2) or to unfair exploitation or dilution of the distinctive character or reputation of the trademark pursuant to s 15(3) German Trademark Act.223

220  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 706, 707–vossius.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 898, 900–defacto. 221  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 706, 707–vossius.de. 222  See Hamburg Superior Regional Court, 2004 GRUR-RR 78, 79–holzmann-bauberatung.de, which in the dispute between Philip Holzmann AG and the proprietor of a one-man company with the name ‘Holzmann’ concerning the domain name ‘holzmann-bauberatung.de’ not only ordered that differentiating indications be used on the home page but also that the use of the domain name as such was unlawful. 223  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, NJOZ 2005, 4080, 4048–metrosex.de.

400

VI.  Infringement of Work Titles by Domain Names (Section 15, Trademark Act) (b)  Cancellation of the Domain Name If a domain name is identical to a company name, a violation of the right in the company DE.175 name pursuant to s 12 Civil Code occurs if the domain holder can rely neither on a right of his own to the symbol or the name nor on that of a third party, since in such a case the very registration of the domain name of itself establishes a violation of the name.224 The same also applies if an identical domain name is used outside the scope of protection of the company name (that is, private use of the domain name or use outside the trade similarity (see para DE.147)). If the domain holder has rights of his own to the name or the sign that is identical to the domain name, there can only be a claim to cancellation where the company symbol enjoys an outstanding reputation, since only then can the business use of the domain name be prohibited pursuant to s 15(3) of the Trademark Act and the private use pursuant to s 12 of the Civil Code, and only then, consequently, does the registration of such constitutes an infringement of the right.225 If the company symbol and the domain name are not identical, a claim to cancellation can DE.176 only be established if every possible use of the domain name, even if in the field of a different trade, establishes an infringement of the right (eg a deliberate impediment within the meaning of s 3, 4 No 10 of the German Act Against Unfair Competition, or intentional damage contrary to public policy within the meaning of s 826 of the Civil Code).226 The holder of the infringed company symbol is as a matter of principle not entitled to DE.177 demand the transfer of the infringing domain.

(c)  Damages (Section 15(5) Trademark Act) Alongside the claims to an injunction and elimination, the holder of the infringed com- DE.178 pany symbol can be entitled to a claim against the domain holder pursuant to s 15(5) in conjunction with s 14(6) of the Trademark Act for compensation for the damage incurred through the infringement of the company symbol. This requires the infringement to have been committed deliberately or negligently. On the calculation of damages and procedural enforcement see para DE.308.

VI.  Infringement of Work Titles by Domain Names (Section 15, Trademark Act) (1)  Likelihood of Confusion (Section 15 of the Trademark Act) Since in general work titles only serve to distinguish one work from another without any DE.179 indication of the producer or the proprietor of the work and hence an indication of a specific commercial origin,227 they are as a rule only protected against a direct likelihood of confusion in the narrow sense, that is, against the use of an identical or similar work title for the

224  But see also Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 430–mho.de, which states that the subsequent acquisition of the right can be sufficient if the registration of the domain name constitutes the first step in the course of the commencement of a corresponding use as a company symbol, the registration of the trademark or the acquisition of a work title. 225  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 622, 624–shell.de; Higher Regional Court Hamm, NJW-RR 1998, 909, 910–krupp.de; District Court Hamburg, MMR 2000, 620, 623–joop.de. 226  Cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 888, 889–Euro Telekom. 227  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 235, 237–Wheels Magazine; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2000, 504, 505–FACTS.

401

Germany (‘.de’) same work category.228 (On the preconditions for protection of work titles, see above para DE.164.) DE.180 The use of the work title for a different category of work (eg book on the one hand, and

television programme on the other hand) only constitutes an infringement of the rights in a work title if the work title, due to its strong distinctiveness, goes beyond the normal function as a work title and could also be perceived as a reference to the producer of the work.

DE.181 These principles also apply to conflicts between work titles and domain names. If the title

of a newspaper or a journal is used as a domain name for an online newspaper, blog, or information portal with similar content, such use would be regarded as use for a similar work category, despite the different marketing form and get-up of the online journal, blog or information portal. The fact that the journal under the work title with older priority has previously only been disseminated in printed form is not in conflict with the assumption of a proximity of the works and hence a direct likelihood of confusion, since in the meantime it has almost become the rule for printed versions of newspapers or journals to be accompanied by an Internet version under the same name, and therefore print and online editions of newspapers, blogs, or information portals are regarded by the public as identical or at least immediately adjoining work categories.229 A direct likelihood of confusion in the narrower sense (confusion of works) has therefore been assumed by the lower courts between: – the title ‘Motorradmarkt’ of an advertising sheet for motorcycles and accessories and the domain name ‘Motorradmarkt.de’, under which motorcycle and motorcycle accessory advertisements were published;230 – the title ‘Bautip’ for a journal with information on advertising for private house builders and the domain name ‘Bautip.de’, which was used for an information portal with information and advertising in the same field;231 and – the title ‘Mediafacts’ of a journal supplement for information in the media sector and an Internet portal with the same content under the domain name ‘mediafacts.de’.232

DE.182 An immediate likelihood of confusion in the narrower sense also exists between the titles of

online portals:

– ‘babynet.de’ of a parent information service on the Internet and a website containing information on the topic of small children and offers for children’s clothing and toys under the domain name ‘babynet-shop.de’;233 or – an information portal with a reputation concerning diallers and premium rate services under the domain name ‘dialerschutz.de’ and an Internet information portal on the same topic.234 DE.183 In contrast, the proximity of work categories required is missing if the website accessible

under the domain name does not primarily serve the provision of information and communication but instead mainly the advertising or marketing of goods and services.235 The borders

  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 235, 237–Wheels Magazine.   Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-RR 2002, 393–motorradmarkt.de. 230  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-RR 2002, 393–motorradmarkt.de. 231  District Court Mannheim, CR 1999, 528–bautip.de. 232  Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, MMR 2000, 752–mediafacts.de. 233  District Court Düsseldorf, MD 2000, 21–babynet.de. 234  District Court Munich I, Decision of 27 December 2004, Az. 33 O 24216/04–dialerschutz.de. 235 Higher Regional Court Munich, MarkenR 2006, 74–österreich.de, on the likelihood of confusion between the title ‘oesterreich.de’ of an Internet portal with information about Austria and the domain name ‘oesterreich.de’ providing Internet advertising for third parties. 228 229

402

VI.  Infringement of Work Titles by Domain Names (Section 15, Trademark Act) between websites with information and communication services capable of bearing a work title and websites for the marketing of goods and services are fluid, since typically mixed forms occur on the Internet, where information and communication services are combined with the marketing of goods and services, or conversely, marketing portals are combined with information and communication services. In order not to a priori deny protection against an immediate likelihood of confusion under the heading of work similarity, the requirements are not to be set too high. The mere fact that an information and communication portal also serves the marketing of goods and services is not in conflict with the assumption of a proximity to print or online versions of newspapers and journals and hence the assumption of a direct likelihood of confusion.236 The examination of the likelihood of confusion is also based on the general trademark DE.184 law principle of an interdependence between all the factors in question, the similarity of the title, the proximity of the works and the distinctive character of the older title,237 with the result that where the title has a lower reputation or a reduced distinctive character, this can be compensated by a greater proximity between the works or a greater similarity between the designations in conflict.238 In the case of journal titles that consist of general terms, however, even where the title and the domain name are identical and have the same content, the assumption of a direct likelihood of confusion in the narrower sense is to be excluded. Accordingly, the lower instance courts have denied claims to an injunction based on the work titles: – ‘Versicherungsrecht’ for a legal journal against the use of the domain name ‘Versicherungsrecht. de’ for consumer information on insurance law;239 – ‘Bike’ for a journal for mountain bikers against the use of the domain name ‘bike.de’ for an information and advertising forum on the topic of mountain biking;240 and – ‘Online-Apotheke’ of an Internet health magazine and the use of the name ‘OnlineApotheke’ as the heading for one of a number of sections in the Internet information programme of a pharmacists’ federation.241 Irrespective of the similarity between work title and domain name and the proximity DE.185 of the works, a further requirement for protection is whether the domain name is used as a title, that is, whether part of the target public regards the domain name as the designation of a work that distinguishes it from other works and not simply as an address identifier or a special company name or company symbol. There is no such use as a title, and hence a likelihood of confusion related to the work (immediate likelihood of confusion in the narrower sense), if the domain name is not used to identify a work capable of a title (online newspaper, information portal, computer game, etc) but is exclusively used to advertise or market goods and services. In such a case, there can only be a claim for an injunction if the preconditions for a likelihood of confusion in the broader sense, that is, the risk of an assumption of contractual, organizational or other commercial relationships between the work title and the company using the contested goods or services identifier, are satisfied.

  In diesem Sinne District Court Düsseldorf, MD 2000, 21–babynet.de.   Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 264, 265–Das Telefonsparbuch; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2001, 1050, 1051–Tagesschau; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-RR 2002, 393–motorradmarkt.de. 238  Higher Regional Court Munich, MarkenR 2006, 74, 76–österreich.de. 239  Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, GRUR-RR 2003, 11, 12–versicherungsrecht.de. 240  District Court Hamburg, MMR 1998, 46–bike.de. 241  Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, GRUR-RR 2001, 230–Online-Apotheke. 236 237

403

Germany (‘.de’) (2) Protection of Titles which have a Reputation (Section 15(3), Trademark Act) DE.186 Title protection against dishonest exploitation or impairment of the distinctive charac-

ter or repute going beyond protection against confusion is possible for work titles with a reputation. As far as the construction of the concept of reputation and the further preconditions for infringement are concerned, there are no significant differences as against famous trademarks or company names, with the result that reference can be made to be the principles set out under para DE.13. In practice, the protection of reputation of work titles in domain name conflicts has hitherto been of little significance, since the typical infringements of work titles with a reputation outside the field of confusion of works are as a rule covered by the protection developed by judicial practice against an immediate likelihood of confusion.

DE.187 The assertion that the use of the domain name ‘moebelix.de’ for the online presence of a

furniture company (Moebel = furniture) constituted an exploitation of distinctive character of the title keyword ‘Obelix’ for the famous comic series was dismissed.242

(3) Remedies DE.188 Where the use of a domain name infringes rights in a work title pursuant to s 15(2) and (3) of

the Trademark Act, s 15(4) of the Act grants a claim to an injunction.

DE.189 A claim to cancellation of the domain name may only be granted if all possible ways of using

the domain name in the course of trade constituted an infringement of work title rights within the meaning of s 15 of the Trademark Act or if the mere registration of the domain name as such constitutes dishonest impediment (s 4 No 10 of the German Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG)) or intentional damage contrary to public policy (s 826 of the Civil Code).243

DE.190 If non-infringing forms of use of the domain name in the course of trade are conceiv-

able, the cancellation of the domain name goes beyond what is necessary to prevent infringements.

DE.191 Even if the substantive preconditions for a claim to cancellation are satisfied, this claim can-

not be enforced by means of interlocutory injunction proceedings because ordering the cancellation of the domain name would pre-empt the main action if after cancellation the domain name is registered by a third party, thus leading to the definitive loss of the right.244

DE.192 The holder of the work title cannot as a matter of principle demand the transfer of the

infringing domain name.

DE.193 Alongside the claims to an injunction and elimination, the holder of the infringed work title

may be entitled to a claim to compensation of the loss incurred through the infringement of the work title pursuant to s 15(5) in conjunction with s 14(6) of the Trademark Act. On the calculation of damages and procedural enforcement see para DE.308.

  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-RR 2006, 408, 413–Obelix.   Cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 888, 889–Euro Telekom; Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), MarkenR 2003, 367, 369–America II–No Peace Beyond the Line; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-RR 2002, 393, 394–motorradmarkt.de; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2004, 174, 176–eltern-online.de; District Court Mannheim, CR 1999, 528–bautip.de. 244  Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, CR 2001, 412–mediafacts.de. 242 243

404

VII.  The Infringement of Indications of Geographical Origin by Domain Names

VII.  The Infringement of Indications of Geographical Origin by Domain Names (Sections 126 et seq, Trademark Act) (1)  The Definition of the Indication of Geographical Origin Indications of geographical origin are, according to the legal definition in s 126 of the DE.194 Trademark Act, ‘names of places, areas, regions or countries as well as other indications of signs used in the course of trade to identify the geographical origin of goods or services’. This includes both indications of origin of a direct geographical content, such as geographical names for products from Germany or abroad that have become an indication of a specific geographical region, and indirect indications of geographical origin, such as images of famous buildings, coats of arms, or national colours that have become an indication of a specific geographical region.245

(2) The Protection of Indications of Geographical Origin Against Use as Domain (a)  Preconditions for and Scope of Protection The protection of indications of geographical origin is regulated in three stages in s 127 of DE.195 the Trademark Act. First, indications of geographical origin may not be used for products of a different origin if that entails a risk of deception as to the geographical origin of the goods (s 127(1), Trademark Act). Hitherto, conflicts between indications of geographical origin and domain names have been DE.196 rare. As far as can be seen, the only decisions that have dealt with conflicts between indications of geographical origin and a domain name both concern the famous indication of geographical origin ‘Champagne’. The action by the Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC), the French federation of winegrowers involved in the production of champagne, against the use of the domain name ‘champagner.de’ for an information platform with information on the corresponding term (‘around the world of Champagne’), which gave local producers the opportunity to place links in return for payment or free of charge, was dismissed.246 In the opinion of the Munich Appeal Court (Oberlandesgericht München), the claim to DE.197 an injunction could be based neither on trademark nor on competition law. There was no dishonest impediment, since the federation of champagne winegrowers did not have an exclusive right to the term ‘Champagner’ or an exclusive right to use this designation to advertise Champagne, and hence everyone was entitled to make the marketing and advertising of champagne the subject matter of his professional activity and thereby use the term ‘Champagner’. Nor were there any indications that the use of the domain name ‘champagner. de’ evoked the incorrect expectation on the part of consumers that the material presented originated from Champagne makers or their Federation.247 Finally, the preconditions of s 127(c) of the Trademark Act were also not satisfied, since the dissemination of information about and advertising for champagne was not capable of dishonestly exploiting or illegitimately impairing the designation ‘Champagner’ or its distinctive character. In the opinion of the Hamburg Regional Court, the use of the domain name ‘champagner.de’ DE.198 for a website that provided a price comparison service for Champagne and products of other geographical origins (Italian wines, German wines, etc) together with various advertisements,

  For further references see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.499.  Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR-RR 2002, 17–champagner.de; Appeal dismissed, Federal Supreme Court, Decision of 13 June 2002, Az. I ZR 292/01. 247  Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR-RR 2002, 17–champagner.de. 245 246

405

Germany (‘.de’) also did not infringe the rights in the indication or geographical origin ‘Champagner’ (arguable).248

(b) Remedies DE.199 In the event of an infringing use of an indication of geographical origin by a domain name,

pursuant to s 128(1) of the Trademark Act there is primarily a strict liability claim for an injunction that, as with the case of the infringement of company symbols and trademarks, is only directed against the specific infringement. A claim that the domain name infringing rights to an indication of geographical origin should simply no longer be used only exists if a use of the indication of geographical origin as a domain name in any conceivable manner is impossible or if the very registration establishes an infringement of rights.

DE.200 A claim to cancellation of the domain name is subject to the precondition that the cancella-

tion of the domain name is necessary to terminate the infringement. This precondition is only satisfied if any possible way of using the domain name is inadmissible or if the registration of the domain name as such is an infringement of rights (eg deliberate impediment within the meaning of ss 3 and 4(10) of the German Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG) or intentional damage contrary to public policy within the meaning of s 826 of the Civil Code) (see also the comments on the claim to cancellation in the event of an infringement of a company symbol through the registration of domain name under para DE.173).

VIII.  The Protection of the Names of Natural Persons, Associations of Individuals not Commercially Active, and Public Institutions or Authorities under Public Law (Section 12, Civil Code) (1)  General Principles DE.201 Just like the protection of business names under civil law already referred to, the protection

of the names of natural persons, non-commercial associations of individuals, and legal entities under public law pursuant to s 12 of the Civil Code against their use as domain names requires that: (1) the use of the name is not vested, that is, the domain holder does not enjoy any rights of his own to the name; (2) the registration or the use of the domain name creates a wrong attribution; and hence (3)  the legitimate interests of the holder of the name are infringed.249

DE.202 Protection under s 12 Civil Code as a matter of principle only applies if a name is inherently

distinctive, that is, capable of acting like a name.250 If this requirement is not satisfied, protection pursuant to s 12 of the Civil Code only arises once the name has acquired secondary meaning as a name.251

248  District Court Hamburg, Judgment of 21 November 2006, Az. 312 O 426/06–champagner.de (arguable, since the use of the famous indication of geographical origin as a domain name exploits the collective goodwill of the geographical indication for the sale of competing products; for a contrary opinion, see the decision of the panel of experts in extrajudicial dispute settlement proceedings between the Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC) and an Internet provider who had registered the domain name ‘champagnes.fr’ and stated that it created websites for various trade sectors, Décision de l’expert, Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC) contre Internet SARL, WIPO Litige No. DFR 2005-0006–champagnes.fr). 249  For further references see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.514. 250  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 517, 518–Literaturhaus; Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 155, 273, 276 f.–maxem.de. 251  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 517, 518–Literaturhaus; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1953, 446, 447; Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 43, 245, 253; Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 155, 273, 278–maxem.de.

406

VIII.  The Protection of the Names of Natural Persons, Associations In domain name conflicts, the Federal Supreme Court held that the name ‘Literaturhaus’ DE.203 (Literature House) lacked distinctive character, since it merely described the field of activity of an association in the field of the promotion of literature and books. In contrast, the term ‘Pinakothek’ (‘pinacotheca’ or art gallery) enjoyed the necessary distinctive character as a name since, in the Federal Republic of Germany at least, it is interpreted as a naming reference to the collection of paintings in the Alte Pinakothek (old masters), Neue Pinakothek (ninteenth century), and Pinakothek der Moderne in Munich and not merely in its dictionary meaning.252 Family names have the function of a name and distinctive character as a matter of principle, DE.204 even if they are common names (eg Müller, Meier, Schmidt, etc).253 Given names alone as a rule do not have the function of names in the sense required by s 12 DE.205 of the Civil Code, since they are generally widespread and hence not capable of acting as an indication to individualise a specific person. This does not, however, prevent persons in the public eye, such as performers, singers, sportsmen, and similar persons, being referred to by their given names in broad circles of the public thanks to their reputation, and then in this respect enjoying name protection in accordance with s 12 of the Civil Code.254

(ii)  Use of the Name  Unlike the infringement constellations under the Trademark Act, the DE.206 protection of a name under civil law pursuant to s 12 of the Civil Code does not require the name to be used in the course of trade, and instead also provides protection against uses of the name in connection with private, academic, political, or other non-business activities.255 The registration or use of a distinctive name as an identical domain name by an unauthorized DE.207 person who has no rights in the name generally satisfies the preconditions for a violation of the rights of the name holder pursuant to s 12 Civil Code. From the case law of the Federal Supreme Court it follows that the registrant of a domain DE.208 name which is identical to the name of a natural person, an association of individuals, or a public entity, and is not regarded by the public as a general or generic term, always commits an infringement of the name within the meaning of s 12 of the Civil Code and entitles the holder of the name to a claim for an injunction against the use of the domain name and cancellation irrespective of the content accessible under the domain name.256 Applying this principle, the Federal Supreme Court granted the municipality of Solingen DE.209 claims to an injunction and cancellation against a company that operated a regional portal with information about the town of Solingen under the domain name ‘solingen.info’, and pointed out for purposes of clarification that these claims would also exist if the domain holder made it clear on the first Internet page to be opened that this was not the presentation of information by the municipality of Solingen.257 Similarly, the holder of the family name ‘Maxem’ was entitled to an injunction and cancellation against the use of the domain name ‘maxem.de’ for a private home page irrespective of the content of this page.258

  District Court Nürnberg-Fürth, MMR 2000, 629, 630–pinakothek.de.   For further references see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.536. 254  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2000, 709, 715–Marlene Dietrich; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1983, 262–Uwe (Uwe Seeler); Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR 1960, 394–Romy (Romy Schneider); District Court Munich I, ZUM 2000, 526–Marlene. 255  Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 155, 273, 276–maxem.de; District Court Leipzig, Judgment of 8 February 2001, Az. 11 O 8573/00, JurPC Web-Dok. 6/2001–waldheim.de. 256 Cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 259, 260–solingen.info, regarding claims of the city of Solingen against the use of the domain name ‘solingen.info’ for an Internet portal about the city of Solingen. 257  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 259, 260–solingen.info. 258  Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 155, 273, 276–maxem.de. 252 253

407

Germany (‘.de’) DE.210 These principles developed by the Federal Supreme Court also correspond with the decision

practice of the lower courts, which in the past, unlike the Federal Supreme Court, justified the violation of the rights in a name by means of a reference to the specific content accessible under the domain name. Protection against registration of their names as domain names by non-vested parties has inter alia been granted to:

– the Federal Republic of Germany against the registration of the domain name ‘deutschland. de’ by a software enterprise;259 – the Federal State of Bavaria against the registration of the domain names ‘regierungoberbayern.de’, ‘regierung-unterfranken.de’, ‘regierung-mittelfranken.de’ which were identical to the names of various governmental districts in Bavaria and had been registered by two letterbox companies in Panama;260 – the Czech Republic against the registration of the domain names ‘tschechische-republik.at/ .ch/.com’ used for websites offering hotel booking services;261 – the Republic Aserbaidschan against the registration and use of the domain name ‘aserbaidschan.de’ by a private individual for a website providing travel reservations;262 – the Federal State of Berlin against the registration and use of the domain name ‘berlin. com’ used for a website offering information about hotels and events in Berlin;263 – the Federal State of Bavaria against the registration of the domain name ‘justiz-muenchen.de’;264 – the Federal Ministry of Defence against the registration and use of the domain name ‘verteidigungsministerium.de’ (=ministry-of-defence.de) by a private person for a website providing guidance on how to avoid military service;265 – the Federal Agency for Civilian Service against the registration and use of the domain name ‘zivildienst.de’ (=civilservice.de) by a private person;266 – the towns and local government authorities Bad Wildbad, Alsdorf, Luckau, Herzogenrath, Ansbach, Braunschweig, Celle, Kamp-Linfort, Budenheim and Heidelberg against the registration of their names as domain names;267 – Braunschweig Wolfenbüttel Technical University against the registration of the abbreviation FH-WF;268 – the Munich Pinakothek against the registration of the domain name ‘Pinakothek. de’;269 and – the State of Bavaria against the registration of the domain name ‘neuschwanstein.de’.270

  District Court Berlin CR 2000, 700–deutschland.de.   Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 651, 653–regierung-oberfranken.de. 261  Superior Court of Justice (Kammergericht Berlin), MMR 2007, 600–tschechische-republik.at/.ch/.com. 262  Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), GRUR-RR 2013, 490–aserbaidschan.de. 263  Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), GRUR-RR 2013, 487–berlin.com. 264  District Court Munich I, Decision of 14 February 2005, Az. 9 O 6502/04–justiz-muenchen.de. 265  District Court Hannover MMR 2002, 134–verteidigungsministerium.de. 266  District Court Cologne NJW-RR 1999, 629–zivildienst.de; cf. District Court Potsdam, Judgment of 16 January 2002, Az. 2 O 566/01–polizeibrandenburg.de. 267 Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe CR 1999, 783, 784–badwildbad.com; Higher Regional Court Cologne, GRUR 2000, 798–alsdorf.de; Higher Regional Court Brandenburg MMR 2001, 174–luckau. de; Higher Regional Court Cologne, NJW-RR 1999, 622–herzogenrath.de; District Court Duisburg MMR 2000, 168–kamp-lintfort.cty.de; District Court Ansbach NJW 1997, 2688–ansbach.de; District Court Braunschweig, NJW 1997, 2687–braunschweig.de; District Court Mainz, Judgment of 9 August 2001, Az. 1 O 488/00, JurPC Web-Dok. 127/2002–budenheim.de; District Court Lüneburg GRUR 1997, 470–celle.de; District Court Mannheim, NJW 1996, 2736–heidelberg.de. 268  Higher Regional Court Braunschweig, Judgment of 19 December 2003, Az. 2 W 233/03, JurPC Web-Dok. 254/2004–fh-wf.de. 269  District Court Nürnberg-Fürth, MMR, 2000, 629–pinakothek.de. 270  District Court Munich I, ZUM-RD 2002, 107–neuschwanstein.de. 259 260

408

VIII.  The Protection of the Names of Natural Persons, Associations Likewise irrespective of the content accessible under the domain name, natural persons are DE.211 entitled to claims to an injunction and cancellation against the identical registration of their civil names271 and family names272 as domain names (on the use of given names and common names as domain name see para DE.205). The case is different if the name of a town or a local government authority or other holder DE.212 of a name within the meaning of s 12 of the Civil Code is not used alone but instead with a descriptive addition; for instance, where the name of the city of Duisburg is not registered and used as a domain name alone (eg ‘duisburg.de’ or ‘duisburg.info’) but instead together with the descriptive addition ‘.info’ (‘duisburg-info.de’).273 Since in such a case the registration of the domain name does not prevent the holder of the name from registering his name, the registration of the domain as such does not lead to a wrong attribution and an impairment of interests of the name holder, and therefore of itself does not constitute a violation of the name.274 Whether a name has been infringed is in such cases to be determined on the basis of the content accessible under the domain name. If the public is given the impression that this is a website of the holder of the name or that the holder of the name has granted the user a right to use the name,275 the specific use can be prohibited pursuant to s 12 of the Civil Code.276 In order to avoid such a wrong attribution, it will as a rule be sufficient if the domain holder makes it clear by means of a statement on the first page to be opened that the information presented is not provided by the holder of the name.

(2) The Domain Holder’s Own Sign or Name Rights If the domain holder holds name rights or industrial property rights in the sign of his own, DE.213 the registration and use of the domain name as a rule does not constitute an unauthorized use of the name.277 This does not depend on the priority of the conflicting name rights278 or on whether the sign or name right was acquired before the domain name was registered.279 Instead, irrespective of who holds the right to the sign with older priority, the person who first registers the domain name is the person entitled to it.280 Applying these principles, courts have as a rule dismissed claims for violation of name rights by local government authorities against the use of their names as domain names by private persons or companies if the latter had a name or sign right of their own.281

271 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 168, 169–kinski-klaus.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 619, 620–kurt-biedenkopf.de. 272  Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 43, 245, 253; Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 155, 273, 278–maxem. de; Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR-RR 2002, 234–duck.de; District Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2001, 560–friedrich.de; District Court Hamburg, MMR 2005, 254–müller.de. 273  Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, GRUR-RR 2003, 25, 26–duisburg-info.de. 274  See also Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 259, 260–solingen.info. 275  Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 161, 216–Pro Fide Cahtolica; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 619, 620–kurt-biedenkopf.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 917, 919–Düsseldorfer Stadtwappen; Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 30, 7, 10–Caterina Valente; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1964, 38, 40–Dortmund grüßt…; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1993, 151, 153–Universitätsemblem. 276  Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, GRUR-RR 2003, 25, 26–duisburg-info.de. 277 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2006, 158–segnitz.de; Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 155, 273, 275–maxem.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 430–mho.de. 278  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 430–mho.de. 279  Cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 430–mho.de; different view District Court Cologne CR 2005, 133, 134–q.de. 280 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 430–mho.de; Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 149, 191, 200–shell.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 898, 900–defacto. 281  The Higher Regional Court Munich, denied the claim of the small municipality Boos to transfer the domain name ‘boos.de’ which was used by a company Boos Werkstatt- und Industrieausrüstung GmbH

409

Germany (‘.de’) (3) Remedies (a)  Claim to Injunction DE.214 Section 12 of the Civil Code grants the party whose name right has been violated claims to an injunction. The name holder whose rights have been violated can as a matter of principle only demand the termination of the use of the name in the concrete form in which it is used, including infringements that are in core identical.282 DE.215 A total prohibition on the use of the domain name without specifying the concrete use to

which the risk of repetition or risk of a first offence extends (eg ‘the use of the domain name ‘…de’ for a website on the Internet’) is only a possibility in cases of name right infringements if the registration of the domain as such already establishes an infringement of the name right283 or if the use of the disputed domain name is unlawful under all circumstances.

(b) Cancellation DE.216 The holder of the name whose rights have been infringed is only entitled to a claim to cancellation of the domain name if the registration of the domain name as such itself establishes a violation of the name. According to the established practice of the Federal Supreme Court, these preconditions are always satisfied if an unvested party has registered a domain name that is identical to the name of a private person, an association of persons outside the course of trade, or an institution under public law, since this always establishes confusion (Zuordnungsverwirrung) and prevents the holder of the name from registering his name as a domain name (see para DE.167). If the domain holder can rely on his own right or that of a third party, there is only a claim to cancellation if the bearer of the name has an outstanding reputation by virtue of which the public automatically attributes the domain name to the bearer of the name and is therefore sent down the wrong track by the use of the domain name. DE.217 If there is no identity between the name and the domain name, the registration of a domain

name of itself only constitutes a violation of the rights in the name if any use of the domain name were to establish an infringement of the name right within the meaning of s 12 of the Civil Code or if the registration of the domain name as such constituted an infringement of rights (eg intentional damage contrary to public policy within the meaning of s 826 of the Civil Code).284

(c) Damages DE.218 Alongside claims to an injunction and elimination, the bearer of a name can also be entitled to a claim against the domain holder for compensation of the loss incurred through the

because it used the same name as part of its company name; cf. Higher Regional Court Munich, MMR 2001, 692, 694–boos.de; Higher Regional Court Koblenz, CR 2002, 280, 281–vallendar.de, District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 22 August 2001–Az. 2a 075/01–selk.de, regarding a conflict between the municipality Selk and the church Selbständig-Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche SELK; District Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2002, 398–bocklet.de; District Court Erfurt MMR 2002, 396, 397–suhl.de; District Court Osnabrück, Judgment of 23 September 2005, Az. 12 O 3937/04, JurPC Web-Dok. 51/2006–melle.de; District Court Flensburg, Judgment of 18 October 2001, Az. 3 O 178/01, JurPC Web-Dok. 321/2002–hasselberg.de; District Court Leipzig, Judgment of 8 February 2001, Az. 11 O 8573/00–JurPC Web-Dok. 6/2002–waldheim.de; District Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2002, 398–bocklet.de; District Court Coburg, Judgment of 13 June 2001, Az. 12 O 284/01, JurPC Web-Dok. 212/2001–tschirn.de. 282  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 899, 900–Olympiasiegerin; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2000, 709, 711–Marlene Dietrich; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1994, 844–Rotes Kreuz. 283  Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 155, 273, 275–maxem.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 259, 260–solingen.info. 284  Cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 888, 889–Euro Telekom.

410

IX.  Limits to Protection and Defences under Trademark Law infringement of the name on the grounds of an infringement of an absolute right pursuant to the law of torts pursuant to s 823(1) of the Civil Code. The standard of fault is determined according to s 276 of the Civil Code. As with the infringement of intellectual property rights, the amount of damages can be calculated according to three methods (on the calculation of damages and procedural enforcement see para DE.309).

IX.  Limits to Protection and Defences under Trademark Law (1) Use of Names and Descriptive Indications; Trade with Spare Parts (Section 23, Trademark Act) Even if the preconditions of ss 14(1) and (2) and 15(2) of the Trademark Act are satisfied, DE.219 trademark infringement claims may fail because of the restrictions on protection that apply uniformly to trademarks and commercial designations in s 23 of the Trademark Act, exempting the use of a sign as a name and address (1) as an indication describing goods or services (2) or as an indication of purpose (3) from claims to a prohibition provided that the use is not contrary to public policy.285 The restriction in s 23(2) of the Trademark Act allows a sign that is identical or similar to DE.220 a trademark or a commercial designation to be used as a descriptive indication if the use is not in conflict with public policy. This is intended to ensure that descriptive indications that other companies need to be able to use in the course of trade remain freely available even if they enjoy protection for a third party as a trademark or business symbol. In the case of domain names consisting of a general term or a generic name, there is the DE.221 special feature that on the one hand these describe the content of the goods and services offered on a website but on the other hand, are attributed exclusively to a specific holder and consequently always also perform a distinctive and indicative function.286 This distinctive and indicative function, however, is not in conflict with their qualification as a descriptive indication within the meaning of s 23(2) of the Trademark Act, nor does it establish an assumption of a use as a sign.287 Instead, the assessment whether a domain name is used descriptively within the meaning of s 20(2) of the Act is, in accordance with the general rules, to be decided by the trial judge taking into account the semantic content and the concrete use of the domain name and the view that it evokes in the domestic public.288 If the domain name consists of a general term or a generic name, as a rule it is a descriptive DE.222 indication exempt from claims to an injunction under trademark law. This also applies if the

  Section 23 Germany Trademark Act reads as follows: Use of names and descriptive indications, spare parts business The proprietor of a trade mark or of a commercial designation shall not be entitled to prohibit a third party in the course of trade (1)  to use their name or address, (2) to use a sign identical to the trade mark or commercial designation or a similar sign as an indication of characteristics or properties of goods or services, in particular their nature, quality, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or time of production or of rendering, or (3) to use the trade mark or the commercial designation as an indication of the intended purpose of a good, in particular as an accessory or spare part, or of a service insofar as the use is necessary therefore if use does not contravene accepted principles of morality. 286  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2000, 544, 545–kulturwerbung.de. 287  But cf. also Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2000, 544, 545–kulturwerbung.de. 288  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 992, 924–BIG PACK; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 238, 240–Tour de Culture. 285

411

Germany (‘.de’) domain name is only a descriptive objective statement for a part of the goods and services accessible under the domain name. Thus for instance the domain name ‘handy.de’ is to be qualified as a descriptive statement even if not only mobile telephone devices but also other telecommunication equipment is offered for sale under the domain name. There is likewise a descriptive indication if a domain name formed from a distinctive and a descriptive element is interpreted in the sense of a negative distinction to describe services (‘schufafreierkredit. de’).289 Descriptive indications in foreign languages can also fall within the scope of application of s 23(2) of the Trademark Act if they are interpreted as such by a relevant proportion of the target public.290 There is no need for lexical evidence for descriptive effect to be upheld.291 Domain names consisting of typical promotion terms used in advertising intended to arouse the attention of the public and create a stimulus to purchase (eg ‘guenstig.de’, ‘billig.de’) as a rule constitute descriptive indications pursuant to s 23(2) of the Trademark Act, the use of which is exempt from trademark law claims.292 DE.223 The question whether authorized dealers, retailers, or other sales brokers can use a domain

name that consists of the manufacturer’s trademark and a descriptive addition has also in part been examined with reference to the limits on protection of s 23(2) of the Trademark Act (instead of the restriction on protection of s 24 of the Act relevant in such cases). The lower courts have always dismissed the defence that the use of such a domain name constitutes a descriptive indication within the meaning of s 23(2) of the Trademark Act on the grounds that the public did not interpret such domain names as descriptive indications, or held the use to be an infringement of public policy. Accordingly, the use of the domain names ‘fordboerse.de’ and ‘ford-boerse.de’293 and ‘rolls-royce-boerse.de’294 by operators of used car portals on the Internet was held to be an infringement of sign rights (on the lawfulness of the use of such domain names from the point of view of trademark exhaustion pursuant to s 24 of the Act, see para DE.226).

(2) Spare Parts (Section 23 No 3, Trademark Act) DE.224 Domain names comprising the trademark of the original manufacturer and a descriptive add-

ition constitute an effective means for advertising spare parts or repair services for branded products. However, the objection that the use of such domain names by spare parts dealers or repair service providers falls within the limitation on protection of s 23(3) of the Trademark Act has hitherto been clearly rejected by the judicial practice of the appeal courts. Thus ‘Bayerischen Motorenwerke AG’ was granted claims to an injunction by the Munich I Regional Court against the use of the domain names ‘bmw-werkstatt.com’, ‘bmw-ersatzteile. com’, or ‘bmw-teile.com’ by a dealer in used BMW vehicles on the grounds that the use of the domain names was in any event a breach of accepted principle of morality irrespective of whether the preconditions of s 23(3) of the Act were satisfied.295 The Düsseldorf Superior Regional Court upheld an action for an injunction by the German subsidiary of the vehicle manufacturer ‘Automobiles Peugeot S.A.’ based on s 14(2)(2) of the Trademark Act against the holder of the domain name ‘peugeot-tuning.de’ because the use of the original manufacturer’s trademark in the domain name was not ‘necessary’ within the meaning of s 23(3) of

  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-RR 2004, 178, 181–schufafreierkredit.de.   Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 947, 948–Gazoz; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 238, 239–Tour de Culture; Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2007, 187, 188–professional-nails.de. 291  Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2007, 187, 188–professional-nails.de. 292  District Court Frankenthal GRUR-RR 2006, 13 f.–günstig.de. 293  District Court Munich I, ZUM-RD 2002, 105–fordboerse.de. 294  Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR 2000, 519–rolls-royce-boerse.de. 295  District Court Munich I, CR 2001, 416–bmw-werkstatt.com. 289 290

412

IX.  Limits to Protection and Defences under Trademark Law the Trademark Act in order to refer to tuning services.296 The same arguments were used by the Düsseldorf Regional Court to grant the manufacturer of construction and mining machinery claims to an injunction based on its word/picture mark ‘CAT’ against the use of the domain name ‘cat-ersatzteile.de’297 and the Swiss company Hapimag against the use of the domain name ‘hapimag-aktien.de’ for the trade in Hapimag holiday home rights.298 The judicial practice of the lower courts is appropriate. It is sufficient to inform the public DE.225 about the services concerning the goods of the trademark holder if the repair service provider or the parts dealer presents itself on the Internet under a domain name that corresponds with its business symbol and, by using the trademark holder’s trademark on the website, makes it clear that he offers spare parts or repair and maintenance services for these goods. He does not require a more extensive use of the trademark as an element of the domain name to advertise his goods and services, with the result that the use of the domain name cannot be qualified as goods or ‘a necessary indication of purpose’ within the meaning of s 23(3) of the Trademark Act (for the application of s 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP to similar fact scenarios see, see Part IIIE para IIIE.308.

(3) Exhaustion (Section 24, Trademark Act) According to judicial practise if a dealer uses another’s trademark as an element of a domain DE.226 name in order to advertise the resale of original goods, the preconditions for exhaustion pursuant to s 24(1) of the Act according to the case law are only satisfied in exceptional cases. Under the exhaustion of rights rule the trademark holder does not as a matter of principle have the right to prohibit a third party from using the trademark when trade-marked goods have been put on the Community market by the proprietor of the trademark or with his consent.299 The exhaustion of rights’ rule also covers a reseller’s right to make use of the trademark in DE.227 order to bring to the public’s attention the further commercialization of those goods, provided that he can dispose of the goods at the time of sale.300 However, exhaustion always requires a concrete relationship between the advertising and the DE.228 original products. This is missing where the advertising is not product-related but is instead company-related or refers to products other than original products.301 Accordingly, there is a priori no exhaustion if the reseller of trademark goods uses the website under the domain name to sell other manufacturers’ goods alongside the original goods. The use of a domain name as company symbol is to be assumed if the domain name is used without reference to an individual product but instead for a website presenting the enterprise as a whole or its entire range of goods, since it is then interpreted—almost like a virtual shop sign—as a special business designation and not as a product identifier. In such a case, the use of the trademark as a domain name is not covered by the advertising right. If in exceptional cases, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, the use of DE.229 the domain name is purely product-related the use of the domain name can fall under the   Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2007, 188–peugeot-tuning.de.   District Court Düsseldorf, NJW-RR 2007, 617–cat-ersatzteile.de. 298  District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 11 July 2007, Az. 2 a O 24/07–hapimag-a-aktien.de. 299  CJEU, Judgment of 23 February 1999, BMW (C-63/97, ECR 1999 I-905); CJEU Judgment of 4 November 1997, Parfums Christian Dior/Evora (C-337/95, ECR 1997 I-6013); Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 784, 785–AIDOL; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 340, 341–Mitsubishi; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 878, 879–Vier Ringe über Audi; Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe GRUR-RR 2002, 221–Ferrari-Emblem; District Court Hamburg, Mitt. 2001, 83, 85–Ferrari. 300  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 878, 879 f.–Vier Ringe über Audi. 301  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 784, 785–AIDOL. 296 297

413

Germany (‘.de’) advertising right if the advertising on the website can—as an exception—only refer to the specific original product. However, in such cases, it is then always necessary to examine whether the trademark holder has a legitimate reason within the meaning of s 24(2) of the Trademark Act to oppose the use of the domain name by the reseller. Such a legitimate reason could be the fact that the use of the domain name by a dealer who does not belong to the trademark holder’s marketing network prevents the trademark holder from using a corresponding domain name for advertising purposes to refer to his own products or those of his authorized dealers. DE.230 Furthermore, in many cases the use of a trademark as the sole distinctive part of a domain

name will create the impression that there is a commercial connection to the trademark holder, and in particular that the domain name holder’s reseller’s business is affiliated to the trademark proprietor’s distribution network or that there is a special relationship between the two undertakings which would establish ‘legitimate reasons’ within the meaning of s 24(2) Trademark Act for the trademark proprietor to oppose the use of the trademark or of the commercial designation in the domain name.302

DE.231 Similar principles apply if a domain name which is used in order to advertise repair or main-

tenance services for original products cannot rely on the exhaustion of the rights deriving from the trademark under s 24(1) of the Trademark Act.

DE.232 Under the exhaustion of rights’ rule a trademark holder is not entitled to prohibit a third

party from using the mark for the purpose of informing the public that he carries out the repair and maintenance of goods covered by that trademark and put on the market under that mark by the proprietor or with his consent, or that he is a specialist in the sale or the repair and maintenance of such goods, unless the mark is used in a way that may create the impression that there is a commercial connection between the other undertaking and the trademark proprietor, and in particular that the reseller’s business is affiliated to the trademark proprietor’s distribution network or that there is a special relationship between the two undertakings.303

DE.233 If a domain name is used for a website to inform the public that the domain name holder

carries out the repair and maintenance of goods covered by that trademark (eg the advertising of repair and maintenance services for BMW vehicles already in circulation, under the domain name ‘bmw-werkstatt.de’ (=bmw-garage.de) or ‘bmw-reparatur.de’ (=bmw-repair. de), s 24(1) of the Act a priori does not apply if the domain name holder provides these services also for products of other manufacturers.304

(4) Limitation and Forfeiture (Sections 20 and 21, Trademark Act) DE.234 With regard to the defences of limitation (s 20) and forfeiture pursuant to s 21(1) of the

Act and the general forfeiture principles (s 21(4) of the Act in conjunction with s 242 of the Civil Code), there are no special features in domain law as compared with the general rules, with the result that in this respect reference can be made to the general literature on trademark law.305 302  District Court Düsseldorf, NJW-RR 2007, 617–cat-ersatzteile.de; cf. also Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 784, 785–AIDOL, regarding the application of the principle of exhaustion to the use of a trademark as a metatag in the HTML source code. 303   CJEU, Judgment of 23 February 1999, BMW (C-63/97, ECR 1999 I-905). 304   District Court Munich I, CR 2001, 416–bmw-werkstatt.de. 305   With regard to laches defences in domain name conflicts see Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2007, 188–peugeot-tuning.de.

414

X.  Competition Law Claims

X.  Competition Law Claims (Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the German Act Against Unfair Competition) (1)  Scope of Application According to the established judicial practice of the Federal Supreme Court, the protection DE.235 provided by the Trademark Act is a comprehensive self-contained provision in the form of a special law that supplants the protection of signs under competition or tort law.306 The constellations under the German Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG) remain applicable in supplement only if an impairment of a sign as such is not the subject matter of the trademark law provisions307 or if alongside the impairment of the sign there are additional features of dishonesty that are not completely covered by the provisions of the Trademark Act.308 If these principles are applied to domain name conflicts, an application of the constellations DE.236 under the Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG) are mainly possible in three situations. Recourse to the competition law provision of deliberate impediment (s 4(10), Act Against DE.237 Unfair Competition) is permissible in cases of a registration of a sign as a domain name in bad faith (cybersquatting or domaingrabbing), since the mere registration of a domain name does not establish an infringing use within the meaning of ss 14 and 15 of the Trademark Act and therefore a priori does not fall within the scope of application of this Act. The same applies to where domain names are not used as trademarks or commercial designations (eg the use of generic names or general terms as domain names) since in this case, too, not only is the element of an infringement under trademark law not satisfied but in addition the scope of application of ss 14(2)(2) and s 15(2) of the Trademark Act is a priori excluded.309

(2) Concrete Competitive Relationship (Sections 2 and 3, Act Against Unfair Competition) It is a general precondition for unfair competition law constellations that there is a competitive DE.238 act that is capable of influencing competition to the disadvantage of a competitor (ss 3, 2(1) No 3, Act Against Unfair Competition). If the registration or use of the domain name does not constitute an act of competition, the question of the unfair competitive activity of the domain holder does not arise and instead there only remains recourse to principles of tortious liability pursuant ss 823 and 826 of the Civil Code. The existence of a concrete competitive relationship does not require the conflicting parties to DE.239 operate in the same trade sector. Since as a rule the assessment under competition law only concerns the specific competitive act objected to, it is instead sufficient if two enterprises from different trade sectors have entered into ad hoc competition with each other as a result of a specific act.310 Accordingly, a competitive relationship is to be upheld if a domain name identical

306  Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 149, 191, 195 f.–shell.de; cf. also Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 898, 900–defacto.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 1039, 1041–SB-Beschriftung; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 706, 707–vossius.de; Higher Regional Court Munich, MMR 2007, 115–fwt-koeln.de. 307   Federal Supreme Court, WRP 2004, 360, 364–Davidoff II; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 332, 335–Abschlusstück; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 167, 171–Bit/Bud. 308   Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 340, 342–Fabergé. 309   Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 419, 422–Räucherkate. 310   Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 877, 878–Werbeblocker; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1972, 553–Statt Blumen ONKO-Kaffee.

415

Germany (‘.de’) to the third party’s sign is used to redirect traffic to a website that is not related to the goods and services offered by the sign holder (eg redirection to erotic sites) or if a parking website is maintained under the domain name, since irrespective of the fact that different trade sectors are involved this establishes competition between the domain holder and the sign holder for access to Internet users.311 DE.240 However, a competitive relationship does not result from the mere fact that the domain holder

approaches the sign holder and offers to sell the domain name for a ‘ransom’, since the dishonest extortion of monetary payments is not conduct directed at the market by means of which the domaingrabber enters into competition with the sign holder. The only protection against such abusive domain registrations is to be found in the grounds for a claim under tort law.312

(3) Deliberate Obstruction of Competitors (Section 4(10), Act Against Unfair Competition) (a) Cybersquatting/Typosquatting DE.241 In practice, the cases of the abuse of registration and use of domain names by competitors have essentially arisen in three case groups. The first, a rather rare form of domain abuse in the relationship between competitors, concerns cases in which the registration of a domain name is primarily for the purpose of selling or licensing it to the holder of a corresponding sign right in return for payment. According to the judicial practice of the lower courts, this is undisputedly a case of deliberate obstruction within the meaning of s 4(10) of the Act Against Unfair Competition provided that the domain name is not interpreted by the public as a generic name or general term.313 The mere fact that the domain name is not used for a website or the domain holder has registered a number of domain names for himself is not an indication of an intention to sell for speculative purposes.314 Nor does the intention to sell follow from the mere fact that the domain holder cannot rely on an objective reason for registration315 (on cybersquatting cases outside a competitive relationship on the basis of s 826 of the Civil Code, see para DE.255). DE.242 The second form of abuse is characterized by the fact that the registration of the domain

name, similar to the filing and registration of a blocking trademark, is primarily for the purpose of preventing the competitor reproducing his identical trademark or commercial designation in a corresponding domain name. This too undisputedly constitutes deliberate obstruction within the meaning of s 4(10) of the Act Against Unfair Competition.316 The requirements to be made of the evidence of knowledge of the right, which as a rule can only be determined indirectly using circumstantial evidence, are not all too strict.317

DE.243 A third form of the abuse of a domain is the use of a domain name that is identical to the

sign of a competitor or only differs from it through typical typing errors (typosquatting) to redirect Internet users to the owner’s own online presence or to use the domain name for a parking website to earn ‘pay-per-click’ revenues. If in such cases the domain has been registered by an enterprise from the same trade sector, the preconditions for an infringement of

311  District Court Munich, I  ZUM-RD 2006, 359, 361–fwt-koeln.de (the domain name was used in order to redirect to a website with pornographic content); Higher Regional Court Munich, MMR 2007, 115–fwt-koeln.de; Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), CR 2004, 135–bandit.de. 312  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 877, 879–Werbeblocker. 313  District Court Munich, I ZUM-RD 2000, 295, 297–myintershop.de. 314 Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2002, 827, 828–exces.de; District Court Bonn, MMR 1998, 110, 111–detag.de. 315  Higher Regional Court Dresden, CR 1999, 589, 592–cyberspace.de. 316  District Court Düsseldorf, GRUR 1998, 159, 164–epson.de. 317  Cf. District Court Hamburg, Judgment of 12 September 2000, Az. 312 O 424/00–dpa-online.de.

416

X.  Competition Law Claims the sign within the meaning of ss 14 and 15 of the Trademark Act are as a rule satisfied (on the assessment under trademark law see para DE.241), with the result that there is no need for recourse to the competition law prohibition on obstruction in s 4(10) of the Act Against Unfair Competition.

(b)  Deliberate Imitation of a Competitor’s Generic Domain Name The registration of descriptive domain names does not constitute a dishonest obstruction DE.244 within the meaning of s 4(10) of the Act Against Unfair Competition even if an identical domain name is already being used by a competitor under a different top-level domain or if the domain name is registered under the same top-level domain in a slightly different spelling (eg spelling with hyphen or umlauts, use in the plural instead of the singular etc). Accordingly, the accusation of an obstruction of competition and an intervention in an established and operating business was rightly dismissed where the domain names ‘kettenzüge. de’ (=chainpull.de)318 and ‘schlüsselbänder.de’ (=keychain.de),319 were registered, which were already being used by competitors but spelt without an umlaut. However, an exception from this principle can be justified if there has been a deliberate misspelling of a domain name (‘wetteronlin.de’ (=weatheronline) instead of ‘wetteronline.de’; ‘anwalthotline.de’ (=attorneyhotline.de) without the insertion required by the language of the ‘s’ in ‘anwaltshotline.de’), or the modification of a descriptive term for no obvious reason (‘buecherde.com’), or if other unfair competition aspects suggest a deliberate imitation of a competitor’s descriptive domain name (‘buecherde.com’).320 The same principles apply if the domain name consists of a generic or general term that cor- DE.245 responds to the non-protectable element of a competitor’s word or word/picture mark321 or company name.322

(4) Remedies (a)  Claim to an Injunction (Section 8(1), 2nd Alternative, Act Against Unfair Competition) The deliberate obstruction of a competitor by registering and using a domain name pur- DE.246 suant to ss 3 and 4 No 10 Act Against Unfair Competition, if there is a likelihood of repetition pursuant to s 8(1), first sentence of the Act, gives rise to a strict liability claim to an injunction.323 If the infringement has not yet been committed but is genuinely and imminently expected (risk of first offence, see para DE.303), the sign holder has a claim to a preventive injunction. The claim to an injunction under s 8(1) of the Act Against Unfair Competition is directed against the specific form of the infringement, that is, the identical 318  Higher Regional Court Dresden, Judgment of 7 March 2006, Az. 14 U 2293/05–kettenzüge.de; die Vorinstanz, District Court Leipzig, Judgment of 24 November 2005, JurPC Web-Dok. 35/2006. 319  Higher Regional Court Cologne, GRUR-RR 2006, 19–schlüsselbänder.de. 320  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2014, 393—wetteronline.de (‘the use of the domain name wetteronlin. de amounts to a dishonest obstruction within the meaning of s 4(10) Act against Unfair Competition if the website available under the domain name does contain advertisement for services unexpected under the the domain name (advertisement for health insurances)’); Higher Regional Court Jena MMR 2005, 776, 778–anwalthotline.de. 321  District Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2006, 412–wahlipp.de, regarding claims based on s 14(2) German Trademark Act; District Court Frankfurt a. M., Judgment of 15 January 2003, Az. 2/6 374/02, JurPC Web-Dok. 161/2003–hockeystore.de; District Court Frankenthal, GRUR-RR 2006, 13 f.–günstig.de, regarding claims based on a trademark infringement concerning the use of the domain name ‘guenstig.de’ (= cheap) to redirect to the home page of Amazon.com Inc. 322 District Court Munich, K&R 2007, 219–klingeltöne.de; Higher Regional Court Stuttgart, MMR 2002, 754, 755–herstellerkatalog.de; District Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2003, 342–schuelerhilfe.de; Higher Regional Court Cologne, GRUR 2001, 525, 527–online.de; Higher Regional Court Munich, MMR 1999, 547–buecher.de. 323  For further references see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.623.

417

Germany (‘.de’) repetition of the infringement, and in addition against all forms of an offence that are at core the same. If the registration of the domain name itself constitutes a deliberate obstruction of the sign holder within the meaning of ss 3 and 4(10) of the Act Against Unfair Competition, a total prohibition is justified, that is, the sign holder can, without stating the content accessible under the domain name, require the infringing party to ‘refrain from using the sign “…” as a domain name in the course of trade for the purposes of competition’. The same also applies if the specific use of the domain name constitutes deliberate obstruction within the meaning of s 4(10) of the Act Against Unfair Competition. DE.247 If, on the other hand, it is not the registration or use of the domain name per se but merely

the use of the domain name for specific content that constitutes an anti-competitive act, only the specific form of infringement can be prohibited.

(b)  Claim to Cancellation (Section 8(1), 1st Alternative, Act Against Unfair Competition) DE.248 Alongside the claim to an injunction, s 8(1) of the Act expressly provides for a strict liability

claim to elimination which, however, like the claim to elimination under trademark law, is only granted if it is capable and necessary to eliminate the unlawful obstruction and in addition is proportionate in the narrower sense of the term and can reasonably be expected of the infringing party.324 As a rule, these preconditions are satisfied in domain name conflicts if the registration or use of the domain name constitutes a deliberate obstruction of the sign holder within the meaning of s 4(10) of the Act Against Unfair Competition or if the deception within the meaning of s 5 of the Act results from the domain name itself, since in such a case the registration or use of the domain name as such creates the infringing condition the elimination of which requires the cancellation of the domain name. If the infringement of competition law only results from the use of the domain name in combination with specific content (eg a misleading use of the domain name in combination with the offer of specific goods), only the concrete use of the domain name can be prohibited and the cancellation of the domain name cannot be demanded.

(c)  Damages (Section 9, Act Against Unfair Competition) DE.249 Alongside the claims to an injunction and elimination, the injured competitor may have a claim against the domain holder to compensation for the damage resulting from the anti-competitive registration or use of the domain name. This is subject to the condition that the infringement has been committed intentionally or negligently. On the calculation of damages and procedural enforcement, see para DE.308.

XI.  Claims under Tort (Sections 823 and 826, Civil Code) (1)  Scope of Application DE.250 There is no scope within the field of application of the provisions of the Trademark Act for

the simultaneous invocation of the principles of tortious liability pursuant to ss 823(1) and 826 of the Civil Code.325 The provisions of ss 823(1)326 and 826327 are only applicable in

324  Cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1994, 630, 633–Cartier-Armreif; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1995, 424, 426–Abmehmerverwarnung. 325  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 622, 624–shell.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1999, 161, 162–MAC Dog; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2001, 1050, 1051–Tagesschau; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2001, 1054, 1055–Tagesreport. 326  Section 823 (1) Civil Code reads as follows: ‘A person who, intentionally or negligently, unlawfully injures the life, body, health, freedom, property or another right of another person is liable to make compensation to the other party for the damage arising from this.’ 327  Section 826 Civil Code reads as follows: ‘A person who, in a manner contrary to public policy, intentionally inflicts damage on another person is liable to the other person to make compensation for the damage.’

418

XI.  Claims under Tort (Sections 823 and 826, Civil Code) supplement if an impairment of the sign as such is not the subject matter of the trademark law regulations,328 or if alongside the impairment of the sign there are additional unfair competition aspects that are not completely covered by the provisions of the Trademark Act.329 Such a supplementary application of ss 823 and 826 of the Code alongside the special law DE.251 provisions of the Trademark Act are in particular possible in domain name conflicts where a domain name has merely been registered with abusive intent but is not used, since in such a situation it is not the case that only one of the requirements of the infringement standard under trademark law is not satisfied but rather, in the absence of the use of the domain name as a mark, the scope of application of ss 14 and 15 of the Trademark Act is a priori not affected.330 In addition, it may be necessary to have recourse to the civil law protection of signs if the domain name is used outside the course of trade with intent to damage.331 If the registration and use of the domain name establishes an infringement that falls both under DE.252 the constellations of the Act Against Unfair Competition and the constellation of intentional damage contrary to public policy within the meaning of s 826 of the Civil Code, this as a matter of principle constitutes competitive causes of action. In contrast, the right to an established and operating business developed by judicial practice is generally considered only a catch-all constellation intended to fill a gap, the application of which is not possible if the preconditions for one of the constellations under the Act Against Unfair Competition are satisfied.332

(2) General Principles In practice, the principles of tortious liability in ss 823 and 826 of the Civil Code are of DE.253 considerable significance for the prevention of abusive domain registrations, since the latter are frequently effected outside a specific competitive relationship in the course of trade, and therefore the application of trademark law and competition law constellations is a priori excluded. The assessment of whether the registration or use of a domain name constitutes intentional DE.254 damage contrary to public policy pursuant to s 826 of the Civil Code must always take account of the circumstances of the individual case that accompanies, precedes and/or follows the registration of the domain. The finding of damage contrary to public policy frequently only results from the accumulation of a number of unfair competition elements. It must first be assumed that, in parallel to the registration of trademarks in bad faith (s 50(1), s 8(2)(10) of the Trademark Act) an intention to damage contrary to public policy cannot be assumed without evidence that the domain holder knew of the conflicting sign. If the domain name was registered before the creation of the conflicting right, and if there are no indications that the domain name was registered for the purpose of obstruction or sale in awareness of a pending acquisition of the right or of a protected vested interest created through a previous use of the sign, there can as a rule be no damage contrary to public policy within the meaning of ss 823 and 826 of the Civil Code.333 The requirements to be made of 328  Federal Supreme Court, WRP 2004, 360, 364–Davidoff II; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 332, 335–Abschlusstück; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 167, 171–Bit/Bud. 329  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 340, 342–Fabergé. 330  Cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 419, 422–Räucherkate. 331  Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 149, 191, 205–shell.de. 332  Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 36, 252–Gründerblitz; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1972, 189, 191–Wandsteckdose II; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1983, 467, 468–Photokina. 333  Higher Regional Court Zweibrücken, Judgment of 17 October 2002, Az. 4 U 59/02, JurPC Web-Dok. 210/2003 (Domaingrabbing); Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe GRUR-RR 2002, 138–dino.de; District Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2003, 415, 416–big-ben.de; District Court Hamburg, Judgment of 21 March 2002, Az. 315 O 380/01–wilm.de; zweifelhaft District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 6 July 2001, Az. 38 O 18/01, JurPC Web-Dok. 8/2002–literaturen.de.

419

Germany (‘.de’) the evidence of knowledge of the infringed sign, which as a rule can only be determined indirectly using circumstantial evidence, are not too strict.334 If the domain name corresponds to a sign known amongst general trade circles and if the domain holder has no legitimate grounds for the registration of the domain, it will frequently be assumed on the basis of life experience that the domain was registered in awareness of the existing right for speculative or obstructing purposes.335 If it is not a sign with a reputation that is affected, the sign holder must first show and substantiate the circumstances that indicate the domain holder’s knowledge of the conflicting sign, and what indications support the allegation of an intent to cause damage contrary to public policy.

(3) Cybersquatting/Typosquatting DE.255 There is intentional damage contrary to public policy within the meaning of s 826 of

the Civil Code if a domain name is primarily registered or acquired with the intention of licensing or selling it to the sign holder in return for payment. Such an intention is suggested if the domain holder directly addresses the sign holder and makes him an offer to sell,336 or if he has registered a large number of well-known signs and directs his offer to sell to the general public via his own website or a domain auction website. However, the intention to cause damage contrary to public policy cannot be justified simply on the grounds of a lack of an objective reason for the registration of a specific domain name337 or the willingness to transfer the domain name to the sign holder in return for payment.338

DE.256 The practice observable recently of using domain names that correspond to other signs or dif-

fer from them only by means of typical typing errors (typosquatting) to redirect the Internet user to the domain holder’s own Internet presentation or a parking website in order to earn pay-per-click payments, is also to be classified as contrary to public policy within the meaning of s 826 of the Civil Code (on the trademark law assessment of such cases see para DE.80; on the domain parking provider’s liability for breach of a duty of care see para DE.350). The same applies if a domain name is used to redirect to pornographic online content in awareness of the existence of a third party’s sign right.339

(4) Trade in Domain Names DE.257 The now widespread trade in domain names and the on-spec registration of domain names

without an obvious interest in use by businesses or private persons are of themselves not contrary to public policy. The registration rules in the field of the generic top-level domains (gTLDs) and country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) do not provide for an obligation to use, nor do they require the domain name to be linked to a business operation of the domain holder. The trade in domain names or the registration of a large number of domain names that correspond to third-party signs, therefore, at best merely constitutes a (less significant) indication of an activity contrary to public policy, but does not replace the obligation to

  BPatG GRUR 2001, 744, 748–S 100, regarding a bad faith trademark registration.  So im Ergebnis District Court Hamburg, Judgment of 12 September 2000, Az. 312 O 424/00–dpa-online.de. 336 Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, CR 2001, 620–praline-tv.de; cf. also Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2002, 827, 828–exces.de; District Court Hamburg, Judgment of 21 March 2002, Az. 315 O 380/01, JurPC Web-Dok. 185/2002–wilm.de. 337  Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, WRP 2000, 645, 646–weideglueck.de. 338  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 687, 688–weltonline.de. 339  Higher Regional Court Munich, MMR 2007, 115, 116–fwt-koeln.de; similarly District Court Munich, CR 2006, 494 f.–feuerwehr-fehrbelin.de. 334 335

420

XI.  Claims under Tort (Sections 823 and 826, Civil Code) examine carefully, taking into account the circumstances of the individual case, whether the domain registration, through the accumulation of further unfair competition aspects, in fact results from an intention to cause damage contrary to public policy.340

(5) Use of Domain Names for Product and Company Criticism The holder of a trademark or commercial designation can also have recourse to supplemen- DE.258 tary protection under ss 823 and 826 of the Civil Code if a trademark or commercial designation is used for company and product criticism outside the course of trade (on the distinction between actions in the course of trade and outside the course of trade see para DE.78) or if the domain name is not used as a source identifier, since in such a case the scope of application of the Trademark Act is a priori not affected and therefore there is no competition with the provisions of the Trademark Act which take priority. Where a company symbol is used as a domain name for company criticism, protection on the basis of s 12 of the Civil Code may apply (for details on the name law protection of company symbols against use for product and company criticism, see para DE.90). Whether the use of another’s trademark for company and product criticism is to be regarded DE.259 as an intervention in an established and operating business (s 820(1), Civil Code), or damage contrary to public policy, depends essentially on a weighing of benefits in which a reasonable balance is to be sought between freedom of opinion pursuant to Article 5(1), first sentence of the Constitution and the sign right interests of the holder of the trademark protected according to the judicial practice of the Federal Constitutional Court by Article 14 of the Constitution. The use of a domain name that is identical to another’s trademark for purposes of company DE.260 and product criticism is as a matter of principle not covered by freedom of opinion and is therefore always to be regarded as an intervention in an established and operating business pursuant to s 823 of the Civil Code. Admittedly, a company must tolerate third persons relying on their basic right to freedom of opinion derived from Article 5(1), first sentence of the Constitution to discuss it critically, negatively, or even polemically,341 but is not obliged to accept the opinion being expressed under a domain name that is identical to its trademark. Article 5(1), first sentence of the Constitution, in the general opinion, does not establish a right to an expression of opinion being disseminated in the most effective manner342 (see also the corresponding analysis in the scope of application of s 14(2)(3) at para DE.114 and s 12 of the Civil Code at para DE.90). According to the judicial practice of the lower courts, the case is slightly different if the DE.261 domain name is not identical to the name of a third party but contains descriptive or pejorative additions that show that the user of the domain name is not the holder of the trademark or commercial designation holder. Admittedly, account is to be taken of the fact that it is not necessary to use the trademark as an element of the domain name for a critical or satirical discussion of the trademark holder on the Internet. However, this is not the decisive factor in the weighing of benefits. The claim to the right to free expression of opinion or freedom of press is not subject to the general proviso of the principle of necessity. In the interest of easy memorability and traceability, there is a general practice of using domain names that describe the products or information offered under them. This possibility is also open to anyone who

340  Higher Regional Court Zweibrücken, Judgment of 17 October 2002, Az. 4 U 59/02, JurPC Web-Dok. 210/2003 (Domaingrabbing); Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, MMR 2000, 424–weideglueck.de. 341  Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfGE 24, 278, 286; Federal Supreme Court NJW 1994, 124. 342  Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe NJW 1972, 1810, 1811; District Court Frankfurt a.M., MMR 2004, 113, 114–mormonen.de.

421

Germany (‘.de’) critically or satirically discusses the business practices of a company or a product even if at the same time this pursues commercial purposes.343 A different approach can, however, be required if the company and product criticism is exclusively or primarily for commercial purposes or if the domain name includes defamatory additions.344 DE.262 It has not yet been definitively clarified whether and under what conditions the use of a

trademark in a domain name is permissible if the domain name used for the criticism of the sign holder is at least attributed to the name holder by part of the public (eg the registration of the domain name ‘oil-of-elf.de’ by Greenpeace).345 The Hamburg Appeal Court346 in a name law dispute, adopted a strict point of view and held the registration of a domain name under which at least part of the public expects to find the sign holder in question to always be an unauthorised use of the name within the meaning of s 12 of the Civil Code, irrespective of the specific use of the domain. The critical discussion of a company’s policy under the domain name ‘[companyname]blog.de’ was not covered by the basic right to the free expression of opinion if part of the public interpreted it as the Internet address of a corporate blog, that is, a digital journal (weblog) used by the company for marketing purposes. This also applied if it was explained to the Internet users on the website that this was not company information. If this approach is followed, an unauthorized intervention in an established and operating business within the meaning of s 823(1) of the Civil Code is always to be assumed in cases of a division in the public’s interpretation, where part of the public attributes a domain name to the sign holder while another part sees it as a descriptive indication.

DE.263 In contrast, the Berlin District Court347 did not regard the use by Greenpeace of the domain

name ‘oil-of-elf.de’ for a website for the critical discussion of oil drilling by ‘Elf Oil’ in Russia to be a dishonest use of the name. This was because, upon accessing the website, the user immediately recognized that this was not the Internet presence of the bearer of the name, and in a search using search machines confusion arose for at most a fraction of a second if the brief indications in the listing of the search results made it clear to the public that the cited Internet address did not refer to the holder of the name. Under these circumstances, the use of the third-party company symbol was covered by freedom of opinion (Article 5 of the Constitution) even if the domain name itself was attributed by part of the public to the sign holder.

DE.264 If these views are transferred to the actus reus of tort under s 823 of the Civil Code, this

suggests a case-by-case decision that then essentially depends on the size of the share of the public that attributes the domain name to the trademark holder, whether it is to be expected that the Internet user would search for the trademark holder by directly entering the domain name in question and whether the brief indications in the listing of the search machine results and the content of the website show that the domain holder is not the trademark holder (on the corresponding name law assessment pursuant to s 12 of the Civil Code when a company symbol is used for company or product criticism, see para DE.164).

(6) Remedies DE.265 Where a sign holder is subject to damage contrary to public policy through the registration

or use of the domain name, he can, pursuant to ss 826 and 1004 of the Civil Code, require

343  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2005, 118–awd-aussteiger.de; District Court Bremen ZUM-RD 2003, 360–bsagmeckerseite.de. 344  District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 30 January 2002, Az. 2 a O 245/01, JurPC Web-Dok. 267/2002–scheiss-t-online. 345   Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), MMR 2002, 686–oil-of-elf.de. 346   Higher Regional Court Hamburg, Decision of 31 May 2007, Az. 327 O 332/07–firmennameblog.de. 347   Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), MMR 2002, 686–oil-of-elf.de.

422

XIII.  Criminal Law Protection the domain holder to cease and desist and eliminate (cancel), that is, to waive the domain name to DENIC or an ICANN registrar (on the procedural enforcement of the claims see para DE.296). There is as a matter of principle of no claim to the assignment of the domain name even in DE.266 cases of damage contrary to public policy since the infringed sign holder, if he is entitled to a claim to the assignment of the domain name, would under certain circumstances be put in a better position than he would have been without the damaging event, and this would also leave out of account the fact that there may be other claimants who—ignoring the damaging event—would have priority to the registration of the domain name before the infringed sign holder.348 With respect to the abusive registrations of domains under the top-level domain ‘.de’, the DE.267 restriction of the sanctions to claims to an injunction and cancellation causes no difficulties in the enforcement of rights, since the sign holder can file a dispute entry with DENIC to ensure that the domain name is not transferred to third parties while litigation is pending and that if the domain name is cancelled he will automatically take over as holder (on the preconditions for a dispute entry see para DE.59). In the case of an abusive domain name registration in the generic top-level domains, there is no such comparable instrument to block a domain name. If there is a risk that the domain name will be transferred to a third party, thus frustrating cancellation and subsequent registration of the domain name for the sign holder, the sign holder can apply for a judicial prohibition on disposal pursuant to s 938(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to secure the claim to cancellation.

XII.  Claims Pursuant to Article 21 of Regulation (EC) 874/2004 Article 21 of Regulation (EC) 874/2004349 regulates the constellation of the speculative and DE.268 abusive registration of domain names in the TLD ‘.eu’ and the resulting claims to assignment and cancellation. According to Article 21(1) of the Regulation (‘A registered domain name shall be subject to revocation, using an appropriate extra-judicial or judicial procedure’), the provision is addressed not only to the arbitration commissions of the alternative dispute settlement proceedings for ‘.eu’ but also to the ordinary courts.350 Accordingly, this is an inherent substantive infringement that in domain name conflicts is to be applied by the ordinary courts alongside the infringements of national sign, competition, or tort law, and its construction is the responsibility of the CJEU following referral by the national courts pursuant to Article 267 TFEU (ex Art. 234 EC Treaty).

XIII.  Criminal Law Protection Alongside civil law protection, criminal penalties may also be imposed on domaingrabbers or DE.269 cybersquatters. The deliberate registration of another’s sign as a domain name in order to extort a ransom from the sign holder constitutes the actus reus of (attempted) blackmail of s 253 of the

  Cf. Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 149, 191, 205–shell.de.   Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004, laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the ‘.eu’ top-level domain and the principles governing registration. 350 The application of Art 21 Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 is also affirmed by the District Court Munich, MMR 2007, 395–neu.de/neu.eu; LG Frankfurt, Judgment of August 28, 2009, Az. 3-11 O 170/08—romantic.eu. 348 349

423

Germany (‘.de’) Criminal Code and, if the requirements of ss 14(2) and (3) and 15(2)–(3) of the Trademark Act are satisfied, constitutes a punishable infringement of the sign within the meaning of s 143(1) to (5) of the Act. According to s 143(2), the penalties for the offence of a punishable infringement of a sign committed in the course of trade extend from a fine to five years’ imprisonment. However, the offence is only pursued on application if the perpetrator acts in the course of trade or if the prosecution authorities regard an intervention ex officio to be appropriate in the light of the particular public interest in the prosecution of the crime (s 143(4), Trademark Act). DENIC does not bear any responsibility for criminal actions that result from the content accessible under a domain name. In practice, criminal law protection against abusive domain registrations has only been of minor significance.351

XIV.  Acquisition of a Right in a Trademark or Commercial Designation through the Use of a Domain Name (1) Protection as Company Name or Business Symbol (Section 5(2) Trademark Act) DE.270 Section 5(2), first sentence, of the German Trademark Act protects the name, the company

name, and the special designation of business establishments (that is, company symbols with a name function), as soon as the trademark or designation is used in the course of trade in Germany,352 whilst business symbols and other signs intended to distinguish one business from another without a name function are protected under s 5(2), second sentence, of the same Act only after they have obtained secondary meaning in the trade.353 This distinction does not arise directly from the wording of the provision, yet it is justified by the history of the right to signs of a business establishment, for which the commencement of use in Germany is sufficient, contrary to a trademark recognized on the basis of use pursuant to s 4(2) of the Trademark Act.354 What holds true for both types of business designations is that their protection depends on original distinctive character or distinctive character acquired through secondary meaning.355

DE.271 There is no single answer to the question of the conditions under which domain names

consisting of distinctive word signs are capable, beyond their generally recognized distinguishing and reference functions, of being regarded by the public as a company name, and when they constitute mere business symbols that only acquire protection as a sign once they have acquired secondary meaning. In the past, the lower courts have in most cases classified domain names in the category of special business designations and granted them protection as a sign from the moment when they began to be used, referring to their general distinctive and reference functions, without calling into question the name function of the domain name. Protection as a special business designation within the meaning of s 5(2), first sentence of the Trademark Act has inter alia been granted to the following domain names:

351  So far only there has been only one case in which a court ordered penal sanctions against a cybersquatter; see District Court Munich I, Judgment of 14 September 2000, Az. W 5 KLs 70 Js 12730/99, JurPC Web-Dok. 228/2000). 352  BGH GRUR 1997, 749, 751–L’Orange; BGH GRUR 1993, 404, 405–Columbus; Ströbele/Hacker, s 5 Rn. 39. 353  Begründung zum Regierungsentwurf des MarkenG, Sonderheft Bl.f.PMZ 1994, S. 61; Goldmann, s 3 Rn. 2; Ströbele/Hacker, s 5 Rn. 6. 354  Federal Supreme Court GRUR 2005, 419, 422–Räucherkate. 355  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2014, 393–wetteronline; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 517, 518–Literaturhaus.

424

XIV.  Acquisition of a Right in a Trademark or Commercial Designation – ‘t-net.de’, used as the abbreviation for the company name ‘Touchnet’ by an Internet service provider’;356 – ‘fnet.de’, under which a business magazine was accessible;357 – ‘arena-berlin.de’, derived from the company name Arena of the operator of a velodrome in Berlin;358 – ‘fetenplaner.de’, which was also used as the business designation for an events portal;359 – ‘ratiosoft.com’, derived from the company name ‘Rationelle Softwareentwicklung GmbH’ and also used as a keyword on promotional gifts;360 – ‘medbook.de’, used to refer to a website for the marketing of medical literature;361 and – ‘abebooks.com’, used by an operating company based in Canada as the Internet address for an Internet marketplace for mediating the sale and purchase of second-hand books.362 On the other hand, the lack of the necessary name function led the Munich Appeal Court DE.272 to deny capacity for protection to the domain name ‘mbp.de’, which corresponded to the abbreviated form of the name of a Munich law firm, but was only used as the address for the law firm’s Internet presence.363 According to a significantly more restrictive view of the Düsseldorf Appeal Court, domain names, lacking the function of a name, should, on the other hand, always constitute business signs within the meaning of s 5(2), second sentence of the Trademark Act and are only entitled to protection once they have acquired secondary meaning unless the domain name is used by an enterprise that participates in trade practically entirely via the Internet.364 To begin with in an obiter dictum in the ‘soco.de’ decision and later in the ‘Seicom’ decision, DE.273 the Federal Supreme Court based its reasoning on whether the domain name ‘in the form of its concrete use is capable of referring to the commercial origin or is exclusively used as an address identifier’. It is only if a domain name that of itself is capable of referring to the commercial origin is used exclusively as an address identifier that the public assumes that this is an indication which—similar to a telephone number—while identifying the addressee is not intended as a reference to the commercial origin.365 These two decisions and the rulings not to admit the ‘mbp.de’366 and ‘t-net.de’367 cases make DE.274 it clear that the Federal Supreme Court does not, as assumed by the lower courts and parts of the literature, generally attribute name function and hence protection from when use begins, and instead, relying on the judicial practice on telegram addresses and fax numbers, regards

  Higher Regional Court Munich, CR 1999, 778–tnet.de.   District Court Munich I, CR 1999, 451–f-net.de. 358  Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), CR 2004, 301, 303–arena-berlin.de. 359  District Court Frankfurt, MMR 2005, 62, 63–fetenplaner.de. 360  District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 25 February 2004, Az. 2a O 247/03–ratiosoft.com. 361  District Court Nürnberg-Fürth, Judgment of 24 July 2002, Az. 3 O 5970/01–medbook.de. 362  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, ZUM-RD 2005, 446–abebooks.de. 363  Higher Regional Court Munich, Judgment of 4 June 2005, Az. 6 U 5769/04–mbp.de; equally the First Instance District Court Munich I, Judgment of 23 November 2004, Az. 33 O 3866/04. 364  Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2007, 188, 189–peugeot-tuning.de. 365   Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 1040, 1042 –pjur/pure; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2008, 91—Metrosex; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 262, 263–soco.de (obiter dictum); Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2008, 1099, 1100–afilias.de; 2005, 871, 873–Seicom; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2010, 156, 157–Eifel-Zeitung. 366   Federal Supreme Court, Decision of 16 March 2006, Az. I  ZR 156/05 with reference to Higher Regional Court Munich, Judgment of 4 June 2005, Az. 6 U 5769/04–mbp.de. 367   Federal Supreme Court, Decision of 25 May 2000, Az. I ZR 269/99, referring to Higher Regional Court Munich, CR 1999, 778–tnet.de. 356 357

425

Germany (‘.de’) the general classification of domain names as business signs and the differentiation between businesses operating in e-commerce and off-line368 as being excessively restrictive.

(a)  Distinctive Character of a Commercial Designation or Name DE.275 The general principles on assessing the distinctive character of a commercial designation

also apply to domain names according to case law. Admittedly, in the meantime consumers and the trade have become familiar with the use of domain names that are closely related to descriptive terms—similarly to the titles of works. However, so far, when determining the scope of protection, this has not caused the judiciary to reduce the requirements for the distinctive character of domain names that are used as special designations of business establishments, below the criteria applicable to the distinctive character of trademarks and the need to keep the register free of such descriptive terms.

(b)  Start of Protection DE.276 Insofar as a domain name exercises the requisite name function and has distinctive charac-

ter, protection pursuant to s 5(2) of the German Trademark Act arises as soon as use of the domain name in national commerce starts,369 provided such use permits the assumption of long-term business activities within Germany.370

DE.277 The requirement of use in national commerce also means that foreign business designations

only enjoy protection in Germany, notwithstanding protection in a foreign country, if they are actually used in Germany and if such use permits the assumption of long-term business activities within Germany.371

DE.278 The decision as to whether use of a domain name on the Internet by a foreign enterprise

justifies an assumption of long-term business activities in Germany, and hence an assumption of trademark protection, requires an assessment of the individual case by the trial judge.372 The mere possibility of accessing a website from Germany does not amount to the commencement of use within Germany.373 Rather, the requirement is that national trade circles and consumers should be able to order goods and services and that the goods can be delivered to persons placing national orders or services availed of by national users. Offers made exclusively in the English language do not exclude the assumption of ties to Germany.374

DE.279 Proof that individual business transactions have been agreed with national Internet users will

not establish the commencement of use in Germany where such business transactions are so minimal that no ‘commercial effect’ arises in Germany.375 Such a requirement of ‘commercial effect’ was also advocated by the General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Paris Convention on the Protection of Industrial Property on 3 October 2001 in a ‘Joint Recommendation concerning the Protection of Marks and

  Cf. Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2007, 188, 189–peugeot-tuning.de.   BGH GRUR 1997, 749, 751–L’Orange; GRUR 1993, 404, 405–Columbus; Ströbele/Hacker, s 5 Rn. 39; Goldmann, s 8 Rn. 3 ff. 370  BGH GRUR 1995, 825, 826–Torres; KG Berlin CR 2004, 301, 302–arena-berlin.de. 371  BGH GRUR 2003, 428, 431–BIG BERTHA; BGH GRUR 1997, 903, 905–GARONOR; BGH GRUR 1995, 825, 826–Torres; OLG Hamburg GRUR-RR 2005, 381, 384–abebooks; OLG Karlsruhe MMR 2002, 814–Intel; Ströbele/Hacker, s 5 Rn. 53; Goldmann, s 8 Rn. 40; Sack, GRUR Int. 1988, 320, 333. 372  OLG Hamburg GRUR-RR 2005, 381, 384–abebooks. 373 Ströbele/Hacker, s 5 Rn. 54; Higher Regional Court München GRUR-RR 2005, 375, 377–800-FLOWERS; BPatG BlPMZ 2001, 24, 25–VISIO/VISION. 374  OLG Hamburg GRUR-RR 2005, 381, 384–abebooks. 375  LG Hamburg CR 1999, 785, 786–animal-planet. 368 369

426

XIV.  Acquisition of a Right in a Trademark or Commercial Designation other Industrial Property Rights in Signs on the Internet’376 (regarding details of the Joint Recommendation, see Part IV).377

(2) Protection as a Work Title (Section 5(3), Trademark Act) (a)  Creation of Protection The previous decision-making practice of the lower courts, however, only allows limited gen- DE.280 eral statements to be made about when a website constitutes a work capable of title protection and when the domain name refers to it as a title. In the literature, it is agreed that websites cannot as a matter of principle be denied capacity for title protection and that, for instance, online journals or newsletters (eg heise-online or JurPC), which if disseminated off-line would constitute works capable of title protection, should also be qualified as works entitled to title protection when made accessible online. This statement can be generalized to the effect that a website whose content, structure, and type of presentation would constitute a work capable of title protection off-line cannot be denied the qualification of a work capable of title protection merely because it is made accessible on the Internet. Accordingly, it is not disputed that works capable of title protection include: – an online information programme about the city of Dresden with information about special local affairs, city institutions, events, etc;378 – a business and stock exchange information service accessible under the domain name ‘fnet.de’;379 and – an online collection of articles addressed to young readers published under the domain name ‘claro.de’.380 The decisive factors as to whether a website constitutes a work capable of title protection DE.281 are the criteria that are also otherwise to be used for the examination of whether a product constitutes a work capable of title protection. This means on the one hand that, contrary to the opinion occasionally expressed in the literature, not every individually designed website is qualified as a work capable of title protection, while on the other hand, irrespective of whether the preconditions of the degree of creativity under copyright law are satisfied, not only Internet journals or newsletters but also online portals or online product catalogues can be qualified as works capable of title protection if by virtue of the selection, compilation, and presentation of the goods and services or information they embody an independent intellectual achievement.381 Whether Internet information services, online portals, or presentations of goods and services DE.282 on the website constitute, in the light of their compilation, selection, and presentation, an independent intellectual achievement, cannot be answered uniformly but requires the trial judge’s assessment of the circumstances of the individual case. Taking as the starting point the judicial practice of the Federal Supreme Court, according to which sales catalogues as a rule constitute independent intellectual achievements, and hence intellectual works capable of title protection by virtue of their selection, compilation, and presentation,382 this would suggest the conclusion that as a rule extensive information portals or information services

  Available at: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/marks/845/pub845.pdf.   Hamburg CR 1999, 785, 786–animal-planet. 378  Higher Regional Court Dresden, CR 1999, 102–dresden-online.de. 379  District Court Munich I, CR 1999, 451–fnet.de. 380  Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, ZUM-RD 2001, 446–claro.de. 381  Cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 959, 960–Facts II. 382  Cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 959, 960–Facts II. 376 377

427

Germany (‘.de’) on the Internet also embody the necessary intellectual achievement.383 This will also have to apply if extensive offers of goods and services in the manner of a sales catalogue are edited and formatted for presentation on a website.384 DE.283 Just as advertisements or simple advertising brochures do not constitute works capable of title

protection, not every site for the sale of goods or services or the presentation of a company is of itself to be classified as a work capable of title protection merely because ‘communication with the Internet user is to the fore in any home page’.385 If only the goods or services of an enterprise are presented on the website, this does not constitute a work capable of protection even if the design is original.386

(3) Protection as a Trademark (Section 4, Trademark Act) (a)  Acquisition of a Registered Trademark (Section 4 No 1 of the Act) DE.284 A registered trademark pursuant to s 4(1) of the Trademark Act can be acquired in a domain name that consists of a distinctive word sign by means of registration as a trademark at the German Patent and Trademark Office. The registration of domain names as trademarks does not give rise to any particular legal questions. The technical address function of an Internet domain resulting from the uniqueness of registration does not provide any indication about its identifying function in a trademark law sense, and for this reason of itself alone does not establish capacity for registration as a trademark. Instead, the examination for obstacles to protection is to be carried out in the individual case according to the general criteria.387 DE.285 As otherwise in the case of multiple signs, the examination for capacity for protection is based

on the complete domain name consisting of the second-level and top-level domains. The country code top-level domains (‘.de’, ‘.fr’, ‘.uk’, etc) as well-known country identifiers of a domain name do not have any individualizing significance, since these are generally familiar indications of geographical origin.388 The same also applies to generic top-level domains (‘.com’, ‘.net’, ‘.org’, etc), which are regarded by the public as being technically necessary and therefore likewise not interpreted as an indication of origin. The question whether the registration of the domain name constitutes an absolute obstacle to protection on the grounds of a lack of distinctive character within the meaning of s 8(2)(1) of the Trademark Act therefore depends on whether the second-level domain is capable of identifying the goods or services for which registration is requested as originating from a specific enterprise.

XV.  Law Governing Infringement Proceedings (1)  Enforcement of Claims Out of Court (a)  Dispute Entry at DENIC DE.286 In order to prevent a domain being transferred to third parties during a pending lawsuit, it is

advisable to obtain a ‘dispute entry’ at DENIC prior to issuing a cease-and-desist letter to the 383  See District Court Düsseldorf, MD 2000, 21–babynet.de; Higher Regional Court Dresden, CR 1999, 102–dresden-online.de; District Court Munich I, CR 1999, 451–fnet.de; District Court Munich I, Decision of 27 December 2004, Az. 33 O 24216/04–dialerschutz.de. 384 KG NJWE-WettbR 2000, 234–toolshop.de, (regarding the domain name ‘toolshop.de’ used for an online catalogue for tools). 385  KG NJWE-WettbR 2000, 234–toolshop.de; District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 10 February 2000, Az. 4 0 582/99–euro-car-market.de. 386  For this reason District Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 10 February 2000, Az. 4 0 582/99–euro-car-market.de, denied the protection for the domain name ‘euro-car-market.de’ used for a website offering services regarding re-imported cars. 387  BPatG GRUR 2004, 336–beauty24.de; BPatG BlPMZ 2001, 192–eCollect.de. 388  Cf. BPatG BlPMZ 2001, 192–eCollect.de; BPatG Mitt. 2003, 569–handy.de.

428

XV.  Law Governing Infringement Proceedings domain holder. A dispute entry requires the applicant to ‘present(s) a credible case suggesting that they have a right to the domain or that their rights are being infringed by the domain, and to declare that he is taking steps to enforce his claims against the Domain Holder’. DENIC offers an online form for establishing a DISPUTE-entry.389 Since DENIC does not DE.287 examine the existing claims of the person requesting the entry, there is no need to state the grounds for the claims being made. In order to present a credible case, where trademarks are concerned, provision of a copy of the trademark deed or of an online excerpt from the register will suffice; where commercial designations, titles of works, and other trademark rights acquired through use are concerned, corresponding proof of use has to be presented. Where the person requesting a dispute entry is invoking rights to his or her surname, it is sufficient to present a copy of one’s identity card or passport. The effect of a dispute entry is that the domain name to which a dispute entry is attached may DE.288 continue to be used by the domain holder. However, pursuant to s 6(2) in conjunction with s 2(3), third sentence, of the DENIC Terms and Conditions, the domain name may not be transferred to a third party for a period of one year. No fees are payable for a dispute entry. The dispute entry initially applies for one year and will be extended by DENIC if the person DE.289 requesting the entry again submits a DENIC dispute entry request form in the original and proves that the dispute with the domain holder has not yet been resolved. If the conflict between the DISPUTE-entry holder and the domain holder is resolved, the DE.290 DISPUTE-entry holder must inform DENIC immediately, so that the DISPUTE-entry can be removed. Insofar as deletion of the domain name to which a dispute entry has been attached is ordered by DE.291 a court, or where the domain holder requests deletion of the domain name, the party requesting the dispute entry will succeed as the new domain holder so that registration of the domain by third parties is excluded.

(b)  Protection Against Unjustified Dispute Entries A domain holder affected by a dispute entry may defend itself against an unlawful dispute entry DE.292 by bringing a suit for a ‘negative declaratory judgment’ (negative Feststellungsklage), with a finding that registration and/or use of the domain name does not infringe the rights of the party that requested such dispute entry. If the action for a negative declaratory judgment is successful, the judgment simply has to be submitted to DENIC e.G. together with a request for deletion of the dispute entry.390 (c) Cease-and-Desist Letter A cease-and-desist letter is an important part of the system, developed in practice and originally DE.293 revised by way of judge-made law, of resolving disputes concerning cease-and-desist obligations following infringements of intellectual property rights or anti-competitive conduct without having recourse to the courts.391 A cease-and-desist letter is normal practice where domain name disputes arise as well as in traditional disputes concerning trademarks and aspects of competition law, and is the appropriate way to resolve the matter out of court. There is no legal obligation to issue a cease-and-desist letter, which was anchored in law in s 12(1) DE.294 of the Act Against Unfair Competition with regard to claims based on competition law, however, it is necessary where the injured party wishes to avoid the risk that the infringer immediately

 See http://www.denic.de/en/domains/dispute.html.   For further details, see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.789. 391  Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 149, 371, 374–Missbräuchliche Mehrfachabmahnungen. 389 390

429

Germany (‘.de’) recognizes the claim pursuant to s 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), so that the costs of the proceedings have to be borne by the injured party. DE.295 A cease-and-desist letter contains the demand made of the infringer to issue a declaration of cease

and desist on pain of penalty within a reasonable set period, together with the threat that legal action will be taken against the infringement unless the relevant declaration is issued within the set period.392

(2) Legal  Action (a)  Capacity to be Sued DE.296 The party with capacity to be sued for injunctive relief against the use and for deletion of the domain name is the domain holder (registrant) under the registration contract with DENIC or another registration office or the ICANN registrar. In the absence of incorrect entries, in all cases this is the natural or legal person entered in the WHOIS database as the ‘domain holder’ or ‘registrant’.393 This also holds true where the domain name was registered by order of a third party,394 where the domain holder undertakes to transfer the domain name to a third party395 or has granted a third party permission to use the domain name.396 DE.297 The user of a domain name who is not necessarily identical with the proprietor can also be

the party that is under an obligation to cease and desist from using the domain name as the infringer or party bearing secondary liability.397

DE.298 A change in the holder of the domain name after the case becomes pending will as a rule not

affect the action for injunctive relief, since the risk of repeated infringements of trademark rights or competition law still remains even where the domain name is deleted or registered anew. This applies even where the domain name is transferred to the trademark proprietor who is the injured party, since after the change in the holder of the domain name the risk still remains that the defendant will continue to use the designation in dispute, under a different top-level domain.398

DE.299 Capacity to be sued with regard to a claim for injunctive relief has to be distinguished from

capacity to be sued with regard to a claim for deletion of the domain name. Since the claim for deletion can only be satisfied by the holder entitled under the registration contract with DENIC or the ICANN registrar, the domain name holder alone or, if registration was made by order of a third party, the party who commissioned registration has capacity to be sued for deletion purposes.

DE.300 If the domain name is deleted after the case becomes pending, this will resolve the legal

dispute since the claim for deletion of the domain name made against the previous domain holder becomes unfounded after deletion and new registration. Application of ss 265 and 325 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) does not come into question in this respect.399

  For further references, see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.798.  Cf. also Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 811, 812–grundke.de; Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.906. 394  Cf. District Court Düsseldorf, NJW-RR 1999, 841–Alltours. 395  District Court Mannheim, K&R 1998, 556, 560–brockhaus.de; Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, WRP 1999, 343, 346–ufa.de. 396  District Court Düsseldorf, Mitt. 1997, 225, 229–epson.de. 397  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 706, 707 f.–vossius.de; District Court Munich I, NJW-RR 1998, 978–sat-shop.com; District Court Frankfurt a. M., MMR 2000, 102, 104–Arvis. 398 Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe AfP 1999, 378, 379–badwildbad.com; Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR 2000, 519, 520–rollsroyce.de. 399  Different view District Court Düsseldorf, GRUR-RR 2003, 11, 12–versicherungsrecht.de. 392 393

430

XV.  Law Governing Infringement Proceedings Where domain names in the area of the ccTLD ‘.de’ are concerned, deletion of the domain DE.301 name during contentious proceedings can be prevented by filing a dispute entry. Where no such dispute entry is available for a domain name, it is possible to obtain a prohibition of transfers in order to secure the claim for deletion.400

(b)  Action for Injunctive Relief Where actions for injunctive relief are filed against the use of a domain name, it is especially DE.302 important to note that as a rule it is not possible to demand a blanket prohibition, that is, a ban on use of the domain name without specifying the goods and services or the area of business covered by the risk of repeated offences or a first offence, on the basis of the constituent elements banned under trademark law. Where action is taken against the use of a domain name on the basis of a trademark or commercial designation under ss 14(2)(2) and 15(2) of the German Trademark Act, then the specific infringement always includes a reference to the goods, services, or area of business with regard to which use of the domain name is to be prohibited. Hence a motion aimed at banning ‘use of a domain name for internet offers’ or ‘use of the internet domain in the course of trade, in particular use on a home page’ would be overly broad from the viewpoint of substantive law. According to ss 14(5) and 15(4) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG), s 8(1), first DE.303 sentence, Act Against Unfair Competition and ss 826 and 1004 of the German Civil Code (BGB), a claim for injunctive relief requires a risk of repeated offences where a first offence has already been committed, or the genuine and direct expectation that a first infringement of the trademark will take place (risk of first offence). In both disputes concerning trademark law401 and disputes under competition law,402 in case DE.304 law there is a positive presumption of a risk of repeated offences.403 Contrary to the risk of repeated offences that is indicated by a positive presumption, there DE.305 is no presumption where risk of a first offence is concerned, either under trademark law or under competition law. The party contending that there is a risk of a first offence, therefore, has to substantiate and present proof of all circumstances supposedly giving rise to such risk in the specific case at hand.404

(c)  Action for Deletion of a Domain Name The requirements subject to which a claim for deletion (removal) of the domain name can DE.306 arise in the main proceedings in addition to the claim for injunctive relief are disputed especially with regard to the constituents of an infringement under trademark law, ss 14 and 15 German Trademark Act (MarkenG). The detailed considerations required in this respect are discussed in connection with the legal consequences of the individual constituents of an infringement (regarding the claim for removal where trademark infringements are concerned, see para DE.135; regarding the claim for removal where infringements of a commercial designation are concerned, see para DE.173; regarding the claim for removal where infringements of work titles are concerned, see para DE.188; regarding the claim for removal where torts and violations of competition law are concerned, see paras DE.246 and DE.265).

  Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), GRUR-RR 2007, 398, 399 –.eu.   Referring to the German Trademark Act: Higher Regional Court Hamburg, WRP 1997, 106, 108–Gucci. 402 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 446, 447–Preisempfehlung für Sondermodelle; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2003, 899–Olympiasiegerin; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1996, 781, 783–Verbrauchsmaterialien; Federal Supreme Court, WRP 1996, 284, 285–Wegfall der Wiederholungsgefahr II. 403  For further references, see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.1046. 404  For further references, see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.1052. 400 401

431

Germany (‘.de’) DE.307 In proceedings for a preliminary injunction, any claims for deletion are rightly rejected by

the majority of the lower-instance courts since this can entail a permanent loss of rights if the domain name is registered anew by a third party following deletion, thus anticipating the main object of the case.405

(d)  Action for Damages DE.308 The claim for damages based on ss 14(6) and 15(5) German Trademark Act (MarkenG) and

on s 9 Act Against Unfair Competition requires that the infringer commits the infringement of trademark rights or competition law negligently or with intent (s 276 German Civil Code (BGB)). The domain holder acts with intent where he commits the infringement while being aware of the constituents of the offence, that is, of the conflicting trademark rights, and deliberately interferes with a third party’s rights by using his sign without any justification. The infringement of rights is negligent where prior to using the domain name as a trademark, the domain holder fails to conduct or commission a professional search for company names entered in the commercial register or for registered trademarks.

DE.309 The manner in which damages are calculated is not regulated by law. Based on standard

legal practice in intellectual property law, there are three alternative methods of calculating damages at the discretion of the injured party. The injured party may calculate damages first based on his lost profits, secondly based on the profits gained by the infringer, or thirdly based on a fictitious licence.406

DE.310 The calculation of damage on the basis of lost profits requires proof of causality between the

infringement and the lost profits based on general rules of damages (ss 249, 252 German Civil Code (BGB)). This often constitutes an insurmountable obstacle in practice since it requires proof which is almost impossible to present, namely that the portion of profits is in all probability based on use of the trademark and not on other factors.407

DE.311 For this reason, the injured party may choose to conduct an abstract (objective) calculation

of damage based on a licence analogy, according to which the proprietor of the infringed trademark can demand to be placed in the same position as if he had permitted the infringer to use the trademark subject to payment of a normal market licence fee. Crucial in this context is the amount of the licence fee on which reasonable contracting parties would have agreed, when taking into account all objective circumstances of the individual case that are of relevance to the licence.

DE.312 According to the third calculation option, the injured party may require that the infringer’s

profits gained from use of the trademark be surrendered to it.408

DE.313 The above principles also apply to trademarks infringed by domain names, in which respect

the relevant damages arise not only from use of the domain name infringing the trademark, but also from the fact that the trademark proprietor is prevented from using a domain name corresponding to his trademark owing to its registration. If the damage is calculated on the basis of a licence analogy, material licence factors are, as otherwise in trademark law: the degree to which the infringed trademark is well known and its repute;409 the degree of a

405 Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, CR 2001, 412–mediafacts.de; Higher Regional Court Hamm, MMR 2001, 695; District Court Munich I, MMR 2001, 61; for further references, see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.1069. 406  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1993, 55–Tchibo/Rolex. 407  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1961, 354, 355 f.–Vitalsulfal. 408  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1961, 354–Vitasulfal. 409  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1975, 85, 87–Clarissa; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1966, 375, 378–Meßmer-Tee II.

432

XV.  Law Governing Infringement Proceedings likelihood of confusion410 and the degree of impairment or exploitation; the significance of the trademark for customers; as well as the duration and scope in which the trademark was used. If no income was made with the domain name that infringes the trademark so that the fictitious licence fee cannot be calculated based on a percentage of the proceeds of trademark-infringing sales, the licence fee will be estimated by the court that decides the dispute, pursuant to s 287 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). If mere registration of a domain name gives rise to damage (eg costs of conducting out-of- DE.314 court dispute resolution proceedings based on the UDRP), such damages may be claimed irrespective of the damage caused by use of the domain name. So far, the enforcement of damages claims has not played a major role in practice in domain DE.315 name disputes. The damages claims awarded in the small number of domain name disputes have been nominal. The Regional Court (LG) Mannheim411 estimated that the damage sustained by the proprietor of the ‘Zwilling’ trademark through use of the domain name ‘zwilling. de’ for an Internet guide to be DM 600 per month. As the basis for the estimate, it was stated that the defendant had marketed the domain name to numerous companies and self-employed persons, charging approximately DM 100 for the placement of a link. Since a mere link cost DM 100, it was argued, one may assume that exclusive use would amount to three times that price, namely DM 300. This initial price of DM 300 had to be doubled owing to use of the well-known trademark ‘Zwilling’ and the resulting exploitation of the distinctive character and repute enjoyed by the mark, while also taking into account the confusion caused on the market. In a decision handed down by the Hamburg Regional Court (LG)412 the proprietor of the DE.316 trademark ‘ID Diacos’, who sold encoding software to health institutions under the designation as a market leader in that segment, was awarded a damages claim amounting to DM 1,000 per month owing to trademark infringing use of the domain name ‘diacos.de’. The decisive factor was that in using the domain name, the defendant had intended to point interested parties familiar with the plaintiff ’s software in the direction of its own (the defendant’s) products. However, it was held that the damage sustained had been limited by the fact that the domain name was of subordinate importance for the investment decisions made by customers. In a recent decision the District Court of Leipzig the International hotel group Accor, oper- DE.317 ating 4,100 hotels in more than 90 countries, was awarded a damages claim amounting to €28,240,00 owing to the infringing use of 706 domain names for a period of two months (eg ‘accor-suitehotel-hanover.com’, ‘Sofitel-florence.com’, ‘Sofitel-berlin.de’, etc). The Court based the calculation of damages on a fictitious licence fee of €20 per month for each domain name (706 x 2 x €20 = €28,240), distinguishing the case from the District Court of Hamburg’s decision because the domain names which were redirected to the defendant’s website offering accommodation booking online also resulted in booking fees in favour of the trademark holder.413 The principles of the calculation of damages discussed above were not modified significantly DE.318 by Article 13 of the so-called Enforcement Directive414 or by the revision of ss 14(6) and   Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 1971, 221, 222–Pudelzeichen II.   District Court Mannheim, WRP 2002, 254–zwilling.de, (action for damages). 412  District Court Hamburg, CR 2002, 296–diacos.de, (action for damages); see also District Court of Hamburg, Az. 312 O 116/02, Judgment of 7 July 2002, awarding a fictitious licence fee of €50 per month. 413  District Court of Leipzig, Az. 05 O 2919/10, Judgment of 8 March 2011 (unpublished). 414  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights; Corrigendum to Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ L157 of 30 April 2004). 410 411

433

Germany (‘.de’) 15(5) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) undertaken on that basis, through the Act on the Improvement of Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights dated 24 January 2007.415 The German legislators did not avail themselves of the scope created by the Enforcement Directive for preventive punitive licences. DE.319 In addition to the above calculation methods for damages, the proprietor of a trademark

whose rights have been infringed may also claim the costs of pre-procedural demands to cease and desist as well as other necessary costs of prosecuting the infringement. These include costs of proceedings and lawyers’ fees incurred by the proprietor of the infringed trademark in connection with conducting out-of-court dispute settlement procedures (see in this respect Section XV(4) below).

(e)  Action for Transfer of the Domain Name DE.320 Contrary to traditional trademark disputes where, as a rule, the trademark proprietor bring-

ing the action seeks injunctive relief against use of the trademark by the infringer, in domain name disputes the trademark proprietor often seeks to obtain ownership of the domain name infringing its trademark. Hence the lower-instance courts were confronted by the question whether the claims arising from infringement of a trademark also extend to a claim for transfer of the domain name in addition to the explicitly regulated claims for injunctive relief, for information and for damages.

DE.321 In its established case law, however, the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) has held that such

claims for transfer of a domain name do not arise on the basis of general civil law or intellectual property law.416

(3) Preliminary Legal Protection (Sections 916 et seq., German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO)) (a)  Prerequisites for Grant of a Preliminary Injunction DE.322 As a matter of principle, in proceedings for a preliminary injunction it is only possible to

make claims for injunctive relief against the use of domain name under trademark law, competition law, or general tort law; however, it is not possible to make a claim for deletion of the domain name since this could entail a permanent loss of rights if the domain name were registered anew by a third party after deletion, thus anticipating the outcome of the main proceedings.417 This prohibition also has to be observed where a request for deletion is directed against damage caused contrary to accepted moral principles by the mere registration of a domain name (cybersquatting).

DE.323 Insofar as a claim for deletion can be enforced in the main proceedings because mere reg-

istration of the domain name as such infringes rights to a name (s 12 German Civil Code (BGB)), or constitutes an unfair impediment (s 4(10) Act Against Unfair Competition), or damage caused contrary to accepted moral principles (s 826 German Civil Code (BGB)), a claim for disconnection of the domain name can come into question in the proceedings for a preliminary injunction since it does not involve a permanent loss of rights and hence does not anticipate the outcome of the main proceedings.418

  Available at: http://www.bmj.bund.de.   Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 149, 191, 205–shell.de. 417 Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, CR 2001, 412–mediafacts.de; Higher Regional Court Hamm, MMR 2001, 695; District Court Munich I, MMR 2001, 61. 418  District Court Bremen, ZUM-RD 2000, 558–photo-dose.de. 415 416

434

XV.  Law Governing Infringement Proceedings One prerequisite for the grant of a preliminary injunction is that it is urgent for the party DE.324 requesting it because without the injunctive order the claim could be thwarted or become significantly more difficult to enforce. The set period regarding urgency commences as a matter principle when knowledge of the DE.325 infringement is obtained by persons in a position to decide on the institution of proceedings for a preliminary injunction, that is, generally speaking, by the management where small and medium-sized enterprises are concerned, but not by field sales employees or authorized distributors.419

(4) Costs of Proceedings The procedural costs, that is, one’s own court and attorney fees and those of the opponent, DE.326 as well as costs of a cease-and-desist letter, have to be reimbursed to the injured party (the trademark proprietor) by the infringer in the amount of the fees calculated on the basis of the German Act on Lawyers’ Fees (Rechtsanwaltsgebührengesetz) based on the amount in dispute. The basis for reimbursement in substantive law is the claim for damages under ss 14(6) and DE.327 15(5) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG), in the absence of a more specific regulation within the same Act. However, also in the exceptional case of non-culpable trademark infringement, reimbursement of the procedural and pre-procedural costs can be required to almost the same extent on the basis of gestion d’affaires. This claim also arises where the trademark proprietor incurs lower or higher lawyers’ costs under a fee agreement. The value of fees in dispute is determined by the court at its discretion in domain name DE.328 conflicts, as with general matters in dispute under intellectual property law, pursuant to s 3, Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), and s 51, German Law on Court Costs (GKG). Domain name disputes usually concern either discontinuation of actual use of a domain DE.329 name or deletion of the relevant registration by the domain holder. The financial interest in enforcing claims for injunctive relief or removal owing to trademark infringement that is crucial to the value in dispute is determined by the financial value of the infringed trademark right and by the dangerous nature of the infringement (so-called attack factor).420 The value of the trademark right is determined essentially by the importance the trademark DE.330 has for the plaintiff, taking into account the duration and scope of previous use, the turnover made under the trademark, the extent to which the trademark is well known as well as its repute among relevant trade circles and consumers, and the degree of original distinctive character as well as the trademark’s general importance for sales, itemized according to the nature of the product and the branch of trade concerned. In the case law of the lower instance courts, in actions for injunctive relief against the regis- DE.331 tration and use of domain names the values in dispute were estimated to be between €25,000 and €150,000 where averagely-used trademarks421 and titles422 were concerned. Where an 419 District Court Munich I, WRP 1997, 124, 126–Maglite; for further details and references, see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.1118. 420 Cf. District Court Düsseldorf, MMR 2005, 412; for further references and details, see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.1124. 421  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, NJOZ 2005, 4080, 4083–metrosex.de: €150,000 (injunction) und €20,000 (deletion). 422  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, Judgment of 31 July 2003, Az. 3 U 145/02, eltern-online.de: value in dispute €250,000; Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, GRUR-RR 2001, 264–weltonline.de: value in dispute DM 250,000; District Court Hamburg, GRUR-RR 2002, 267–schuhmarkt.de: value in dispute DM 150,000.

435

Germany (‘.de’) action for injunctive relief concerned a commercial designation, however, the estimated value in dispute was between €75,000 and €250,000.423 Where trademarks have been used for many years or intensively or are very well known, the values in dispute can be significantly higher and—as in the dispute concerning the domain name ‘shell.de’424—can amount to €500,000 or can even reach €1 million as in the dispute concerning the domain name ‘budweiser.com’.425 DE.332 For an amount in dispute of €100,000 the risk in terms of costs of losing the case at first

instance is approximately €11,000.00 (without hearing of witnesses), for the appeal instance it would be approximately €14,000.00.

DE.333 For an amount in dispute of €500,000 the risk in terms of costs of losing the case at first

instance increases to approximately €27,000.00 (without hearing of witnesses), for the appeal instance it would be approximately €35,000.00.

XVI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, Internet Service Provider, and the Administrative Contact of a Domain Name (1)  Secondary Liability of DENIC and gTLD Registries DE.334 In German legal literature the question as to whether the proprietor of an infringed trade-

mark also has claims for injunctive relief and removal against DENIC, based on the registration and use of domain names was disputed for many years. Whereas early voices in legal literature affirmed the secondary liability of domain registries, in subsequent debates within case law and the literature the view prevailed that secondary liability of DENIC for unlawfully registered domain names could only be assumed if was unmistakable and blatantly obvious to the registry that the registered domain name infringed the industrial property rights held by third parties. In its decisions ‘ambiente.de’426 and ‘kurt-biedenkopf.de’427 the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) concurred with this view.

DE.335 The Supreme Court based its decision on the traditional liability concept of Störerhaftung

(interferer liability), which is the main standard that German law applies with regard the contributory liability of Internet service providers for the trademark and copyright infringements.

DE.336 According to the established concept of ‘interferer’ liability (Störerhaftung), any person who

has wilfully made a causal contribution to the direct infringement of a trademark or other industrial property right in a sign by third parties can be held liable for injunctive relief if the contributor has violated a reasonable duty of care to prevent such direct infringements. Accordingly, the action for an injunction, based on contributory liability because of Störerhaftung, involves three elements: (1) a wilful adequate causal contribution to the infringing acts of any third party; (2) the legal and factual possibility of preventing the resulting direct infringements; and (3) the violation of a reasonable duty of care to prevent these infringements. The resulting Störerhaftung liability is limited to injunctive relief, including preventive injunctions; damages cannot be claimed on that basis. However, such preventive measures must not be unreasonably burdensome in the sense that the provider is

  For a full analysis of the case law see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.1124.   In the ‘shell.de’ case the value in dispute was declared to be DM 1m. 425  District Court Cologne, MMR 2002, 60–budweiser.com: Value in dispute: DM 2m. 426  Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 148, 13, 17 f.–ambiente.de; District Court Magdeburg MMR 1999, 607–foris.de. 427  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 619–kurt-biedenkopf.de. 423 424

436

XVI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, Internet Service Provider required to take steps which would jeopardize its entire business model. The essential standard of reasonableness is determined by the Federal Court of Justice on a case-by-case basis taking into account all the facts of the case, including, inter alia, the role and function of the ‘interferer’, the degree of causation (ie, the intensity of the danger of direct infringement) the possibility that the claimant might file an action against the direct infringers, and other criteria. On the basis of these principles, according to the case law of the Federal Supreme Court, an DE.337 assumption of contributory liability on the part of DENIC at the time of the initial registration of a domain name is prevented by the fact that such a verification obligation, even if it were restricted to unmistakable, blatantly obvious infringements of rights, would conflict with the automated registration of a large number of domain names that is necessary and lies in the public interest.428 This also applies where one and the same infringing domain name is registered anew after having been deleted.429 Even where the (alleged) infringement of rights is pointed out to the defendant by a third DE.338 party, an unlimited verification obligation would nonetheless overtax DENIC and make its work unreasonably more difficult. If an infringement of trademark rights is pointed out to DENIC, therefore, it is only under an obligation to delete a registered domain name if the infringement of third-party rights is obvious and unmistakable for DENIC, that is, for the person responsible for dealing with the matter. According to case law, a trademark infringement is ‘unmistakable’ in this sense in an excep- DE.339 tional case if it is blatantly obvious to DENIC, for example, where a domain name is identical to a trademark which is outstandingly well known to the general public, or where a corresponding legally enforceable judgment or an unquestionably effective declaration of cease and desist of the domain holder is presented to DENIC.430 On the basis of this principle, in a lawsuit initiated against DENIC by the German subsidiary DE.340 of Pfizer Inc., the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court held that the registration of the domain names ‘viagratip.de’, ‘viagrabestellung.de’ (=viagraorder.de), and ‘viagra-dhea-melatonin.de’ did not establish such an obvious and unmistakable infringement of the plaintiff ’s rights in the famous trademark ‘Viagra’ because the domain name was not identical with the well-known trademark Viagra because it contained further descriptive elements.431 Equally, the District Court of Frankfurt denied DENIC’s ‘interferer’ liability in a conflict between the German airline Lufthansa and a ‘typosquatter’ who had registered multiple domain names consisting of common misspellings of the trademark Lufthansa (eg ‘lufthnasa.de’, ‘lufhtansa. de’, ‘luhthansaa.de’, and ‘lufdhansa.de’).432 However, DENIC’s ‘interferer’ liability was approved by the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) DE.341 in a conflict between the Federal State of Bavaria and DENIC where domain names identical to the names of governmental districts in the federal state of Bavaria (‘regierung-oberbayern. de’, ‘regierung-unterfranken.de’, ‘regierung-mittelfranken.de’, etc) were registered by two letterbox companies in Panama, since even without legal qualification any person responsible for dealing with registrations at DENIC would be able to recognize sufficiently clearly that 428  Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 148, 13, 17 f.–ambiente.de; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 619, 620–kurt-biedenkopf.de. 429  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 619, 621–kurt-biedenkopf.de. 430 Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 148, 13, 17 f.–ambiente.de; Higher Regional Court Naumburg, MMR 2002, 57, 58. 431  Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, GRUR-RR 2003, 143, 144–viagratip.de. 432  District Court of Frankfurt, MMR 2009, 705, Lufthansa-Domains; see also District Court of Frankfurt, MMR 2009, 272–huk-coburg24.de.

437

Germany (‘.de’) these domain names were attributable to government offices and not to the private registrants resident in Panama.433

(2) Secondary Liability of the Internet Service Providers DE.342 An assessment of the liability of the Internet Service Provider (ISP) for the registration and

use of domain names infringing trademark rights depends on the manner in which the ISP (registrar) participated in the registration or use of the domain name. Participation relevant to liability can arise through the registration and resolution of the domain name into a corresponding IP address or the hosting of the website available at the infringing domain name.

DE.343 As regards the liability of ISPs, Articles 12 to 15 of the E-Commerce Directive 2000/31434

privilege different kinds of ISPs—access and transmission providers (Article 12), caching providers (Article 13), and (most importantly) host providers (Article 14)—with regard to liability for the transmitted, cached, or hosted information, when the particular conditions of these provisions are fulfiled. Host providers’ liability is excluded on the basis that the provider has no actual knowledge of the infringement and no awareness of any facts or circumstances from which the infringement is apparent; moreover the provider, upon obtaining knowledge or awareness of the infringement, must act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the infringing information. However, the resulting privilege—like Articles 12 and 13—should not affect the ability of Member States’ courts or administrative authorities to require the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement according to national law. At the same time, the general principle laid down in Article 15 must always be taken into account, according to which Member States must not impose any general obligation on ISPs to monitor stored or transmitted information.435 These limitations on liability have been implemented in s 7-10 of the German Telemedia Act (TMG)

DE.344 Applying these principles to the trademark infringements resulting from the registration and

use of domain names, it is important to note that the limitations on liability afforded by ss 7–10 of the Telemedia Act (TMG) do not apply to the tasks of a registrar relating to the registration and resolution of domain names since they only regulate liability for the transmission and storage of information (ss 8–10 Telemedia Act (TMG)). In this respect, domain names are merely technical synonyms for the numerical IP address of a computer connected to the Internet, which are translated into the relevant corresponding, individual, numerical computer addresses via so-called name servers—similarly to a cross-reference list. Hence they do not constitute ‘information’ of a service provider so that their transmission and storage with regard to the resolution of a domain name is not subject to a limitation on liability pursuant to s 7-10 of the Telemedia Act (TMG).436

DE.345 In contrast, the tasks of an ISP do fall within the ambit of the limitations on liability for

the ‘storage of information’ under ss 7 and 10 of the Telemedia Act (TMG) since the host

  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 651, 653–regierung-oberfranken.de.   Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’). 435  For an detailed analysis of the secondary liability of ISPs under German, French and UK law, see Leistner, Structural aspects of secondary (provider) liability in Europe, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, (2014) 9(1), 75–90. 436 Cf. Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2000, 92, 96–Casino-online/Golden Jackpot; Higher Regional Court Cologne, CR 2002, 533, 535–guenter-jauch.de; District Court Munich I, MMR 2002, 691, 692–lady-lucia.de; for further details, see Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.975. 433 434

438

XVI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, Internet Service Provider provider not only undertakes the administration and connecting of the domain name, but also participates in the infringement of trademark by storing and making available a website under the disputed domain name. However, it is important to note in this respect that the limitations on liability set out in the DE.346 Telemedia Act apply exclusively to the ISP’s liability for damages and criminal liability, but not in relation to claims for injunctive relief.437 Consequently, the general principles of secondary liability apply to claims for injunctive relief and claims for cancellation of a domain name (deletion). That is, the ISP can be sued for infringements of trademark rights and violations of competition law caused by the connecting and administration of the domain name and the making available of contents under the domain name (hosting) on the basis of the principles of interferer liability (Störerhaftung), according to which any person who has wilfully made a causal contribution to the direct infringement of an intellectual property right by third parties can be held liable for injunctive relief if the contributor has violated a reasonable duty of care to prevent such direct infringements. The essential standard of reasonableness is determined by the Federal Court of Justice on a DE.347 case-by-case basis taking into account all the facts of the case, including, inter alia, the role and function of the ‘interferer’, the degree of causation (ie, the intensity of the danger of direct infringement), the possibility that the claimant might file an action against the direct infringers, and other criteria. For both ISPs responsible for the registration and resolution of domain names and host providers, this analysis leads to the conclusion that there is no reasonable duty of comprehensive ex ante examination of any domain name registration or infringing content domain name registrant make available under a specific domain name.438 Hosting services as well as domain name registrations services provided by the ISP are typi- DE.348 cally mass transactions provided in automated form, which would be unreasonably impaired by the imposition of general verification and monitoring obligations. Hence the hosting provider or a registrar, like the operator of a platform for Internet auctions, is under no obligation to examine the contents it keeps available for third parties under a domain name as to possible infringements.439 The situation changes once a clear and specific infringement has been reported by the rights DE.349 holder by way of a substantiated cease-and-desist letter. Unlike DENIC, which can refer to action to be taken against the direct infringer even where alleged infringements are pointed out to it and which is only under an obligation to block a domain name where an enforceable court judgment is presented or where the infringement is so evident that it is blatant, the ISP is under an obligation to investigate an infringement indicated by the registration or use of a domain name and, if there clearly is an infringement, has to discontinue ‘hosting’ of the infringing contents or disconnect the domain name. However, the ISP only has to disconnect the domain name if registration of the domain name as such causes the infringement, but not where the infringement is caused merely by the making available of certain contents under the domain name without its registration as such constituting an infringement.

437 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 860–Internet-Versteigerung; Federal Supreme Court, WRP 2007, 964, 966–Internet-Versteigerung II; see also Leistner, Structural aspects of secondary (provider) liability in Europe, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2014) 9 (1), 75–90. 438  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 860–Internet-Versteigerung, regarding the liability of the auction platform eBay; cf. also Bornkamm, E-Commerce Directive v.  IP Rights Enforcement:  Legal Balance Achieved? GRUR Int. 2007, 642. 439  Cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2004, 860, 864–Internet-Versteigerung; Higher Regional Court Cologne, MMR 2002, 476, 478–guenter-jauch.de; Higher Regional Court Hamburg, GRUR-RR 2005, 315–günstiger.de.

439

Germany (‘.de’) (3) Secondary Liability of the Domain Parking Provider DE.350 For more than a decade, most domain name conflicts have been sparked by the use of domain

names for ‘parking websites’. The essence of the domain parking business model is that a domain name is not used for displaying its own contents, but for web pages containing advertising listings and links available in order to garner pay-per-click fees each time an advertising link is activated.440 The advertising links that the parking provider keeps available on the parking website for the domain holder are usually generated automatically by the parking provider on the basis of third-party advertisements placed with a search engine operator (eg Google, Inc) with which the parking provider cooperates. In order to achieve the highest possible number of clicks on the advertising links displayed under a domain name, the advertising links are generated for specific target groups by means of keywords selected by the domain holder or the parking provider; that is, advertising links are made available under the domain name that relate to the products or information offers associated with the domain name. If the advertising links are activated (‘clicked’) by the Internet user, the party operating the website triggered by the hyperlink pays a pay-per-click fee that is shared among the search engine operator, the parking provider, and the domain holder.

DE.351 As regards the question whether the parking provider, as well as the domain holder is liable

for the infringement of trademark rights or competition law caused by the making available of parking websites, a distinction has to be made between liability at the time the domain is launched, prior to obtaining knowledge of the specific infringement, and liability after the parking provider was informed about the specific infringement by a cease-and-desist letter.

DE.352 In both case law and scholarly literature, the liability of the parking provider after having

become aware of the specific infringement is unanimously affirmed. The parking provider as such is not the direct infringer, yet its liability arises from the principles of ‘interferer liability’ (Störerhaftung), which has developed into the standard concept that German law uses to deal with the contributory liability of Internet service providers for trademark and copyright infringements.441 According to the established concept of ‘interferer’ liability (Störerhaftung), any person who has wilfully made a causal contribution to the direct infringement of an industrial property right by third parties can be held liable for injunctive relief if the contributor has violated a reasonable duty of care to prevent such direct infringements. An injunction can also require the interferer (Störer) to take reasonable measures, such as filtering, to prevent further comparable infringements in the future. However, any preventive measure must not be unreasonably burdensome in the sense that the provider is required to take steps which would jeopardize its entire business model. Instead, only reasonable and technically possible measures can be imposed in order to identify comparable infringements.442

440  For an excellent description of the domain parking business model and the exposure of major brands to typosquatting see Tyler Moore/Benjamin Edelman, Harvard Business School, Measuring the Perpetrators and Funders of Typosquatting, available at:  http://www.benedelman.org/typosquatting/typosquatting.pdf; according to the survey at least 938,000 typosquatting domains target the top 3,264 ‘.com’ sites, 80% are supported by pay-per-click ads, often advertising the correctly spelled domain and its competitors, and 20% include static redirection to other sites. 441  For a detailed analysis of the secondary liability of ISPs under German, French, and UK law see, Leistner, Structural aspects of secondary (provider) liability in Europe, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, (2014) 9(1), 75–90. 442  These principles have mainly been laid down in a series of three landmark decisions of the Federal Court of Justice in the Internet Auction cases; cf. Federal Supreme Court GRUR 2004, 860–Internetauktion I; Federal Supreme Court GRUR 2007, 708–Internetauktion II; Federal Supreme Court GRUR 2008, 702–Internetauktion III; see Leistner, Structural aspects of secondary (provider) liability in Europe, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2014) 9(1), 75–90; cf. also Bornkamm, E-Commerce Directive v IP Rights Enforcement: Legal Balance Achieved?, GRUR Int. 2007, 642; Spindler/Leistner, Secondary Copyright Infringement–New Perspectives in Germany and Europe, 37 IIC 788, 820 et seq. (2006).

440

XVI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, Internet Service Provider This standard is clearly met if a domain parking provider has been put on notice of an infring- DE.353 ing domain name. By placing suitable advertising links under the parked domain name the parking provider participates in arranging the website contents, which in conjunction with the domain name is what gives rise to the infringement of trademark rights. As the parking provider also has the ability to prevent the resulting direct infringement, he has a reasonable duty to remove the domain name from its parking system once a clear and specific infringement has been reported by the right holder to have occurred.443 In contrast, the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) refused to recognize the duty of a compre- DE.354 hensive ex ante examination of any infringing domain names and thus held that the domain parking provider cannot be expected to screen any domain name which entered into its domain parking system prior to becoming aware of an infringement.444 In a specific case, the proprietor of the ‘Staedtler’ trademark had issued a cease-and-desist letter DE.355 to the domain parking provider SEDO because a customer had parked the domain ‘staedtler. eu’ there and since advertisements of direct competitors were displayed under that domain. The trademark proprietor demanded reimbursement from the operator of the out-of-court costs for a cease-and-desist letter, arguing that the parking provider’s obligation to delete the parking site did not commence upon being notified about the infringement, but that it was under an obligation prior to becoming aware of unlawful use of the domain name, to filter out with the aid of common dictionaries all non-generic parking domains based on an identical or almost identical keyword, and to examine such domains from the legal standpoint. The Federal Supreme Court (BGH) started by confirming the findings of the Higher Regional DE.356 Court, namely that use of the domain name ‘staedtler.eu’ for a parking website caused an infringement of trademark rights, yet refused to recognize the liability of the parking provider prior to the notification of the infringement on the basis of the concept of interferer liability. The Supreme Court held that a domain parking provider’s verification obligation was limited DE.357 by the provision in s 8(2), first sentence, of the German Teleservices Act (TDG), applicable to all service providers, which is based on Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce. The domain names and keywords of customers of the parking provider were considered to be ‘stored information’ in the sense of s 8(2) of the Teleservices Act since such data is user data stored by the parking provider in its capacity as a service provider.445 It was held that according to s 8(2), second sentence, Teleservices Act (TDG), service provid- DE.358 ers in the sense of ss 9 to 11 of the Act are under no obligation to monitor the information they transmit or store, or to search for circumstances indicating unlawful activities. Hence general monitoring obligations are also excluded.446 However, monitoring obligations in specific cases are not excluded by the liability privilege under s 8(2), second sentence, Teleservices Act (TDG). Service providers that store information made available by users have to exercise the duty of care as set out in national legal provisions, with which they can be reasonably expected to comply in order to reveal or prevent certain types of unlawful activities.447

  Higher Regional Court Hamburg, MMR 2004, 822–Domain-Parking.   Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2011, 617–SEDO. 445  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2011, 617–SEDO, referring to CJEU, Judgment of 23 March 2010, Google France and Google (C-236/08 to C-238/08, ECR 2010 I-2417). 446 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2011, 620–SEDO, referring to Recital 47 of the E-Commerce Directive. 447 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2011, 620–SEDO, referring to Recital 48 of the E-Commerce Directive; see also CJEU, Judgment of 23 March 2010, Google France and Google (C-236/08–C-238/08, ECR 2010 I-2417), paras 112 et seq., stating that in order to establish whether the liability of a referencing service provider may be limited under Article 14 of Directive 2000/31 it is necessary to examine whether the 443 444

441

Germany (‘.de’) DE.359 Where these principles are applied, there is no general obligation incumbent on the parking

provider to examine parked domain names for unlawful contents. Admittedly, service providers whose business models encourage infringements by their users from the outset or who, through their own measures, exacerbate the risk of use interfering with third-party rights are under an obligation to remove such risks.448 Yet the domain parking business was considered to be a business model approved by the legal system in which it was not possible to impose monitoring measures on the service provider which jeopardized the business model or rendered the provider’s tasks disproportionately difficult.449 It is true that the domain parking business model enables income to be gained with domain names that correspond to well-known trademarks and designations of third parties and are capable of placing advertisements in the area of similar goods and services. When examining the degree to which verification obligations are reasonable, it is also necessary to take into account the fact that the service provider does receive a fee for its services even where trademark rights belonging to third parties are infringed through the acts of use. Hence the provider’s interest in the smoothest and most profitable business operations possible is deemed to be less important than the interest of the DENIC registry in providing the fastest possible and least expensive grant of domains.450

DE.360 Since the findings of the Federal Supreme Court stated that the domain program can be used

legally and meaningfully to a significant extent especially where generic domains consisting of a descriptive term are parked, consideration of these circumstances, also taking into account the risk of trademark infringements that the domain parking business entails, leads to the conclusion that a parking provider cannot be reasonably expected to examine each and every domain name placed into the relevant program for trademark infringements. Such a requirement would severely jeopardize the domain parking business model that in principle is in line with statutory provisions.451

DE.361 The judgment of the Federal Supreme Court was rightly received with criticism in the lit-

erature.452 The reference made to the grounds of decisions concerning Internet auctions in relation to the present case and the description of the domain parking model as a legally recognized business model indicate clearly that the Federal Supreme Court failed to appreciate the bias of the domain parking business model towards infringements. It is true, and was rightly appreciated by the Federal Supreme Court, that the business model operated by the parking provider can be divided into a generic and a non-generic area. However, there is hardly a legal and economically meaningful possibility of using the core area of non-generic terms so that the parking business model would be specifically designed to profit from direct acts of infringement and would therefore be characterized by an inbuilt bias towards use that is infringing. This risk potential is further exacerbated by the role of the parking provider as an active interferer in connection with the infringement of third-party rights. Moreover, the parking provider would have a financial interest in and profits disproportionately from use of its business model in an infringing manner. In view of the risk potential, the establishment

role played by that service provider is neutral, in the sense that its conduct is merely technical, automatic, and passive, pointing to a lack of knowledge or control of the data which it stores; see also the Opinion of AG Maduro, para 144 in the Google France case emphasizing in his opinion on the liability of Google that while in principle the E-Commerce Directive is applicable to Google’s Ad-Words Service, this service should not be covered by the ‘safe harbour’ provision of Art 14 of the E-Commerce Directive. 448  Cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2009, 841—Cybersky. 449  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2011, 617, 618–SEDO. 450  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2011, 617, 620–SEDO. 451  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2011, 617, 620–SEDO. 452  Hühner, Domain-Parking, 295–342 (2012).

442

XVI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, Internet Service Provider of proactive verification obligations in the form of filtering out non-generic domains with identical or almost identical keywords does not appear to be unreasonable.453 The most recent German case law regarding provider liability in cases of copyright infringe- DE.362 ment indicates that the Federal Supreme Court is nowadays more willing to intensify preventative, specific, filtering duties.454

(4) Secondary Liability of the Administrative Contact The question as to whether, and subject to which requirements, the Admin-C is liable for the DE.363 registration or use of the domain name, and whether, furthermore, he or she can be sued with regard to the contents available under the domain name, requires a differentiated response. At the outset, the Federal Supreme Court held that an Admin-C is not tortuously liable DE.364 as an infringer or participant in the infringing act as long as it had no actual and concrete knowledge of those acts. This is because tortious participation in an infringement according to the case law presupposes intention on the side of the participant as well as on the side of the principal.455 However, according to the established concept of ‘interferer’ liability (Störerhaftung), any DE.365 person who has wilfully made a causal contribution to the direct infringement of an IPR by third parties can be held liable for injunctive relief if the contributor has violated a reasonable duty of care to prevent such direct infringements. In this respect, assistance for or the exploitation of acts committed by an independent third DE.366 party can suffice where the party being sued was in a legal position to prevent such acts.456 Such an active contribution to an infringement may be made by the Admin-C, since under DE.367 the DENIC provisions a foreign registrant can only have its domain name registered if it appoints a person domiciled in Germany as the Admin-C.457 The Admin-C is also in the legal and actual position to be able to remove impairments since he or she has the authority vis-à-vis DENIC to have the domain name deleted. Since secondary liability may not be extended unduly to third parties that did not bring DE.368 about the infringement, according to the case law of the Federal Supreme Court (BGH), secondary liability requires a breach of a reasonable duty of care to prevent infringements.

453  Leistner, Structural aspects of secondary (provider) liability in Europe, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2014) 9(1), 75–90, pointing to the CJEU judgments in Google France e and L’Oreal v ebay ‘which tend towards an interpretation of Art 15 of the E-Commerce Directive only genuinely neutral service providers should benefit from the privileges in the field of provider liability; by contrast, “active” providers offering a business model based upon their own (pecuniary or other) interest in the hosting of particular (infringing) information, which therefore directly or indirectly favor the carriage or hosting of certain (infringing) information or which even advertise this illegal use of their service, should not be covered by the exemptions from liability as they no longer remain neutral in relation to the contents of the information they carry or host’. 454  Cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2013, 370–Alone in the Dark; Federal Supreme Court, Judgment of 15 August 2013—I ZR 80/12–File-Hosting-Dienst, extending these duties to the control of lists of links on third party websites in the case of a sharehoster service (Rapidshare); for a differentiation see Leistner, Structural aspects of secondary (provider) liability in Europe, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, (2014) 9(1), 75–90. 455  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 304, 307–Basler Haar-Kosmetik. 456 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 304, 307–Basler Haar-Kosmetik; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2001, 1038—ambiente.de. 457  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 304, 307–Basler Haar-Kosmetik.

443

Germany (‘.de’) DE.369 This essential standard of reasonableness is determined by the Federal Court of Justice on a

case-by-case basis taking into account all the facts of the case, including, inter alia, the role and function of the ‘interferer’, the degree of causation (ie, the intensity of the danger of direct infringement), the possibility that the claimant might file an action against the direct infringers, and other criteria.458

DE.370 According to the Federal Supreme Court, a duty of the Admin-C to ex ante examine any

domain name for which he is registered does not arise directly from the status and function of the Admin-C since according to the DENIC regulations describing the function of the Admin-C, the domain holder alone is urged to avoid infringing third-party rights, whereas the responsibilities of the Admin-C are restricted to facilitating the administrative handling of the domain contract in relations with the domain holder.

DE.371 Therefore, one cannot reasonably expect a the Admin-C to examine ex ante with regard to

each and every domain name for which it acts as the Admin-C whether the domain name includes the names of natural persons, commercial names, or designations or elements of designations in order to then conduct an often legally complex examination as to whether or not rights to a name, trademark rights, or other rights in signs have been infringed.

DE.372 However, a legal obligation to verify and avert an infringement can arise according to the case

law of the Federal Supreme Court not only from statutory provisions or contractual terms, but also under the aspect of conduct that exacerbates risks, especially a breach of the duty of care.

DE.373 Thus the Federal Supreme Court assumed secondary liability of the Admin-C, before an

infringement has been reported by the rights holder to have occurred (and thus a duty of care to prevent infringements in a case where the domain holder used an automatic process to establish domain names that would soon be unassigned, that is, there was no examination at the level of the applicant and holder of the domain name whether the domain names being registered might infringe third-party rights and where the Admin-C issued a carte blanche to the domain holder in advance of his appointment as Admin-C), on the grounds that with knowledge of the relevant circumstances the Admin-C would have been under a legal obligation to verify whether the domain names applied for and registered by means of an automated process infringed third-party rights.459

XVII.  Domain Names as Property Rights (1)  Domain Names as the Object of Legal Transactions DE.374 The contractual claim for use of the domain name that is obtained through the registration

contract with DENIC or with a registrar can be transferred to a third party by way of a legal transaction460 (regarding the legal relations between DENIC and the domain holder under the registration contract, see para DE.45; regarding the legal nature of the domain name, see para DE.43). 458  Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 148, 13, 18—ambiente.de; Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 185, 330 para 19—Sommer unseres Lebens. 459 Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 304, 308–Basler Haar-Kosmetik; see also Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2013, 294–dlg.de, finding that a mere abstract danger that a multitude of registrations for purely speculative reasons might occur (after DENIC’s decision to lift the block on the registration of domain names consisting of one or two characters does) does not suffice to establish secondary liability of the Admin-C before an infringement has been reported. 460  Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) NJW 2005, 589–ad-acta.de.

444

XVII.  Domain Names as Property Rights The contractual grounds for the permanent transfer of the domain name can lie in the pur- DE.375 chase of a domain name (ss 433, 453, German Civil Code (BGB)), in a settlement reached in or out of court (s 779 CGG), in a gift (s 516, German Civil Code (BGB)), or in a contract governed by corporate law. Where a transfer is made for a limited period or for the purpose of providing security, the causal transaction under the law of obligations can be a fiduciary contract or a surety agreement. A legal position that has to be strictly separated from the claims accruing to a domain holder DE.376 against DENIC under the law of obligations and that hence has to be regulated separately by contract are the absolute rights generated by use of a domain name, namely rights to a trademark (s 4, German Trademark Act (MarkenG)), to a commercial designation (s 5, German Trademark Act (MarkenG)) or to a name (s 12, German Civil Code (BGB)). Where the intellectual property right accruing in a domain name is a trademark, it can also be transferred pursuant to s 398, German Civil Code (BGB) and s 29, German Trademark Act (MarkenG).

(2) Transfer of the Right to a Domain Name by Operation of the Law In addition to a transfer by way of legal transaction, a domain name in the area of the ccTLD DE.377 ‘.de’ can be transferred in the event of universal succession under inheritance law pursuant to s 1922, German Civil Code (BGB), or other universal succession existing ex lege. A transfer by operation of the law has the same effect as a transfer by way of legal transaction, that is, the acquiring party assumes the legal position of the former domain holder in full, by way of universal succession. The DENIC Terms in force do not provide for a procedure for proving the transfer of rights. According to current practice, it is sufficient for the successor in title to present an inheritance certificate or a declaration of consent from the previous holder to the competent DENIC member as proof of succession in title. DENIC or the competent DENIC member does not verify the validity of the succession in title. Corresponding considerations apply to universal succession as regards domain names in the DE.378 area of gTLDs. The ICANN Policies do not contain any requirements made of the accredited registrars so that they are responsible for regulating the procedure for amending the entry of a domain name in the event of a transfer of rights by operation of the law. As regards ‘.eu’ domain names, Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 states that in case of the holder’s death, the heirs or the executor of the estate may request transfer of the domain name having submitted appropriate documentation.

(3) Enforcement Proceedings Against Domain Names (a)  Garnishment of Domain Names (Section 857, Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO)) The contractual claims against DENIC or a registrar accredited to grant domain names in DE.379 the area of gTLDs can be subject to garnishment as independent property rights, pursuant to s 857(1), Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). However, contrary to the view initially adopted in the literature and in the case law handed down by the lower courts,461 the object of garnishment is not an absolute right comparable to an intangible property right, but, rather, ‘the entirety of claims under contract law, to which the holder of a domain name is entitled in relation to the grant office under the registration contract’.462 In addition to the claim for connection of the domain name, this also includes all ancillary rights and rights to

  District Court Essen, Rpfleger 2000, 168; District Court Düsseldorf, JurBüro 2001, 548.   Federal Supreme Court, MMR 2005, 685–Pfändung einer Internet-Domain.

461 462

445

Germany (‘.de’) alter terms arising from the registration contract, in particular the domain holder’s right of termination.463

(b)  Garnishment of Domain Names Involving Trademark Rights or Rights to a Name DE.380 Garnishment of a domain name is also possible where its use has given rise to a trademark

(s 4(2), German Trademark Act (MarkenG)), to a commercial designation (s 5, German Trademark Act (MarkenG)), or the right to a name (s 12, German Civil Code (BGB)) (regarding the requirements for the accrual of trademark rights or rights to a name in domain names, see paras DE.284 and DE.270).

XVIII.  International Conflicts (1)  International Jurisdiction (a)  General Principles DE.381 If the use of a trademark on a website leads to a dispute between parties from different

countries, the first question that arises is which national courts are competent to hear the infringement claim and have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter. The answer to this question is provided by the national rules for the international jurisdiction of domestic courts. In German law, subject to higher-ranking international treaties and Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 12 December on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels Ia Regulation),464 the provisions of the German Code of Civil Procedure on local jurisdiction apply. If the jurisdiction is based on the fact that the defendant is domiciled in the forum, the competence of the courts is universal in scope (Art 4 Brussels Regulation). It does not matter whether the allegedly infringing online use occurs or threatens to occur in the forum. The same is true if a court accepts to hear a case because the defendent acted in the forum to infringe or to initiate or further an alleged online infringement.465 In that case the conduct of the defendant in the forum is the relevant connecting factor, which justifies the attribution of jurisdiction to those courts for reasons relating to the sound administration of justice and the efficacious conduct of proceedings.

DE.382 International jurisdiction in trademark matters is, however, is not limited to the place where

the defendant is domiciled or where he or she initiated an infringement. It is also available where that conduct produced effects or where it resulted in damage (s 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure).466 The place where the event giving rise to alleged damage occurred may constitute a significant connecting factor from the point of view of jurisdiction, since it could be particularly helpful in relation to the evidence and the conduct of proceedings.467

  Federal Supreme Court, MMR 2005, 685, 687–Pfändbarkeit von Domains.   Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. 465  See CJEU, Case C-523/10—Wintersteiger, paras 33 et seq. (‘event giving rise to an alleged infringement’ occurred in the forum); Art 93(5) CTMR; CJEU, Case 360/12—Coty Germany, paras 26 et seq. (‘the act of infringement has been committed’ in the forum). 466  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 431, 435–Hotel Maritime; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 884, 886–Cambridge Institute; Staudinger/Fezer, Internationales WirtschaftsR, para 789; Fezer., Einl. MarkenG para 214; Ohly, Kennzeichenkonflikte im Internet, in Leible (Hrsg.), Die Bedeutung des internationalen Privatrechts im Zeitalter der neuen Medien, pp 135, 147; Bettinger/Thum, GRUR Int. 1999, 659, 663. 467  CJEU, Case C-523/10–Wintersteiger, para 32. 463 464

446

XVIII.  International Conflicts (b)  International Jurisdiction on the Internet However, it is difficult to determine the scope of a venue for torts within the global and DE.383 limitless Internet. Owing to the ubiquity of the Internet, it is technically feasible to access foreign-based websites in Germany, with the result that foreign enterprises could be then sued in German courts regarding their trademark use if the proprietor of a German trademark felt impaired by such use. Where the technical availability of a website is the crucial factor, there is a risk that jurisdiction for torts on the Internet could turn into a kind of ‘exorbitant jurisdiction’ without sufficient commercial ties to Germany. The question of whether broad jurisdiction encompassing the place where the offence was allegedly committed should be limited when the court examines its jurisdiction or later under its substantive assessment is especially significant in cases where the defendant’s business activities are regionally restricted and there is no risk of expansion into foreign countries. The answer to this question is still unresolved. Some voices in the literature advocate flexible DE.384 rules on jurisdiction which permit jurisdiction for acts on the Internet solely in severe cases and allow jurisdiction to be refused in an individual case.468 The most frequent proposal to be found in the literature is to refuse the international jurisdiction of German courts not only in an individual case based on a lack of national ties, but to make jurisdiction dependent on the existence of ‘sufficient national effect’ that has to be specified in further detail, and owing to the international nature of the Internet, can exist only if the allegedly infringing trademark is (at least) ‘aimed at the German market’. This superficially convincing demand for a restriction of international jurisdiction of the place where an offence was committed was initially rejected by a number of lower-instance courts,469 stating that is was sufficient to establish international jurisdiction that the allegedly infringing website could be accessed within the district of the court seized of the matter. Some legal commentators spoke out against a limitation on jurisdiction for the place where the offence was committed470 and referred to the intentionally restricted flexibility of German and European rules on jurisdiction, and first and foremost to the principles of addressing dually relevant facts, which according to established case law and prevailing theory are not established until the complaint is examined as to whether or not it is well founded.471 In its judgment in the ‘Hotel-Maritime’ case,472 the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) left DE.385 unresolved the question of whether in a case concerning trademark infringement on the Internet it is necessary to show that the online presence was directed to the infringement forum (der Internetauftritt bestimmungsgemäß auch auf das Inland richtet) in order to establish jurisdiction for a tort pursuant to Article 5(3) of Brussels I, while remarking that numerous factors indicated a limitation of jurisdiction to those venues within the jurisdiction of which the conflict of interests actually arose.473 However, the Federal Supreme Court clarified that jurisdiction does not depend on whether or not use of a trademark on the Internet does

  Bettinger, Handbuch des Domainrechts, DE.1211.   Higher Regional Court, Karlsruhe MMR 2002, 814, 815–Intel; Higher Regional Court, Hamburg MMR 2002, 822, 823–Hotel Maritime; see also Higher Regional Court, Munich CR 2002, 449–literaturhaus. de on the basis of s 12 Civil Code; Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin) NJW 1997, 3321–concert-concept.com. 470  Ströbele/Hacker, s 140 para 7; Ingerl/Rohnke, Einl. para 48; Bettinger/Thum, GRUR Int. 1999, 659, 667; Kur, WRP 2000, 935; Schack, MMR 2000, 135, 138. 471  Schack, MMR 2000, 135, 138; Kur, WRP 2000, 935, 936; Bettinger/Thum, GRUR Int. 1999, 659, 667; cf. also Ohly, Kennzeichenkonflikte im Internet, in Leible (Hrsg.), Die Bedeutung des internationalen Privatrechts im Zeitalter der neuen Medien, pp 135, 147; Ohly, JZ, 738, 739. 472  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 431, 432–Hotel Maritime. 473  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 431, 432–Hotel Maritime. 468 469

447

Germany (‘.de’) in fact lead to an infringement of national law, but that it is sufficient for an infringement to be alleged that is not excluded from the outset.474 If the plaintiff claims an infringement of a German trademark German courts will therefore assume jurisdiction as the courts where the damage may occur if it is not obvious from the pleadings that there is no plausible case at all to find for such an infringement.475 DE.386 A plaintiff invoking the jurisdiction of the court at the place where the offence was ­committed

merely has to present sufficient facts indicating that the Internet presence infringing its trademark was aimed to have an effect in the infringement forum. If the plaintiff ’s submissions do not indicate such a national orientation, then the court seized of the matter may refuse international jurisdiction.476 If, in contrast, it is possible, based on the plaintiff ’s submissions, that the website is aimed at a national audience, but this can only be established by a detailed examination or by taking evidence, then the prerequisites for international jurisdiction are met. For the purpose of establishing international jurisdiction it is not necessary to obtain evidence on the question whether the website was in fact aimed at a national audience and unfolds its economic effect within Germany.477

DE.387 The question whether a website is intentionally aimed at a national audience is determined by

an overall assessment of the website on the basis of objective criteria.478 Corresponding pointers can be the TLD, the languages in which the site is accessible, the international nature of contact data, information about the area of delivery or express disclaimers that the offers are aimed exclusively at interested parties in certain countries.479 The type of goods may also allow conclusions about the intended accessibility of the website. Where goods are evidently not intended or suitable for cross-border sales, as a rule this will prevent an assumption of intended accessibility.

(2) Law Applicable to Trademark Infringements on the Internet DE.388 The country of protection principle (lex loci protectionis) regulated in Article 8(1) of EC

Regulation No 864/2007 dated 11 July 2007 (‘Rome II’) corresponds to the territoriality principle of substantive law that in the meantime applies to trademark rights throughout the world.480 According to the principle, ‘the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising from an infringement of an intellectual property right shall be the law of the country for which protection is claimed’.

DE.389 Since under the territoriality principle national trademark rights alone can unfold their effect

in the relevant country of protection, the question whether a German (subjective) trademark

474  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2006, 513, 515–Arzneimittelwerbung im Internet; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 431, 432–Hotel Maritime. 475  See Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 431—Hotel Maritime, where it was held that a plausible case for infringement of a German trademark is present if a hotel situated in Copenhagen uses the sign in dispute on a German language version of its Danish top level domain (.dk) website. 476 Vgl. Ohly, Kennzeichenkonflikte im Internet, in Leible (Hrsg.), Die Bedeutung des internationalen Privatrechts im Zeitalter der neuen Medien, S. 135, 147. 477  Vgl. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2006, 513, 515–Arzneimittelwerbung im Internet. 478  Higher Regional Court Munich, ZUM 2012, 587, 588 ff. 479  Köhler, in Köhler/Bornkamm, UWG, Einl. Rdn. 5.8; Kur, GRUR Int. 2001, 961, 963; Higher Regional Court Munich, Judgment of Ocotber 8, 2009, 29 U 2636/09 REFODERM: ‘the fact that a website does not contain a disclaimer stating that a website is not directed to the infringement forum or that the goods offered are not sold to customers in the infringement forum is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction’. 480  Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II); cf. also Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 884, 886–Cambridge Institute; Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2002, 972, 973–FROMMIA; cf. Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2007, 884, 886–Cambridge Institute.

448

XVIII.  International Conflicts right has been infringed will ultimately be judged on the basis of German (objective) trademark law alone, and the question whether a foreign (subjective) trademark right has been infringed will be judged solely on the basis of the relevant foreign (objective) trademark law. There is no reason to diverge from this traditional principle of country of protection applic- DE.390 able to trademark rights by developing flanking restrictions, in particular by introducing the criterion of sufficient national commercial effect.481 Hence, it would be pointless to disregard the applicability of German law in a complaint DE.391 based on German trademark law against the use of a trademark on the Internet and instead to judge the complaint on the basis of foreign trademark law. In particular, where conflicting trademarks on the Internet are concerned, the task is not to facilitate the enforcement of a national or a foreign trademark by means of an abstract rule on conflicts, but, rather and exclusively to achieve a balance between the subjective trademark rights granted under different national legal systems in view of the fact that trademark use on the Internet occurs either globally or not at all. The traditional rules on conflict of laws, which are restricted to selecting one of several potential legal systems and enforcing it ‘at the others’ expense’, are unsuited to resolving trademark issues on the Internet since what has to be overcome is not a conflict between objective legal systems, but, rather, a conflict between subjective rights of protection. A meaningful, systematic solution where cross-border Internet matters are concerned would therefore restrict the scope of the subjective trademark rights involved in the conflict on normative grounds owing to the global nature of the medium, in that certain foreign trademark use is excluded from the exclusive nature of the national rights of protection, although national territory is affected. In view of the global nature of the Internet, the crucial question is not whether German trademark law is applicable (question of conflict of laws), but whether a German trademark right has been infringed (question of substantive law).482

(3) Substantive Law Governing Trademark Infringements on the Internet (a)  General Principles In principle, a trademark right entitles its proprietor to prohibit any third party acting with- DE.392 out authorization to make unlawful use of the relevant trademark in the sense of ss 14 and 15 of the German Trademark Act. Acts infringing a trademark include not only the offering or putting on the market of trademarked goods or services within Germany, but also use of the protected trademark, sign or designation in business papers or advertisements, that is, any advertising representation of the trademark, sign, or designation in external relations. As a matter of principle, the online accessibility of a trademark is deemed to be such representation in external relations.483 However, owing to the territorial limitation of trademark rights, claims for injunctive relief DE.393 only come into question where the infringement was committed within the territorial scope of protection of the relevant trademark or—where a preventive action for injunctive relief is concerned—where there is a genuine threat of trademark infringement in Germany owing to acts committed in a foreign country. As long as use of a trademark is restricted to national territory, according to the territoriality principle it is permissible to use or register a trademark or business designation nationally that is identical or likely to be confused with a

481  Sack, WRP 2008, 1405, 1411, 1412; Sack, WRP 2008, 1405, 1411, 1412; Bettinger/Thum, GRUR Int. 1999, 659, 669. 482  Sack, WRP, 2008, 1405, 1417; Ohly, Kennzeichenkonflikte im Internet, in Leible (Hrsg.), Die Bedeutung des internationalen Privatrechts im Zeitalter der neuen Medien, S. 135, 147; Staudinger/Fezer, Internationales WirtschaftsR, para 967; 483  Ingerl/Rohnke, s 14 para 208; Fezer, s 14 para 488.

449

Germany (‘.de’) foreign trademark owned by a third party for identical or similar goods or services. National trademark rights and foreign rights to one and the same trademark exist independently of one another no matter whether they are held by one and the same proprietor or by different proprietors.

(b)  Commercial Effect of the Use of a Sign on the Internet DE.394 The conflict-free coexistence of trademarks likely to be confused with one another, on the

basis of different territorial areas of protection, is no longer possible where trademarks are used on a website, owing to their global availability. As soon as an enterprise decides to establish itself on the world wide web, the presence of the trademark on a website that can be accessed from abroad necessarily exerts an influence on the area in which a national trademark likely to be confused with it enjoys protection.484

DE.395 If the general principles of trademark law alone are applied in order to resolve trademark

conflicts arising on the Internet, then these principles provide a clear and unequivocal basis in law. The basis for claims under ss 14 and 15 of the German Trademark Act as well as protection of a name pursuant to s 12 of the German Civil Code (BGB) afford the trademark proprietor a comprehensive, exclusive right to use its trademark, enabling it to prevent any use of a trademark that is identical or likely to be confused with the former trademark within its territorial scope of protection. It was in this sense that the lower-instance courts previously upheld the general rules on conflict of laws regarding trademarks when resolving trademark disputes. For example, the Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht) in Berlin485 held that the accessibility of a domain name registered by a US enterprise amounted to an infringement within Germany and prohibited use of the relevant domain name by the defendant whose registered office was located in Kansas City. It was held that the consequence that the domain name could no longer be used throughout the world had to be accepted in view of the factual circumstances.486

DE.396 The assumption that general principles of trademark law are to be transposed unreservedly

to trademark conflicts on the Internet was rightly rejected by the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) in its judgment in the Hotel Maritime case487 and by the majority of lower-instance courts.488 Not only is the consequence unacceptable that every foreign enterprise, even if its business activities were restricted to its own national territory or to its local or regional environment, would be exposed to the risk of being sentenced for trademark infringement in all countries of the world owing to its website,489 unrestricted expansion of trademark protection to trademark conflicts on the Internet would also mean that the proprietors of trademarks likely to be confused with one another and protected in different countries would be able to demand discontinuation of use of the conflicting trademark from one another,

 Cf. Bettinger/Thum, Territorial Trademark Law in the Global Village, GRUR Int. 1999, 659, 660 f.   Superior Court of Justice Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), CR 1997, 685–concert-concept. 486  Vgl. auch District Court Munich I, CR 2000, 464–intershopping.com. 487  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 431, 432–Hotel Maritime; Bettinger/Thum, GRUR Int. 1999, 659, 673 f.; Fezer, Einl. para 217; Kur, WRP 2000, 935, 937. 488 Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe, MMR 2002, 814, 816–Intel, Higher Regional Court Munich, MarkenR 2005, 337, 340–800–Flowers; Higher Regional Court Hamm, MMR 2003, 177–nobia.se, pointing out that the ‘sufficient national effect’ criterion corresponds to the commercial effect criterion of the ‘Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Marks, and other Industrial Property Rights in Signs, on the Internet’, 3 October 2001; Higher Regional Courts Hamburg, CR 2000, 385–golden-jackpot. com; District Court Hamburg, MD 2001, 354, 358–nimm2.com; District Court Hamburg, CR 1999, 785, 787–Animal Planet; District Court Cologne, CR 2002, 58–budweiser.com; see also ÖOGH GRUR Int. 2002, 265, 266–Red Bull. 489  Bettinger/Thum, GRUR Int. 1999, 659, 671 f. 484 485

450

XVIII.  International Conflicts irrespective of the question of priority. Were such practices to prevail worldwide, then use of the Internet as an advertising platform would no longer be possible for a large number of enterprises.490 Hence the Federal Supreme Court (BGH),491 in accordance with the recommendations of DE.397 the Paris Union and WIPO set out in the ‘Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Marks, and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs, on the Internet’,492 clarified that in order to avoid the unfettered expansion of the protection afforded to national trademark rights and an inappropriate restriction of the presentation of foreign enterprises, claims under trademark law cannot be established through trademark use on the Internet on the basis of the accessibility of a website or by aiming the website at the German market, but, rather, an assumption of use as a trademark always hinges on a ‘sufficient commercially relevant inland connection’ on the German market (‘hinreichend wirtschaftlich relevanter Inlandsbezug’).493 The Federal Supreme Court (BGH) applied these principles in its Hotel Maritime judgment DE.398 to a case concerning the website of a small Danish bed-and-breakfast hotel accessible under the domain name ‘hotel-maritime.dk’. It held that there were ties to Germany since the website of the Danish bed-and breakfast hotel provided information in the German language about the hotel located in Copenhagen and allowed queries and reservations to be submitted online in the German language. However, these ties did not have a sufficient commercial effect in Germany. Since the commercial effects of the advertisement for the services of the Danish bed-and-breakfast hotel in Copenhagen on the commercial activities of the plaintiff in Germany were only minimal, it was held by the Court that despite the ties of the website to Germany the interests of the German hotel chain ‘Hotel Maritime’ with 40 hotels in Germany which brought the case, were secondary to the interests of the Danish defendant to advertise its hotel operated in Copenhagen under the domain ‘www.hotel-maritime. dk’. Ultimately, therefore, it was held that there had been no infringement of the plaintiff ’s national trademark rights. In its ‘OSCAR’ judgment, the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) once again confirmed these DE.399 principles, while at the same time stating that the overall weighing of all interests has to take into account whether and the extent to which the infringement is ‘an unavoidable side effect of technical or organizational matters’.494 The plaintiff in the ‘OSCAR’ case was the organizer of the annual Academy Awards event, the ‘OSCAR’ ceremony in Hollywood, USA. The plaintiff was the proprietor of the German word-mark ‘OSCAR’ which enjoys protection for ‘services in the field of entertainment, namely the promotion of the film industry in the area of entertainment films, through the awarding of prizes, premiums and awards within the movie industry’. 490 See Ohly, Choice of Law in the Digital Environment, Problems and possible solution, Intellectual Property and Private International Law, IIC Studies Industrial Property and Copyright Law, Vol 24, 2005, S.  241; Ohly, Kennzeichenkonflikte im Internet, in Leible, (Hrsg.), Die Bedeutung des internationalen Privatrechts im Zeitalter der neuen Medien, 2003; Kur, Trademark Conflicts on the Internet: Territoriality Redefined? in Basedow, J et al. (Hrsg.): Intellectual Property in the Conflicts of Laws, 2005, S. 175–193; Johannes, GRUR Int. 2004, 928, 931; Bettinger/Thum, GRUR Int. 1999, 659, 671 f. 491  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2005, 431, 432–Hotel Maritime; Bettinger/Thum, GRUR Int. 1999, 659, 673 f. 492  ‘Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Marks, and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs, on the Internet’, 3 October 2001. 493  The Federal Supreme Court assumed that the requirement of a ‘hinreichend wirtschaftlich relevanter Inlandsbezug’ is identical to the ‘commercial effect’ requirement of Art 2 ‘Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Marks, and other Industrial Property Rights in Signs, on the Internet’. 494  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 621–Oscar.

451

Germany (‘.de’) DE.400 The defendant operated a television broadcasting company in Italy, with several channels.

Between 2000 and 2006 the defendant broadcast television programmes under the titles ‘Oscar del Vino’, ‘La Kore Oscar della Moda’, and ‘Oscar TV’ with Italian awards ceremonies. The programmes broadcast in the Italian language could be received in Germany via satellite and the cable network.

DE.401 In its judgment the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) stated that the question of a relevant

infringement within Germany has to be established separately if the conduct of the party being sued was focused predominantly on a foreign country. In that case it was necessary for the offer to have a sufficient commercial effect within Germany. In order to establish such commercial effect all aspects have to be weighed ‘while taking into account on the one hand the extent to which use of the trademark affects the national commercial interests of the trademark proprietor. On the other hand, the crucial question is whether and the extent to which the infringement is an unavoidable side effect of technical or organizational matters, which the party being sued was unable to influence, or whether that same party intentionally profited from the national accessibility—eg by enabling orders to be placed from or deliveries made to Germany—so that the impairment incurred by the trademark proprietor is significant.’ The weighing of the parties’ interests also has to take into account the severity of the effects that use of the trademark has on the trademark proprietor’s national economic interests as well as the possibility and reasonableness of avoiding such effects.

DE.402 The proceedings were remitted to the lower courts owing to lack of maturity for a deci-

sion. The Federal Supreme Court held that the finding of the Higher Regional Court, that broadcasting of the Italian television programme was aimed at promoting the understanding and knowledge of Italian culture and language throughout the world, was not sufficient to justify a sufficient, relevant commercial effect of the television programme in Germany. Rather, the Court held that all the interests of the parties had to be weighed, also taking into account the severity of the effects that use of the trademark had on national economic interests of the trademark proprietor as well as the extent to which the defendant could be reasonably expected to avoid national trademark infringements.495 The Court pointed out that the defendant’s argument that the satellites Eutelsat and Astra were unable to restrict the broadcasting footprint of a television programme to one single Member State, but, rather, that television programmes broadcast via these satellites could always be received in several Member States. European satellite broadcasts become impossible where their titles infringe trademark rights in just one Member State. Hence the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) indicated that it considered the possibility of a territorial limitation on the broadcasting of satellite programmes to be crucial to the necessary weighing of all interests involved.

(c)  Territorial Restriction of Trademark Use on the Internet by Way of ‘Geotargeting’ DE.403 The necessity of examining the technical possibility of restricting satellite transmission provokes a new question in trademark law, namely, the extent to which the extensively used method of geotargeting for restricting website accessibility affects the weighing of interests within the ‘commercial effect’ framework. The possibility of excluding Internet users in a certain country or geographical region from access to a website by way of geolocalization is not mentioned in the Hotel Maritime judgment or in the existing case law of the lower courts so that one may assume that the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) was unaware of the ability to restrict access to websites and that the parties in the relevant case made no submissions in this respect. Moreover, the WIPO ‘Joint Recommendation’ evidently proceeds on the assumption

  Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 2012, 621, 624–Oscar.

495

452

XVIII.  International Conflicts of the ‘ubiquity of the Internet’, without mentioning the option of territorial reassignment by way of geotargeting. In contrast, geotargeting has found its way into the case law of the Administrative Courts DE.404 (Verwaltungsgerichte) in Germany. For example, with regard to gambling law, where the regulations in the different federal states of Germany vary in their rigidity, the Administrative Courts have issued bans on the organization or advertising of online gambling that are restricted to certain federal states, assuming that those offering gambling would be able to comply with the ban by availing themselves of so-called geolocalization technology.496 There is no apparent, reasonable or objective ground why the use of geolocalization technol- DE.405 ogy cannot be taken into account within the context of the required weighing of interests where international trademark conflicts are concerned. On the basis of the IP address it is apparently possible to determine the location of a com- DE.406 puter reliably and very precisely at the international level. It is therefore technically possible nowadays to prevent Internet users in a certain country from obtaining access to a website. Contrary to the assumptions of the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) in the Hotel Maritime DE.407 judgment, the accessibility of a website in a certain country does not amount to ‘an unavoidable side effect of technical or organizational matters, which the party being sued was unable to influence’. Today, through the use of geolocation software, it is possible for a person being sued for DE.408 trademark infringement caused by the use of a sign on the Internet to prevent access to a website in a certain country, without considerable technical or financial expenditure being necessary. Geolocation-software has become standard technology that is offered by a large number of IT service providers and which can be utilized by small and medium-sized enterprises. For this reason, when the interests, rights, and circumstances involved are balanced, it will not suffice for the party being sued for trademark infringement to utilize disclaimers when geolocation techniques are more efficient and economical to employ.497

496  Adminstrative Appeals Tribunal (OVG) Mannheim, Judgment of 23 May 2013, Az. 6 S 88/13; Higher Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof ), Decision of 20 November 2008, Az. 10 CS 08.2436. Tz. 40; Higher Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) Munich, Decision of 24 January 2012, Az. CS 11.1290; Administrative Appeals Tribunal Münster, MMR 2010, 350, 351. 497  A solution based on the use of disclaimers is recommended in Art 12 of the Paris Union/WIPO Joint Recommendation Concerning the Protection of Marks, and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs, on the Internet, which, however, was drafted on the assumption that there is no effective technical method to prevent access of users of a certain country to a website.

453

GREECE (‘.gr’) Apostolos Chronopoulos

(3) Statistics  (4) Overview of the ADR Procedure  (5) Costs  (6) Relationship between EETT Proceedings and Court Proceedings  (7) EETT Decisions  (8) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by Administrative Panel 

I. Overview of the National System of Protection of Trademarks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs  GR.01 (1) Introduction  (2) The Civil Right to a Name  (3) Commercial Names  (4) Business Designations and Distinguishing Signs of a Business or a Business Establishment  (5) Geographical Indications  (6) Publication Titles  (7) Trademarks  (8) Domain Names 

GR.01 GR.02 GR.03 GR.04 GR.06 GR.07 GR.08 GR.11

IV.  Court Litigation 

GR.46 GR.48 GR.49 GR.62 GR.62 GR.79

(1) Infringement of Trademarks  (2) Infringement of Personal Names  (3) Infringement of Commercial Names and Business Designations  GR.80 (4) Infringement of Titles  GR.81 (5) Domain Registration as Parasitic Competition or Misleading Statement  GR.82 (6) Cybersquatting and Domaingrabbing  GR.83 (7) The Use of Descriptive or Generic Terms as Domain Names  GR.85 (8) Outline of Available Remedies  GR.87

II. The ccTLD (‘.gr’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

GR.13 (1) The Legal Status of the Registration Authority  GR.13 (2) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement  GR.14 (3) The Structure of the Name Space  GR.19 (4) Registration Restrictions  GR.21 (5) Transfer of Domain Names  GR.26 (6) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding  GR.28 (7) Statistics: Number of Assigned Domain Names  GR.29

III. Dispute Resolution Within the ‘.gr’ Domain Space 

GR.38 GR.39 GR.45

V. Acquisition of an Industrial Property Right by Using a Domain Name  VI. The Liability of the EETT and Internet Service Providers  VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  VIII.  International Conflicts

GR.30

(1) Alternative Dispute Resolution: The Procedure Before the EETT  GR.30 (2) Principle Characteristics of the Proceeding  GR.31

(1) International Jurisdiction (2) Applicable Substantive Law

Links ‘.gr’ Registry WHOIS and registration: https://grweb.ics.forth.gr National Commission for Telecommunications and Post (EETT): http://www.eett.gr Greek Patent Office: http://www.obi.gr Greek Trademark Office: http://gge.gov.gr NOMOS (Law Database): http://lawdb.intrasoftnet.com

455

GR.102 GR.106 GR.108 GR.111 GR.111 GR.114

Greece (‘.gr’)

I.  Overview of the National System of Protection of Trademarks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs (1) Introduction GR.01 In Greece, distinguishing signs are traditionally categorized according to their object of

identification1 into signs identifying: (a) a natural or legal person engaging in social, economic or commercial activity (civil names; commercial names); (b) a business or a business establishment (business designations with a naming function, namely distinctive titles; distinguishing signs of a business or a business establishment without a naming function such as trade symbols, emblems, logos, the outer appearance and decoration of an establishment etc, namely specific distinguishing signs of a business or business establishment); (c) goods, services, or intangible subject matter (trademarks, product designations, title protection, geographical indications, and appellations of origin).2 The legal rules applicable to distinguishing signs are not comprised in one single statute but are rather dispersed in various sets of norms, which are discussed in more detail under the specific sub-headings throughout this chapter.

(2)  The Civil Right to a Name GR.02 Both natural and legal persons have the right to use a name so as to identify themselves in the

field of their social and economic activity. The right to use such a name is protected by virtue of Articles 57 to 59 Greek Civil Code, which provide for personality rights and the right to bear a given name.

(3)  Commercial Names GR.03 Persons who qualify as merchants according to Greek commercial law are furthermore legally

obliged to use commercial names while exercising their commercial activity and when undersigning commercial transactions. Such signs are protected against confusing uses by virtue of Article 13(1) Greek Act on Unfair Competition (Law No 146/19143).4 Article 13 Law No 146/1914 does not require the plaintiff to show that the defendant acted with the purpose of promoting his or somebody else’s trade (act of competition). In the absence of likelihood of confusion, legal protection could be granted on the grounds of Articles 57 to 59 Greek Civil Code.5 Commercial names are also protected against dilution and free-riding pursuant to Article 1 Law No 146/1914, the general clause against acts that are committed with the purpose of furthering one’s own or somebody else’s trade and run contrary to bonos mores.

(4) Business Designations and Distinguishing Signs of  a Business or a Business Establishment GR.04 Signs performing a naming function used for the purpose of identifying a business or a

business establishment (distinctive titles) are, in principle, protected against confusing

1  Pampoukis, Konstantinos G., The Law of Distinguishing Signs, (in Greek), Sakkoulas, Athens-Thessaloniki 1965, p 47; Antonopoulos, Vasilis, Industrial Property, (in Greek), 2nd edn, Sakkoulas, Athens-Thessaloniki 2005, pp 233–35. 2  This distinction recognizes the possibility that the same sign might fit into more than one of these categories. For instance, a sign distinguishing a business might also serve as a source-identification for its goods or services. 3  Law No 146/1914, ‘On Unfair Competition’ (Government Gazette, FEK B 16). 4  Liakopoulos, Thanasis, Industrial Property, Vol II, (in Greek), Sakkoulas, Athens 1995, p 187; Rokas, Nikolaos K, Industrial Property, (in Greek), 2nd edn, Nomiki Vivliothiki, Athens 2011, p 171. 5  Antonopoulos, Industrial Property, 2005, (above n 1) p 279.

456

I.  Overview of the National System junior uses pursuant to Article 13(1) of the unfair competition statute.6 Protection based on Articles 57 to 59 Greek Civil Code is also available for this type of signs. When a business designation serves at the same time as an identifier of the respective business operator, and as such performs a naming function in respect to a natural person, then it may be possible to secure protection for that sign under Articles 57 to 59 Greek Civil Code, which does not require a finding of likelihood of confusion.7 Distinguishing signs of a business or a business establishment that do not serve a naming function such as emblems, symbols, decorations, corporate colours, etc, but are actually perceived by consumers as designating that business or business establishment, are also protected against confusing uses pursuant to Article 13(2) Law No 146/1914.8 It cannot be excluded, though, that even these signs could eventually develop a naming function. In this case, protection under Articles 57 to 59 Greek Civil Code should also be available.9 Article 13 Law No 146/1914 does not require the plaintiff to show that the defendant acted with the purpose of promoting his or somebody else’s trade. All the aforementioned signs may also be protected on the grounds of Article 1 Law No GR.05 146/1914, the general clause against acts committed with the purpose of furthering one’s own or somebody else’s trade that run contrary to bonos mores. Such acts include practices causing confusion, dilution or taking an unfair advantage of the reputation attached to the sign of another.

(5)  Geographical Indications The misleading use of geographical indications or appellations of geographical origin amounts GR.06 to a violation of Article 3 of the Greek unfair competition statute (Misleading Statements)10 and also gives rise to liability under the Greek Consumer Protection Act.11 Both sets of norms are applicable in parallel if their respective legal standards are met in a given case.12 There are special provisions regulating the protection of certain geographical indications or appellations of geographical origin.13 Protection against dilution and free-riding pursuant to Article 1 Law No 146/1914, the general clause against acts that are committed with the purpose of furthering one’s own or somebody else’s trade and run contrary to bonos mores, is also available.

(6)  Publication Titles The protection of titles as signs, identifying either printed works or other works of authorship GR.07 against confusing uses, rests on Article 13(1) Law No 146/1914.14 Protection against dilution and free-riding pursuant to Article 1 Law No 146/1914, the general clause against acts that are committed with the purpose of furthering one’s own or somebody else’s trade and run contrary to bonos mores, is also available. The use of a publication title by a third party may also constitute a misleading statement within the meaning of Article 3 Law No 146/1914.

6  Apostolopoulos, Haris, Die Liberalisierung des griechischen Lauterkeitsrechts im Rahmen der europäischen Rechtsnagleichung, Carl Heymanns, München 2007, pp 244 et seq. 7  Antonopoulos, Industrial Property, 2005, (above n 1) p 330; Rokas, Industrial Property, 2011, (above n 4) p 174. 8  Rokas, Industrial Property, 2011, (above n 4) pp 175–76. 9  Antonopoulos, Industrial Property, 2005, (above n 1) p 333. 10  Marinos, Michael-Theodoros, Unfair Competition, (in Greek), 3rd edn, Law & Economy, P.N. Sakkoulas, Athens 2015, p 372. 11  Arts 9γ, 9δ lit. β and 9θ Law No 2251/1994, ‘Consumer Protection’ (Government Gazette, FEK A 191). 12 Article 14(2) Law No 2251/1994; See generally, Marinos, Unfair Competition, 2015, (above n 10) pp 50–52. 13  Rokas, Industrial Property, 2011, (above n 4) p 167. 14  Rokas, Industrial Property, 2011, (above n 4) p 176.

457

Greece (‘.gr’) (7) Trademarks GR.08 The protection of registered trademarks is regulated in Articles 121 to 196 Law No

4072/2012.15 The rights holder has the authority to enjoin both identical and confusing junior uses.16 Marks with a reputation are protected against uses that would, without due cause, take an unfair advantage of or be detrimental to their distinctive character and/or repute.17

GR.09 Unregistered trademarks and trade dress (product designations) that have acquired second-

ary meaning are also protected against confusing junior uses by virtue of Article 13(3) Law No 146/1914. Article 13(1) Law No 146/1914 also applies to registered trademarks that perform functions beyond the designation of commercial source when they are used as names or designations of a business. Trademarks that operate as names can additionally be protected pursuant Articles 57 to 59 Greek Civil Code. Misrepresentations as to the commercial source of goods/services, trademark dilution and free-riding on the commercial reputation of another are also considered to be practices of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 1 Law No 146/1914, the general clause prohibiting acts of unfair competition.

GR.10 The extent to which a registered trademark may be protected under both Law No 4072/2012

and Article 1 Law No 146/1914 has been the subject matter of a debate18 the details of which lie outside the scope of this chapter. The prevailing view seems to be that parallel protection under both sets of norms should be possible.19 Commentators and lower courts consider the protection granted to trademarks by the unfair competition statute as being only supplementary to the protection available under Law No 4072/2012.20 In any event, the protection granted by Article 1 Law No 146/1914 should not create legal results that are inconsistent with the valuations of the legal norms protecting registered trademarks.21

(8)  Domain Names GR.11 Domain names are considered to constitute a new type of distinguishing sign in electronic

commerce whose legal nature is of sui generis character since, technically speaking, they individualize computers on the Internet.22 They constitute public resources vested in the state, the rights in registered domain names being in fact rights of reservation and use.23 However, if a domain name comes to operate as a distinguishing sign of any type in the course of commercial transactions, then it should be protected as such.24 The use of a domain name could well give rise to any other intellectual property right that may subsist through use. The

15  Law No 4072/2012, ‘Improvement of Investment Environment, […], Trademarks, [and other issues]’ (Government Gazette, FEK A 86). Law No 2239/1994, ‘On Trademarks’ (Government Gazette, FEK A 152) has been thereby repealed. 16  Art 125(3)(a) and (b) Law No 4072/2012. 17  Art 125(3)(c) Law No 4072/2012. 18  See generally, Marinos, Unfair Competition, 2015, (above n 10) pp 62–64; Rokas, (above n 4) pp 140–41. 19  Areopag 1254/1994, EEmpD 1995, 703. 20  Marinos, Unfair Competition, 2015, (above n 10) pp 62–64; Rokas, (above n 4) pp 140–41; Athens District Court, 3286/2014, DEE 2014, 586; Athens District Court, 2988/2012, NOMOS. 21  Apostolopoulos, Die Liberalisierung des griechischen Lauterkeitsrechts im Rahmen der europäischen Rechtsnagleichung, 2007, (above n 6) pp 244–45. 22  Karakostas, Ioannis K., Law & Internet, (in Greek), 3rd edn, Law & Economy, P.N. Sakkoulas, Athens 2009, p 32; On the theoretical dispute about the legal nature of domain names see Antonopoulos, Industrial Property, 2005, (above n 1) p 340; Antonopoulou, Danae, Conflicts Between Distinguishing Signs and Domain Names, (in Greek), available at:  http://www.domaintalk.gr/uploads/documents/Ergasia_Trademarked_ Domain_Names.pdf, pp 23–26; cf. Igglezakis, Ioannis, IT-Law, (in Greek), Sakkoulas, Athens-Thessaloniki 2008, pp 85–86. Such discussion goes beyond the purposes of this chapter. 23  Council of State, 2633/2013, NOMOS Art 6 of EETT Decision No 750/2 (see below n 28) describes the authorities of the domain holder in detail. 24  Areopag, 371/2012, ChrID 2012, 533; Athens District Court, 6436/2008, NOMOS.

458

II.  The ccTLD (‘.gr’) Registration Conditions and Procedures assignment of domain names does not affect prior IP rights in the alphanumeric characters that make up the variable field of a specific domain name.25 Conflicts with IP rights are resolved by recourse to the existing trademark, unfair competi- GR.12 tion and tort law provisions.

II.  The ccTLD (‘.gr’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1)  The Legal Status of the Registration Authority Article 12(κδ) Law No 4070/201226 confers the competence related to the registration of GR.13 domain names in Greece upon the National Commission for Telecommunications and Post (EETT). The EETT constitutes an independent administrative authority.27 The details of the registration process are laid down in Decision No 750/2,28 an Administrative Act issued by the EETT under legal authority deriving from Article 12(κδ) Law No 4070/2012. The registry is administrated by the EETT, which has the authority to delegate this duty.29

(2) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement The party requesting the assignment of a domain name should submit a relevant declar- GR.14 ation of registration to a certified registrar, which is, essentially, a domain name registration request.30 Annex V of Decision No 750/2 contains a sample declaration of registration. The declaration may be in printed or electronic form.31 The registrant should also submit a solemn statement asserting that:32

GR.15

(a) all communicated data are accurate and true; (b) the declaration shall be binding upon the specific legal person to which the domain name will eventually be assigned; (c) to the best of the applicant’s knowledge, the assignment of the ‘.gr’ domain name in question does not violate the rights of third parties; (d) where applicable, the registrant is the relevant Local Government Organization, which is entitled to the assignment of a specific geographical term included in the list published on the EETT website; and (e) where applicable, the registrant is a governmental organization, in the case of a registration declaration for a ‘.gov.gr’ domain name. All registration declarations shall be submitted to a certified registrar.33 Within one working GR.16 day, the registrar has to communicate the information contained in the registration declaration to the registry.34 The EETT administers a catalogue of certified registrars.35 For   Article 6(6) EETT Decision No 750/2 (see below n 28).   Law No 4070/2012, ‘On the Organization and Functioning of the Electronic Communications Sector’ (Government Gazette, FEK A 82). 27  Art 6(2) Law No 4070/2012. 28  Decision No 750/2, 19 February 2015, ‘Regulation on the Management and Assignment of Domain Names under the Greek TLD’ entered into force on 24 March 2015 at 11:00 am (Government Gazette, FEK B 5183). An English translation is available at the website of the EETT. 29  Art 12(κδ) Law No 4070/2012. 30  Art 7(2) and (6) Decision No 750/2. 31  Art 7(2) Decision No 750/2. 32  Art 7(7) Decision No 750/2. 33  Art 7(7) Decision No 750/2. 34  Art 7(8) Decision No 750/2. 35  Arts 7(7) and 16 Decision No 750/2. 25 26

459

Greece (‘.gr’) prospective registrars to be included in that catalogue, they simply have to fulfil the criteria set out in Annex II of Decision No 750/2 and submit a relevant declaration to the EETT.36 GR.17 The registry automatically assigns a protocol number to each registration whereby the date

and the exact time of the submission of the registration declaration in hours and minutes are mentioned. Thereby, the submission of a registration declaration is confirmed.37 Then, the registry communicates this information to the registrar who has to inform the registrant accordingly within one working day.38

GR.18 Immediately after the submission of the registration declaration, the registry examines

whether the declaration is void within the meaning of Article 8 Decision No 750/2.39 If the registration declaration is indeed void or the relevant domain name is already assigned to another party, the registry informs the registrant via e-mail.40 If the registration declaration is valid, then the domain name is temporarily activated and must be assigned to the registrant within six calendar days.41 After the domain name is assigned, its permanent activation follows.42

(3)  The Structure of the Name Space GR.19 Only second- and third-level domain names whereby the third-level is the sole variable field

(eg names in the format ‘TEXT.gr’ and ‘TEXT.second.gr’) are available for registration within the ‘.gr’ space.43 In order to be entitled to use a third-level domain, the registrant must either be the holder of the applicable second-level domain, or the assignee of a third-level domain name whereby the third-level is the sole variable field.44 The use of third- or higher-level domains without assignment is further regulated in Article 5 Decision No 750/2.

GR.20 The following second-level spaces are available for registration within ‘.gr’:45

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

‘com.gr’ for commercial entities; ‘edu.gr’ for educational institutions; ‘net.gr’ for network operators and service providers; ‘org.gr’ for non-profit organizations; and ‘gov.gr’ for governmental organizations.

(4)  Registration Restrictions GR.21 All ‘.gr’ domain names shall consist of either:46 (a) Latin alphabet alphanumeric characters

(ie Α–Ζ, a–z, 0–9) plus the special characters ‘-’ and ‘.’ in regard to both their variable and non-variable fields; or (b) of Greek alphabet alphanumeric characters (ie Α–Ω, α–ω, 0–9) and Latin alphabet alphanumeric characters (ie Α–Ζ, a–z, 0–9) in regard to their non-variable field, plus the special characters ‘-’ and ‘.’.47 It is not possible, however, to use both Latin and Greek alphabet alphanumeric characters within the same level.48 Thus, although Latin

  Art 16 Decision No 750/2.   Art 7(10) Decision No 750/2. 38  Art 7(14) and (13) Decision No 750/2. 39  Art 7(14) Decision No 750/2. 40  Art 7(19) Decision No 750/2. 41  Art 7(14) Decision No 750/2. 42  Art 2(20) Decision No 750/2. 43  Art 1(1) and (2) Decision No 750/2. 44  Arts 1(3) and (5) Decision No 750/2. 45  Art 4 and Annex III of Decision No 750/2. 46  Art 3(1) Decision No 750/2. 47  The special character ‘.’ shall be used only for level separation purposes. Each level of a ‘.gr’ domain name is prohibited from commencing or ending with the ‘-’ symbol and shall not include successive ‘-’ characters. 48  Art 3(3) Decision No 750/2. 36 37

460

II.  The ccTLD (‘.gr’) Registration Conditions and Procedures characters might be used in the second level and Greek characters in a third, it would not be possible to register a second-level domain containing characters of both alphabets. The textual string of a ‘.gr’ domain name cannot include more than 63 characters. Its variable GR.22 field should include at least two characters.49 The ‘.gr’ characters are not to be taken into consideration when applying this limitation.50 No distinction is made between lower case or upper case Latin characters, lower case or upper case unpunctuated Greek characters, and lower case or upper case punctuated Greek characters.51 With its Decision No 625/002,52 the EETT has declared a number of terms, such as ‘e-mail’ GR.23 or ‘domainname’ for instance, unregistrable as domain names in order to keep them free for all to use. The purpose of this administrative act is to avoid the emergence of exclusive rights in ‘key terms’ of the Internet that would put other users at a disadvantage that is not reconciliable with the purposes of domain name protection.53 Void Registration Declarations: Registration declarations will be considered as non-existent, GR.24 that is devoid of any legal effect, and will not result in the assignment of a domain name if the variable field of the relevant ‘.gr’ domain turns out to be:54 (a) non-conforming with the syntactic constraints set out in Article 3 of the Regulation; (b) identical to a domain name that has already been assigned or reserved according to the provisions of Decision No 750/2; (c) a common use ‘.gr’ domain name; (d) identical to the variable field of an already assigned ‘.gr’ domain name, in which the second level consists of the alphanumeric characters ‘.gov’; (e) included in the list of geographical terms published on the ΕΕΤΤ website, which are reserved for Local Government Organizations; (f ) made up of any element, the use of which has been deemed to run contrary to public order and/or good morals unless otherwise deemed by an ΕΕΤΤ decision; (g) included in the list of terms published on the ΕΕΤΤ website that are deemed to constitute elements or any official terms of the Greek State or of the other States or international organizations or entities referred to in Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. The same applies to highly symbolic elements, including in particular religious symbols and words unless otherwise deemed by an EETT decision; or (h) a country code contained in the list ISO 3166-1. The registration declaration would also be considered as devoid of any legal effect by virtue of GR.25 the same provision and will not result in the assignment of a domain name if the registrant has not completed all required fields as presented in Annex V of the Regulation.

(5)  Transfer of Domain Names Domain names are transferable by contract. For the transfer to be effectuated, the parties GR.26 to the contract should submit to the registry a domain name transfer declaration through a   Art 3(7) Decision No 750/2.   Ibid. In the case of ‘.gr’ domain names that consist of Greek alphabet  alphanumeric characters, the number of 63 characters shall pertain to the length of the PUNYCODE format of the domain name, which however may not necessarily be the same as the number of characters of the domain name in its Greek form. 51  Art 3(5) and (6) Decision No 750/2. 52  Decision No 625/002, 25 October 2011, ‘Reservation of [.gr] Domain Names whose variable field comprises a key word on the Internet’ (Government Gazette, FEK B 42407). 53  See also Council of State, 2633/2013, NOMOS. 54  Art 8(1) Decision No 750/2. 49 50

461

Greece (‘.gr’) registrar.55 In the cases of paragraphs (8) and (9) of Article 10 Decision No 750/2 the domain name transfer declaration should be submitted by the transferee.56 Article 13(1)(b) Decision No 750/2 regulates the transfer of domain names in the case of an EETT Decision that orders the revocation of the respective exclusive right to use and reserve a specific ‘.gr’ as well as the transfer of this right to the complainant. GR.27 Domain names may also be transferred as a result of a judicial or arbitral decision, which

is enforceable in Greece and which orders the revocation of the exclusive right to use and reserve a specific domain name as well as its transfer to a third party, who has to notify the EETT of the decision and submit a declaration that he is the new rights holder.57

(6) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding GR.28 As soon as the EETT receives notice of pending judicial or arbitral proceedings concerning

a given domain name, it forbids the transfer of this domain name until the court or arbitral body renders its decision.58 The same is applicable to the case where a petition for deletion or transfer of a domain name is pending before the EETT, when the latter is functioning as a mechanism for dispute resolution.59 In both cases, the transfer cannot be prohibited after the expiry of the registration period without renewal, even if the respective proceedings are still pending.60 The same applies to the case of an announcement to EETT of any pending legal proceedings for temporary deactivation of the [.gr] domain name.61

(7)  Statistics: Number of Assigned Domain Names GR.29 According to the annual review of the EETT for the year 2013,62 the number of domain name

assignments which had taken place at that time in the ‘.gr’ space is 417,331. Within the same year, 93,959 registrations took effect while 264,965 registration declarations were rejected.

III.  Dispute Resolution Within the ‘.gr’ Domain Space (1)  Alternative Dispute Resolution: The Procedure Before the EETT GR.30 The EETT is both a registration authority and an organization competent for resolving dis-

putes between the proprietors of domain names and third parties. Through Article 1 of its Decision No 249/115/2002,63 the EETT has provided for the commencement of hearings so as to investigate issues that arise in regard to matters falling within its authority. As already mentioned, Article 12(κδ) Law No 4070/2012 confers competence regarding the registration of domain names in Greece upon the EETT. The authority of the EETT to resolve domain name disputes results from the combined application of the two aforementioned provisions. In Decision No 536/175/2009,64 the EETT has regulated in more detail some further issues related to the commencement of the hearings.

  Art 13(1)(a)(i) Decision No 750/2.   Art 13(1)(a)(ii) Decision No 750/2. 57  Art 34(1)(c) Decision No 750/2. 58  Art 13(5) Decision No 750/2. 59  Art 13(5)(i) and (ii) Decision No 750/2. 60  Art 8(3)(a)(b)(ii) Decision No 750/2. 61  Art 11(3) Decision No 750/2. 62  EETT Annual Review for 2013, (in Greek), p 77, available at the website of the EETT. 63  Decision No 249/115/2002, 29 March 2002, ‘Regulation of Hearings on Telecommunication Issues’ (Government Gazette FEK B 642). 64 EETT Decision No 536/175/2009, 15 October 2009, ‘Assembly of EETT Standing Hearings Committees and Demarcation of their Competences’ (Government Gazette, FEK B 477). 55 56

462

III.  Dispute Resolution Within the ‘.gr’ Domain Space (2)  Principle Characteristics of the Proceeding (i)  Grounds for the Deletion of an Assigned Domain Name The EETT may issue a decision ordering the deletion of an assigned ‘.gr’ domain name either GR.31 on its own initiative or after a petition from a party having a respective vested legal interest in the following instances: (a) if the domain name has been registered in violation of the provisions regarding the syntactic constrains or the types of terms that are registrable;65 (b) if the declaration of registration is incomplete in that it does not contain the compulsory elements listed in Annex V,66 is false in any way67 or when it does not allow for the identification of the rights holder;68 (c) if the domain name in dispute has already been assigned to or reserved for another party at the time of submission of the registration declaration;69 (d) if the variable field of the relevant ‘.gr’ domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name that constitutes the subject matter of an individual right under either national or EU legislation, provided that the disputed domain name registration has been effected by a person that has no right or vested legal interest in the same name and/or the domain name has been registered or used in bad faith;70 (e) if the domain holder does not comply with the obligation to declare any change in the assignment data;71 (f ) if the registration declaration for the assignment of a ‘.gr’ domain name has been effected in violation of the principles of good faith;72 (g) if the domain holder has used its domain name in manner that runs in any way contrary to the principles of good faith or is malicious. This ground of deletion applies in particular when the domain holder has allowed or tolerated any third-party use of the specific ‘gr.’ domain name that would give rise to a ground of deletion pursuant to Article 10 Decision No 750/2;73 (h) if the domain holder is a legal person that has been dissolved or, according to relevant legal documentation, ceased to exist and/or has been succeeded by another person in regard to its rights and obligations as the holder of the specific ‘.gr’ domain name;74 (i) if the domain holder is a natural person that has passed away and none of his legal heirs or will executors request the transfer of the domain name within 12 months from the date of the holder’s death;75 or (j) if there is an irrevocable court ruling or arbitration decision ordering the deletion of a specific ‘.gr’ domain name, which is enforceable in Greece.76

65 Arts 10 A) 3 and 8 Decision No 750/2. These grounds for deletion do not apply to registrations approved prior to 30 December 2002. See also Arts 10 A) 10 and 11. 66  Arts 10 A) 3 and 8(1)(i) Decision No 750/2. This ground for deletion does not apply to registrations approved prior to 30 December 2002. 67  Art 10 A) 1(b) Decision No 750/2. 68  Art 10 A) Decision No 750/2. 69  Arts 10 A) 3 and 8(1)(iii) and (iv) Decision No 750/2. These grounds for deletion do not apply to registrations approved prior to 30 December 2002. 70  Art 10 A) 2 (a) and (b) Decision No 750/2. 71  Arts 10 A) 4, 12(7) and 11(2) Decision No 750/2. 72  Art 10 A) 5 Decision No 750/2. This ground for deletion does not apply to registrations approved prior to 30 December 2002. 73  Art 10 A) 6 Decision No 750/2. 74  Art 10 A) 6 and 7 Decision No 750/2. 75  Art 10 A) 8 Decision No 750/2. 76  Art 10 A) 12 Decision No 750/2.

463

Greece (‘.gr’) (ii)  Grounds for the Deactivation of a Reserved Domain Name GR.32 In respect to the grounds listed in Article 10(1)–(7) and (9)–(11) Decision No 750/2, the plenary of the EETT may decide upon a request of a third party who is the holder of a vested legal interest seeking the deactivation of a registered domain name held by a third party.77 The same applies when there is an irrevocable court ruling or arbitration decision ordering the deactivation of a specific ‘.gr’ domain name, which is enforceable in Greece.78 If the EETT ascertains either on its own initiative, or as a result of a complaint made by a third party, that a new declaration for the registration or for the activation of a reserved domain name has been registered in the register, unaccompanied by any justification, by the same person for which the domain name in question had been deleted or deactivated by an EETT decision or a court ruling, the registration or activation of that domain name shall be re-examined in the light of Article 10 Decision No 750/2 and in case the new registration or activation declaration is unjustifiable, the domain name will be deleted or deactivated through an EETT decision.79 GR.33 The EETT has also the authority to order the temporary deactivation of a domain name as

an interim measure upon the order of the EETT President or a legal representative of his in the following cases:80 (a) if there is a court ruling or temporary court order that requires its temporary deactivation, which is enforceable in Greece; or (b) if there is evidence which could support a deletion order according to Article 10 Decision No 750/2.

(iii)  Administrative Sanctions GR.34 The EETT has the additional authority to impose administrative sanctions for violations of the legislation governing domain names pursuant to Article 77(3)(b) and (c)  Law No 4070/2012. In particular, the EETT may impose fines up to €20,000 and even revoke domain registrations in the case of serious and recurring violations. (iv)  Interim Measures GR.35 Article 77(6) Law No 4070/2012 regulates in detail the authority of the EETT to order interim measures when there is conclusive evidence that a specific violation of the legislation on electronic communications poses a direct, serious, and imminent threat to public order, security, or health. In addition, interim measures may be ordered by the EETT when such a violation is about to cause serious financial or operational problems to third parties, especially other businesses or users of networks offering services related to electronic communications. (v)  Appeal Proceedings GR.36 The decisions of the EETT may be challenged in front of the Administrative Court of Appeal for the District of Athens.81 The Council of State has jurisdiction to decide such disputes in the final instance.82 Unless the appellate court decides the opposite, after a respective petition of the appellant, neither the deadline to file an appeal nor the exercise of the right to appeal alone will lead to a deferral of the legal consequences flowing out of the administrative acts of the EETT.83

  Art 10 C) Decision No 750/2.  Ibid. 79  Art 10 D) Decision No 750/2. 80  Art 11(1) Decision No 750/2. 81  Art 78(1) Law No 4070/2012. 82  Art 78(4) Law No 4070/2012. 83  Art 78(2) Law No 4070/2012. 77 78

464

III.  Dispute Resolution Within the ‘.gr’ Domain Space Instead of filing an appeal, the interested party has the right to petition the review of any EETT GR.37 decision that negatively affects its interests by the issuing authority, the EETT, itself. The legal basis for this amicable way of challenging the legal evaluation of the EETT rests on the general provisions governing the administrative procedure. In particular, Article 24 of Law Νo 2690/199984 prescribes the right to petition the revocation of administrative acts that are detrimental to the interest position of a citizen by filing a relevant complaint to the issuing authority. The same provision establishes an obligation of the administrative authority, in our case the EETT, to communicate its decision on the complaint to the petitioner within 30 calendar days. Within the same statute it is provided for the right of the petitioner to claim damages, including non-pecuniary damages, arising from the omission of the administrative authority to deal with the complaint of the petitioner. Parallel to the administrative procedure described above, the petitioner has also the possibility of requesting the involvement of the Greek Ombudsman as a mediator.85

(3) Statistics In 2013, the EETT conducted 41 hearings related to domain names.86

GR.38

(4)  Overview of the ADR Procedure Through Article 1 of its Decision No 249/115/200287 the EETT has provided for the com- GR.39 mencement of hearings in order to investigate issues that lie within its authority. Some further issues related to the commencement of the hearings have been regulated by the EETT in its Decision No 536/175/2009. The general provisions regulating the administrative procedure (Law Νo 2690/1999) would be applicable to issues that are not specifically regulated by the aforementioned EETT Decisions.88 Article 4 of Decision No 249/115/2002 regulates the prehearing procedure. Accordingly, GR.40 the adjudicative procedure is set in motion by virtue of a respective plenary decision of the EETT. The President of the EETT issues then an act determining the subject matter, venue, and the time of the hearing. This act should be served to the defendant at least five calendar days before the hearing. The defendant, or any other party called to join the proceedings, has the right to obtain information contained in the file of the case so as to challenge the factual allegations of the petitioner. He may also request the postponement of the date of the hearing for a serious reason. The same person may even pose the same request at the opening of the hearing alleging a serious and unforeseeable reason for doing so. The EETT has assembled a Standing Committee for hearings on issues related to domain GR.41 names.89 The process is in principle documentary, and thus it should not involve in-person hearings as a matter of principle.90 It lies within the discretion of the Committee, however, to invite the parties for an oral presentation of their arguments before or after the submission of their memoranda. The discretionary power of the Committee is exercised after due consideration of certain factors present in the case at hand, including: (a) the gravity of the alleged violation; and (b) the difficulty or unprecedented nature of the legal issues arising in the context of the dispute.  Law Νo 2690/1999, ‘Code of Administrative Procedure’ (Government Gazette, FEK A 655).   Law No 3094/2003, ‘Ombudsman and Other Provisions’ (Government Gazette, FEK A 55). 86  EETT Annual Review for 2013, p 81, available at the website of the EETT. 87 Decision No 249/115/2002, ‘Regulation of Hearings on Telecommunication Issues’ (Government Gazette FEK B 642). 88  Art 8(2) Decision No 536/175/2009. 89  Arts 1 and 4 Decision No 536/175/2009. 90  Arts 1, 4, and 7 Decision No 536/175/2009. 84 85

465

Greece (‘.gr’) GR.42 Based on these considerations, the Committee may request the plenary of the EETT to dele-

gate a given dispute to an ad hoc Hearing Committee. The plenary has, in any event, the authority to rule on its own motion that a specific hearing shall be conducted by an ad hoc Committee assembled by the President of the EETT.

GR.43 Article 5 of Decision No 249/115/2002 regulates some issues related to the hearing pro-

cedure itself. Accordingly, the parties to the dispute may choose to represent themselves or be represented by legal, economic, and/or technical counsels. Witnesses may be called and examined for the purpose of proving factual allegations. There is no specific restriction as to the types of evidence that are admissible.

GR.44 After the commencement of a hearing, the Committee issues a report containing all relevant

facts as well as its own opinion about the outcome of the dispute. The report is then forwarded to the plenary for a decision to be made.

(5) Costs GR.45 For the commencement of hearings in respect to complaints reporting the violation of a

provision of Decision No 750/2 the petitioner has to pay a fee of €200, if the petitioner is a natural person, and €400, if the petitioner is a legal person, that is payable to a bank account, the details of which are to be found on the website of the EETT.

(6)  Relationship Between EETT Proceedings and Court Proceedings GR.46 The decisions of the EETT may be challenged in front of the Administrative Court of Appeal

for the District of Athens.91 The Council of State has jurisdiction to decide such disputes in the final instance.92

GR.47 The ADR mechanism provided by the EETT is constructed in a manner that does not affect

the possibility for the interested parties to prefer the ordinary judicial procedure. Pursuant to Article 13(1)(c) of Decision No 750/2, the EETT would refrain from transferring a domain name in respect to which court proceedings have already been issued. The same applies when proceedings are pending in front of courts or arbitral bodies, the decisions of which are enforceable in Greece.

(7)  EETT Decisions GR.48 The decisions of the EETT are notified to the parties through bailiffs or other public officers.93

Some of them are published on the website of the EETT. At the time that this chapter is being written, there are roughly 20 decisions which can be found on the EETT website. Some other decisions are reported in legal journals. The legal database ‘NOMOS’ also contains some EETT decisions , which have been published there, sometimes as a result of an initiative taken by some attorneys who happened to have taken part in the adjudication of the underlying disputes.

(8)  ADR Decision Criteria and Application by Administrative Panel (a)  General Remarks GR.49 When evaluating registrations for their conformity with the principles of good faith, the

EETT refrains from adjudicating the existence of prior rights in the name registered as a SLD. It will rather examine whether the proprietor of the domain name acted in bad faith either at

  Art 78(1) Law No 4070/2012.   Art 78(4) Law No 4070/2012. 93 Art 5(10) Decision No 249/115/2002. See also Mamali, Hara Ar., The Enforcement of EETT Decisions on Domain Names, (in Greek), DiMEE 2008, 559 (presenting a hypothetical timetable of the whole procedure). 91 92

466

III.  Dispute Resolution Within the ‘.gr’ Domain Space the time of the registration or thereafter. The EETT would definitely take into account the priority of rights that can be confirmed by an official registry.94 A characteristic example is Decision No 575/055.95 The petitioner was first to obtain distinctive title rights in the name ‘artifex’ since he was the first to use it as a business designation. While applications of both parties to register that name as a trademark were pending, the defendant argued that his rights were prior in time since he had been using the name as a trademark in commerce for a very long time and prior to plaintiff ’s use of the name as a business designation. The EETT relied on the priority of the distinctive title of the petitioner, which was evident from the registry. It considered the pending trademark application as irrelevant since no trademark rights were yet granted. Importantly, the EETT did not examine whether the defendant had acquired prior trademark rights in the name through use. Consequently, the defendant could not prove before the EETT that he had any rights in the use of the name himself. Bad faith was inferred from the fact that the defendant omitted to adduce evidence for prior use of the name and had not in the meantime developed any webpage under the domain name in dispute. Apparently, the domain holder impeded the petitioner in establishing an Internet presence. He was therefore held to have used the domain name in bad faith.

(b)  Likelihood of Confusion In a relatively recent decision, the EETT pointed out that an obvious paraphrase of a widely GR.50 known senior trademark, such as when a third party registers the domain name ‘groogle’ would qualify as confusing and therefore as infringing use.96 The EETT has expressly taken into account the problem of cybersquatting (typosquatting) while examining the confusion requirement.97 (c) Bad Faith In Decision No 548/042,98 the petitioner was a well-known wine trading company which GR.51 had been associated in the minds of consumers as a prominent wine specialist and importer. The company was also the owner of the well-known mark ‘Cellier Wine Club’. As a famous wine trader in Greece, the petitioner pleaded that he had a vested legal interest in requesting the deletion of the domain name ‘wine.gr’ in order to use it for the promotion not only of his own goods and services but also of the products it imported. The defendant failed to show that he had any right in the use of the name or that he had any vested legal interest in doing so, as he was not using it in connection with any webpage and, furthermore, did not indicate any intention of using it in the future. Moreover, he had in the meantime proposed to the petitioner the sale of that domain name at an extremely high price, a practice which had been actually adopted by the defendant as a business model. As a result, the EETT decided the deletion of the domain name since the registration was in bad faith. Use of an SLD after receiving notice of prior rights in the respective name constitutes a use GR.52 in bad faith.99 In principle, the domain name proprietor would not be in bad faith even if the petitioner has rights in that name which are prior in time when he has been lawfully using the same name either as a trademark or as a business designation at a remote geographical 94  The licensee of trademark rights cannot validly claim the deletion of a conflicting domain name, unless the licence agreement has been registered in the trademark registry. See Vasilopoulos, Sotirios H., ADR of Domain Name Disputes, (in Greek), 2011, available at: http://pandemos.panteion.gr/index.php?op=record &pid=iid:4710&lang=en p 245 (reviewing some decisions of the EETT). 95  EETT Decision No 575/055, 2 September 2010. 96  EETT Decision No 576/86/2010, DiMEE 2011, 134, 136, commented by Tassis. 97  Papakonstantinou, Evangelos, IT-Law, (in Greek), Law & Economy, PN Sakkoulas, Athens 2010, pp 424–26. 98  EETT Decision No 548/042, 15 January 2010, ‘wine.gr’. 99  Vasilopoulos, ADR of Domain Name Disputes, 2011, (above n 94) p 245.

467

Greece (‘.gr’) area. Such circumstances are not adequate for establishing the existence of bad faith on behalf of the domain name proprietor.100 GR.53 The failure to develop a webpage coupled with repeated attempts to sell a registered domain

name to the party having prior rights in the use of the respective name at a very high price is considered to be conclusive for the existence of bad faith on behalf of the proprietor at the time he submitted his registration application.101

GR.54 The EETT has shown a clear intent to provide effective protection to companies having a

substantial reputation. Applications to register well-known names would be held to have been submitted in bad faith if the registrant cannot prove that he already had prior rights in the use of the name and if he had sought to derive profit through domain parking in the meantime.102

GR.55 In the ‘u-save.gr’ case,103 a third party had registered the well-known name of a US car rental

service provider as a domain name in order to impede the Internet presence of a competitor who had in the meantime became a local franchisee of the foreign company. The EETT held that the registrant’s conduct ran contrary to the principles of good faith and ordered the deletion of the relevant domain name. In another case, the name of a successful foreign TV program was held to have been registered in bad faith since the registrant already knew at that time that this program was about to be televised in Greece soon and had not developed any corresponding webpage of his own under the respective domain name in the meantime.104

GR.56 Registration of the domain name ‘mont-parnes.gr’ was held to be in bad faith since it was

designed for the purpose of taking an unfair advantage of the good reputation of Casino Mont Parnes SA which had been using the respective name as a distinctive title and as a registered trademark for over 40 years.105 On his website, the defendant had advertised services which were similar to those offered by the petitioner.

GR.57 The transfer of domain names through simulated contracts is highly likely to constitute use

in bad faith.106

(d)  Use Contrary to the Principles of Good Faith GR.58 Another case concerned the domain name ‘abflaw.gr’, which stood for the initial letters of the surnames of three partners in a law firm. At some point, the law firm was dissolved and two of the ex-partners (A and B) established another law firm. Then, A registered the domain name ‘abf.gr’ in his own name. As a result, F was precluded from using that domain name. This made it difficult for existing, but also future, customers to establish contact with F through the Internet. Although A had allowed F to use the domain name ‘abflaw.gr’ in the context of their partnership, he failed to inform the latter about the registration of the ‘abf.gr’ domain name. Moreover, A  rejected the proposal of F to use the domain name in a manner that would direct the consumers to the websites of both parties. The EETT held that the conduct of A was contrary to the principles of good faith.107   Ibid., pp 245–47.   EETT Decision No 570/092, 8 July 2010, ‘bet365.gr;’ EETT Decision No 570/096, 8 July 2010, ‘olympicair.gr’. See generally, Kefalogianni, Loukia Kr., Deletion of ‘.gr’ Domain Names, (in Greek), Sinigoros 2007, 48. 102  EETT Decision No 561/084, 15 April 2010, ‘centerbet.gr’ EETT Decision No 570/090, 8 July 2010 ‘runescape.gr’. See generally, Kefalogianni, (above n 101) pp 48–49. 103  EETT Decision No 613/025, 22 July 2011. 104  Administrative Court of Appeal for the District of Athens, 234/2013, DiDik 2013, 803, commented by Papakonstantinou (upholding the decision of the EETT). 105  EETT Decision No 585/028, 25 November 2010. 106  Vasilopoulos, ADR of Domain Name Disputes, 2011, (above n 94) pp 247–48. 107  Reported in Administrative Court of Appeals for the District of Athens, 55/2010, NOMOS. 100 101

468

III.  Dispute Resolution Within the ‘.gr’ Domain Space A domain name is used contrary to the principles of good faith when it becomes an instru- GR.59 ment for marketing goods bearing marks in violation of a prior delimitation agreement between the parties to the dispute.108 Worth mentioning is also the ‘wind.gr’ case.109 The plaintiff was a well-known provider of telecommunication services and the proprietor of the community trademark ‘WIND’. The defendant, who was an amateur sailing athlete, maintained a website under the respective domain name providing information about related sports events. The website hosted various advertisements for which the defendant was remunerated through Google’s AdSense service. Some of the advertisements promoted products and/or services that were in competition with those of the plaintiff. As a result, there was a likelihood of consumers getting the impression that some of the products and services advertised on the website have been endorsed by the plaintiff. Moreover, the defendant was able to generate revenue through these advertisements while taking an unfair advantage of the reputation of plaintiff ’s marks. That use of the domain name was held to be in bad faith because the defendant could have deployed the option to block the advertisements related to telecommunications products and/or services, which was provided by the AdSense program. The fact that the economic benefit derived by the online advertising activity was not substantial and could hardly contribute to the maintenance of the respective website was held to be immaterial. In both cases the appellate court upheld the decisions of the EETT.

(e)  Disputes Arising in the Context of Distribution Agreements In many instances, senior trademarks are used by third parties for the purpose of connoting GR.60 an actual commercial affiliation, such as an exclusive distributorship or the capacity to act as an authorized service provider in respect to the products marketed by the trademark proprietor. Uses of that type are permissible and within the boundaries of good faith.110 When the commercial relationship is over, though, continuing the use of the respective domain name would be tantamount to bad faith. The Administrative Court of Appeal for the District of Athens has shown a robust intent to disallow such abuses.111 It has held that even if the domain name proprietor uses the senior trademark as a minor part of a composite domain name, its continued use after the expiration of the commercial affiliation between the parties would create the impression that he is still the exclusive distributor in Greece and an authorized service provider of the trademark holder. As a result, the use of the domain was considered to have commenced in bad faith. An interesting example of this adjudicative practice may be found in that dispute between GR.61 ‘MAN’, the famous manufacturer of trucks and buses, and a former partner who continued to use the domain name ‘manxenos.gr’ after the termination of the commercial relationship between the parties. It should be noted that the court reversed the decision of the EETT, which considered the fact that the domain name proprietor did not use a sign identical to 108  Administrative Court of Appeal for the District of Athens, 3696/2012, DiDik 2013, 796, commented by Papakonstantinou. 109  Administrative Court of Appeal for the District of Athens, 3826/2012, NOMOS. 110  Registration or use of manufacturer’s trademark as a domain name by a distributor would be in bad faith, if the latter blocks other members of the same network from using the same trademark as a domain name. Thus, distributors comply with the principles of good faith when they register and use the manufacturer’s trademarks along with their own distinguishing signs as domain names. When a distributor uses the domain name in a manner that violates territorial restrictions within the distribution network, then such use should be considered as taking place in bad faith. In these cases, bad faith in respect to the registration and/ or use of the domain name is inferred by the lack of compliance with antitrust or unfair competition rules on distribution agreements. On these arguments see Skalidi, Haris E., The Use of Supplier’s Trademark as a Domain Name by the Distributor, (in Greek), DEE 2010, 773. 111  Administrative Court of Appeal for the District of Athens, 1381/2009, NOMOS.

469

Greece (‘.gr’) the senior trademark and the fact that his website did not have any content, were actually indicating the absence of bad faith.

IV.  Court Litigation (1)  Infringement of Trademarks (a)  Likelihood of Confusion GR.62 Greek trademark law has to comply with Directive 2008/95/EC, which was designed to

harmonize the trademark laws of the EU Member States. Article 125(3)(b) and (c) Law No 4072/2012 provide the rights holder with the authority to enjoin identical and confusing junior uses of his trademark in commerce.

GR.63 Junior uses of a trademark, which do not take place in commerce, do not fall within the

protective field of the trademark statute in the first place. The registration of a senior trademark as a domain name does, however, constitute a use of that mark in commerce within the meaning of Article 125(3) Law No 4072/2012. If such a senior trademark is simply reserved as a domain name, and that domain name has not yet been activated, the junior use is also deemed to have taken place in commerce. The courts have historically interpreted the statute in this manner so as to allow for an effective protection of the interests of the trademark holder. Indeed, such uses prepare the ground for an actual use of the senior mark as a domain name of the junior user in commerce. Additionally, both the reservation and the registration of the senior mark as a domain name are deemed to interfere with the positive right of the trademark holder to use it in electronic media, which, of course, includes the right to use it as a domain name.112 The authority of the trademark owner to enjoin such uses at an early stage gives him another possibility to combat cybersquatting.113

GR.64 When a third party uses a sign which is identical to a senior trademark in relation to goods or

services, which are identical to those for which the trademark is registered (identical use), the Greek courts should enjoin the junior use as infringing without a finding of actual or likely consumer confusion being necessary thereto.114

GR.65 Apart from these cases of double identity, trademark liability pursuant to Article 125(3)(b)

Law No 4072/2012 rests on a likelihood of confusion caused by: (a) the use of an identical mark for similar products; or (b) the use of a similar mark for identical products; or (c) the use of a similar mark for similar products. Both confusion as to source and affiliation are considered actionable under Greek trademark law. The judicial inquiry on the existence of a likelihood of confusion should take into account a number of factors such as: 115 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f )

the degree of similarity between the respective marks or goods/services; the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the senior mark; the degree of sophistication of the relevant consumer circles; the previous coexistence of the conflicting marks on the market; the channels of trade used by the parties to the dispute; and findings of actual confusion.

112  Alexandridou, Eliza,The Law of Electronic Commerce, (in Greek), 2nd edn, Sakkoulas, AthensThessaloniki, 2010, p 203. 113  Ibid., pp 203–04. 114  It should be noted that the Greek courts are bound to follow the interpretation guidelines of the CJEU in this respect. 115 See generally Marinos, Michael-Theodoros, Trademark Law, (in Greek), Law & Economy, P.N. Sakkoulas, Athens 2007, pp 178 et seq.

470

IV.  Court Litigation The above list of factors relevant to the confusion inquiry is not exhaustive. The likelihood GR.66 of confusion has to be appreciated ‘globally’, taking into account all factors relevant to the dispute in order to ascertain the likely effect of similar uses on consumers’ market behaviour. These factors are therefore interdependent in the sense that, for example, a lesser degree of similarity between the marks might be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the goods or services. The likelihood of confusion is further determined with reference to an average relevant consumer who is reasonably well informed, observant, and circumspect. The consumer is also deemed to rarely have the opportunity to make direct comparisons between marks and must instead rely upon the imperfect picture of them that he has in mind. Notably, the confusion requirement must be interpreted in the light of the Trade Marks Directive and the respective case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The general rules guiding the determination of likelihood of confusion are applicable to con- GR.67 flicts between trademarks and domain names as well. The following particularities commonly arise due to the nature of these disputes. At first, confusing similarity has to be assessed in view of the dominant elements of the GR.68 respective signs.116 Minor discrepancies between the senior trademark and the junior domain name would not be sufficient to negate the likelihood of confusion.117 Courts have held that minor differences between the mark in question and its reflection in an infringing domain name, attributed to spaces or dashes that are added to or missing from the domain name text, cannot preclude the likelihood of confusion.118 The use of ‘mrtmartini.gr’ was held to be confusingly similar to the senior trademark ‘MARTINI’. The degree of similarity between the two signs was held to be very high, and therefore crucial for the finding of likelihood of confusion, since the letters ‘mrt’ are actually recurring within the word mark ‘MARTINI’.119 The confusion analysis would focus on the second-level domain name. Relying upon this GR.69 principle, the Syros District Court found that an operator of an electronic bookstore trading under the domain names ‘amazon.gr’ and ‘amazon.com.gr’ was infringing the trade name of the renowned Amazon.com bookstore. It was held that the addition of the ‘.gr’ ccTLD did not exclude the likelihood of confusion since the public was likely to gain the impression that the plaintiff had established a national branch in Greece.120 In any event, the opinion also noted that the complainant had provided some evidence of actual confusion. Furthermore, the outcome was decisively influenced by the fact that the senior mark was famous and both parties to the dispute were in the same business of selling books through the Internet. Where the goods or services marketed by the junior user are very remote to those of the trade- GR.70 mark holder, courts have denied the existence of a likelihood of confusion.121 For example, the use of the word mark ‘ZARA’ as a domain name in connection with the marketing of coffee roasting machines was held not to be infringing of the identical mark of the plaintiff, which was registered for clothing items.122 It should be noted that the defendant had not been acting in bad faith as he had been using his last name in the second-level domain and he had also been active in the Greek market long before the plaintiff.123 The plaintiff had not   Ibid., p 198; Athens District Court, 6436/2008, NOMOS.   Ibid., pp 198–99. 118  Ibid. Athens District Court, 2988/2012, NOMOS. 119  Administrative Court of Appeal for the District of Athens, 3696/2012, DiDik 2013, 796, commented by Papakonstantinou. 120  Syros District Court, 637/1999, EEmpD 2000, 144, 145, commented by Marinos. 121  Athens Court of Appeal, 5476/2010, DEE 2011, 445, 447. 122  Athens District Court, 3950/2001, DEE 2001, 604. 123  In fact, the defendant’s trademark and domain name rights over the word mark ‘ZARA’ were prior to those of the plaintiff. 116 117

471

Greece (‘.gr’) attempted to assert the extended protection of Article 125(3)(c) Law No 4072/2012, which protects marks with a reputation. GR.71 Conversely, the proximity of the goods/services offered by the trademark holder and the

domain name user would most likely lead to the affirmation of a likelihood of confusion. The owner of the trademark ‘UNIVERSAL TRAVEL AGENCY’ was successful in asserting her exclusive rights against a competitor in the market for tourism services who had registered the confusing domain name ‘universal-travel.gr’.124 Likelihood of confusion as to the existence of legal, commercial, or other organizational relationships between the parties to the dispute is most likely to arise when the goods are identical or highly similar and the junior trademark has already achieved a high degree of recognition in the relevant consumer circles. In another case before the Greek courts, a newly established medical clinic (which had been using the domain name ‘iasis.gr’) was held to have infringed the senior trademark ‘ΙΑΣΙΣ’, which is associated with a nationwide private medical service provider. The proximity of the offered services under the similar signs coupled with the acquired distinctiveness of the senior trademark created a situation of confusion where consumers would gain the impression that the user of the domain name belonged to a business network administrated by the trademark holder.125 Trademark infringement was also affirmed when a seller of computer timers advertised under the domain name ‘rolex.gr’.126 Due to the proximity of the goods and the reputation of the plaintiff ’s trademark, the court held that it was highly likely for consumers to get the impression that the parties to the dispute had some sort of commercial cooperation. Greek case law127 rests on the principle that a finding of likelihood of confusion may only be established with reference to products or services marketed under a website and not to the mere existence of a webpage under a domain name.128

(b)  Infringement of Trademarks With a Reputation GR.72 Domain name registrations may encroach upon prior rights in marks with a reputation when the junior use takes an unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, their distinctive character or their repute without due cause.129 Since the protection of marks with a reputation does not depend on a finding of likelihood of confusion, the junior use would be held to infringe the senior trademark, even if the domain name is not actually being used.130 For the extended protection of Article 125(3)(c) Law No 4072/2012 to be granted, it is not necessary for the senior mark to have acquired its reputation in the transactional world of the Internet. Fame within the traditional commercial circles would suffice in order to provide the rights holder with effective protection of his trademark.131 Greek courts are very willing to accept free-riding arguments when prompted to adjudicate such disputes. Judicial opinions do not generally undertake detailed analyses of whether dilutive harm is, indeed, likely to occur or not. Olympic symbols have also been protected as marks with a reputation against junior domain name use.132 (c)  Limitations to Trademark Rights GR.73 Article 126(1) Law No 4072/2012 provides that trademark owners cannot prevent third

parties from using their personal/trade names and addresses, nor any descriptive or generic

  Athens Court of Appeal, 4776/2009, NOMOS.   Patras District Court, 868/2001, ChrID 2001, 868. 126  Athens District Court, 3359/2003, EEmpD 2003, 695. 127  See also Athens District Court, 3096/2007, DiMEE 2008, 226, commented by Tarantilis. 128  See generally, Igglezakis, IT-Law, 2008, (above n 22) pp 87–88. 129  Ibid., pp 90–91. 130  Ibid., p 92. 131  Alexandridou, The Law of Electronic Commerce, 2010, (above n 112) p 206. 132  Athens District Court, 9485/2000, EpiskEmpD 2000, 1094, commented by Pampoukis and Igglezakis. 124 125

472

IV.  Court Litigation terms. Trademark owners may also not prevent even an identical use when the latter is necessary for connoting the intended purpose of products, in particular as accessories or spare parts. In any event, the exemption from trademark liability requires that the use made by the third party does not run contrary to honest business practices. Defendants may invoke the defences contained in Article 126(1) Law No 4072/2012 when sued for trademark infringement after registering a senior mark as a domain name.133 The right to use a junior personal or trade name as a domain name may be enforceable even when the senior mark is used as a trademark. The decisive criterion is the conformity of the junior use with honest business practices.134 However, the Greek Supreme Court held in a relatively recent case that the use of a domain GR.74 name comprised of a senior mark ‘as a trademark’ cannot be exempted from liability by virtue of the defences set forth in Article 126(1)(b) and (c) Law No 4072/2012.135 This proposition is actually not reconcilable with the interpretation of Article 6 Directive 2008/95/EC by the CJEU.136 On the other hand, the court held that the defendant may escape liability pursuant to Article 126(1)(a) even if the sign is used as a trademark but only when that sign constitutes a commercial name of a natural person or a commercial name of a legal person which is comprised of a civil name.137

(d)  Attenuation of Trademark Rights Article 127 Law No 4072/2012 stipulates that the proprietor of a senior trademark who has GR.75 consciously acquiesced to the use of the mark by a junior party for a period of five successive years, can no longer enjoin the use of the junior trademark and may also not apply for a declaration of its invalidity unless the junior user has registered its mark in bad faith (Article 9 Directive 2008/95/EC). This limitation to the rights of the trademark owner relates only to a specific junior use in connection with some specific products and/or services. Limitations to trademark rights resulting from acquiescence of junior use may also be GR.76 founded upon Article 281 Greek Civil Code, which generally prohibits the exercise of a right in a manner that manifestly exceeds the boundaries of good faith, morality, or the social/ economic purpose of that right. The provision regulates the abuse and misuse of rights. The attenuation of rights is considered to be a category that falls under this provision. Defendants may invoke the defence of Article 281 Greek Civil Code against trademark suits seeking to enjoin them from using their later-registered domain names. Such defences will be sustainable only under exceptional circumstances, however.138 It would not suffice to plead that the plaintiff was aware (or should have been aware) of and has tolerated the defendant’s use of a specific domain name. The defendant must additionally show that: (a) he will sustain damage if the factual situation created by the trademark holder’s inertia is overturned; and (b) there is a causative link between the conduct of the trademark holder and the damage suffered by the defendant.

133  Tountopoulos, Vasilios/Chatzopoulos, Vasilios, Electronic Addresses on the Internet, (in Greek), Nomiki Vivliothiki, Athens 2001, pp 124–26. 134  Pampoukis, Comment on Areopag, 571/2011, EpiskEmpD 2011, 934, 940–41. 135  Areopag, 571/2011, NOMOS, commented by Pampoukis, EpiskEmpD 2011, 934. 136  Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co v Putsch GmbH, Case C-100/02, [2004] E.C.R. I–691, para 15. See also Pampoukis, (above n 134) pp 940–41. 137 Cf. Celine Sarl v Celine SA, Case C-17/06, [2007] E.C.R. I–7041. 138  See the Athens Court of Appeal, 4776/2009, NOMOS, dismissing the defence, because the trademark holder had promptly opposed to the use of the junior domain name; See also Athens Court of Appeal, 1617/2010, DEE 2010, 780, 784, dismissing the defence, since the trademark owner was not aware of the respective violation.

473

Greece (‘.gr’) GR.77 There are significant differences between the defences provided for under these two Articles.

Article 127 Law No 4072/2012 requires that the trademark holder has positive knowledge of the junior use whereas constructive knowledge would suffice for an attenuation of rights under Article 281 Greek Civil Code. Furthermore, the defence provided for in Article 127 Law No 4072/2012 becomes available immediately upon the expiry of the prescribed five-year period of use by the junior party without it being necessary for the defendant to show that he would suffer loss if the trademark holder were to prevail in his claim. In addition, Article 281 Greek Civil Code does not contain any requirement as to the period of acquiescence to the junior use that is necessary for the legal consequence of attenuation to emerge.

GR.78 Case law treats both defences as being alternatively available to the defendant.139 It is arguable

whether the limitation contained in Article 127 Law No 4072/2012 (as a provision implementing Directive 2008/95/EC) sets aside, or at least calls for a restrictive interpretation of, Article 281 Greek Civil Code.140

(2)  Infringement of Personal Names GR.79 When a personal name has been incorporated into a domain name, the person who carries

that name is entitled to the protection prescribed in Articles 57 to 59 Greek Civil Code. Article 57 refers to the general protection of personality which includes the authority to commercially exploit personality rights. Article 58 establishes rights in one’s own personal name. A finding of infringement presupposes that the use of the same name by a third party is unlawful, namely that the alleged infringer has no right of his own to use the same name. If more than one party has rights in the same name, the ownership of the disputed domain name will be decided according to the priority principle. The protection of the right in one’s own name is independent from any showing of likelihood of confusion.

(3)  Infringement of Commercial Names and Business Designations GR.80 Commercial names and business designations with a naming function qualify as names

within the meaning of Articles 58 to 59 Greek Civil Code (see also Article 8 Law No 1089/1980141).142 It is important to highlight again that the protection granted by these provisions does not require proof of actual or likely consumer confusion. Confusing uses of commercial names and business designations as domain names may also be opposed on the grounds of unfair competition law (Article 13(1) Law No 146/1914).143 For such suits to be successful, the plaintiff must show that his commercial name/business designation has been used as a domain name in commerce by the defendant and that the defendant’s actions have caused or are likely to cause consumer confusion as to source or affiliation. Just as in the case of trademark infringement, it would suffice for a court to affirm that the junior sign is being used as a domain name in commerce even if the junior user has simply reserved the respective domain name.144 The greater the product similarity, the more likely it becomes that the courts will affirm the existence of a likelihood of confusion. The limitation of nominative or referential fair use set forth in Article 126(1) Law No 4072/2012 should also be applied by

  Athens Court of Appeal, 1617/2010, DEE 2010, 780.   On these issues see Marinos, Michael-Theodoros, The Defense of Attenuation in the Trade Mark Statute, (in Greek), ChrID 2003, 865. 141  Law No 1089/1980, ‘On Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Crafts and Professionals’ (Government Gazette, FEK A 261). 142  Liakopoulos, Industrial Property, Vol II, 1995, (above n 4) pp 188–89; Athens District Court, 3096/2007, DiMEE 2008, 226, commented by Tarantilis. 143  Liakopoulos, Industrial Property, Vol II, 1995, (above n 4) pp 193–94; Lasithi District Court, 55/2009, ChrID 2009, 929, commented by Apostolopoulos. 144  Alexandridou, The Law of Electronic Commerce, 2010, (above n 112) p 211. 139 140

474

IV.  Court Litigation analogy to unfair competition cases where the defendant faces a claim based on Article 13 Law No 146/1914.145

(4)  Infringement of Titles A domain name may well infringe a title when, for example, the variable field of that domain GR.81 name is comprised of the title of a weblog.146

(5)  Domain Registration as Parasitic Competition or Misleading Statement The Greek unfair competition statute provides protection against the unfair exploitation GR.82 of the commercial reputation of a competitor. Article 1 Law No 146/1914 forbids unfair methods of competition including parasitic practices. The domain registration of any type of senior sign or emblem that has a reputation would fall under this category of unfair trade practices.147 Domain name registrations may also qualify as misleading statements within the meaning of Article 3 Law No 146/1914.148 These causes of action can be pursued simultaneously to other claims based on industrial property rights or Article 13 Law No 146/1914.

(6)  Cybersquatting and Domaingrabbing Decision Νο 750/2 does not attempt to resolve the issues of cybersquatting or domaingrab- GR.83 bing by imposing temporal limitations to the right to reserve domain names or restrictions in the regard to the number of domain names that a single registrant is allowed to secure.149 However, as already explained, profound bad faith on behalf of the registrant amounts to a ground for deletion of an already assigned domain name. This would include cybersquatting and domaingrabbing, although Decision No 750/2 seems to impose a very high threshold for establishing the subjective element of bad faith at the time of the registration. Greek law does not contain legal provisions specifically designed to combat cybersquatting GR.84 and domaingrabbing. Third parties affected by such practices would have to rely on the protection granted to their prior industrial property rights or the provisions of Articles 57 to 59 Greek Civil Code in the case of rights in a civil name. In addition, the unfair competition cause of action would be available on the theory that cybersquatting and domaingrabbing do not correspond to competition on the merits but are rather solely aimed at impeding the efforts of competitors to exploit their reputation (obstructive competition) without any business justification (Article 1 Law No 146/1914).150 For the claim to be successful, it must be established that the alleged wrongdoer is acting in furtherance of his own or somebody else’s trade. This requirement should be considered as fulfiled when the defendant has registered the senior sign as a domain name with the intent of exploiting it financially.151

(7)  The Use of Descriptive or Generic Terms as Domain Names The registration of words or phrases of a descriptive character as domain names is not pre- GR.85 cluded by Decision 750/2. In any event, the EETT does not make any decisions concerning

  Pampoukis, (above n 134) p 938.   Cf. EETT Decision No 674/25, 29 November 2012. 147  Alexandridou, The Law of Electronic Commerce, 2010, (above n 112) pp 212–13; Igglezakis, IT-Law, 2008, (above n 22) p 95; Tountopoulos/Chatzopoulos, Electronic Addresses on the Internet, 2001, (above n 133) pp 133–34. 148  Tountopoulos/Chatzopoulos, Electronic Addresses on the Internet, 2001, (above n 133) pp 128–30. 149  Art 7(5) Decision No 750/2. 150  Georgiades, Georgios, Conflicts Between Distinguishing Signs on the Internet–Domain Names, (in Greek), DEE 1999, 1243, 1247; Athens Court of Appeal, 6762/2007, DiMEE 2008, 83. 151  Anthimos, Apostolos, Trademark Protection on the Internet, (in Greek), ChrID 2002, 832. 145 146

475

Greece (‘.gr’) the registration of domain names on the basis of an assessment of the distinctive character of the specified string vis-à-vis any class of goods or services. GR.86 The registration and/or the use of a descriptive term as a registered domain name could

nevertheless be enjoined as an act of unfair competition (Article 1 Law No 146/1914).152 Given the familiarity of the contemporary average consumer with the Internet, a claim based on a theory of unfairness due to an inappropriate influence on the freedom of purchasing decisions resulting from the use of a descriptive term as a domain name would in all probability not be sustained.153 On the other hand, a claim would be more likely to succeed if it relies on a theory of unfairness directed at the allegation that the registrant seeks to put his competitors at a disadvantage by preventing them from using a descriptive term (obstructive competition).154 The same theory could be put forward even more plausibly in the case where a domain name containing a generic term had been registered for commercial use. The use of a descriptive term as a domain name may also turn out to be misleading within the meaning of Article 3 of the unfair competition statute.155

(8)  Outline of Available Remedies (a) Trademark Law GR.87 In case of infringement, the trademark proprietor is entitled to claim injunctive relief and damages.156 Greek legislation has to comply with the requirements set forth by Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property. The penalty threatened for a single non-compliance with an injunction would be a fine, ranging from €3,000 to €10,000, and detention for up to one year. This penalty may equally be imposed in cases concerning a violation of a permanent or interim injunction.157 GR.88 Damages would only be awarded if the defendant is at fault. Non-pecuniary losses may be

compensated.158 The amount of damages would generally correspond to the actual prejudice suffered by the rights holder as a result of the infringement. Damages may also be calculated on the basis of a lump sum that the infringer would have had to pay as royalties to the rights holder if the registrant had requested authorization to use the senior trademark.159 The competent court should take into account all relevant factors such as the negative economic consequences including the profits lost by the injured party and any benefits that the infringer made under the senior trademark.160 Where the infringer is not found to have been at fault, the rights holder may claim the sum equal to the profit accrued to the infringer from exploiting the senior trademark without authorization, or the sum equal to the net benefit accrued to the infringer as a result of such trademark exploitation.161

GR.89 The trademark holder may also request the issuance of appropriate measures for the dissemin-

ation of information concerning the content of judicial decisions related to trademarks both

152  See generally, Apostolopoulos, Haris, Descriptive and Generic Terms as Domain Names–Legal Issues, (in Greek), ChrID 2003, 108. 153  Ibid., p 112. 154  Ibid., pp 112–13; Tountopoulos/Chatzopoulos, Electronic Addresses on the Internet, 2001, (above n 133) pp 131–33. 155  Apostolopoulos, Haris, Descriptive and Generic Terms as Domain Names–Legal Issues (above n 153) pp 113–14; Igglezakis, IT-Law, 2008, (above n 22) p 96. 156  Art 150(1) Law No 4072/2012. 157  Art 150(3) Law No 4072/2012. 158  Art 150(5) Law No 4072/2012. 159  Art 150(6) Law No 4072/2012. 160  Art 150(7) Law No 4072/2012. 161  Art 150(8) Law No 4072/2012.

476

IV.  Court Litigation in civil and criminal proceedings at the expense of the infringer.162 The trademark holder may also request that the junior user provides information relevant to the infringing act in order to enable the trademark holder, and eventually the court, to determine the amount of damages sustained.163 Article 156 Law No 4072/2012 also provides for criminal sanctions.

GR.90

(b)  Unfair Competition Law When protection against a confusing junior use is sought on the grounds of Article 13 Law No GR.91 146/1914, the plaintiff is entitled to request a number of different sanctions. Injunctive relief and damages may be awarded pursuant to Articles 13 and 19 Law No 146/1914. Injunctions may also be requested as an interim measure under Article 20 Law No 146/1914. Criminal sanctions are stipulated in Articles 14, 21, and 22 Law No 146/1914. The same claims are available to the plaintiff who relies on Article 1 Law No 146/1914 for the protection of his famous sign in order to prevent the defendant from taking an unfair advantage of his commercial reputation. In a case of cybersquatting where the domain holder’s claims were based on a theory of GR.92 obstructive competition pursuant to Article 1 Law No 146/1914, the court awarded the plaintiff non-pecuniary losses attributed to a dispraise of reputational value as a result of the plaintiff ’s lack of Internet presence which was held likely to create the impression of a stagnant company to consumers.164 Articles 57 to 59 Greek Civil Code entitle the holder of a prior civil or commercial name, GR.93 and/or the owner of a business designation that also serves a naming function, to sue for an injunction to protect said names from abuse. Damages may be awarded on the basis of the combined application of Articles 57 to 59 and 914 Greek Civil Code. Tortious liability on the basis of Article 919 Greek Civil Code (malevolent harm) is also possible. The owner of a prior commercial name is further entitled to request the competent Chamber of Commerce to make corrective changes to its register such as the deletion of a junior commercial name that infringes his exclusive rights (Article 7 Law No 1089/1980).

(c)  Multiple Causes of Action As already indicated, the registration and/or use of an infringing domain name may fall GR.94 within the ambit of more than one legal cause of action. Trademark infringement may also amount to an act of an unfair competition and vice versa, for instance. In such cases, Greek law awards to the plaintiff one single claim, which then rests on multiple causes of action.165 Where this leads to discrepancies because the relevant causes of action may lead to different legal consequences, the conflict is resolved by allowing the plaintiff to claim whichever legal result is more beneficial to him. An exception to the general rule just mentioned applies when the implementation of the most beneficial outcome would run contrary to the purpose of another provision that enjoys a teleological primacy. This is of great practical importance for issues related to the limitations of actions. The trade- GR.95 mark holder’s claim for damages may rest upon both Article 150 Law No 4072/2012 and Article 13 Law No 146/1914. The first provision stipulates that the right to sue for damages lapses after five years following the close of the year during which the infringing act occurred for the first time. The right to put forward an unfair competition claim for damages is subjected to a temporal limitation of 18 months, starting from the moment the rights holder   Art 157 Law No 4072/2012.   Art 151 Law No 4072/2012. 164  Athens Court of Appeal, 6012/2005, DEE 2006, 278, 280. 165  Antonopoulos, Industrial Property, 2005, (above n 1) p 614. 162 163

477

Greece (‘.gr’) became aware of the infringing act and the identity of the infringer.166 In any event, the rights holder would not be able to bring an action after three years following the damage that occurred as a result of the infringing act.167 The issue related to the limitation of actions should then be regulated solely by the provisions of trademark law because these are the provisions that are more beneficial to the rights holder.168 GR.96 Contrary to the case of damages claims, the temporal limitation to the right of the trademark

holder to request injunctive relief is not regulated within the trademark statute. According to the prevailing view, the omission of a time limit within the trademark statute constitutes a clear indication of the Greek legislature’s intention to subject these provisions to the general rule of Article 249 Greek Civil Code, which provides for a temporal limitation of 20 years.169 Therefore, Article 19 Law No 146/1914, providing for a temporal limitation of 18 months in regard to the right to sue for an injunction, would not apply.

GR.97 The same issue might arise when the owner of a prior commercial name or a business des-

ignation sues a domain name registrant for damages. For claims arising in tort by virtue of Articles 57 to 59 and 914 Greek Civil Code (in their combined application), the temporal limitation to sue is set at five years (Article 937 Greek Civil Code). The right to sue for damages vested in Article 13 Law No 146/1914 lapses within 18 months from the moment the rights holder becomes aware of the infringing act and of the identity of the infringer, and cannot, in any case, be exercised after a period of three years following the occurrence of the harm (Article 19 Law No 146/1914). In contrast to the previous example, here the rights holder would not be able to rely on the more beneficial regulation of Article 937 Greek Civil Code, which provides for a temporal limitation of five years in regard to the right to sue for damages arising in tort. This is because the purpose of the provisions contained in the unfair competition statute, namely to allow for the final resolution of commercial disputes to commence within a relatively short period of time, enjoys teleological primacy.170

GR.98 As a general rule applicable to the remaining cases, unfair competition law provisions

pre-empt the legal regulation in regard to the limitation of actions contained in Article 937 Greek Civil Code. The opposite is valid for damages claims based on Article 919 Greek Civil Code due to the public policy character of this provision, which is designed to prohibit malevolent harm.171 When damages are sought on the basis of the unfair competition cause of action, the plaintiff may simultaneously claim non-pecuniary losses by virtue of Articles 914 and 932 Greek Civil Code.172

GR.99 The protection provided by tort law provisions can only be supplementary to that offered by

trademark and unfair competition laws.

(d)  Interim Measures GR.100 In cases of urgency, or for the purpose of averting an imminent risk, Greek courts would have authority to order interim measures (Article 682 Greek Code of Civil Procedure). Preliminary

  Art 19 Law No 146/1914.   Art 19 Law No 146/1914. 168  Antonopoulos, Industrial Property, 2005, (above n 1) p 615. 169  Marinos, Trademark Law, 2007, (above n 115) pp 338–39 (critical of the prevailing view). In legal theory these issues are the subject of a debate. See also Venieris, Iakovos, Infringement of Company Names: The Application of Art 58 Greek Civil Code and Art 13 Law No 146/1914, (in Greek), EEmpD 2007, 746 (also holding a critical view). 170  Antonopoulos, Industrial Property, 2005, (above n 1)  p 290; Areopag, 1285/2005, commented by Marinos; Athens District Court, 3846/2013, DEE 2014, 31. 171 Ibid. 172  Areopag, 371/2012, ChrID 2012, 533, commented by Apostolopoulos. 166 167

478

V.  Acquisition of an Industrial Property Right by Using a Domain Name relief aims at securing or preserving a legal right, or temporarily regulating a legal affair, until the court opinion is rendered. The respective petition has to be filed with the competent court in the place where the interim measures will eventually be imposed. Interim measure orders may be issued before or during the main proceedings. Pursuant to Article 692(4) Greek Code of Civil Procedure the scope of interim relief should GR.101 not extend so far as to, in effect, enforce the right asserted by the plaintiff. In one notable case, the issue arose as to whether the courts are authorized under this provision to order the transfer of an allegedly infringing domain name to the plaintiff as an interim measure. The court held that such type of preliminary relief would be indispensable, when the registrant has apparently engaged in acts of obstructive competition by registering the commercial name of the plaintiff as a domain name with the sole purpose of preventing the latter from using his identifying sign in electronic commerce.173 Otherwise, the party having a legitimate competitive interest in using the domain name would have to wait for the court to render its final decision on the dispute. Less drastic measures, such as domain name deactivation, would suffice in order to provide effective interim relief in unfair competition cases where the registration was allegedly directed at inappropriately influencing purchasing decisions in the marketplace or misleading consumers. As a general rule though, interim relief ordering the defendant to transfer an allegedly infringing name to the plaintiff runs contrary to Article 692(4) Greek Code of Civil Procedure.174 The conservatory seizure of an Internet platform would normally include the respective domain name.175

V.  Acquisition of an Industrial Property Right by Using a Domain Name In the course of their use in commerce, domain names would in all probability develop into GR.102 signs performing some distinguishing function in the marketplace. This would give rise to the kinds of rights available in distinguishing signs that are acquired without any prior registration, simply by virtue of their use. Domain names may therefore develop into protectable signs, provided that the requirements for establishing such rights through use in commerce are, in each case, met.176 Domain names may serve as commercial names, business designations and even titles of doc- GR.103 uments or other works, if they perform a naming function in the marketplace. The respective industrial property rights can be acquired by virtue of the sole fact of their use as names in commerce provided that they are distinctive.177 Domain names would also be protected as civil names provided that their naming function does not result from their use on the Internet.178

  Patras District Court, 868/2001, ChrID 2001, 363.   Athens District Court, 3286/2014, DEE 2014, 586. 175  Thessaloniki District Court, 21480/2013, EPOLD 2014, 371, commented by Giannopoulos. 176  See generally, Xourafa, Chrysa, The Domain Name and the Acquisition of Industrial Property Rights Through Its Use, (in Greek), Ant. N. Sakkoulas, Athens-Komotini 2006; Pampoukis, (above n 134) p 936; Sidiropoulos, Theodoros, Internet Law, (in Greek), Sakkoulas, Athens-Thessaloniki 2008, pp 193 et seq. 177  Antonopoulos, Industrial Property, 2005, (above n 1) pp 236–37. See, for example, Athens Court of Appeal, 6762/2007, DiMEE 2008, 83, 88. The Court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff failed to show that the domain name ‘biz.gr’ had been indeed used as a business designation, even though the domain name was presented in another commercial website of his own. See also Athens District Court, 3824/2008, DiMEE 2009, 76. 178  Alexandridou, The Law of Electronic Commerce, 2010, (above n 112) p 216. 173 174

479

Greece (‘.gr’) GR.104 In all other cases, domain names would only give rise to other types of industrial property

rights in distinguishing signs without a naming function if they have acquired secondary meaning, eg as a trademark or a trade symbol/emblem of a business.179 For example, when a domain name is used in the context of a website offering services as a virtual online shop, that domain name might develop into a product designation within the meaning of Article 13(3) Law No 146/1914.180

GR.105 Priority in a term or mark cannot be established by virtue of its registration as a domain name

unless the requirements for protection of that term or mark as a specific type of industrial property right are met first.181

VI.  The Liability of the EETT and Internet Service Providers GR.106 Greek case law has affirmed the defendant standing requirements for the EETT since the

latter has the authority to delete the infringing domain name from the registry or to transfer it to its legitimate owner.182 The EETT cannot, however, be held liable for damages as it does not operate under a duty to examine domain registrations for the existence of prior rights when accepting applications for domain names.183 Such liability may arise only if the EETT had been aware of the fact that the registration was violating prior rights or if such violation was obvious at the time of the registration.184

GR.107 On the contrary, courts have held that ISPs do not satisfy the defendant standing require-

ments since the law neither provides them with any authority in respect to the domain name registration process nor imposes any duty on them to examine whether the holder of a specific domain name has lawfully acquired his rights.185

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property GR.108 Article 13 Decision No 750/2 regulates the transfer of registered domain names. As items of

property, they can also be subjected to execution measures.186

GR.109 Article 10 A) 8 Decision No 750/2 regulates the state of affairs following the death of an indi-

vidual who is the proprietor of a domain name. The successor or the person legally appointed to deal with the inheritance should, within 12 months from the death of the rights holder, request the transfer of the domain name either to himself or to someone else. Annex VIII of Decision 750/2 sets out the formalities of the domain name transfer declaration. Otherwise, the domain name would be deleted from the register and the respective rights will cease to exist. For the purpose of promoting certainty as to the legal situation in regard to a given   Antonopoulos, Industrial Property, 2005, (above n 1) pp 238–39.   Athens District Court, 2988/2012, NOMOS. 181  Antonopoulos, Industrial Property, 2005, (above n 1) pp 340–41; Athens District Court, 2988/2012, NOMOS; Thessaloniki Court of Appeals, 498/2010, EpiskEmpD 2010, 855, 864, commented by Chryssanthis; Athens District Court, 3824/2008, DiMEE 2009, 76, 77. 182 Athens District Court, 3846/2013, DEE 2014, 31; Thessaloniki District Court, 8198/2001, EpiskEmpD 2002, 242, 243–44, commented by Anthimos. 183  Karakostas, Law & Internet, 2009, (above n 22) pp 39–40. 184  Tountopoulos/Chatzopoulos, Electronic Addresses on the Internet, 2001, (above n 133) pp 148–49. 185  Karakostas, Law & Internet, 2009, (above n 22) p 40. 186  Anthimos, Apostolos, Procedural Issues Related to the New Regulation of Administration and Registration of Domain Names, (in Greek), DiMEE 2005, 501, 510–12; Igglezakis, IT-Law, 2008, (above n 22) pp 108–09. 179 180

480

VIII.  International Conflicts domain name, the legal effect of invalidity arising from the omission to transfer the domain name should be considered to take place back at the time of the original proprietor’s death. As proprietary rights, domain names are included in the bankruptcy estate.187 Under Greek GR.110 law, trademarks comprised of the name of their proprietor should not form part of the bankruptcy estate. It has been suggested that the same rule should be valid by analogy for the case of domain names comprised of civil names.188

VIII.  International Conflicts (1)  International Jurisdiction Greek courts would assume international jurisdiction in domain name disputes if the defend- GR.111 ant has his place of residence within the country or maintains a registered office in Greece (Articles 3 and 22 et seq. Greek Code of Civil Procedure). Alternatively, the international jurisdiction of Greek courts could be established if Greece is the place where the infringing act took place (Article 35 Greek Code of Civil Procedure).189 For the purposes of this provision, the place of the tort refers both to the place of the commission of the wrongful act and to the place where the harmful results took effect (arg. Article 16 Greek Penal Code). If the defendant is domiciled or has a registered office in an EU Member State, then the issue GR.112 of international jurisdiction is governed by Regulation 44/2001. Greek courts may then assume international jurisdiction, provided that the defendant is domiciled in Greece.190 In regard to matters relating to tortious acts or acts equivalent to tort, international jurisdiction may be assumed by Greek courts if Greece is the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur.191 This rule confers jurisdiction both on the court in the place of the causal event and the place where the loss occurred or is about to occur. If the tortfeasor has a branch, agency, or establishment in Greece, the Greek courts may assume jurisdiction, but only if the dispute arose out of the operation of this specific branch, agency, or establishment.192 Case law has not yet resolved the issue as to whether Greek courts have international jurisdic- GR.113 tion over disputes arising in the context of generic top-level domain names. The issue came up in one case, but since the defendant was domiciled in Greece, the court did not further elaborate on this issue.193

(2)  Applicable Substantive Law The law applicable to domain name disputes related to the infringement of industrial property GR.114 rights is the substantive law of the country in which legal protection is sought (lex loci protectionis). This choice of law rule is a concomitant of the territoriality principle. Accordingly, Greek law would govern a domain name dispute related to the infringement of industrial property rights as long as Greece is the place where the infringing act occurred.194

187  Pursuant to Art 1 Greek Bankruptcy Code, the bankruptcy estate comprises the whole of the debtor’s estate at the time of the bankruptcy declaration regardless of its location. 188  Kazakou, Sotiria B., Domain-Names:  Forms of Exploitation, (in Greek), 2011, available at: http:// pandemos.panteion.gr/index.php?op=record&pid=iid:4724&lang=en, p 74. 189  Antonopoulou, Conflicts Between Distinguishing Signs and Domain Names, (above n 22) pp 50–51. 190  Art 2(1) Reg 44/2001. 191  Art 5(3) Reg 44/2001. 192  Art 5(5) Reg 44/2001. 193  Anthimos, Apostolos, International Jurisdiction and the Internet (II), (in Greek), Sinigoros 2009, 74, 75. 194  Antonopoulou, Conflicts Between Distinguishing Signs and Domain Names, (above n 22) pp 52–55.

481

Greece (‘.gr’) GR.115 Article 8(1) Regulation 864/2007 (‘Rome II’) also renders the law of the country in which

protection is claimed applicable where the dispute concerns a non-contractual obligation arising from the infringement of an intellectual property right.195

GR.116 In regard to claims of unfair competition put forward in the context of domain name dis-

putes, Greek courts would apply the choice of law rule contained in Article 26 Greek Civil Code, which provides that the law applicable to delictual obligations is the law of the place where the wrongful act was committed. The choice of law rule points both to the place where the harmful act was initiated and to the place where the harmful effect occurred.196 Given the particularities of the unfair competition cause of action, Greek courts exercising international jurisdiction would apply the law of the country under which the competition between the parties produces its effects.197

GR.117 Regulation 864/2007 provides in Article 6(1) that the law applicable to obligations arising

out of acts of unfair competition is the law of the country where the competitive relations of the parties, or the collective interests of consumers, are likely to be affected. If an act of unfair competition solely affects the interest of one competitor then the choice of law rule contained in Article 6(2) applies.

  Cf. Art 8(2) and (3) Reg 864/2007.   Tountopoulos/Chatzopoulos, Electronic Addresses on the Internet, 2001, (above n 133) p 99. 197  Apostolopoulos, Die Liberalisierung des griechischen Lauterkeitsrechts im Rahmen der europäischen Rechtsnagleichung, 2007, (above n 6) pp 293–95. 195 196

482

HONG KONG (‘.hk’) Hong Xue

I. Overview of the National System of Protection of Marks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs 

(1) Types of Protected IP Rights  (2) Development of Domain Name Law 

II. The ccTLD (‘.hk’ and ‘.香港’) Registration Conditions and Procedures  III. ADR (‘.hk’ and ‘.香港’) Domain Space 

IV.  Court Litigation 

HK.55 (1) Abusive Domain Name Registrations  HK.55 (2) Infringement of Trade Marks  HK.62 (3) Trade Names and Other Commercial Designations  HK.76 (4) Individual Domain Names and Personal Names  HK.79 (5) Names of Cities and Other Public Law Corporations  HK.84 (6) Geographical Indications, Indication of Source, and Other Geographical Terms  HK.89

HK.01 HK.01 HK.05

HK.06

HK.17 (1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding HK.19 (2) Statistics  HK.20 (3)  Material Scope of the Proceeding  HK.21 (4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement  HK.22 (5)  Overview of the ADR-Procedure  HK.23 (6) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider  HK.33 (7)  Role of the Panel  HK.35 (8) Costs  HK.41 (9) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings  HK.44 (10)  ADR Decisions  HK.49 (11) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Panel  HK.53

V. Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name VI. Liability of the Registry and Registrars  VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  (1) Transfer of a Domain Name Registration (2) License of Domain Names

VIII. International Conflicts

(1) International Jurisdiction (2) Choice of Law (3) Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

HK.92 HK.94 HK.98 HK.98 HK.103 HK.104 HK.104 HK.107 HK.108

Links Intellectual Property Department of the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: http://www.ipd.gov.hk/eng/home.htm Registry: Hong Kong Domain Name Registra­ tion Company Limited (HKIRC): https://www.hkirc.hk/ Registration conditions: https://www.hkirc.hk/content.jsp?id=33 WHOIS: https://www.hkirc.hk/whois/whois.jsp Dispute Resolution Provider: http://hkiac.org/en/domain-name-dispute-resolution-odr Policy: https://www.hkirc.hk/content.jsp?id=25 Procedural Rules: https://www.hkirc.hk/content.jsp?id=25#!/26

483

Hong Kong (‘.hk’)

I.  Overview of the National System of Protection of Marks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs (1)  Types of Protected IP Rights HK.01 Hong Kong became a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China

on 1 July 1997, but its common law system, the heritage of its colonial history, is largely intact.

HK.02 The current trademark law is the Trademarks Ordinance (TMO, Chapter  559) and the

Trademarks Rules (Chapter  559A). The TMO is modeled on the trademark laws of the countries of the European Union, in particular, the United Kingdom Trademarks Act 1994. The relevant United Kingdom cases as well as those of other common law countries (such as Australia, New Zealand), although not binding, provide guidance on the interpretation of Hong Kong trademark law. The TMO grants exclusive rights to the owners of registered trademarks.

HK.03 The trademark registration system of Hong Kong provides territorial protection. Hence,

trademarks registered with the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People’s Republic of China or trademarks registries of other countries or regions do not automatically receive protection in Hong Kong.

HK.04 In addition to the TMO, the law of passing off also offers important protection for trade-

marks or other signs, as does the Trade Description Ordinance, as amended in 2012.

(2)  Development of Domain Name Law HK.05 There are no specific provisions dealing with domain names in the TrademarkTMO, the

Trademarks Rules or other laws. The registration and use of domain names, if found infringing to a trademark right, are subject to the remedies offered by the trademark legislation or the common law on passing off. In addition, the trademark owners may also resort to the alternative dispute resolution policies implemented by the relevant domain name registries, particularly the ‘Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy for .hk and . 香港 domain names’.

II.  The ccTLD (‘.hk’ and ‘.香港’) Registration Conditions and Procedures HK.06 ‘.hk’ and ‘.香港’ are the top-level domains for Hong Kong SAR.1 Prior to 1 June 2001,

the Hong Kong Network Information Centre, which was a cooperative arm of the Joint University Computer Centre, handled the registration of domain names ending with ‘.hk’. On 1 June 2001, Hong Kong Internet Registration Corporation Ltd (HKIRC) assumed all registry responsibilities of the ccTLD. In June 2010, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved the ccTLD, that is, ‘.香港’, which means ‘Hong Kong’ in Chinese characters. From then on, HKIRC has been managing both ccTLDs. From 15 December 2010, HKIRC has established a system of accrediting registrars to provide the services including registration, renewal, transfer, modification, bundling, unbundling, or cancellation of domain names under the ‘.hk’ and ‘.香港’ ccTLDs. The list of accredited

1  Although Hong Kong is now an SAR of China, the management of ‘.hk’ is independent of the Chinese government and the ‘.cn’ management body.

484

II.  The ccTLD (‘.hk’ and ‘.香港’) Registration Conditions and Procedures registrars, including Hong Kong Domain Name Registration Company Limited (HKDNR), is published on the website of the HKIRC. The registration rules published by the HKIRC have been revised several times. The present HK.07 version is the ‘Domain Name Registration Policies, Procedures and Guidelines for ‘.hk’ and ‘.香港’ domain names (Version 1.0)’ (‘Registration Rules’), effective 22 February 2011.2 Under the Registration Rules, all interested individuals and entities are eligible to register a HK.08 second-level domain name. In determining whether to accept a registrant’s application for the registration of a second-level domain name, the registrar may require the submission of any documentary evidence that the registrar considers necessary to verify the registrant’s identity.3 Under the Registration Rules, a third-level domain name may be registered under any of the HK.09 following six second-level domains: (i) all residents of HKSAR are eligible to register ‘.idv.hk’/‘.個人.hk’/‘.個人. 香港’ domain names; (ii) commercial entities registered in HKSAR are eligible to register ‘.com.hk’/‘.公司. hk’/‘.公司. 香港’ domain names; (iii) registered or approved not-for-profit organizations in HKSAR are eligible to register ‘.org.hk’/‘.組織.hk’/‘.組織. 香港’ domain names; (iv) entities managing network infrastructure, machines, and services with a license from the Office of the Communications Authority of the Government of the HKSAR are eligible to apply for ‘.net.hk’/‘.網絡.hk’/‘.網絡. 香港’ domain names; (v) bureaux and departments of the HKSAR government are eligible to register ‘.gov.hk’/ ‘. 政府.hk’/‘.政府. 香港’ domain names; and (vi) registered schools, tertiary institutions and other approved educational institutions in HKSAR are eligible to register ‘.edu.hk’/‘.教育.hk’/‘.教育.香港’ domain names. The relationship between the domain name holder and an HKIRC-accredited registrar is HK.10 contractual. Any applied for English-language domain name must meet the domain name structural requirements. An English domain name, including top level, second level, and third level if any, may con- HK.11 sist of letters (A–Z, case-insensitive), digits (0–9) and hyphens (-), and may not exceed 63 characters. A Chinese-language domain name under ‘.hk’ must contain at least one Chinese character. HK.12 A Chinese-language domain name under ‘.香港’ need not contain any Chinese characters (apart from the ‘.香港’ suffix) if the registrant makes a specific request to HKIRC. The rest of the string of a Chinese domain name may be composed of other character(s) such as English letters (A–Z, a–z), Arabian numerals (0-9) or a hyphen (-). The total number of characters in the string of registration for a Chinese Domain Name under either ‘.hk’ or ‘.香港’ shall not exceed 15. The Registration Rules also state that the registry has the right to reserve or prohibit cer- HK.13 tain domain names. The use of the word ‘government’/‘政府’, ‘bank’/‘銀行’ and ‘insurance’, ‘assurance’ or ‘保險’ in any domain name is subject to special restriction and examination. A registered domain name may be cancelled, modified, or renewed.

  The older versions of the Registration Policies and Rules have all been superseded.   Children are not eligible to register domain names. A minor may apply to register a domain name, but only if the application is jointly executed by his/her parent or guardian. 2 3

485

Hong Kong (‘.hk’) HK.14 The Registration Rules do not preclude the registration of descriptive terms as domain names,

but specify a list of prohibitive terms related to the Internet technology and domain name operation. Some of the listed prohibitive terms, such as likely new types of domain name, are ambiguous and completely subject to the HKIRC to define.

HK.15 The prohibited English terms include:

(i) all single-character labels, including A–Z, 0–9 and ‘-’; (ii) generic top-level domains established by ICANN including, but not limited to, sponsored top-level domains announced by ICANN; (iii) country code top-level domains announced by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA); (iv) technical terms; (v) current and likely new types of domain names; or (vi) terms used for operations. HK.16 The prohibited Chinese terms include:

(i) Chinese translations of generic top-level domains announced by ICANN or sponsored top-level domains announced by ICANN; (ii) common technical terms related to domain names and related international name associations; (iii) types and levels of schools and other educational institutions in the HKSAR; (iv) current and likely new types of Chinese domain names; or (v) Chinese words of operational needs.

III.  ADR (‘.hk’ and ‘.香港’) Domain Space HK.17 Once there is a dispute between a trademark and a domain name, the trademark owner may

choose to resolve the dispute either through the decision of an arbitration panel appointed by the HKIRC-approved Dispute Resolution Service Provider or through adjudication by an HKSAR court.

HK.18 If the trademark owner chooses the former, the dispute in relation to the registration and use

of a domain name registered under either ‘.hk’ or ‘.香港’ is governed by the HKIRC ‘Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy for .hk and .香港 domain names’ (hereinafter HKDRP) and the Rules of Procedure, which were implemented in 2002 but have been revised and updated several times. The current version of the HKDRP and the Rules of Procedure have been effective since 22 February 2011. The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) is the sole dispute resolution provider approved by HKIRC for ‘.hk’ and ‘.香港’ domains.

(1)  Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding HK.19 Unlike the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) and many other

dispute resolution polices implemented in the domain name system, HKDRP provides an arbitral proceeding with finality. Once a decision is rendered by the panel appointed by the dispute resolution provider, neither the domain name holder/registrant nor the trademark owner may appeal to the court for retrial or review.

(2) Statistics HK.20 Since the HKDRP was implemented in 2002, there have been a total of 98 cases filed with

the dispute resolution provider up to August 2013, during which time nine cases were

486

III.  ADR (‘.hk’ and ‘.香港’) Domain Space withdrawn without being tried. Among the 89 cases that have been decided, 13 complaints were rejected by the panels.

(3)  Material Scope of the Proceeding The HKDRP sets forth the terms and conditions which govern any dispute between a regis- HK.21 trant and any party, other than HKIRC and the registrar, in regard to the registration and use of a domain name in the ‘.hk’ or ‘.香港’ ccTLD spaces.

(4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement The HKDRP is incorporated by reference into the registration agreement between the regis- HK.22 trant and the registrar as part of the mandatory terms required by HKIRC in relation to the registration and use of a domain name in the ‘.hk’ and ‘.香港’ ccTLDs.

(5)  Overview of the ADR-Procedure (a)  Legal Framework Upon the filing of a complaint under the HKDRP, conducted before any of the Dispute HK.23 Resolution Providers approved by HKIRC, the domain name registrant is required to submit to the mandatory arbitration proceeding. The Arbitration proceedings under the HKDRP shall be governed by the Rules of Procedure, HK.24 the Supplemental Rules of the Provider administering the proceedings, and the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance (Chapter 341).4

(b)  ADR Complaint Under the HKDRP, a complaint submitted to HKIAC, in compliance with the Rules of HK.25 Procedure and the Supplemental Rules of HKIAC, shall be supported provided that it can prove the presence of all the following elements: (i) the registrant’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in Hong Kong in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; (iii) the registrant’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith; and (iv) if the domain name is registered by an individual person, the registrant does not meet the registration requirements for that individual category of domain name. HKDRP specifically interprets the meaning of ‘identical or confusing similar’ regarding HK.26 Chinese character variants. In relation to Chinese domain names, the traditional or simplified form or any other variant set out in the Chinese Characters Variant Table (defined in the Registration Agreement) of a Chinese character appearing in a domain name or trademark will be considered to be identical and confusingly similar to that Chinese character.

(c)  ADR Response The HKDRP lists the circumstances that may evidence the registrant’s bad faith in relation HK.27 to the registration and use of a domain name, with nearly the same wording as in the UDRP adopted by ICANN. With respect to the evidence that may demonstrate the registrant’s rights or legitimate inter- HK.28 ests to the disputed domain name, HKDRP provides the following circumstances:

4

 See http://www.legislation.gov.hk/index.htm for details of the Arbitration Ordinance.

487

Hong Kong (‘.hk’) (i) before any notice to the registrant of the dispute, the registrant’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services in Hong Kong; (ii) the registrant (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the registrant has acquired no trademark or service mark rights in Hong Kong; (iii) the registrant has trademark or service mark rights that the mark is identical to the domain name the registrant is holding; or (iv) the registrant is making a legitimate, non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. HK.29 In the above list, it is interesting to note that HKDRP presumes that a domain name regis-

tration is justifiable as far as the registrant has a trademark identical to the disputed domain name, irrespective of when and how the trademark right was acquired.

(d) Procedural Issues HK.30 Under the Rules of Procedure, each dispute resolution provider shall maintain and publish a publicly available list of panellists and their qualifications. If neither the complainant nor the respondent has elected a three-member arbitration panel, the provider shall appoint, within five working days following receipt of the response by the provider, or the lapse of the time period for the submission thereof, a single arbitrator from the provider’s list of panellists to constitute the arbitration panel. If either the complainant or the respondent elects to have the dispute decided by a three-member arbitration panel, the provider will appoint three panellists. Unless it has already elected a three-member arbitration panel, the complainant must submit, within five working days of the receipt of the response, the names and contact details of three candidates to serve as one of the panellists (these candidates must be drawn from the list of panellists maintained by the relevant provider). In the event that either of the parties elects to use a three-member panel, the provider shall endeavour to appoint one panellist from the list of candidates provided by each of the complainant and the respondent. In the event the provider is unable, within five working days, to secure the appointment of a panellist from either party’s list of candidates, the provider shall make the appointment from other panellists on the provider’s list. The third panellist is appointed by the provider from a list of five candidates submitted by the provider to the parties; the provider’s selection from among the five being made in a manner and to the extent possible, that reasonably balances the preferences of both parties, as such may be expressed to the provider in writing (including email) within five working days of the provider’s submission of the five-candidate list to the parties. HK.31 Once the entire arbitration panel has been appointed, the provider will notify the parties of

the panellists appointed and will also transmit the date by which (absent exceptional circumstances) the arbitration panel will be required to forward its decision to the provider.

HK.32 Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the language of the arbitration proceedings shall be

English for English ‘.hk’ domain names, and Chinese for Chinese ‘.hk’ and ‘.香港’ domain names, subject always to the authority of the arbitration panel to determine otherwise after taking into account all of the relevant circumstances of the arbitration proceeding.

(6)  Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider HK.33 The provider is responsible for the management of the cases and the communications to and

from the parties. No party, or anyone acting on its behalf, may have any unilateral communication with an arbitration panel. All communications between a party and the arbitration

488

III.  ADR (‘.hk’ and ‘.香港’) Domain Space panel, or between a party and the provider, shall be made in the manner prescribed in the provider’s Supplemental Rules. The provider must forward the file to the arbitration panel as soon as the panellist is appointed HK.34 (in the case of an arbitration panel consisting of a single member), or as soon as the last panellist is appointed (in the case of a three-member panel).

(7)  Role of the Panel The arbitration panel will conduct the arbitration proceeding in such manner as it consid- HK.35 ers appropriate in accordance with the HKDRP, the Rules of Procedure, and the Provider’s Supplemental Rules. In all cases, an arbitration panel must ensure that the parties are treated with equality and that HK.36 each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. Every arbitration panel shall ensure that the arbitration proceedings take place with due expedition. The panel may, either upon party request or its own motion, in exceptional cases, extend any period of time fixed by the Rules of Procedure or the Provider’s Supplemental Rules. The panel has the sole authority to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality, and weight of the evidence presented to it. In addition to the complaint and the response, the arbitration panel may, in its sole discre- HK.37 tion, elect to request further statements or documents from either or both of the parties. Under the HKDRP, there are generally no in-person hearings (including hearings by tele­ HK.38 conference, video conference, and/or web conference). However, the panel may, in its sole discretion and as an exceptional matter, determine that such a hearing is necessary in order to decide the dispute. In the absence of exceptional circumstances (as determined by an arbitration panel in its HK.39 sole discretion), the panel must forward its decision on the complaint to the provider within 15 working days of its formal appointment. Except in the case of deliberate wrongdoing, neither the provider nor a panellist may be liable HK.40 to a party for any act or omission in connection with any arbitration proceeding under the Rules of Procedure.

(8) Costs The HKIAC sets out the fees for each domain name arbitration procedure as shown in HK.41 Table HK.1. Table HK.1: Fees for Domain Name Arbitration Panellist Fees(HK$) HKIAC Administrative Fees (HK$) Single-member panel 5,000 Three-member panel 15,000

5,000 5,000

Total Fees(HK$) 10,000 20,000

If any deficiencies are determined by the provider to be present in a filed complaint, an add- HK.42 itional charge of HK$2,000 shall be due from the complainant, and must accompany the submission of any document or annex correcting the specified deficiencies. The fees for a three-member arbitration panel shall be paid in their entirety by the com- HK.43 plainant, except where the election for a three-member arbitration panel was made by the respondent, in which case the applicable fees shall be shared equally between the parties.

489

Hong Kong (‘.hk’) (9)  Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings HK.44 The HKDRP is unique in the sense that the decisions made by the HKIAC-appointed arbi-

tration panel are final and binding just as other arbitral awards.5 The registrant shall abide by such decision. The registrar or HKIRC may cancel, transfer, or otherwise make changes to domain name registrations upon the receipt of a decision of an arbitration panel as defined in the Rules of Procedure.

HK.45 A domain name dispute can either be resolved by an arbitration panel in accordance with the

HKDRP or by a HKSAR court in accordance with Hong Kong law.

HK.46 In accordance with the HKDRP, the remedies available to a complainant pursuant to any

proceeding before an arbitration panel shall be limited to requiring the cancellation of the registrant’s domain name or the transfer of the registrant’s domain name registration to the complainant.

HK.47 In contrast, a court may grant both injunctive relief and damages to the successful plaintiff.

With respect to injunctive relief, the courts typically restrict relief to the acts of infringement committed; in this context, ordering cancellation of the domain name or transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff. The damages may be either the loss suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s infringing acts or the defendant’s profits attributable to such acts.

HK.48 The remedy of damages is not available in an arbitration proceeding under the HKDRP, and

the arbitration panel’s decisions regarding a dispute is final and binding. As a result, an unsuccessful complainant in a HKDRP proceeding cannot turn to the court proceeding for relief. However, whether a successful complainant in a HKDRP proceeding may seek damages in subsequent court proceedings remains an open question.

(10)  ADR Decisions HK.49 If the decision provides that the domain name registration shall be cancelled, the registrar

shall wait for ten working days after receiving the decision before cancelling the domain name. Where the registrar does not execute the decision without giving a reason acceptable to HKIRC in its reasonable discretion, HKIRC shall execute the decision of the dispute.

HK.50 Where the registrant wishes to relinquish its domain name registration in dispute and to

register a new domain name so as to avoid complaint proceedings and/or litigation, the registrar may assist the registrant with such application and allow the registrant to maintain both domain names simultaneously for up to 30 calendar days to facilitate an orderly transition to the new domain name registration.

HK.51 If HKIRC or the registrar is notified that a complaint has been filed pursuant to the HKDRP

or a writ has been filed with a HKSAR court in relation to a domain name, HKIRC or the registrar have the right to suspend or reject any transfer application made in respect of the domain name or any online modification (including deletion) of the domain name registration.

HK.52 All the HKDRP decisions are published on the website of the provider. By applying to reg-

ister a domain name and by asking either HKIRC or the registrar to register, maintain, or renew a domain name registration, the registrant agrees that a decision by an arbitration panel in which the registrant is a respondent may be made public and may be posted on the

5  Comparatively, the UDRP does not prevent the parties from submitting the dispute to a court before the commencement of or after the conclusion of the administrative proceeding.

490

IV.  Court Litigation website of the registrar and/or HKIRC and/or the provider which appointed the arbitration panel in question.

(11)  ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Panel In the case Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc v Specialized Hong Kong Ltd,6 the complainant HK.53 held the trademark registration for ‘S SPECIALIZED’ in Hong Kong from 2010, and was a worldwide distributor of bicycles and cycling-related products. The complainant had been doing business with International Cycle Sports Company Ltd’s principal, Jason Lee, for some years before its wholly-owned subsidiary entered into an exclusive distributorship agreement with International Cycle Sports Company Ltd to distribute the complainant’s merchandise in Hong Kong (signed on 30 June 2010). According to the complaint, the respondent was a sham entity set up by International Cycle Sports Company or Chung Yung Cycles to thwart the complainant’s use of its trademark and its ability to market its products in Hong Kong. The disputed domain name was registered by the respondent on 7 May 2009. The panel found that the disputed domain name was probably registered by someone acting on behalf of Mr Lee, or a company controlled by him, with the right to distribute the complainant’s goods. This would have occurred pursuant to a distribution agreement between the complainant’s subsidiary and himself or, more likely, one of his companies. The panel noted as significant the lapse of time between the registration of the domain name HK.54 and the complainant’s efforts to regain it. The reason for this delay is presumably that the complainant, or its subsidiary, was happy to assume that Mr Lee would eventually use the disputed domain name to promote the complainant’s goods in accordance with International Cycle Sports Company Ltd’s agreement with the subsidiary. At the time, the complainant wanted its distribution arrangements to be effective and was happy for the domain name to be registered by Mr Lee. This view is further reinforced by the fact that the domain name was registered before the complainant registered a trademark in Hong Kong for ‘Specialized’. Such a registration must have been in good faith. Although Mr Lee and the companies under his control, including the respondent, no longer had the right to use the complainant’s trademarks or other intellectual property or to hold themselves out as authorized distributors of the complainant, the panel concluded that the complainant had failed to prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith.

IV.  Court Litigation (1)  Abusive Domain Name Registrations Generally speaking, cybersquatting refers to the registration of the trademarks or brand HK.55 names of others as domain names, with the intention of profiting from selling these domain names or using them to increase hits to the registrants’ own websites. The problem of cybersquatting was not as serious in the ‘.hk’ space as it was in other TLDs HK.56 when ‘.hk’ was a highly restricted domain. Since HKIRC became the ‘.hk’ registry, however, registration restrictions have been gradu- HK.57 ally removed. Since 1 June 2001, Hong Kong businesses have been able to register multiple domain names; since 21 February 2003, Hong Kong residents have been able to register ‘.idv. hk’ individual domain names; and since 14 January 2004, second-level domain names are available for registration by anyone, whether or not a resident of Hong Kong. Since February 6

  HKIAC DHK1300093.

491

Hong Kong (‘.hk’) 2011, domain names under the Chinese-character ccTLD ‘.香港’ have become available for registration. HK.58 It was inevitable that cybersquatting would become more serious in an increasingly open

domain space. The HKIRC has, therefore, taken a series of measures to prevent or combat cybersquatting. Accordingly, the HKIRC published its ‘Pre-Launch Priority Registration Period Rules for .香港 Domain Names’, which became effective on 2 February 2011. During the Pre-Launch Priority Registration Period, any registrant holding an eligible English domain name could apply, free of charge, for a Chinese domain name of the same string under the ‘.香港’ ccTLD in the equivalent domain name category. Once granted, the Chinese ‘.香港’ registration would have the same expiry date as the registrant’s corresponding English domain name. The two domain names must be held by the same individual or entity at all times, must have the same contact information and name server information, and must be transferred together as a pair, including when transferred as a result of a domain name dispute. Where two or more eligible applicants applied for the same Chinese domain name during the Pre-Launch Priority Registration Period, priority was given to the applicant that held a registered Hong Kong trade or service mark.

HK.59 HKDRP’s policy on handling Chinese variant characters is also useful in preventing cyber-

squatting regarding Chinese domain names. In relation to Chinese domain names, the traditional or simplified form of one Chinese character which may appear in a domain name or trademark will be considered to be identical or confusingly similar to the other forms of that Chinese character.

HK.60 Another measure, which is extremely creative, was implemented through name servers. The

HKIRC requires that any domain name applicant list at least two independent name servers on its application form. These name servers have to be operational, connected to the Internet, and able to receive queries in relation to the domain name and respond to any such queries accordingly. If the name servers listed in the application are not fully set up, operational and/ or connected to the Internet, the domain name may be cancelled.7 This requirement actually imposes an obligation of use of the domain names on registrants, which could eventually make it quite difficult for any cybersquatter to keep a large number of domain name registrations active.8

HK.61 The most significant measure against abusive registrations taken by the HKIRC is the opera-

tion of the HKDRP, as outlined in para HK.64

(2)  Infringement of Trade Marks (a)  Risk of Confusion Between Domain Names and Trade Marks HK.62 Hong Kong has no specific anticybersquatting legislation. The existing TMO grants the

owner the exclusive rights to the registered trademark, which may be infringed by unauthorized use of the trademark or a similar mark in Hong Kong.9

HK.63 Where a defendant has registered and used as a domain name a plaintiff ’s registered trade-

mark or a similar mark, the following issues arise concerning the question of trademark infringement: (i) whether the defendant’s domain name and the plaintiff ’s registered mark are identical or similar; (ii) whether the goods or services in relation to which the domain name 7  See the ‘Domain Name Registration Policies, Procedures and Guidelines for .hk and .香港 domain names (Version 1.0)’ at: https://www.hkirc.hk/content.jsp?id=6. 8  The HKDNR, effective 22 February 2011, also requires that the applicant make a representation in the application that it intends to use the domain name for which it is applying. 9  In this text, ‘trademark’ also includes ‘service mark’, and the converse also applies.

492

IV.  Court Litigation is used are identical or similar to those for which the mark is registered; and (iii) whether the use of the domain name in relation to those goods or services is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public.10 When determining whether the domain name is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public, the court may take into account all factors relevant in the circumstances, including whether the use is likely to be associated with the registered trademark. In a trademark infringement dispute, the trademark owner needs to prove that the domain HK.64 name is used in the course of trade or business and in relation to goods or services which are identical or similar to those for which the mark is registered. With respect to those domain names that have not been used in e-commerce or have been used in relation to non-similar goods or services, the trademark owners are not able to prevail against the domain name holders. Under the old trademark law, it was even more difficult for a trademark owner to bring an HK.65 action against cybersquatters, because infringement required unauthorized ‘use as a trademark’. The mere registration of a domain name and/or the offer to sell it to the trademark owner, or the use of a domain name to distribute pornographic information, may not have constituted ‘use as a trademark’. In contrast, the TMO contains no express requirement on unauthorized ‘use as a trademark;’ that is, to indicate the trade origin of the goods or services in question. Therefore, the TMO actually removes certain obstacles for trademark owners to fight against cybersquatting.

(b)  Infringement of Famous Trade Marks The TMO confers a further right on a registered trademark which is entitled to protection HK.66 as a ‘well-known trademark’ under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention). A well-known trademark can be infringed by use of a which is sign identical or similar to the trademark, even for use in connection with goods or services that are neither identical nor similar to the goods or services for which the mark is registered, provided that the use of the sign, without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the trademark. With respect to an unregistered well-known trademark, the TMO also provides for limited HK.67 legal protection: the owner is entitled to restrain by injunction any use in Hong Kong of a trademark which (or the essential part of which) is identical or similar to the owner’s trademark, in relation to identical or similar goods or services, where such use is likely to cause confusion to the public. The legal protection for well-known marks is an important weapon of the trademark owner HK.68 against cybersquatting. In the Hong Kong case of Kabushiki Kaisha Yakult Honsha & Others v Yakudo Group Holdings Ltd & Another,11 the plaintiffs, owners of the mark ‘Yakult’, alleged, among other things, that the defendants’ website at ‘www.hk-yakudo.com’ used the name and marks ‘Yakudo’ and posted certain statements and features designed to create a confusing impression that the one of the defendants was associated with one of the plaintiffs. Because the defendants’ act occurred after the TMO came into operation on 4 April 2003, the plaintiffs were able to claim protection under the TMO for their well-known mark ‘Yakult’. In the Kabushiki case, the judge noted that the TMO gives statutory rights to the proprietors HK.69 of well-known trademarks which are entitled to protection under the Paris Convention or Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement)   See the TMO, ss 14 and 18.   [2004] HKEC 253.

10 11

493

Hong Kong (‘.hk’) of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The TMO expressly provides that such protection can be conferred even if the owner of the mark does not carry on business in Hong Kong nor owns any goodwill in a business in Hong Kong. In determining whether a mark is well-known in Hong Kong, the trademark need not be well known by the public at large in Hong Kong, but only in the relevant sector(s) of the public in at least one of the Paris Convention countries or a WTO member. It is not even necessary that the mark has been used in Hong Kong. Relief, if granted, is confined to injunction. HK.70 The judge found that the plaintiffs’ registered mark ‘Yakult’ was well known in Hong Kong.

The defendants’ domain name and mark ‘Yakudo’ was similar to the plaintiffs’ well-known mark, and the defendants’ use of their mark in relation to the same kind of goods was likely to cause confusion on the part of the public. The judge, therefore, ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to injunctive relief under the TMO.

(c) Passing Off HK.71 Parallel to infringement protection for registered trademarks, the action against passing off

is another primary means of trademark protection in Hong Kong. The law of passing off involves establishing three major elements:  (i)  the plaintiff ’s reputation or goodwill via a badge of consumer recognition; (ii) a misrepresentation by the defendant involving this badge of recognition; and (iii) damage or likelihood of damage to the plaintiff ’s goodwill caused by the misrepresentation. In a case of passing off, each element must be assessed in relation to the others.

HK.72 The issue of passing off was addressed in the Hong Kong domain name case of Sun Microsystems

v Lai Sun Hotels.12 The plaintiff provided products in the information technology field, including computer software and hardware, network servers, network systems, e-commerce and media and telecommunication networks, and promoted its products and services in Hong Kong using the name ‘Sun’ or marks in which the word ‘Sun’ featured prominently. It also maintained a website at ‘www.sun.com’. The defendant was originally involved in a range of businesses related to the garment industry, real estate, hotel management, and property development. The defendant then wished to enter the media and entertainment business, and established a website using the domain name ‘esun.com.hk’. The defendant also planned to change its name to ‘eSun.com Holdings Ltd’. The court was asked to decide, among other things, whether the defendant’s domain name and its ‘esun’ website amounted to passing off. The court found that the plaintiff ’s business activities were only in relation to the field of computer technologies aimed at the IT industry and did not extend to the business of entertainment and media. Therefore, the plaintiff ’s and the defendant’s respective reputations and activities or proposed activities were not close enough to cause any confusion to the public.

HK.73 The court also decided that the defendant did not deliberately choose the name ‘esun.com’ to

benefit from the goodwill of the plaintiff. The word ‘sun’ itself was a common English word and a transliteration of a common Chinese name and word. ‘Sun’ was in use extensively and generally in both the English and Chinese contexts, and was not always associated with the plaintiff. The defendant contended that the name ‘esun’ was chosen because it was a shortened version of its company name, with the addition of ‘e’ to reflect its intention to do business online. The court allowed the defendant’s argument, and the plaintiff ’s attempt to prevent the defendant from using ‘esun’ as its company name and domain name was unsuccessful.

HK.74 Hypothetically, if the plaintiff ’s mark was not a common word but a created term, and if the

plaintiff had established that the parties had a common field of business, then the ruling might

  [2000] 2 HKLRD 616.

12

494

IV.  Court Litigation have been different. Although it is not necessary for the parties to have a common field of activity in a passing off case, if they do, then that increases the chances of confusion and deception. In Kabushiki Kaisha Yakult Honsha & Others v Yakudo Group Holdings Ltd & Another,13 the HK.75 court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs in the action for passing off because the plaintiffs’ trademark ‘Yakult’ enjoyed an international reputation, and the defendant’s use of the domain name ‘hk-yakudo.com’ and the marks ‘Yakudo’ at the website constituted misrepresentation. The defendant’s e-mail address, which contained the words ‘hk.yakult’, plainly misrepresented to a web surfer visiting the website that it was an authorized website of, or connected with, the plaintiffs. The court found that it was unlikely to be mere coincidence that the defendant’s marks resembled the plaintiff’s trademark. The court also found that the plaintiff and the defendant were in the same field of business because the plaintiff ’s trademark ‘Yakult’ was registered and used in relation to dairy products or fermented milk beverages, while the defendant’s mark ‘Yakudo’ was used in respect of lactobacillus drinks.

(3)  Trade Names and Other Commercial Designations In Hong Kong, the owner of a name or logo, trade name, personal name, particular get-up HK.76 of the goods or other sign may all rely on the protection offered by the laws of passing off. Passing off is a very versatile area of intellectual property law and can be used to prevent all HK.77 kinds of misrepresentations that cause confusion and damage to a plaintiff. The defendant’s representation must give rise to confusion in the minds of the relevant public. If the defendant imitates the distinguishing features of the plaintiff ’s business, such as its name, trade name, or packaging, it is sufficient to establish an overall impression that the defendant’s business is related to the plaintiff ’s business. This will include believing that the plaintiff has approved or licensed the defendant, or its products or services, in some way. The cases have confirmed passing off liability where the complaining party has established HK.78 secondary meaning in the descriptive trade name used.14 However, there will be no passing off if the defendant is able to effectively distinguish his goods or business from the plaintiff ’s.

(4)  Individual Domain Names and Personal Names Since 21 February 2003, persons who are Hong Kong residents may register individual HK.79 domain names under ‘.idv.hk’. Nowadays, Hong Kong residents have many more choices since they may register under ‘.idv.hk’, ‘.個人.hk’, or ‘.個人. 香港’. The registrant must provide the registrar with a copy of the registrant’s Hong Kong Identity Card (HKID), or other documentary proof that the registrant is a resident of the HKSAR, when filing the application. Children are not eligible to register any domain name. If a registrant is a minor, the registrant’s parent or guardian must also provide the registrar with a copy of his/her HKID or other documentary proof of identity, and the registrant must also provide a copy of the registrant’s certificate of birth/guardian certificate (as applicable). Common Chinese surnames in the HKSAR are prohibited from being registered under ‘.idv.hk’, ‘.個人.hk’, or ‘.個人.香港’. Any Chinese domain name registered under ‘.個人.hk’ or ‘.個人.香港’ must be based on HK.80 and exactly reflect the legal name of the registrant as appearing in his or her HKID (or other documentary proof provided), or in the case of a minor, his or her certificate of birth/guardian certificate (as applicable). It is presumed that individual domain names registered under ‘.idv.hk’ can be more flexible and variable.

  [2004] HKEC 253.   One of the leading Hong Kong cases in this area is Commercial Trademark Services SA v Liscaroll Co Ltd t/a Commercial Investigation Services & Others [1983] 2 HKC 474. 13 14

495

Hong Kong (‘.hk’) HK.81 The HKIRC has updated the HKDRP (effective 22 February 2011)  to cover disputes

regarding individual domain names. The previous ‘Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy—Individual Domain Names’, (21 February 2003), is no longer effective.

HK.82 The HKDRP provides that an individual domain name shall be cancelled or transferred if

the complainant can prove that the registrant does not meet the registration requirements for that individual category of domain name. The evidence required to prove a violation of the eligibility requirements for ‘個人.hk’ and ‘個人.香港’ includes a showing that the name incorporated in the domain name is not the registrant’s legal name, as set out in the registration agreement and the Registration Rules.

HK.83 The registrant may prove his/her rights or legitimate interests in a disputed individual domain

name that reflects the registrant’s legal name, or a name by which the registrant is commonly known (including, for example, a pseudonym that the registrant uses if the registrant is an author or a painter, or a stage name if the registrant is a singer or an actor, or the name of a fictional character if the registrant has created or can otherwise show it has rights in such fictional character).

(5)  Names of Cities and Other Public Law Corporations HK.84 According to the HKIRC Registration Rules, English or Chinese words controlled by law

enforcement authorities in the HKSAR are prohibited from being registered as domain names. If city names, like ‘Hong Kong’ or ‘香港’ fall into this category, they are not allowed to be registered as domain names.

HK.85 The Registration Rules stipulate that, with the exception of domain names registered under

‘.gov.hk’, ‘.政府.hk’, or ‘.政府.香港’, any application to register a domain name may be rejected where the applied for domain name consists of or contains a reference to the word ‘government’ or ‘政府’ or related words where such use is likely, in the registrar’s or HKIRC’s own opinion, to connote that a registrant has authorization from the HKSAR government.

HK.86 If a registrant applies to register a domain name that uses the word ‘bank’ or ‘銀行’ or any of

their derivatives in English or Chinese, or any translation of them, or uses the letters ‘b’, ‘a’, ‘n’, and ‘k’, or the characters ‘銀’ and ‘行’ in that order in the domain name, the registrant must include in their application for such a domain name a true copy of the specific consent granted by the Monetary Authority (MA) under section 97 of the Banking Ordinance for the use of banking names or descriptions.

HK.87 If the registrant applies to register a domain name that contains the words ‘insurance’, ‘assur-

ance’, or ‘保險’, or which otherwise fall within any of the restrictions under section 56(A) of the Insurance Companies Ordinance (Cap 41), the registrant must provide with the application the written consent issued by the insurance authority with respect to the registrant’s use of such domain name.

HK.88 The registrar and/or HKIRC are entitled to refuse any application to register a domain name

due to other technical and operational considerations, or if the registration of such domain name would cause confusion to the public, be contrary to the national security or interests of the HKSAR, or otherwise be contrary to any law of the HKSAR.

(6) Geographical Indications, Indication of Source, and Other Geographical Terms HK.89 Under the Registration Rules, any of the full names or abbreviations of any of the local

regions or districts of Hong Kong in either English or Chinese (such as ‘Causeway Bay’ or ‘Kowloon’) are controlled by HKSAR authorities and are not allowed to be registered as domain names. Names of countries or regions that use Chinese as their language (such as

496

VI.  Liability of the Registry and Registrars ‘新加坡’—ie the official country name of Singapore in Chinese) are also prohibited from being registered as domain names. If a domain name containing a geographical term constitutes a trade description indicat- HK.90 ing the place of manufacture, production, processing, or reconditioning of the goods, it must comply with the Hong Kong Trade Description Ordinance. The Trade Description Ordinance, which was amended on 17 July 2012 and has effect from 2013, prohibits false trade descriptions, forged trademarks, service marks, and misstatements in respect of goods and services supplied in the course of trade. Violation of this ordinance, including applying false trade description as to the place of origin, is subject to criminal punishment. In Hong Kong, geographical indications that indicate the special features of the goods origi- HK.91 nating from certain geographical regions may be registered as collective marks or certification marks. If a domain name conflicts with such a collective mark or certification mark, the mark owner may seek legal remedies in accordance with the TMO.

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name In the TMO, a trademark means any sign which is capable of distinguishing the goods or HK.92 services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings and which is capable of being represented graphically. A trademark may consist of words (including personal names), indications, designs, letters, characters, numerals, figurative elements, colours, sounds, smells, the shape of goods of their packaging, and any combination of such signs.15 The TMO allows the registration of all trademarks unless they fall within one of the express prohibitions.16 Although there has been no specific guidance regarding the registration of domain names HK.93 as trademarks in Hong Kong, a domain name, like any other combination of letters, may be registered as a trademark in accordance with the TMO. Although the standard codes of top-level domains (including both generic top-level domains and country-code top-level domains) and second-level domains under ‘.hk’ and ‘.香港’ are devoid of any distinctive characters, the sub-domain text is capable of distinguishing specific goods or services and may therefore be distinctive so as to render the domain name as a whole registrable.

VI.  Liability of the Registry and Registrars Under the Registration Rules, a domain name registrant must agree to defend the HKIRC HK.94 and the registrar, indemnify the HKIRC and the registrar, and hold the HKIRC and the registrar harmless from all liabilities, losses, damages, costs, legal expenses, professional and other expenses of any nature howsoever sustained, incurred, paid by or suffered by the HKIRC and the registrar which are directly or indirectly related to any claim, action, or demand arising out of or related to the registration or use of the registrant’s domain name.

  See the TMO, s 3.   The prohibitions are the ‘absolute grounds for refusal of registration’ (such as ‘not distinctive’) in the TMO, s 11 and the ‘relative grounds for refusal of registration’ (such as ‘identical to an earlier mark and the goods and services for which the application for registration is made are identical to those for which the earlier trademark is protected’) in the TMO, s 12. Absolute grounds concern marks which are inherently unregistrable while relative grounds concern marks which are prevented from registration by virtue of earlier trademarks or rights. 15 16

497

Hong Kong (‘.hk’) HK.95 The HKIRC (inclusive of its registrar) may disclaim any and all loss or liability including, but

not limited to loss or liability:

(a) resulting from access delays or access interruptions, or the unavailability of HKIRC’s website or domain name related services; (b) resulting from system or processing errors or delays; (c) resulting from data non-delivery or data mis-delivery; (d) resulting from acts of God; (e) resulting from the unauthorized use or misuse of the domain name, password, authorization code or other security authentication option; (f ) resulting from errors, omissions, or misstatements in any and all information or service(s) provided under the Registration Policies; (g) that the registrant may incur in connection with the processing of the application for the domain name services, HKIRC’s processing of the authorized modification of the registrant’s domain name record or the registrar’s failure to pay any fees, including the initial registration fee or renewal fee; (h) as a result of the application of the HKDRP; or (i) as a result of the exercise of the HKIRC’s powers to cancel any domain name registration. HK.96 The HKIRC and the registrar will not be liable for the cancellation and/or loss of use (for

whatever reason and whether temporary or otherwise) of the registrant’s domain name, or for interruption of business, or any indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any kind (including lost profits) regardless of the form of action whether in contract, tort (including negligence), or otherwise, even if the HKIRC and the registrar has been advised of the possibility of such damages. In no event shall the HKIRC and the registrar’s maximum liability under the Registration Rules exceed 125 per cent of the registration fees paid by the registrar to HKIRC and the registrar for the registrant’s domain name in respect of a particular period of registration.

HK.97 Under the HKDRP, the HKIRC and the registrar do not, and will not, participate in the

administration or conduct of any proceeding before an arbitration panel. In addition, the HKIRC and the registrar will not be liable as a result of any decision rendered by an arbitration panel.

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property (1)  Transfer of a Domain Name Registration HK.98 The Registration Rules provide that a registrant’s domain name registration does not consti-

tute and shall not be used by the registrant as evidence of ownership of the domain name.

HK.99 The registrant (the ‘transferor’), however, may transfer the registration of its domain name to

another party (the ‘transferee’) in accordance with the Registration Rules and the registration agreement, provided:

(a) the transferor and the transferee mutually consent to the transfer and jointly execute a transfer form and transfer procedure as prescribed by the registrar or the transfer is ordered by the court or the dispute resolution service provider according to the HKDRP; (b) the Transferee: (i) complies with the eligibility requirements set out in the Registration Rules and the registration agreement applicable to the domain name that is being transferred; (ii) shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the Registration Rules and the registration agreement; and

498

VIII.  International Conflicts (iii) pays the prescribed fees as set out, if any, by the registrar. (c) that the registrar of the transferor or the transferee pays any fees that are owing and due to the HKIRC before the application for the transfer; and (d) the domain name registration is not being challenged by a third party or pending dispute resolution in accordance with the HKDRP. Once the transfer is completed, the transferor’s rights and obligations associated with the HK.100 domain name registration shall be transferred to the transferee. In accordance with the Registration Rules and registration agreement, a domain name regis- HK.101 tration may be transferred to another party in the following circumstances: (a) if the registrant is put into liquidation or wound-up, the domain name registration may only be transferred by a properly appointed liquidator or receiver on provision of documentary proof satisfactory to the HKIRC of their appointment; or (b) if the registrant is an individual, on his death the domain name registration may only be transferred by a properly appointed executor of the estate on provision of documentary proof satisfactory to the HKIRC of their appointment. The registrant may not assign any of the registrant’s rights under the registration agreement HK.102 or otherwise in respect of the domain name registration, other than in accordance with the terms of the registration agreement. Any other attempt by the registrant to assign the domain name registration or any attempt by the registrant’s creditors to obtain an interest in the domain name registration shall not be recognized by the HKIRC and may render the domain name registration void at the sole discretion of the HKIRC.

(2)  License of Domain Names In accordance with the Registration Rules, a domain name registrant may modify the contact HK.103 information (including the administrative contacts and technical contacts) or name servers through online requests. Therefore, a domain name registration may actually be licensed to another party, provided that the registrant itself remains in place.

VIII.  International Conflicts (1)  International Jurisdiction When a writ is issued by a plaintiff, a Hong Kong court will consider whether, prima facie, it HK.104 has jurisdiction. Generally, the court will look at the residence of the defendant in deciding whether to accept jurisdiction. However, there are certain circumstances in which a Hong Kong court will give permission for a writ to be served on a defendant who resides outside Hong Kong. An overseas defendant wishing to contest jurisdiction may commence a jurisdiction challenge, arguing that some other court or forum in another country is more convenient or appropriate. In Kabushiki Kaisha Yakult Honsha & Others v Yakudo Group Holdings Ltd & Another,17 the HK.105 judge examined the issue of jurisdiction where the defendants’ website was accessible in Hong Kong but the server was located in Taiwan. The judge cited the UK case of 1-800-Flowers v Phonenames Ltd,18 in which the court held that mere access to a website by a surfer on the Internet did not constitute use of a mark appearing on that website as use within the jurisdiction of the web surfer, but also acknowledged that if persons in the United Kingdom   [2004] HKEC 253.   [2000] ETMR 369; [2001] EWCA Civ 721.

17 18

499

Hong Kong (‘.hk’) sought the mark on the Internet in response to direct encouragement or advertisement by the owner of the mark, the situation would be different. The judge then found that, as a matter of fact, Hong Kong web surfers were intended to be at least one of the target audiences for the defendants’ website. The relevant factors were as follows: (i) the website was used for the promotion of one of the defendants, which was a Hong Kong company; (ii) the name of that defendant emphasized that it was a Hong Kong company; and (iii) that defendant used the prefix ‘hk’ in its e-mail address. Further, the defendant intended to be listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, so the defendants must have contemplated that investors in Hong Kong would visit the website. The judge also held that the defendant’s website and the e-mail address could be regarded as instruments of fraud in a passing off sense.19 The judge therefore ruled that even if use of the mark on the website thus far did not constitute ‘use’ within Hong Kong, injunctive relief could be granted on an anticipatory basis. HK.106 Jurisdiction should no longer be an issue in HKDRP proceedings. The Registration Rules

expressly require that any dispute must either be resolved by an Arbitration Panel or adjudicated by an HKSAR court. Since the Registration Rules form part of the registration agreement, domain name registrants, irrespective of their residence, have agreed to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the HKSAR.

(2)  Choice of Law HK.107 The Registration Rules do not expressly address the issue of choice of law in domain name

disputes, but the registration agreement specifically provides that the agreement is governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the HKSAR. Therefore, in an action against a domain name registrant the court may infer that the intended choice of law is the law of the HKSAR.

(3)  Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments HK.108 In Hong Kong, the principle of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is

reciprocity.20 The Chief Executive in Council will direct the courts to recognize and enforce the judgment of the appropriate court of a foreign country to the extent that such country recognizes and enforces judgments of the Hong Kong courts. A foreign judgment must be registered with the Court of First Instance in Hong Kong before it can be enforced, and cannot be registered unless it is final and conclusive between the parties. In respect of foreign judgments, specifically regarding domain name disputes, the same principle should apply.

HK.109 In July 2006, the HKSAR Secretary of Justice and Supreme People’s Court of China concluded

the ‘Arrangement between the Mainland and Hong Kong SAR concerning Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments of Civil and Commercial Cases under the Jurisdiction as Agreed to by the Parties Concerned’. According to the Arrangement, as for an enforceable final judgment made by a People’s Court of the Mainland or by a court of Hong Kong SAR concerning a civil and/or commercial case under the written contractual jurisdiction, in which payment must be made, the party concerned may, under the present Arrangement, apply to the People’s Court of the Mainland or the court of Hong Kong SAR for recognition and enforcement. Therefore, an enforceable final judgment regarding a domain name dispute made by a court of Mainland China may be recognized and enforced by a HKSAR court.

19  The court has jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief where a defendant is equipped with an instrument of fraud. British Telecommunications v One in a Million [1999] 1 FSR 1. 20  Hong Kong Foreign Judgments (Reciprocity Enforcement) Ordinance; Hong Kong Foreign Judgment (Restrictions on Recognition and Enforcement) Ordinance.

500

INDIA (‘.in’) Pravin Anand*

I. Overview of the National System for the Protection of Marks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs  (1) The Trade Marks Act of 1999  (2) The Information Technology Act of 2000 and 2008 Amendments  (3) Common Law Protection 

(6) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider  (7)  Role of the Administrative Panel  (8) Costs  (9) Relationship between the ADR and Court Proceeding  (10) Differences Between the INDRP and UDRP  (11) Review of Pertinent Case Law 

IN.01 IN.01 IN.09 IN.15

II. The ccTLD (‘.in’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

IV.  Court Litigation 

IN.23 (1) The Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry  IN.23 (2) The Structure of the Name Space  IN.31 (3) Registration Restrictions  IN.33 (4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement  IN.41 (5) Transfer of Domain Names  IN.42 (6) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding  IN.43

(1) Anticybersquatting Legislation  (2) Infringement of Trademarks  (3) Infringement of Trade Names and Other Commercial Designations (4) Infringement of Personal Names (5) Infringement of Titles (6) Names of Cities and Other Public Law Corporations (7) Infringements of Geographical Indications, Indication of Source, and Other Geographical Terms (8) Remedies

III. ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.in’ Domain Space 

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  VI.  Liability of the Registry  VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law 

IN.45 (1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding  IN.46 (2) Statistics  IN.48 (3) Material Scope of the Proceeding  IN.49 (4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement  IN.52 (5) Overview of the ADR Procedure  IN.53

IN.60 IN.61 IN.63 IN.65 IN.69 IN.83 IN.88 IN.88 IN.99 IN.108 IN.112 IN.116 IN.118 IN.121 IN.122

IN.126 IN.132 IN.134 IN.136

Links National Law: http://ipindia.nic.in/tmr_new/tmr_act_rules/TMRAct_New.pdf Indian Patent and Trademark Office: http://ipindia.nic.in/tmr_new/default.htm National Internet Exchange of India: http://nixi.in/ .IN Registry: http://www.registry.in/Home Indian Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP): http://www.registry.in/system/files/inpolicy_0.pdf IN DRP Rules: http://www.inregistry.in/INDRP%20Rules%20of%20Procedure Published List of INDRP Decisions: http://www.inregistry.in/Policies/DisputeCaseDecisions

*  The author has been assisted by Ms Ayushi Kiran, Ms Jaya Negi, and Mr Aasish Somasi in writing this chapter.

501

India (‘.in’)

I.  Overview of the National System for the Protection of Marks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs (1)  The Trade Marks Act of 1999 IN.01 India is a common-law jurisdiction, and trademarks are accordingly provided protection

from infringement by means of:

(a) Statutory protection, via (i) the Trade Marks Act of 1999; (ii) the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act of 1999; (iii) the Copyright Act of 1957;1 (b) and Common law protection, via (i) action for passing off; and (ii) action for dilution of famous and well-known marks. IN.02 The Trade Marks Act 1999 came into force on 15 September 2003. Complying with most

of the requirements of the Trade-Related Aspects of the Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, the new Act eliminates many of the difficulties faced by trademark owners and practitioners under the earlier Trade and Merchandise Marks Act (of 1958).

IN.03 The Trade Marks Act 1999 only provides protection against the infringement of registered

trademarks,2 and expressly provides that no person shall be entitled to institute any proceedings to prevent, or to recover damages for, the infringement of an unregistered trademark.3 But in the same breath, the Act states that nothing contained in the Act shall prevent any person from seeking redress under an action for passing off, or the remedies in respect thereof.4 The Act further stipulates that a register of marks must be maintained, and provides strict standards for registration.5

IN.04 A registered trademark may be infringed where an unauthorized person or entity uses, in the

course of trade, a mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the trademark, in relation to the same or similar goods or services for which the trademark is registered, in a manner likely to cause consumer confusion. A registered trademark may also be infringed if used by a third party as a trade or business name, where its business activities relate to goods or services corresponding to those for which the trademark is registered. Where the distinctive elements of a mark consist of words, the trademark may be infringed through verbal use as well as by visual representation.

IN.05 The Trade Marks Act deems certain activities to constitute ‘use’ of a registered trademark,

including:

(a) where a mark is affixed to goods or their packaging; (b) where an unauthorized individual or entity offers, displays, or supplies goods or services using the mark; or (c) where an individual or entity imports or exports goods under the trademark or uses the mark on advertising or business stationery. IN.06 Infringement liability extends to the printers of labels or packaging, or others who apply the

mark to such materials, but only if they knew (or had reason to believe) that the application   Copyright provides the mainstay of protection for marks against domain name infringement.  Section 29. 3 Section 27(l). 4  Trademarks Act 1999, s 27(2). 5 Section 6. 1 2

502

I.  Overview of the National System for the Protection of Marks of the mark was not duly authorized. Even where the printer acted innocently, he or she will still be bound by any court-issued injunction. A registered trademark is infringed by third-party advertising that: (i) takes unfair advantage IN.07 of the mark; (ii) is detrimental to the distinctive character of the mark; or (iii) may be harmful to the mark’s reputation. The Trade Marks Act also provides that infringement actions may be filed in the jurisdic- IN.08 tion(s) where the trademark owner resides or conducts business.6

(2)  The Information Technology Act of 2000 and 2008 Amendments The 2008 Amendments made material changes to the Information Technology (IT) Act, IN.09 2000 in order to tighten cyber security.7 The amendments to the legislation, however, sparked a debate over civil liberties. In particular, Section 66A of the IT Act 2000, had criminalized the posting of any information which was inter alia ‘grossly offensive’; ‘menacing’ or ‘causes annoyance, obstruction, insult or hatred ’.8 While the true legislative intent underlying the enactment of this provision was to target the menace caused by spam and phishing activities on the internet, it drew the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. The notoriety of Section 66A had made headlines due to the arrest of two young girls following the demise of Mr  Bal Thackeray, long-time leader of the Shiv Sena, a strong regional political party in the State of Maharashtra. While one of the girls was imprisoned for having posted a comment on Facebook regarding the city wide lockdown called for by the Shiv Sena, the other girl was arrested for ‘liking’ the comment. Taking notice of the consequent petitions moved by persons aggrieved by the rampant abuse by the police and by other executive authorities, the Supreme Court, in a watershed decision, ruled that Section 66A is unconstitutional on the grounds that the same is in violation of the right to free speech and expression. A  close reading of the judgment Shreya Singhal v Union of India9 the Supreme Court has held that any abrogation of the fundamental right to free speech and expression must be within the set constitutional boundaries of Article 19(2) (Freedom of Speech and Expression) of the Constitution of India. The 2008 Amendments also introduce data protection measures10 and provide for stronger IN.10 criminal enforcement measures.11 There are practical concerns with implementation vis-à-vis the police force, which argue for additional training efforts. The IT Rules 2009 (relating to ‘Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of IN.11 Information by the Public’) authorize the Indian Department of Information Technology (DIT) to block websites and to investigate sites for reasons connected with national security, public order, or the incitement of any unlawful activity. Such actions are sanctioned in Section 69A of the 2008 Amendment to the IT Act 2000.12 Additionally, the court exercising its   Trademarks Act 1999, s 134.   The IT Act, 2008 Amendments, s 2(nb) defines ‘cyber security’ as a means of protecting information, equipment, computer devices and resources, and communication devices and information stored therein from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction. 8  Section 66A states that any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device, any information that is grossly offensive, menacing, known to be false, intended to cause inter alia annoyance, inconvenience, insult, criminal intimidation, or hatred, or who sends any electronic mail intended to annoy, inconvenience, or deceive the addressee, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to three years and a fine. 9  Shreya Singhal v Union of India AIR2015 SC1523. 10  Sections 43A and 72A of the IT Act 2000 introduce civil and criminal liabilities for Data Protection. 11  Section 80 of the IT Act 2000. 12  Section 69A: ‘(1) Where the Central Government or any of its officers specially authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, 6 7

503

India (‘.in’) ‘inherent powers’ under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code of India 1908 (CPC), may grant any relief it deems fit in order to protect the proprietary interests of plaintiffs from irreparable harm, including the blocking of websites. IN.12 Blocking of sites directly affects an individual’s right to freedom of speech and expression under

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. That said, blocking a website can also be construed to fall within the scope of reasonable restrictions to the fundamental right to freedom of speech under appropriate circumstances. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) ought to block websites only upon evidence of infringing activity (not merely on the basis of an unexamined complaint), or upon an express direction from the Court or the DIT. Since take-down orders have the effect of curtailing fundamental rights, a judicial (or quasi-judicial) body should ideally determine the culpability of the domain name holder in question.

IN.13 Section 79 of the IT Act 2000,13 read in conjunction with the Information Technology

(Intermediaries guidelines) Rules 2011 (IT Rules),14 provides that due diligence is to be carried out by each domain name operator. Rule 3(2) directs that due notice be given to users that no content should be shared that infringes any trademark or impersonates another. Sub-Rule (3) further requires that the domain name owner should not knowingly host infringing information, receive transmissions of infringing material, or modify any infringing information that may be received.

IN.14 Rule 3(4) of the IT Rules mandates that once an intermediary15 is aware of infringing infor-

mation, it must take down such content within 36 hours. However, this provision has been indiscriminately used to force takedown of the entire website. For instance, in August 2012 during the Assam riots,16 the government of India removed many websites and Twitter accounts allegedly containing provocative content. Similarly, in July 2011, ISPs imposed a blanket ban on file hosting websites to prevent piracy of the film Singham.17

(3)  Common Law Protection (a)  Action for Passing off IN.15 Passing off is primarily a common-law remedy and cannot be sought under the provisions of

the Indian Trademarks Act 1999. Although the Trademarks Act does recognize the existence of passing off actions, it does not sanction such a remedy under the auspices of the Act.

IN.16 The law of passing off can be summarized thus: no man may pass off his goods as those of

another. In applying the law of passing off, the Indian courts have accepted and followed the holding enunciated by the House of Lords in the English case of Reckitt & Colman v defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, it may subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block for access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource.’ 13  Section 79 provides that intermediaries may be exempt from liability for third-party information, data, or links where, inter alia, the intermediary’s function was limited to providing access to a communication system in which third-party information was only temporarily stored or transmitted; the intermediary did not initiate the transmission, select its receiver, or modify the contained information; the intermediary observed due diligence in his duties. 14 See http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR314E_10511(1).pdf. 15  Section 2(w) of the IT Act 2000 defines ‘intermediary’, with respect to any particular electronic records, as a person who on behalf of another person receives, stores, or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, webhosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places, and cyber cafes. 16 See http://centreright.in/2012/08/a-free-speech-primer/. 17 See http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/singham-effect-file-sharing-sites-blocked-121249.

504

I.  Overview of the National System for the Protection of Marks Borden,18 where their lordships made reference to the so-called ‘Classical Trinity’. There are three elements to this doctrine, namely that:  (i)  the public associates the mark with the holder, by virtue of its goodwill or reputation; (ii) the public has been deceived as to the origin of the goods or services offered by the defendant; and (iii) the holder has suffered (or is likely to suffer) damage by reason of the defendant’s misrepresentations. The Indian courts require that all three of these elements be demonstrated for a successful passing off claim. In actions for passing off, the Indian courts will always consider, inter alia, the nature and extent of IN.17 the mark’s reputation; the closeness of the respective fields of activity; the similarity of the mark; the nature of the defendant’s use of the name or mark; and the persons who are likely to be deceived.19 The court will additionally consider whether the defendant acted with fraudulent intent. The Supreme Court20 in the matter of Laxmikant Patel v Chetanbhai Shah21 defined passing IN.18 off as a form of unfair competition, grounded on the law of torts, wherein the infringer’s goods ‘are in effect telling a falsehood about themselves which is calculated to mislead’. India is a signatory to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (‘Paris IN.19 Convention’), and is thus bound to assure effective protection against ‘unfair competition’. Article 10bis of the Paris Convention defines unfair competition as any act ‘contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters’, and expressly prohibits any activities which cause confusion between the goods of market competitors (regardless of industry), any false allegations causing discredit to a competitor, and any indications which are liable to mislead the public as to the nature of the goods on offer.

(b)  Action for Dilution The concept of dilution is most commonly a conjoined argument in an action for passing IN.20 off, and is not generally brought as a sole claim. It is a common-law remedy which protects famous or well-known trademarks whose strength and distinctiveness have been weakened by the unfair competition activities of a third party. In Indian legal practice, there are three recognized forms of dilution: dilution by blurring, which is a general claim and concerns the weakening of a strong, famous or well-known trademark; dilution by tarnishment, which is present where a famous trademark is used commercially by a third party in an unfavourable light; and dilution by disparagement, which occurs when the mark is used in a manner that casts aspersion on, and causes harm to, the mark or the source associated with it. This latter form of dilution commonly arises in cases involving disparaging advertisements, which have been handled by the Indian courts on at least three occasions. The first dilution matter was the Mercedes Benz case,22 in which the Honourable Mr Justice IN.21 Mahinder Narain of the Delhi High Court restrained the defendant from using the trademark ‘Benz’ in relation to underwear, and stated that the defendant’s use of ‘Benz’ in that manner would dilute and tarnish the distinctiveness of the ‘Benz’ trademark. There were similar observations in the Glenfiddich Whisky case,23 which involved the IN.22 trade dress of the plaintiff ’s product and its misuse by the defendant in connection with its

18  Reckitt & Colman v Boden (1990) RPC 341(HL) paras 16–67, 16–77. This English precedent was also followed in the case of Aktiebolaget Volvo v Volvo Steels Ltd 1998 PTC 83. 19  Ruston & Hornby Ltd v Zamindaara Engineering Co, AIR 1970 SC 1649. 20  The Supreme Court also provided an excellent analysis of the differences inherent in actions for passing off and infringement in Durga Dutt v Navratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 SC 980. 21  Appeal (civil) 8266–8267 of 2001 before the Supreme Court of India. The case involved a defendant’s adoption of the plaintiff ’s business name and style, where the parties were competitors in the same city. 22  Daimler Benz v Hubo Hindustan, AIR 1994 (Del 239). 23  William Grant & Sons v McDowell & Co 55 (1994) DLT 80.

505

India (‘.in’) McDowell’s single malt whisky. The court again relied upon the principles of dilution and tarnishment, and restrained the defendant primarily under the action for passing off.24

II.  The ccTLD (‘.in’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1)  The Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry IN.23 India’s top-level domain is ‘.in’. During January 2005, owners of registered Indian marks were

given an opportunity to apply for ‘.in’ domains before the general public, during its pre-launch Sunrise period.25 During this time, preference was given to Indian citizens and companies over entities from abroad. General registration was opened to the public in February 2005.26

IN.24 Following the successful conclusion of talks between the Asia Pacific Network Information

Centre (APNIC) and the government of India,27 it was established that the Indian Registry for Internet Names and Numbers (IRINN) would be managed by the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) to serve ISPs within the country. NIXI is a not-for-profit company under Section 25 of the Indian Companies Act 1956 with the objective of facilitating improved Internet services in the country.28 The .IN Registry, which is the official ‘.in’ registry, is also operated by NIXI. The government of India first authorized NIXI in January 2005.29

IN.25 The .IN Registry assumed responsibility for the registry from the previous registry, which was

the National Centre for Software Technology (NCST) and its Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC).30 All domains previously managed by C-DAC were transferred to accredited registrars by 31 December 2005.31 Domain registration in ‘.in’ is concluded through accredited registrars, rather than directly via NIXI.32 .IN domain names are available on a first-come, first-served basis.33

IN.26 NIXI provides IP address allocation and related services in India, in compliance with regional

and global policies. ISPs in India are able to choose either NIXI or APNIC as their preferred registry to obtain IP addresses.34

(a)  The Primary Responsibility of the .IN Registry IN.27 NIXI is responsible for maintaining the operational stability, reliability, and security of the ‘.in’ ccTLD,35 and for the implementation of policies set out by the government,36 DIT, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology and the .IN Network Information Centre (INNIC). The synergy between NIXI and INNIC ensures that the registrars selected by the .IN Registry (or utilize the services of ) are ISPs connected to NIXI nodes.37 24  See also Caterpillar Inc v Mehtab Ahmed (2002 (25) PTC 438) in which the Hon Mr Justice JD Kapoor dealt with dilution at great length. 25 See http://www.registry.in/Policies/Sunrise%20Policy. 26 See http://www.nixi.in/. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 See http://nixi.in/en/about-us/76-in-registry. 30 See http://www.registry.in/About%20INRegistry. 31 See http://www.registry.in/Policies/C-DAC%20Closure. 32 See http://www.registry.in/About%20INRegistry. 33 See http://nixi.in/en/about-us/76-in-registry. 34  See the NIXI website at: http://www.nixi.in. 35  To provide additional security to the ‘.in’ ccTLD space, two data centres have been established (in Delhi and Chennai) in order to provide disaster management services. For more information, see http://www.mit. gov.in/content/internet-governance. 36 See http://www.registry.in/. 37 Ibid.

506

II.  The ccTLD (‘.in’) Registration Conditions and Procedures Currently, more than 73 registrars have been accredited to offer ‘.in’ domain name registra- IN.28 tions to customers worldwide. This has dramatically increased web hosting within the country and the Indian language content available on the Internet. As of November 2010, roughly 800,000 ‘.in’ domain names had been registered.38

(b)  Domain Tasting NIXI implemented a domain tasting fee in September 2008. Accordingly, the .IN registry IN.29 will not refund a registrar for domain registrations deleted during the add grace period (AGP) that exceed: (i) 10 per cent of that registrar’s net new registrations in a given month; or (ii) 50 domain names, whichever is greater.39 This fee echoed restrictions imposed by Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which essentially ended the practice of domain tasting in the gTLD spaces.40 (c)  .IN Domain Anti-Abuse Policy NIXI has a redress system for abusive activity, including spamming, phishing, and distribu- IN.30 tion of malware. Complaints can be made via email to the registry’s intake system.41 (2)  The Structure of the Name Space Domain registrations within ‘.in’ follow a highly structured third-level scheme. The only enti- IN.31 ties permitted to directly register second-level ‘.in’ domains are ISPs, who manage such spaces for the benefit of numerous higher-level users. There are, at the present time, 11 dedicated registration spaces, which will be outlined in more detail below. ERNET India has been authorized as the registrar for all of the spaces used by educational IN.32 and research institutes, including Indian schools.42 It registers domains at the third level for the ‘ac.in’, ‘edu.in’, and ‘res.in’ zones. National Informatics Centre (NIC) is the exclusive registrar for ‘gov.in’ and ‘mil.in’ domain names. All other ‘.in’ spaces utilize a variety of authorized registrars who have been licensed by NIXI to provide services within the ‘.in’ ccTLD.

(3)  Registration Restrictions The ‘.in’ ccTLD is structured to provide targeted sub-domain space to a wide variety of IN.33 potential users. Table IN.1 provides a listing of all of the various sub-domain spaces, the groups of registrants qualified to use each space, and information concerning the documentation needed for registration: Table IN.1: Second-Level ‘.in’ Spaces Domain Who Can Space Apply

Documents Required for Registration

.in

Registrants must provide accurate contact information, including registrant, administrative, technical, and billing contacts (‘registration contact details’)

ISPs

Additional Restrictions

 Ibid.   See the fee schedule posted on the registry website at: http://www.registry.in. 40 ICANN’s AGP Limits Policy is available at:  http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/agp/ agp-policy-17dec08-en.htm. 41  For more information about the registry’s anti-abuse policies, see also http://www.registry.in/Policies/ IN_Anti_Abuse_Policy. 42 See https://www.registry.ernet.in/default.aspx. 38 39

507

India (‘.in’) co.in

Registered companies, mark holders, banks

net.in

ISPs

org.in

Non-profit organizations

firm.in gen.in

Proprietary concerns partnership firms,shops, liaison offices General purpose

ind.in

Individuals

Certificate of Incorporation, Trademark registration, approval from the Reserve Bank of India ISP licence issued by the Department of Telecommunications, company and/or trademark registrations Registrants must provide Available to voluntary service accurate registration organizations, charitable contact details institutions, social and/or religious services, societies, political parties, and sports associations Registrants must provide May be registered by the accurate registration liaison office of a multinational contact details company operating abroad Registrants must provide This category is intended for accurate registration use by service establishments in contact details the entertainment business and miscellaneous industries not covered in any other category Registrants must provide Domain names must be accurate registration suffixed by two or more contact details numerals, which may be chosen by the registrant

Sub-Domains Restricted for Use by Qualified Organizations in India ac.in

The academic community

res.in

Indian research institutes

edu.in

Colleges and universities

gov.in

Indian government

mil.in

Indian military

Registrants must provide accurate registration contact details Registrants must provide accurate registration contact details Registrants must provide accurate registration contact details Registrants must provide accurate registration contact details Registrants must provide accurate registration contact details

For use by public and private educational institutions within India For use by research institutes within India For use by educational institutions within India For use by the Indian government For use by the Indian military

IN.34 Generic names are not allowed by the ‘.in’ registry (eg ‘news.co.in’ or ‘shipping.gov.in’). If a

prospective registrant were to apply for a generic-term domain name on the basis that it corresponded to its registered or unregistered mark, the ‘.in’ registry would evaluate the claim. If the applicant is able to prove that the mark had acquired secondary meaning, and had a strong trans-border reputation, the request may be granted. All ‘.in’ domain names must be between three and 63 characters in length. Only letters, digits, and hyphens will be accepted in a domain name, and domains cannot begin or end with hyphens.

IN.35 For domain names in all categories except ‘ind.in’ and ‘gen.in’, the domain name must be

derived from the name of the organization/entity. So, for example, a registered company

508

II.  The ccTLD (‘.in’) Registration Conditions and Procedures named ‘Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited’ could opt to register the domain ‘bhel.co.in’, but could not select ‘xyz.co.in’ or ‘bharat.co.in’. This latter domain name would be barred because ‘bharat’ is the Hindi name for India, and thus considered a generic word. Organizations should register within the appropriate second-level domain that corresponds IN.36 to the type of their organization/entity. For example, an academic institute such as the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay could elect to register the domain name ‘iitb.ac.in’, but could not select ‘iitb.firm.in’ or ‘iitb.mil.in’. For domain names in all categories, except ‘ind.in’ and ‘gen.in’, the organization/entity apply- IN.37 ing for the domain name must have its office in India. The administrative contact for a domain must be a member of, or associated with, the organization or entity requesting the registration. In all cases, ‘.in’ domains must run Domain Name System servers, whether they belong to IN.38 the registrant organization or an ISP. ISPs can be located anywhere in the world, as may the name servers. The use of at least two independent name servers (primary and secondary), located on different networks, is recommended but not mandatory. The name servers must be functional before the registration application is submitted. Each ‘.in’ registrant is required to submit to mandatory arbitration proceedings where a com- IN.39 plaint is filed with the .IN Registry alleging unlawful registration.43 The arbitration proceedings are conducted by one of the registry’s arbitrators, in accordance with the Indian Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) (discussed further in Section III). By applying to register or renew a domain name, the registrant represents and warrants IN.40 that: the statements made in its registration application are complete and accurate; the registrant will not knowingly use the domain to infringe upon or violate third-party rights; the domain name is not being registered for an unlawful purpose; and the domain will not be used in violation of any applicable laws or regulations. It is the registrant’s responsibility to determine whether the domain infringes or violates another’s rights.

(4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement Domains in the ‘.in’ space are available via accredited registrars, and may be used by compa- IN.41 nies, individuals, and organizations both in India and abroad.44

(5)  Transfer of Domain Names For names in the unrestricted zones, registrants are allowed to transfer their domains between IN.42 registrars, following the applicable registrars’ transfer procedures. Registrar-to-registrar transfers are not allowed in the 60 calender days following a domain’s creation, and such transfer adds one year to the term of the registration (charged to the gaining registrar, and thence the holder).

(6) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding The registry reserves the right to freeze a domain name during a pending INDRP or court action. IN.43

 See http://www.registry.in/system/files/Terms_and_Conditions_for_Registrants_1.pdf.  Ibid.

43 44

509

India (‘.in’) IN.44 A registrant may not transfer a domain to another holder within 15 working days from the

conclusion of an applicable ADR action or during a pending court or arbitration proceeding, unless the receiving party agrees, in writing, to be bound by the impending decision. If any transfer occurs in breach of these provisions, the registry maintains the right to cancel or transfer the registration.

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.in’ Domain Space IN.45 The INDRP is a national arbitration (ADR) process for the resolution of domain name

disputes. The INDRP permits trademark holders to seek transfer or cancellation of domain names infringing their trademark rights without resorting to litigation.

(1)  Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding IN.46 The registry has adopted INDRP in respect of disputes pertaining to ‘.in’ domains. Any dis-

pute involving the registry will be considered by a duly appointed dispute resolution committee. In disputes between holders and registrars the registry will also appoint arbitrators, through a process of open selection, who can offer binding redress of grievances. A set fee must be paid to the arbitrator for such services.

IN.47 The government of India serves as the final authority for the INDRP, which ensures its

administration in accordance with the public interest and relevant laws of India.

(2) Statistics IN.48 NIXI has a reputation for the transparent and rapid settlement of domain name disputes.

Since 2006, 97.25 per cent of cases have been decided in favour of complainants.

(3)  Material Scope of the Proceeding IN.49 Any person who believes that a registered domain name conflicts with his legitimate rights or

interests may file a complaint with the registry alleging that:

(i) the registrant’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trademark, or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) the registrant’s domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. IN.50 The registrant is required to submit to a mandatory arbitration proceeding when a complaint

is filed with the registry.

IN.51 The remedies available to a complainant under the INDRP are generally limited to the can-

cellation or transfer of a domain name. Costs, including punitive damages, may also be awarded by the arbitrator.45

(4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement IN.52 A registrant is required to submit to the INDRP by virtue of its registration agreement. The

arbitration proceedings shall be conducted by a registry-appointed arbitrator, in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Policy and Procedure and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 (ACA). 45  See, for example, INDRP/316, 7 February 2012, wherein the arbitrator awarded Dell, Inc costs of INR50,000 (US$1,000).

510

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.in’ Domain Space (5)  Overview of the ADR Procedure (a)  ADR Pleadings Any person who considers that a registered domain name conflicts with his legitimate rights IN.53 or interests may file a complaint with the registry alleging that the three mandatory elements of the INDRP are satisfied. Within five working days of the receipt of a complaint, the registry will appoint an arbi- IN.54 trator to hear the case. The arbitrator will forward the complaint to the respondent within three working days. The INDRP Policy sets out three non-exclusive grounds by which the respondent may defend its registration,46 including its use (or demonstrable preparations to use) the domain in commercial nature, having been commonly known by the domain, or its use of the domain for a legitimate non-commercial purpose.

(b)  Arbitral Decisions The arbitrator will decide the complaint on the basis of the case record and in accordance IN.55 with the ACA, INDRP Policy and Rules, and any other law deemed applicable. In the absence of exceptional circumstances (as determined by the arbitrator), the decision IN.56 must be forwarded to the registry within 60 calendar days of the commencement of the proceeding. The reasoned decision must be in writing, indicate its issuance date, and identify the name of the arbitrator. Within five working days of its receipt, the registry must communicate the decision to each IN.57 party and indicate its implementation date.

(c)  Settlement or Other Grounds for Termination If, before the arbitrator’s decision is rendered, the parties are able to agree on a settlement, the IN.58 arbitrator shall terminate the proceeding and will enter the settlement as its decision. (d) Procedural Issues The INDRP does allow for the use of in-person hearings and, unlike many other ccTLD IN.59 ADR mechanisms, this provision is frequently utilized in the ‘.in’ space. As mandated by the INDRP Rules, there are a maximum of two hearings, which ensures speedy disposal of disputes. Hearing fees are payable by the requesting party. (6)  Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider The registry and registrar(s) shall not participate in dispute resolution proceedings between IN.60 a holder and a third party, other than to provide information concerning registration as requested by the arbitrator. Neither the registry nor the registrar shall be liable for any decision rendered by an arbitrator.

(7)  Role of the Administrative Panel The registry shall appoint an arbitrator from its list of approved authorities, which is pub- IN.61 lished on its website.47 The arbitrator must issue its reasoned decision within 60 calender days of its appointment, and must conduct the proceedings in accordance with the INDRP and Rules, the ACA, and any other provisions deemed applicable. All decisions are published in full over the Internet, except when a panel elects to redact por- IN.62 tions (in exceptional circumstances).

  Section 7, INDRP.  See https://www.registry.in.

46 47

511

India (‘.in’) (8) Costs IN.63 All fees charged by the registry in connection with INDRP disputes must be paid by the

complainant. The fees, in INR, are as follows:

(i) an administration fee of INR1,000; (ii) the arbitrator’s fee of INR9,000; and (iii) in the case of a personal hearing, an additional fee of INR 2,000 will be assessed per hearing. IN.64 As noted above under Section III.3, the arbitrator can impose fines on the registrant where

appropriate. Hefty fines, as high as INR1,000,000, have been awarded to complainants in INDRP proceedings.48

(9)  Relationship between the ADR and Court Proceeding IN.65 INDRP actions do not bar court proceedings, even during ongoing ADR disputes. Any arbi-

tral award awarded issued under the INDRP can also be challenged49 through the courts on the grounds provided under s 34 of the ACA.50 Accordingly, an arbitral award may be set aside by the court if the aggrieved party can demonstrate that: a party lacked capacity; the arbitration agreement is invalid under applicable law; the complaining party was not given proper notice of the ADR action or was otherwise unable to present his case; the arbitral award deals with a dispute outside the proper scope of the arbitration; the composition of the arbitral tribunal (or the arbitral procedure itself ) was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement; the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration; or the award is in conflict with Indian public policy.

IN.66 Naturally, the provisions of the INDRP relate only to disputes concerning ‘.in’ domain

names. Where the domain name in dispute is a gTLD, a rights-holder may pursue relief under the UDRP policy as well as through the national courts of India, where jurisdiction and venue are deemed proper.

IN.67 For instance, in the case of Tata Sons Ltd v D & V Enterprises51 simultaneous court proceed-

ings at the High Court of Delhi and arbitration proceedings under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy (UDRP) were carried out. An ex parte interim injunction had already been issued by the Delhi High Court52 as of the date of the WIPO decision.

IN.68 A  similar case is the recent Beiersdorf AG matter, involving the ‘Nivea’ mark owned by

Beiersdorf AG of Germany. The respondent owned an educational consultancy firm named M/s Nivea International and the domain name ‘niveainternational.com’. Beiersdorf filed a complaint for transfer under the UDRP, which was denied. Beiersdorf then filed a suit for passing off via the Indian courts, requesting an injunction preventing M/s Nivea International from using what Beiersdorf perceived as a deceptively similar trademark and domain. The court held that an ADR decision is not a final disposition, and therefore res judicata does not apply, and further that civil suit is permissible before and after administrative proceedings. The court reviewed the case, found that the respondent’s actions were in bad faith and that the plaintiff had proven its case for passing off. Accordingly, the Court found for the plaintiff despite the prior unfavourable ruling by WIPO.  See Merck KGaA, Germany v Zhaxia, INDRP/371, 16 August 2012.   As is evident from the text of s 34 of the ACA, any review of an arbitral award by the courts will be very limited and not a de novo review of the merits. 50 See Stephen Koenig v Arbitrator, National Internet on 14 December 2011, The High Court of Delhi, OMP 132 of 2007. 51  WIPO, Case No D2000-0479. 52  (Suit no 1991/99) Delhi High Court. 48 49

512

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.in’ Domain Space (10)  Differences Between the INDRP and UDRP While the INDRP and UDRP follow similar procedures and provide for similar remedies, IN.69 there are certain differences between the two, the most relevant of which are as follows: (i) The three elements of s 4(a)(i)–(iii) of the UDRP are cumulative, and must be satisfied before a complainant may be entitled to relief. The drafting of s 4 of the INDRP, which indicates the ‘premises’ on which a complaint may be filed, does not contain any requirement that all three elements must be shown. The second and third elements of the INDRP, however, are conjoined with an ‘and’. Thus, an INDRP complainant may file a complaint on the basis of the first element alone, or by demonstrating that both elements (ii) and (iii) are fulfiled. (ii) Under the UDRP, there are numerous ICANN-approved dispute providers, but under the INDRP, NIXI is the only ‘provider’ of such services. (iii) Arbitrators under the INDRP must follow the INDRP Rules and the ACA, while under the UDRP, the process is governed by the UDRP Rules. (iv) While the UDRP specifically provides that parties are not excluded from submitting their disputes to a court (s 4(k)), no such express provision is provided for under the INDRP. (v) Under the UDRP, it is possible to file a complainant pertaining to multiple domain names, subject to certain conditions. The INDRP rules, however, clearly stipulate that ‘a separate complaint’ must be filed for each domain (s 3(c)).

(a)  Consolidated Complaints The lack of consolidation options under the INDRP poses problems for a complainant who IN.70 has been targeted by a registrant electing to secure multiple domain names in violation of the complainant’s rights. Owing to s 3(c), the complainant is required to file separate complaints for each domain, which is an onerous and expensive task and may lead to the issuance of inconsistent decisions. In a recent matter, Dell Inc discovered that an entity had wrongfully registered ten domain IN.71 names containing its DELL mark in conjunction with business-related terms (eg ‘dell­ inspiron.co.in’, ‘dellprecision.co.in’, etc). The registrant was using the domains to generate ‘pay-per-click’ (PPC) revenues, via sponsored links, many of which redirected to commercial websites offering competitive products. Foreseeing objections under s 3(c), Dell Inc contacted NIXI to ascertain whether a consoli- IN.72 dated complaint might be permissible. Dell Inc noted that each complaint would require a US$200 fee, and offered to pay US$2,000 for the consolidated complaint. NIXI noted Dell’s concerns, particularly in light of the fact that WIPO, National Arbitration IN.73 Forum (NAF) and even the High Court of Delhi, allow for consolidated actions. However, they were reluctant to deviate from the express wording of INDRP Rules, and noted that an amendment was not possible within a short time frame. Dell Inc elected to file one main complaint along with ten sub-complaints (one for each IN.74 domain) in consonance with s 3(c). The main complaint contained the majority of the complainant’s arguments and evidence, while each sub-complaint contained specific information related to the respective domains. Dell stated that it was critical that all the complaints were heard by a common arbitrator in IN.75 order to ensure decision consistency, and followed-up with NIXI accordingly. Despite these precautions, however, each sub-complaint was assigned to a different arbitrator. The arbitrators were not made aware of the consolidated complaint document (and its evidence), or of the other pending cases.

513

India (‘.in’) IN.76 During the course of 2012, decisions were issued in the disputes pertaining to ‘delllatitude.

in’,53 ‘dellcloud.in’,54 ‘dellphone.co.in’,55 ‘delllatitude.co.in’,56 ‘dellvenue.co.in’,57 ‘dellphone. in’,58 ‘dellpricision.co.in’,59 ‘dellcloud.co.in’,60 ‘dellvenue.in’,61 ‘dellprecision.in’,62 and ‘dellinspiron.co.in’.63 The orders issued in the disputes concerning ‘delllatitude.in’, ‘dellpricision.co.in’ additionally imposed fines of US$1,000 on the respondents. The remaining complaints are presently pending, and thus it is currently unknown whether consistent decisions will be issued in those matters.

(b)  Domain Parking IN.77 The aforementioned Dell cases also concerned domain name parking, as all of the disputed

domains therein were being used for PPC advertising. As noted, all of those matters decided to date have resulted in transfer orders. Similarly, in Barclays Bank Plc v ONIKER Privacy Services,64 the respondent had used the domain for PPC purposes, directing Internet users to third-party websites competitive with the complainant. The NIXI arbitrator transferred the domain, despite the fact that it was registered prior to Barclays’ entrance in the Indian marketplace.

IN.78 Another PPC case was Volkswagen AG v Satya Bagla,65 wherein the NIXI arbitrator not only

transferred the domain but also awarded punitive damages of INR10,000. The arbitrator directed NIXI to inform the High Court of Delhi of the decision in order to aid the court in its own matters.

IN.79 Domain redirection has recently received attention in Indian politics. During the contro-

versial Ayodhya verdict,66 the two leading political parties (The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Indian Congress) allegedly engaged in domain name hijacking and redirection for political purposes. The BJP filed a cyber fraud case against Congress, alleging that the day the Ayodhya verdict was announced, Congress redirected the ‘bjp.com’ domain (which is currently parked) to the website of the AICC (All India Congress Committee), that is, ‘congress. org.in’.

(c)  Use of a Domain Name for a Criticism Website IN.80 Recently, in the matter of RPS Infrastructure Ltd v Jayanta Barua,67 the NIXI arbitrator (des-

pite finding legitimate, non-commercial fair use) transferred a domain name to the complainant on the grounds that the public was being misled as to the source of the respondent’s website.   INDRP/316, 7 February 2012.   INDRP/312, 18 February 2012. 55  INDRP/318, 20 February 2012. 56  INDRP/317, 6 March 2012. 57  INDRP/315, 13 March 2013. 58  INDRP/311, 14 March 2012. 59  INDRP/308, 16 March 2012. 60  INDRP/313, 29 April 2012. 61  INDRP/314, 9 June 2012. 62  INDRP/307, 4 October 2012. 63  INDRP/310, 7 January 2013. 64  INDRP/113, 5 September 2009; INDRP/114, 18 September 2009. 65  INDRP/112, 18 November 2009. 66  The Ayodhya dispute is a political, historical, and socio-religious debate in India, centred on a plot of land in the city of Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. The verdict was pronounced on 30 September 2010 [Consolidated Judgment in OOS No 1 of 1989, OOS No. 3 of 1989, OOS No 4 of 1989, OOS No 5 of 1989, Writ Petition (Misc Single) No 746 of 1986 & Writ Petition (Misc Single) No 3106 of 1986], and an appeal is now pending disposal in the Supreme Court of India. 67  INDRP/149, 30 September 2010. 53 54

514

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.in’ Domain Space (d)  Use of a Domain Name by Resellers or Distributors UDRP views concerning resellers have been adopted by NIXI arbitrators. The leading IN.81 case in the ‘.in’ context is Nokia Corporation v Nokia India Private Ltd,68 which held that a reseller can be making a bona fide offering of goods and services (and thus have a legitimate interest in the domain) if the use fits certain requirements. The requirements are that:  (1)  the respondent actually offers the specific goods and services advertised under the relevant trademark; (2)  the respondent uses the site to sell only the trademarked goods; and (3) the site accurately discloses the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner. In the cited case, the respondent failed the third prong of this test, as there was no disclosure on its website. The domain was therefore transferred to the complainant. (e)  Passive Holding of Domain Names A  complainant must establish both bad faith use and registration (as per s 4(b) of the IN.82 UDRP), although passive holding of a domain name for a substantial period can in some circumstances satisfy this dual-pronged requirement. Additionally, cybersquatting activities involving passive holding may constitute bad faith registration.69 (11)  Review of Pertinent Case Law In the case of Oberoi Hotels Pvt Ltd v Arun Jose,70 the dispute concerned the use of the website IN.83 at ‘tridenthotels.com’. The WIPO panel directed the transfer of the disputed domain name to the complainant, noting that the respondent had registered the domain in order to pass off his goods and services as those of the complainant.71 It is pertinent to note that an intention to pass off was recognized despite the different jurisdictions of the parties. Another landmark UDRP case, in the Indian context, is Satyam Computer Service Ltd v IN.84 Vasudeva Varma Gokharafu.72 The complainant was a large information technology company who had applied for both ‘SATYAM’ word and design marks in India. The marks had been in use since 1987. The WIPO panel ordered transfer of the domain names to the complainant, despite prolific usage of the word ‘satyam’ in third-party domain names, business names and third-party trademarks, and its popularity as a personal name among the devotees of Lord Satyanarayana. The panel found no evidence of cybersquatting, but held that mere knowledge of the complainant indicated the respondent’s registration was mala fide. Two additional UDRP cases illustrative for the Indian court were the Bennett Coleman IN.85 matters,73 in which the respondent had registered two domain names which were very similar to the complainant’s authorized websites. The respondent redirected users to a different website (‘indiaheadlines.com’) which provided India-related news. The panel transferred both domains to the complainant.

  WIPO Case No D2006-0080.  INDRP/050, 30 November 2007 (‘itcportal.in’); INDRP/055, 28 January 2008 (‘genpact.in’); INDRP/056, 24 March 2008 (‘genpact.co.in’); INDRP/065, 15 April 2008 (‘bristol.in’); INDRP/096, 27 June 2009 (‘danone.in’); INDRP/097, 14 May 2009 (‘danone.co.in’). 70  WIPO Case No D2000-0263; see also Tata Sons Ltd v Ramadasoft, WIPO Case No D2000-1713. 71  A number of UDRP cases have been considered in this section as UDRP jurisprudence has proven to be influential on the courts of India, particularly where the domain name in question is a gTLD. The INDRP, as discussed above, can only be used to reclaim ‘.in’ domains. 72  WIPO Case No D2000-0835. 73  Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd v Steven S Lalwani and Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd v Long Distance Telephone Co, (WIPO Cases No D2000-0014 and 2000-0015). 68 69

515

India (‘.in’) IN.86 Arbitrators under the INDRP have recently issued decisions concerning international com-

panies such as Starbucks,74 Morgan Stanley,75 Google,76 Microsoft,77 and Samsung,78 indicating the breadth of protection available to brands with strong trans-border reputations.

IN.87 A  recent and interesting concept is the extension of dilution principles to cybersquatting

through ‘dilution by elimination’.79 In a case of dilution by elimination, a famous trademark is diluted when a third party registers a domain containing the mark, thus preventing the trademark owner from using it to advertise online. This doctrine was applied by the INDRP panel in the ‘dellprecision.in’ case.80

IV.  Court Litigation (1)  Anticybersquatting Legislation IN.88 Cybersquatting is addressed through trademark law and there is no specific legislation per-

taining to it. The Indian courts have, however, addressed a number of domain name cases under trademark law resulting in some helpful principles, many of which are outlined below.

(a)  The Use of Descriptive Terms as Domain Names IN.89 Domain names function in much the same way as trademarks: they are unique source iden-

tifiers. Thus, there is a clear inference that any trademark which is registrable under the Trademarks Act 1999, if instead registered as a domain name and used as a source-identifier, would be capable of protection.

IN.90 Requirements of registration under the Trademarks Act are essentially:81

(1) the trademark must not be prima facie of a descriptive nature; or (2) the descriptive trademark must have acquired distinctiveness through use. IN.91 Pertinently, in the case of Manish Vij v Indra Chugh82 the plaintiff ’s rights in ‘kabaariba-

zaar.com’ were held to be insufficient to prevent the defendant’s use of the domain name ‘kabaadibazaar.com’. ‘Kabari bazaar’, meaning a secondhand household goods market, was held to be descriptive in relation to a website offering such goods for sale. The court found that the plaintiff ’s online commercial use of its domain name had not yet generated sufficient distinctiveness or secondary meaning.

  INDRP/118, 26 November 2009.   INDRP/156, 27 October 2010. 76  INDRP/121, 26 November 2009; INDRP/132, 3 April 2010. 77  INDRP/134, 10 May 2010; INDRP/145, 12 July 2010. 78  INDRP/141, 26 June 2010. 79  This doctrine was first used in Panavision Int’l v Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir 1998). In Panavision, the defendant registered ‘panavision.com’ and posted aerial views of the city of Pana, Illinois on the site. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that trademark dilution occurred when potential customers of Panavision could not find its web site at ‘panavision.com’, and instead were forced to search through other (less obvious) domain names. The fact that potential customers might be discouraged, coupled with the defendant’s history of registering domains for profit, led to the court’s finding that Toeppen’s conduct ‘diminished the capacity of the Panavision marks to identify and distinguish Panavision’s goods and services on the Internet’, and thus constituted infringement. Similar case law developed by the Indian courts is detailed below at Section IV.1(c). 80  INDRP/307, 4 October 2012. 81  The requirements for trademark registration that are discussed here specifically relate to the requirements that are pertinent to domain names and acquisition of trademark rights therein. For a full treatment of the requirements for trademark protection in India, please see Section I above. 82  AIR 2002 Del 243. 74 75

516

IV.  Court Litigation It is important to note, however, that the Indian courts have never failed to uphold pro- IN.92 tection for descriptive terms, particularly where used as domains, where the plaintiffs have established acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning.83

(b)  Passive Holding of Domain Names Passive holding of a domain name may amount to use in bad faith, and thus potential use IN.93 is made equivalent to actual use, where Internet users are likely to be confused as to source. The Delhi High Court in the case of Titan Industries Ltd v Prashanth Koorapati 84 held that the defendant, who was passively holding its domain, ought to have known of the plaintiff ’s mark, and accordingly held the registration to be mala fide. (c)  Abusive Registration of Domain Names Traditional cybersquatting (or domaingrabbing) concerns instances in which a respondent, IN.94 wishing to capitalize on a brand, registers an infringing domain for resale at a profit. The Indian courts have repeatedly found against cybersquatters. In the case of Tata Sons Ltd v Bodacious Tatas & Ors,85 the Delhi High Court restrained use of IN.95 the ‘TATA’ trademark as a domain name, as the defendants could show no rights in the term and their usage diluted the strength of the mark. In the case of Tata Sons Ltd v Manu Kosuri,86 the Delhi High Court restrained the use of sev- IN.96 eral registered domain names incorporating the trademark ‘TATA’, such as ‘tatahydro.com’ and ‘ratantata.com’, and ordered transfer of the domains. Similarly, in the case of Dr Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd v Manu Kosuri,87 the Delhi High Court IN.97 restrained the defendant from further use of ‘drresddyslab.com’ and ‘lab.com’, as the defendant had a history of abusively registering well-known trademarks. Moreover, the Delhi High Court provided a definitive ruling regarding bad faith registration IN.98 in the case of Eicher Ltd v Web Link India.88 The defendants were unable to establish good faith registration of two domains. The court issued a permanent injunction against further use, and ordered transfer of the domain names.

(2)  Infringement of Trademarks (a)  Risk of Confusion Between Domain Names and Trademarks and Service Marks Other dubious practices concerning domains include traffic redirection and PPC revenue IN.99 generation. In such scenarios, an action for infringement may be successful for registered marks, and an action for passing off or dilution could be effective for unregistered marks. The courts in India have concurred with the rulings of authorities in the UK, Taiwan, Italy, IN.100 Germany, and the USA, holding that the act of registering a domain similar or identical to a famous trademark constitutes unfair competition. Some pertinent Indian cases are illustrated below. In the cases of Tata Sons Ltd v Manu Kosuri 89 and Eicher Ltd v Web Link India,90 the Indian IN.101 courts enjoined the respective defendants from the use of domains including ‘tatahydro.com’, 83  Yahoo v Akash Arora, 1999 PTC 201 (Del); Info Edge India Pvt Ltd v Shailesh Gupta, 2002 (24) PTC 355 (Del). 84  CS(OS) 179/1998, Delhi High Court. 85  CS(OS) 1991/1999, Delhi High Court. 86  2001 PTC 432 (Del). 87  2001 PTC 859 (Del). 88  2002 (25) PTC 322 (Del). 89  2001 PTC 432 (Del). 90  2002 (25) PTC 322 (Del).

517

India (‘.in’) ‘ratantata.com’, and ‘eichertractors.com’, as they represented clear-cut cases of infringement of registered trademarks. IN.102 In the matter of ICICI Bank,91 the High Court found the defendant had no legitimate right,

interest, or justification in regard to ‘icicigroup.com’, and held that the registration was designed, in bad faith, to take advantage of the plaintiff ’s goodwill. The court accordingly held that it constituted infringement and passing off, citing the respondent’s sale offer of US$800,000 as evidence of cybersquatting.

(b)  Unregistered Famous or Well-Known Trademarks IN.103 One of the most significant cases concerning the protection of unregistered, famous marks was the Yahoo case.92 In this matter, the defendant had not only registered a number of domains similar to ‘yahooindia.com’, but had also used ‘Yahooindia’ in a trademark manner on its website. By offering services, and copying content from the plaintiff ’s website, the court found that the defendant was passing its website off as an authorized extension of Yahoo. The plaintiff ’s ‘Yahoo’ trademark had been registered in 69 countries and was pending registration in India at the time the case was decided. The Delhi High Court granted an injunction restraining the defendant from using ‘Yahoo’ either as a part of a domain name or a trademark, and from copying the contents of the plaintiff ’s webpage. IN.104 In the case of Info Edge (India) Pvt Ltd v Shailesh Gupta,93 the plaintiff, who was the regis-

tered proprietor of ‘naukri.com’, sued the defendant in a passing off action for the use of the domain name ‘naukari.com’. The disputed domain name was being used to redirect users to another website. The plaintiff alleged bad faith on the part of the defendant, since it operated its services from ‘jobsourceindia.com’ and used ‘naukari.com’ only to divert Internet traffic. The Delhi High Court restrained the defendant from using ‘naukari.com’ as it was deceptively similar to the plaintiff ’s well-known trademark and used to free-ride on the plaintiff ’s rights.

IN.105 Further, in the case of Casio India Co Ltd v Ashita Tele Systems Pvt Ltd,94 the court enjoined

the defendant’s use of ‘casioindia.com’ and granted the plaintiff ’s passing off action. The court also held that the defendant’s misuse would inevitably cause dilution of the plaintiff ’s mark.

IN.106 In all cases concerning unregistered trademarks, it is absolutely imperative that the complain-

ant clearly demonstrate the distinctiveness of its trademark. This was indicated by the Delhi High Court in the case of Online India Capital Pvt Ltd v Dimensions Corporate,95 concerning ‘mutualfundsindia.com’. The plaintiffs were the prior owners of the ‘mutualfundindia. com’ domain, but were unable to secure an injunction as they did not demonstrate sufficient acquired distinctiveness.

(c) Defences IN.107 One common defence raised in passing off claims is the presence of a disclaimer, disclosing the lack of any connection with the trademark proprietor. This argument was specifically rejected in the Yahoo case,96 in which the court observed both that disclaimers are often not made clearly visible, and that visitors to the website have already suffered ‘initial interest

  ICICI Bank Ltd v Chuandong Xu & Anr, 22 December 2011, CS(OS) 2606/2008, Delhi High Court.   Yahoo v AkashArora, (above n 83). 93  2002 (24) PTC 355 (Del). 94  (27) PTC 265 (Del). 95  2000 PTC 396 (Del). 96  Yahoo v Akash Arora, (above n 83). 91 92

518

IV.  Court Litigation confusion’. Such confusion cannot be dispelled by a disclaimer since users can view the disclaimer only after navigating to the offending domain.

(3)  Infringement of Trade Names and Other Commercial Designations A trade name is the designation adopted by a commercial enterprise to distinguish it from IN.108 other businesses. A trade name may be registered and protected as a trademark and, accordingly, is protectable under Indian law should any third party register it as a domain name.

(a)  International Protection of Trade Names The Paris Convention establishes standards concerning the protection of trade names in all IN.109 signatory states, including India. Article 8 contains three broad elements to guide national implementation, which mandate that: party states must provide protection for trade names; such protection must be extended without requiring registration; and such protection must be independent of that accorded to trademarks, even if the trade name is also registered as a trademark. (b)  Protection at the National Level Although India offers protection to both registered and unregistered trade names, the thresh- IN.110 old requirements for relief will vary accordingly. If the trade name in question is a registered trademark, then it shall be strictu sensu protected against infringement. However, if the trade name is unregistered, the holder must prove its distinctiveness in order to be eligible for protection. Indian trademark law applies with equal force to the protection of domain names. Thus, for IN.111 trade names which are also registered trademarks that are co-opted in domains the courts will strictu sensu offer relief. For unregistered trade names, the Indian courts will offer protection where the owner of the trade name is capable of demonstrating secondary meaning. Protection provided to trade names is not absolute, and generally requires a consideration of both the field of industry and geographic region in which the name is used. Thus, for example, the trade name of a baker’s shop may be protected only in the geographical area where it is located, although the trade name of a transnational enterprise may enjoy protection commensurate with the region(s) in which it operates.

(4)  Infringement of Personal Names The introduction of alphanumeric domain names was intended to enable individuals and IN.112 entities to become readily identifiable online. A  registrant may only be deprived of his domain identifier (eg, via the courts, UDRP, etc) if another entity has prior rights in the term. In order to recover a personal name using a trademark-based policy or statute, the individual must demonstrate that his name has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning. Thus, only individuals who have well-known persona and whose names have distinct com- IN.113 mercial value will be capable of asserting trademark rights to related domain names. There are two main arguments for this position, namely: (i) a moral position, stating that principles of unjust enrichment (and ‘common sense’) should prevent free-riders from capitalizing on name value;97 and (ii) the classical theory of property, which argues that since a person nurtures his public persona, he should be entitled to preserve any financial gains accruing therefrom.98

  J Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, 4th edn (West Group, 1996).   Melville B Nimmer and David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, (Mathew Bender) Release No 42, 1997.

97 98

519

India (‘.in’) IN.114 The Indian courts have concurred with these positions, and have consistently prevented the

unauthorized use of the names of famous individuals. For example, in the case of Tata Sons Ltd v Manu Kosuri,99 the court restrained the defendant’s use of ‘ratantata.com’ and ‘jrdtata. com’ as he was unable to negate cybersquatting allegations.

IN.115 Similarly, the plaintiff in the Arun Jaitley matter100 was a well-known politician, who wished

to register ‘arunjaitley.com’. Upon finding the domain was already registered, the plaintiff contacted the registrar (also named as a defendant in the case) to request transfer, as the domain name was ‘pending deletion’. The defendants asked the plaintiff to purchase the domain at an exorbitant cost. The court held that ‘the right to use a personal name is superior than that of the commercial right of using the trade mark and thus the entitlement to use it as a trade mark or domain name vests with the person having its personal name’. The court also agreed that the respondent intended to hold Mr Jaitley to ransom, and noted the defendants’ intent to list the domain on an online auction website. The court found the defendants (located in the US), to be in violation of UDRP tenets concerning bad faith registration,101 and further held that the defendant registrar was unjustified in retaining the expired domain. Thus, the court found mala fide intent on the part of the defendants and granted monetary damages of INR500,000, as well as transfer of the domain name. The third defendant was also permanently restrained from using the name ‘Arun Jaitley’ in any manner online.

(5)  Infringement of Titles (a) Ordinary Titles IN.116 Any individual or entity that has established acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning

in an ordinary title can prevent its use as a domain. Ordinary titles include those used, inter alia, for books, films, and newspapers. Naturally, where an ordinary title is also a registered mark, the holder may protect its rights under trademark law. Although there are no judicial decisions concerning the protection of unregistered ordinary titles used in third-party domains, it seems logical that such a domain could be recovered upon a showing of secondary meaning.

(b) Official Titles IN.117 In India, the use of domain names incorporating official titles cannot be restrained by an

infringement action per se, as official titles are not capable of being registered under the Trade Marks Act 1999. Even if an official title were used in a commercial manner and acquired distinctiveness, it would not be eligible for registration.102 Thus, the only remedy against the use of official titles as domains would be either a passing off action or an action for dilution, both of which require a showing of acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning.

(6)  Names of Cities and Other Public Law Corporations IN.118 The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act 1950 bars any person, except

where authorized, from using a prohibited emblem in trade, for business, or as a trademark. The schedule of prohibited emblems contains names which could suggest the patronage of the government of India or any Indian State.   2001 PTC 432 (Del), (above n 86).   Mr Arun Jaitley v Network Solutions Private & Ors, C.S(OS) 1745/2009 decided on 4 July 2011, at Delhi High Court. 101  UDRP decisions have a persuasive value in Indian courts. The Court will not interfere with a decision taken in line with the INDRP except under the limited grounds established by s 34 of the ACA. In Volkswagen AG v Satya Bagla, INDRP/112, 18 November 2009, the NIXI arbitrator specifically recommended that the decision be forwarded to the High Court of Delhi as an instructive case. 102  Trademark Act 1999, s 9(2). 99

100

520

IV.  Court Litigation There are two views as to whether the names of cities or states can be utilized as trademarks. IN.119 One view suggests that they may serve as marks if they acquire a secondary meaning and, if found distinctive, may be registered. As a result, there are several such trademarks registered in India, including ‘Goa Chewing Tobacco’ and ‘Simla cigarettes’. According to this view, the Emblems Act only prohibits use of terms such as ‘Government of Goa’, and not ‘Goa’ itself. However, a second, narrower view holds that the mere use of a city or state name suggests patronage. This issue was decided by the Delhi High Court in the Gujarat Steel Pipes case.103 The court affirmed that the plaintiff had established secondary meaning in the name ‘Gujarat’, and held that the geographically descriptive nature of the name did not bar recovery in a passing off action. Thus, it appears that the former view was adopted. Where the name of a city forms part of a IN.120 domain name, such domain may be recovered by an appropriate rights-holder. For example, in a recent case the Bar Association of New Delhi was able to recover ‘delhihighcourt.com’ and ‘delhilowercourt.com’ from a cybersquatter and to secure a permanent injunction.

(7) Infringements of Geographical Indications, Indication of Source, and Other Geographical Terms Under the laws of India, the use of geographical indications and indications of source is IN.121 governed by the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999. The protection provided thereunder, in relation to specific products, is analogous to that enjoyed by registered trademarks. Thus, if a geographical indication or indication of source is registered pursuant to the Act, then its unauthorized use as a domain can be restrained in an Indian court via an infringement action. Even if the geographical indication or indication of source is not registered under the Act, provided that it can be shown to be distinctive or to have acquired secondary meaning, its unauthorized use as a domain name can be restrained through a passing off or dilution action.

(8) Remedies The relief that may be claimed in court proceedings, where a third party has usurped anoth- IN.122 er’s trademark in a domain name, under Indian law is as follows: (i) a permanent injunction restraining the use of the trademark or a similar mark as a domain name; (ii) the transfer of the impugned domain name; and (iii) damages and/or rendition of accounts. In practice, all lawsuits are accompanied by a request for interim relief, restraining the defend- IN.123 ant from using the offending domain name. On being served with interim orders, registrars tend to put the relevant domain names on IN.124 hold and deposit the title documents with the court. Normally, at the interim stage, the registrant of the offending domain name is simply restrained from transferring the domain name to a third party, while any decision concerning transfer to the plaintiff is left for the final adjudication of rights. However, in some instances the Delhi High Court has directed defendants to transfer domain names to plaintiffs during the pendency of lawsuits, where the plaintiffs assured the court of their willingness to retransfer the domains if necessary.104

  Hi-Tech Pipes Ltd v Asian Mills Pvt Ltd, 2006 (32) PTC 192 Del.   Pfizer Products, Inc v Mr Altamash Khan & Anr, MIPR 2007 (3) 445.

103 104

521

India (‘.in’) IN.125 As discussed earlier, the Indian courts have taken a strict view of the misappropriation of

trademarks as domain names, and have granted ex parte injunctions. In the case of Tata Sons Ltd v Hoop Anin & Ors,105 punitive damages of INR500,000 were also awarded.

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name IN.126 Where a business entity selects a new domain name, which does not correspond to any

pre-existing rights, the question arises as to when that entity gains intellectual property (IP) interests in the term. As is the case in most jurisdictions, the mere registration of a domain name does not per se create IP rights therein. Only through the use of the domain as an online source identifier, and the development of secondary meaning and acquired distinctiveness, can the domain text mature into a protectable right.

IN.127 A few examples of Internet ventures which have successfully established themselves in India,

and created strong online marks without any previous physical presence, would include: ‘tehelka.com’, ‘bazee.com’, ‘rediff.com’, and ‘yahoo.com’.

IN.128 In the case of Rediff Communication Ltd v Cyberbooth & Anr,106 the plaintiff (owner of ‘rediff.

com’) sought to restrain the defendant from using ‘radiff.com’, on the grounds that it was deceptively similar to its well known trademark. The court agreed, and accordingly restrained the defendant from further use of the domain.

IN.129 Similarly, in the cases of Yahoo [the owner of ‘Yahoo.com’] v Akash Arora,107 and Info Edge

(India) Pvt Ltd [the owner of ‘Naukari.com’] v Shailesh Gupta,108 the respective defendants were restrained from the use of deceptively similar domains. As noted above, both plaintiffs operated exclusively online ventures, and enjoyed no previously acquired distinctiveness in their selected names, but were able to secure protection via passing off actions.

IN.130 In the case of Satyam Infoway,109 the Apex Court of India held that Internet domain names

have all the characteristics of trademarks and could be protected under the Indian Trade Marks Act 1999, as well as under the common law of passing off. The Supreme Court of India held that ‘domain names are business identifiers, serving to identify and distinguish the business itself or its goods and services and to specify its corresponding online location’. The appellant in the case owned a number of domains containing the coined word ‘Sify’, allegedly formed from its corporate name—Satyam Infoway. The respondent, and online marketer, later registered several domains containing the term ‘siffy’. The Apex noted the necessity of securing unique identifiers in business, as well as the harm inherent in use of a similar term by another online party. The Supreme Court accordingly granted an injunction in favour of the appellant.

IN.131 The respondent in the matter of Stephen Koeing110 had registered the ‘INTERNET’ trade-

mark under the Trademarks Act 1999 of India. The petitioner, a resident of the USA, later registered the domain name ‘internet.in’, and the respondent accordingly filed an INDRP

  CS(OS) 1104/2008, Delhi High Court.   2000 PTC 209 (Bom). 107  1999 PTC 201 (Del). 108  2002 (24) PTC 355 (Del). 109  Satyam Infoway Ltd v Sifynet Solutions P Ltd, 2004 (6) SCC 145. 110  Stephen Koenig v Arbitrator, National Internet on 14 December 2011, Delhi High Court, OMP 132 of 2007. 105 106

522

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law complaint. The arbitral award was issued, and the decision was then appealed to the courts. The Delhi High Court frowned upon the petitioner’s ownership of 1,747 domain names, and doubted that such activity was in connection with legitimate business practices. The court held that the INDRP arbitrator’s award for cancellation of the registration of the domain was valid, but stated that the demand for direct confiscation (and retention) of the domain by the registry was without legal basis. Finally, the court held that a domain ought not to be transferred unless the gaining party can show use of the mark in business.

VI.  Liability of the Registry The registry reserves the right to avoid any liability, civil or criminal, on its own part or that IN.132 of its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, representatives, and employees. The INDRP also mandates that the registry shall not participate in any dispute between a IN.133 domain holder and any third party for matters other than domain name disputes, and that the holder shall not name or involve the registry as a party in such actions.

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property Assignment involves the absolute forfeiture of rights by the assignor in favour of the assignee. IN.134 An assignment bestows upon the assignee the sole and exclusive right to use a domain name and complete proprietorship of any IP rights therein. The assignee may act to prevent any infringement or act of unfair competition concerning the domain. Licensing involves the grant of domain name usage rights to another individual, without IN.135 transferring ownership of the domain. Licensing of domain names, while in theory permissible, has not yet become popular in India. Domain licence agreements are generally exclusive, and allow for the grant of sub-licenses. In practice, it may be inadvisable to grant irrevocable licenses, which could prevent the domain owner from terminating the agreement.

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law In the common-law system, there are two general components of jurisdiction: personal (juris- IN.136 diction over the defendant), and subject matter (jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute). The Trademarks Act 1999, s 134(1) states that a suit concerning harm to a registered trade- IN.137 mark, or an action for passing off, must be brought in a District Court (or higher body) of competent jurisdiction. The CPC, s 20, provides generally that a suit is proper in a court where:

IN.138

(a) the defendant (or all defendants, where multiple) actually resides or carries on business; or (b) any of the defendants (where multiple) actually reside or conduct business, with either leave of the court or permission from non-resident defendants; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or partly, arises. The Trade Marks Act 1999, however, has carved out an exception to the above general rule IN.139 with regard to the infringement of registered trademarks. Section 134(2) of the Act provides that such actions may also be brought where one or more of the plaintiffs resides or works. Therefore, a suit concerning a domain name (which infringes a registered trademark), may

523

India (‘.in’) be brought in the plaintiff ’s jurisdiction. As this provision only applies to registered marks, however, it does not extend to claims for passing off. IN.140 Given the international accessibility of the Internet, it is possible that an infringing action

may have effect in several jurisdictions. Thus, complex jurisdiction questions arise, particularly where the parties are located in different countries, in addition to related concerns about judicial efficiency and the enforceability of judgments.

IN.141 The Indian courts have been quite lenient in assessing jurisdictional matters concerning

domain names. In a recent decision, Casio India Co Ltd v Ashita Tele Systems Pvt Ltd111 the Delhi High Court followed the principle of global jurisdiction laid down by the High Court of Australia in Dow Jones & Co, Inc v Gutnick.112 The Delhi High Court held that ‘once access to the impugned domain name website, could be had from anywhere else, the jurisdiction in such matters cannot be confined to the territorial limits of the residence of the defendant’.

IN.142 The defendant in the Casio case was based in Mumbai, and thus the enforceability of the

injunction was not an issue. However, Indian courts have proven willing to grant injunctions against defendants located outside of India, where they have adopted and used infringing domain names.

IN.143 Although many of the registrars in such cases have not been subject to Indian territorial

jurisdiction, they have by and large honoured the orders issued by the courts. For example, Network Solutions, Inc generally freezes infringing domain names, and deposits their relevant title papers with the appropriate registrar.

IN.144 Given the willingness of Indian courts to exercise jurisdiction even in cases where the defend-

ant is based outside of India, questions of applicable law have not arisen and the courts have followed Indian law.

IN.145 The India TV113 matter involved a Hindi news channel (plaintiff) which was the registered

proprietor of the mark ‘INDIA TV’ and the owner of the domain name ‘indiatvnews.com’. The defendants hosted a website at ‘indiatvlive.com’, which the plaintiff challenged via the Delhi High Court in an action for passing off. While the suit was pending, one of the defendants instituted an action in the District Court in Arizona, in the United States, where the defendants were located. The defendants alleged, inter alia, reverse domain name hijacking against the plaintiff. The plaintiff applied to the Delhi High Court, noting the defendants’ suppression of information regarding the US action and requesting an injunction with regard to the foreign proceeding. The defendants pled forum non-conveniens in reply, as they did not reside or work for gain in India. The Delhi High court held that exercise of personal jurisdiction might be inappropriate where a domain name is simply visible from the location of the court’s jurisdiction. The court noted, however, the jurisdiction may be proper where the website is ‘interactive’ and permits users to subscribe to the defendant’s services. The court found that the defendant’s website was not passive, because it provided subscriptions to its Indian services, which were accessible to users from Delhi, India (ie within the jurisdiction of the Indian courts). Thus, the court held that the defendants had sufficient connection with India.

IN.146 The High Court of Delhi recently reaffirmed the decision of the India TV114 matter while dis-

cussing the jurisdictional issues involved in the Banyan Tree Holding case,115 which concerned   2003 (27) PTC 2,65 (Del).   (2002) HCA 56. 113  (India TV) Independent News Service Pvt Ltd v India Broadcast Live Llc And Ors, 2007 (35) PTC 177 (Del). 114 Ibid. 115  Banyan Tree Holding (P)  Ltd v A  Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr, 23 November 2009, CS (OS) No 894/2008, Delhi High Court. 111 112

524

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law an action for passing off. In this matter, the defendants were charged with passing off their domain name as that of the plaintiff. The defendants had a presence in Delhi through their non-passive website, which sought feedback and input from their customers through an interactive webpage. The High Court was unable to apply the long arm jurisdiction provision (ie s 134(2) of the Trademarks Act 1999),116 as none of the parties voluntarily resided or carried on business within the local limits of Delhi. Consequently, s 20 of the CPC117 did not apply. The court found that for the purposes of infringement or passing off actions where the plaintiff is not carrying on business within the jurisdiction of the court, and in the absence of a long-arm statute, in order to establish jurisdiction the plaintiff would have to show that the defendant ‘purposefully availed’ itself of the jurisdiction of the forum court. For the purposes of s 20(c) of the CPC, in order to show that the cause of action has arisen in the forum state via the defendant’s online activities, the disputed website must have specifically targeted viewers in the forum state for commercial transactions. The plaintiff would have to prove that some online commercial transaction (via the contested website) was entered into by the defendant and a user residing within the forum state, which resulted in injury or harm to the plaintiff. The court also noted that such transactions could not be merely ‘set up’ by the plaintiff itself, thus indicating that trap transactions must be obtained by fair means in order to remain admissible. The TRIPS agreement and the Paris Convention, obligate their member nations (including IN.147 India) to harmonize their municipal laws pertaining to intellectual property with agreed international standards and to provide protection for IP rights. India is in compliance with these agreements, and is also a member of the Multi Stakeholder Advisory Group of the Internet Governance Forum118 (IGF) of the United Nations. The WIPO/Paris Union Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection IN.148 of Marks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs on the Internet has been discussed and considered by the .IN Registry. It is unclear at the present time, however, whether this recommendation will result in any legislative or administrative changes to the management of the ‘.in’ domain space in the future.

116  Section 134. Suit for infringement, etc, to be instituted before a District Court. ‘(1) No suit (a) for the infringement of a registered trade mark; or (b) relating to any right in a registered trade mark; or (c) for passing off arising out of the use by the defendant of any trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff ’s trade mark, whether registered or unregistered, shall be instituted in any court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. (2) For the purpose of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), a “District Court having jurisdiction” shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or any other law for the time being in force, include a District Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or proceeding, or, where there are more than one such persons any of them, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain’. 117  Section 20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises. ‘Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises’. 118 See http://deity.gov.in/content/internet-governance.

525

IRELAND (‘.ie’) James Bridgeman

I. Overview of the National System of the Protection of Marks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs 

(1) Irish Registered Trade Marks  (2) Collective Marks and Certification Marks  (3) Community Trade Marks 

II. The ccTLD (‘.ie’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

(1) The Registry  (2) ‘.ie’ Domain Name Registration  (3) The Registrations Policy  (4) The Naming Policy  (5) Registrations Terms and Conditions  (6) Refusal of Registration 

III. ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.ie’ Domain Space 

(1) Principal Characteristics and Scope of the IEDRP Procedure  (2) Statistics—IEDR Cases by Year  (3) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement  (4) Overview of the ADR Procedure  (5) Role of the Administrative Panel  (6) Costs  (7) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding  (8) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings  (9) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider 

(10) Arbitration  IE.87 (11) Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution  IE.90 (12)  IEDRP Decision Criteria  IE.98 IV.  Court Litigation IE.129 (1) Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation IE.129 (2) Infringement of Trade Marks IE.130 (3) Unregistered Trade Marks and the Tort of Passing Off IE.133 (4) Court Procedure and Remedies IE.139

IE.01 IE.02 IE.11 IE.15 IE.16 IE.16 IE.19 IE.20 IE.46 IE.58 IE.60

V. Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  VI.  Liability of the Registry  VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law 

IE.62 IE.62 IE.63

(1) Jurisdiction of the Irish Courts—Brussels Regulation (2) Jurisdiction of the Irish Courts—Lugano Convention (3) Jurisdiction of the Irish Courts—Beyond the Brussels Regulation and Lugano Convention (4) Choice of Law and Conflicts-of-Law (5) Enforcement of Judgments (6) International Jurisdiction and Internet Domain Names

IE.64 IE.65 IE.76 IE.79 IE.83 IE.84

IE.144 IE.147 IE.152 IE.154 IE.156 IE.164

IE.166 IE.172 IE.180 IE.182

IE.86

Links Irish Patent and Trademark Office: http://www.patentsoffice.ie/INDEX.html IE Domain Registry Limited (Registry): http://www.domainregistry.ie IEDR Registrations Policy: https://www.iedr.ie/p30/registration-policy/ IEDR Naming Policy: https://www.iedr.ie/p30/naming-policy/ Irish Statute and Statutory Instruments: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie Dispute Resolution Provider (WIPO): http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/ IEDR Dispute Resolution Policy (IEDRP): http://www.domainregistry.ie WIPO Dispute Resolution Rules for.ie Domain Registrations: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/ domains/rules/ie.html Published ‘.ie’ Decisions: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisionsx/index-cctld.html

527

Ireland (‘.ie’)

I.  Overview of the National System of the Protection of Marks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs IE.01 The Trade Marks Act 1996 (the Act of 1996)1 provides the statutory framework for the pro-

tection of Irish registered trade marks and Community Trade Marks (CTMs). At common law the goodwill of enterprises having unregistered marks is protected by the law of passing off which is not affected by the Act of 1996.2

(1)  Irish Registered Trade Marks IE.02 The Act of 1996 provides that a registered trade mark is a property right,3 and thus constitu-

tionally protected as private property.4

IE.03 Trade mark applications are made to the Controller of Patents Designs and Trade Marks

pursuant to s 37(1) of the Act of 1996, and must specify the classes of goods or services for which the mark is intended.5

IE.04 The examination procedure is set out in detail in the Trade Marks Rules.6 The Controller may

refuse to register a trade mark on either Absolute or Relative Grounds.

IE.05 Adopting the formula prescribed by the Harmonization Directive7 and applied in the

Regulation,8 a trade mark is defined as ‘any sign capable of being represented graphically which is capable of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings’.9

IE.06 Section 8 of the Act of 1996 sets out the Absolute Grounds for refusal of registration, which

include inter alia: any signs which are devoid of distinctive character; marks comprising the functional shape of a product or a shape derived from nature; signs which are deceptive or contrary to public policy and morality; marks which are prohibited by Irish or Community law; trade marks whose applications were made in bad faith; marks which consist exclusively of indications designating the type of goods (or their value, qualities, or geographical origin) which may be offered thereunder; and trade marks which consist exclusively of common-­ usage or customary industry terms, although these latter barriers may be overcome upon a showing of acquired distinctive character.

IE.07 There is also a statutory prohibition on the registration of protected emblems, including state

emblems of Ireland.10 Trade marks containing the Irish national flag, as defined by Article 7 of the Irish Constitution,11 may not be registered if their use is misleading or offensive. The

 See http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1996/en/act/pub/0006/index.html.   Act of 1996, s 7(2). 3  Act of 1996, s 7(2). 4 Constitution of Ireland 1937, Art 43, available at:  http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/publications/297.pdf. 5  International (Nice) Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, available at: http://www.wipo.int/classifications/nivilo/nice/index.htm?lang=EN#. 6 Trade Marks Rules 1996 (S.I. No 199 of 1996)  as amended. See http://www.patentsoffice.ie/en/ legislation_rules.aspx. 7  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks repealed Council Directive No 89/104/EEC. 8  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark repealed Regulation (EC) No 40/94, as amended. 9  Act of 1996, s 6(1). 10  Act of 1996, s 9. 11 Above n 4. 1 2

528

I.  Overview of the National System Controller may refuse to register trade marks which contain any badge, device, or emblem of a public authority unless appropriate consent is obtained. The Relative Grounds12 for refusal of registration are based on conflicts with other trade IE.08 marks.13 Later-filed applications will be refused where there is a likelihood of confusion14 with an earlier mark because of the identity or similarity of the marks15 or their relevant goods or services.16 Moreover, where the initial trade mark has an established reputation, a later application for a similar mark may be refused, even if proposed for a different class of goods or services, where such use may be detrimental to the earlier trade mark.17 Finally, trade mark applications will be refused where the use of the mark is likely to be prevented by virtue of any rule of law (in particular, the law of passing off) protecting an unregistered trade mark or other intellectual property (IP) right.18 Under the Act, an ‘earlier trade mark’19 includes any registered Irish, International, or CTM IE.09 mark with an earlier registration (or priority) date, and any CTM mark with a valid seniority claim (even if the initial registration has lapsed). In the case of honest concurrent use of a trade mark, the Controller may not refuse the appli- IE.10 cation due to the earlier trade mark unless an objection is raised in opposition proceedings (s 12 of the Act of 1996).

(2)  Collective Marks and Certification Marks The Act of 1996 also provides for the registration of Collective Marks and Certification Marks. IE.11 A Collective Mark is defined as ‘a mark distinguishing the goods or services of members of IE.12 the association which is the proprietor of the mark from those of other undertakings’.20 A Certification Mark is defined as ‘a mark indicating that the goods or services in connection IE.13 with which it is used are certified by the proprietor of the mark in respect of origin, material, mode of manufacture of goods or performance of services, quality, accuracy or other characteristics’.21 Notwithstanding the prohibition in s 8(1) of the Act of 1996, both Collective and Certification IE.14 Marks which consist of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the geographical origin of the goods or services may be registered.22

(3)  Community Trade Marks Community trade marks are recognized and protected within Ireland in the same manner as IE.15 Irish registered trade marks.23

  Act of 1996, s 10.   Act of 1996, s 10(1). 14  Which includes a likelihood of association of the later and earlier marks. 15  Act of 1996, s 10(2)(a). 16  Act of 1996, s 10(2)(b). 17  Act of 1996, s 10(3). 18  Act of 1996, s 10(4). 19  Act of 1996, s 11. 20  Act of 1996, s 54(1). 21  Act of 1996, s 55(1). 22  Act of 1996, First Schedule, s 3 and Second Schedule, s 3 respectively. 23  Registered pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark repealed Regulation (EC) No 40/94, as amended. 12 13

529

Ireland (‘.ie’)

II.  The ccTLD (‘.ie’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1)  The Registry IE.16 The ccTLD for Ireland is ‘.ie’.24 Under the Electronic Commerce Act, 2000 as amended,25

the Commission for Communications Regulation (‘ComReg’), established under the Communications Regulation Act 2002, must ensure the effective administration of the ‘.ie’ namespace. ComReg is empowered inter alia to designate the registrar for ‘.ie’ domains,26 and has accordingly authorized IE Domain Registry Ltd (IEDR).27 IEDR is a not-for-profit Irish registered company which manages the ‘.ie’ space as a public service.28

IE.17 It is estimated that as of December 2013, when suspended domain names were excluded,

there were 187,269 domain names in the ‘.ie’ database which accounted for 47.9 per cent of the estimated number of domain names in Ireland.29 This figure indicates an increased market penetration as it is estimated that in June 2010 the ‘.ie’ domain name registrations accounted for 41 per cent of the approximately 355,142 domain names in Ireland at that time.

IE.18 In 2010 there were 96  ‘.ie’ accredited registrars. Five registrars accounted for 62 per cent

of the ‘.ie’ namespace and 79 per cent of all new registrations.30 At the end of 2013, IEDR had 98 accredited Registrars. The top six accredited Registrars (that is, those with more than 5,000 domain names) and the top 31 (that is, those with more than 500 domain names) accounted for 72 per cent and 92 per cent respectively of the entire ‘.ie’ database.

(2)  ‘.ie’ Domain Name Registration IE.19 The registration and use of a ‘.ie’ domain is governed by the IEDR’s Registrations Policy,

Naming Policy, Geographical Name Regulation, and Registrations Terms and Conditions. Special fee arrangements are in place for registered charities.

(3)  The Registrations Policy IE.20 The Registration Policy limits ‘.ie’ registration to certain categories of registrants and specific

types of applicable strings.

(a)  Permitted Applicants IE.21 The Registration Policy classifies applicants according to their legal nature and status as follows: (1) Natural Person/Private Individual: Applicants are obliged to provide proof of identification and Irish citizenship or residency. (2) Body Corporate: Limited to registered public or limited companies. For foreign applicants, evidence of a ‘real and substantive link to Ireland’ is required.

24  Section 31 of the Electronic Commerce Act 2000 as amended by the Communications Regulation (Amendment) Act 2007 (No 22 of 2007) defines ‘.ie’ domain name as ‘the top level of the global domain name system assigned to Ireland according to the two-letter code in the International Standard ISO 3166-1 (Codes for Representation of Names of Countries and their Subdivision) of the International Organisation for Standardisation’. 25 Electronic Commerce Act 2000, s 32(4) as inserted by s 21 of the Communications Regulation (Amendment) Act 2007. 26 Electronic Commerce Act 2000, s 324(a) as inserted by s 21 of the Communications Regulation (Amendment) Act 2007. 27 See http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/PR120109.pdf. 28 See http://www.domainregistry.ie/. 29  IEDR Domain Name Registry Report 2010 and IEDR Domain Name Registry Report 2013. 30 Ibid.

530

II.  The ccTLD (‘.ie’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (3) Sole Trader: Available to ‘self-employed’ persons carrying on business as sole traders. (4) Unincorporated Association: Dedicated to qualified educational institutions. (5) School/Educational Institution: The registrant must be an educational institution such as a national or secondary school or third-level institution. (6) State Body:  For Constitutional bodies, state agencies established by an act or the Oireachtas, or government departments. (7) Discretionary Applicant: A miscellaneous class used as a last resort. Discretionary applicants must be a citizens or residents (with proof of address) of Ireland or Northern Ireland, and must provide a detailed claim to the name. The IEDR offers free ‘.ie’ domain names to all charities that are registered with the Irish IE.22 Revenue Commissioners. A number of registrars have also agreed to waive the registration and renewal fees for charities.

(b)  Permitted Categories of Names The Registration Policy also restricts registration to the following categories of names.

IE.23

(c)  Category 1: Personal Name Personal name domains must follow a specified format. The applicant is required to provide IE.24 documentary evidence of his/her name (eg a passport or birth certificate). Where an applicant is based in the Republic of Ireland one of the following documents is required: Irish passport, driver’s licence, revenue/social welfare document with Personal Public Service number, birth certificate, marriage certificate, or an Irish utility bill. Where the applicant is based in Northern Ireland one of the following documents is required: UK driver’s licence with Northern Ireland address, HM Revenue & Customs/Northern Ireland Social Security Agency document showing National Insurance number, birth certificate, marriage certificate, or an appropriate utility bill. (d)  Category 2: Corporate Name Domains in this category may comprise the company name, with or without additional IE.25 words or in abbreviated form. Applicants may also register domains that the IEDR deems to have a ‘reasonable connection’ with the company’s business, product, or service. Companies registered in Ireland, the UK, and the US need only include the company reg- IE.26 istration number in the application, but applicants from other jurisdictions must submit certificates of incorporation.31

(e)  Category 3: Registered Trade Mark Name Domains must correspond closely with the registered trade mark, although plurals, descrip- IE.27 tors, or non-descriptive elements such as numbers or letters are allowable, as are variations in punctuation. Trade marks must have a proven connection with Ireland. CTMs are deemed to have auto- IE.28 matic connection with Ireland, as is a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) registration designating Ireland. Where a domain application is based on an Irish, UK, US, or Community trade mark, the IE.29 application need only provide the registration number, as copies of registration certificates are only required where the mark is registered in other jurisdictions.

31  The policy is silent on the documents required for registration of corporate names by bodies corporate created by Charter or legislative Act. Presumably evidence of the charter or relevant legislation would be required.

531

Ireland (‘.ie’) IE.30 If the domain application is based on a pending trade mark application, the applicant must

provide a copy of the application form, its official filing receipt, and a letter from the ‘trade mark holder’.32 Where the applicant is a licensee, the application must be accompanied by a signed domain authorization letter (on letterhead) from the trade mark holder.

(f )  Category 4: Registered Business Name IE.31 The owner of a Registered Business Name (RBN) may apply for a corresponding domain,

which may contain additional words or an abbreviation of the RBN, or a term deemed by the IEDR to have a ‘reasonable connection’ with the applicant’s activities.

IE.32 It is sufficient to supply the RBN number with the domain application, unless the registra-

tion cannot be confirmed online. In such case, the applicant should furnish a copy of the duly stamped RBN certificate. With applications connected with Northern Ireland, where it is not a requirement to register business names, the IEDR will accept a variety of official documentation, including a VAT number or a signed letter from an appropriate official.

(g)  Category 5: State Agency Name IE.33 Domain names in this category reflect the names of persons, entities, or offices established pur-

suant to the Irish Constitution 1937 (Bunreacht na h-Eireann 1937),33 an Act of Parliament, secondary legislation, the Northern Ireland Assembly, or any other state body, agency, or department. Applicants may apply for the English and Irish versions of their names. State agencies may also apply for domains reflecting the names of projects, special events, or joint ventures.

IE.34 The Policy does not specify the documentation required for applications in this category but

notes a requirement to verify that the applicant is a ‘statutory body’.

(h)  Category 6: Publication Name IE.35 It is permissible to register the name of a periodical, magazine, trade journal, e-zine, or book published or written by a sole trader, company, unincorporated association, state agency, or educational institution. The applicant should provide a copy of the publication information, showing that the applicant is the writer or publisher, or a letter attesting thereto from a qualified authority. (i)  Category 7: Educational Institution Name IE.36 An application may be made to register the name of a primary school, secondary school, or other institution recognized by the Department of Education in this category. IE.37 No documentation is required if the applicant is recognized by the Department of Education

as an Educational Institution. Accordingly, the IEDR will accept a self-issued letter on the letterhead of the applicant educational institution.

(j)  Category 8: Politician’s Name IE.38 This category applies to the names of natural persons as distinct from political organizations.

The Policy prescribes the format in which the name may be registered34 and provides as list of categories of eligible persons: The President of Ireland, members of the European Parliament

  This presumably refers to the applicant.   For example, the Irish Constitution creates the offices of Uachtarán na hÉireann (the President of Ireland), An Taoiseach (the Prime Minister), An Tánaiste (the Deputy Prime Minister), the Attorney General, the Comptroller and Auditor General, and The Chief Justice. 34 The following formats are permitted:  ‘seanmuldoon.ie’ (personal name without title), ‘smuldoon.ie’ (initial with family name), or ‘seanmuldoontd.ie’ or ‘seanmuldoonmep.ie’ (personal name with politician title). 32 33

532

II.  The ccTLD (‘.ie’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (MEPs), members of Dáil Éireann (TD),35 members of the Northern Ireland Assembly (MLA), a politician who is ‘sitting’ (already elected) or ‘standing’ (an official candidate) at a national (32 counties) or European level, or ‘a person who is officially contesting any of the above offices or seats in the immediate run up to an election’. Domain names in this category must be de-activated after due notice, where the registrant IE.39 ceases to be a sitting politician or fails to be elected. Applications must be accompanied by a signed letter from the politician on an official letter- IE.40 head, and candidates must have their status certified by a proper authority.

(k)  Category 9: Unincorporated Association Name This category applies to the name of an unincorporated association that is not legally obliged IE.41 to have a Registered Business Name such as a club or society. The only documentation needed is a self-issued letter indicating the entity’s status and need for the domain.36 (l)  Category 10: Personal Trading Name The Policy states that the names acceptable under this category are ‘the full true names of IE.42 sole traders (eg johnsmith.ie)’or ‘the true surname only of the sole trader (eg smith.ie)’. Applications under this category must be supported by information to show that the applicant is a sole trader trading under his/her own name. (m)  Category 11: Discretionary Name This category is used where the domain name applicant does not meet the criteria for the other IE.43 classifications. It is an open category and may, for example, permit the registration of the name of a product or service that is not yet in the public domain or a non-commercial project. Names of business partnerships are another example that does not strictly fit into any of the IE.44 other categories and may be allowed here. While a business partnership may have registered its name as a trade mark or service mark, or may have an RBN, it is not an incorporated body and would likewise not qualify as a sole trader. Applicants in this category must provide, at a minimum, all of the following informa- IE.45 tion: proof of ID and an address in Ireland/Northern Ireland, a detailed claim to the name,37 and a declaration that he/she/it is not a sole trader or a body corporate.

(4)  The Naming Policy Acceptable requests are processed and registered on a ‘first-come, first-served’ basis and are IE.46 subject to the IEDR’s Dispute Resolution Policy.38 Each new domain registration request must include, in addition to the registrant’s name, rel- IE.47 evant contact information and the desired registration category, the Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) of a minimum of two distinct nameservers for the new domain, and an agreement to submit to both the conditions of liability and indemnity specified in Section 7 of the Naming Policy and the IEDR Dispute Resolution Policy.39

35  The House of Representatives in the Irish parliament (‘Oireachtas’). Members of Seanad Éireann are not expressly identified but qualify as sitting politicians. 36  The Policy provides the following sample wording: ‘We “Association Name” confirm that we are an unincorporated association and request the domain name .ie to reflect our association name.’ 37  The Policy states that a high quality brochure/promotional material or other demonstration of significant investment in the project, expo, or event may be sufficient. 38  IEDR Naming Policy, s 1. 39  IEDR Naming Policy, s 2.2.

533

Ireland (‘.ie’) IE.48 Additionally, the applicant is obliged to represent and warrant that all provided information

is true, complete, and accurate, and that the registration and use of the domain name will not infringe or otherwise violate the rights of a third party.40

(a) Requirements IE.49 A  valid ‘.ie’ may contain the letters (A–Z) of the Roman alphabet, digits (0–9), and the

hyphen (‘-’). The hyphen may not be used as the initial or final character of a label, nor in the third and fourth positions. Labels may range from two (providing both are not letters) to 63 characters in length, noting that the entire domain, counting separating dots, may be no longer than 255 characters.41 Hyphens may be used to replace spaces in name or mark text, although any symbolic characters must be omitted.42

IE.50 Domains must not be offensive or contrary to public policy or generally accepted principles

of morality43 or contravene the registry’s geographical name regulation.44 Similarly, the incorporation of the word ‘university’ is restricted to applications from universities recognized under the Universities Act 1997.

(b)  Real and Substantive Connection with Ireland IE.51 All applicants, regardless of the category of domain name requested, must provide sufficient

documentary evidence of a ‘real and substantive connection with Ireland’ as defined by section 9 of the Naming Policy.45

IE.52 A natural person may provide a correspondence address within the 32 counties of Ireland

(the Island of Ireland) together with adequate documentary evidence of the applicant’s legal name, such as a copy of the applicant’s passport or birth certificate.46

IE.53 A body corporate incorporated under the laws of Ireland or a body corporate incorporated

outside Ireland, which has either established a ‘place of business’ within Ireland registered under Part XI of the Companies Act 1963, or has established a ‘branch’ in Ireland which it has registered pursuant to the European Communities (Branch Disclosures) Regulations 1993 is deemed to have a real and substantive connection with Ireland.47

IE.54 Additionally, an applicant, who at the time of application can demonstrate substantial trade

or commercial activity within Ireland,48 including registration for Value Added Tax in Ireland, will be deemed to have a real and substantive connection with Ireland.49 The Naming Policy provides a number of examples of acceptable documentation.

IE.55 An applicant, who at the time of application has a registered Irish or UK trade mark (where

the holder is situated within Ireland/Northern Ireland) or a CTM will be deemed to have a real and substantive connection with Ireland.50

  IEDR Terms and Conditions, s 8(a).   IEDR Naming Policy, s 3.1. 42  IEDR Naming Policy, s 3.3. 43  IEDR Naming Policy, s 3.4. 44  IEDR Naming Policy, s 3.6. The Geographical Name Regulation requires that no domain name may consist of Irish geographical name(s), word(s) or description(s), or a combination of such, followed by ‘.ie’, which in the view of the Registry would be likely to be misleading if registered in the name of the applicant, or if registered would be likely to infer or to imply that the applicant had exclusive or certain rights emanating from such a domain name. 45  IEDR Naming Policy, s 3.12. 46  IEDR Naming Policy, s 9.1. 47  IEDR Naming Policy, s 9.2. 48  IEDR Naming Policy, s 9.4. 49  IEDR Naming Policy, s 9.3. 50  IEDR Naming Policy, s 9.5. 40 41

534

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.ie’ Domain Space (c) Available Where the proposed name is, in the opinion of the naming authority, likely to lead to confu- IE.56 sion, or is likely to be subject to an administrative proceeding under the Dispute Resolution Policy, another name shall be chosen.51 (d) Reachable The registrant must be reachable, and must provide an email address for correspondence.52 IE.57 At least one secondary nameserver must be registered in addition to the primary nameserver, and both nameservers must be reachable from the primary nameserver for the ‘.ie’ domain. (5)  Registrations Terms and Conditions The IEDR’s Registrations Terms and Conditions apply to all registrants, and define accept- IE.58 able domain names; provide for the registration, placing on hold, revocation, and termination of domain names; address fees and payments; set out registrant obligations; and address agreements between a registrant and registrar and the transfer process.53 The Terms and Conditions also set out a privacy policy; and require registrants to abide by listed representations warranties and to accept the IEDR dispute policy. The Terms and Conditions further provide that the agreement is governed by the laws of the IE.59 Republic of Ireland, and the courts of the Republic of Ireland have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the agreement (subject to the registrant’s obligation to submit to the IEDR).

(6)  Refusal of Registration A request to register a domain name may be refused on the grounds that insufficient infor- IE.60 mation has been provided; that there has been a failure to satisfy the requirements set out in s 3; or in order to implement a panel decision under the IEDRP. Domain names have many characteristics that are similar to telephone numbers, and in that IE.61 respect the registry may be required to act fairly and reasonably in allocating and withdrawing domain names by analogy to the decision of the High Court in The Zockoll Group Ltd, Dyno-Rod PLC and Phone Names Ltd v Telecom Eireann.54

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.ie’ Domain Space (1)  Principal Characteristics and Scope of the IEDRP Procedure Disputes relating to conflicts between domain names in the ‘.ie’ domain and the rights of IE.62 third-party rights owners such as trade mark owners are administered by WIPO. The IEDRP procedure is governed by the following documents: (i) the IE Dispute Resolution Policy (IEDRP)55 which was launched on 31 July 2003; (ii) the WIPO Dispute Resolution Rules of Procedure for ‘.ie’ Domain Name Registrations (IEDRP Rules); and (iii) the WIPO Supplemental Rules for ‘.ie’ Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (IEDRP Supplemental Rules).

  IEDR Naming Policy, s 3.10.   IEDR Naming Policy, ss 3.14 and 3.15. 53 See http://www.domainregistry.ie/?q=node/13. 54  [1998] 3 IR 287. The High Court: Kelly J 28 November 1997. 55 See http://www.domainregistry.ie/?q=node/34. 51 52

535

Ireland (‘.ie’) (2)  Statistics—IEDR Cases by Year Table IE.1: IE Case Outcomes by Year Year

Cases

Transfers

Denials

2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003

6 2 4 4 5 5 3 9 5 2 2 1

3

3

Terminated 2

4 3 4 1 2 4 4 1

1 1 1 1 1

3 4 1

1 2 1

IE.63 Complaints are decided by an independent and impartial panel of one or three experts

appointed by WIPO.56 Under the IEDRP Rules a panel is obliged to decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the IEDRP Rules and any principles of law that it deems applicable.57

(3) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement IE.64 Submission to administrative proceedings is mandatory for the registrant pursuant to s 10

of the IEDR Naming Policy, which requires the registrant to participate in such proceedings and establishes an indemnity clause for the registry.

(4)  Overview of the ADR Procedure (a)  Legal Framework IE.65 The Registrations Terms and Conditions58 that apply to all ‘.ie’ registrations require applicants to ‘represent and warrant’ that they understand the registration agreement (including the limitation/exclusion of liability clause), and are aware that the agreement with the registry is separate from their contract with the registrar.59 IE.66 Section 10 of the Registrations Terms and Conditions stipulates that all ‘.ie’ dispute resolu-

tion procedures shall be conducted by WIPO in accordance with IEDR procedures, that the  See http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cctld/ie/index.html.   For example, in Travel Counsellors plc and Travel Counsellors (Ireland) Ltd v Portlaoise Travel Ltd, Case No DIE2006-0001 (travelcounsellors.ie) the panel declined to apply the without prejudice rule and admitted email correspondence between the parties which were clearly written for the purpose of settlement, one of which was marked ‘without prejudice’. The panel considered s 9.4 of the Rules which states: ‘The Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence.’ Neither the Policy nor the Rules specifically address the issue of ‘without prejudice’, and thus the panel referred to historical UDRP practice. For a comprehensive analysis of the cases and of the varying reasons given for admitting such material, see The Vanguard Group, Inc v Emilio Sa, WIPO Case No D2001-1453; McMullan Bros, Ltd and Others Ltd v Web Names Ltd, WIPO Case No D2004-0078; and Cath Kidston Ltd v Splurge Ltd, Case No DIE2010-0002 (cathkidston.ie). 58 See https://www.iedr.ie/registrations-terms-and-conditions/. 59  Registrations Terms and Conditions, s 1.2. 56 57

536

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.ie’ Domain Space dispute resolution will be conducted in English, and that every dispute will be governed by the dispute policy applicable when the complaint is filed. The dispute resolution procedure is modelled on the procedures for the Uniform IE.67 Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) and is governed by the WIPO Dispute Resolution Rules of Procedure for ‘.ie’ Domain Name Registrations (WIPO Rules)60 and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .IE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (WIPO Supplemental Rules).61

(b) Complaint The procedure is initiated by the complainant sending a copy of the complaint, which may IE.68 relate to more than one domain name, to the registrant and IEDR in hard copy and in electronic form. The complainant must elect to have the dispute decided by a single or three-member panel and, in the event the complainant elects a three-member panel, provide the names and contact details of three candidates from the provider’s list to serve as one of the panellists. The complaint must inter alia specify the Protected Identifier(s) on which the complaint is IE.69 based and set out the rights of the complainant therein. It must detail how the domain name is identical or misleadingly similar to the Protected Identifier and why the domain’s registration or use constitutes bad faith.

(c) Response The administrative proceeding commences on the date that WIPO completes its procedural IE.70 responsibilities and forwards the complaint to the registrant. The registrant is obliged to submit a response in hard copy and electronic form within 20 IE.71 working days of commencement, although the deadline may be extended in exceptional circumstances. The response should, inter alia, respond to the statements and allegations of the complainant and offer any applicable reasons why the registrant should retain the registration.

(d) Procedural Issues If either the complainant or the registrant elects a three-member panel, the parties may each IE.72 provide the names and contact details of three candidates (from the WIPO list) to serve as one of the panellists. If the complainant has elected to have the dispute decided by a single member panel IE.73 and the registrant elects a three-member panel, the registrant will be required to pay one half of the applicable fee for the three-member panel as provided for in the WIPO Supplemental Rules. The parties are required to identify any other legal proceedings that have been commenced or IE.74 terminated in connection with or relating to any domain name subject to the complaint. As with the UDRP, the rules provide that there shall be no in-person hearings, unless the panel determines that such a hearing is necessary. In the event that a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with IE.75 any of the relevant time periods, the panel shall proceed to a decision on the complaint. Further, the panel may draw such inferences as it considers appropriate if either party does not comply with any provision or requirement of the Rules or panel request.  See http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/rules/ie.html.  See http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/rules/supplemental/ie.html.

60 61

537

Ireland (‘.ie’) (5)  Role of the Administrative Panel IE.76 The panel in an IEDRP proceeding may:

(1) confirm the registration; (2) cancel the domain name; or (3) transfer the registration to the complainant.62 IE.77 The panel’s decision will be automatically stayed for a period of 21 working days before

implementation,63 in order to provide a losing respondent with an opportunity to seek redress in the courts.

IE.78 A panel decision to transfer a domain registration is subject to the prevailing party meeting

the registration conditions for ‘.ie’. If such conditions are not met, the disputed registration will be cancelled.

(6) Costs IE.79 For a dispute concerning one to five domain names, the filing fee for a single member panel

is €1,500.00, which includes the panellist fee of €1,000.00. For a three-member panel, the fee would increase to €4,000.00. Where there are six to ten disputed domain names, the fee for a single-member panel is €2,000.00 and €5,000.00 for a three-member panel. Fees for complaints in respect of more than ten domain names are decided in consultation with the Center.64

IE.80 It is not possible to compare the costs of litigation and administrative procedures under the

IEDRP, due in large part to the complexity of court proceedings and the Supreme Court’s requirement that companies be represented by independent legal counsel.65

IE.81 Contractual-based administrative proceedings such as the IEDRP and the URDP have many

procedural advantages over court proceedings. These include, for example, avoidance of difficulties such as service, contested issues of jurisdiction and locus standi. Additionally, the documents-based process is less costly than plenary proceedings with the potential for oral hearings and witness testimony.

IE.82 Furthermore, while under the IEDRP a panel will not make an award of costs,66 the basic

principle in Irish litigation is that costs follow the event67 and may be ‘taxed’, as determined by the Taxing Master in default of agreement.68

(7) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding IE.83 The registrant may not transfer a domain name registration (or its hosting provider)69 during

a pending proceeding under the IEDRP or for 21 working days after its conclusion, or during an ongoing court or arbitration action concerning the domain. The IEDR reserves the right to cancel or transfer a domain name where the registrant does not comply with this prohibition.70

 IEDRP, s 5.  IEDRP, s 6.2. 64  WIPO Schedule of Fees, available at: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/fees/cctlds/ie/index.html. 65  Battle v Irish Art Promotion Centre Ltd [1968] 1 IR 252. 66  Section 5.1 of the IEDRP limits the jurisdiction of Administrative Panel to confirmation of the registration, cancellation of the registration; or transfer of the registration to the complainant. 67  Dunne v The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government [2008] 2 IR 775, [2007] IESC 60. 68 See http://www.courts.ie/offices.nsf/lookuppagelink/8AFDD6975A6F081380256E7B004D9971. 69 IEDRP, s 8. 70 IEDRP, s 8. 62 63

538

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.ie’ Domain Space (8)  Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings The IEDRP expressly states that it is without prejudice to court action, and parties may take IE.84 their dispute to a competent court of law at any time.71 A panel decision to cancel or transfer a domain name registration is automatically stayed for IE.85 a period of 21 working days. If within this time the IEDR is put on actual notice of proceedings commenced before the courts of Ireland by a party to the dispute (in relation to the domain), the decision will be stayed until a court order or agreement between the parties is provided. Otherwise, the IEDR is obliged to implement the decision.

(9)  Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider The IEDRP expressly states that the IEDR cannot be joined as a party to and shall not partic- IE.86 ipate in any way in the administrative proceeding unless otherwise agreed between the IEDR, all parties and the panel.72 Furthermore, s 9 of the IEDRP expressly provides for limitation of liability of the IEDR, its directors, members, agents, employees, and representatives.73

(10) Arbitration Arbitration is fully supported and encouraged by both the state and the Irish courts. The IE.87 Arbitration Act 2010 adopts and applies the most recent revision of the UNCITRAL Model Law of Arbitration (as amended in 2006) to both domestic and international arbitrations. The Arbitration Act affirms the application of the principles of the New York Convention74 IE.88 in matters of recognition and enforcement, and the Washington Convention75 in respect of disputes between states and nationals of other states. The Arbitration Act applies to domestic justiciable disputes and to international ‘commercial IE.89 disputes’. The term ‘commercial’ is not expressly defined within the Arbitration Act, but a footnote to the Model Law76 inserted by UNCITRAL advocates that ‘commercial’ should be given a wide interpretation not limited to contractual contexts. Section 8 of the IEDRP expressly contemplates that a domain registration may be the subject of an arbitration.77

(11)  Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution There is increasing use of ADR/mediation in commercial disputes in Ireland due in large part IE.90 to the encouragement of the legislature and judiciary. With regard to cross-border disputes, the EU Mediation Directive78 was transposed into Irish IE.91 law on 5 May 2011 by the European Communities (Mediation) Regulations 2011.79 A court in  IEDRP, s 7.1.  IEDRP, s 1.5. 73  IEDRP, s 9.1. 74   Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York, 10 June 1958. 75  Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States opened for signature in Washington on 18 March 1965. 76  UNCITRAL Model Law of Arbitration (as amended 2006) Art 1.1. ‘The term “commercial” should be given a wide interpretation so as to cover matters arising from all relationships of a commercial nature, whether contractual or not. Relationships of a commercial nature include, but are not limited to, the following transactions: any trade transaction for the supply or exchange of goods or services; distribution agreement; commercial representation or agency; factoring; leasing; construction of works; consulting; engineering; licensing; investment; financing; banking; insurance; exploitation agreement or concession; joint venture and other forms of industrial or business cooperation; carriage of goods or passengers by air, sea, rail or road.’ 77  IEDRP, s 8.1.2 prohibits the transfer of a domain name during a pending court proceeding or arbitration concerning the domain name registration. 78  Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters. 79  European Communities (Mediation) Regulations 2011 Statutory Instrument No 209/2011. 71 72

539

Ireland (‘.ie’) proceedings concerning a relevant dispute80 may, on the application of any of the parties or of its own motion, order that the proceedings be adjourned and (a) invite the parties to use mediation to settle their dispute, or (b) where the parties so consent, refer the proceedings to mediation.81 IE.92 The Mediation Regulations provide that subject to certain exceptions82 ‘a mediator or a per-

son involved in the administration of a mediation shall not be compelled to give evidence in civil or commercial proceedings or an arbitration relating to a matter arising out of or connected with a mediation’.83

IE.93 With regard to enforceability, parties that have reached an agreement84 may apply to the

courts for an order to formalize the agreement, thereby making the document enforceable.85 Parties using a mediation format other than those provided for under Regulation 3,86 may similarly apply to the Master of the High Court for an order making the agreement enforceable87 so long as such request is made within six years of the mediation.88

IE.94 The Regulations provide for a stay on statutory limitation periods.89 A mediation commences

upon the appointment of a mediator and ends either when determined by the mediator or the dispute has concluded,90 the date of which must be recorded.91

IE.95 With regard to disputes that are not ‘cross border’, following the publication of ‘Law

Reform Commission Report on Alternative Dispute Resolution:  Mediation and Conciliation’,92 a Draft Scheme for a Mediation Bill was published by the Minister for Justice on 1 March 2012 and the introduction of a bill in parliament is awaited at the time of writing.93

IE.96 A number of legislative initiatives have been proposed to increase the use of ADR/mediation,

including the Commercial List of the High Court of 2004,94 new High Court rules for personal injuries actions in 2005,95 and specific procedural provisions introduced in 2010 by both the High Court96 and the Circuit Court.97

  Defined in Art 2(1) of the Regulations as ‘a cross-border dispute to which the Directive applies’.   Art 3(1) of the Regulations. 82  A list of exceptions is provided in Arts 4(2) and 4(1) of the Regulations. 83  Art 4(1) of the Regulations. 84   Defined in Art 2(1) of the Regulations as ‘an agreement in writing reached through mediation’. 85   Art 5(1) of the Regulations. 86   That is, non-court annexed cross border disputes. 87   Arts 5(2) and 5(4) of the Regulations. 88   Art 5(6) of the Regulations. 89   The Regulations specifically refer to the Statute of Limitations 1957 (No 6 of 1957) or the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991 (No 18 of 1991). 90   Art 4(4) of the Regulations. 91  Art 6(2) of the Regulations. 92  Law Reform Commission (LRC 98-2010) November 2010. 93  The Draft Scheme was the subject of a parliamentary consultation process that resulted in a report published in June 2012, with positive recommendations;, available at: http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/ media/committees/justice/mediation-bill-report.pdf. 94  Rules of the Superior Courts (Commercial Proceedings) Regulations 2004 (S.I. No 2 of 2004), effective 12 January 2004 RSC O 63A Commercial Proceedings. James Bridgeman, Arbitration or the Commercial Court? End Game Resolution of Intellectual Property Disputes in Ireland. ARBITRATION Vol 76, No 4 (2010) 626. 95  Rules of the Superior Courts (Personal Injuries) 2005 (S.I. No 248 of 2005), effective 2 June 2005, RSC O 1A r12. 96  Rules of the Superior Courts (Mediation and Conciliation) 2010 (S.I. No 502 of 2010), effective 16 November 2010, RSC O 56A—‘Mediation and Conciliation’, RSC O 99 r1B—costs. 97  Circuit Court Rules (Case Progression (General)) 2009 (S.I. No 539 of 2009), effective 1 January 2010. 80 81

540

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.ie’ Domain Space The Irish Constitution was amended by referendum on 4 October 2013 to permit the estab- IE.97 lishment of a new Court of Civil Appeal which, when established, will hear appeals from the High Court. This is expected to expedite the appeals process and only exceptional cases will proceed on to the Supreme Court.98

(12)  IEDRP Decision Criteria Under the IEDRP, the complainant bears the burden of proving that:99

IE.98

(i) the domain name is identical or misleadingly similar to a Protected Identifier in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) the registrant has no rights in law or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) the domain name has been registered or100 is being used in bad faith.101 A ‘Protected Identifier’ is defined as being a trademark, a tradename, a social name or corporation name, a geographical designation, a name of origin, a designation of source, a personal name or name of a geographical entity in which the complainant has rights. There are therefore important elements of the test in the IEDRP that differ from those in IE.99 paragraph 4 of the UDRP. In the first element, the IEDRP refers to ‘a Protected Identifier in which the complainant has IE.100 rights’ whereas the UDRP requires that the complainant establish that the disputed domain name ‘is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant has rights’. ‘Protected Identifiers’ are defined as: (i) trade and service marks protected in Ireland;102 (ii) personal names (including pseudonyms) in which the complainant has acquired a reputation within Ireland; and (iii) geographical indications that can prima facie be protected in the island of Ireland.103 A ‘Protected Identifier’ is therefore a wider concept than a ‘trademark or service mark’, and IE.101 thus the IEDRP gives additional scope to complainants. Under the second element of the test, the complaint will fail if the respondent satisfies the IE.102 panel that it has ‘rights in law or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name’. This formula differs from that of the UDRP, where the words ‘in law’ are not included. The third element of the test under the IEDRP is phrased in the alternative—that is, to IE.103 succeed, the complainant need only establish that the disputed domain name has either been registered or is being used in bad faith. This is in contrast to UDRP, which requires a conjunctive showing.

98 James Bridgeman, ‘Arbitration or the Commercial Court? End Game Resolution of Intellectual Property Disputes in Ireland’, Arbitration Vol 76 No 4 (2010) 626. 99 See, for example, Electricity Supply Board v Lislyn Retail Ltd and Northern Retail Ltd, Case No DIE2003-0001 (shopelectric.ie), in which the panel found that the complainant had not satisfied its burden under paragraph 1.1.2 due to the respondent’s long-term use of the name ‘SHOP ELECTRIC’. 100  It should be noted that the third element of the test is set in the alternative, as distinct from s 4(a) of the UDRP, where both bad faith registration and bad faith use must be established. 101 IEDRP, s 1. 102 In Dermalogica, Inc and The International Dermal Institute, Inc v Dermalogics Skincare, Teoranta Case No DIE2007-0004, the complainants’ trade mark was protected in both jurisdictions on the island of Ireland, both by registration and at common law, and was therefore a Protected Identifier as defined by s 1.3.1 of the IEDR Policy. 103 IEDRP, s 1.3.

541

Ireland (‘.ie’) IE.104 Notwithstanding the important differences between the IEDRP and the UDRP, there are

obviously many similarities104 and IEDRP panellists have often applied relevant approaches taken by UDRP panellists, particularly those expressed in the ‘WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions’ (‘WIPO Overview’).105

IE.105 In Adidas AG and Adidas (Ireland) Ltd v Gabor Varga and Jozsef Petho, Case No DIE2006-0004

(‘adidas.ie’), the panel applied reasoning gleaned from UDRP decisions in relation to the admission of unsolicited supplemental submissions.

IE.106 In ASOS PLC v Page 7 Media Ltd, Case No DIE2010-0003 (‘asos.ie’), the panel found it

appropriate to consider principles established under the UDRP where they are of assistance in the IEDRP context.106

IE.107 In Palmerston Ltd, Hutchison 3G UK Ltd, Hutchison 3G Ireland Ltd and Hutchison Whampoa

Ltd v Alan Mahon, Case No DIE2005-0001, the panel considered whether trade mark rights must be acquired before the registration of the disputed domain. Referring to the WIPO Overview, the panel stated that: There is no such requirement in the ieDRP…. the consensus view of UDRP panels is that registration of a domain name before a complainant acquires a trademark does not prevent a finding of identity or confusing similarity although it can be difficult to prove bad faith in such case. No doubt the drafters of the ieDRP—which is based on the UDRP—would have expressly provided otherwise had it been intended to depart from this consensus.

IE.108 In B & S Ltd v Gabor Varga and Jozsef Petho, Case No DIE2006-0005 (‘buy-sell.ie’), the panel

adopted the consensus view of the WIPO Overview in deciding whether a respondent automatically has a legitimate interest in a domain name comprised of a generic (dictionary) word.

IE.109 In Comité Interprofessionel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC) v Richard Doyle, Case No

DIE2007-0005, the panel reviewed the UDRP decisions on rights of resellers and adopted the test set out in OKI Data107 and General Electric Company, GE Osmonics Inc v Optima di Federico Papi, WIPO Case No D2007-0645.108

IE.110 In Netmovers Ltd v Anne Marie Doyle, Case No DIE2008-0001, the panel followed UDRP

practice in deciding that, in most circumstances, a licensee of a trade mark (or a subsidiary, parent company, etc) is considered to have rights in a trade mark.

IE.111 In Taxassist Direct Ltd v Hugh Murphy, Case No DIE2008-0002 (‘taxassist.ie’), the panel

held that the IEDRP’s use of the term ‘working days’ implies a different timeline from that utilized by the UDRP.

IE.112 In Internet Interaction Ltd, trading as Grabone v Robert Hayden, Case No DIE2010-0005

(‘grabone.ie’), the panel noted that the IEDRP differs from other dispute resolution policies, as it requires the complainant’s relevant rights to be protected in Ireland. Also in this case, however, the panel applied UDRP analysis to establish the complainant’s rights in its unregistered trade mark.

104  The WIPO website describes the procedure as a ‘variant of the UDRP’; http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/ domains/cctld/ie/index.html. 105 See http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview2.0/index.html. 106  See also Adidas AG and Adidas (Ireland) Ltd v Gabor Varga and Jozsef Petho, Case No DIE2006-0004. The panel considered UDRP decisions relating to supplemental filings. 107  Oki Data Americas, Inc v ASD, Inc, WIPO Case No D2001-0903. 108  See also Fatboy the original BV v Padraig Beirne, Case No DIE2008-0003 (‘fatboy.ie’).

542

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.ie’ Domain Space (a)  The Burden of Proof Panels in a number of decisions have noted the complainant’s failure to provide adequate IE.113 evidence to demonstrate its rights. For example, in Kelkoo SA v Lina Musinkiene, Case No DIE2007-0002 (‘kelkoo.ie’), the panel noted the paucity of evidence provided to verify the complainant’s connection with certain trade marks. However, in the absence of any challenge from the respondent, the panel followed the approach of PartyGaming Plc v Kriss Vance, WIPO Case No D2006-0456, and inferred that the trade marks relied upon were either owned by the complainant or its group.109 In Daft Media Ltd v Daft Motors Ltd, Case No DIE2009-0005 (‘daftmotors.ie’), the panel IE.114 found that the registrant’s failure to respond to the complaint did not automatically result in a decision in favour of the complainant, although the panel may draw negative inferences from such default. Under s 1.4 of the IEDRP, the complainant carries the burden of proving, prima facie, that the three conditions specified in s 1.1 are met. This approach was consistent with the decision in Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism v IE.115 Odyssey Internet Portal Ltd, Case No DIE2005-0002 (‘cultureireland.ie’). In that case, the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to document its allegedly widely-publicized ‘Culture Ireland’ agency, despite the default of the respondent.110 In Comité Interprofessionel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC) v Richard Doyle, Case No IE.116 DIE2007-0005, the complainant was a statutory body charged with protecting the interests of those involved in the production and marketing of wines sold under the appellation of origin ‘Champagne’. The complainant alleged that ‘Champagne’ was a registered appellation of origin but did not provide evidence of any Irish registrations, although it did cite an English authority to indicate that it would have standing to bring an action in passing off. The panel noted that under the IEDRP the complainant is only required to establish a prima facie case that the geographical indication can be protected in Irish law, and thus accepted the designation of origin ‘Champagne’ as a Protected Identifier for the purposes of the IEDRP.

(b)  First Element To succeed, the complainant must first prove that the domain is identical or misleadingly IE.117 similar to a protected identifier in which the complainant has rights. Palmerston Ltd, Hutchison 3G UK Ltd, Hutchison 3G Ireland Ltd and Hutchison Whampoa Ltd IE.118 v Alan Mahon, Case No DIE2005-0001, recognized the rights a licensee and/or corporate group may have in a relevant trade mark for the purposes of the Policy. An unregistered trade mark may also qualify as a Protected Identifier. In Eoin Murphy and IE.119 Ciaran Murphy trading as Wise Owl v Paul Baird, Case No DIE2006-0002 (‘wiseowl.ie’), the panel accepted an unregistered mark which the complainant had used for over 20 years as a Protected Identifier, citing the decision in Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism v Odyssey Internet Portal Limited, Case No DIE2005-0002. The ccTLD suffix is ignored when making the comparison between the Protected Identifier IE.120 and the disputed domain name, as noted in Monster Worldwide, Inc, and Monster Worldwide Ireland Ltd v Monster Finance Ltd, Case No DIE2009-0001 (‘monsterfinance.ie’). The panel

109  See also Haymarket Media Group Ltd v Whatcar Ltd, Case No DIE2007-0007, the panel noted the lack of evidence of the complainant’s trading activities or reputation in either part of Ireland. Similarly, in Yeats Village Management Ltd v Albanne Property Management Ltd, Case No DIE2014-0004, the panel found that the complainant failed to establish the existence of a Protected Identifier under para 1.1 of the IEDRP. 110  See also Cath Kidston Ltd v Splurge Ltd, Case No DIE2010-0002 (‘cathkidston.ie’).

543

Ireland (‘.ie’) further held that the addition of the generic word ‘finance’ to the Protected Identifier was insignificant.

(c)  Second Element IE.121 Section 1.2 of the IEDRP states that the mere registration of a domain does not constitute

evidence of rights in law or legitimate interests in accordance with s 1.1.2.

IE.122 Section 3 of the IEDRP addresses what may111 constitute evidence of rights to or a legitimate

interest in a domain name, including where: (i) the respondent made demonstrable good faith preparations to use the domain name in connection with a good faith offering of goods or services prior to becoming aware of the complainant’s rights (s 3.1.1); (ii) the domain corresponds to the registrant’s personal name or pseudonym (s 3.1.2); or (iii) the domain corresponds to a geographical indication which the respondent was using, in good faith, prior to its protection in Ireland (s 3.1.3).

IE.123 In Kelkoo SA v Lina Musinkiene, Case No DIE2007-0002 (‘kelkoo.ie’), the panel held (in line

with UDRP practice) that the complainant must establish at least a prima facie case under this heading, at which point the evidential onus shifts to the registrant for rebuttal.112

IE.124 While the Registration Policy permits the registration of a ‘.ie’ domain name in respect of an

RBN,113 without more, the mere ownership of an RBN will not satisfy the requirement for the second element. See B & S Ltd v Gabor Varga and Jozsef Petho, Case No DIE2006-0005 (‘buy-sell.ie’), where the respondent held an RBN but provided no evidence that any business activity had been conducted using the name BUY-SELL.IE. The panellist noted that the registration of an RBN as such does not give any IP rights in Irish law.

(d)  Third Element IE.125 Another distinctive element of the IEDRP is that a complainant need only establish either

bad faith registration or use.

IE.126 Section 2.1 of the IEDRP offers a non-exhaustive list of bad faith activity, including

where: (i) the domain has been registered in order to license or transfer the registration to the complainant (or its competitor) for profit (s 2.1.1); (ii) the domain has been chosen in order to prevent the complainant from reflecting its Protected Identifier (s 2.1.2); (iii) the domain has been registered or used to interfere with the complainant’s business (s 2.1.3); (iv) the registrant has attempted to attract Internet traffic via confusion with the included Protected Identifier (s 2.1.4); (v) the domain is likely to dilute the reputation of the complainant’s trade or service mark (s 2.1.5); or (vi) the registrant has provided misleading or false information when applying for the registration (s 2.1.6).

IE.127 Offers to sell the domain are generally admissible as evidence of bad faith, as noted in Cath

Kidston Ltd v Splurge Ltd, Case No DIE2010-0002 (‘cathkidston.ie’). Referencing the WIPO Overview, the panel noted that bad actors often wait until a complaint has been filed to offer to settle the case. The panel saw no reason why offers to sell a disputed domain name in settlement discussions should not be admissible under the Policy.

111 In Electricity Supply Board v Lislyn Retail Ltd and Northern Retail Ltd, Case No DIE2003-0001(‘shop­ electric.ie’), the panel noted that ‘the three factors quoted in paragraph 3.1 are to be considered “without limitation” ’ and held that the respondent had legitimate rights in the ‘shop electric’ name due to its long-term use of the ‘SHOP ELECTRIC’ mark and its marks in Northern Ireland. 112  See also Travel Counsellors plc and Travel Counsellors (Ireland) Ltd v Portlaoise Travel Ltd, Case No DIE2006-002. 113  See category 4, Section II.3.f.

544

IV.  Court Litigation A recent decision of the High Court in an action for passing off in Jacob Fruitfield Food Group IE.128 v United Biscuits (UK) Ltd114 provided some helpful insight into the issue of initial interest confusion, which also arises in the context of the bad faith element. In Jacob Fruitfield, Clarke J proposed that courts should consider all applicable circumstances surrounding the sale of the products, the level of care generally exercised in their purchase, the types of relevant consumers and the overall impression conveyed by the competing enterprises.

IV.  Court Litigation (1)  Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation Section 9(2) of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 (‘the 2001 Act’) IE.129 created a new offence115 where a person dishonestly uses a computer within the state either for his own gain or to cause loss to another.116 A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction to a fine or imprisonment for up to ten years, or both.117

(2)  Infringement of Trade Marks Section 13 of the Act of 1996 establishes the exclusive rights of a registered trade mark holder. IE.130 Section 14 provides that a person shall infringe a registered trade mark if inter alia that person uses in the course of trade: (i) an identical sign in relation to goods or services which are identical or similar to those for which it is registered; (ii) a similar sign in relation to goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the trade mark is registered, and there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public; or (iii) a sign which is identical with or similar to the trade mark in relation to dissimilar goods or services, where the trade mark has a reputation in the state and the use of the sign causes harm to the distinctive character or the reputation of the trade mark. Section 14(6) may prove to be significant in relation to the use of domain names, as it pro- IE.131 vides that the use of a registered mark by a third party to identify the goods or services of the proprietor is permissible only if done ‘in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters’. Otherwise, such use may constitute infringement. The issue as to whether the mere use of a domain name amounts to an infringement of a trade IE.132 mark right in Ireland has yet to come before the Irish courts.

(3)  Unregistered Trade Marks and the Tort of Passing Off Unregistered trade marks are not protected as such under the Trade Marks Act, but the good- IE.133 will of the owner of an unregistered trade mark can be protected by the common law tort of passing off. Section 7(2) of the Act provides that: ‘No proceedings shall lie to prevent or

114  [2007] IEHC 368, cited with approval by Peart J in McCambridge Ltd v Joseph Brennan Bakeries [2011] IEHC 433. 115  Previous legislation dealing with computer misuse had been restricted to hacking and child pornography. Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1991 created the offence of ‘unauthorised accessing of data’, which carries a maximum penalty on summary conviction of a fine not exceeding £500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both. The Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 (No 22), ss 5 and 6 create offences relating to the creating, producing, and possession of child pornography. 116  Section 9(1) of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. 117  Section 9(2) of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001.

545

Ireland (‘.ie’) recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trade mark as such; but nothing in this Act shall affect the law relating to passing off.’ IE.134 The remedy for unlawful use of a trade name is founded in the tort of passing off.118 It is the

appropriation of the plaintiff ’s goodwill which constitutes the damage necessary to sustain an action for passing off.119

IE.135 The criteria for a passing off claim were established by Lord Diplock in Warninck v Townsend

& Sons (Hull) [1979] AC 731 at 742.120 In setting out the elements of the tort,121 viz. there must be: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

a misrepresentation; made by a trader in the course of trade; to prospective customers or ultimate consumers of goods or services supplied by him; which is calculated to injure the business or goodwill of another trader (if a reasonably foreseeable consequence); and (v) which causes actual damage to the business or goodwill of the injured trader. IE.136 It is not necessary that a trader is engaged within the jurisdiction. In C & A Modes Ltd v C

& A Waterford Ltd122 the High Court accepted that the plaintiff, a retailer with no trading operation in the jurisdiction, nonetheless had a protectable goodwill. This case has become all the more significant since the arrival of online international trading.

IE.137 In Local Ireland Ltd v Local Ireland-Online Ltd,123 the plaintiff secured an interlocutory injunc-

tion restraining the defendants from conducting business under the name style or titles ‘Local Ireland—Online Limited’, ‘localireland—online.com’, ‘Locally Irish Limited’, ‘locallyirish. com’, or any similar permutation of the words ‘local’ and ‘Ireland’. Further, the defendants were enjoined from operating the domain names ‘localireland-online.com’ or ‘locallyirish. com’ pending further order of the court. In this case, the plaintiffs owned and operated a number of domain names containing the terms ‘local’ and ‘Ireland’ as a subscription portal site. Several years later, the plaintiffs became aware of the respondent’s similar domains. The plaintiffs provided evidence of substantial advertising expenditure within Ireland and abroad.

IE.138 In granting the relief sought, the court applied the test set out by the Supreme Court of

Ireland in Campus Oil Ltd v The Minister for Industry and Energy (No 2),124 to determine whether such interim measures were both necessary and appropriate. Herbert J stated that he regretted that the parties had not taken the opportunity to agree to treat the hearing of motion as the trial of the action and take the opportunity to ‘use the interlocutory injunction as a simple quick and relatively and cheap way of asking the Court who is right’. 118  Falcon Travel Ltd v Owners Abroad Group plc Falcon Travel Ltd, Plaintiff v Owners Abroad Group plc trading as Falcon Leisure Group, 1 IR 175 High Court 28 June 1990. 119 Ibid. 120 In McCambridge Ltd v Joseph Brennan Bakeries [2011] IEHC 433 the High Court stated that ‘the applicable legal principles are Reckitt & Coleman Products Ltd v Borden Inc and Others [1990] 1 WLR 491, and Jacobs Fruitfield Food Group Ltd v United Biscuits (UK) Ltd [2007] IEHC 368’. Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc & Others [1990] 1 All ER 873 was applied by Laffoy J in Miss World Ltd and Others v Miss Ireland Beauty Pageant Ltd and Others [2004] IEHC 13 and by Finlay-Geoghegan J in Contech Building Products Ltd v James Walsh, Contech (Northern Ireland) Ltd and C-Tech NI Ltd, 2006 IEHC 45 The High Court (ex-tempore), 17 February 2006. 121  Because of the shared common law tradition, the intellectual property decisions of the courts in other common law jurisdictions, in particular England and Wales and Australia, are often cited as persuasive precedents in Irish courts. 122  [1976] IR 198. 123  [2000] 4 IR 567. 124 [1983] IR 88.

546

VI.  Liability of the Registry (4)  Court Procedure and Remedies While the issue has not yet come before the Irish courts, it is probable that Irish courts would IE.139 follow the rationale of One in a Million,125 that an Internet domain name can be an instrument of fraud. The High Court may order injunctions to restrain trade mark infringement and passing off, IE.140 and will grant interlocutory relief in appropriate circumstances.126 Proceedings are typically taken in the High Court by way of plenary summons and appli- IE.141 cation is made by way of ex parte application or motion on notice for interlocutory relief including mandatory injunctions. The Commercial List of the High Court has been established to provide expedited, case IE.142 managed proceedings, and under the Rules of the Superior Court, it is expressly authorized to admit IP proceedings. Applications are brought by way of motion for an order pursuant to Rules of the Superior Courts, Order 63A, rule 4. While the award of costs is discretionary and is decided by the judge in each case, in Irish IE.143 law the basic principle is that costs follow the event. The unsuccessful party will typically be ordered to pay the successful party’s costs of solicitor and counsel to be taxed on a party and party (as distinct from a solicitor and client) basis in default of agreement.

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name The registration of a domain name or the use of a domain name does not in itself result in the IE.144 acquisition of any trade mark rights under Irish law. The Registrations Terms and Conditions127 expressly require the registrant to acknowledge IE.145 ‘that by IEDR registering the domain name, IEDR are not acknowledging that the Registrant has any rights in any words within the domain name, and IEDR are not providing an authorisation to the Registrant to use the domain name as part of a business’. The manner in which the domain name is used may result in the acquisition of goodwill on IE.146 the part of its user or owner. This would obviously depend on whether the domain name has been adapted as an unregistered trade mark and other factors such as the distinctiveness of the domain name. In such cases, the Irish courts are likely to find persuasive the Court of Appeal’s decision in British Telecommunications PLC v One In a Million Ltd and Others [1999] 1 WLR 903, and intervene by way of injunction where passing off is established or threatened, or where domain names incorporating well-known names or trade marks are registered or sold without the consent of the respective owners.

VI.  Liability of the Registry The Naming Policy states that the registry acts as a naming authority, operating neutrally IE.147 and in good faith. Pursuant to s 7.1, domain holders must indemnify the registry for any

  [1999] 1 WLR 903, [1998] 4 All ER 476, [1999] FSR 1.   See, for example, Tommy Hilfiger Europe Inc v Derek McCarthy trading as ‘LIFEJACKET’ [2008] IESC 36. 127  Registrations Terms and Conditions, s 3(a). 125 126

547

Ireland (‘.ie’) third-party claims regarding the licensing of or right to use the domain name. Under s 7.2, the registry may not be held liable for any loss or damage to the domain holder or a service provider and arising from the registry’s actions as the naming authority. IE.148 Additionally, the Registration Terms and Conditions purport to exclude and limit the lia-

bility of the registry128 for, inter alia, death or personal injury caused by its negligence or physical damage to tangible property (not including damage to or loss of data) to the sum of €250,000.

IE.149 The document further states that the IEDR will not be liable to the registrant for any breach

by the IEDR of the provisions of the agreement, and that the registry will not be liable for inter alia: indirect or consequential loss; lost profit or revenue; loss of a domain name registration; any error concerning identity of a registrant; technical problems; or any third party claims concerning a domain name.129

IE.150 Similar exclusions of liability for IEDR are included in s 9 of the IEDRP, and are supple-

mented by the provisions of the IEDRP Rules, s 19. This latter provision also provides an exclusion of liability for the dispute resolution provider and the panel.

IE.151 Notwithstanding these provisions, given the similarities between domain names and tele-

phone numbers, the decision of the High Court in The Zockoll Group Ltd, Dyno-Rod PLC and Phone Names Ltd v Telecom Eireann130 would seem to indicate that there is potential recourse to the High Court for disputes concerning the allocation of domain names.

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property IE.152 There is no statutory provision or authority in Irish law indicating that a domain name con-

stitutes an item of property.

IE.153 The Act of 1996 was passed prior to the expansion and development of the modern Internet.

It is probable that, in the absence of any statutory intervention, the Irish courts would identify an analogy with telephone numbers (or at most with unregistered trade marks) and apply the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius to treat rights in domain names as contractual rather than property rights. This could prove to be a very significant issue in Irish law as the Irish Constitution (Article 43.2) imposes an express obligation on the state ‘to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property’.

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law IE.154 Section 16 of the Terms and Conditions mandates that registration agreements are governed

by the laws of the Republic of Ireland and that, subject to the requirement to submit to the IEDRP, the registrant must submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Republic of Ireland in respect of any dispute arising under the registration agreement.

IE.155 The following principles apply equally to domain name disputes beyond the scope of the

registration agreement.

  Registrations Terms and Conditions, s 12.   Naming Policy, s 10.3. 130  [1998] 3 IR 287. The High Court: Kelly J 28 November 1997. 128 129

548

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (1)  Jurisdiction of the Irish Courts—Brussels Regulation Within the European Union,131 the Brussels I Regulation132 (hereafter ‘Brussels I’) is the matrix IE.156 of civil judicial cooperation for contractual, delictual and proprietary claims. The Regulation addresses court jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in most civil and commercial matters. Within Ireland, the European Communities (Civil and Commercial Judgments) Regulations IE.157 2002,133 and the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (RSC),134 enable proper administration of Brussels I within the Irish legal system.135 Brussels I sets out the criteria for jurisdiction in the courts of Member States. Some of the IE.158 key criteria likely to be relevant to disputes relating to domain names, trade marks, and related rights include the fact that: persons domiciled in a Member State may be sued therein, regardless of their nationality; a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State in matters relating to contract, tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place of contract performance or where the harmful event occurred or may occur; a defendant domiciled in a Member State may be sued in the courts for the place where any one of the defendants (if multiple) is domiciled; and in in rem actions, a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued on related contractual matters in the court of the Member State in which the property is situated. Finally, Section 4 of the Regulation concerns jurisdiction in consumer contracts, which may have relevance in disputes between a registrar or Internet Service Provider (ISP) and the holder of a domain name, where the holder entered into the contract ‘outside his trade or profession’. Article 22 of the Regulation also addresses the exclusive jurisdiction of courts, and of particu- IE.159 lar interest for domain name disputes is Article 22.4, which provides that: in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trademarks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered, the courts of the Member State in which the deposit or registration has been applied for, has taken place or is under the terms of a Community instrument or an international convention deemed to have taken place.136

As disputes relating to domain names often include an issue of trade mark infringement, this IE.160 provision is likely to be relevant in most proceedings relating to ‘.ie’ domains. In Ryanair v Billigfleuge.DE GmbH,137 the plaintiff alleged that the defendants used a IE.161 ‘screen-scraping’ technique to abstract flight price information for their comparative shopping website, in breach of the plaintiff ’s website’s Terms of Use, trade mark, copyright, and database rights.

131  Initially Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 did not extend to Denmark until the agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark concluded by Council Decision 2006/325/EC as amended by 2009/942/EC. 132  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters revised and recast as Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012, the applicable for the matters under discussion from 10 January 2015. 133  European Communities (Civil and Commercial Judgment) Regulations 2002 (S.I. No 52/2002). 134  Rules of the Superior Courts (Jurisdiction, Recognition, Enforcement and Service of Proceedings) (S.I. No 506 of 2005); Rules of The Superior Courts (Jurisdiction, Recognition, Enforcement and Service of Proceedings) 2007 (S.I. No 407 of 2007). 135 Such matters had previously been addressed by the Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments (European Communities) Act 1988 and Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments Act 1993, which inter alia gave the force of law in Ireland to the Brussels Convention and the parallel Lugano Convention. 136  See Art 24(4) of recast Regulation 1215/2012 for corresponding provision. 137  2010 IEHC 47.

549

Ireland (‘.ie’) IE.162 The defendants moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to Regulation

44/2001 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (‘the Brussels Regulation’) as transposed into Irish law by the European Communities (Civil and Commercial Judgments) Regulations (S.I. No 52 of 2002). Before the High Court, the defendants relied on Article 2 of the Brussels Regulation, which provides that a defendant should be sued in its own domicile (here, Germany). The plaintiff noted the exceptions found in Articles 5(1), 5(3), and 23.

IE.163 Hanna J held that the exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in the plaintiff ’s website’s Terms

of Use was binding on the defendants. The Court found that the Terms of Use formed a legally binding agreement for the purposes of Article 23 of the Brussels Convention, and as the exclusive jurisdiction clause contained therein was at all times available for inspection by the defendants, it dismissed the application.

(2)  Jurisdiction of the Irish Courts—Lugano Convention IE.164 With regard to disputes where the parties are not all domiciled within the EU, the Jurisdiction

of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments (Amendment) Act 2012138 gives effect to the Lugano Convention.139 This Act makes analogous reciprocal provisions in respect of matters where the parties are domiciled within the Swiss Confederation, the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Iceland, and the procedures are set out in the RSC.140

IE.165 In matters of jurisdiction, the Lugano Convention generally grants exclusive jurisdiction to

the courts of the state where the defendant is domiciled but also introduces special rules of jurisdiction in certain matters such as contracts (place of performance), maintenance (domicile of maintenance creditor), and in tort (delict or quasi-delict jurisdiction where the harmful event occurred or may occur).141

(3) Jurisdiction of the Irish Courts—Beyond the Brussels Regulation and Lugano Convention IE.166 Where a defendant is domiciled or established in a jurisdiction that is outside the ambit of

the Regulation or the Lugano Convention, the Irish courts will apply common law principles in deciding whether the court has jurisdiction over the matter. These procedural rules are set out in the RSC 1986 as amended.

IE.167 In common with their English counterparts (from which they derive historically), the Irish

rules relating to jurisdiction are primarily procedural in emphasis. Irish courts have jurisdiction in a case involving a foreign element if the defendant has been duly served with the originating document or specified notice of the document in accordance with the rules of court.142

IE.168 In contracts concerning a foreign element where the parties have chosen the jurisdiction

of the Irish courts, party autonomy in choice of law is respected provided that the parties’ express intention is bona fide and legal.

138  Convention on Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters Signed at Lugano Convention on 30 October 2007 and concluded on behalf of the Community pursuant to Council Decision 2009/430/EC. 139  And amended the Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgements Act 1998 for that purpose. 140  Rules of the Superior Courts (Jurisdiction, Recognition, Enforcement and Service of Proceedings) (S.I. No 506 of 2005); Rules of the Superior Courts (Jurisdiction, Recognition, Enforcement and Service of Proceedings) (S.I. No 407 of 2007). 141  There are also specific provisions for jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance, consumer contracts, individual contracts of employment, tenancies, and real property rights. 142  RSC O 11 deals with service of proceedings in such circumstances.

550

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law When deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction in cases involving torts having a foreign ele- IE.169 ment, the plaintiff must fulfil the threshold requirements set out in Order 11, r 1(f ) (eg where any significant element in the commission of the tort occurs within the jurisdiction). In Grehan v Medical Inc and Valley Pines Association, Walsh J noted the burden placed on the IE.170 courts in assessing jurisdiction, as they must take into account all of the relevant facts and circumstances. RSC, Order 11, r 6 provides that an application for leave to serve outside of the jurisdiction IE.171 must be made to the court before the issue of the summons. This distinguishes the procedure from Brussels I, the Brussels Convention and the Lugano Convention, where there is no requirement to apply for leave but the originating summons must contain the requisite endorsement.

(4)  Choice of Law and Conflicts-of-Law Two EU Regulations, Rome I143 which applies to contractual obligations144 and Rome II145 IE.172 which applies to non-contractual obligations, establish the conflicts-of-law principles146 applied by the courts in the Republic of Ireland.147 The parties’ freedom to choose the applicable law is one of the cornerstones of the system.148 IE.173 This principle is established in Article 3 of Rome I.149 If the parties have not chosen an applicable law, Article 4 lists the connecting factors. In the context of domain names, for example, it provides that a contract for the provision of services shall be governed by the law of the country where the service provider has his habitual residence. The basic principle in Rome I  is that consumer contracts ‘shall be governed by the law IE.174 of the country where the consumer has his habitual residence, provided that the professional: (a) pursues his commercial or professional activities in the country where the consumer has his habitual residence, or (b) by any means, directs such activities to that country or to several countries including that country, and the contract falls within the scope of such activities’.150 Article 6.2, however, extends the principle of choice of law to consumer contracts, provided IE.175 that such choice may not deprive the consumer of any rights at law that might have been available in the location of his place of residence. Rome II applies to situations involving a conflict of laws, to non-contractual obligations in IE.176 civil and commercial matters including tort/delict, unjust enrichment, negotiorum gestio or culpa in contrahendo.151 143  Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) OJ L177, 154/07/2008 p 006-0016. 144  Rome I Art 1. 145  Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) OJ L199, 31/07/2007 p 0040–0049. 146 Rome I  recital 7 and Rome II recital 7 provide that scope and the provisions each of the Rome Regulations are consistent with each other and with Brussels I(above n 133). Also renvoi is expressly excluded by Rome I Art 20 and Rome II, Art 24. 147  Rome I recital 44. 148  Rome I recital 11. 149  Rome I recital 12. 150 Art 6.1. 151  There are a number of exceptions to the scope of application of the Regulation listed in Arts 1.1 and 1.2 including revenue, customs, or administrative matters or to the liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority (acta iure imperii) family disputes, defamation, privacy, disputes relating to companies, and bills of exchange.

551

Ireland (‘.ie’) IE.177 Rome II also has universal application: ‘Any law specified by this Regulation shall be applied

whether or not it is the law of a Member State.’152

IE.178 Article 4.1153 establishes that subject to certain exceptions, the general rule is that the princi-

ple of lex loci damni is the connecting factor.

IE.179 Of particular relevance to domain name disputes, Article 8 establishes special rules for cases

involving infringement of IP rights:

(i) The law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising from an infringement of an IP right shall be the law of the country for which protection is claimed. (ii) In the case of a non-contractual obligation arising from an infringement of a unitary Community IP right, the law applicable shall, for any question that is not governed by the relevant Community instrument, be the law of the country in which the act of infringement was committed. (iii) The law applicable under this Article may not be derogated from by an agreement pursuant to Article 14.

(5)  Enforcement of Judgments IE.180 The Rules of the Superior Courts provides for an ex parte procedure for applications for pro-

visional, including protective, measures under inter alia Article 31 of Brussels I Regulation154 and applications for provisional (including protective) measures under the Lugano Convention by virtue of sections 13 and 20 of the Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments Act 1998.155 An application for the enforcement of a judgment pursuant to Chapter III of inter alia Brussels I Regulation or section 7 of the 1998 Act shall be made ex parte to the Master of the High Court.156

IE.181 Specifically in the field of trade marks, the European Communities (Enforcement of

Community Judgments on Trade Marks and Designs) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No 646 of 2006) gave effect to Article 82 of Council Regulation EC/40/1994 on the Community Trade Mark Regulation, and to Article 71 of Council Regulation EC/6/2002 on Community Designs to ensure that decisions, accompanied by an Order for costs, made by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), can be executed in Ireland.

(6)  International Jurisdiction and Internet Domain Names IE.182 While there has been no specific legislation introduced in Ireland dealing with domain names

and the protection of marks on the Internet, it is likely that the Irish courts will interpret Irish law in the light of the principles set out in the Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Marks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs on the Internet.157

  Rome II Art 3.   Also Rome II recital 18. 154  Under review at the time of writing: Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. 155  RSC O 42A(1). 156  RSC O 42(4). 157  As adopted by the Assembly of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property and the General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) at the Thirty-Fourth Series of Meetings of the Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO 20–29 September 1999. 152 153

552

ISRAEL (‘.il’) Ellen B Shankman

I. Overview of the National System of Trademark/Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names 

(1) Types of Protected Intellectual Property Rights  (2) Development of Domain Name Law 

II. The ccTLD (‘.il’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

IL.01 IL.01 IL.20 IL.28

(1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry  IL.28 (2) The Structure of the Name Space  IL.31 (3) Registration Restrictions  IL.32 (4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement  IL.39 (5) Transfer of Domain Names  IL.48 (6) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding  IL.56 (7) Statistics  IL.58

(8) Costs  (9) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings  (10)  ADR Decisions  (11) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Administrative Panel 

IL.104

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws

IL.108

(1) Specific Anticybersquatting Legislation (2) Infringement of Trademarks (3) Infringement of Personal Names, Names of Cities, and Other Public Law Corporations (4) Infringement of Titles (5) Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name (6) Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available

V. Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  VI. Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers  VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law 

III. ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.il’ Domain Space 

IL.61 (1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding  IL.61 (2) Statistics  IL.65 (3) Material Scope of the Proceeding  IL.69 (4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement  IL.73 (5) Overview of the ADR-Procedure  IL.74 (6) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider  IL.92 (7) Role of the Administrative Panel  IL.95

(1) International Conflicts (2) Choice of Law (3) Substantive Law Issues

Links Domain Name System Registration Overview: http://www.isoc.org.il/domains/registration_new.html List of Registrars: http://www.isoc.org.il/domains/accredited_registrars.html Alternative Dispute Resolution IL-DRP Rules: http://www.isoc.org.il/domains/ildrp_rules.html ADR Decisions: http://www.isoc.org.il/domains/ildrp.html

553

IL.96 IL.97 IL.99

IL.108 IL.109 IL.120 IL.121 IL.122 IL.123

IL.146 IL.148 IL.152 IL.155 IL.155 IL.162 IL.163

Israel (‘.il’)

I.  Overview of the National System of Trademark/Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names (1)  Types of Protected Intellectual Property Rights IL.01 In Israel, trademarks are governed by both legislation and by common law. Rights are created

by the first to file or use within the jurisdiction. Registration is not mandatory to establish rights in a trademark, and there are no compulsory registration provisions. However, there are substantial benefits to seeking trademark registration in Israel. The Israel Trade Marks Ordinance (New Version) 5732-1972 (Trademarks Ordinance) governs the rules under which trademarks are registered. Proof of use is not required to obtain registration in Israel, although there are provisions for cancellation of trademarks for non-use.

IL.02 Provisions of the Trademarks Ordinance have been amended to comply with Israel’s obliga-

tion under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) as well as Israel’s recent joining the Madrid Protocol. There is no legislation in Israel that deals directly with domain names. The Israel Trademarks Office (ITO) regulations, rules, or guidelines make no specific reference to the registerability of domain names or trademarks used within domain names. The ITO will consider the registerability of domain names in a manner similar to regular trademarks.

IL.03 In Israel, it is not necessary to prove use of a mark in order to obtain or renew registration.

A bona fide intention to use the mark is sufficient. However, as a practical matter, the ITO has indicated that where the question of use may be considered relevant, (eg for determining distinctiveness or where a mark may be subject to cancellation for non-use) the question of whether use of a mark on a website would be sufficient would likely be considered similar to other instances of trademark usage, for example, in advertising and promotional materials. In general, the ITO treats trademarks used within a website no differently than ‘traditional’ marks.

IL.04 There are no laws requiring specific marking or language requirements. While there is no

positive requirement for indicating that a mark is registered, however, there is a negative prohibition (finable by law) for using marks in a misleading fashion that could include indicating that a mark is registered when it is not.

IL.05 There are no regulations or guidelines that specifically address use of registered trademarks

within websites on the Internet. The provisions for well-known marks and extended protection against cancellation of a mark based on non-use, as well as protection for companies’ names may affect this issue. It is advisable to indicate trademark registration and copyright information in all websites.

IL.06 Similar to that of the US or UK, the standard for infringement of trademark rights is likeli-

hood of confusion as to source or sponsorship of the junior user’s goods or services, using a multi-factor test. Infringement is not limited to registered marks; unregistered marks, marks in which the owner enjoys common-law rights by virtue of distinctive use, also qualify for infringement protection. Trademark injuries may also be addressed under passing off, unjust enrichment, commercial torts, and general unfair competition principles, discussed below.

(a)  Registered Trademarks IL.07 Registration accords trademark rights under the Trademarks Ordinance. It confers the exclusive right to use the trademark and to act in case of infringement. Further, the owner of a registered ‘well-known’ mark is entitled to enhanced protection, and may be entitled to the exclusive right to use the mark in conjunction with non-identical goods, if the use 554

I.  Overview of the National System of the mark by an unauthorized third party is likely to indicate an association with those of the proprietor of the registered mark, and the proprietor of the registered mark is likely to be injured as a result of such use. (See para IL.11 below regarding unregistered ‘well-known’ marks.) Trademarks, service marks, collective marks, certification marks, and appellations of origin IL.08 are registerable under the Trademarks Ordinance. A ‘mark’ may consist of ‘letters, numerals, words, images or other signs or combinations of them, whether two-dimensional or three-dimensional’. The Trademarks Ordinance further defines a ‘trademark’ as ‘a mark used or intended to be used by a person in relation to goods which he manufactures or in which he trades’. See Section 1 of the Trademarks Ordinance. Similarly, under Section 1 of the Trademarks Ordinance, a ‘service mark’ is defined as ‘a mark IL.09 used or intended to be used by a person in relation to a service rendered by him’. A mark is ineligible for registration if the mark does not distinguish the goods/services of the IL.10 owner of the mark from those of others (ie not ‘distinctive’). Further, the following marks are ineligible for registration: (i)

a mark referring to some connection with the president of the state or their household, or any mark from which such a connection or presidential patronage might be inferred; (ii) flags and emblems of the state or its institutions, flags and emblems of foreign states, and any mark resembling any of these; (iii) public armorial bearings, official signs, or seals used by any state to indicate control or warranty, and any sign resembling any of these, and any sign from which it might be inferred that its proprietor enjoys the patronage of or supplies goods or renders services to a head of state or a government, unless entitled to use it; (iv) a mark in which any of the following words appear:  ‘patent’, ‘patented’, ‘by Royal Letters Patent’, ‘registered’, ‘registered design’, ‘copyright’, ‘to counterfeit this is forgery’, or words to like effect; (v) a mark that is or may be injurious to public order or to morality; (vi) a mark liable to deceive the public, a mark that includes a false indication or origin, and a mark that encourages unfair commercial competition; (vii) a mark identical with or similar to an emblem of exclusively religious significance; (viii) a mark on which the picture of a person appears, unless the consent of the person concerned was obtained; if the picture is that of a deceased person, then the registrar shall require his survivor’s consent, unless there are, in his opinion, reasonable grounds for not doing so; (ix) a mark identical with one that belongs to another owner and which is already on the register for the same goods or for goods of the same description or so closely resembles a mark to the point of confusion; (x) a mark composed of numerals, letters, or words commonly used in commerce to designate or describe goods or categories of goods, or which bear directly on their character and quality unless distinctive (as defined in the Ordinance); (xi) geographic or family names unless distinctive (as defined within the Ordinance); and (xii) other prohibited marks: (a) Red Cross; Geneva Cross; Crescent; Red Crescent; Lion and the Sun; the abbreviations ‘UNESCO’, ‘NATO’; the words ‘United Nations’; (b) registered company names; (c) standard marks and certification marks pursuant to the Standards Law, 1953; (d) plant varieties; and (e) false wine designations.

555

Israel (‘.il’) (b)  Unregistered Trademarks IL.11 The Law to Amend Intellectual Property Laws: Modifications to implement the Provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, 5760-1999 (‘the Act’) codified statutory protection in Israel for ‘famous’ or ‘well-known’ trademarks, which was previously recognized under case laws and under 6bis of the Paris Convention. The Act defines an infringement of a ‘well-known’ mark as use of an identical or similar mark in a manner that may be confused with the goods to which the ‘well-known’ mark refers or with goods of a similar type. The Act distinguishes between the scope of protection afforded a ‘well-known’ mark that is unregistered or registered in Israel. (For registered marks see para IL.03 above). The owner of a ‘well-known’ unregistered mark is entitled to the exclusive right to use the mark in conjunction with goods for which the mark is well known, or goods of the same description. A number of factors will be taken into account when considering whether a mark is a ‘well-known’ mark in Israel: how well known the mark is to the relevant consumer public and how ‘well-known’ the mark has become as a result of marketing. The Act defines a well-known mark in Israel to include ‘a mark which is owned by a person who is a citizen in a TRIPS member country, a permanent resident or an active industrial or business presence there, even if the mark is not registered in Israel or being used in Israel’. See Section 6(1)(a) of the Act. IL.12 Apart from ‘famous’ or ‘well-known’ marks, the owner of an unregistered mark has no rights

under the Trademarks Ordinance, but protection may be obtained under the passing off provisions of the Commercial Torts Law discussed in greater detail below. Also, in Interference Proceedings between competing applications, the junior applicant may prevail, provided he can show evidence of substantial prior use and bad faith on behalf of the senior applicant. See Section 29 of the Trademarks Ordinance.

(c)  Additional Legislation Affecting Protection of Marks IL.13 Additional legislation arguably relevant to the unlawful use of another’s mark on the Internet

and which may provide a cause of action in domain name disputes includes the Commercial Torts Law, 5759-1999, the Companies Law, 5759-1999, The Unjust Enrichment Law, 5739-1979, Consumer Protection Law, 5741-1981, and Contracts Law (General Section), 5733-1973.

IL.14 Other legislation that affects trademarks includes the Commercial Torts Law, 5759-1999

(‘Commercial Torts’). The key provisions that are relevant relate to passing off. The Commercial Torts Law defines unfair trade practice such as mis-description, passing off, and unfair intervention, and provides a cause of action for infringement of goodwill.

IL.15 Commercial Torts has broadened the definition of the tort of passing off (and replaced the

earlier definition of Section 59 of the Civil Wrongs Ordinance (New Version)—1968). Any misrepresentation by a person which causes another to believe that the goods or services provided are connected or associated with the goods of another, and which leads to damage or harm to another’s reputation, is actionable. The law provides for statutory as well as actual damages.

IL.16 Section 27 of the Companies Law provides broad protection for the company’s name.

Although there is no developed case law on this point, a company may arguably enjoin use of its trade name by another even in a domain name.

IL.17 Under the Unjust Enrichment Law, 5739-1979, restitution can be claimed by a person from

whom a benefit has been unlawfully obtained. The law on its face is exceedingly broad, and courts have used this to provide otherwise unavailable remedies in general, and to intellectual property in specifics. Accordingly, a cause of action against unfair use of a mark on the Internet may lie under this law. Under the current law, the defendant holds the burden of

556

I.  Overview of the National System proof to show that the benefit obtained from another was either lawful or equitable. However, damages for loss of reputation are unavailable under this law. See also Section IV below. The Consumer Protection Law prohibits, inter alia, misleading advertising. Section 2 deals IL.18 with the prohibition of deception of a consumer in any essential matter in any transaction. The law defines ‘an essential matter’ to include the identity of the manufacturer, importer, or the service provider [Section 2(a)6] or the name or business denomination (literally ‘business nickname’) of the service or property (Section 2(a)7). The broad definition arguably may cover misleading use of a domain name. The issue of whether a competitor may have sufficient standing to sue under this law, however, is still open to question. The concept of ‘good faith’, as embodied in Articles 39 and 61(b) of the Contracts Law cuts IL.19 across all areas of Israeli law and requires that all legal rights be exercised in ‘good faith’. The justices of the Supreme Court of Israel have issued differing opinions as to whether ‘good faith’ in Israel is subjective or normative (subjective motivation of the party may be deduced by using external, objective criteria), but either may be shown to violate Article 39. The concept of ‘good faith’ in Israel is an open, not rigid, standard. This analysis was used to support the Israel Dispute Resolution Procedure (IL-DRP) decision to transfer the domain name in the Habitat case discussed in para IL.100 below.

(2)  Development of Domain Name Law The interface between domain names and trademarks has not been clearly decided under IL.20 Israel law, and the Trademarks Ordinance does not have specific provisions dealing with domain names. Accordingly, counsel is faced with attempting to fit the registration and use of domain names into the Trademarks Ordinance and the developing jurisprudence. Currently, depending on the circumstances, an aggrieved trademark owner seeking to object to an arguably infringing domain name registration has recourse either in commencing an action in an Israel court of competent jurisdiction or filing an alternative IL-DRP complaint pursuant to the Rules under The Internet Society of Israel (ISOC-IL), discussed further below in Section III. Domain names are not addressed directly in the Trademarks Ordinance. A  domain name IL.21 may be registered as a trademark if the Examiner finds it distinctive. However, it is likely that a disclaimer will be required for the ‘.com’ or other g-TLD or cc-TLD portion of the mark. The Commercial Torts Law, however, may be relevant to domain name regulation in Israel. The IL.22 Commercial Torts regulations make it a civil tort for one business to unreasonably prevent or make difficult access of customers, employees, or agents to another business (Article 3). As such, registration of another’s business name or trademark as a domain name may fall under this article. Commercial Torts arguably covers misuse of a domain name, where such use confuses the IL.23 public as to the source of the goods or services which the domain name owner offers, or implies an association therewith, thereby causing damage to another person’s reputation or goodwill in a trademark or unregistered mark. It may also be argued that anti-dilution protection, in the form of likelihood of association, in relation to other goods or services, has been extended where the domain name dispute relates to a ‘well-known’ mark. The law does not appear to go quite so far as to codify dilution as damaging per se, without any other allegation of damage or harm to reputation, but does recognize the tort of likelihood of association. Recent case law in the Adidas case (discussed below in Section IV) has arguably significantly challenged the scope of dilution. Copyright Law 5768-2007, recently amended on 27 March 2014, in Israel is outside the IL.24 scope of this chapter. Still, there are a few laws particular to Israel that may be of interest with regard to the operation of a website, and are thus included herein.

557

Israel (‘.il’) IL.25 A key law that can affect the operation of a website is the Protection of Privacy Law 5741-1981,

which requires that all databases that contain personal data be registered. Amendments in the law to cover ‘cookies’ and other Internet-based activity are being proposed.

IL.26 In addition to the laws outlined above, the Control of Commodities and Services (Engagement

in Encryption Means) Order, 5735-1974 (amended in 1998), which treats encryption in the same way as weapons, and which requires licences and permits from the director, may impact on the content and operation of a website.

IL.27 Further, the State Attorney recently set forth policy that e-mail that is not in the possession

of an Internet Service Provider (ISP), but which is likely to pass through its computers in the future, may only be seized, kept, and copied after an appropriate order has been obtained under the Secret Monitoring Law, 5739-1979. See MC 090868/00, Netvision Ltd v Israel Defense Forces et al., addressing the criteria for the order required and the role of the ISP in compliance with such order.

II.  The ccTLD (‘.il’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1)  Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry IL.28 The ISOC-IL, a non-profit organization mandated to advance the use of Internet in Israel,

has been delegated the authority by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to allocate domain names in Israel under the .IL top-level domain (‘.il ccTLD’).1 The Rules for Allocation of Domain Names under .IL (Rules) as well as the model pleading forms are also available on the ISOC site, as discussed in further detail in Section II.4 below.2 The application specifically incorporates the Rules, and registration is subject to the Rules.

IL.29 Many ‘.il’ domain names must be registered through approved registrars. The Registry accred-

its registrars, authorizing them to sell domain name registrations under the ‘.co.il’ and ‘.org.il’ extensions. For a list of accredited registrars, see the ISOC website.3

IL.30 The timing of the launch of the Hebrew character internationalized domain names (IDNs),

as a practical matter, created a situation in which many cybersquatters ‘flew under the radar screen’ of brand owners. There are discernible benefits derived from registering a trademark or domain name under the ‘.il’ ccTLD. There are both defensive concerns—to stop cybersquatting and avoid distributor ‘run amok’ situations—as well as proactive benefits—to ensure that one can do business under one’s own name, as well as preventing cybersquatting IDN versions of a trademark. In addition, it offers international companies the opportunity to target local customers with an image of greater local presence, often specifically targeted to native languages. More and more foreign companies are recognizing the need to register domain names in the ‘.il’ ccTLD for both proactive and defensive measures. See Section VII below for a discussion of some pertinent IL-DRP decisions.

(2)  The Structure of the Name Space IL.31 Domain names are not available directly at the second level. Under the ‘.il’ ccTLD, third-level

domain names are allocated under a limited number of second-level domain names, and note

  The ISOC website is located at: http://www.isoc.org.il.  See http://www.isoc.org.il/domains. 3 The specific website providing the list of approved registrars is located at:  http://www.isoc.org.il/ domains/accredited_registrars.html. 1 2

558

II.  The ccTLD (‘.il’) Registration Conditions and Procedures that responsibility for registration of some second-level domain names has been delegated to other authorities. This is shown in Table IL.1: Table IL1: Second-Level Domain Names under ‘.il’ .co.il .org.il

For commercial organizations For non-commercial organizations

.ac.il

For non-commercial academic organizations; the ISOC-IL has delegated responsibility for all ac.il domains to the Inter University Computation Center (IUCC). Within this second-level domain only domain names authorized by IUCC will be allocated.

.gov.il

For governmental organizations; the ISOC-IL has delegated responsibility for gov. il domains to the Government Internet Committee located in the Ministry of Finance, which has overall responsibility for network planning and implementation within the Israeli government.

.idf.il

For Israel military entities; responsibility for all military second-level domain names under idf.il has been delegated to MAMRAM (Israel Defense Forces Central Computing Facility).

.k12.il

For kindergartens, elementary schools and high schools, based on the Israel Ministry of Education classification.

.muni.il

For municipal and local government authorities; names within the mun.il domain will be allocated to all municipal entities within the State of Israel, and to the official settlement areas identified.

.net.il

For ISPs; available only for ISPs holding a valid Internet operating licence from the Ministry of Communications.

(3)  Registration Restrictions (a) Syntactic Constraints and Prohibited Terms, Registration Restrictions, and Eligibility Requirements A domain name must be at least three characters in length. A domain name may not begin IL.32 or end with a hyphen or contain two consecutive hyphens. Existing top-level domains and ‘www’ are excluded from registration as domain names. Obscene words and names incorporating foul language, names that are injurious to public order or to public sensibilities, or names that otherwise do not comply with the laws of the State of Israel (ie offensive or barred by law) are also excluded. The registration of IDNs containing Hebrew characters became available from 26 December IL.33 2010. The registration of Hebrew domain names is an expansion of the existing domain name registration service and is done subject to the registration rules. The Rules for allocation of domain names do not set forth specific restrictions on the content IL.34 or use of a domain name. However, as can be seen from the bars to allocation criteria, in addition to limitations found in other jurisdictions—such as trademark protection or offensive language—there are additional sensitivities protected in Israel. For example, domain names such as ‘zionismisracism’, anti-Holocaust, anti-religion, or other deeply provocative sentiments will not be allocated, and by extension, may face other limitations on use. Challenges to content may be made on other grounds. In general, Israel favours freedom of expression and of competition. Descriptive terms can be registered as domain names. Under Israeli law there is no legislation IL.35 prohibiting the allocation of a domain name which is descriptive.

559

Israel (‘.il’) (b)  Attribution/Naming Rules and Specific Requirements for Foreign Registrants IL.36 Unlike some other ccTLDs, local presence or a trademark registration is not a prerequisite for registering a .IL domain name in the most popular second-level domains, namely, ‘.co.il’ and ‘.org.il’. Application for a domain name may be made by anyone who will hold the domain name (‘holder’) or by a third-party applicant for the benefit of the domain name holder (collectively ‘applicant’). However, since domain names under the secondary ‘.net.il’ level are available to ISPs carrying a valid operating licence from the Ministry of Communication, registration in this hierarchy requires local presence in Israel. (c)  Documents Required for Registration IL.37 Domain names are registered through accredited registrars. A list of the registrars is provided

by the ISOC-IL on its website.4

IL.38 Domain names are not available directly under the ‘.il’ ccTLD at the second-level. Rather,

third-level domain names are allocated under a limited number of second-level domain names. (See para IL.31 and Table 1 above). The ISOC-IL may require evidence to support the domain name holder’s relation to a specific category of second-level domain, as a condition for allocation. For example, for ‘.net.il’, it will be required for the ISP to show that it holds a valid Internet operating licence from the Ministry of Communications. In order to obtain third-level domain names in the other second-level domains (apart from ‘.co.il’ and ‘.org.il’), the applicant must appear on the relevant organizational/ governmental list.

(4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement IL.39 In order to obtain a domain name in Israel, an application must be filed, the requisite tech-

nical conditions met, and payment made of the registration fee. An applicant must warrant that he is a legal entity, that he has the right to register the domain name and that the domain name does not infringe on the rights of another party. The applicant must also agree that the registry will not bear liability for any allocation and use of any domain name.

IL.40 Registration continues to be on a first-come, first-served basis. During the roll-out of Hebrew

IDNs, there was a sunrise period for rights holders.

IL.41 To register a domain name under the ‘.co.il’ and ‘.org.il’ extensions an applicant should con-

tact an accredited registrar. To register a domain name under the ‘.ac.il’, ‘.k12.il’, ‘.muni.il’, or ‘.net.il’ extensions, an applicant must register with the registry itself. The Government Internet Committee of the Ministry of Finance (‘Committee’) is currently tasked with allocating domain names under the ‘.gov.il’ extension.5 The ISOC-IL may require evidence to support the domain name holder’s relation to a specific category of second domain level, as a condition for allocation (see para IL.38 above).

IL.42 There is no need to provide certification on related intellectual property (IP) rights, other

than the applicant’s declaration that the domain name does not infringe the rights of any other party. Further, by submitting the application, the applicant agrees to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the District Court of Jerusalem and/or the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa.

4 5

 See http://www.isoc.org.il/domains/registration.html.  See http://www.isoc.org.il/domains/registration.html.

560

II.  The ccTLD (‘.il’) Registration Conditions and Procedures There are some restrictions on the types of domain names that may be assigned (see para IL.43 IL.34 above). Israel has attempted to address a number of issues of concern: limiting warehousing of domain names; distinguishing domain names by the addition of second-level domains; requiring contact information for the applicant; and creating an expedited dispute resolution mechanism through the IL-DRP. Attempts to address the issue of ‘cybersquatting’ include the following: requiring the applicant IL.44 to declare that the domain name is available for use and does not infringe the rights of any other party; allowing the ISOC-IL to make available to the public, for review and search, all of the information submitted on the application; and providing for renewal of domain names. The ISOC-IL will not act as an arbiter of disputes arising out of the registration and use of IL.45 a domain name, and will make no substantive decisions regarding respective rights between the domain name holder and a trademark owner. An alternative dispute mechanism, the IL-DRP, is provided by the ISOC-IL and is discussed below in Section III. Domain names registered via an accredited registrar are allocated for an initial one- or IL.46 two-year term. Domain names originally registered directly with the registry are allocated for an initial two-year term. Renewals can be made at one or two year intervals, but not in longer ‘batches’. If a holder IL.47 fails to pay the renewal fees, the registry may cancel or disable the domain name, and, after a 30-day period, may revoke the domain name allocation.

(5)  Transfer of Domain Names To modify a domain name record, the registrant or his accredited registrar must submit IL.48 the appropriate application. A registrant who registered his domain name via an accredited registrar must submit modifications to that registrar. A registrant who registered his domain name directly with the registry may make changes via the registry’s online modification form. Updates to the registration, with the exception of re-allocation of the domain name to another holder or transfer to a new accredited registrar, are performed by the registrant or his accredited registrar via the online modification form. A domain name may be delegated to any hosting service provider or any domain name sys- IL.49 tem (DNS) name service provider of the registrant’s choice. The name may be re-delegated from one hosting service provider to another if the registrant so directs. Re-delegation of a domain name may be completed by submitting the modification form (by the registrar, if applicable) at the registry’s website.6 Hosting and DNS providers must not impede, either by action or by default, this freedom of the holder to re-delegate. To transfer a domain name, a re-allocation application form must be submitted, either IL.50 through the accredited registrar or the registry’s registration page. The current registrant will then be asked to confirm the re-allocation. When a domain name is transferred via an accredited registrar, the renewal date is one or two years (at the transferee’s preference) from the date of re-allocation. When a domain name is transferred via the registry’s website, the renewal date is two years from the date of re-allocation. Domain names, even if already allocated under prior rules and ‘grandfathered’ in, cannot be IL.51 re-allocated if prohibited under current Rules. The transferee is bound by the rules in effect at the time of any re-assignment. The registry may require evidence to support the transferee’s relation to a specific second-level domain as a condition for allowance of the re-allocation.

6

  Available at: http://www.isoc.org.il/domains/registration_new.html.

561

Israel (‘.il’) IL.52 Given complaints received by the Israel Internet Association regarding the cumbersome prac-

tice of authorized registrars in the process of transferring names from the management of one registrar to another, the ISOC-IL has updated the procedures that bind the registrars regarding the transfer of domain name management between them. As of 11 September 2012, the ISOC-IL has announced that the process of unlocking a domain name prior to its transfer from one registrar to another, will be identical (in the procedure and required documents) to any other update process of the domain name.

IL.53 The registry may cancel a domain name registration:

(a) when the registrant fails to pay any required fees; (b) when maintaining the domain name would place the registry in conflict with legal obligations, court orders, or arbitration panel decisions; (c) when the dispute resolution procedure requires cancellation; (d) when it finds that an application supplies inaccurate information or misrepresentation; (e) when the registrant fails to provide at least one active DNS server for the period of one year (see discussion of warehousing, next paragraph); or (f ) when the registrant fails to timely renew the registration. IL.54 Domain names may not be ‘warehoused’ but must be actively connected to the Internet. The

registry may remove a domain name from the registry if the registrant has failed to maintain connectivity for a one-year period.

IL.55 No special considerations apply to the transfer of ownership of a domain name that is also a

registered trademark. Although it arguably should be coordinated, as a practical matter there is no checking between the two. The ISOC-IL is not equipped to review or make determinations regarding IP rights. The alternative dispute resolution mechanism is available as an expedited and cheaper alternative remedy, and no mechanism or authority for enforcement, other than removal or reallocation of the domain name, and damages are available thereunder. The court has the authority to also determine the latter, and indeed has done so in a number of cases.

(6) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding IL.56 Upon the filing of an IL-DRP complaint, together with payment of the fee, the domain

name is locked. The challenged domain name will not be reallocated or deleted until resolution of the dispute. No changes to the holding of the challenged registrant or contact persons’ names may be made, and the domain name will continue to be active until final resolution of the dispute.

IL.57 Locking of a domain name is not automatic upon filing a court action. If a party wishes to

secure a domain name lock pending resolution of a court action, a request for a preliminary injunction is required. It is possible to seek a combination declaratory judgment, together with the request for preliminary injunction as a single summary judgment petition, rather than requiring two separate proceedings.

(7) Statistics IL.58 As of the date of this writing, there are approximately 238,000 active ‘.il’ domain names. IL.59 Hebrew IDN registrations on the third level have been available since 26 December 2010. To

register a Hebrew domain name, an applicant must register by way of one of the ISOC-IL’s accredited registrars. Direct registration of a Hebrew IDN Domain Name is not available at

562

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.il’ Domain Space the ISOC-IL’s website. After a jump in domain names due to the new availability of Hebrew IDNs, the number of active domain names appears to have remained relatively steady. Interestingly, it is this author’s impression that foreign companies are interested in main- IL.60 taining a ‘.il’ ccTLD presence, whereas a large number of Israeli companies (and certainly most if not all of the larger ones) prefer to obtain a ‘.com’ presence over one in the ‘.il’ ccTLD. Maintaining a ccTLD presence (especially under a domain name written in Hebrew) is important in marketing to the local population, and thus makes owning a ‘.il’ ccTLD domain name attractive.

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.il’ Domain Space (1)  Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding The ISOC-IL has established a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy (UDRP)-like IL.61 dispute resolution policy (IL-DRP)—but with broader grounds in showing bad faith use or registration of the domain name. This allows for great flexibility but there is still some uncertainty in predicting results. Per the allocation rules, a holder is subject to the policy and its decisions. However, although most panels have often found for the trademark holder—as it should if utilized properly—the decisions to date have been well balanced, and, as with the UDRP, complainants need to file actions wisely. Foreign counsel and brand owners should seek advice from local counsel regarding implementation of this informal dispute mechanism. The procedures and rules regarding dispute resolution under the IL-DRP (the ‘IL-DRP IL.62 Rules’) are available on the ISOC website7 and are an integral part of the Rules, as they are binding on current applicants and holders. The IL-DRP Rules do not apply to domain names allocated prior to 1 January 1999, unless the holder so agrees. The IL-DRP is an alternative dispute resolution procedure intended to provide expedited resolution to disputes regarding the allocation of domain names under the .il ccTLD (‘Dispute’) in accordance with the Rules for Allocation of Domain Names under ‘.il’ (‘Rules’). The IL-DRP is not intended to create or replace judicial precedence or jurisprudence. IL.63 Further, agreeing to dispute resolution under these procedures does not constitute an arbitration agreement as defined by the Arbitration Law of Israel. The holder agrees to submit to decisions made under the IL-DRP. However, the IL-DRP does not abrogate any individual’s right to go to court or arbitration to resolve disputes regarding domain names. A list of domain names, as well as IL-DRP decisions, is available at the the ISOC-IL website.8 IL.64 (See Section VII below.)

(2) Statistics At the time of writing there have been 62 IL-DRP decisions published from 1999 to the IL.65 present. A full list of the published decisions, together with copies of the decisions issued, may be viewed on the ISOC’s website.9 Foreign companies are the vast majority of complainants in IL-DRPs—which comes as no real surprise to those who understand the value of trademarks.   Available at: http://www.isoc.org.il/domains/ildrp_rules.html.  See http://www.isoc.org.il/domains/ildrp.html. 9 Ibid. 7 8

563

Israel (‘.il’) IL.66 While there are no exact statistics available, the author notes that only a very small handful

of decisions have been taken further to court, since many of the decisions issued resolve the matter, or are catalysts to resolve the matter between the parties.

IL.67 Of the 62 decisions issued, in 25 cases the respondent did not file any response. Even so, the

panels do not issue a decision without reviewing the merits of the case. Thus, even where there has been no response filed, the panel notwithstanding will review the case brought by the complainant to determine whether or not a prima facie case has been made, and only then will issue an order for transfer of the domain name based on the merits of the case. Thus, it is imperative if bringing an IL-DRP to bring sufficient evidence and argument to support a petition, and not merely assume that all non-response cases will default automatically to transfer of the domain name. From personal anecdotal experience, as both a complainant and as a panellist, even in cases where there is active pre-IL-DRP negotiations between the parties, and active response by the holder is anticipated, the cases of non-response is surprisingly high.

IL.68 Not surprisingly, after the initial availability of the Hebrew IDNs during the secular calendar

holiday period quite a number of Hebrew cybersquatting incidents were detected and there are now a number of decisions regarding Hebrew IDNs as well. See, for example, the decisions regarding Hebrew IDNs for the transliterations of, inter alia, Adobe, Gmail, Reebok, and Gap.10 It is noted that an additional ‘challenging’ issue for Hebrew IDNs, is that it is not always clear which portions of the domain name are to be read from left to right and which from right to left, creating major technical issues.

(3)  Material Scope of the Proceeding IL.69 The IL-DRP is only intended for certain disputes on a limited number of grounds. Disputes

regarding allocation of a domain name by a holder may be brought by a third party (complainant) on the following grounds: (i) the domain name is the same or confusingly similar to a trademark, trade name, registered company name or legal entity registration (‘name’) of the complainant; and (ii) the complainant has rights in the name; and (iii) the holder has no rights in the name; and (iv) the application for allocation of the domain name was made or the domain name was used in bad faith (emphasis added).

IL.70 Section 3 of the Rules provides a non-exclusive list of what may serve as evidence of bad faith:

(i) where a former employee or work for hire contract continues to hold the domain name that should have been allocated to the employer; or (ii) the holder has taken the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iii) the holder has taken or holds the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the trademark owner or to the trademark owner’s competitor, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (iv) the holder has taken the domain name in order to prevent the trademark owner from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that there is a showing of a pattern of such conduct; or

10  See, respectively, http://www.isoc.org.il/docs/gmail_ILDRP_Decision.pdf; http://www.isoc.org.il/docs/ adobe_ILDRP_decision.pdf; http://www.isoc.org.il/docs/IL-DRP_Panel_Decision_gap.pdf; and http://www. isoc.org.il/docs/IL-DRP_reebok.pdf.

564

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.il’ Domain Space (v) by using the domain name, the holder has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s name as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.11 Under the IL-DRP Rules, third-party challenges to an existing allocation of a domain IL.71 name by the ISOC-IL to a holder will be reviewed. Each dispute will be determined on a case-by-case basis. The following disputes are outside the scope of the IL-DRP:

IL.72

(i) any request to disallow, in advance, the allocation of a domain name (eg ‘blacklists’); (ii) disputes regarding domain names allocated prior to 1 January 1999 unless the holder of the domain name under dispute has agreed in writing. (ie ‘grandfathered’ domain names); (iii) disputes between the holder and an accredited registrar regarding allocation of a domain name based on the quality of service/breach of contract or other commercial disputes; (iv) denial by the ISOC-IL of a request to allocate a domain name; (v) cancellation by the ISOC-IL of an allocation of a domain name; and (vi) disputes challenging allocation to a holder, based on the ISOC-IL’s malfeasance in the allocation of a domain name. Challenges based on the ISOC-IL’s action/inaction may be brought to an Israeli court.

(4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement With the exception of domain names currently ‘grandfathered’ in, section 5 of the Rules IL.73 specifically recognizes and binds the applicant to the Israel ADR Procedure (‘IL-DRP’).12 Further, by submission of an application, the applicant—referred to specifically in the Rules as the ‘holder’, to emphasize the legal basis for reallocation of domain names as need be—warrants/consents as part of the application process, inter alia: (i) that the holder is a legal entity; (ii) that allocation or use of the domain name does not infringe on the legal rights of any third party; (iii) consent that the ISOC-IL will not bear any liability for the allocation or use of a domain name; and (iv) specific acceptance of the Rules and consent that the Rules be binding—which includes being subject to an IL-DRP action.13

(5)  Overview of the ADR-Procedure (a)  Legal Framework The ADR procedure specifically does not constitute binding arbitration under the law. The IL.74 original version of the Rules for Allocation of Domain Names under the ‘.il’ ccTLD was drafted in December 1998. The ISOC-IL, together with its outside counsel (including this

  See Section 4 of the IL-DRP Rules, at: http://www.isoc.org.il/domains/ildrp_rules.html.  See http://www.isoc.org.il/domains/il-domain-rules.html. 13 ‘5.4. Acceptance of the Rules: These Rules and the procedures thereunder (‘Rules’) shall bind the Applicant upon submission of the Application and throughout the entire time that the Domain Name is allocated to the Holder. These Rules prevail over any other representations made by ISOC-IL whether prior to, or after such allocation.’ See http://www.isoc.org.il/domains/il-domain-rules.html. 11 12

565

Israel (‘.il’) author), developed the IL-DRP procedure, based in part on the UDRP procedure then being drafted at the same time. Although the Rules were further reviewed and amended more recently (August 2010), two key principles were reaffirmed: (a) that domain names are allocated to holders; and (b) that in order to succeed in the ADR proceeding the IL-DRP requires a showing of application or use in bad-faith—not both as is currently required in a UDRP proceeding (see para IL.73 above). IL.75 The first principle supports re-allocation of the domain name (deliberately drafted in order

to avoid creation of a property right in a domain name—an issue the courts have not yet addressed directly). The second provides a broader and more flexible dispute resolution than the current UDRP. Even so, while not a binding precedent, UDRP decisions are taken as persuasive in IL-DRP Panellist decisions.

IL.76 Available remedies include cancellation (revocation of the allocation) or reallocation of the

domain name to another holder. Damages or costs are not available remedies.

(b)  ADR Complaint IL.77 Section C of the IL-DRP Rules provide for filing an ADR petition, which is submitted

electronically in English.14 The underlying materials may be submitted in either Hebrew or English, and the panel may order translation of the documents into Hebrew or English. The petition must be submitted by e-mail,15 and must contain all material and arguments on the basis of which the IL-DRP panellist or panel will take a decision. There is no word limitation. Further, the petition must be accompanied by payment, discussed in Section III.8 below. In addition, the petition must contain the names, addresses, and telephone, e-mail or other contact references of the parties. The panel, regardless of whether a response is filed or not by the respondent, will take a decision based on the merits of the petition.

IL.78 Either party may request that the dispute be reviewed by an extended panel (‘panel’) of three

experts to resolve the dispute. The party requesting the extended panel shall pay the fees for the additional panellists together with the submission of the request for the appointment of the panel. If the complainant is the party that requests the extended panel, then the request must be filed together with the submission of the petition or within seven days thereof. If the party requesting the extended panel is the holder, then the request must be filed together with the response (discussed further in para IL.83 below). No additional requests to extend the panel will be granted.

IL.79 A  petition may include any number of domain names held by a single holder. However,

the panel has the discretion notwithstanding to determine that these should be divided into separate proceedings. As a practical matter, the complainant would have to be aware of other instances in which the holder may be holding a number of domain names, since the WHOIS database of the ISOC-IL is not searchable by holder, and thus it is harder to obtain this information. The panellist may be able to obtain this information confidentially from the ISOC-IL and use it as an additional basis for a finding of bad faith under certain circumstances.

IL.80 The petition must include a statement of the nature of the dispute, including reference to

each of the four elements of the grounds for the dispute, namely:

 See http://www.isoc.org.il/domains/ildrp_rules.html.   The email address for such submissions is: [email protected].

14 15

566

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.il’ Domain Space (i) that the domain name is the same or confusingly similar to a trademark, trade name, registered company name or legal entity registration (defined as a ‘name’) of the complainant; (ii) that the complainant has rights in the name; (iii) that the respondent does not have rights in the name; (iv) that the domain name was allocated or used in bad faith. It is this last point that gives the IL-DRP a wider swath even than the UDRP. A non-exhaustive list of evidence of bad faith is provided in Section 4 of the Rules, and is very IL.81 helpful in providing grounds that the panel will find persuasive (see para IL.70 above). As a matter of practice, Section 4.1.a is good to counteract the leverage of a disgruntled employee; Sections 4.1.b, c, d, and e can be widely read to include cybersquatting; Section 4.1.c should be invoked where the holder has become ‘greedy’ in demands for money; Section 4.1.d is for patterns of abusive behaviour; and Section 4.1.e may be used in cases of intentional initial interest confusion or seeking to look affiliated or a distributor of a brand owner or branded goods. Upon receipt of a written complaint, together with payment, the ISOC-IL convenes a panel IL.82 of either one or three panellists, as requested by the complainant, within 28 days. Once the panel has been convened and the complaint and supporting evidence provided to the holder, the respondent then has 15 days in which to respond. The panel then has 21 days to issue its decision. As a practical matter, although the ISOC-IL is charged with convening a panel within IL.83 28 days, given the limited number of qualified panellists without conflict, it may take longer to convene the panel—especially if an extended panel of three experts is requested. Once the panellists are chosen, the ISOC-IL puts pressure on the panel to get the procedure rolling.

(c)  ADR Response Once the panel is convened and the petition forwarded to the respondent, the respondent has IL.84 two weeks to file a response—unless otherwise extended by discretion of the panel. Should the respondent wish to request an expanded panel, (s)he may do so together with filing the response, together with payment of the additional fees for an extended panel of three (NIS2,400). A respondent may raise in his defense anything that mitigates the grounds raised in the com- IL.85 plaint: for example, anything to show that he has a right in the name or that allocation or use of the domain name was not done in bad faith. As discussed above, the panel is authorized to take a determination even in the event of IL.86 non-response. Notwithstanding, the panel will review the merits of the petition, even where the respondent has not filed a response.

(d) Procedural Issues The panellist(s) has/have quite a bit of discretion, and can extend the deadlines and can IL.87 request additional information relevant to its determination, including the means by which the material be submitted. For example, the materials may include additional statements from the parties, documents and affidavits. Subject to the Rules, the panellist/panel may conduct proceedings in such a manner as it deems appropriate while giving due consideration to the speedy resolution of the dispute and the technologies available. The panel­ list/chair, may reasonably extend, at his own discretion, any time limit provided for in these rules. Unless otherwise authorized by the panellist/chair, proceedings shall be held in English, via IL.88 e-mail.

567

Israel (‘.il’) IL.89 Either party may request an extended panel (discussed above), and either party may request

the exclusion of a panellist appointed by the ISOC-IL on the grounds of a potential conflict of interests. Such request shall be submitted to the panellist or the chair, and shall include details of the alleged potential conflict of interest.

IL.90 In this author’s personal experience as both a panellist and petitioner, flexible extension of

time frameworks has been relevant, whereas requests for additional documentation are, as a practical matter, more rare.

IL.91 Once a panel issues a decision for transfer of the domain name, within 45 days of the decision

(in order to give the parties time to revert to court should they so elect) the ISOC-IL will reallocate the name only upon receipt of a request from the successful complainant’s registrar. The transfer is not automatic, and it is imperative that the complainant follow up to ensure reallocation of the domain name.

(6)  Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider IL.92 The registry, the ISOC-IL, will appoint one or three experts to serve as an IL-DRP panel to resolve

the dispute. There are no other alternative ADR dispute resolution providers other than the panels appointed by the ISOC-IL. The registry is bound by any decision of the panellist/panel to assign, revoke or re-assign the domain name under dispute, subject to modification or reversal by an Israeli court order. The ISOC-IL is merely the facilitator in establishing the IL-DRP and except in respect of deliberate wrongdoing, any member of the ISOC-IL shall not be liable to a party for any act or omission in connection with any application or IL-DRP proceedings.

IL.93 The ISOC-IL is not a party to any disputes related to the holding rights in an allocated or

reassigned domain name. Further, ISOC does not act as the arbiter of disputes arising out of the allocation and use of a domain name, and states specifically in Section 24 of the Rules that any dispute between parties should be resolved between the parties themselves, and the ISOC-IL will not become involved in any such disputes or make any determinations with regard to the parties respective rights.

IL.94 ISOC-IL has established the IL-DRP ‘as a service to the public and the Internet Community’

(Section 24 of the Rules), and refers to itself as a ‘facilitator’ in establishing the IL-DRP (Section 25 of the Rules). Further, Section 25 of the Rules deals in greater detail with the ISOC-IL’s limitation of liability, which include, inter alia; as against malfunctions of hardware, software or communication lines; as against security breaches where a third party succeeds in obtaining information or misuse of that information by a third party; as against third-party use of information published in the ISOC-IL WHOIS service; as against any act or omission of an accredited registrar; and/or against third-party infringement of trademark rights due to allocation of the domain name.

(7)  Role of the Administrative Panel IL.95 The registry will appoint an expert to serve as an IL-DRP panellist to resolve the dispute.

Either party may request that the dispute be reviewed by an extended panel of three experts to resolve the dispute. The party requesting the extended panel must pay the fees for the additional panellists at the time the request is submitted. Except in respect of deliberate wrongdoing, any IL-DRP panellist or any member of an IL-DRP Panel constituted under the Rules shall not be liable to whomsoever for any act or omission in connection with any proceedings under the IL-DRP Rules.

(8) Costs IL.96 Section 6 of the IL-DRP Rules provides that the complainant must, at the time of the filings

of its petition, pay an IL-DRP fee to the ISOC-IL. The provider cannot appoint a panel in

568

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.il’ Domain Space an action where the fee has not been paid, as it is expressly barred by the IL-DRP rules. As a matter of practice, the ISOC-IL will not appoint any panel until the fee is paid, and usually gives the petitioner a few days to show proof of payment. If payment is not forthcoming, the ISOC-IL will simply not move forward on the matter.16 At the time of this writing the fees for a single-member case concerning 1-5 domain names, involving a single domain holder, is NIS2,400—and NIS4,800—for a three-person panel. For a case involving six to ten domain names and a single holder, the fee for a single panellist is NIS3,600—and NIS7,200—for a three-person panel. (These fees do not include VAT.)

(9)  Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings Petition to the IL-DRP does not preclude access or petition to an Israeli court of law. IL.97 Notwithstanding, if a party to an informal dispute institutes court proceedings regarding a domain name during the proceedings of the IL-DRP, the court proceedings will not affect or stay the IL-DRP proceedings, unless a court order regarding such is served on the registry. Where the panel or panellist has issued a decision instructing the registry to revoke or cancel IL.98 a domain name registration or to transfer the domain name to a petitioner, the registry will notify the current holder (respondent) of the intended revocation or transfer no less than 30 days before making any such change. This notification is intended to allow the current holder time to seek court review of such decision. The decision of the panellist or panel is final, and will not be reviewed by another panellist or panel.

(10)  ADR Decisions A number of decisions have been issued with regard to disputes about domain names between IL.99 parties, primarily involving trademarks, and more recently IDN versions of trademarks. The vast majority of the petitions involve non-nationals as petitioners filing cybersquatting claims against local national holders. Copies of the decisions are available on the ISOC’s website.17 Early decisions set the tone for the legitimacy of the IL-DRP process, as well as the grounds IL.100 for reallocation. The In re:Disney decision was the first cybersquatting decision on the merits rendered by the Advisory Committee Panel. The decision not only analyzes the merits of the current dispute on the basis of Israeli law, but sets both cybersquatting and the alternative expedited disputed resolution process itself in the context of the normative regimes being developed worldwide under Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the UDRP, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the US anticybersquatting legislation, although the ISOC-IL is bound neither by the UDRP nor US law. Moreover, the panel of In re:Habitat found that the respondent, who was not actually using the name, was nonetheless not acting in good faith by holding up the domain name without use for more than a year, (since the purpose of domain names is to be used), and could potentially use the domain name in an infringing or otherwise illegal manner. Another early decision, in the matter of ‘snapple.co.il’, turned on the issue of bad faith, IL.101 although the respondent holder claimed both legitimate use of the mark in an unrelated and non-confusingly similar field (computers vs. beverages). Although the issue was not discussed in any detail, some hint of ‘reverse hijacking’ was also raised. In that case a local computer developer was challenged in the use of the name SNAPPLE by the owner of the trademark for beverages.18

  For a full list of the applicable filing fees, see http://www.isoc.org.il/domains/ildrp_rules.html, Section 6.1.  See http://www.isoc.org.il/domains/acp.html. 18  Available at: http://www.isoc.org.il/docs/2001-02-Snapple.pdf. 16 17

569

Israel (‘.il’) IL.102 Cases involving non-national complainants, however, do not always result in ‘slam-dunk’

determinations for non-national trademarks owners. To provide a sample of the variety of decisions, see eg Dell Inc v dell-israel.co.il, (transfer to the non-national complainant and trademark owner was granted against a local respondent who falsely appeared to be a local distributor and was unauthorized); Emusic.com v emusic.co.il, (petition denied for failure to establish rights in the relevant name); Pfizer v viagra.org.il, (transfer granted to the non-national complainant and trademark owner based on bad-faith use and no respondent rights in the name); and AXA v axa.co.il, (panellist refused to issue a decision under the IL-DRP, stating that the complaint raised disputed trademark issues and thus was outside the scope of the IL-DRP procedure).19

IL.103 Another early panel decision was issued in response to a request for determination initiated

by the ISOC-IL on its own initiative, regarding allocation of the domain name ‘fuck.co.il ’. The opinion of the panel, by majority decision, was to deny allocation of the domain name as offensive, as this term is defined in Article 3.1.c of the Rules for Allocation of Domain Names under ‘.il’. However, in a more recent and very controversial decision, the panel took an opposite position as to what is deemed ‘offensive’ in the case of a Hebrew version (Y-H-V-H) of the name of God. (These decisions do not currently appear on the ISOC-IL decision page.)

(11)  ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Administrative Panel IL.104 A number of panel decisions make reference to adoption of UDRP decisions as non-binding

but strongly persuasive precedent. See, for example, the IL-DRP decisions re: ‘jgoogle.co.il’20 and ‘crayola.co.il’.21 Given the limited number of IL-DRP decisions issued to date, there are a number of issues determined elsewhere that have not been addressed (extensively) yet in Israel, such as proxy registrations, multiple registrants, reseller rights, free speech, consolidation cases involving multiple complainants and/or respondents, laches, and privacy services, to name a few. However, given the language of the cases that cite the relevance and persuasive value of the UDRP, it may be anticipated that finding relevant UDRP citations in preparing arguments on the issues not yet addressed by IL-DRP panels will be given serious weight.

IL.105 The first IL-DRP decision issued after the implementation of Hebrew IDNs (namely, In

re: Hebrew Reebok.co.il) was issued by this author as panellist, and it was important to articulate how transliterations should be addressed by the IL-DRP. As was stated in the decision: The purpose of the expansion of the domain name space in Israel to include Hebrew Internationalized Domain Names (‘IDNs’), and the expansion of the domain name space world-wide for IDNs in general, is to make the Internet more accessible to more people. In the ‘.il’ ccTLD space, the idea is to enable the offering of domain names to users in Hebrew characters rather than only in Latin characters … In addition to allowing for the expansion of the name space, an additional goal is to keep it a ‘unified’ space … Accordingly, it is critical that a balance between these two worthy goals be struck, and the user trust in, as well as the security and stability of, this expanded unified space not be abused. Thus, the expansion of the name space for Hebrew IDNs is to expand and enhance necessary use by holders with Hebrew characters—not to have the confusingly similar equivalent transliterated names in Hebrew and (English) Latin characters be captured by different entities. As additional anticipated expansion of the Hebrew IDN of the Top Level Domain (TLD) takes place, identical and/or equivalent transliterated alternatives will need to resolve to the same space … There must be protection against cybersquatting and other forms of abuse in the Hebrew IDN name space version that do not differ from the protections already afforded—and

  Available at: http://www.isoc.org.il/domains/ildrp.html.   Available at: http://www.isoc.org.il/docs/IL-UDRP-jgoogle.co.il_decision_30_May_2011.pdf. 21  Available at: http://www.isoc.org.il/docs/ILDRP-CREYOLA.CO.IL-Decision.pdf. [sic] 19 20

570

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws carefully balanced—in the existing ccTLD space. For example, there is confusion and possibly significant danger for the consumer if different owners can hold different versions of confusingly similar equivalent transliterated domain names in Hebrew and in English. The current IL-DRP Rules can and must apply to equivalent transliterations that meet the four elements [of the test].22

More recent opinions set forth the principles of evaluating bad faith in IDN domain names, IL.106 with Hebrew versions of trademarks, also using similar criteria to UDRP decisions. See, for example, the IL-DRP decisions regarding Hebrew IDNs for both the domain names ‘adobe. co.il’23 and ‘marriott.co.il’.24 In addition to an assessment of trademark infringement issues, other factors that have IL.107 been persuasive to panels in finding bad faith include: excessive out of pocket costs (see In re:facebook.co.il); bad-faith spelling choice of transliteration of mark (see In re: (Hebrew version of ) gmail.co.il); unpersuasive arguments regarding fair use of name (see In re:kindlefire.co.il); acquired secondary meaning of common term (see In re:Rakevet.co.il); intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s name as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location (see In re:Essilor).

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (1)  Specific Anticybersquatting Legislation There is currently no specific anticybersquatting legislation in place in Israel. All disputes IL.108 concerning domain names must be addressed via the ADR procedure, or in the national courts via actions for trademark infringement, unjust enrichment and unfair commercial interference, as will be discussed below.

(2)  Infringement of Trademarks (a)  Risk of Confusion The analysis of the risks of likelihood of confusion is similar to elements looked at in the US IL.109 or the UK: sight, sound, meaning, the sophistication of the customer, the channels of trade, and so on are all relevant tests for both the Registrar of Trademarks and courts. However, unlike both the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) in Community Trade Marks applications, the registrar has an almost ‘paternalistic’ concern about consumer confusion, and can reject even co-existence agreements regarding marks that the registrar may feel remain confusingly similar. A  leading case discussing the principles of trademark infringement, likelihood of confu- IL.110 sion, rights of privacy and publicity, as well as unjust enrichment with regard to IP rights is Alonial. et al. v Ariel McDonald, Supreme Court of Israel, Civil Appeal No. 8483/02 (30 March 2004). The case involved a commercial for Burger King featuring a well-known sports figure, McDonald, in an ad against McDonald’s. In a resounding victory for McDonald’s, the Supreme Court, sitting as a Court of Appeal, held inter alia that a trademark is a form of property that is entitled to broad protection in cases where (1)  there is a likelihood of

  Available at: http://www.isoc.org.il/docs/IL-DRP_reebok.pdf.   Available at: http://www.isoc.org.il/docs/adobe_ILDRP_decision.pdf. 24  Available at: http://www.isoc.org.il/docs/IL-DRP_marriott.pdf. 22 23

571

Israel (‘.il’) confusion or (2) one party takes advantage of another’s trademarks for its own gain—even when there is no likelihood of confusion. The Court stated, in dictum, that there might be special situations where use of another company’s trademark for commercial purposes in comparative advertising might be permissible, but based on the facts of this case, did not constitute legitimate comparative advertising. The Court acknowledged that a person has the right to a bona fide use of his or her own name, even if it is similar to another party’s trademark. However, the Court reasoned that this right is not an absolute right, and held there was trademark infringement.25 IL.111 Use of a registered trademark in a domain name to attract users to a page providing sponsored

links for keyword advertising on the Internet via the Google AdWords programme has been held to be non-infringing. See Mat’im Li Fashion Chains for Large Sizes Ltd v Crazy Line Ltd (Case 506/06, 31 July 2006). The Court dismissed the action against both the advertiser and Google via a motion for summary judgment. Citing the Geico case in the US, the District Court of Tel Aviv held that the mere use of a registered trademark in search engines does not constitute trademark infringement or any other civil wrong. The question of other liability and possible unjust enrichment claims remain open. In Matim Li, the District Court discussed not only the use of the trademark and the keyword trigger, but the concepts of initial interest confusion, sophistication of the user on the Internet, the need to balance the free flow of information to consumers, and fairness in advertising.

(b)  Protection of Famous Marks IL.112 Well-known marks are protected in Israel (see paras IL.07 and IL.11 above). A trademark can be found to be a well-known mark even if not used or registered in Israel. The Supreme Court has ruled that the marks ST DUPONT (Orlogad, HCJ 476/82), LEE (The HD Lee Company HCJ 95/68) and BACARDI (Bacardi CA 6181/96) were well-known marks, even though they were not used in Israel for the relevant goods at issue. In a similar vein, the District Court has ruled that CHANEL is a well-known mark, even if not used in Israel for bags (CC2070/90). However, see Absolute Shoes (CA 9191/03) (held that ABSOLUTE SHOES did not infringe ABSOLUT vodka). IL.113 Whether a mark is a well-known mark is a question of fact. Courts have looked at a number

of criteria, including: the degree of recognition of the mark, scope and duration of use, the extent to which the mark is registered/enforced in other countries, inherent or acquired distinctiveness, the degree of exclusivity of the mark and the nature and extent of use by third parties, the types of goods and marketing channels, the scope and duration of advertising of goods under the mark, and the degree to which the reputation of the mark symbolizes quality.

IL.114 Evidence that may support the finding of fame can include customer surveys and requests of

third-party commercial entities to use the mark. It is interesting to note it is also possible to argue successfully that given how much Israelis travel, exposure to the mark at conventions and trade shows, as well as other venues abroad, may suffice in showing acquired reputation in Israel.

IL.115 In some cases where the mark has extensive international fame, the registrar has recognized

marks as well-known, without the need to prove the fame, in effect as a form of ‘judicial knowledge’. See, for example, the registrar’s decision in the matters of TM applications 166367 VALENTINI CLASSIC and 170427 and 170428 (where the registrar held that the mark

  However, see para IL.131 below concerning the Adidas case.

25

572

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws VALENTINO was a well-known mark in the field of fashion); and the registrar’s decision concerning cancellation of TM Reg 129015 for HIKE (holding NIKE a well-known mark). The courts have not addressed dilution with regard to domain names or Internet use per se. IL.116 Dilution, which affords protection to a well-known mark even where there is no likelihood of confusion and the goods/services of the third party are non-competing, is not recognized by statute in Israel. The registrar and the national courts have, as a practical matter, incorporated the concept by looking at a variety of factors, similar to those establishing fame of a mark (see para IL.113 above).26 Although the cases issued to date do not refer directly to domain names, these arguments IL.117 remain available for application in an online context. However, the recent Adidas case (see para IL.134 below) arguably has severely undermined the doctrine of dilution.

(c)  Comparison of ADR v Court Action The ADR mechanism does not offer damages or injunctive relief, or even legal precedent with IL.118 regard to trademark infringement, merely the re-allocation of a domain name. For damages and injunctive relief a party must go to court. It is the author’s opinion that the IL-DRP ADR has recently proven to be a more favour- IL.119 able alternative than the national courts for trademark owners, and certainly with regard to domain name disputes. Further, there is often default judgment, since all the holder has to lose by not showing up is the domain name itself; it risks no costs or damages. Once sued, a defendant is more likely to show up in court if only to avoid costs and damages. Recent court decisions have begun to broadcast some IP ‘backlash’, and the trademark owner is less likely to prevail on as consistent a basis (see below, para IL.163).

(3) Infringement of Personal Names, Names of Cities, and Other Public Law Corporations A certain level of protection for the use of personal names against confusingly similar domain IL.120 names exists in Israel. Although perhaps not the last word on this issue, the District Court held that the sale of a Google Adword term that was the name of a well-known plastic surgeon by a competitor that appeared as a ‘sponsored link’ was allowed. 27 Anecdotally, in certain keyword cases that were settled, and thus the decisions are unavailable, some judges appear to be sympathetic to arguments regarding infringement and abuse of personal names. Corporations’ names are also referenced for protection in the Israel Trademarks Ordinance, but as a practical matter the ITO does not always check its examination with the Companies Register, and very similar names co-exist. Anecdotally, a previous Registrar of Trademarks was particularly sensitive to the issue of protection of corporate names, and did enforce the cross-checking, but that practice has not been consistently followed. We are unaware of any case law in infringement of names of cities. As stated in para IL.31 above, there are restrictions with respect to ‘municipal’ domain names.

(4)  Infringement of Titles There is no case law on this subject. The infringement of publication titles is handled in IL.121 much the same way as other confusing similarity (infringement as described in the preceding sections). It should be anticipated that titles of publications are likely to be considered descriptive of their contents and therefore not protectable absent secondary meaning. Infringement

  See, for example, the registrar’s decision in Opposition to TM App. 93261 for PENTAX.   CA 15667-11-11, Proportzia PMC Ltd., Google Inc. et al. v Dr Dov Klein, delivered 29 July 2013.

26 27

573

Israel (‘.il’) of a title of a movie or book might come under copyright protection. Fallbacks in Israel also arguably include: commercial torts, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment, especially if the plaintiff could prove bad faith.

(5)  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name IL.122 This has not been discussed per se by the courts. However, Israel does recognize common-law

rights to a trademark based on use and acquired reputation, which may be the basis for such an argument. A domain name can become a trademark if it is used as a trademark, and otherwise satisfies the requirement of distinctiveness required of all trademarks. Mere registration of a domain name is not sufficient to acquire intellectual property rights. The minimum requirements for quantity or quality of use of a domain name sufficient to create trademark rights await elaboration by the courts.

(6)  Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available (a)  General Information IL.123 In court the plaintiff can seek numerous remedies including:

(i) temporary and permanent injunctions ordering a defendant not to use a specific domain name or to re assign the domain name; (ii) court order to IL-DRP accredited registrars for the cancellation or revocation of a domain name or to re-allocate the domain name to the plaintiff; (iii) monetary compensation for damages for the breach of various civil torts; (iv) court order for the defendant to provide accountings in order to calculate the unjust enrichment gained by him because of his misconduct and breach of civil tort of unjust enrichment.

(b)  Brief Review of Pertinent Case History IL.124 The first Internet cases in Israel were indeed copyright and broadcasting rights and not trade-

mark cases, and thus are outside the scope of this chapter. Since that time, however, a number of relevant decisions concerning the use of trademarks in domain names have been handed down under various provisions of Israeli national law, which will be discussed in more detail during the course of this section.

IL.125 As discussed in Section I above, Section 1 of the Commercial Torts Law recognizes the tort

of passing off. The passing off tort is recognized by Israeli courts as a course of action with regard to domain names.

IL.126 In order to succeed in an action involving domain name misuse, the plaintiff needs to provide

proof that:

(i) the plaintiff acquired goodwill in the name of the domain name at issue; and (ii) there is a likelihood of confusion between the plaintiff ’s name or domain name to the domain name operated by the defendant. IL.127 In the event that both of these conditions are satisfactorily proved by the plaintiff the court

may award damages. See, for example, MF 54749/99, OM 10909/99, Cellcom Israel Ltd v TM Aquanet Computer Communications Ltd et al.; CA 1753/07, Webs Planet Ltd v Hezi Hazan et al.; and CA 2308/02, Zer4U (2000) Ltd v A Pirchey Sderot Chen Ltd. Although attempt has been made to distinguish domain names by addition of the second-level domain (eg ‘.co.’, ‘.net.’, etc) to help avoid confusion (eg ‘Jerusalem.co.il’ and ‘Jerusalem.muni’ can coexist), in the Cellcom/Aquanet decision, the court enjoined registration of ‘cellcom.co.il’ and ‘cellcom.net.il’ by two different companies in arguably related fields.

574

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws Unfair interference is similarly prohibited, and according to Section 3 of the Commercial IL.128 Torts Law, it is unlawful to prevent or restrict access of customers, employees, or agents into a business, asset, or service in an unfair manner. The courts have recognized that where a competitor purchased a domain name which is in IL.129 the trade name of a company or person, a trademark, or confusingly similar to them then such use by a competitor or the assignment of such domain to a competitor in effect constitutes unfair interference. The courts have also recognized that if a competitor acquired the domain and did not use IL.130 it, it can also be considered as ‘unfair interference’ since such competitor is preventing the rights holder from obtaining and using the disputed domain. See, for example, CA 1627/01, MS Magentics Ltd v Discopy (Israel) Ltd et al.; CA 11296-09-10, TOMMY HILEFIGER (sic) LICENSING LLC et al. v Elad Menachem Swisa; and CA 1753/07, Webs Planet Ltd v Hezi Hazan et al. According to Section 1 of the Unjust Enrichment Law 1979, a plaintiff in a claim for unjust IL.131 enrichment is required to prove three cumulative elements: (i) enrichment on the part of the defendant; (ii) that the enrichment of the defendant emanates from the plaintiff; and (iii) that the enrichment of the defendant is unlawful. The courts have recognized that use of a domain name which is identical or confusingly IL.132 similar to the trademark of a rights holder can be considered as committing the tort of unjust enrichment. See, for example, LC Appeal 5768/94, A.SH.I.R Import Manufacture & Distribution et al. v Forum Consumer Products Ltd et al.; and CA 2308/02, Zer4U (2000) Ltd v A Pirchey Sderot Chen Ltd. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the scope of Unjust Enrichment Law and whether IL.133 it could be applied to intellectual property issues. The precedent set by the Israel Supreme Court in that case was that the Unjust Enrichment Law may be applied to intellectual property even where actions for passing off or other violations of intellectual property laws do not lie. See, for example, LC Appeal 5768/94, A.SH.I.R Import Manufacture & Distribution et al. v Forum Consumer Products Ltd et al. A recent Supreme Court case analyzed the issues of trademark infringement, dilution and IL.134 unjust enrichment in the case of LC Appeal 563/11 Adidas Salomon A.G. (‘Adidas’) v Jilal Yassin (‘Yassin’) et  al. The Supreme Court, by a majority opinion, dismissed an appeal by Adidas against the District Court decision finding that the defendant, an importer of cheaper shoes bearing four stripes, had not infringed Adidas’ well-known three-stripe mark. The Supreme Court noted that, while it had been held in the past that marks should be IL.135 compared with regard to the registered trademark as it appears on the registry (rather than the marks as they appear on the products), it should be limited to word marks. Device marks—and especially marks that consist of elements that may be perceived as aesthetic features, such as stripes sewn on a shoe—must be considered as used in association with the products. The Supreme Court further held that secondary meaning does not supersede inherent dis- IL.136 tinctiveness, and that both inherent and acquired distinctiveness must be reviewed simultaneously when determining the likelihood of confusion. The Court stated that just because the defendant attempted to imitate the plaintiff’s mark did not necessarily mean that the defendant intended to mislead consumers; sometimes, a finding of intention to mislead does not necessarily warrant the conclusion that confusion actually took place.

575

Israel (‘.il’) IL.137 The Court noted that a finding of trademark infringement does not automatically result in a

finding of passing off, and conversely, that there may be situations where passing off is established, but the trademark has not been infringed.

IL.138 The majority opinion was particularly stringent on dilution, finding that while dilution does

not require proof of likelihood of confusion, it should not be adopted as a default position wherever a likelihood of confusion has not been established, and should be limited to exceptional cases.

IL.139 The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling in A.SH.I.R., discussed above, that protection under

the unjust enrichment legislation may be available to intellectual property where the laws do not provide a remedy and contain no provision to the contrary.

IL.140 The dissenting minority opinion was that the defendant had attempted a free-ride on the

plaintiff ’s goodwill, even in the absence of a likelihood of confusion or likelihood of association among consumers as to origin, since consumers were attracted by the goodwill and image built by Adidas, they consciously enjoyed the imitation product. The Supreme Court refused Adidas’s petition for an additional hearing regarding its appellate ruling of the case (ACH 6658/12 27 August 2014).

IL.141 False designation is likewise an actionable claim, provided for under the Commercial Torts

Law. According to Section 2 of the Commercial Torts Law a business shall not advertise something that he knows to be untrue with respect to his own business, profession, goods, or services.

IL.142 The courts have recognized that use of a domain name which is similar or confusingly similar

to the trademark of a right holder can be considered as committing a tort of false description, when the use of the domain name together with the appearance and content of the website is misleading and confusing customers to believe that the website is operated or affiliated with the trademark rights holder. See, for example, CA 8323/06, The Multidisciplinary Mechina for Design and Architecture Ltd v Shorashim Mechinot for Design and Architecture Ltd et al.; and CA 11296-09-10, TOMMY HILEFIGER (sic) LICENSING LLC et al. v Elad Menachem Swisa, approved in a recent Supreme Court review decision (ACH 8619/14, 15 February 2015) by Deputy President of the Court of Justice Elyakim Rubinstein.

IL.143 In accordance with Section 46 of the Trademarks Ordinance, the holder of a right in a reg-

istered trademark in Israel has the sole right to use the trademark in Israel. The courts have recognized that use of a domain name which is similar or confusingly similar to the trademark of a right holder may constitute trademark infringement and have allowed claims based on the Trademarks Ordinance. See in this regard: MF 54749/99, OM 10909/99, Cellcom Israel Ltd v TM Aquanet Computer Communications Ltd et  al.;28 MF 14377/01,

28  Cellcom, one of the largest Israeli cellular phone companies petitioned the court for an injunction preventing ISP Aquanet from using the domain name ‘cellcom.net.il’ to offer a new service that enables users to receive their e-mail on their cellular phones. Cellcom had registered CELLCOM as a trademark in Israel, and currently operates its website under the address ‘cellcom.co.il’. Under the ISOC-IL Rules for registering domain names under the ‘.il’ ccTLD, an address ending with ‘net.il’ may be allocated only to ISPs holding a valid Internet operating licence from the Ministry of Communications, and thus Cellcom could not register the ‘.net.il’ domain name and re-allocation was not allowed. The Court held that Cellcom’s massive investment in advertising has made the brand name CELLCOM famous in Israel. The Court also found, inter alia, likelihood of association and confusion, in particular since almost all telephone companies in Israel also act as ISPs or have joint ventures with ISPs. The Court ordered the defendant to stop using the domain name ‘cellcom.net.il’, and initially wanted the domain name transferred to Cellcom. However, under the allocation Rules, since only ISPs qualify for allocation under the ‘.net’ second-level domain, the domain name is currently de-allocated.

576

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name OM 810/01, The Israeli Bar Association v Yair Ben David et al.; CA 2308/02, Zer4U (2000) Ltd v A Pirchey Sderot Chen Ltd; CA 9136/07, Expedia Inc v Drori Yekutieli et al.; Orange International Development Ltd v Orangephone Ltd (District Court of Tel Aviv 2960/99, 62281/99);29 AIWA Co Ltd v Shay-Lee Engel et al. (District Court of Tel Aviv, 1529/99, 51713/99);30 Compunet v O.B.L. Computer Network (District Court of Tel Aviv, 1439/99, 34804/99).31 The use of diversion of a trademark has not been addressed directly by the courts. The IL.144 Magnetics case32 discussed below could arguably be extended to a diversion theory. A  few court cases in Israel have directly addressed the question of cybersquatting. The IL.145 District Court of Tel-Aviv ordered transfer of a domain name under the Commercial Torts Law, discussed above. The law prohibits interference with ‘access’ to a business (fax, phone, physical access). The court, in considering the question of whether Internet and e-mail, and registration of another’s trademark as a domain name, were included in that ‘access’, found that they were included. In that case, the holder of the domain name was not making use of the domain and had no legitimate reason to have it. Although the defence of the Freedom of Occupation Law was raised, the Court found that it does not offer a complete defence to commercial torts. See CA 1627/01, M.S.Magnetics Ltd v Discopy (Israel) Ltd et al.; and also the early case of Yahoo, Inc v Yahoo Israel (District Court 615/98, unpublished).33

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name A domain name can become a trademark if it is used as a trademark, and otherwise sat- IL.146 isfies the requirement of distinctiveness required of all trademarks. Mere registration of a domain name is not sufficient to acquire intellectual property rights. Beyond that, the minimum requirements for quantity or quality of use of a domain name sufficient to create trademark rights await elaboration by the courts. This is not an issue that many courts have addressed. Descriptive terms are registerable as domain names. There is no legislation or case law provid- IL.147 ing a cause of action for competitors against the use of such domain names. 29  This author notes that despite its seemingly generic name, Orange established a broad reputation in a very short space of time due to an extensive media blitz in Israel. Orange, the third cellular phone company in Israel, recently entered the market aggressively and in effect created ‘instant fame’. 30  AIWA petitioned to enjoin use of the domain name ‘aiwa.co.il’ by the defendant and transfer of the domain name. The plaintiff alleged its worldwide reputation and trademark registrations for AIWA. The Court held for the plaintiff and enjoined use of the name AIWA or permutations thereof, and ordered transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff. 31  The plaintiff, Compunet, filed for a preliminary injunction against use of the mark COMPUNET based on its common-law and trademark rights. (Compunet had a trademark application pending in the Israel Trademark Office.) The court issued the preliminary injunction and enjoined operation of the website under the domain name. 32  CA 1627/01, MS Magnetics Ltd v Discopy (Israel) Ltd et al. 33  Because of the settlement, this case did not settle the underlying legal questions. However, it is important to note that the defendants (Yahoo Israel) raised the argument that the international YAHOO! did not operate in Israel at that time. Judge Shalev, the District Court judge, rejected this argument stating that physical presence in a particular country is of no consequence on the Internet. The international activities of YAHOO! on the Internet, which can also be seen in Israel, are enough to prohibit Yahoo-Israel from using the name of the well-known company. However, the arguments raised in court were not included in any final published judgment and it is unknown whether this is still persuasive precedent.

577

Israel (‘.il’)

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers IL.148 As discussed in paras IL.92 ff. above, the ISOC-IL in its Rules has limited its liability, includ-

ing contributory liability. Challenges to the limitations placed by the ISOC-IL on the registration of domain names have been made. In Noihauser v ISOC-IL (High Court of Justice, 7611/97), the Israeli Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice (which sits as a court of first review for issues involving challenges to decisions of governmental and administrative authorities) reviewed a challenge to the then-in-place ISOC-IL Rules, and its authority for registering domain names.

IL.149 In that matter, the applicant for a large number of domain names, which included a number

of names prohibited for a variety of reasons under the current rules, was denied registration of some of the requested domain names. In an action for preliminary injunction against the ISOC-IL, the applicant claimed that: (i) the ISOC-IL lacked authority to limit the registration of domain names; (ii) the rules were unreasonable as written; and (iii) the rules were applied unfairly in this case.

IL.150 In particular, the applicant claimed that there should be no limitation on the number or

nature of domain names allocated to a single applicant. The Supreme Court denied requests for both preliminary and permanent injunctions.

IL.151 Further, as stated above (see para IL.27), the State Attorney recently set forth policy that e-mail

that is not in the possession of an ISP, but which is likely to pass through its computers in the future, may only be seized, kept and copied after an appropriate order has been obtained under the Secret Monitoring Law, 5739-1979. See MC 090868/00, Netvision Ltd v Israel Defense Forces et al., (addressing the criteria for the order required and the role of the ISP in compliance with such order). Israel, like other countries that strongly value the freedom of speech, is attempting to find the right balance with the equally understandable need for security. Perhaps surprisingly to some, Israel is quite vigilant in protecting freedom of expression.

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property IL.152 Upon registration, a ‘.il’ domain name will be entered into the ISOC-IL registry database and in

the global DNS. The allocation of a domain name to a holder grants the holder with a right-ofuse for the allocation period, as part of the domain name resolution service provided by the registry. A domain name is not subject to proprietary rights and accordingly, the aforementioned right-of-use does not constitute ownership or bestow property rights under the ISOC-IL Rules.

IL.153 The ISOC-IL Rules do not address what happens when a domain name holder dies or when

a company is dissolved, unlike, for example, Nominet in the UK, courts have not specifically addressed this issue. However, Section 20 of the Rules for allocation of domain names provides the ISOC-IL’s cancellation and reversion authority. Under Section 20.1, non-payment of any of the fees specified in the Rules, including allocation, renewal, or re-assignment fees, might lead to the removal of the domain name from the registry, and the domain name may be re-allocated. Ordinarily, as a practical matter the ISOC-IL will not review the details regarding renewal of a domain name, so that if all appears in order, and the fees paid, the domain name allocation will continue. It is the legal obligation of the holder to provide updated information. Accordingly, for example, if there is a legal change in the status of the

578

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law holder, such as where the holder dies or where a company is dissolved, it would be up to the new entity to request re-assignment of the domain name. The Rules also provide for ‘exceptional circumstances’, under which the ISOC-IL may cancel IL.154 allocation of a domain name: where to maintain the allocation would place the ISOC-IL in conflict with statutory obligations, the terms of an Israeli court order or of another competent tribunal, including a decision by an arbitrator, or upon the decision by an IL-DRP panellist or panel (Section 20.2). If the ISOC-IL unilaterally cancels the domain name under ‘exceptional circumstances’, then it will not re-allocate the domain name for 30 days from the cancellation.

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (1)  International Conflicts Civil Procedure Law 1984, Takana (Regulation) 500, may be the basis for exercising juris- IL.155 diction in Israel over international parties, in so much as it allows courts to authorize service of documents outside of Israel under certain circumstances where the locus of action should be in Israel. However, even where jurisdiction is invoked, the defendant may argue ‘forum bilti naot’ (forum non conveniens). The key test is the majority of the ‘zika’ (connections) with the forum. Thus, if there is a choice, the court will look to which jurisdiction has the most ‘zika’ to the case. Further, Civil Procedure Law Regulation No 3 deals with venue, which is usually that of the defendant. Civil Procedure Regulation No 6 holds that the default venue is Jerusalem. In short, for foreign nationals looking to protect their rights in Israel, or for foreign defendants who are concerned about becoming subject to suit in Israel, there is a legal basis for Israel exercising jurisdiction. Thus, while a foreign defendant can argue that jurisdiction should not lie in Israel, should the case proceed, absent determination that venue should lie in another city (eg Tel Aviv), the party may anticipate litigation in Jerusalem. One important practice tip for foreign nationals seeking to enforce their rights in Israel—such IL.156 parties should always be prepared to come to Israel to testify. Although video conferencing may be available by authorization of the Registrar or court, more and more the Israeli courts are growing sensitive and are increasingly refusing to ‘let people off the hook’ for not coming to Israel. Affidavit signers have to be prepared to show up in Israel for cross-examination. If any ADR procedure not chosen voluntarily by the parties, and instead a court action is IL.157 filed and where jurisdiction lies in Israel, then the judge has the authority and discretion to offer the parties to go to arbitration or mediation, but the court cannot force the parties to do so. See Section 79b of the Courts Law for arbitration and Section 79c for mediation. Israeli courts traditionally exercise jurisdiction where a substantial connection exists between IL.158 the subject matter of an action and the jurisdiction, and will generally apply Israeli law if the tortious activity occurred in Israel. The easier case is if the website is in Hebrew, and thus would meet the ‘targeted audience’ test. Since Israel jurisprudence relating to jurisdiction continues to develop in Israel, other foreign IL.159 court decisions are given persuasive weight, with Israeli courts borrowing heavily from US and UK case law in attempting to determine proceedings in the Internet context.34 34  It is interesting to note that as Israeli jurisprudence continues to develop (being both a ‘young’ and an ‘ancient’ country) different issues are informed by an amalgamation of a variety of laws based on Israel’s earlier history of governance, so that, for example, property law has Ottoman roots, IP protection is primarily based on UK law, personal status (such as marriage and divorce) is based on the individual’s religious law (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc), as well as Talmudic precedents and modern Israeli law.

579

Israel (‘.il’) IL.160 Although the matter has not yet been addressed by a higher court, there is a Magistrate’s

Court decision regarding venue of an Internet case in Israel (domestic, not international—ie questioning to which city in Israel Internet cases should be properly brought) which offers a great deal of discussion in dicta that might shed some light on how a higher court could approach this issue. See Haim Levi v Alon Steinberg, Beit Mishpat Shalom in Jerusalem. The court makes reference in its discussion to whether the test should be the ‘targeted audience’ (‘kahal ya’ad’) test or the ‘end user’ (‘mishtamesh katzeh’) test, and came to the same jurisdictional conclusion as used in the US under the ‘targeted audience’ test. The court in dicta also looked to cases such as the Yahoo! Nazi memorabilia case in France, to consider the arguments addressed in that matter (which discussed whether, since blocking is technologically possible, one might draw an assumption that where a company has decided not to block access to the website in a particularly country, it is targeting to that country as well). However, the court also looked at what happens in dictator-country situations such as China or Iran, in order to consider the ramifications of such a determination. Even though on its face the Nazi memorabilia case’s fact scenario appears not to be a sympathetic case, the court expressed deep concern with the freedom of expression on the Internet, and gave as an example what would have been the outcome if it had been an Iranian or Chinese website (rather than a French one) that ordered Yahoo! to disconnect the website that attacked their regimes.

IL.161 In the same case, the court also looked to a wide number of other precedents, including cases

that turned on whether the website actively targeted the user or whether it was merely passive. Another case cited therein dealt with the test of the ‘actual effects’ the website owner should have anticipated, including geo-targeting, and cites Michael Geist’s article in the Berkley Law Journal (‘Toward Greater Certainty for Internet Jurisdiction’), and Judge Tennenbaum called for the importance of a harmonized legal system with regard to the Internet.35 In the end, the court recognized and articulated the concerns that would prevent two different judicial systems of two different jurisdictions to contract together in order to jointly rule on a single case and calling for more clarity, but courts in Israel have not yet entered any decisions concerning the matter.

(2)  Choice of Law IL.162 See the International Conflicts section in para IL.155 above.

(3)  Substantive Law Issues IL.163 A number of recent cases (in particular Adidas and RedHat36) appear to be recent evidence

of court decisions that reflect ‘IP backlash’. That is, the courts in these cases have raised the ‘meta-issue’ of what appears to be a retraction in the case law of fundamental trademark protection afforded by legislation. The courts, even while acknowledging trademark protection, and in some cases even the fame of the relevant mark, have nevertheless been unwilling to grant absolute protection to such marks, and have ruled against findings of dilution or infringement even where the fame of the mark has been established. This appears to be a trend that has recently been seen in other countries, and is now appearing in Israel as well. This author would argue that while this phenomenon may be due to some judges’ misunderstanding of 35 Dr Avraham Tennenbaum in an article dated 2004 on jurisdiction on the Internet suggests four options for solution of the jurisdiction issue:  (i)  each country does what it wants—but this may lead to contradictions—as examples cite various US state laws about Internet gambling—and ignore one another’s rulings; (ii) international treaties that determine the jurisdiction and circumstances (this is, however, theoretical); (iii) international treaties that would set the rules for the Internet no matter where jurisdiction lies, then no one will care because the law is the same; or (iv) resolution of the conflict through ADR. 36  Originating Motion 3768-12-10, Red Hat Inc v Start Commercial Ltd and Others (District Court of Tel Aviv-Yafo, dated 24 March 2011).

580

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law trademark law, it might also be informed by, and is arguably in response to, over-zealous lawyers who are pushing the law by attempting to extend protection through the bringing of questionable or aggressive cases (which in turn creates bad trademark law). The practical result is that rather than trademark enforcement being seen as a form of consumer protection and a positive rights issue for brand owners, there appears to be a setback concern that enforcement of trademarks rights by owners results in overreaching and may stifle competition, and thus the principles of trademark law that have been long established seem to be eroding. The current definition of ‘use’ of a trademark under the Trademark Ordinance could arguably IL.164 also cover Internet usage, although the legislation does not refer with any specificity to the Internet. The issue of what constitutes trademark use on the Internet remains an evidentiary one. As an overarching principle, this author believes that there is a very delicate balance in trying to codify any reference to the Internet, given the time lag. On the other hand, given the reality of the Internet, it is imperative that any changes should anticipate issues that recognize use on the Internet, but not attempt to capture examples as they will easily become quickly obsolete. Since the enactment of the ‘Anti-Spam’ law in June 2008, which provides for statutory dam- IL.165 ages, the Israeli courts have granted damages aggregating to over NIS1 million in spam-related proceedings. A Hebrew database maintained by the ISOC-IL of spam cases may be found on the ISOC’s website.37

  Specifically, the spam database may be found at: http://www.isoc.org.il/spam/spam_cases.html.

37

581

ITALY (‘.it’) Philipp Fabbio

I. Overview of the National System of Protection of Trademarks and Other Intellectual Property Rights in Signs 

(1) Types of Protected Intellectual Property Rights  (2) Development of Domain Name Law 

(2) The Infringement of Trademarks through the Registration and Use of Domain Names  IT.66 (3) The Protection of Firm Names (Ditta), Special Commercial Designations (Insegna), and Company Names (Ragione Sociale and Denominazione Sociale) Against Use as Domain Names  IT.83 (4) Infringement of Names  IT.87 (5) Infringement of Titles  IT.90 (6) Names of Cities, Towns, and Public Bodies  IT.94 (7) Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available  IT.95

IT.01 IT.01 IT.10

II. The ccTLD (‘.it’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

IT.11 (1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry  IT.11 (2) The Structure of the Name Space  IT.12 (3) Registration Restrictions  IT.13 (4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement  IT.16 (5) Transfer or Cancellation of Domain Names  IT.19 (6) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding  IT.22 (7) Statistics  IT.23 III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution  IT.24 (1) Naming Authority Arbitration Proceedings (Procedura Arbitrale)  IT.26 (2) Reassignment Proceedings (Procedura di Riassegnazione)  IT.30 IV.  Court Litigation  IT.64 (1) Abusive Domain Name Registrations (Cybersquatting, Domaingrabbing)  IT.64

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  VI. Liability of the Registry, Registrars, and Internet Service Providers  VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law  (1) International Jurisdiction (2) Choice of Law (3) Substantive Law

IT.108

IT.111 IT.114 IT.115 IT.115 IT.118 IT.121

Links Registration Authority and Naming Authority: http://www.nic.it WHOIS: http://www.nic.it Registration conditions: http://www.nic.it/documenti/regolamenti-e-linee-guida/Regolamento_ assegnazione_v6.2.pdf Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e Marchi (Italian Patent and Trademark Office): www.uibm.gov.it Centro Risoluzione Dispute Domini (Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre): http:// www.crdd.it MFSD—Risoluzione Stragiudiziale delle Controversie in materia di Proprietà Industriale: http://www.mfsd.it Camera Arbitrale Nazionale ed Internazionale di Milano: http://www.camera-arbitrale.it/it/ index.php ADR Company: http://www.adrcompany.it

583

Italy (‘.it’) Procedura di riassegnazione (Decisions in reassignment proceedings):  http://www.crdd.it/ map/decisioni-crdd.htm http://www.tonucci.com/ita/aree_di_pratica/decisioni.php Collection of judicial decisions on domain names: http://www.interlex.it/nomiadom/ordinanze.htm

I.  Overview of the National System of Protection of Trademarks and Other Intellectual Property Rights in Signs* (1)  Types of Protected Intellectual Property Rights IT.01 Statutory provisions dealing specifically with domain names are found in the Codice della

Proprietà Industriale (‘the CPI’),1 ss 12(1)(c), 22, 118(6), and 133. Sections 12(1)(c) and 22 define the scope of trademark protection. In doing so, they also consider interference with domain names that are used in the course of a business activity (nomi a dominio aziendali). Sections 118(6) and 133 deal with remedies for trademark infringements and make explicit reference to domain names as well. Besides these specific rules, conflicts before the Italian courts based on domain name registrations are to be resolved according to the general rules of trademark, competition, and civil law.

IT.02 Name rights (diritto al nome) are regulated by the Codice Civile, ss 7 to 9 (‘the CC’).

Protection is given both to the names of natural persons, consisting of given name and family name, and to the names of legal persons. According to the CC, s 7(1), anyone who might suffer a disadvantage through the unauthorized use of his name by another can file an action for the termination of the damaging act, and may also claim damages. Article 7 of the CC does not cover the use of the name as a distinguishing sign for goods and services. In the opinion of the Corte di Cassazione, the provisions of trademark law are exhaustive on this point.2

IT.03 The statutory basis for Italian trademark law could originally be found in the Royal Decree

dated 21 June 1942, No 929 (also known as the Trademark Act), which was adjusted to the requirements of the European Community Directive dated 21 December 1988 (89/104/ EEC) by Regulation No 480 dated 4 December 1992. Its wording largely corresponded with the Trademark Directive EC/89/1043 and the Community Trademark Regulation EC/40/1994.4 In 2005, its provisions were transfused into the CPI.

IT.04 Italian trademark law recognizes both registered and unregistered trademarks. The exclusive

right to a registered trademark (marchio registrato) is created through registration of the sign as a trademark in the Register maintained by the Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e Marchi (Italian Patent and Trademark Office).5 The right to an unregistered trademark (marchio di fatto) on *  Decisions cited in the following without source are from Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001. The abbreviation ‘ord.’ stands for ‘ordinanza’ (order) and indicates that this was an interlocutory injunction. The abbreviation ‘sent.’ stands for ‘sentenza’ (decision). The numbers in brackets correspond to the consecutive numbering that is allocated to the decisions and headnotes in the above-mentioned work. The abbreviation ‘Trib.’ stands for ‘tribunale’ (provincial court). The abbreviation ‘Cass.’ stands for ‘Cassazione’ (Supreme Court). 1  ‘Code of Industrial Property Rights’, Legislative Decree dated 10 February 2005, No 30. 2  Cass., 21 October 1988, GADI 1988, No 2242. 3  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC dated 21 December 1988 on the Harmonization of the Laws of the Member States relating to Trademarks, OJ L40 dated 11 February 1989. 4  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94, OJ L11/1, amended by Regulation dated 22 December 1994 (OJ L349/93). 5 See http://213.175.14.66/Dgspc/Uff_Brev/homepage.htm.

584

I.  Overview of the National System the other hand arises through actual use leading to reputation. Registered and unregistered trademarks differ only in the way they are created, and otherwise the conditions for protection against the risk of confusion are the same.6 In addition, the CC and the CPI contain individual provisions concerning firm names (ditta) and special commercial designations (insegna). According to the wording of the CPI, all new signs capable of graphic representation can IT.05 be protected as individual or collective marks. The scope of protection of the registered and unregistered trademarks covers the use of identical marks for identical goods or services and the use of confusingly similar signs for identical or similar goods or services. A likelihood of confusion can be assumed if there is a risk that the two signs will be associated with each other (s 20(1)(b)). Well-known trademarks are protected beyond the field of similar goods and services and hence IT.06 the likelihood of confusion under trademark law. The optional protection of well-known trademarks against exploitation of reputation contained in the European Trademark Directive was adopted by the Italian legislature in the new provisions: trademarks that have acquired ‘repute’ within the national territory of Italy are also protected against the use of identical or similar signs for goods or services which are not similar, if the use of such signs without due cause derives an unfair advantage from or is detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the trademark (Article 20(1)(c)). The Italian legislature deliberately departed from the official Italian translation of the Directive, which used the word ‘notorietà’, and chose the term ‘rinomanza’ (repute). This is intended to show that more than a mere reputation (notorietà), as required for the creation of an unregistered trademark, is necessary for the extended protection.7 Unregistered trademarks are basically protected by unfair competition law. According to the IT.07 general clause of the CC, s 2598(1) unfair competition is committed by anyone who uses names or distinctive signs capable of causing confusion with other lawfully used names or distinctive signs. The very broad wording of this provision can as a matter of principle be applied to all intellectual property rights in signs, that is, also to registered trademarks.8 Firm names and special commercial designations (ditta and insegna) are regulated in the CC, IT.08 ss 2563–2568. The exclusive right to them is acquired through use, that is, through use in the course of business. Neither of these rights are defined by the law. However, the ditta is regarded as the sign of the enterprise.9 The insegna, on the other hand, identifies the areas in which the entrepreneurial activity is provided to the public.10 Titles to works, newspapers, journals, and periodicals are protected against the likelihood of IT.09 confusion by the Copyright Act, Article 100 (Law dated April 22 1941, No 633, hereinafter the Copyright Act). As a matter of principle the right to the title is created through its use as a distinguishing sign for a work, and must therefore have distinctive character. Title protection pursuant to Article 100 also requires both the title in question and the work it identifies to be capable of confusion.

(2)  Development of Domain Name Law Legal provisions specifically dealing with domain names are contained in the CPI, and are IT.10 intended to regulate the interference (the use) of domain names with trademarks and other

  Cf. also Bastian, Recht der Werbung in Italien, in: Schricker, Recht der Werbung in Europa, Notes 133 ff.   Cf. also Bastian, Recht der Werbung in Italien, in: Schricker, Recht der Werbung in Europa, Notes 133 ff. 8  Ricolfi, I segni distintivi di impresa, in: Auteri et al., Diritto industriale, Turin 2012, 163. 9  Vanzetti/Di Cataldo, Manuale di diritto industriale, Milan 2009, 309. 10  Auteri, Insegna, in : Enc. Giur. Treccani, Turin 1989. 6 7

585

Italy (‘.it’) distinctive signs, both substantially and with respect to remedies. Such provisions were first introduced into Italian law in 2005 when the CPI was adopted. While the substantive law provisions dealing with domain names do not significantly alter existing rules, major changes were brought about on the level of remedies.11

II.  The ccTLD (‘.it’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1)  Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry IT.11 Domain names in the ccTLD ‘.it’ are registered and administered by the Italian Registry

(Registro), in accordance with the rules laid down in the Regulation and specified in the Guidelines on ‘Assignment and Management of Domain Names in the ccTLD.it’. The registry is an authority under the Istituto per le Applicazioni Telematiche, which in turn is under the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, a public law research institute.12 The current version of the Assignment and Management Regulation (AMR) (Version 7.0) entered into effect on 20 March 2013.13 Dispute resolution is regulated by a Regulation (“Regolamento”)14 and the Guidelines (“Linee Guida legali”).15 The latest version of the Regolamento (Dispute Rules, DR) (Version 2.1) and the “Linee Guida legali” (Version 3.1) entered into effect in November 2014, the Guidelines in June 2014. By July 2015, over 2.8 million domain names were registered in the ccTLD ‘.it’.16

(2)  The Structure of the Name Space IT.12 Domain names within the ccTLD ‘.it’ may include from a minimum of three characters to

a maximum of 63. One may use all the numbers from 0–9, all letters of the alphabet a–z (ASCII) as well as the hyphen (‘-’). They cannot begin or end with a hyphen (‘-’), and the first four characters cannot be the sequence ‘xn–’. Domain names within the ccTLD ‘.it’ may include geographical second-level domains, corresponding with the Italian regions, provinces and municipalities, whether abbreviated or written in full (such as ‘xxx.tv.it’, where ‘.tv’ is the abbreviation for the Province of Treviso, or ‘xxx.treviso.it’ written in full, or ‘xxx.campania.it’ with ‘Campania’ being a Region of the Italian South) (AMR, s 3.3).

(3)  Registration Restrictions IT.13 Domain names within the ccTLD ‘.it’ can be requested by both natural and legal persons,

provided that they have a residence or place of business in a Member State of the European Union or have nationality of an EU Member State. Otherwise, there are no restrictions in this respect (Guidelines on Asynchronous Management, s 2(1)).17

IT.14 Some names are excluded from registration or are assigned only to a certain class of entitled

parties (AMR, ss 3(1) to 3(5)). The list of reserved domain names is prepared by the registry as a supplement to the AMR (Appendixes A to D).   See para IT.99.   One of the consequences of the public law nature of the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche is that the provisions concerning the inspection of files in administrative proceedings pursuant to s 23 of the Act dated 7 August 1990, No 241 are applicable to the Regstration Authority (T.A.R. Lazio, 28 February 2001 (77/1). 13 See http://www.nic.it/documents/regulations-and-guidelines/Regulation_assignation_v7.0.pdf. 14  Risoluzione delle dispute nel ccTLD .it, Regolamento 2.1, available at: http://www.nic.it/documenti/ regolamenti-e-linee-guida/regolamenti-3-novembre-2014/Regolamento_Risoluzione_Dispute_v2.1.pdf. 15 See http://www.nic.it/documents/regulations-and-guidelines/LGRIsoluzionedispute_ENG_v3.0.pdf. 16  The latest statistics can be found at: http://www.nic.it. 17 See http://www.nic.it/documents/regulations-and-guidelines/management-of-asynchronous-operationson-domain-names-in-the-cctldit-guidelines.pdf. 11 12

586

II.  The ccTLD (‘.it’) Registration Conditions and Procedures The domain names that can only be registered for authorized persons include in particular IT.15 the official designations of the Italian State and its institutions, the names and abbreviations of the Italian regions and provinces, where these are registered directly under the ccTLD ‘.it’, and the names and abbreviations of Italian local government authorities. In addition, domain names cannot be registered if they are formed of only one or two letters or correspond to certain designations and abbreviations for Internet services or protocols.

(4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement The application can be filed only through an authorized registrar, that is, an organization IT.16 accredited by the registry. In the case of conflicting applications, the ‘first-come, first-served’ rule applies. The priority of the application is determined according to the technical registration rules (Guidelines on Asynchronous Management, s 2(1)(1)). For registration, providers/maintainers charge varying fees. The complete list of registrars can IT.17 be found on the registry’s website.18 The registration proceedings are started by filing a standardized letter of assumption of respon- IT.18 sibility (lettera di assunzione di responsabilità, LAR) to the registry through the registrar. In this, the applicant submits his personal details and acknowledges the rules of the naming authority and the principles of what is known as ‘netiquette’ (Guidelines on Ansynchronous Management, s 2(1)(1)(2) and (1)(1)(3)). In addition, as laid down in the technical registration rules, the applicant must submit the necessary technical documentation. The registry checks the completeness and appropriateness of the documentation submitted. All LARs containing errors or missing compulsory data are rejected with notification of the refusal to the Maintainer (MNT) and inserting of the status of ‘Rejected-Request’ in the DataBase of Assigned Domain Names (DBADN) for the domain name requested (Guidelines on Asynchronous Management, s 2(1)(1)(6) and (1)(3)).

(5)  Transfer or Cancellation of Domain Names ccTLD ‘.it’ domain names are transferable both on the basis of an agreement or follow- IT.19 ing specific or universal succession. Under certain circumstances, the registry can suspend or revoke domain names already registered (AMR, s 6(2) and (3)). A domain name that is suspended cannot be transferred to a third party other than the party that has contested the domain name (AMR, s 6(2)(1), sentence 2). A domain name can be cancelled: (a) on the basis of a judicial ruling or arbitration decision; IT.20 or (b) ex officio (AMR, s 6(3)). A domain name is cancelled ex officio if both the subjective and objective requirements for registration are no longer satisfied, if the documentation remains incomplete, if the evidence required is not submitted or if the site designated by the domain name is inaccessible for longer than three months (AMR, s 6(3)(2)(1)). The domain name can also be annulled if a final judicial decision or final arbitration ruling IT.21 establishes that the applicant had no rights to use the domain name (AMR, s 6(3)(1)). In addition, the use of the domain name can be suspended: (a) on the basis of an interlocutory injunction issued by the judicial authorities or the arbitrator and received by the registry (AMR, s 6(2)(1)); (b)  upon application of the holder (AMR, s 6(2)(2)); or (c)  until performance of an obligation to submit documents in evidence that may be imposed on the applicant by the registry (AMR, s 6(1)(1)).

 See http://www.nic.it/cgi-bin/List/index.cgi?set_language=en&contract=sync.

18

587

Italy (‘.it’) (6) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding IT.22 Anyone who claims to have been impaired through the registration of a domain name, and

intends to start an ADR or court proceeding against the domain name holder, may notify the registry with a ‘challenge’. The challenge must contain the details of the sender, the domain name that is being challenged, details of the registrant, the rights that are supposedly impaired, and a description of any injury suffered. Upon receiving the challenge, the registry puts the challenged domain name on hold. In addition, the registry will put a domain name on ‘challenged’ status ex officio, whenever it becomes aware of an ADR or court proceedings relating to the domain name. A challenged domain name cannot be transferred to a third party (AMR, s 5(1)).

(7) Statistics IT.23 At the beginning of 2013, 25 years after the first registration, over 2,500,000 domain names

had been registered in the domain ‘.it’. The one million mark was reached in 2005, and was doubled five years later in 2010. A steep increase in the number of new registrations was first recorded when the registry did away with the restrictions on the number of domain names that could be registered by businesses and private persons, in 2000 and 2004 respectively, and later on in 2009 when the synchronous registration system was adopted. The monthly average amounts to approximately 35,000 new registrations.19

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution IT.24 If the acquisition and use of a domain name infringes the rights of a third party, the latter is

entitled to use extrajudicial proceedings to enforce his claims.

IT.25 The two main proceedings available are arbitration proceedings conducted by the naming

authority (procedura arbitrale, DR, s 2.1–7) and what are known as a disputed domain name reassignment procedures (procedura di riassegnazione, DR, ss 3.1–12. and 4.1–23) conducted by an organization authorized by the naming authority (DR, s 3.3). Both are determined according to the Dispute Rules (Version 2.0) dated 19 June 2009.20 In addition, however, the disputing parties can opt for conventional (genuine) arbitration proceedings.

(1)  Naming Authority Arbitration Proceedings (Procedura Arbitrale) IT.26 The arbitration proceedings before the naming authority require the holder of the domain name

to have undertaken, in the lettera di assunzione di responsabilità submitted at the time of the registration of the domain or subsequently in a separate contract, to conduct all disputes concerning the registration of the domain name before the authority (DR, s 2.1). The holder of the domain name is at liberty to accept the obligation to conduct arbitration proceedings. However, once this obligation has been accepted, it is for the opponent to initiate the arbitration proceedings.

IT.27 The tribunal consists of three arbitrators, two being selected from a list provided by the

naming authority (comitato di arbitrazione).21 The third arbitrator is appointed by the two others and assumes the office of chair. If one of the parties fails to appoint his arbitrator, he is appointed by the president of the naming authority upon application by the other party (DR, s 2.3(3) and (4)).  See http://www.nic.it/about-us.  Dispute Resolution in the ccTLD.it available at:  http://www.nic.it/legal-issues/regulation-disputesand-legal-guidelines?set_language=en. 21  The list of the arbitrators appointed by the Register is available at: http://nic.it/legal-issues/arbitration/ arbitratos. 19 20

588

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution The tribunal passes judgment according to equity, the Regole di naming (RNA), and the IT.28 principles of Italian law (DR, s 2.6(1)). Where there are serious reasons for doing so, an interlocutory order can be imposed with respect to the disputed domain name, which must be implemented immediately by the Registration Authority Italiana (RA) (DR, s 2.5(1)). The final decision must be adopted by the tribunal within 90 days of its being constituted (DR, s 2.3(6)). No appeal can be filed against the decision (DR, s 2.6(3)), which must be implemented by the RA within five working days following receipt of the decision (DR, s 2.6(4)). The arbitration award is accompanied by a decision on the amount and distribution of the IT.29 arbitrators’ costs, which can be imposed in whole or in part on the losing party. In addition, upon application by one of the parties, the losing party may be ordered to pay the prevailing party’s costs. Where appropriate, these are determined according to equity (DR, s 2.7).

(2)  Reassignment Proceedings (Procedura di Riassegnazione) (a)  Principal Characteristics of the Proceedings Of considerably more practical importance than arbitration proceedings before the naming IT.30 authority are reassignment proceedings. Their aims and procedural structure are based on the Uniform Domain Name-Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP). Unlike the proceedings before the naming authority, there is no need for an express contractual declaration by the domain holder before commencement of the reassignment proceedings, and instead the holder accepts these proceedings by recognizing the registration conditions. The proceedings do not exclude judicial proceedings or arbitration proceedings (DR, s 4.17). However, if an action is filed in the course of the reassignment proceedings, the latter are closed (DR, s 4.18(2)(b)). (b) Statistics Over 400 decisions have been rendered since 2000, of which the large majority (approxi- IT.31 mately two-thirds) were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Only in one out of ten cases was the claim denied. In the remaining cases the proceeding was terminated for various reasons, usually because the respondent had given up the contested domain name, but sometimes because the parties had switched to a court proceeding or the filed claim was dropped. (c)  Material Scope of the Proceeding The Reassignment Proceeding applies to relatively easy cases of domaingrabbing within the IT.32 ‘.it’ ccTLD. In principle, the proceeding does not allow for raising other issues, such as the validity of the interested trademark. As a matter of fact, panels have occasionally considered related trademark or contract law issues, but only to a limited extent. (d)  Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement Registration forms are created by the registrar following a standardized form, which includes IT.33 ‘Declarations and assumptions of responsibility’, whereby the registrant inter alia submits to the rules on reassignment proceedings (ADR, s 3.1(6)(1)). (e)  Overview of the Reassignment Procedure (i)  The Complaint  The proceedings begin with the filing of the complaint with the dis- IT.34 pute resolution provider responsible (Prestatori del Servizio di Risoluzione delle Dispute, DRSP).22 22  The list of providers is available at: http://www.nic.it/legale/riassegnazione/elenco-psrd, or through the websites located at: http://www.crdd.it for the C.R.R.D.—Centro Risoluzione Dispute Domini, http://www. mfsd.it for the MFSD srl—Risoluzione Stragiudiziale delle Controversie in materia di Proprietà Industriale, http://www.camera-arbitrale.it/it/index.php for the Camera Arbitrale Nazionale e Internazionale di Milano, http://www.tonucci.com for Tonucci & Partners, and http://www.adrcompany.it for the ADR Company.

589

Italy (‘.it’) IT.35 Pursuant to the DR, s 4.13, the complaint must be submitted in writing, by fax, or electroni-

cally. In addition, the statement of complaint (il reclamo), must in particular contain:

(1) the names, postal and e-mail addresses and telephone and fax numbers of the complainant (ricorrente); (2) an indication of the preferred means for the transmission of communications to the complainant in the complaint proceedings both for exclusively electronic documents and for documents in physical form; (3) an indication whether the complainant would like the complaint settled by a one-member or a three-member panel (collegio di un saggio unico or collegio di tre saggi) and, if the complainant chooses a three-member panel, the names and addresses of three candidates for membership of the panel, which must be taken from the list of panel members maintained by the dispute resolution centre; and (4) details of the trademark on which the complaint is based, and a description of the goods or services for which each trademark is used. IT.36 In addition, justification must be submitted,

(1) of the extent to which the domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark to which the complainant holds rights; (2) why the respondent (the domain name holder) should not be regarded as having rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name(s); and (3) why the domain name should be regarded as having been registered and used in bad faith. IT.37 The dispute resolution provider examines the complaint for formal compliance with the

naming rules and the procedural regulations, and, if formally correct, communicates it to the respondent.

IT.38 (ii)  The Response  After the respondent receives the statement of complaint, he has a

period of 25 days to comment specifically on the statements and allegations in the complaint and to state grounds why he should retain registration and use of the domain name at issue. The Procedural Regulations do not provide for a reply by the complainant or a rejoinder by the respondent, but pursuant to s 4.12, it is within the panel’s discretion to request one or both parties to submit further facts or documents.

IT.39 If the respondent’s reply is received in time by the dispute resolution provider, the panel is

appointed on the basis of the panel lists maintained by the provider.

IT.40 If the respondent does not submit a reply, the panel makes its decision on the basis of the

statement of complaint unless special circumstances apply. In such a case, the complainant’s actual submissions are to be regarded as conceded and the complaint panel merely examines whether the complainant’s submission justifies the requested remedy on the basis of the substantive criteria for decision.

IT.41 In the absence of any special circumstances, the panel renders its decision within 15 days

of appointment (DR, s 4.15). If the panel has requested the submission of additional documents, the decision must be rendered within 30  days thereafter. A  decision is adopted by a majority of votes. The decisions are published together with the grounds on the Internet unless the panel, in exceptional cases and for justifiable reasons, decides otherwise (DR, s 4.16(3)).23

23 See http://www.crdd.it/map/decisioni-crdd.htm; http://www.tonucci.com/ita/aree_di_pratica/ decisioni.php.

590

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution (iii)  Procedural Language  The procedural language is Italian but the panel can choose IT.42 a different language if it regards such as appropriate upon application by one of the parties (DR 4.11). (f )  Role of the Dispute Resolution Provider Prestatori del Servizio di Risoluzione delle Dispute (PRSD) are bodies accredited by the IT.43 registry for the alternative resolution of domain name disputes. Their functions and the accreditation procedure are set out, respectively, in the ‘Guidelines for the Resolution of Disputes in the ccTLD.it’ and the ‘Accreditation Methods for Service Providers of out-ofcourt settlements of disputes in the ccTLD.it’ (AMR, s 2.5). The main tasks of the PRSD include checking the complaint to see if there are any irregularities, sending the complaint to the respondent, sending the respondent’s response to the complainant, appointing the expert or the board and, in general, keeping the parties informed of the procedure (Guidelines, s 4.2(10) et seq.). (g)  Role of the Administrative Panel The panel enjoys discretion in structuring the proceeding, provided it is carried out in accord- IT.44 ance with the AMR and the DR. In exceptional cases, the panel may extend the deadlines provided for in the DR, whether at the request of either party or ex officio. Failure to observe deadlines leads to forfeiture. As to evidence, it is up to the panel to determine its admissibility, significance, and pertinence. As a matter of fact, panels usually search for additional evidence on the Internet, even where a party has not submitted any briefs or evidence. If the proceeding relates to several domain names, the panel may, at the request of either party, split it into as many proceedings as there are contested domain names (DR, s 4.10). (h) Costs The procedural costs are borne by the complainant (DR, s 4.20). On average, these currently IT.45 amount to a fee of €1,500 for a decision by one panellist and €4,000 for a decision by three panellists, if the complaint is directed against one domain name.24 (i)  Substantive Decision Criteria and Application by Administrative Panel Like the UDRP, the procedura di riassegnazione is designed as a conflict resolution instru- IT.46 ment aimed at the rapid settlement of a large number of clear cases of domain piracy. This is reflected in the substantive provisions, according to which only domain registrations in bad faith can be the basis for a complaint, and not other infringements of intellectual property rights in signs. Under the DR, s 3.6, the examination of a claim to transfer or cancellation asserted by the IT.47 complainant is a three-stage process. The complaint is upheld if the following three conditions are all satisfied: (1) the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark, other distinctive business signs, the family name, or the given name of the complainant or is confusingly similar; (2) the respondent has no rights or interest with respect to the disputed domain name; and (3) the respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith (DR, s 3.7). The circumstances listed under (1)  and (3)  must be proven by the complainant. The respondent bears the burden of proof that he has a legitimate interest in the domain name (DR, s 3.6(2)).

  See, for instance, the schedule of fees at: http://www.crdd.it/map/tariffe-lire.htm.

24

591

Italy (‘.it’) IT.48 According to the wording of the DR, no distinction is made between registered and unregis-

tered trademarks. Accordingly, it can be assumed that both can be the basis for a complaint.25 This is true also with respect to trademarks that were once registered, but whose owners simply continued using them without renewing the respective registrations.26 Other intellectual property rights explicitly include denominations, including geographic indicators (DR, s 3.7). Besides that, in a number of cases, company names27 and newspaper titles28 have also provided a basis for the complaint. The right of the complainant can be based on both national and EU law (DR, s 3.7). The reference to ‘national law’ has been interpreted as including foreign national law (in cases where the complaint was based on a registered UK trademark or a UK company name).29

IT.49 The complainant’s right has to exist prior to the registration of the contested domain name.30

On the other hand, the panel is not entitled to establish whether the right of the trademark owner has ceased to exist under national law due to prolonged lack of use.31

IT.50 Whether the complainant meets the requirements to register a domain name under the ‘.it’

ccTLD is of no relevance for the reassignment procedure.32 In addition, the complainant is not required to be the owner of the relevant sign. Licencees, too, are entitled to start a reassignment procedure,33 and the licence does not need to be an exclusive one.34

IT.51 Identity/confusing similarity has been proven in, inter alia, typosquatting cases, where the

contested domain name added ‘www’ before the complainant’s sign,35 or the suffix ‘web’ 36 or ‘biz’37 before the country top-level domain, or where minor spelling variations occurred that were probably intended to mislead consumers,38 including the mere adding of hyphens.39

25  Cf. ‘cralcentraleposte.it’, decision dated 18 July 2006, Salvatori, CRDD; ‘palermocalcio.it’, decision dated 27 October 2007, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘bellearieurope.it’, decision dated 28 August 2010, De Marzi, CRDD; the name of the decision is followed by the date, the names of the panellist and the dispute resolution provider. 26  Cf. ‘giochidellagioventu.it’, decision dated 11 March 2008, Sperati, CRDD. 27  Cf. ‘gig.it’, decision dated 3 October 2008, Fogliani, CRDD; ‘quotesnai.it’, decision dated 10 April 2013, d’Orsi, CRDD; ‘giornalettismo.it’, decision dated 18 February 2013, Loffreda, CRDD. 28  Cf. ‘silhouettedonna.it’, decision dated 18 March 2013, Adragna, CRDD; ‘giornalettismo.it’, decision dated 18 February 2013, Loffreda, CRDD; ‘viversaniebelli.it’, decision dated 20 December 2011, Fogliani, CRDD. 29  Cf. ‘liveperson.it’, decision dated 28 June 2013, Nicotra, CRDD; ‘sky-bet.it’, decision dated 23 April 2013, Fogliani, CRDD. 30  Cf. ‘dadapro.it’, decision dated 8 July 2008, Nicotra, CRDD; ‘bpsolar.it’, decision dated 30 December 2008, Sperati, CRDD; ‘gamesbond.it’, decision dated 6 July 2010, d’Orsi, CRDD. 31  Cf. ‘microgaming.it’, decision dated 5 May 2010, Buonpensiere, CRDD. 32  Cf. ‘namebay.it’, decision dated 2 August 2006, Loffreda, CRDD. 33  Cf. ‘solatube.it’, decision dated 11 March 2005, Fogliani, CRDD; ‘vespa.it’, decision dated 25 June 2013, Pisapia, CRDD. 34  Cf. ‘solatube.it’, decision dated 11 March 2005, Fogliani, CRDD. 35  Cf. ‘www-sony.it’, decision dated 14 June 2004, Fogliani, CRDD; ‘wwwjagermeister.it’, decision dated 24 January 2005, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘wwwbuongiorno.it’, decision dated 31 March 2004, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘wwwepson.it’, decision dated 8 April 2008, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘wwwairdolomiti.it’, decision dated 21 April 2009, Trotta, CRDD. 36 Cf. ‘raiweb.it’, decision dated 18 March 2004, Adragna, CRDD; ‘missitaliaweb.it’, decision dated 21 August 2009, Loffreda, CRDD. 37  Cf. ‘sonybiz.it’, decision dated 7 October 2008, De mArzi, CRDD. 38  Cf. ‘starhotel.it’ (instead of ‘starhotels’), decision dated 30 April 2007, Sperati, CRDD; ‘enwl.it’, ‘enek. it’ etc (instead of ‘enel’), decision dated 17 July 2007, Antonini, CRDD; ‘expidia.it’ (where the complaint was based on the registered trademark ‘expedia’), decision dated 24 November 2008, Loffreda, CRDD; ‘legotecnic.it’ (where the complaint based on the registered trademark ‘legotechnic’), decision dated 22 January 2013, Trotta; ‘amazlon.it’ (instead of ‘amazon’), decision dated 9 April 2013, Buonpensiere, CRDD. 39  Cf. ‘sky-bet.it’, decision dated 23 April 2013, Fogliani, CRDD.

592

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution Identity/confusing similarity has also been established in cases where the contested domain name added to the complainant’s trademark the generic designation of its products or business.40 It is enough for a finding of confusing similarity when the disputed domain name utilizes the core part of the complainant’s distinctive sign.41 Occasionally, panels have assessed (and denied) similarity by taking into account, among IT.52 other factors, the limited distinctiveness of the complainant’s trademark42 and/or the lack of distinctiveness in the contested domain name.43 Section 3.7 of the DR sets out a non-exhaustive list of three circumstances that are deemed IT.53 to be proof of a right or interest with respect to the domain name. The respondent is deemed to be entitled to use the name if he can prove that he either: (1) before being informed of the dispute, used the domain name or a corresponding sign in good faith or made preparations to use such for offering goods or services to the public; (2) that he is known personally as a natural or legal person under a name corresponding to the domain name, although he has not filed it as a trademark; or (3) that he is making lawful use of the domain name for non-commercial purposes without the intention to redirect the complainant’s customers or infringe the complainant’s trademark (DR, s 3.6(3)). To date, there have been few decisions rendered in which the panel found a right or legiti- IT.54 mate interest on behalf of the respondent with respect to the contested domain name. The requirement is, of course, met when the respondent also has a right in the same sign or a similar one, such as a company name, a similar trademark, or the like.44 It is not up to the panel to establish which of the conflicting signs would possibly prevail under Italian law.45 The fact that the complainant has tolerated the use of his trademark as a domain name by the IT.55 respondent does not confer any rights on the holder within the meaning of DR, s 3.7, even when such situation has lasted for years.46 The same applies to cases where the complainant has not renewed the domain name that corresponded with his trademark, and the domain was then registered by the respondent.47 In the case of non-commercial uses, limited access to the contents of the website secured IT.56 through a username and a password was found to be an indicator of lacking intention to redirect the complainant’s customers.48 Commercial use by resellers of the complainant’s product

40  Cf. ‘fataassicurazioni.it’, decision dated 2 December 2010, Fogliani, CRDD; ‘snaiscommesse’, decision dated 4 April 2013, Antonini, CRDD; ‘scommessesnai.it’, decision dated 8 April 2013, Sperati, CRDD. 41  Cf. ‘105.it’, decision dated 2 December 2004, Antonini, CRDD; ‘wwwbuongiorno.it’, decision dated 31 March 2004, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘nintendods.it’, decision dated 30 May 2005, Trotta, CRDD; ‘viking. it’, decision dated 20 December 2005, Sperati, CRDD. 42  Cf. ‘sesso.it’ (where the complainant’s registered trademark was ‘sesso.eu’), decision dated 1 December 2009, De Marzi, CRDD. 43  Cf. ‘sfide.it’, decision dated 7 April 2004, Quici, CRDD; ‘gig.it’, decision dated 3 October 2008, Fogliani, CRDD. 44  Cf. ‘sky.it’, decision dated 15 December 2006, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘gig.it’, decision dated 3 October 2008, Fogliani, CRDD; ‘sunergy.it’, decision dated 26 May 2011, Nicotra, CRDD. 45 Cf. ‘arpanet.it’, decision dated 11 April 2005, Adragna, CRDD; ‘biocentury.it’ (where a Spanish registered trademark conflicted with an Italian company name), decision dated 24 December 2007, Fogliani, CRDD. 46  Cf. ‘ordineavvocati.it’, decision dated 5 May 2010, Bedarida, CRDD. 47 Cf. ‘prontofido.it’, decision dated 20 January 2005, Sperati, CRDD; ‘cralcentraleposte.it’, decision dated 18 July 2006, Salvatori, CRDD; ‘centronefireworks.it’, decision dated 10 March 2008, Gaudenzi, CRDD; ‘krombacher.it’, decision dated 3 September 2008, Salvatori, CRDD. 48  Cf. ‘chicchiricchi.it’ (photogalleries for family use only), decision dated 7 February 2011, Sperati, CRDD.

593

Italy (‘.it’) does not usually correspond with a legitimate interest on the side of the resellers, especially if no licence has been granted with respect to the complainant’s trademark,49 or the licence does not cover the use of the complainant’s trademark as a domain name.50 IT.57 In order to give context to the concept of bad faith, the DR, s 3.7 lists the most important forms

of registration and use of domain names in bad faith. As expressly emphasized in s 3.7(2), the listed cases of bad faith are only examples, and do not prevent the panel from basing the allegation of bad faith on conduct not listed in s 3.7. When the disputed domain name has been registered and is currently owned on behalf of a third party, the relevant requirements (right or legitimate interest on the respondent’s side and respondent’s bad faith) must be established with respect to the individual or entity on whose behalf the domain name has been registered.51

IT.58 The respondent’s bad faith when registering or using the domain name is deemed to be

proven if inter alia:

(1) there are circumstances that indicate that the domain name was registered with the intent of selling it to the complainant or otherwise offering it to the complainant or a competitor in return for consideration exceeding the costs of registering and maintaining the domain name (DR, s 3.7(1)); (2) the domain name holder registered the domain name in order to prevent the holder of a trademark or other distinctive sign or the name of a public body from registering it himself, at the same time using the domain name for a rival business activity (DR, s 3.7(2)); (3) the domain name was primarily registered for the purpose of impeding a competitor or of usurping the complainant’s family name and given name (DR, s 3.7(3)); (4) the domain name is being used to attract Internet users with the objective of achieving profits, thereby creating the likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s trademark or other distinctive sign or with the name of a public body (DR, s 3.7(4)); or (5) the domain name corresponds with the name of a public or private body for which no demonstrable connection between the owner of the domain name and the domain name registered, exists (DR, s 3.7(5)). IT.59 Bad faith use alone cannot lead to the reassignment of the disputed domain name, if it was

originally registered in good faith (in a case where the respondent had registered the disputed domain name on behalf of the complainant, and had later refused to transfer it back to the complainant when their business relationship was terminated).52

IT.60 An examination of decisions rendered to date (as of July 2015) shows that the application of the

substantive law provisions causes no difficulties in the majority of cases. They mostly concern situations in which the domain holder’s bad faith was obvious and where no right or legitimate interest could be shown. In the panel’s practice to date, the following circumstances have been taken as grounds for assuming a registration of the domain in bad faith: (i) the simultaneous registration of a number of well-known trademarks or names53 and/or the fact that the respondent has already been party to a significant number of procedures   Cf. ‘adidasfootballshop.it’, decision dated 15 November 2008, Pisapia, CRDD.   Cf. ‘puntosnai.it’ (the licence agreement explicitly allowed for the use of the licensed trademark in the licencees shopwindows), decision dated 21 April 2013, De Marzi, CRDD. 51 Cf. ‘forall.it’, decision dated 25 September 2001, Salvatori, CRDD; ‘solatube.it’, decision dated 11 March 2005, Fogliani, CRDD; ‘doctorbite.it’, decision dated 29 February 2008, Nicotra, CRDD. 52  Cf. ‘flamco.it’, decision dated 28 September 2007, De Marzi, CRDD. 53 Cf. ‘benistabili.it’, decision dated 28 November 2000, Antonini, CRDD; ‘mastercard.it’, decision dated 7 December 2000, Zampone, CRDD; ‘playboytv.it’, decision dated 1 June 2001, D’Orsi, CRDD; ‘mastercard.it’, decision dated 6 April 2001, Salvatori, CRDD; ‘chanel5.it’, decision dated 26 August 2001, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘uefa.it’, decision dated 27 August 2001, D’Orsi, CRDD; ‘x-files.it’, decision 49 50

594

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution that led to the reassignment of the contested domain names,54 possibly between the same parties;55 (ii) what is known as a passive holding56 or a failure to use the disputed domain name on the Internet over a longer period of time (in each case seven to twenty months), for instance if the Internet site has never been used,57 is always ‘under construction’,58 or consists only of the home page59 (unless this kind of use appears to be normal in relation to the business of the domain name owner),60 if a number of frames are present that each correspond to a domain name but all derive from a single IP address,61 an automatic link to another Internet site under a different domain name,62 a fictitious use of the domain name,63 the redirecting to the websites of competitors,64 pay-per-click advertising,65 or the recourse to professional parking services.66 dated 5 April 2002, Massimi, CRDD; ‘wwwbuongiorno.it’, decision dated 31 March 2004, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘nestea.it’, decision dated 1 August 2006, Sammarco, CRDD; ‘gettyimages.it’, decision dated 3 August 2006, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘creditmutuel.it’, decision dated 1 July 2008, Bedarida, CRDD; ‘amazlon.it’, decision dated 9 April 2013, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘americaneagleoutfitters.it’, decision dated 16 January 2013, Nicotra, CRDD; ‘liu-jo.it’, decision dated 8 October 2012, Sperati, CRDD. 54  Cf. ‘acquista-acomplia.it’, decision dated 17 July 2007, Gaudenzi, CRDD; ‘wwwepson.it’, decision dated 8 April 2008, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘expidia.it’ (where the complaint was based on the registered trademark ‘expedia’), decision dated 24 November 2008, Loffreda, CRDD; ‘fataassicurazioni.it’, decision dated 2 December 2010, Fogliani, CRDD; ‘telepassfamily.it’, decision dated 7 May 2012, Antonini, CRDD; ‘legotecnic.it’, decision dated 22 January 2013, Trotta, CRDD; ‘giornalettismo.it’, decision dated 18 February 2013, Loffreda, CRDD; ‘silhouettedonna.it’, decision dated 4 January 2013, Adragna, CRDD; ‘amazlon.it’, decision dated 9 April 2013, Buonpensiere, CRDD. 55  ‘fierebologna.it’, decision dated 31 May 2006, Sperati, CRDD; ‘vitamix.it’, decision dated 7 November 2012, Quici, CRDD. 56  Without further details on the type of passive use, see ‘mastercard.it’, decision dated 7 December 2000, Zampone, CRDD; ‘mastercard.it’, decision dated 6 April 2001, Salvatori, CRDD; ‘chanel5.it’, decision dated 26 August 2001, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘uefa.it’, decision dated 27 August 2001, D’orsi, CRDD; ‘championsleague.it’, decision dated 18 January 2002, Sperati, CRDD; ‘barbie.it’, decision dated 6 February 2002, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘nintendo.it’, decision dated 7 February 2002, Salvatori, CRDD; ‘airdolomiti.it’, decision dated 21 April 2009, Trotta, CRDD; ‘vitamix.it’, decision dated 30 December 2012, d’Orsi, CRDD. 57  Cf. ‘clarins.it’, decision dated 5 August, 2004, Sperati, CRDD; ‘mifur.it’, decision dated 2 August 2005, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘nestea.it’, decision dated 1 August 2006, Sammarco, CRDD; ‘gettyimaegs. it’, decision dated 3 August 2006, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘windows7.it’, decision dated 25 January 2010, Piasapia, CRDD; ‘microgaming.it’, 5 May 2010, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘auroraclima.it’, decision dated 13 May 2010, Nicotra, CRDD; ‘imprebanca.it’, decision dated 21 May 2010, Loffreda, CRDD; ‘sonnenkraft.it’, decision dated 1 July 2010, Sperati, CRDD; ‘promoethean.it’, decision dated 9 July 2010, Trotta, CRDD; ‘bellearieurope.it’, decision dated 28 August 2010, De Marzi, CRDD. 58  Cf. ‘benistabili.it’, decision dated 28 November 2000, Antonini, CRDD; ‘sonepar.it’, decision dated 19 March 2007, Pisapia, CRDD; ‘bimbisani.it’, decision dated 15 December 2011, Buonpensiere, CRDD. 59  Cf. ‘motrio.it’, decision dated 12 October 2012, De Marzi, CRDD. 60  Cf. ‘officinadeltempo.it’ (where the owner of domain name ran a small clock shop), decision dated 14 July 2006, Loffreda, CRDD. 61  Cf. ‘mastercard.it’, decision dated 7 December 2000, Zampone, CRDD. 62  Cf. ‘playboytv.it’, decision dated 1 June 2001, D’Orsi, CRDD; ‘viking.it’, decision dated 20 December 2005, Sperati, CRDD. 63  Cf. ‘mastercard.it’, decision dated 6 April 2001, Salvatori, CRDD; ‘liveperson.it’ (where the fictitious use consisted in putting a few of the complainant’s products on display), decision dated 28 June 2013, Nicotra, CRDD. 64  Cf. ‘vittoriaassicurazioni.it’, decision dated 30 June 2008, Quici, CRDD; ‘ermes-ceramiche.it’, decision dated 6 October 2010, Gaudenzi, CRDD; ‘worldpokertour.it’, decision dated 31 March 2011, Pisapia, CRDD; ‘telepassfamily.it’, decision dated 7 May 2012, Antonini, CRDD; ‘legotecnic.it’, decision dated 22 January 2013, Trotta, CRDD. 65 Cf. ‘sonyvaio.it’, decision dated 19 August 2008, d’Orsi, CRDD; ‘subitopronto.it’, decision dated 20 December 2011, De Marzi, CRDD; ‘telesette.it’, decision dated 14 February 2012, Pisapia, CRDD; ‘zut. it’, decision dated 13 June 2012, Loffreda, CRDD; ‘americaneagleoutfitter.it’, decision dated 16 January 2013, Nicotra, CRDD; ‘snaiscommesse.it’, decision dated 8 April 2013, Sperati, CRDD. 66  Cf. ‘fataassicurazioni.it’, decision dated 2 December 2010, Fogliani, CRDD; ‘viversaniebelli.it’ (where the disclaimer that was found on the website read ‘[t]‌his page is offered for free by Sedo Domain Parking Program’), decision dated 20 Decmber 2011, Fogliani, CRDD.

595

Italy (‘.it’) (iii) the offering of the disputed domain name for sale, possibly for a high price,67 and/or its offering to the complainant in return for excessive consideration;68 (iv) pornosquatting, that is, the combination of typosquatting with pornographic contents69 or just the use of well-known trademarks as a domain name to redirect consumers to websites with pornographic contents;70 (v) the fame of the imitated trademark, such that there could be no possibility of it being unknown to the respondent71 and/or its being very peculiar or complex, so that no coincidence can be assumed,72 or the actual knowledge of the complainant’s trademark deriving from a previous relationship entertained by the parties (such as a licence agreement,73 a judicial settlement74 or employment75) or from being in the same business;76 (vi) the registering of the disputed domain name the very same day the complainant’s trademark was presented to the public;77 (vii) the lack of any plausible connection between the disputed domain name and the respondent and/or his activities;78 or (viii) dubious circumstances under which the disputed domain name was transferred from the previous holder to the respondent.79

67 Cf. ‘bimbisani.it’, decision dated 15 December 2011, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘telesette.it’, decision dated 14 February 2012, Pisapia, CRDD; ‘cashpassport.it’, decision dated 3 January 2012, Pisapia, CRDD; ‘giornalettismo.it’, decision dated 18 February 2013, Loffreda, CRDD; ‘sky-bet.it’, decision dated 23 April 2013, Fogliani, CRDD. 68  Cf. ‘nintendods.it’, decision dated 30 May 2005, Trotta, CRDD; ‘worldpokertour.it’, decision dated 31 March 2011, Pisapia, CRDD; ‘amazlon.it’, decision dated 9 April 2013, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘liveperson.it’, decision dated 28 June 2013, Nicotra, CRDD. 69  Cf. ‘enwl.it’, ‘enek.it’ etc (instead of ‘enel’), decision dated 17 July 2007, Antonini, CRDD; ‘wwwepson. it’, decision dated 8 April 2008, Buonpensiere, CRDD. 70  Cf. ‘kose.it’, decision dated 15 February 2005, Antonini, CRDD. 71  Cf. ‘aol.it’, decision dated 3 March 2001, Salvatori, CRDD; ‘chanel5.it’, decision dated 26 August 2001, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘uefa.it’, decision dated 27 August 2001, D’orsi, CRDD; ‘barbie.it’, decision dated 6 February 2002, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘nintendo.it’, decision dated 7 February 2002, Salvatori, CRDD; ‘x-files.it’, decision dated 5 April 2002, Massimi, CRDD; ‘105.it’, decision dated 2 December 2004, Antonini, CRDD; ‘clarins.it’, decision dated 5 August 2004, Sperati, CRDD; ‘mifur.it’; decision dated 2 August 2005, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘nintendods.it’, decision dated 30 May 2005, Trotta, CRDD; ‘gettyimaegs.it’, decision dated 3 August 2006, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘starhotel.it’, decision dated 30 April 2007, Sperati, CRDD; ‘vittoriaassicurazioni.it’, decision dated 30 June 2008, Quici, CRDD; ‘windows7. it’, decision dated 25 January 2010, Piasapia, CRDD; ‘sonnenkraft.it’, decision dated 1 July 2010, Sperati, CRDD; ‘promoethean.it’, decision dated 9 July 2010, Trotta, CRDD; ‘ermes-ceramiche.it’, decision dated 6 November 2011, Gaudenzi CRDD; ‘bellearieurope.it’, decision dated 28 August 2010, De Marzi, CRDD; ‘fataassicurazioni.it’, 2 December 2010, Fogliani, CRDD; ‘total.it’, decision dated 24 February 2011, Antonini, CRDD; ‘ilego.it’, decision dated 22 August 2012, CRDD; ‘liu-jo.it’, decision dated 8 October 2010, Sperati, CRDD; ‘legotecnic.it’, decision dated 22 January 2013, Trotta, CRDD; ‘snaiscommesse.it’, decision dated 8 April 2013, Sperati, CRDD. 72 Cf. ‘viking.it’, decision dated 20 December 2005, Sperati, CRDD; ‘gettyimaegs.it’, decision dated 3 August 2006, Buonpensiere, CRDD; ‘acquista-acomplia.it’, decision dated 17 July 2007, Gaudenzi, CRDD; ‘auroraclima.it’, decision dated 13 May 2010, Nicotra, CRDD; ‘worldpokertour.it’, decision dated 31 March 2011, Pisapia, CRDD; ‘americaneagleoutfitters.it’, decision dated 16 January 2013, Nicotra, CRDD; ‘quotesnai.it’, decision dated 10 April 2013, d’Orsi, CRDD. 73  Cf. ‘puntosnai.it’, decision dated 21 April 2013, De Marzi, CRDD. 74  Cf. ‘auroraclima.it’, decision dated 13 May 2010, Nicotra, CRDD. 75  Cf. ‘betklass.it’, decision dated 19 September 2008, Buonpensiere, CRDD. 76  Cf. ‘nestea.it’, decision dated 1 August 2006, Sammarco, CRDD. 77  Cf. ‘imprebanca.it’, decision dated 21 May 2010, Loffreda, CRDD; ‘fstelco.it’, decision dated 27 June 2011, Loffreda, CRDD. 78  Cf. ‘kimberlyclark.it’, decision dated 8 October 2007, Fogliani, CRDD; ‘082585.it’, decision dated 7 October 2008, Sammarco, CRDD. 79  Cf. ‘aol.it’, decision dated 3 March 2001, Salvatori, CRDD.

596

IV.  Court Litigation In most decisions, several of the listed circumstances were found at once in the same case. IT.61 However, the occurring of one of the listed circumstances is in principle enough.80 Other circumstances were instead considered ad abundantiam, and would possibly have been not sufficient by themselves to establish bad faith, such the use of a fictitious name and/or a false address,81 the foreign nationality and domicile of the respondent,82 the simultaneous registration of the domain name under a variety a top-level domains,83 or not replying to the trademark’s owners letters of complaint.84

(j)  Relationship to the Ordinary Courts As follows from the DR, s 3.3, the creation of the procedura di riassegnazione is not intended IT.62 to limit the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. Accordingly, both the complainant and the domain holder can have recourse to the ordinary courts both during and after conclusion of the procedura di riassegnazione.85 If judicial proceedings are filed before or during the complaint proceedings, the plaintiff must notify the panel and the dispute resolution provider immediately (DR, s 4.17). In such a case, the proceedings are closed. Even after the panel has adopted its decision, its implementation can still be prevented by IT.63 filing an action before the ordinary courts. If within a period of 15 days following the communication of the panel decision to the RA, the domain holder shows that he has filed an action against the complainant before the ordinary court with respect to the disputed domain name, the implementation of the decision is suspended until the complainant shows that the domain holder’s action has been dismissed or withdrawn or that another solution to the conflict has been reached between the parties.

IV.  Court Litigation (1)  Abusive Domain Name Registrations (Cybersquatting, Domaingrabbing) If disputes are conducted before the ordinary courts based on abusive domain name registra- IT.64 tions (domaingrabbing or cybersquatting), the question arises of the substantive law provisions that are to be applied. In the case of industrial property rights, the opinion has now prevailed that the prohibition on the filing of a trademark in bad faith (CPI, s 19(2)) and the resulting prohibition on use (CPI, s 21(3)) are applicable by analogy to the registration of domain names.86 The right holder may also ask the judge to revoke and/or reassign a domain name that has been applied for in bad faith, and is being used ‘in the course of an

  Cf. ‘kimberlyclark.it’, decision dated 8 October 2007, Fogliani, CRDD.   Cf. ‘cralcentraleposte.it’, decision dated 18 July 2006, Salvatori, CRDD; ‘legotecnic.it,’ decision dated 22 January 2013, Trotta, CRDD; ‘silhouettedonna.it,’ decision dated 18 March 2013, Adragna, CRDD; ‘snaiscommesse.it’, decision dated 8 April 2013, Sperati, CRDD. 82  Cf. ‘viversaniebelli.it’, decision dated 2 November 2011, Fogliani, CRDD. 83  Cf. ‘fstelco.it’, decision dated 27 June 2011, Loffreda, CRDD. 84 Cf. ‘viking.it’, decision dated 20 December 2005, Sperati, CRDD; ‘cristinaeffe.it’, decision dated 26 April 2007, Buonpensieri, CRDD. 85  See Corona, art 133 d.lgs. 30/2005, in: C. Galli, Codice commentato della proprietà industriale ed intellettuale, Turin 2011, 1248. 86  Trib. Milano, ord. 7 August 2001, Riv. dir. ind. 2001, II, 444, with comment by Sena; Trib. Pistoia, ord. 18 June 2001, unpublished and cited in Sena, ibid., fn 2; in the literature, Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 63; Sena, Il nuovo diritto dei marchi, 4th edn, Milan 2007, 121 f.; Ginsburg and Marzano, Cybersquatting e dintorni: gli ultimi sviluppi negli Stati Uniti ed in Italia, Riv. dir. comm. 2001, 221; T Tosi, La tutela della proprietà industriale, in E Tosi (ed), I problemi giuridici di Internet, 2nd edn, Milan 2001, 233; Vanzetti and Di Cataldo, Manuale di diritto industriale, 6th edn, Milan 2009, 335. Dissenting, Trib. Cagliari, ord. 23 December 2000 (66/3). 80 81

597

Italy (‘.it’) economic activity’ (CPI, s 118(6)). This means that even non-famous signs are protected against domaingrabbing and cybersquatting, and even if the registered domain name is not used in the course of business87 and hence a likelihood of confusion can be excluded a priori. IT.65 Bad faith applies in particular if the domain name has been registered exclusively for the

purpose of impeding and exploiting, which is precisely the nature of domaingrabbing and cybersquatting.88 An indication of this is, for instance, that a person has requested a number of third-party trademarks as domain names and subsequently offers them for sale.89

(2) The Infringement of Trademarks through the Registration and Use of Domain Names IT.66 If commercial activity is conducted online under a domain name, the first question that

arises is how the domain name is to be classified in legal terms in this context. In a number of earlier decision of the courts, it was held that domain names could not infringe industrial property rights in signs because they did not have an identifying function and should rather be regarded as simple addresses on the Internet.90 According to current opinion, however, a domain name can indeed have an identifying function and can hence infringe third-party signs and itself acquire protection as a sign.91

IT.67 Where industrial property rights in signs are infringed by domain names through their use in

the course of an economic activity, the principle of the unitary nature of industrial property rights in signs is of importance (CPI, s 22).92 According to this principle, industrial property rights in signs (eg a trademark) can be infringed even through the use of an identical or similar sign in order to identify a different matter (such as a firm name or a business domain name) wherever there is a likelihood of confusion as to the attribution of the matter identified (goods or services, enterprises, business, etc).93 In addition, an infringement may also take place where there is no likelihood of confusion (such as in the protection against identical use, or the protection of famous marks).

(a)  Protection Against Identical Use and Confusion IT.68 According to Italian law, registered trademarks enjoy protection against identical use. This means

that a trademark is infringed if a third party uses an identical sign for identical goods or services

87  See Corona, art 133 d.lgs. 30/2005, in: C. Galli, Codice commentato della proprietà industriale ed intellettuale, Turin 2011, 1251 also for further references. 88  Trib. Milano, ord. 7 August 2000, Riv. dir. ind. 2001, II, 444, comment by Sena. 89  For instance Trib. Parma, 26 February 2001 (76/3); on the possible remedies, see Section IV. 90  Trib. Firenze, ord. 8 July 2000 (47/1); Trib. Firenze, ord. 23 November 2000 (62/1). In the literature, Tarizzo, L’applicabilità della disciplina sui marchi ai nomi di dominio: certezze e dubbi, Dir. inf. 2000, 500. 91  Trib. Napoli, ord. 14 January 1999 (17/1); Trib. Parma, ord. 22 February 1999 (19/1); Trib. Napoli, 24 March 1999 (21/1); Trib. Roma, ord. 9 March 2000 (37/2); Trib. Roma, 18 July 2000 (48/1); Trib. Torino, ord. 21 July 2000 (50/1); Trib. Modena, ord. 28 July 2000 (53/2); Trib. Brescia, ord. 6 December 2000 (63/1); Trib. Cagliari, ord. 23 December 2000 (66/1); Trib. Verona, ord. 10 January 2001 (68/1); Trib. Parma, ord. 22 January 2001 (70/1); Trib. Milano, ord. 23 January 2001 (71/1); Trib. Parma, ord. 26 February 2001 (76/1); Trib. Napoli, sent. 26 February 2002, Dir. inf. 2002, 1005, 1011. In the literature, Passanante, Introduzione all’art. 133 d.lgs. 30/2005, in: LC Ubertazzi, Commentario breve alle leggi su proprietà intellettuale e concorrenza, 5th edn, Milan 2012, 610. 92  Expressly, Trib. Roma, ord. 22 December 1999 (29/3); Trib. Reggio Emilia, ord. 30 May 2000 (46/2); Trib. Modena, ord. 24 January 2001 (72); Trib. Parma, 26 February 2001 (76/1); Trib. Napoli, 26 February 2002, Dir. inf. 2002, 1005, 1013, 1022. In the literature, Frassi, Internet e i segni distintivi, Riv. dir. ind. 1997, II, 178, 182; Passanante, Introduzione all’art. 133 d.lgs. 30/2005, in: LC Ubertazzi, Commentario breve alle leggi su proprietà intellettuale e concorrenza, 5th edn, Milan 2012, 611; Sena, Il nuovo diritto dei marchi, 4th edn, Milan 2007, 128. 93  Ricolfi, I segni distintivi di impresa, in: Auteri et al., Diritto industriale, Turin 2012, 108.

598

IV.  Court Litigation without the trademark holder’s consent (CPI, s 20(1)(a)). Under these circumstances, the fact that there is no likelihood of confusion is irrelevant. In the literature, it is argued that protection against identical use applies not only to trademarks IT.69 but also in respect of other industrial rights in signs,94 in particular business domain names.95 The protection of registered trademarks against identical domain names is not frustrated by the fact that the latter are used in conjunction with a specific top-level domain.96 Both registered (CPI, s 20(1)(b)) and unregistered trademarks (CC, s 2598(1)) enjoy protec- IT.70 tion against confusion. In this case, the trademark is infringed if the identity or similarity of the conflicting signs and of the goods or services gives rise to a likelihood of confusion among the public. The actus reus of ‘likelihood of confusion’ expressly includes the risk that the two signs will be associated with each other. According to the case law, the extreme limit of the likelihood of confusion is reached if the public assumes the existence of contractual or corporate relationships between the holder of the sign and the user of the domain name.97 The decision whether there is a likelihood of confusion with respect to domain names is based in IT.71 the case law on the probability that, on the basis of an overall examination, the imitator’s website will be attributed to the proprietor of the imitated trademark.98 There may also be a likelihood of confusion if the imitator’s website contains a link to another website on which the imitator offers identical or similar goods or services.99 The similarity between a trademark and a domain name is determined according to the IT.72 conventional criteria. Accordingly, in the case law on domain names, account is taken of the greater or weaker distinctive character of the imitated sign, which follows from its relationship to the goods it identifies or from its secondary meaning.100 The presence of a TLD code as part of the domain name does not as a matter of principle constitute a relevant distinction between imitated trademark and the imitating domain name.101 The similarity between goods or services is also determined according to traditional crite- IT.73 ria. The case law on domain names reflects the latest state of the general discussion on this point. According to the opinion that has most recently prevailed there is a similarity between   Ricolfi, I segni distintivi di impresa, in: Auteri et al., Diritto industriale, Turin 2012, 130.   Galli, I  domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 27; Ricolfi, I  segni distintivi di impresa, in: Auteri et al., Diritto industriale, Turin 2012, 130. Trib. Roma, ord. 9 February 2000 (34/2). 96  Trib. Modena, ord. 1 August 2000 (60); Trib. S. Maria Capua Vetere, ord. 14 October 2001, Giur. comm. 2004, II, 120. In the literature, Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 28, fn 52. For a more differentiated point of view, taking into account the existence of the new thematic TLDs (‘.biz’, ‘.info’, ‘.name’, etc), see Quintini, AIDA 2003, 681–2. 97  Trib. Roma, ord. 20 March 2000 (38/2). For traditional trademark law, see as one of many examples, Vanzetti/Di Cataldo, Manuale di diritto industriale, 7th edn, Milan 2012, 247. 98  See Trib. Pescara, ord. 9 January 1997 (3/1); Trib. Gorizia, ord. 25 June 1999 (24/1); Trib. Roma, ord. 9 March 2000 (37/4). 99  Trib. Milano, ord. 10 June 1997 (5/3); Trib. Brescia, ord. 6 December 2000 (63/3); Spada, Domain names e dominio dei nomi, Riv. dir. civ. 2001, I, 729; Palazzolo and Tripodi, Privative industriali, nomi di dominio, concorrenza, pubblicità online, in Tripodi, Santoro and Messineo, Manuale di commercio elettronico, Milan 2000, 335. Dissenting, Peyron, Marchio ed Internet: link e affinità di prodotti e servizi, Il dir. ind. 1998, 144; Fazzini, Il diritto di marchio nell’universo di Internet, AIDA 1998, 589; Ricolfi, I segni distintivi. Diritto interno e comunitario, Turin 1999, 185. 100  Trib. Pescara, ord. 9 January 1997 (3/1); Trib. Roma, ord. 10 February 1999 (18/1); Trib. Gorizia, ord. 25 June 1999 (24/2); Trib. Roma, ord. 9 February 2000 (34/3); Trib. Roma, ord. 29 March 2000 (40/2); Trib. Milano, ord. 8 January 2001 (67/1–3); Trib. Roma, ord. 27 March 2002, AIDA 2003, 1065. 101  Trib. Milano, ord. 10 June 1997 (5/2); Trib. Napoli, ord. 24 March 1999 (21/4); Trib. Roma, ord. 22 December 1999 (29/4); Trib. Milano, ord. 3 February 2000 (33/1); Trib. Modena, ord. 1 August 2000 (54/2). For the case of identical domain names with different TLDs, Trib. Genova, ord. 13 October 1999 (28/1). 94 95

599

Italy (‘.it’) goods or services if the public, on the basis of the similarity between the two signs, would ascribe the goods or services to the same or at least an affiliated source.102 According to the traditional opinion, similarity between goods results from the innate nature of the goods or services, from their being intended for the same clientele, and their purpose of satisfying the same needs.103 IT.74 In case law, the likelihood of confusion has been examined in the light of the actual scope of

use of the imitated trademark.104 Amongst other specific examples, a likelihood of confusion has been found between: (i) ‘amadeus.it’, the Internet site of the Internet service provider inter alia offering travel agency services, and the trademark Amadeus registered in part for identical services,105 but restricted to the latter;106 (ii) ‘playboy.it’ for an Internet site offering pornographic content in return for payment and the magazine of the same name, ‘Playboy’;107 (iii) ‘touring.it’ for an association with the same objectives and the same activities as those of the holder of the trademark ‘Touring’ and the magazine ‘Qui Touring’;108 and (iv) ‘privatafinanziaria.com’ and ‘privataleasing.com’ on the one hand, and the unregistered trademarks and firm names ‘Privata Finanziaria’ and ‘Privataleasing’ for identical services on the other hand.109

IT.75 On the other hand, a likelihood of confusion was denied inter alia between:

(i) ‘abruzzolink.nautilus.it’ for the Internet site of an Internet service provider and the trademark ‘Nautilus’ registered for office services;110 (ii) ‘Carpoint.msn.com’ for an Internet site presenting used cars for the US market and the Italian trademark ‘Carpoint’ and the domain ‘carpoint.it’ for the marketing of cars in Italy;111 (iii) ‘eurocard.it’ for an Internet site offering a visiting card service and the trademark ‘Eurocard’ registered for financial services;112 (iv) ‘missitalia.it’ for an Internet site marketing electronic products and the trademark ‘Miss Italia’ for a famous national beauty contest;113 (v) ‘prosciuttoparma.it’ for an Internet site advertising gastronomic specialties for the Parma region and the collective trademark ‘prosciutto di Parma’ for Parma ham;114

102  Cass., 21 October 1988, No 5716, GADI 1988, No 2242; Cass., 24 March 1983, No 2060, GADI 1983, No 6244. In the literature, Galli, Funzione del marchio e ampiezza della tutela, Milan 1996, 51; Vanzetti and Di Cataldo, La nuova legge marchi, 2nd edn, Milan 2001, 27. Specifically on domain names, Trib. Roma, ord. 9 March 2000 (37/3). 103  Most recently, Cass., 22 January 1993, No 782, GADI 1994, No 3017; Cass., 19 March 1991, No 2942, GADI 1991, No 2596; Cass., 2 March 1987, No 2169, GADI 1988, No 2232. Specifically on domain names, Trib. Roma, ord. 29 March 2000, (40/2). 104  See Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 36. 105  Trib. Milano, ord. 10 June 1997 (5/4). 106  Trib. Milano, ord. 22 July 1997 (7/2). 107  Trib. Napoli, ord. 14 January 1999 (17/5); Trib. Napoli, ord. 24 March 1999 (21/5). 108  Trib. Viterbo, ord. 24 January 2000 (31/2). 109  Trib. Milano, ord. 13 May 2000 (42/5). 110  Trib. Pescara, ord. 9 January 1997 (3/2). 111  Trib. Roma, ord. 9 March 2000 (37/5). 112  Trib. Roma, ord. 29 March 2000 (40/4). 113  Trib. Modena, ord. 23 May 2000 (44/2). The protection of the trademark was rejected on the grounds that its registration as a domain by a third party would not prevent another registration with a different TLD or a different combination of words, and in addition would not impair its commercial value. 114  Trib. Parma, ord. 7 December 2000 (64/4).

600

IV.  Court Litigation (vi) ‘andala.it’ for an Internet site selling lighting installations and the trademark ‘Andala’ for telecommunications services;115 (vii) ‘madeinitaly.com’ for an Internet site offering advertising services and the trademark ‘Made in Italy’ for information and news services;116 (viii) ‘madeinitaly.com’ for an Internet site offering advertising services and the title of the magazine ‘The Best of Made in Italy’ for advertising;117 (ix) ‘forall.it’ for the Internet site of an enterprise offering electronic products and software services and the trademark ‘Forall’ for clothing;118 and (x) ‘charming-rome-hotels.com’ and the trademark ‘The Charming Hotels’, both used for hotel services.119

(b)  The Protection of Well-Known Trademarks Against Domain Names In addition to protection against identical signs and the likelihood of confusion, registered IT.76 trademarks can also enjoy a broader protection of reputation (CPI, s 20(1)(c)). This applies where the older trademark is a trademark that is well-known in Italy, and if the conflicting signs are identical or similar but the goods or services are not similar. A further condition is that the use of the identical or similar sign without due cause must exploit or impair the distinctive character or repute of the well-known mark. In agreement with the European Court of Justice (ECJ), repute within the meaning of the IT.77 CPI, s 20(1)(c) must be upheld if the trademark ‘is known to a significant part of the public that is interested in the goods or services they identify’.120 It is thus sufficient if a trademark is only known within the trade sector affected and if this reputation permits its distinctive character or esteem to be impaired or exploited through use by a third party.121 In the case law on domain names, the impairment of the trademark’s goodwill (exploitation IT.78 of reputation) has for instance been upheld if the imitator’s website is used to market cheap goods, thereby possibly creating the impression among consumers that the trademark holder was no longer maintaining its tradition and its esteem.122 However, it is easy to see that in this and similar decisions the protection of the fame of a trademark blends into a protection against confusion that is stronger than usual thanks to the trademark’s reputation.123 Dishonest exploitation of a trademark’s distinctive character (trademark dilution) was for IT.79 instance found in the case of a small Internet provider that offered its Internet services under the domain name ‘altavista.it’, identical to the name of the well-known software.124 In contrast, it was held that the same trademark ‘Alta Vista’ was not infringed by the domain name ‘alta-vista.it’, registered by a clothing manufacturer under the name ‘Alta Vista S.r.l.’.125 Most recently, protection of repute on the grounds of an impairment of goodwill of the trademark ‘Playboy’ and the exploitation of its distinctive character was granted against the use of the domain name ‘playboy.it’, under which pornographic content was being offered.126   Trib. Cagliari, ord. 23 December 2000 (66/5).   Trib. Milano, ord. 8 January 2001 (68/4). 117  Trib. Milano, ord. 8 January 2001 (67/3). 118  Trib. Verona, ord. 10 January 2001 (68/4). 119  Trib. Roma, ord. 27 March 2002, AIDA 2003, 1065. 120  ECJ, 14 September 1999, Case No 375/97, General Motors Corporation v Yplon SA, 1999 ECR 5435 ff. Specifically on domain names, Trib. Parma, ord. 22 January 2001 (70). 121  Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 43. 122  Trib. Vicenza, ord. 6 July 1998 (11/2); likewise Trib. Parma, ord. 22 January 2001 (70/6). 123  Cf. Trib. Vicenza, ord. 22 March 2000 (39/1); Trib. Modena, ord. 27 July 2000 (52/1). 124  Trib. Genova, ord. 17 July 1999 (26/2); similar decisions by Trib. Roma, ord. 29 March 2000 (40/3); Trib. Verona, ord. 10 January 2001 (68/2); Trib. Parma, ord. 22 January 2001 (70/3). 125  Trib. Vicenza, ord. 8 February 2001 (74/2). 126  Trib. Napoli, 26 February 2002, Dir. inf. 2002, 1005, 1028 ff. 115 116

601

Italy (‘.it’) IT.80 Both undue exploitation and impairment of repute were found in one recent case in which

the trademark ‘Armani’ had been registered as a domain name (‘armani.it’) by Luca Armani, namesake of the famous designer and owner of the homonymous firm ‘Timbreria Armani’ selling stamps (timbri).127

IT.81 In the literature and in case law, it has also been argued that there is as a rule a dishonest

exploitation of a well-known trademark by a domain name pursuant to the CPI, s 20(1) (c) irrespective of the content of the Internet site in question, on the basis that the use of a well-known trademark on the Internet in any event increases the number of visitors to the Internet site in question and therefore has beneficial effects for its holder.128 The same is also argued in the literature for the case of the use of a well-known trademark as a metatag.129 In such cases, even inserting disclaimers on the domain holder’s website cannot exclude claims based on the well-known trademark.130 According to a recent decision, the mere fact that the relevant domain name is descriptive of the goods offered on the corresponding website (‘www.mediaset.com’ for ‘media sets’) does not amount to a due cause under CPI, s 20(1) (c), and is thus illegal, even when the imitated trademark is particularly well-known (being Mediaset the trademark of a national TV broadcasting group).131 In the parallel administrative proceeding before the WIPO Administration and Mediation Center, the Panel had however reached a somewhat opposite conclusion, upholding the view that the descriptiveness of the contested domain name with respect to the business run by its holder was an indicator, among other, of the lack of good faith.132

IT.82 In addition, the literature and case law in part support the application of the CPI, s 20(1)(c)

in cases of abusive domain registrations (domaingrabbing and cybersquatting), even if the domain name has not yet been used in the course of business.133 Trademark law claims based on an infringement in such situations were successful on behalf of the trademark ‘Vuitton’ against the registration of the domain name ‘e-vuitton.com’,134 the trademark ‘Laura Ashley’ against the registration of the domain name ‘lauraashleys.com’135 as well as the trademarks ‘Intesa’, ‘Intesabci’, ‘Cariplo’, and ‘Bci’ against the registrations of the domain names ‘wwwintesa.it’, ‘wwwcariplo.it’, and ‘wwwbci.it’ respectively.136

127  Trib. Bergamo, 6 March 2003, Dir. inf. 2003, 837, 843 ff. In the literature, Bonelli, Marchi e nomi notori, omonimia e tutela in rete, Riv. dir. ind. 2003, I, 190. 128  In the literature, Galli, Segni distintivi e industria culturale, AIDA 2000, 391, 410 ff.; Spada, Domain names e dominio dei nomi, Riv. dir. civ. 2001, I, 726 ff. In case law, Trib. Reggio Emilia, ord. 30 May 2000 (46/5); Trib. Firenze, ord. 12 September 2000 (57/1). Dissenting, Trib. Milano, ord. 23 January 2001 (71/2); Trib. Milano, ord. 9 April 2001 (78/1); Trib. Napoli, 26 February 2002, Dir. inf. 2002, 1005, 1024 ff.; Trib. Roma, ord. 12 February 2012, Riv. dir. ind. 2012, II, 463. 129  Galli, I  domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 59 ff.; E Tosi, Le responsabilità civili, in E Tosi (ed), I problemi giuridici di Internet, 2nd edn, Milan 2001, 328. Protection against confusion by metatags was upheld in Trib. Roma, ord. 18 January 2001 (69/1) and Trib. Milano, sent. 20 February 2009, Riv. Dir. Ind. 2009, II, 375. 130  Trib. Genova, ord. 17 July 1999 (26/2); Trib. Perugia, ord. 5 October 2000 (58/1). In the literature, Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 69. 131  Trib. Roma, ord. 12 February 2012, Riv. dir. ind. 2012, II, 463. 132  WIPO Case No D2011-1954—‘mediaset.com’. 133  Trib. Parma, ord. 11 January 1999 (16/1); Trib. Parma, ord. 22 February 1999 (19/2); Trib. Genova, ord. 17 July 1999 (26/5); Trib. Vicenza, ord. 22 March 2000 (39/1); Trib. Parma, ord. 22 January 2001 (76/3); in the literature, Fazzini, Il diritto di marchio nell’universo di Internet, AIDA 1998, 593 ff.; Galli, I  domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 63; Quaranta, Case comment on Trib. Vicenza, ord. 6 July 1998, AIDA 1998, 529 ff. 134  Trib. Vicenza, ord. 22 March 2000 (39/3). 135  Trib. Parma, ord. 22 February 1999 (19/4). 136  Trib. Napoli, ord. 8 January 2002, Dir. inf. 2002, 359; Trib. Napoli, ord. 19 February 2002, Dir. inf. 2002, 362.

602

IV.  Court Litigation (3) The Protection of Firm Names (Ditta), Special Commercial Designations (Insegna), and Company Names (Ragione Sociale and Denominazione Sociale) Against Use as Domain Names Ditta and insegna are regulated in particular by the CC, ss 2563 to 2568.137 Both acquire pro- IT.83 tection upon first use,138 provided that they do not infringe prior rights and are themselves distinctive.139 Protection against the likelihood of confusion requires the sign to be original and distinctive. A potential risk of confusion is sufficient for this purpose. The examination of the likelihood of confusion must take into account whether the enterprises concerned could be said to compete in the light of their business activity and the places at which they pursue it (CC, ss 2564 and 2568).140 In the case of similar or identical ditte or insegne, the likelihood of confusion is to be deter- IT.84 mined according to the criteria of the types of business affected. This means that the threshold of the likelihood of confusion is to be set correspondingly lower.141 There is a close relationship in law between ditta and insegna on the one hand and the IT.85 registered trademark on the other hand. A registered trademark enjoys protection against likelihood of confusion and protection of repute as against ditta and insegna (CPI, s 22).142 On the other hand, a trademark cannot be registered if there is a likelihood of confusion with a third party’s ditta or insegna or business domain name, unless the secondary meaning acquired by the ditta, or insegna, or business domain name is only local (CPI, s 12(1)(b)). The names of partnerships (ragione sociale) and incorporated companies (denominazione IT.86 sociale) are treated as equivalent to ditta with respect to the scope of protection (CC, s 2564 in conjunction with s 2567) and the relationship with the registered trademark (the CPI, ss 12 and 22). On the basis of the principle of the uniform nature of industrial property rights in signs, ditta, insegna, and company names can also be infringed by domain names if the domain names are used in the course of business and there is a likelihood of confusion.143 A likelihood of confusion was, however, rejected between: (i) ‘teseo.it’ for an Internet service provider and the company name ‘Teseo S.p.A.’ for an enterprise involved in the development and the production of electronic and electro-mechanical appliances and corresponding repair services; and (ii) ‘ikon.it’ for an enterprise active in the field of multimedia services and the company name ‘Ikon S.r.l.’ for an advertising photography enterprise, on the grounds of the lack of distinctive character.

(4)  Infringement of Names Names, including pseudonyms, are protected in their civil law function as personal identifiers IT.87 by the CC, ss 7 to 9. At the same time, s 7 of the CC provides a statutory basis for general

  See Section I.   Vanzetti and Di Cataldo, Manuale di diritto industriale, 7th edn, Milan 2012, 332; Cf. also Bastian, Recht der Werbung in Italien, in: Schricker (ed), Recht der Werbung in Europa, Note 139 ff. 139  Vanzetti/Di Cataldo, Manuale di diritto industriale, 7th edn, Milan 2012, 328 ff. 140  Ibid., 333 ff. 141 Ibid., 329. 142  Trib. Milano, sent. 6 June 2007, No 7062, in Dir. ind., 2008, 227. 143 Trib. Bari, ord. 24 July 1996 (1/2); Pret. Valdagno, ord. 27 May 1998 (10/1); Trib. Gorizia, ord. 25 June 1999 (24/1); Trib. Milano, ord. 13 April 2000 (42/3); Trib. Crema, ord. 24 July 2000 (51/5); see para 67. 137 138

603

Italy (‘.it’) personality rights.144 Name law and general personality law apply not only to natural but also to legal persons.145 IT.88 A name that does not correspond with that of the applicant can be registered as a trademark

pursuant to the CPI, s 8(2) and (3) provided that the use does not damage the reputation, credit, or dignity of the lawful bearer of the name. If it is a well-known name, it can only be filed by the holder of the name or with his consent. The same applies to the well-known names and abbreviations of non-profit-making events, associations and corporations (the CPI, s 8(3)). Section 8 expresses a general principle that applies not only to registered trademarks but to all industrial property rights in signs. Accordingly, these provisions are also applicable by analogy to domain names to the extent that the latter are used in the course of business.146

IT.89 Section 19(2) of the CPI, forbidding the filing of a trademark in bad faith, can be applied

by analogy to cases of domaingrabbing and cybersquatting, in which the domain name is frequently merely registered but not used in the course of business.147 If the conditions for the analogous application of ss 8(2) and (3) or 19(2) are not satisfied, recourse can also be had to civil law protection under the CC, ss 7 to 9.148 In this connection, however, infringement may require not merely registration as such but also use of the domain name.

(5)  Infringement of Titles IT.90 Titles of works, newspapers, journals, and periodicals enjoy protection against the likeli-

hood of confusion pursuant to the Copyright Act, s 100. This means that the title of a work, although the regulation concerning its protection is included in the Copyright Act, is not protected pursuant to s 100 as an independent intellectual work but only in its function as a means of identifying the work.149 According to the wording of s 100, the title of the work, if it uniquely identifies the work itself, cannot be reproduced on another work without the author’s consent (para 1). The prohibition does not extend to works whose type or character is so different that there is no possibility of confusion (para 2). Given this wording, it is sometimes possible for a likelihood of confusion to be excluded between works that belong to the same category of work (eg between daily newspapers with commercial and political content and a monthly magazine for language students) and on the other hand to be upheld between works of different categories (eg between books with a historical and political content and sound cassettes with recorded documents).150

IT.91 A special rule applies to the titles of newspapers, journals, and periodicals. These must not be

reproduced for other works of the same type unless two years have expired since the termination of publication (para 4).

144  See, for example, Ansaldo, in Schlesinger, Il codice civile. Commentario, Le persone fisiche—Arts 1–10, Milan 1996, 290, with further references. 145  On name law in particular, Cass., 12 May 1962, No 984, Giust. civ. 1962, I, 1680; Cass., 26 February 1981, No 1185, Giur. it. 1981, I, 1025; on personality rights generally, Alpa, in Schlesinger, Il codice civile. Commentario, Le persone fisiche—Arts 1–10, Milano 1996, 166, with further references. 146  See Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Giuffrè, Milan 2001, 44. 147  See para IT.64. 148  Trib. Torino, ord. 23 December 2000, AIDA 2003, 699; Trib. Salerno, ord. 25 February 2003, Dir. inf. 2003, 832. 149  See Ammendola, in Marchetti/Ubertazzi, Commentario breve al diritto della concorrenza, Cedam, Milan 1997, on the Copyright Act, s 100, Part I, Note 1, with further references. 150  Trib. Firenze, ord. 12 April 1976, Rep. Giur.ann.dir.ind. 1972–1987, s 722; see also Bastian, Recht der Werbung in Italien, in: Schricker (ed), Recht der Werbung in Europa, Notes 145 ff.

604

IV.  Court Litigation The special provision of title protection does not exclude general competition law protec- IT.92 tion pursuant to the CC, s 2598.151 Consequently, an action based on competition law to protect a title is possible if there is a risk that both the title on the one hand and the work and the business activity on the other hand can be confused, while the action pursuant to the Copyright Act, s 100 is based upon a likelihood of confusion between the contents of the works.152 As a rule, title protection will be derived from the Copyright Act, s 100. Only if there are special circumstances that constitute an infringement of the right to the title under competition law will the CC, s 2598 be applied in addition.153 The same principles apply if the title is registered and used as a domain name.154 Thus, the use IT.93 of the title of the legal journal ‘Il Foro Italiano’ in its usual abbreviation ‘foro.it’ as a domain name for a discussion forum for the legal profession was regarded an infringement of title rights.155 The use of the domain names ‘motosprint.it’ and ‘motosprint.com’ for an Internet site marketing motorcycle spare parts was, in the opinion of the Tribunale di Padova, likewise an infringement of the title of the motorcycle sport magazine ‘Motosprint’ pursuant to the Copyright Act, s 100.156

(6)  Names of Cities, Towns, and Public Bodies As already mentioned, according to the current AMR, certain domain names are reserved if IT.94 they correspond to the names or abbreviations of public law corporations. They can only be registered by the entitled corporation.157 Public law corporations and legal persons generally also enjoy civil law and trademark protection of their names pursuant to the CC, s 7 and the CPI, s 8(2) and (3).158 These provisions are applicable by analogy to domain names.159

(7)  Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available (a) Remedies The injured party is entitled to claim the following remedies against anyone who without author- IT.95 ization registers and uses a trademark or another sign as a domain name: (a) irrespective of any finding of fault, an injunction, which can also be exercised by means of interlocutory ruling (CPI, ss 118(6), 131, and 133); or (b) if the infringing party is at fault through intent or negligence, damages, and the publication of the decision finding the rights infringed (CPI, s 125 and CC, ss 2599 and 2600).160 Where interlocutory protection is not applicable, the proceedings for disputes based on intellec- IT.96 tual property rights in signs can be expected to be relatively long. According to information from the Italian Ministry of Justice, civil proceedings take on average four to five years at first instance and almost three years on appeal.

151 See Ammendola, in:  Marchetti and Ubertazzi, Commentario breve al diritto della concorrenza, Cedam, Milan 1997, on the Copyright Act, s 100, Part I, Note 1, with further references. 152 See Ammendola, in:  Marchetti and Ubertazzi, Commentario breve al diritto della concorrenza, Cedam, Milan 1997, on the Copyright Act, s 100, Part I, Note 1, with further references. 153  Most recently, Trib. Viterbo, ord. 24 January 2000 (31/2). 154  Trib. Modena, ord. 23 October 1996 (2/2); Trib. Roma, ord. 2 August 1997 (8/2); Trib. Macerata, ord. 2 December 1998 (13/2); Trib. Padova, ord. 14 December 1998 (15/1); Trib. Roma, ord. 23 December 1999 (30/1); Trib. Torino, ord. 21 July 2000 (50/2); Trib. Messina, ord. 3 October 2000 (61/1); Trib. Milano, ord. 8 January 2001 (67/1). 155  Trib. Modena, ord. 23 October 1996 (2/3). 156  Trib. Padova, ord. 14 December 1998 (15/2). 157  See para IT.15. 158  Trib. Roma, 2 March 1993, GADI 1993, No 2949; see para IT.87. 159  See paras IT. 87–88. 160  Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 93.

605

Italy (‘.it’) IT.97 (i)  Claims for Injunction, Cancellation, and Transfer  An injunction is not capable of

direct enforcement.161 However, indirect enforcement can be obtained through the Italian Penal Code, s 388, which punishes the deliberate failure to comply with a court order.162 The court may also impose a penalty for any infringement or delay in complying with the decision (CPI, s 131(2)) or the interlocutory injunction (CPI, s 132). In addition, recourse can again be had to the court to provide further details of the manner of enforcement.163 The action for an injunction can also be used to oblige the domain holder to renounce the domain name. This is subject to the condition of an infringement of the right independent of the website content.164 Otherwise, only the unlawful use of the domain name can be prohibited.165

IT.98 Under certain circumstances the domain name can be cancelled without the participation of

the infringing party. According to the RNA, the RA can cancel domain names already registered on presentation of a final decision or arbitration ruling stating that the holder of the domain name has no right to use the domain (RNA, s 11.3). An enforceable decision only has effect as against the RA if the decision has also been served on the RA.166

IT.99 Finally, the plaintiff is entitled to claim cancellation or transfer of the domain name (CPI,

s 118(6)). Transfer of the domain name can also be obtained as a temporary injunction, subject on the filing of a bond by the beneficiary of the injunction (CPI, s 133).

IT.100 (ii)  Publication of the Decision  The injured party is entitled to the publication of the

ruling that there has been an infringement of his rights (the CPI, s 126 and CC, s 2600(2)). This may be a final decision or the interlocutory ruling, although in the latter case this is only permissible if there is a need to prevent serious and irreparable damage.167

IT.101 Online publication can also be ordered in the case of domain names.168 The infringing party can

then be ordered to bear the costs for the creation and maintenance of an Internet site intended specifically for this purpose.169

IT.102 (iii) Damages  Finally, the injured party is entitled to damages and/or disgorgement.

The mere fact of registration gives rise to a presumption of a negligent infringement of the registered trademark.170 In unfair competition law, there is even a statutory assumption of fault (CC, s 2600(3)). The aggrieved party can also obtain a declaratory judgment as to   Cass., 25 July 1995, No 8080, GADI 1995, No 3205.   In the case of domain names, this possibility is expressly mentioned in Trib. Modena, ord. 7 February 2001 (73). 163  Spolidoro, Provvedimenti provvisori del diritto industriale, Riv. dir. ind. 1994, I, 359, 407 ff. On the question of domain names, Trib. Modena, ord. 14 February 2001 (75). 164  Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 93; Trib. Napoli, 26 February 2002, Dir. inf. 2002, 1005, 1048. Dissenting, Trib. Parma, 26 February 2001 (76/5) on the extremely dubious grounds that the court was unable to find an act in the course of business by the infringing party. 165  Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 94. In case law, for instance, Trib. Milano, ord. 22 July 1997 (7/1); Trib. Milano, ord. 3 February 2000 (33); Trib. Milano, ord. 7 March 2000 (36/1); Trib. Reggio Emilia, ord. 30 May 2000 (46/7); Trib. Brescia, ord. 6 December 2000 (63). 166 Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 95; Vanzetti/Di Cataldo, Manuale di diritto industriale, 6th edn, Milan 2009, 336. Trib. Genova, ord. 17 July 1999 (26/1); Trib. Roma, ord. 22 December 1999 (29/6). 167  Most recently, Trib. Torino, ord. 7 July 1995, GADI 1995, No 3330; Trib. Milano, ord. 23 January 1998, GADI 1998, No 3813. 168  Trib. Genova, ord. 23 January 1997 (4/2); Pret. Valdagno, ord. 27 May 1998 (1073); Trib. Genova, ord. 17 July 1999 (26/4); Trib. Crema, ord. 24 July 2000 (51/9); Trib. Perugia, ord. 5 October 2000 (58/3); Trib. Napoli, 26 February 2002, Dir. inf. 2002, 1005, 1049. 169 Pret. Valdagno, ord. 27 October 1998 (10/3); Trib. Napoli, 26 February 2002, Dir. inf. 2002, 1005, 1049. 170  Vanzetti and Di Cataldo, Manuale di diritto industriale, 7th edn, Milan 2012, 564. 161 162

606

IV.  Court Litigation the fundamental liability for damages (Codice di procedura civile, the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, s 278). The amount of compensation can also be determined according to a number of criteria, including equitable criteria (CPI, s 125).

(b)  Interlocutory Protection It is generally recognized that an interlocutory ruling can be requested whenever a sign has been IT.103 infringed. This approach is very popular in the light of the extremely long duration of the proceedings in actions on the main issue in the past. It provides a rapid means of putting an end to an infringement of a sign through the use of domain names. The decisions on domain names rendered to date have almost exclusively been in the form of interlocutory rulings. In Italian law, interlocutory rulings require prima facie evidence of a claim to an injunction IT.104 (fumus bonis iuris) and imminent danger (periculum in mora). These are usually found to be present in intellectual property law cases if a current infringement of the rights is substantiated.171 Neither the statute nor case law specify a particular period within which an interlocutory injunction must be requested. In one case, however, the court refused to find that there was sufficient urgency for an interlocutory ruling, on the grounds that the domain name had only been registered, but was not currently being used.172 The interlocutory injunction can be used to prohibit the infringing use of the domain name IT.105 as such, or only to prohibit specific unlawful uses. According to CPI, s 133 the interlocutory injunction can also be used to reassign the contested domain name. In this case, use of the domain name in the course of a business activity is required, and a security deposit can be imposed on the plaintiff (CPI, s 133). If the infringement consists of the mere registration of the domain name, it is unclear whether the interlocutory injunction can only forbid the use of the domain name or whether it can also be used to oblige the holder to renounce or cancel the domain name, or reassign it to the complainant.173 According to a recent decision, in so far as the contested domain name infringes a previous trademark only with respect to the Italian territory, reassignment would be a disproportionate measure.174 Case law has upheld both approaches, mostly without further justification. In part it seems IT.106 that the adoption of one or other solution simply depends on the different wording of the plaintiff ’s claims.175 In two cases in which the complainant had requested ‘the cancellation’ of the disputed domain name, the claim was rejected on the grounds that the measure requested was incompatible with the interlocutory nature of the injunction.176 In a different decision, the court even ordered the interlocutory transfer of the domain name to IT.107 the complainant by the RA.177 However, no legal basis was given for the RA’s duty to transfer the domain name, either through the interlocutory injunction or in the final decision, and no 171  Floridia, La tutela giurisdizionale dei diritti di proprietà immateriale, in: Auteri et al., Diritto industriale. Proprietà e concorrenza, 4th edn, Turin 2012, 638. 172  Trib. Modena, ord. 1 August 2000 (60). 173  Passanante, art 133 d.lgs. 30/2005, in: LC Ubertazzi, Commentario breve alle leggi su proprietà intellettuale e concorrenza, 5th edn, Milan 2012, 620. 174  Trib. Roma, ord. 12 February 2012, Riv. dir. ind. 2012, II, 467. 175  The renunciation of the domain name or its cancellation generally was ordered in the following decisions: Pret. Valdagno, ord. 27 May 1998 (10); Trib. Macerata, ord. 2 December 1998 (13); Trib. Genova, ord. 17 July 1998 (13); Trib. Roma, ord. 22 December 1999 (29); Trib. Milano, ord. 13 April 2000 (42); Trib. Modena, ord. 23 August 2000 (55); Trib. Modena, ord. 30 October 2000 (60). In contrast, in the following cases only the use of the domain name was forbidden: Trib. Napoli, decr. 3 December 1998 (14); Trib. Reggio Emilia, ord. 30 May 2000 (46); Trib. Firenze, ord. 12 September 2000 (57); Trib. Parma, ord. 22 January 2001 (70); Trib. Modena, ord. 7 February 2001 (73). 176  Trib. Modena, ord. 1 August 2000 (54/3); Trib. Parma, ord. 22 January 2001 (70). 177  Trib. Cagliari, ord. 30 March 2000 (41/5).

607

Italy (‘.it’) legal provision such as CPI, s 133 existed at that time.178 Another decision had, on the other hand, upheld the possibility of ordering the RA to temporarily suspend the domain name, but only on condition that an action was also duly brought against the RA.179 It is sometimes assumed that measures of this kind can also be addressed to foreign Naming Authorities.180

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name IT.108 Domain names themselves are entitled to protection as signs. However, their legal status is

disputed in both literature and practice. In part, domain names are treated as equivalent to special commercial designations.181 Occasionally, domain names have been treated like a periodical title182 or a firm name.183 On other occasions, domain names are simply dealt with as an industrial property right in signs.184 The precedents must be rejected to the extent that the legal status ascribed to the domain names mostly results from a rather generalized consideration of their nature, without taking into account the fact that their identifying function can vary depending on the specific circumstances.185

IT.109 The acquisition and scope of protection are determined according to the general rules that

apply to unregistered signs.186 Accordingly, exclusive rights to domain names as an industrial property right can only be acquired from use in the course of business. This is always subject to the condition of the domain name having a distinctive character, either by virtue of its original nature or as a result of secondary meaning.187 Distinctive character can also be lost in the course of time if the designation becomes usual amongst the public concerned.

IT.110 The registration of domain names that are not distinctive with respect to the business activity

carried out under them has to date not encountered any objections in Italian case law. The protection of such domain names is restricted to the likelihood of confusion that results from its actual field of application. Accordingly, there can be no infringement if the conflicting sign is used directly or indirectly for dissimilar goods or services.188 In one case in which an identical domain name with different TLDs was used for dissimilar websites, a competitive relationship was nevertheless found between them in the market for online advertising.189

  Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 102.   Trib. Modena, ord. 7 December 2000 (65/1). 180  Corona, art 133 d.lgs. 30/2005, in: C Galli, Codice commentato della proprietà industriale ed intellettuale, Turin 2011, 1254. 181  Trib. Milano, ord. 10 June 1997 (5/1); Trib. Roma, ord. 22 December 1999 (29/1); Trib. Bologna, ord. 20 March 2000 (38/1); Trib. Milano, ord. 13 April 2000 (42/2); Trib. Modena, ord. 23 May 2000 (44/1); Trib. Reggio Emilia, ord. 30 May 2000 (46/1); Trib. Crema, ord. 24 July 2000 (51/4); Trib. Modena, ord. 1 August 2000 (54/1); Trib. Parma, ord. 7 December 2000 (64/2); Trib. Modena, ord. 24 January 2001 (72/1); Trib. Modena, ord. 7 February 2001 (73/1). In the literature, Peyron, Nomi a dominio—domain name—e proprietà industriale: un tentativo di conciliazione, Giur. it. 1997, I, 697, 700. 182  Trib. Viterbo, ord. 24 January 2000 (31/1); Trib. Napoli, ord. 8 August 1997 (9); in the literature, Bertani, Domain names, titolo del sito web e contraffazione telematica, AIDA 2000, 918. 183  Trib. Bologna, ord. 20 March 2000 (38/2). 184  Trib. Roma, ord. 18 July 2000 (48/1); Trib. Napoli, 26 February 2002, Dir. inf. 2002, 1005, 1012. 185  Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 23 ff.; Passanante, Introduzione all’art. 133 d.lgs. 30/2005, in: LC Ubertazzi, Commentario breve alle leggi su proprietà intellettuale e concorrenza, 5th edn, Milan 2012, 610; Ricolfi, I segni distintivi di impresa, in: Auteri et al., Diritto industriale, Turin 2012, 188. 186  Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 23. 187  Trib. Pescara, ord. 9 January 1997 (3/1). In the literature, Passanante, Introduzione all’art. 133 d.lgs. 30/2005, in: LC Ubertazzi, Commentario breve alle leggi su proprietà intellettuale e concorrenza, 5th edn, Milan 2012, 613. 188  Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 23. Trib. Roma, ord. 18 July 2000 (48/2); Trib. Roma, ord. 28 August 2000 (56/1). 189  Trib. Genova, ord. 13 October 1999 (28/1). 178 179

608

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrars, and Internet Service Providers Two court decisions have so far dealt with the question of whether the RA is liable for IT.111 registering domain names for unauthorized persons. In one case, the RA’s liability was rejected on the grounds that the imposition of such a duty to examine would be unreasonable and would also lead to an unnecessary increase in the number of disputes.190 This decision encountered criticism from a number of authors.191 Despite the vague justification, the decision is, in this author’s opinion, the correct one. First, it is not clear what the legal basis for a comprehensive duty to examine on the part of the RA should be.192 Moreover, it cannot be ignored that such a duty to examine is not even imposed on the Italian Trademark and Patent Office in trademark registration proceedings. The Trademark and Patent Office can only refuse to register the trademark on the grounds of third-party rights if the rightholder has filed an opposition to the registration of the trademark.193 Nor, in the light of the global nature of the Internet, is the imposition of the duty to examine possible in practice.194 Nevertheless, it is often argued that the RA should be liable for abetting a trademark infringe- IT.112 ment at least in exceptional cases, in particular if the applicant is obviously not entitled to register the sign as a domain name, irrespective of the manner of its subsequent use.195 This view was recently adopted by the Tribunale di Napoli, although in the specific case it rejected the RA’s liability for damages.196 With respect to registrars’ liability, similar arguments may apply. In addition, it must be con- IT.113 sidered that registrants, when they file for registration, submit to the registration and dispute resolution rules set by the RA. Nonetheless, the registrar entertains a direct relationship with the registrant, and may be better positioned to ascertain abusive application behaviour (such as the concealing of one’s true identity in connection with domaingrabbing), or may indulge in practices that facilitate domaingrabbing patterns.

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property In Italy, there is no publicly available case law dealing with domain names as items of property, IT.114 nor has the topic been dealt with in depth by scholars. In this respect, domain-name specific issues may occasionally arise under other areas of Italian law, due the fact that the registration of

  Trib. Macerata, ord. 2 December 1998 (13/4).   Quaranta, La registrazione abusiva del ‘domain name’, Il dir. ind. 1999, 36 ff.; D’Arrigo, La contraffazione del ‘marchio virtuale’: il caso Altavista, Dir. inf. 2000, 346, 358 ff. 192  Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 77 ff.; Palazzolo/Tripodi, Privative industriali, nomi di dominio, concorrenza, pubblicità online, in Tripodi, Santoro and Messineo, Manuale di commercio elettronico, Milan 2000, 338 ff.; Sarti, Assegnazione dei nomi a dominio e ordinamento statuale, AIDA 2000, 953, 958. 193  Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 77; Sammarco, Illeciti contraffattori: responsabilità del provider, rischio di impresa e ruolo della Registration Authority, Dir. inf. 2002, 1050, 1059 ff. 194  Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 77; Magni/Spolidoro, La responsabilità degli operatori in Internet: profili interni ed internazionali, Dir. inf. 1997, 61, 67; Sammarco, Illeciti contraffattori: responsabilità del provider, rischio di impresa e ruolo della Registration Authority, Dir. inf. 2002, 1050, 1059 ff. 195  Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 79. 196  Trib. Napoli, 26 February 2002, Dir. inf. 2002, 1005, 1038 ff. 190 191

609

Italy (‘.it’) a domain name implies the entering into contractual relationships with the registrar as well as the registry, and turns the domain name itself into an item of property, while its various uses may correspond or conflict with rights in trademarks or other distinctive signs.

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (1)  International Jurisdiction IT.115 International jurisdiction in cases of the infringement of trademarks or other signs by domain

names is initially determined by the Council Regulation No 44/2001 of 12 December 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters197 if the defendant has his place of residence in a Member State of the EU. In substantive terms the Regulation applies to the entire field of civil and commercial law and hence also to disputes involving intellectual property rights in signs. Section 5 of the Act dated 31 May 1995, No 218 (Italian International Private Law Act) also refers to the Regulation if the defendant’s place of residence or business is outside the European Community.

IT.116 If the defendant has his place of residence in Italy, Article 2 of the Regulation provides for a

general legal venue in Italy. Article 5(3) of the Regulation establishes a legal venue in Italy if it is there that the harmful event occurs or may occur. On Article 5(3) of the Regulation, the ECJ has held that this covers both the place at which the damage has occurred and the place where the causative event took place.198

IT.117 The place of the causative event in this sense is located at the place of the server on which the

disputed Internet site or the disputed domain name is loaded.199 If the server is outside Italy, jurisdiction is determined by the place at which the damaging event occurred. In one of the two court decisions that has expressly addressed this question, the fact that the Internet site in question was accessible for users in the country under whose law there was an infringement of the sign (in the specific case, Italy) was regarded as sufficient for the assumption of jurisdiction.200

(2)  Choice of Law IT.118 In one opinion, the law applicable to an infringement is determined by s 62 of the Act on

International Private Law. According to this, liability for tort is regulated by the law of the country in which the effect occurred, unless the injured party demands the application of the law of the country in which the action was committed.201 It is disputed whether the link to the party’s domestic law laid down in s 62(2) of the Act on International Private Law is applicable to infringements of intellectual property rights in signs.

IT.119 In another opinion, the applicable law is to be determined according to s 54 of the Act

on International Private Law, according to which rights to intellectual property are regulated by the law of the country in which they are used.202 However, the objection is raised that s 54 merely codifies the territoriality principle that prevails in intellectual property law. In other words, s 54 merely lays down that the existence of the infringed intellectual

197 OJ L012/1 dated 16 January 2001. According to Art 68, this Regulation supersedes the Brussels Convention and according to Art 76 entered into effect on 1 March 2002. 198  ECJ, 30 November 1976, Rs. 21/76, Bier BV v Mines de potasse d’Alsace SA, ECR 1976, ss 1735 ff. 199  Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 81 ff. 200  Trib. Roma, ord. 9 March 2000 (37/1). Dissenting, Trib. Roma, ord. 2 February 2000 (32/1), whose interlocutory injunction was, however, set aside in the last cited decision. 201  Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 88. 202  Bariatti, Internet e il diritto internazionale privato: aspetti relativi alla disciplina del diritto d’autore, AIDA 1996, 59, 74 ff.

610

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law property right is determined according to the law of the country in which it is used. The consequences of the infringement, on the other hand, are regulated by national law as determined by s 62.203 In the only decision rendered so far on this point, an Italian car dealer, the holder of the IT.120 Italian trademark ‘Carpoint’ and the domain name ‘carpoint.it’, filed an action against the US Microsoft Corporation that was pursuing a similar activity, although only with reference to the US market, under the domain name ‘carpoint.msn.com’. The court held that the Italian Trademark Act was applicable and refused to grant interlocutory protection on the grounds of the lack of a likelihood of confusion, since the parties’ business activities concerned geographically different markets (Italy and the USA).204

(3)  Substantive Law In international domain name conflicts, whether the substantive requirements for an IT.121 infringement are satisfied is to be determined according to the general principles of Italian intellectual property law on signs. To date, neither the courts not the literature have examined in detail the extent to which the global nature of the Internet and the territorial principle of intellectual property rights require a correction of the laws concerning the infringement of rights in signs. However, the proposed solution in the Joint Recommendation concerning the Protection of Marks and other Industrial Property Rights in Signs on the Internet dated 3 October 2001205 appears compatible with current Italian law on signs to the extent that, according to the Recommendation, the assumption of a use of a sign in Italy requires that it has a commercial effect in the country. In the final analysis, at any rate, the above-mentioned decision by the Tribunale di Roma206 in the case of ‘carpoint.it’ appears to assume the requirement of an effect in Italy. Whether more extensive adjustments to the law envisaged by the Joint Recommendation, in IT.122 particular the required restrictions on remedies under sign law, can be integrated into Italian sign law without statutory amendment has not yet been examined in any detail. However, the literature has occasionally already pointed out that, given the territorial restriction of sign rights, the sign holder has no right to generally prohibit the use of an infringing domain name, but instead the infringer must be subjected to more focused measures that would prevent access by Internet users from the territory of protection or that would limit the commercial effect of the website.207 In its objectives, this would appear to correspond with the proposals of the Joint Recommendation.

203  Magni and Spolidoro, La responsabilità degli operatori in Internet: profili interni e internazionali, Dir. inf. 1997, 61, 79 ff.; Luzzatto, Commento dell’art. 54, in Pocar, Commentario del nuovo diritto internazionale privato, Padova 1996, 259; Salvatore, Commento all’art. 54, AA.VV., L. 31 May 1995, n. 218. Riforma del sistema del diritto internazionale privato. Commentario a cura di Bariatti, Nuove leggi civ. comm. 1996, 877, 1338. 204  Trib. Roma, ord. 9 March 2000 (37/1). 205  Joint Recommendation concerning the Protection of Marks and other Industrial Property Rights in Signs on the Internet, dated 3 October 2001, adopted by the Assembly of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property and the General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) at the Thirty-Sixth Series of Meetings of the Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO. 206  Trib. Roma, ord. 9 March 2000 (37/1). 207  Fazzini, Case comment on Trib. Genova, ord. 23 January 1997, AIDA 1997, 862, 868; Galli, I domain names nella giurisprudenza, Milan 2001, 95.

611

JAPAN (‘.jp’) Makoto Hattori and Nodoka Nakamura

I. Overview of the National System of Trademark and Other Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names  (1) Types of Protected Industrial Property Rights  (2) Development of Domain Name Law and the Provision Against Cybersquatting (UCA, s 2(1)(12)) 

II. The ccTLD (‘.jp’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

(7) Role of the Administrative Panel  (8) Costs  (9) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings  (10)  ADR Decisions  (11) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Administrative Panel 

JP.01 JP.01 JP.04

IV. Court Litigation and National Laws 

(1) Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation  (2) Infringement of Trademarks  (3) Infringement of Well-Known or Famous Trademarks under the UCA Section 2(1)(1) and (2)  (4) Infringement of Personal Names and Names of Cities  (5) Infringement of Titles (6) Court Procedure and Remedies

JP.06

(1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry  JP.06 (2) The Structure of the ‘.jp’ Name Space  JP.07 (3) Registration Restrictions  JP.13 (4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement  JP.16 (5) Transfer of Domain Names  JP.18 (6) Statistics  JP.19

V. Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  VI. Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers  VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law 

III. ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.jp’ Domain Space 

JP.20 (1) Principle Characteristics of the Proceeding  JP.20 (2) Statistics  JP.23 (3) Material Scope of the Proceeding  JP.24 (4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding through the Registration Agreement  JP.25 (5) Overview of the ADR Procedure  JP.26 (6) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider  JP.36

(1) International Jurisdiction (2) Applicable Law (3) Substantive Law

Links National Courts Website Decisions: http://www.courts.go.jp Intellectual Property Office Patent and Trademarks Office: http://www.jpo.go.jp Trademark Act: http://law.e-gov.go.jp (Japanese) Unfair Competition Prevention Act: http://law.e-gov.go.jp (Japanese) Domain Name System ccTLD Registry: http://jprs.co.jp/en/ Rules for Registration: http://jprs.jp/info/document.html (Japanese) Terms and Conditions for Registration: http://jprs.jp/about/dom-rule/doc/ (Japanese)

613

JP.37 JP.39 JP.40 JP.43 JP.46 JP.68 JP.68 JP.89 JP.93 JP.95 JP.105 JP.106

JP.109 JP.112 JP.114 JP.118 JP.118 JP.122 JP.123

Japan (‘.jp’) Alternative Dispute Resolution Dispute Resolution Provider: http://www.ip-adr.gr.jp/eng/ Dispute Resolution Policy: http://www.nic.ad.jp/en/drp/ Dispute Resolution Rules: http://www.nic.ad.jp/doc/jpnic-01065.html Decisions: http://www.ip-adr.gr.jp/eng/business/domain/jp-3.php

I.  Overview of the National System of Trademark and Other Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names (1)  Types of Protected Industrial Property Rights (a)  Trademark and Service Mark Protection in Japan JP.01 Two types of trademarks are protected under Japanese law: (1) trade and service marks, protected by the Trademark Act and the Unfair Competition Prevention Act1 (hereinafter the UCA); and (2) business names, protected by the Companies Act, the Commercial Code, and the UCA.2 JP.02 Protection under the Trademark Act is established through registration. Under the

Trademark Act, any trademark which is to be used in connection with goods or services pertaining to the business of an applicant may be registered, except where the applied-for mark comprises generic words, terms which are morally offensive, or expressions deemed contrary to the interests of public order (ss 3(1) and 2)). The registration confers on the holder an exclusive right to use the mark for the specified goods or services (Trademark Act s 25).3 Therefore, the use of a mark which is identical or similar to another trademark registered in connection with the same designated classes of goods or services, or goods or services which are similar to the designated goods or services of the registered mark, constitutes infringement of the registered trademark (Trademark Act ss 36 and 37). Furthermore, the holder of a well-known or famous trademark can claim protection against the likelihood of confusion, pursuant to the UCA, regardless of whether or not the mark is registered (s 2(1)(1) and (2)).4 Trademarks that are neither well-known nor registered do not enjoy such protection.

1  For further details on the law concerning unfair competition in Japan, see Christopher Heath, The System of Unfair Competition Prevention in Japan, (Kluwer Verlag, London, Den Haog, Boston 2001). 2  Personal names are either protected by the personality right in the Civil Code or, if used as business designations, firm names, or business names, they may be protected according to the Companies Act and the Commercial Code in conjunction with or according to the UCA. 3  The Trademark Act, s 25 reads: ‘The holder of a trademark right shall have an exclusive right to use the registered trademark in connection with the designated goods or designated services.’ (This and the following translations of the Japanese Acts are taken from a website which is operated by the Ministry of Justice, available at: http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp.) 4  Section 2(1)(1) and (2) of the UCA reads: As used in this Law, the term ‘unfair competition’ shall mean any act under the following: (i) An act of creation of confusion with another person’s goods or business by use of an indication of goods, etc. (which shall mean a name, trade name, trademark, mark, container or package, or any other indication of goods or trade pertaining to a person’s business; the same shall apply hereinafter) that is identical or similar to an indication of goods, etc. well-known among consumers used by said person, or assignment, delivery, display for the purpose of assignment or delivery, export, import or provision through a telecommunications line of goods bearing the such an indication of goods, etc.;

614

I.  Overview of the National System (b) Business Names Company names are protected by the Companies Act and trade names are protected by the JP.03 Commercial Code. The Companies Act and the Commercial Code forbid the use of any name or trade name for a wrongful purpose. Such prohibition includes use which may lead one company (or individual) to be mistaken for another person or company (the Companies Act s 85 and the Commercial Code, ss 11 and 12). These provisions require ‘a wrongful purpose’, which refers to an active intent to cause harm, including but not limited to an intent to cause consumer confusion, to undertake practices of unfair competition, and the intent to cause damage to a third party.6 (2) Development of Domain Name Law and the Provision Against Cybersquatting (UCA, s 2(1)(12)) Domain name disputes have primarily been conducted within the framework of alterna- JP.04 tive dispute resolution procedures under the Japanese Dispute Resolution Policy (JP-DRP), which is modelled on the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP). The JP-DRP, however, does not bar recourse to the courts.7 As a rule, courts have applied general trademark law provisions in domain name disputes. Since these provisions require the ‘use’ of a mark, however, the conditions for relief are not satisfied in circumstances where a cybersquatter has registered a domain name with the sole intention of selling it subsequently at a profit, and has not actually used the domain to display active content. After the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)8 adopted pro- JP.05 visions against cybersquatting on the basis of a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) final Report,9 the Japanese legislature resolved to extend the provisions of the Japanese UCA s 2.  In sub-paragraph 12, the legislature included the actus reus of abuse, which is directed expressly at dishonest acts undertaken in connection with the registration and use of domain names.10 Pursuant to the UCA s 2(1)(12), anyone who, with the intent to gain unfair profits or to cause damage to a third party, acquires, possesses, or uses a domain name, identical or similar to the specific indication of goods of another person, commits an act of unfair competition. The term ‘specific indication of goods’ refers to a name, trade name, trademark, mark, or other identifying symbol which is used in connection with the specific goods or services in question.11

(ii) An act of using as one’s own of an indication of goods, etc. identical or similar to another person’s famous indication of goods, etc., or assignment, delivery, display for the purpose of assignment or delivery, export, import or provision through a telecommunications line of goods bearing such an indication of goods, etc. 5  Section 8 of the Companies Act reads: ‘No person may use, with a wrongful purpose, any name or trade name which makes it likely that the person may be mistaken for the other Company.’ 6  Intellectual Property High Court dated 13 June 2007 (Japan Sports Marketing case), published at: http:// www.courts.go.jp (Japanese). 7  JP-DRP s 4(k). See http://www.nic.ad.jp/en/drp/. 8 See http://www.icann.org. 9 See http://www.wipo.org. 10  The UCA amendment was entered into effect on 25 December 2001. It was preceded by a corresponding proposal by the Ministry of the Economy submitted in the E-Japan Focus Plan of March 2001. 11  The UCA, s 2(1)(12) reads: ‘The term “unfair competition” as used in this Act means any of the following: (xii) acts of acquiring or holding a right to use a domain name(s) that is identical or similar to another person’s specific indication of goods or services (which means a name, trade name, trademark, mark, or any other indication of a person’s goods or services), or the acts of using any such domain name(s), for the purpose of acquiring an illicit gain or causing injury to another person.’

615

Japan (‘.jp’)

II.  The ccTLD (‘.jp’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1)  Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry JP.06 In Japan, JPNIC (the Japan Network Information Centre)12 and JPRS (the Japan Registry

Service K.K.)13 are together responsible for registering and administering the country code top-level domain (ccTLD) ‘.jp’. JPNIC’s predecessor organization, Japan Network Information Center, previously issued and administered Internet Protocol (IP) addresses through an Address Committee, beginning in 1992. JPNIC was founded in April 1993 and became an association with legal authority in March 1997. JPRS is a joint stock corporation that assumed the registration and administration of ‘.jp’ domain names from JPNIC in April 2002, through the ‘ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement (.jp),’ executed in February 2002, between JPRS and ICANN. After transferring registration and administration duties to JPRS, JPNIC is now primarily concerned with ensuring public access to ‘.jp’ domain names, implementing the objectives of ICANN, and facilitating international collaboration.

(2)  The Structure of the ‘.jp’ Name Space JP.07 The ‘.jp’ domain space is the designated extension for domain name registrations for organi-

zations and individuals located in Japan (hereinafter called ‘.jp’ domain names). According to the current registration rules, ‘.jp’ domain names are divided into three categories: (1) ‘.jp’ domain names for general use; (2) ‘.jp’ domain names for businesses and organizations; and (3) geographic type and prefecture type ‘.jp’ domain names.

(a)  Japanese Domain Names for General Use: ‘.jp’ JP.08 The first category, domain names for general use, can be used by private individuals, groups,

organizations, and enterprises to register any number of domain names directly under the ccTLD ‘.jp’ (eg ‘example.jp’). All domain names in this category may be registered in ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) characters, as well as in Kanji, Hiragana, or Katakana14 scripts.15 Foreign individuals, groups, or organizations that have a postal address in Japan can file for a general use ‘.jp’ domain name without any restrictions.

(b)  Japanese Domain Names for Businesses and Organizations JP.09 Japanese domain names issued on the basis of the applicant’s business or organization have the following structure: ‘[designation of organization].[designation of sub-domain].jp.’ The following are the different sub-domains available: (i)  ‘.ad.jp’ for members of JPNIC; (ii)  ‘.ac.jp’ for educational and scientific institutions; (iii) ‘.co.jp’ for companies that have official corporate registrations in Japan and foreign enterprises with branches in Japan; (iv) ‘.ed.jp’ for kindergartens, crèches, nursery schools, secondary schools, high schools and other educational institutions which are mainly for use by people under the age of 18; (v)  ‘.go.jp’ for governmental bodies;

 See http://www.nic.ad.jp.  See http://jprs.jp. 14  Kanji are the Chinese characters used in the Japanese language; Hiragana is a Japanese syllabic alphabet with 50 sounds; and Katakana is a Japanese syllabic alphabet with 50 sounds which is used to represent foreign words. 15 See http://jprs.jp/info/jp-dom/character.html. Please note that home page addresses and/or e-mail addresses using Japanese characters may be restricted in part until the necessary software to enable display of these characters has been implemented. 12 13

616

II.  The ccTLD (‘.jp’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (vi) ‘.gr.jp’ for non-governmental organizations which consist of two or more individuals residing in Japan, or groups of two or more corporations established under the laws of Japan; (vii) ‘.lg.jp’ for Japanese local authorities; (viii) ‘.ne.jp’ for network service providers in Japan, offering network services to the general public on either a for-profit or non-profit basis; and (ix) ‘.or.jp’ for associations and foundations (other than companies) established under the laws of Japan. As a basic principle, organizations can only register in one of the sub-domains listed above. JP.10 Japanese domain names intended for use by businesses and organizations can only be registered in ASCII characters.

(c)  Geographic Type and Prefecture Type ‘.jp’ Domain Names A  conventional general domain name for geographical regions (‘Geographic Type ‘.jp’ JP.11 Domain Name’) has the following sequence: ‘[designation of the organization].[designation of a town, urban district, part urban district, or village].[prefecture].jp’ (eg ‘example.chiyoda. tokyo.jp’). It had been said that Geographic Type ‘.jp’ domain names are not easy to use and/ or register because they are too long and complicated. In response to requests from Internet users, the JPRS closed new registration of Geographic Type ‘.jp’ domain names on 31 March 2012, and launched a new registration service for ‘Prefecture Type ‘.jp’ Domain Names’ in November 2012. These new domains are composed using the name of one of the 47 Japanese prefectures in the second level, following the structure: ‘example.tokyo.jp’. The third-level portion of these domains may be registered in both ASCII and Japanese characters. Any person or organization having a residential address in Japan can register any number of the Prefecture Type ‘.jp’ domain names.16 All currently-registered Geographic Type ‘.jp’ domain names will remain available.

JP.12

(3)  Registration Restrictions As described above, general use ‘.jp’ domain names and prefecture type ‘.jp’ domain names JP.13 may be registered in both ASCII and Japanese characters, and ‘.jp’ domain names for businesses and organizations can only be registered in ASCII characters. The number of characters in an ASCII domain name must be between three and 63. A general use ‘.jp’ domain name containing Kanji, Hiragana, and/or Katakana must consist of one to 15 characters, excluding the ‘.jp’ suffix. If ASCII, Kanji, Hiragana, and/or Katakana characters coexist in a same textual string of a general use ‘.jp’ domain name, each character will be counted as one, regardless of whether or not it consists of a double byte code or single byte code. An application for registration shall be made by submitting a domain name request to an JP.14 accredited registrar. Most of the information required upon registration must be written in Japanese. JPRS may request applicants to submit any applicable certificates of registration and/or the other necessary documents. Within the category of general use ‘.jp’ domain names, there is a list of restricted domain JP.15 name extensions which cannot be registered in the format [prohibited term].[jp]. The list of prohibited terms for general registration include: (i) for an ASCII domain name, any specific top level domain name (eg ‘com’), any name of a Japanese prefecture or big city, any name of an organization which controls the Internet (eg ‘ICANN’), and any terms which could cause confusion with the encoding mechanisms for Japanese character domain names, such

 See http://jprs.co.jp/en/topics/2012/120528.html.

16

617

Japan (‘.jp’) as those beginning with [**--] (* is an arbitrary character); and (ii) for a Japanese character domain name, any name of a Japanese prefecture or big city, any term regarding elementary, junior and high school education (eg ‘highschool’), any name of an international intergovernmental body, any term regarding a legislative, judicial, or executive body, and any common Japanese names.

(4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement JP.16 Pursuant to the registration agreement in force between qualified registrars and JPRS, all

applicants for ‘.jp’ domain names must submit their domain name requests directly to the registrars, who will then relay the necessary information to JPRS. A  binding registration agreement is then concluded between the applicant and JPRS. The applicable registration fee is determined by the registrar, according in part to the types of services offered. The JPRS website also contains links to private companies that offer registration services for ‘.jp’ domain names.17

JP.17 Information about the holders of individual domain names is available in a generally acces-

sible WHOIS database.18 For reasons of privacy, however, the addresses of individual persons or enterprises are only released upon request.19 Still, contact information including the name, email, and telephone number of the registrant will be disclosed in order to ensure smooth operation of the Internet and facilitate problem-solving between users. A  holder of a ‘.jp’ domain name may use privacy services provided, inter alia, by registrars.20

(5)  Transfer of Domain Names JP.18 In principle, a holder of a ‘.jp’ domain name can, at its discretion, transfer its ‘.jp’ domain

name to a third party by filing a transfer registration request with JPRS. JPRS will transfer a ‘.jp’ domain name when it receives: (1) written instructions from the registrant, or its authorized agent, to take such action; or (2) an order from a court or arbitration tribunal (and/or the decision of an administrative panel requiring such action in a ‘.jp’ domain name dispute resolution proceeding) to which the registrant was a party (JP-DRP s 3). It is possible to prevent the transfer of a ‘.jp’ domain name to a third party during an ADR or court proceeding (JP-DRP s 8).

(6) Statistics JP.19 According to a report released by JPRS, as of 1 August 2012, a total of 1,300,084 domain

names were registered under the top-level domain ‘.jp’, including 418,657 organization or regional domain names and 881,427 in the general use category.21

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.jp’ Domain Space (1)  Principle Characteristics of the Proceeding JP.20 When a domain name infringes trademark rights, a claim may be brought before an alterna-

tive dispute resolution centre or to the courts.

 See http://jprs.jp/registration/list/pickup_list.php (Japanese).  See http://whois.jprs.jp/. 19 See http://jprs.jp/info/whois/ (Japanese) and http://jprs.jp/doc/rule/dom-data-handling.html (Japanese). 20 See http://jprs.jp/info/disclosure/qa.html (Japanese). 21 See http://jprs.co.jp/press/2012/120802.html (Japanese). 17 18

618

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.jp’ Domain Space Regarding ‘.jp’ domain names, the Japan Intellectual Property Arbitration Center (JIPAC), JP.21 which is the only organization approved by JPNIC as a dispute-resolution service provider, administers ‘.jp’ domain name dispute resolution proceedings (hereinafter, the ‘JP-DR proceedings’). Such dispute resolution proceedings are conducted by JIPAC in accordance with the .JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (‘JP-DRP’) and the Procedural Rules for. JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (‘Rules for JP-DRP’), which were adopted by JPNIC using the UDRP as a model. When a complaint files an action through JIPAC, requesting that the registration of a dis- JP.22 puted ‘.jp’ domain name be transferred to the complainant or cancelled, JIPAC will itself conduct the JP-DR proceedings and a decision will be rendered by an administrative panel. The dispute is generally resolved within a short time frame (55 working days maximum), unless a lawsuit is filed.

(2) Statistics Between November 2000 and the end of 2014, a total of 125 domain name cases were filed.22 JP.23 In the majority of cases, the complainant’s request for transfer or cancellation of the name was granted, although in ten cases the panel dismissed the complainants’ requests. In ten cases, the losing registrant appealed to the courts. The breakdown of the results in those ten cases is as follows: in seven cases, the decisions of the JP-DR proceedings were implemented after the issuance of the court opinions (or the court case was withdrawn), two cases were closed by a settlement between the parties, and in one case JIPAC’s decision was denied by the court.

(3)  Material Scope of the Proceeding The scope of the proceeding is limited to requiring the cancellation of the ‘.jp’ domain name JP.24 held by the registrant, or the transfer of the registration to the complainant (JP-DRP s 4(i)). A complainant cannot claim damages against the registrant in the JP-DR proceedings provided by JIPAC.

(4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding through the Registration Agreement The JP-DRP has been adopted by JPNIC and is incorporated by reference into the registra- JP.25 tion rules, which are binding on all registrants who have registered their ‘.jp’ domain names.

(5)  Overview of the ADR Procedure (a)  Legal Framework JP-DR proceedings are conducted in accordance with the JP-DRP, the Rules for JP-DRP, and JP.26 the Supplementary Rules,23 as well as the JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Fee Rules24 which are provided by JIPAC. (b)  ADR Complaint The JP-DR proceedings begin once a complaint has been submitted to JIPAC. The complaint JP.27 must be submitted both electronically and in writing (the Rules for JP-DRP, s 3(b)). There is a standard format in which a complaint should be submitted.25 According to the language requirements of the Rules for JP-DRP, s 11, the proceedings are conducted in Japanese unless   A full list is published on the website at: http://www.ip-adr.gr.jp.  See http://www.ip-adr.gr.jp/eng/business/domain/post-31.php. 24 See http://www.ip-adr.gr.jp/eng/business/domain/jp-4.php. 25  The model complaint is available at: http://www.ip-adr.gr.jp/data/5-1.doc. 22 23

619

Japan (‘.jp’) the panel rules differently in light of the circumstances of the case. Therefore, in principle, a complaint should be submitted in Japanese. The complaint must state the domain name at issue, the holder of the domain name, give reasons why the domain name infringes the complainant’s trademark, and provide any other necessary details (the Rules for JP-DRP, s 3). JP.28 A complaint can include multiple ‘.jp’ domain names, if the multiple registrations belong to

the same registrant.26 As mentioned above, information about the registrant of a disputed ‘.jp’ domain name is available in a generally accessible WHOIS database.

JP.29 JIPAC then examines the complaint for formal defects. If there are none, the complaint is

sent, together with an explanatory sheet, to the holder of the ‘.jp’ domain name. Such transmission must occur within three working days after payment of the required fee (Rules for JP-DRP, s 4(a)). This notice to the registrant can be submitted by post, fax, or e-mail, and the formal date of the commencement of the proceedings is the date on which JIPAC sends the complaint to the registrant (Rules for JP-DRP, s 4(c), s 2(a)).

(c)  ADR Response JP.30 There is also a standard format in which a response should be submitted.27 The response must specifically respond to and rebut the statements and allegations contained in the complaint, and must include any and all reasons the respondent may have entitling him or her to retain the registration and use of the disputed ‘.jp’ domain name. The response must also supply sufficient documentary evidence in this regard, and must provide any other necessary details, such as the registrant’s contact information, as required under the Rules (Rules for JP-DRP, s 5). JP.31 A  response must be lodged within 20 working days following the commencement of the

proceedings (Rules for JP-DRP, s 5(a) and (b)). If the respondent does not respond, and if no special circumstances apply, the panel will make a decision on the basis of the complainant’s submissions. In this scenario, the complainant’s actual submissions are deemed to be conceded by the registrant, and the panel merely determines whether the complainant’s submissions satisfy the substantive criteria for a decision (Rules for JP-DRP, s 5(f )).28

(d) Procedural Issues JP.32 Parties may either file their pleadings, both complaints and responses, by themselves or through their agents. It is possible to appoint attorneys-at-law or patent attorneys as authorized agents. JIPAC is designated by the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry as an arbitral organization in which patent attorneys are able to act as independent agents under Article 4, paragraph 2, subparagraph 2 of the Patent Attorney Law.29

26  Rules for JP-DRP, s 3(c) reads: ‘The Complaint may relate to more than one domain, provided that the domain names are registered by the same Registrant.’ 27  The model response is available at: http://www.ip-adr.gr.jp/eng/rules. 28  This is explained in the decision of the JIPAC dated 30 March 2001 (Case No JP 2001-0003): Firstly, the panel only decides on a request (§ 5(f )), while secondly it must treat both parties equally and give them the opportunity to comment (§ 10(b)). However, even if one of the parties has not complied with the panel’s demands, it must nevertheless render a decision to the extent that it deems such to be reasonable (§ 14(b)). Taking into account these provisions, the facts alleged by the complainant cannot be deemed to be conceded simply because the respondent (the domain holder) has not submitted a response, nor can it be assumed that the facts alleged in the request are true or satisfy the conditions. Whether the principles for the treatment of the alleged submission of facts or the procedural regulations are satisfied can only be decided on the basis of the evidence that the complainant has submitted or the joint submission by the parties. 29 See http://www.ip-adr.gr.jp/eng/business/domain/.

620

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.jp’ Domain Space In the JP-DR proceeding, the complainant carries the burden of proof (JP-DRP, s 4a). Under JP.33 Japanese law, ‘proof ’ is deemed established where a tribunal reaches the conclusion that a complainant’s statements are true. It is not necessary for parties to physically appear before JIPAC panellists since JP-DR pro- JP.34 ceedings shall be examined on the basis of submitted documents (Rules for JP-DRP, s 13). This system enables prompt, timely dispute resolution for the benefit of both parties.30 The arbitration tribunal’s decisions are published online for ease of public access.31

JP.35

(6)  Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider JIPAC is responsible for overseeing the procedural aspects of JP-DR proceedings, and it plays JP.36 an important role in procedural matters including complaint notification, the forwarding and receiving of documents, the receiving of fees, appointment of panellists, and other activities in accordance with the JP-DRP and Rules for JP-DRP.

(7)  Role of the Administrative Panel The key role of an administrative panel is to render a decision. In a contested proceeding, the JP.37 parties choose whether the panel shall consist of one or three persons.32 The members of the panel are chosen from a list of 34 attorneys and academics registered at JIPAC. In order to train panellist candidates or case managers, JIPAC regularly offers seminars con- JP.38 cerning domain name disputes and conducts research concerning domestic and international domain name matters.33

(8) Costs The procedural fees are relatively low at ¥180,000 (approximately €1,818) for a decision by a JP.39 one-person panel, and ¥360,000 for decision by a three-member panel (approximately €3,636).34

(9)  Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings Either of the parties may submit the dispute to a court before the JP-DR proceeding is com- JP.40 menced, while such proceeding is pending or after such proceeding is concluded (JP-DRP s 4(k)). In the event that any court proceeding is initiated prior to or during the JP-DR proceeding in respect of a domain name dispute that is the subject of the complaint, the panel shall have the discretion to decide whether to suspend or terminate the JP-DR proceeding, or to proceed to a decision (Rules for JP-DRP, s 18). A losing party can file a lawsuit after the ADR decision has been rendered. JPRS will wait JP.41 ten working days after being informed by JIPAC of the panel’s decision before implementing

30  Due to these considerations, the panel in the ‘baidu.co.jp’ case (Case No JP2007-0001) did not take into account the documents which the parties had submitted without the panel’s request. 31  See the website at: http://www.ip-adr.gr.jp/. 32  If a panel of three persons is selected, the members can be chosen from a list (see the Rules for JP-DRP, ss 3(b)(iv), 5(b)(iv), (v), (c), and 6(d)). Irrespective of which party has decided in favour of a three-member panel, the Dispute Resolution Provider must ensure that each party selects one person from the list of candidates. If a candidate cannot be selected within five working days, the Dispute Resolution Provider will appoint a candidate from the list. The third candidate is elected by the Provider from the five candidates proposed by the Provider to the parties after hearing the parties (the Rules for JP-DRP, s 6(e)). If neither of the parties has elected a three-member panel, the Dispute Resolution Provider will appoint a single panellist five working days after receipt of the response or after expiry of the period for submitting a response (the Rules, s 6(b)). 33  See the FAQ document which is available at: http://www.ip-adr.gr.jp/eng/business/domain/#829. 34  The current fees can be found at: http://www.ip-adr.gr.jp/business/domain/jp-4.php (Japanese).

621

Japan (‘.jp’) that decision. If JPRS receives a notice that the losing registrant has filed a suit in the courts, JPRS will not implement the panel’s decision and will take no further action concerning the domain name until it receives: (i) a settlement agreement between the parties; (ii) the registrant’s petition to withdraw the action accompanied by the complainant’s consent to such withdrawal; or (iii) a final judgment of the court dismissing the lawsuit or ordering that the registrant does not have the right to retain the domain name (JP-DRP s 4). JP.42 Where a decision requiring transfer or cancellation is rendered in the context of an ADR

decision, JPRS will transfer the domain name registration to the complainant or cancel the registration as ordered, except where the registrant of the domain name has filed a lawsuit, as mentioned above. If, on the other hand, the panel determines that the complaint was groundless, the registrant shall retain the registration. A losing complainant may similarly file a lawsuit and, if the complainant were successful and received a court order for an injunction against the registrant’s use of the domain name, it would be necessary for the complainant to again file a complaint with JIPAC. According to JIPAC’s explanation, this is because under the current system, JP-DRP-based transfer of a domain name is impossible without a decision from JIPAC.35 This is because although JP-DRP provides that if JPRS receives a court order or JIPAC decision which grants a complainant’s request for transfer, JPRS shall transfer the domain name to the complainant (JP-DRP, s 3(b)), as described in para JP.77 below, under the UCA, the courts are not allowed to render a decision ordering the transfer of a domain name. Thus, the national courts of Japan do not have the authority to order the transfer of a domain name under the current statutory provisions. JPRS, therefore, would need to receive a new JIPAC decision in order to transfer the domain name.

(10)  ADR Decisions JP.43 The panel must issue a written decision within 14 working days of the appointment of the

panel members (Rules for JP-DRP, s 15(b)), which will be published on JIPAC’s website. The administrative panel may order the transfer or cancellation of a domain name, or dismisses the complaint (JP-DRP, s 4(i)).

JP.44 Although the decisions of ADR panels are to be published in full online, in some exceptional

cases the panel may elect to redact the name of one or both parties. An example of this occurred in the ‘walmart.jp’ case, dated 10 August 2005 (Case No JP2005-0001). The panel decided that the name and address of the registrant should not be disclosed in the decision in consideration of the fact that the registrant was an individual person.

JP.45 Decision consistency is ensured via the appeals mechanism for the space, which is discussed

in detail in the following section.

(11)  ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Administrative Panel JP.46 The complainant must prove: (1) the identity or confusing similarity of the registered ‘.jp’

domain name with a trademark or any other indication in which the complainant holds a right or legitimate interest; (2) that the registrant has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name; and (3) that the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith (JP-DRP, s 4). These three elements look almost identical to the three elements under the UDRP. However, there are two key differences between the two policies: (1) regarding element No 1, under the UDRP a complainant must have a right in ‘trademark or service mark’; and (2) regarding element No 3, under the UDRP bad faith is required both at the registration and during the use of the domain name. This means that, in theory, a complainant could

  See the FAQs which are available at: http://www.ip-adr.gr.jp/eng/business/domain/#829.

35

622

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.jp’ Domain Space successfully secure the transfer of a domain name which was registered after the creation of its trademark, if the domain name had been subsequently used in bad faith to target the complainant. This is generally not possible under conjunctive (so-called ‘and’) mechanisms such as the UDRP, barring instances of respondent prior knowledge. In ‘goo.co.jp’ case dated 5 February 2001 (Case No JP2000-0002), the panel rendered that if a domain name was registered not in bad faith at the registration but it has been used in bad faith after the registration, the use of the domain name must fall into the scope of the (2) and (3) elements above.

(a)  Trademark or Any Other Indication The complainant must specify the registered trademark or other indication having acquired JP.47 secondary meaning on which his complaint is based (Rules for JP-DRP, s 3(b)(viii)) and specifically describe the goods and/or services for which the trademark is used. ‘Trademark and any other indication’ includes company names36 and indications, or domain names used in connection with a complainant’s website,37 as well as registered trademarks. (b)  Identity or Confusing Similarity The identity or confusing similarity issue under the JD-DRP is decided by panels based on JP.48 two different standards:  (1)  strict comparison between the textual string and the domain name as UDRP does,38 and (2) in the same way as the likelihood of confusion standard under traditional trademark cases. In many cases the former standard was used by panels, but in not a few cases the panels decided based on the latter standard. Therefore, the standard has not been uniformed in JP-DRP. As critics argue,39 the authors believe that the former standard should be taken in the JP-DR proceedings. According to the former standard, the assessment is based on a comparison of the mark with the main textual portion of the domain name (ie typically without the top and sub-level domains). Confusing similarity between domain names and trademarks is not to be denied simply because of differences in capitalization or punctuation. (c)  No Right or Legitimate Interest in the Domain Name In order for a complaint to succeed, the registrant must not have a right or legitimate inter- JP.49 est in the domain name. Section 4(c) of JP-DRP presumes that there is a right or legitimate interest on the part of the registrant: (1) if the registrant was using or had prepared to use the domain name in connection with a good faith offering of goods or services before being notified of the conflict; (2) the registrant has been commonly known by any name corresponding to the domain name, regardless of registration by the registrant of any trademark or other indication; or (3) if the registrant of the domain name uses it for non-commercial purposes without the intent to mislead consumers or tarnish another’s trademark or any other indication. The complainant bears the burden of proof in an ADR case, and must show that the regis- JP.50 trant has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name. Once the complainant submits

  JIPAC JP2001-0008 (‘htv.co.jp’); JIPAC JP2008-0003 (‘robertocavalli.jp’).   JIPAC JP2000-0002 (‘goo.co.jp’). 38  Shihô kenkyûjo (Judicial Training Centre) (ed) Kôgyô shoyûken kankei minji jiken no shori ni kansuru shomondai (Questions arising in Civil Law Cases with a Reference to Industrial Property Rights) 1995, p 121. The comparison of the older and more recent trademarks must consider their appearance, names, and the associations they evoke. At least one of these factors must be similar. Similarity is to be determined according to the overall impression, but if one of the trademarks contains an element that particularly attracts consumers’ attention (an essential element), it is this essential element that is compared. 39  See JPNIC’s website at:  http://www.nic.ad.jp/ja/drp/JP-DRP_team_finalreport.pdf (Japanese). As to the latter cases, JIPAC JP2002-0005 (‘dior.co.jp’), JIPAC 2001-0001 (‘itoyokado.co.jp’), JIPA 2005-0011 (‘my-rimowa.jp’), and JIPAC 2002-0001 (‘pro-lex.co.jp’). 36 37

623

Japan (‘.jp’) sufficient facts showing that the registrant has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name, however, it becomes the responsibility of the registrant to submit evidence disclosing any such rights or legitimate interests.

(d)  Registration or Use in Bad Faith JP.51 A domain name is registered or used in bad faith (JP-DRP, s 4(b)) if:

(i) circumstances indicate that the domain name was primarily registered or acquired for the purpose of selling, licensing, or otherwise transferring it to the complainant, or to one of the complainant’s competitors in return for a fee that exceeds the expenditure directly associated with the domain name; (ii) the domain name was registered in order to prevent the holder of the trademarks or other indication from using the domain name, and if the registrant has a history of such impairment; (iii) the registration has been effected in order to disrupt a competitor’s business activities; or (iv) by using a domain name the registrant knowingly and with intent to gain commercial profits, has attempted to direct Internet users to his website or to another online location by trying to create confusion with respect to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, endorsement, or products of the website or online location.

(e)  Brief Review of the Case History JP.52 As described above, the majority of JP-DR cases have resulted in the granting of complainants’ requests for transfer or cancellation, and only eight cases have been dismissed. This low rate of dismissal may be characteristic of JP-DR proceedings. Experts have analyzed the case results from a statistical standpoint, and have determined that the low rate may be due to the ‘minimal approach’ adopted in the ADR proceedings. Similar to the UDRP, the JP-DR proceedings are designed to address only typical cybersquatting cases, while more complicated disputes are referred to the courts.40 Reviewing the case history, in half of the dismissed cases41 the complainant and the registrant had business relationships at the time the registrant registered the disputed domain name, and these cases should have been resolved before the courts in the first place. A review of some of the more interesting issues currently under debate within the ‘.jp’ space is outlined below for reference. (f )  Timing of Rights Under the ADR Policy JP.53 The ‘goo.co.jp’ case is an interesting case that discusses the time at which the domain holder

must have been acting in bad faith in order to successfully challenge the registration under the ADR mechanism.

JP.54 The complainant in the proceedings was the NTT-X K.K. company, which is associated with

the telephone company NTT (Nippon Telegraph and Telephone). It operated an Internet search service under the domain name ‘goo.ne.jp’, which it registered in February 1997. The complainant also held the trademarks ‘GOO’ and ‘gû’ in Katakana. The registrant company, Popkorn YK, held the domain name ‘goo.co.jp’ and used the domain name exclusively for a pornographic website. The registrant had registered the domain name before February 1997, but had only begun to use it in 1997 after the ‘goo.ne.jp’ search service had begun operations. The complainant requested a transfer of the registrant’s domain name, since the registrant had no right or legitimate interest using the domain name in bad faith.

  See JPNIC’s website at: http://www.nic.ad.jp/ja/drp/JP-DRP_team_finalreport.pdf (Japanese).  See JIPAC JP2004-0001  (‘enemagra.co.jp’), JIPAC JP2006-0006  (‘rabiton.co.jp’), JIPAC JP2009-0001 (‘juiceplus.co.jp’ and ‘juiceplus.jp’), and JIPAC JP2009-0002 (‘nsajapan.co.jp’). 40 41

624

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.jp’ Domain Space The administrative panel upheld the decision in favour of the complainant. The complainant JP.55 had a legitimate interest in using the marks ‘goo’ and ‘goo.ne.jp’ for its search service, especially since ‘goo.ne.jp’ had already attracted a considerable number of visitors by the time the registrant commenced operations of its website. The complainant’s domain name ‘goo.ne.jp’ and the registrant’s domain name ‘goo.co.jp’ were identical in their distinguishing element ‘goo’. The complainant’s registered trademark ‘GOO’ and the ‘goo’ in the registrant’s domain name also shared identity of appearance and sound. Further the panel mentioned that the similarity between the names created a likelihood of confusion. The panel then concluded that the domain name fell into the scope of the element No 1 of the JP-DRP because of the similarity of the names as well as the likelihood of confusion. The administrative panel also held that the registrant used its domain name in bad faith, JP.56 since the Internet user would accidentally reach the registrant’s website when looking for the complainant’s. It was irrelevant that no bad faith intent existed at the time registrant registered the domain name. Any legitimate interest in the domain name was forfeited through the subsequent dishonest actions.

(i)  Minimal Approach  The ‘alfaromeo.jp’ and ‘alfaromeo.co.jp’ cases, dated 6 October JP.57 2008 (Case No JP 2008-0002), clearly held that the JP-DR proceedings should take a ‘minimal approach’, focusing only on cases where bad faith which is equivalent to ‘to prevent the holder of the trademarks or other indication from using the domain name’ or ‘to disrupt a competitor’s business activities’ under JP-DRP, s 4(b) could be clearly demonstrated, and dismissed the request to transfer the domain names to the complainant who was the holder of famous registered trademarks.42 The registrant of the ‘alfaromeo’ case did not use them, therefore the main issue of this case was whether the domain names were registered in bad faith. The registrant asserted that its main business was sales of clothes and the domain names were registered only for personal purposes for registrant’s owner. The panel examined and denied the facts under JP-DRP, s 4(b) one by one. Further, the panel held that bad faith might be admitted based on the facts other than JP-DRP, s 4(b), but in such a case whether or not there was an unfair competition, circumstances which were equivalent to the JP-DRP, s 4(b) for the registrant should be examined extremely carefully. The panel then held that any bad faith was unproved by the complainant and the registration in bad faith was not found in this case. (ii)  Reseller and Importer Rights  The ‘sunkist.co.jp’ case dated 4 June 2001 (Case No JP.58 JP2001-0007) is an interesting example of a parallel importer. The issue of this case was whether the domain name was registered or used in bad faith. The complainant in the proceedings was a subsidiary wholly owned by a well-known US agri- JP.59 cultural cooperative, Sunkist Growers, Incorporated, and was a trademark administrator in Japan. The registrant was a parallel importer of fruits made in the US including oranges made by Sunkist Growers, Inc under a trademark ‘Sunkist’ and the fruits had been sold through the registrant’s website ‘http://www.sunkist.co.jp’. The registrant argued that it had not been acting in bad faith based on the fact that it was a parallel importer of Sunkist fruits. The administrative panel upheld the decision in favour of the complainant. The panel rea- JP.60 soned that the registration and use of the domain name by the registrant was intended to lead the consumer to access its website through the use of famous trademark and cause misunderstanding to the consumer that all of the fruits offered by the registrant was sold directly by Sunkist Growers, Inc. As to the parallel importer issue, the administrative panel 42  As to the ‘alfaromeo.jp’ case, see Ryo Shimanami, ‘A shift in JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Proceedings’, and Kentaro Hattori, ‘Complainant who has famous registered trademarks are not necessarily protected in the JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Proceeding.’

625

Japan (‘.jp’) held as follows: a parallel import should not be considered as an infringement of a registered trademark and an act of unfair competition under the UCA, because as far as the quality of the goods is ensured, the identifying and quality assurance functions of a trademark would not be infringed by a parallel import. Although the sale of parallel-imported goods is allowed, it is not allowed to use the trademark of the parallel-imported goods as a trade name by the parallel importer. JP.61 Regarding this decision, experts commented that it was doubtful whether the consumer

would be led to misunderstand the fruits sold by the registrant as direct-sales fruits by Sunkist Growers, Inc, and therefore this case should have been referred to the courts.43

JP.62 In ‘ikea-store.jp’ case dated 31 August 2011 (Case No 2011-0003), the registrant also argued

that it just had provided shopping services for IKEA products on the Internet. The panel, however, dismissed the argument because the registrant adopted a face of IKEA on its website inserting the pictures and texts used in the complainant’s website and sold the complainant’s products for double the listed catalogue prices.

JP.63 (iii)  Foreign Parties in ‘.jp’ Disputes  The ‘ermenegildozegna.jp’ case dated 18 November

2004 (Case No JP2004-0003) is a case in which both parties were foreigners. The complainant was a trademark management company in Switzerland, which had famous registered trademarks including ‘zegna’ in Japan. The Zegna group is the owner of the luxury brand under a trade name of the ‘Ermenegildo Zegna’ in Japan. The registrant was an individual person registered in the name of Stefano Vescovi, living in Switzerland. The registrant did not submit any answer in the JP-DR proceedings.

JP.64 The administrative panel granted the complainant’s request. As to a right or legitimate inter-

est in the domain name, the panel took into account the fact that the ‘ermenegildozegna’ was not the name of the registrant or a common word, and no trademark registration for any text including ‘ermenegildozegna’ by the registrant was found. The panel inferred that the registrant had registered the domain name in bad faith with the intent to profit from the recognition of the trade name and the registered trademarks of the Zegna group, and from the fact that the ‘Ermenegildo Zegna’ (as the trade name and registered trademark of the Zegna group) had been famous worldwide including in Europe, the US, and Japan.

JP.65 (iv)  Pattern of Conduct  The registrant of the ‘ermenegildozegna.jp’ case was also the

respondent in the ‘monblanc.jp’ case, dated 13 December 2007 (Case No JP2007-0006). The panel of the ‘monblanc.jp’ case took into account the fact that this was the second time the registrant had been found to have registered a famous third-party trademark as a ‘.jp’ domain name, and considered this to be evidence of the respondent’s bad faith.

JP.66 (v) Privacy Services  In the ‘youngnails.jp’ case dated 8 December 2006 (Case No

JP2006-0003), the complainant filed against a registrant which was a privacy service provider. In response to the complaint, the registrant answered that the registrant itself would not assert its right on the domain name since the registrant was just a privacy protection service provider, and it had been heard from the client that the client also would not intend to assert its right on the domain name. The panel therefore granted the complainant’s request for transfer. In the ‘coach-outlets.jp’ and ‘coach-factory.jp’ case dated 24 February 2012 (Case No JP2012-0001), the registrant also answered that it was just a privacy service provider. In this case the panel found that the registrant did not have to be the user of the domain name.44

  See JPNIC’s website at: http://www.nic.ad.jp/ja/drp/JP-DRP_team_finalreport.pdf (Japanese).   Similarly, see also the ‘hankyu-jutaku.jp’ case (Case No 2012-0003).

43 44

626

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (vi) Consolidation  The ‘robertcavalli.jp’ case dated 27 February 2008 (Case No JP.67 JP2008-0003) is a good example of a consolidation case. The ‘robertcavalli.jp’ case was filed by the three complainants:  (i)  a Dutch company (the IGA) holding the registered trademarks such as ‘robertcavalli’ worldwide including Japan; (ii) a core business company of Robertcavalli group (the SPA) which manufactures and sells the products using the trademarks; and (iii) a Japanese company (the RCJKK) held and licensed by the IGA and the SPA. The complainants mainly sought to transfer the domain name to the RCJKK and secondarily to the IGA or the SPA. The panel consolidated the cases and found that if all complainants sought to transfer the disputed domain name to one of the complainants selected by the complainants, transfer to the complainant should be allowed, from the point of view of prompt and timely dispute resolution. The ‘aribaba.co.jp’ case (Case No 2009-0003) also granted the three complainants’ request for cancellation.

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (1)  Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation As described above, under the UCA s 2(1)(12), anyone who, with the intention to gain JP.68 unfair profits or to cause damage to a third party, acquires, possesses, or uses a domain name, identical or similar to the specific indication of goods of another person commits an act of unfair competition. As described below in detail, under the UCA, the court would render a permanent injunction against such an act of unfair competition, but it should not be allowed to render a decision ordering the transfer of a domain name.

(a)  Substantive Criteria (i)  Intent to Gain Unfair Profits or Cause Damage  UCA s 2(1)(12) requires a subjective JP.69 intent, on the part of the registrant, to gain unfair profits and cause damage. ‘To gain unfair profits or cause damage’ means having registered the domain name in order to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another, or to cause a third party substantive or intangible damage. Causing damage includes harming another’s assets or business reputation.45 The court cases are divided into two categories: (1) cases filed before the court as a first action; JP.70 and (2) cases previously decided by the JP-DRP (appeal case) from JP-DR proceedings. The appeal cases belong to the second categories are further divided into two categories: (2-1) the right and wrong of the panel’s decision under JP-DRP were disputed;46 and (2-2) the right and wrong of the panel’s decision was not disputed and the complainant asserted its claim based on the UCA. Whether the lawsuit under JP-DRP s 4(k) should be the one like 2-1 or the one like 2-2 has not been made uniform. In many cases belonging to category 2, the court examined whether the elements under the JP-DRP s 4 were satisfied. In Tokyo District Court dated 26 April 2002 (‘goo.co.jp’), the court rendered that the lawsuit was that the losing party of the JP-DR proceedings requested a finding that it had the right to use the domain name according to the agreement with JPNIC against the complainant of the JP-DR proceedings, therefore the issue of this case was whether the elements under JP-DRP s 4 (a)(i)–(iii) as cause for termination of the agreement are satisfied. So far, in any case where a lawsuit was filed regarding the domain name, JPRS has not implemented the panel’s decision notwithstanding

45  Ministry of the Economy, Department for Measures in the Field of the Law of Intellectual Property (ed), Explanations on the Act against Unfair Competition, issue on the 2001 Reform, p 71. 46  Tokyo District Court dated 29 November 2001(‘sonybank.co.jp’), Tokyo District Court dated 26 April 2002 (‘goo.co.jp’), Tokyo High Court dated 17 October 2002 (‘goo.co.jp’), Tokyo District Court dated 30 May 2002 (‘IYBANK.CO.JP’).

627

Japan (‘.jp’) whether the lawsuit was 2-1 or 2-2. In the cases which belong to the categories 1 and 2-2 above, the court decided the case based only upon the interpretation of the UCA. On the other hand, in the cases which belong to the category 2-1, the courts interpreting the intent requirement will most likely look to the UDRP47 and JP-DRP48 for guidance. The panellists for these procedures have much experience in applying the criteria for bad faith.49 The difference between the UCA provision and the JP-DRP is that JP-DRP provides ‘no right or legitimate interest in the domain name’ and ‘in bad faith’ as separate elements while the UCA requires one element, ‘to gain unfair profits or cause damage’. Critics argue that the ‘to gain unfair profits or cause damage’ under the UCA and ‘bad faith’ under JP-DRP are in substance almost the same, and ‘no right or legitimate interest in the domain name’ is considered in the ‘to gain unfair profits or cause damage’ element under the UCA, therefore, there is not much difference between the elements under the UCA and that of JP-DRP.50 Protection under the UCA, s 2(1)(12) is conferred on a ‘specific indication of goods’. Such indication, or mark, can be a trade name or company name, a business mark or trademark, or other indication of goods or services. The ‘specific indication of goods’ must have a distinctive character. General names or indications without a distinctive character are therefore not protected under the UCA, s 2(1)(12). It is not required, however, that the ‘specific indication of goods’ is well-known or famous. Whether the ‘specific indication of goods’ is well-known or famous might be considered in evaluating the requirement ‘to gain unfair profits or cause damage’.51

JP.71 (ii)  Specific Indication of Goods 

According to the UCA, a domain name is defined as ‘letters, numbers, signs or any other symbols or any combinations thereof that correspond to the numbers, signs, letters or any combination thereof assigned to identify each computer on the Internet’ (UCA, s 2(9)). This definition is derived from the WIPO ‘Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-known Marks’ dated September 1999.52 Under the UCA, an IP address is ‘a combination of numbers, characters or letters serving to identify the individual computer on the Internet’. The concept of the domain name under the UCA, s 2(1)(12) covers domain registrations in the ccTLD ‘.jp’ and corresponding sub-domains, as well as registrations in the generic top-level domains (gTLDs).

JP.72 (iii)  Concept of the Domain Name 

JP.73 A series of letters that only permits access to a limited circle of persons (so-called private IP

address) is not considered to be a domain name.53

As a further feature, the UCA, s 2(1)(12) requires that the mark and the domain name be identical or similar. Marks are considered to be

JP.74 (iv)  Identity or Similarity of Marks 

  Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy: http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy.   JP-Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy; the English translation is published at: http://www.nic. ad.jp/en/drp/. 49  The Ministry of the Economy, Department for Measures in the Field of Intellectual Property Law (ed), Explanations on the Act against Unfair Competition, issue on the 2001 Reform, p 71. 50  Tatsuya Nakamura, ‘Relationship between JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and the Unfair Competition Act’, JCA Journal, Vol 54, No 9 p 12. 51  Mieko Mio, ‘Unfair Competition Cases regarding domain names’ (2008); and Chiho Suzuki, ‘Litigations concerning use of domain names’ in Toshiaki Makino, Toshiaki Iimura et al. (eds), ‘Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property Law[3] the Trademark Act and the Unfair Conpetition Act’ (2007), p 371. 52  Suzuki Masabumi, ‘The reform of the Act against Unfair Competition with respect to domain name disputes’ in Matsuo, Kazuko and Satô, Keita (eds), ‘Domain name dispute’ (2001), p 147. The Recommendation states: ‘Domain names are series of letters that correspond to numeric addresses on the Internet.’ 53  Shouen Ono (ed), ‘Shin-Chukai Huseikyousouboushihou’ (3rd edn) (2012) p 874. 47 48

628

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws similar if the public would confuse the essential element of the domain name with the mark by virtue of its visual form, semantic content, or because of associations related to the term. The Act does not require that similarity of goods and services offered through the website trigger any likelihood of confusion.

(v)  Acquiring, Holding, or Using the Domain Name  Section 2(1)(12) of the UCA JP.75 defines infringement as the acquisition or possession of a ‘right to a domain name’, or use of the domain name. A ‘right to a domain name’ means having a claim against the registry to use a domain name JP.76 containing the specific text or mark in the future on the Internet. The domain name holder ‘acquires’ the domain name either by applying to the domain name registrar (if the desired domain name is currently available for registration) or via transfer of the domain name from a third party.54 ‘Possession’ of a right of a domain name means holding the power of disposal over the asset. Additionally, ‘possession’ concerns the mere ownership of a domain name, which thus includes cases in which domain names have been registered (but not actively used) with the intent to gain unfair profits or cause damage. These definitions of ‘acquisition’ and ‘possession’ enable injunctions to be enforced in circumstances where the domain name has only been registered but not used. ‘Using’ a domain name means employing a domain name for one’s own purposes, namely as an online address and/or as a means of distinction on the Internet.55

(b) Remedies The UCA provides for permanent injunctive relief (UCA, s 3).56 The specific elements JP.77 required to secure a permanent injunction, however, are not specified in the UCA. Many practitioners believe that a deletion of the domain name registration should be allowed,57 though this approach is not universally accepted.58 Moreover, the question as to whether the court itself has the authority to order transfer of a disputed domain name to a plaintiff is a critical issue. According to the Rules for Registration, after a court decision ordering an injunction is entered, the JPRS will cancel the ‘.jp’ domain name and keep the domain unregistered for six months. In the last month, JPRS will open the domain name for registration, and if numerous applications for the domain name are received, the successful registrant will be determined by an agreement between the applicants or by lot. Critics argue that there needs to be a mechanism by which the domain name may be transferred directly to a successful plaintiff in order to prevent the domain name from being re-registered by cybersquatters. Against this point it is argued, however, that where the text of the domain name contains or comprises

54  Ministry of the Economy, Department for Measures in the Field of the Law of Intellectual Property (ed), Explanations on the Act against Unfair Competition, issue on the 2001 Reform, p 73. 55  Ministry of the Economy, Department for Measures in the Field of the Law of Intellectual Property (ed), Explanations on the Act against Unfair Competition, issue on the 2001 Reform, p 73., and Chiho Suzuki (above n 51) p 371. 56  Section 3(1) of the UCA reads: ‘(1) A person whose business interests have been infringed or are likely to be infringed by unfair competition may seek an injunction suspending or preventing the infringement against the person that infringes or is likely to infringe such business interests.’ Thus, in order to obtain an injunction it is not sufficient to prove that the conditions of one of the sub-paragraphs of the UCA, s 2 are satisfied, but it must also be proven that the dishonest competitive act damages or could in the future damage business interests. This precondition is in practice handled flexibly. The Japanese Supreme Court held on s 2(1)(1) that, if the conditions of a likelihood of confusion are satisfied, the infringement of business interests can be assumed unless there are particular circumstances. (Decision of the Supreme Court dated 13 October 1981—McDonalds.) 57  Chiho Suzuki (above n 51) p 375. 58  Hideo Ogura in: Shigehiko kanai, Mieko Yamaguchi, and Hideo Ogura (eds), ‘Unfair Competition Prevention Act Commentary Revised Edition’ (2014) p 158.

629

Japan (‘.jp’) the trademarks of several companies, it would unfair to transfer the domain name only to the plaintiff.59 Therefore, it has been determined that under the UCA, the court should not be allowed to render a decision ordering the transfer of a domain name. Thus, obtaining an injunction against the use of domain name is merely a mechanism of indirect enforcement. Hence, in order to ensure the transfer of the domain name to a plaintiff who acquired an injunction in the court proceedings, the plaintiff should also file a JP-DR complaint, whereby the final ADR decision would enable the transfer by JIPAC.60 JP.78 As with other remedies, the rights holder may claim damages under the UCA (UCA, s 4) and,

under certain conditions, the infringement of a mark may also constitute a criminal offence (UCA, s 21). In addition, the UCA provides for additional remedies, including public apologies and measures designed to re-establish damaged business reputations (UCA, s 14). In the shosha-ken case,61 the court held that the use of the marks including ‘shoshaken’ by the defendant fell under an act of unfair competition under UCA, s 21(1)(1) and the business reputations of the plaintiff had been damaged by the act. The court, therefore, ordered sending a notification to re-establish damaged business reputations to the plaintiff ’s business partners by the defendant.62

(c)  Illustrative Examples of Case Law JP.79 Only five court decisions have been rendered regarding UCA s 2(1)(12), which forbids cyber-

squatting. As described above, the decisions are divided into two categories: (1) four cases filed before the court as a first action,63 and (2-2) one appeal case from JP-DR proceedings: the ‘mp3.co.jp’ case.

JP.80 As to the first category, in these cases all of the plaintiffs held well-known or famous trade-

marks or business names similar to the disputed domain names. Therefore, the courts recognized registrants’ intent to gain unfair profits or cause damage to the rights-holders, and ordered injunctions in all of these cases.

JP.81 On the other hand, in the ‘mp3.co.jp’ case, the Tokyo District Court reviewed the case de

novo under the UCA and came to an opposite conclusion.64 The defendant company, mp3 Inc., offered the largest collection of digital music on the Internet, as well as numerous other products and services. It also owned the domain name ‘mp3.com’.65 Within the framework of JP-DRP, it had attempted secure the transfer of the domain name ‘mp3.co.jp’ from the respondent, System K.J.Co.Ltd., which traded in computers and musical devices. The panel upheld the request for transfer, since the domain names ‘mp3.com’ and ‘mp3.co.jp’ were confusingly similar and the holder of ‘mp3.co.jp’ had no legitimate interest in the domain name.66

JP.82 The respondent then brought an action regarding the JIPAC decision in the Tokyo District

Court, requesting a finding that the UCA could not permit the grant of an injunction in the circumstances of the case.

59  Naoki Mizutani, ‘Domain name dispute in Japan’ in Matsuo, Kazuko and Satô, Keita (eds), ‘Domain name dispute’ (above n 52) p 118. 60  Hiromichi Aoki, ‘Modern Development of the Internet and Trademarks’ Chizaikanri, Vol 51, No 8, p 1213. 61  Tokyo District Court dated 30 November 2011. See the court’s website at: http://www.courts.go.jp/ hanrei/pdf/20111214144518.pdf (Japanese). 62  Unfortunately, the content of the notification is omitted at the court website. 63  See Osaka District Court dated 19 February 2004 ‘jiyuuken.co.jp’; Osaka District Court dated 15 July 2004 ‘maxellgrp.com’; and Nagoya District Court dated 11 January 2006 ‘suzuken-fc.com’. Tokyo District Court dated 13 March 2007 ‘dentsu’ involving eight domain names. 64  See the website of the JIPAC at: http://www.ip-adr.gr.jp. 65  As well as, for instance, the domain name ‘japan.mp3.com’, which it used in connection with its business activities in Japan. This domain name, however, was not the subject matter of the dispute. 66  JP2001-0005, decision by the JIPAC dated 29 May 2001—‘mp3.co.jp’ case.

630

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws The Tokyo District Court considered the case, and entered a finding contrary to the JIPAC JP.83 decision. Since there was no intent to gain unfair profits, the requirements of UCA s 2(1) (12) were not satisfied. The actus reus requirement of the Act, s 2(1)(1) and (2), was also not met. The court reasoned that the ‘intention to gain an unfair profit’ requirement within the JP.84 meaning of UCA s 2(1)(12) is satisfied only if the holder of the domain name intended ‘in a manner infringing honest practices’ to profit by registering the domain name. This requirement follows from the first-to-file principle, which does not involve any examination of conflicting third-party rights. A  registrant is only prohibited from registering a domain name if special circumstances indicate that the registration constitutes an abusive action. Minor dishonest acts in the course of registration or use of a domain name, including minor breaches of the rules for registration, are often deemed insignificant. The ‘intent to cause damage’ within the meaning of UCA s 2(1)(12) requires an intent to JP.85 cause tangible or intangible harm to a third party. Examples are (1)  the sale of a domain name for an unreasonably high price to a party with an interest in the name; (2) the intent to use a domain name that incorporates another’s famous mark, which is capable of attracting customers, for one’s own business activities; and (3) the use of a domain name with another’s famous mark to publish defamatory or immoral materials, causing users to associate the famous mark with the offending website. In the ‘mp3.co.jp’ case, the court reasoned that the plaintiff had acted neither with the JP.86 intent to gain unfair profits nor with the intent to cause damage. It had not registered the domain name in order to sell it to the defendant. In fact, the plaintiff had refused to transfer the domain name to the defendant, in return for a refund of the registration fee, because it was interested in joint business activities. The court held that this intent was not indicative of bad faith. Admittedly, the domain’s value was increasing, but this did not necessitate the conclusion that the defendant intended to sell the domain name for a profit at a later date. Since the plaintiff ’s website did not contain any material concerning the plaintiff ’s business, JP.87 no damages were payable. Furthermore, the plaintiff ’s website contained a statement disclaiming any relation to the defendant’s business. In the final analysis, the court held that UCA s 3(1) did not entitle the defendant to an JP.88 injunction against the plaintiff with respect to the use of the name ‘mp3.co.jp’.

(2)  Infringement of Trademarks An injunction can also be based on trademark law claims for registered trademarks where the JP.89 goods are identical or similar (Trademark Act, ss 36 and 37).67 Under the Trademark Act s 37(i),68 a trademark is infringed if a third party uses a mark that JP.90 is identical or similar to the registered trademark and if the third party offers goods or services that are identical or similar. Case law and written commentary ascribe an identifying function to domain names if the corresponding website is used to advertise goods or services,

  Trademark law is not a lex specialis to the UCA.   Section 37(i) of the Trademark Act reads: ‘The following acts shall be deemed to constitute infringement of a trademark right or an exclusive right to use: (i) the use of a trademark similar to the registered trademark in connection with the designated goods or designated services, or the use of the registered trademark or a trademark similar thereto in connection with goods or services similar to the designated goods or designated services.’ 67 68

631

Japan (‘.jp’) including details of price (overall impression theory).69 In such cases, there is a ‘use of a sign for goods or services’ within the meaning of the Trademark Act, s 2(3)(8).70 JP.91 Irrespective of the corresponding website, domain names must be judged differently. Domain

names can indicate ownership, and also function to assign the corresponding website to a domain host. The domain name is therefore a ‘mark to distinguish websites’. Allowing open online access to a website may qualify as offering information to third parties in the course of business. In this case, the domain name serves as a source identifier of the services offered, and can therefore be regarded as a service mark within the meaning of the Trademark Act s 2(3)(4).71 In the ‘monchouchou’ case, Osaka District Court dated 30 June 2011, the court held that if a defendant offers information to website visitors or receives orders, by using a domain name which includes text of defendant’s company name, the domain name serves as a source identifier of the goods or services offered.

JP.92 Further, the similarity of goods or services might be an issue. In the ‘monchouchou’ case, the

court held that registered ‘Western confectionary’ and retail sales of western confectionary by the defendant was similar. Besides the ‘monchouchou’ case, there are two cases (the ‘TABITAMA’ and ‘Carrier-Japan’ cases)72 in which plaintiffs requested injunctions against use of domain names based on the Trademark Act. In the ‘TABITAMA’ case, the designated service of the trademark ‘TABITAMA’ registered by the plaintiff was an ‘advertisement’.73 On the other hand, the defendant offered hotel reservation services on its website under a mark of ‘tabinko-tamacchi’ using a domain name ‘tabitama.net’. The court denied the claim due to lack of similarity of the relevant services. The court reasoned that the defendant’s business, offering hotel reservation services, was an agency-based business between hotels and their users, and it was therefore different from an advertisement, offering information about the goods and services of various advertisers on behalf of such advertisers. However, in the ‘Carrier-Japan’ case, the court found that the defendant infringed the plaintiff ’s registered trademark ‘Carrier-Japan’. The designated purpose of the trademark was to indentify ‘an advertisement agency through computer communication network’. The court held that the offering of job information by the defendant on its website a ‘DISCO CARRIER JAPAN.JP’ mark, and using the domain name ‘carrierjapan.jp’ was identical or similar use to that covered by the plaintiff ’s registered mark (namely, acting ‘as an advertisement agency’) when taking into account the defendant’s method, purpose and place of service, information to be supplied to users, scope of users, and type of business.

(3) Infringement of Well-Known or Famous Trademarks under the UCA Section 2(1)(1) and (2) JP.93 The UCA s 2(1)(1) and (2) protects well-known or famous trademarks against confusion and

dilution, even in the absence of identity or similarity between the goods. Before the 2001

69  Toyama District Court dated 6 December 2000, Hanrei Jihô No 1734, 3 ff.—‘jaccs’; ONO, MarkenG, 5th edn, 106. 70  Section 2(3)(8) of the Trademark Act reads ‘to display or distribute advertisement materials, price lists or transaction documents relating to goods or services to which a mark is affixed, or to provide information on such content, to which a mark is affixed by an electromagnetic device’. 71  Section 2(3) of the Trademark Act reads: ‘ “Use” with respect to a mark in this Law means any of the following acts: … (iv) in the course of the provision of services, to provide the said services by using articles to which a mark is affixed and which are to be used by a person who receives the said services.’ 72  Tokyo District Court dated 31 March 2005 (‘TABITAMA’ case), Osaka District Court dated 20 April 2004 (‘Carrer-Japan’ case). 73  Related law is as follows; an application for trademark registration shall be filed for each trademark and designate one or more goods or services. This designation shall be made in accordance with the class of goods and services (the Trademark Act, s 6(2)).The class of goods or services shall not be perceived as prescribing the scope of similarities of goods or services (the Trademark Act, s 6(3)).

632

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws reform of the UCA, UCA s 2(1)(1) and (2) were important provisions for plaintiffs seeking injunctions regarding domain names, and two famous cases were rendered by the courts: the ‘JACCS’ case74 and the ‘J-PHONE’ case.75 In the JACCS and J-PHONE cases, the courts evaluated the identity or similarity between a domain name and the relevant trademark by comparing the main element of the domain name and the trademark. A likelihood of confusion was not overcome by the use of hyphens or differences in capitalization. Further, the courts found bad faith intent in both cases, within the meaning of UCA s 2(1)(1) and (2). Thus, the courts enjoined the use of the domain names since the domains contained famous trademarks and the corresponding websites advertised goods and services.76 Critics point out that the question of infringement, whether or not the domain name holder uses the well-known or famous trademarks of the plaintiff, should be decided not only upon consideration of the domain name text but also upon a review of the content displayed on the corresponding website (eg whether the domain name holder also uses the marks or indications on the website), especially after the new UCA s 2(1)(12) concerning the use or possession of a domain name with ‘intent to gain unfair profits or cause damage’ took effect.77 On the other hand, even after the new UCA s 2(1)(12), targeting cybersquatting, took effect, JP.94 a few complainants elected instead to file requests for injunctions under UCA, s 2(1)(1) and (2) (see the ‘ARK-ANGELS’78 and ‘SHOSHA-KEN’ cases79). Although the plaintiffs’ reasons for filing under these provisions, rather than under UCA, s 2(1)(12), are not clear, it may have been because they felt that it would be difficult to prove the requirement of ‘intent to gain unfair profits or cause damage’ under UCA s 2(1)(12).

(4)  Infringement of Personal Names and Names of Cities (a)  Infringement of Personal Names The Supreme Court established principles for the protection of name rights in 1988 (in the JP.95 ‘NHK Nihongo-yomi’ case). The court held: Name rights have the social function of distinguishing and identifying one person from another. At the same time, from the point of view of the individual, they are the basis for being acknowledged as an individual person. The name is part of the individual’s personality and hence a part of personality rights.80

The use of another’s name constitutes a breach of personality rights under the Civil Code, s 709. JP.96 The Trademark Act permits the registration of names as trademarks as long as they consist JP.97 of more than a common surname or the name of a legal entity (Trademark Act s 3(1)(4)).   Toyama District Court dated 6 December 2000, and Nagoya High Court dated 10 September 2001.   Tokyo District Court dated 24 April 2001, Tokyo High Court dated 25 October 2001. 76  The requirement of ‘fame’ is satisfied if there is a broad reputation within Japan. If the holder of the domain name is a foreigner, the problem arises that the subjective circumstances of the registering party (eg the registering party was not a domestic enterprise) are not taken into account and instead priority is granted to the advantage of holding a famous trademark. Namely, a foreign registering party who did not know of the fame of the trademark within Japan can be prohibited in its use of a registered domain name which corresponds to the famous mark. Admittedly, the similarity between the designations of the goods and the goods themselves must be assessed separately, but in trademark infringement litigation these two points are not examined independently of each other and instead the decision assumes that the two points are related (Motoki, Shin, ‘The Examination of the Similarity of Trademarks and Goods’ in Makino, Toshiaki (ed), Saiban jitsumu taikei (System of Judicial Practice), Vol 9, 1984, p 417). ‘Similarity of goods or services’ means that two goods or services are offered under an identical or similar trademark, and that the relevant industry or consumers have confused the origin of the goods or services. 77  Chiho Suzuki (above n 51) p 367. 78  Osaka District Court dated 23 April 2009 (‘ARK-ANGELS’). 79  Tokyo District Court dated 30 November 2011 (‘SHOSHA-KEN’). 80  Supreme Court, decision dated 16 February 1988, Minshû Vol 42, No 2, 27. 74 75

633

Japan (‘.jp’) Qualifying names can be registered as trademarks in their entirety or in part. Once the name has been registered, measures can be taken against third-party use. If one’s own name is used to designate goods or services, however, this use cannot be prevented on the basis of an identical trademark held by a third party (Trademark Act s 26(1)(1)). JP.98 The bearers of well-known or famous names can use their personality rights (publicity rights)

to file claims against domain name holders who use their names.81 Protection is also available under the new UCA s 2(12), which expressly refers to ‘names of persons’.

JP.99 In addition, a name which is used to designate a business or its goods is protected under

UCA s 2(1)(1).

JP.100 According to the Commercial Code, a merchant (a person who conducts business in his own

name) can ‘use his name, name designation or other designation as firm name’ (Commercial Code s 11). Merchants can prevent others from using identical or similar business names in bad faith.

JP.101 Business names are protected by the Companies Act s 8, the Commercial Code ss 11 and

12, and UCA s 2(1)(1) and (2). The use of a domain name falls under these provisions if the domain name, in conjunction with the corresponding website, contains a business name and creates a likelihood of confusion by the ‘use of a firm name to designate goods or services’. Business names are also expressly protected by UCA s 2(1)(12).

(b)  Infringement of Names of Cities JP.102 The UCA is an act for business operators and not for cities or municipalities so that names of

cities or municipalities are not directly covered by the UCA.82 According to the Trademark Law, names of cities or municipalities can be registered as trademarks.83 Therefore, the cities or municipalities can file a lawsuit regarding infringement of names of cities or municipalities based on its trademarks.

JP.103 It is an act of unfair competition under the UCA ‘to use a sign for goods or services, adver-

tising thereof, in business documents or correspondence, that leads to confusion as to the geographical origin of the goods or services’ (UCA s 2(1)(13)). The use of a domain name in conjunction with a website can also constitute the ‘use of a sign that leads to confusion as to geographical origin’. Whether the use of a geographical domain name actually constitutes a risk that the information and advertising on the website will be interpreted as originating from the territory in question must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

JP.104 Further, the Trademark Act enables local brands to be registered. According to the Trademark

Act s 7(2), any association established by a special act or a foreign juridical person can obtain a regional collective trademark registration, provided that the trademark is used by its members and, as a result of the use of the trademark, the trademark is well known among consumers   For details of the case law concerning personality rights in Japan, see Heath (above n 1), 161 ff.   Section 1 of the UCA reads: ‘The purpose of this Act is to provide for matters such as measures for the prevention of unfair competition and compensation for damages caused by unfair competition, in order to ensure fair competition among business operators and accurate implementation of international agreements related thereto, and thereby contribute to the sound development of the national economy.’ 83  Section 4(1) of the Trademark Act reads: ‘Notwithstanding the preceding Article, no trademark shall be registered if the trademark: (vi) is identical with, or similar to, a famous mark indicating the State, a local government, an agency thereof, a non-profit organization undertaking a business for public interest, or a non-profit enterprise undertaking a business for public interest’; s 4(2) of the Trademark Act reads: ‘(2) Where the State or a local government, an agency thereof, a non-profit organization undertaking a business for public interest, or a person undertaking a non-profit activity for public interest files an application for trademark registration falling under item (vi) of the preceding paragraph, the provision of the said item shall not apply.’ 81 82

634

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws as indicating the goods or services pertaining to the business of the applicant or its members. The Japan Patent Office announced that about 500 regional collective trademarks had been registered as of June 2012.

(5)  Infringement of Titles No court decisions or dispute resolution rulings have yet been rendered on the question of JP.105 whether the registration of a domain name can lead to an infringement of the title of a book or journal. Under current law, neither the Trademark Act nor the UCA provides for protection of titles directly, and courts have dismissed a number of actions with this type of petition.84

(6)  Court Procedure and Remedies (a) Remedies The UCA, the Trademark Act, the Companies Act, and the Commercial Code each provide JP.106 for the award of injunctions (UCA s 3, Trademark Act s 36, Companies Act s 8(2), and Commercial Code s 12) and in each case the rights holder may enter a claim for damages (UCA s 4, Trademark Act s 38, Civil Code s 709). Under certain conditions, the infringement of the mark can also constitute a criminal offence (Trademark Act s 78, UCA s 21, Companies Act s 978(1)(3), and Commercial Code s 13). In addition, the Trademark Act and the UCA provide for additional remedies, including public apologies and measures to re-establish damaged business reputations (Trademark Act s 39 in conjunction with the Patent Act s 106, and UCA s 14). All of these laws contain regulations concerning the burden of proof required to establish a claim for damages (Trademark Act ss 38 and 39, Patent Act ss 105, 105(2), and 105(3), and UCA ss 5 and 6). (b)  Preliminary Injunction Proceedings Generally speaking, a plaintiff can seek a preliminary injunction when it is likely that it JP.107 will be impossible or extremely difficult for the plaintiff to exercise its rights due to some impending change to the existing state of the subject matter (the Civil Provisional Remedies Act s 23). With regard to domain name cases, however, since the registration of a domain name is managed by JPRS according to the rules for registration, the ‘likelihood that it will be impossible or extremely difficult for the plaintiff to exercise its rights’ might be difficult to prove, and thus the case may be denied by the court. Further, after a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff will need to seek permanent redress, either through the courts or the ADR procedure. Therefore, as far as the authors know, no preliminary injunction decisions have ever been rendered for domain name cases. (c) Costs In most cases, costs of national law proceedings will be higher than the costs associated with JP.108 JP-DR proceedings. For example, when a plaintiff seeks an injunction preventing the use of a domain name via the courts based on UCA s 2 (1)(12), which targets cybersquatting, the costs of the court proceedings are calculated based on: (i) lost profits, which is calculated by measuring the drop in the plaintiff ’s sales caused by the defendant’s use of the disputed domain name, and the profit rate of the plaintiff; or (ii) the illicit gain of the defendant, which is determined by measuring the estimated sales of the defendant via the disputed domain name and the profit rate of the defendant. If calculation of these amounts proves too difficult, the court fee will be ¥13,000.85 Also, since national law proceedings usually take up a lot of time and work, attorney’s fees for national law proceedings will be much higher

  On case law, see Heath (above n 1) 54 ff.   See, for example, http://www.courts.go.jp/tokyo/saiban/sinri/ip/index.html (Japanese).

84 85

635

Japan (‘.jp’) than attorney’s fees for JP-DR proceedings. The losing party has to pay the costs of the court proceedings, however, and a small portion of the winning party’s attorney’s fees must be reimbursed by the losing party.

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name JP.109 Though case law and written commentary have not addressed this point, in the authors’

opinion, under Japanese law the use of a domain name does not give rise to independent intellectual property rights that can prevent subsequent users from adopting identical signs.

JP.110 The holder of a domain name can, however, be granted a right of prior use under the

Trademark Act s 32. In this case, the holder can file an action for the recognition of a right of prior use.86 Further, the holder can dispute the later-filed trademark’s capacity for registration as an infringement of the Trademark Act s 4(10) (prohibiting the registration of names that are already well known) or s 15 (prohibiting the registration of trademarks that lead to confusion with the goods or services originating from a third party’s business operations).

JP.111 If a trademark application is filed after registration of an identical domain name with the

intent to gain unfair profits, the holder of the domain name, who has the right of prior use, can assert a claim for an injunction on the grounds of unfair competition.87 It would be an abuse of the law if the trademark owner were permitted to assert his later-filed trademark rights in a claim against the owner of the domain name.

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers JP.112 No decisions have yet been rendered by the Japanese courts or dispute resolution centres

concerning the liability of domain name registries or registrars. This can be explained by the first-to-file system of domain names. As the objective is to maintain a speedy registration process, no pre-registration examination is made into whether a prior trademark or product designation may be infringed by an application for a domain name. The intent is to encourage as many people as possible to be active on the Internet. The responsibility of the registry and the registrar is to properly apply the regulations for registration, and thereafter, their functions are limited to administrative duties. Consequently, courts would probably reject any liability on the part of the registry and the registrar.

JP.113 As to the liability of domain parking service providers, or of privacy and/or proxy service pro-

viders, no decisions have yet been rendered by the Japanese courts or dispute resolution centres.

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property JP.114 Domain names are generally regarded as technical addresses on the Internet. Since domain

names are easy to recall and often correlate with a trademark or company name, they also serve

  Osaka District Court dated 20 April 2004.  Yasutaka Machimura, ‘Types of domain name disputes’ in Matsuo, Kazuko and Satô, Keita (eds), ‘Domain name dispute’ (above n 52) p 29. 86 87

636

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law an identifying function. Therefore, under intellectual property law, domain names become articles of property. In the ‘mp3’ case, the Tokyo District Court found that given an economic and social function of a domain name, domains can haves extremely high economic value for business entities. Consequently, domain names can be licensed and traded between companies. The legislature provided for the licence of domain names in the 2001 reform of the UCA. JP.115 Under the Act s 5(2) and (4), if the actus reus of cybersquatting is satisfied (s 2(1)(12)), the injured trademark holder can claim damages equal to the amount of the license fee that would have been obtained had the domain name been properly licensed. As property, domain names can be licensed and transferred like any other right. There are no JP.116 restrictions on domain names for general use (‘example.jp’). It is not permissible, however, to transfer a ‘.jp’ domain name to a foreign company or person residing abroad. A domain name based on business type or location can be transferred only if the party acquir- JP.117 ing the domain name satisfies the requirements for registration.

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (1)  International Jurisdiction In Japan, there were no specific provisions on international jurisdiction included in the Code JP.118 of Civil Procedure (CCP). The Japanese courts accordingly developed a specific methodology for examining questions of international jurisdiction. Such methodology was criticized, however, as lacking predictability and legal stability. The Japanese legislature therefore resolved to extend the provisions of the CCP, and introduced special rules for international jurisdiction. This reformed version of the CCP went into effect in April 2012. Specific provisions for cybersquatting or domain name disputes are not provided in the JP.119 reformed CCP, however. Cybersquatting and infringement of intellectual property rights are regarded as torts. Under the reformed CCP, if the locus of harm resulting from a tort is within Japan, then the action regarding the tort may be filed with the Japanese courts (CCP s 3-3(8)). The ‘place of tort’ includes the place where the wrongful act was committed (as evidentiary materials relevant to the act are likely to be located here) and the place where the result of the wrongful act occurred. Where the wrongful act was committed abroad and the result of the wrongful act occurred inside Japan, and the occurrence of the result inside Japan is considered ordinarily unforeseeable, however, this provision will not apply and the Japanese courts will not exercise jurisdiction in the matter (CCP s 3-3(8)). If the defendant’s address or principal place of business is inside Japan, the Japanese courts JP.120 will have jurisdiction (CCP s 3-2). In addition, if the defendant is conducting business in Japan (including foreign enterprises continuously trading in Japan), and the action which is the subject matter of the dispute concerns this Japanese business activity, the case may be filed with the Japanese courts (CCP s 3-3(5)). The legal venue for joinder of actions should also be mentioned. Foreign opponents may be JP.121 included in the legal venue with a Japanese defendant in general or specific jurisdiction cases (CCP s 7). Thus, so long as one defendant is located (or substantially trades) in Japan, a case including multiple foreign defendants may be brought in Japan as against all related individuals.

(2)  Applicable Law In Japan, international private law is regulated by the Act on General Rules for Application of JP.122 Laws (General Rules for Laws). According to the General Rules for Laws s 17, the formation

637

Japan (‘.jp’) and effect of a claim arising from a tort shall be governed by the law of the place where the result of the wrongful act occurred, provided, however, that if the occurrence of the result at said place was ordinarily unforeseeable, the law of the place where the wrongful act was committed shall govern.

(3)  Substantive Law JP.123 The use of a trademark on the Internet can expose the user to unforeseen claims by foreign

trademark holders. Given the territoriality principle in trademark law, the use of a mark on the Internet can even lead to multiple trademark infringements in different countries. When issuing decisions in such matters, and drafting legislation to address these issues, it is necessary to reach practical solutions that take sufficient account of the potential interests of all applicable rightholders. It is also important to keep in mind the difficulty of enforcing claims based on infringements of intellectual property rights on the Internet. In October 2001, the WIPO issued a recommendation about the use of trademarks on the Internet, in which it proposed a means of solving legal issues that resulted from the principle of territoriality in trademark law (Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Marks and other Industrial Property Rights in Signs on the Internet88—hereinafter referred to as the Joint Recommendation). The WIPO Member States support the idea of using these rules to resolve trademark disputes on the Internet. However, at present, the rules of the Joint Recommendation are only guidelines within Japan, without legally binding effect. Before discussing the relationship of the Joint Recommendations to Japanese law, the basic principles shall be set out in brief.

(a) The Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Marks, and Other Intellectual Property Rights in Marks on the Internet JP.124 The Joint Recommendation outlines the procedure for disputes between a trademark user on the Internet and a third-party rights-holder, and contains three major headings: (i) ‘use of a sign within the territory of a trademark holder’; (ii) ‘notification procedures and exemptions’; and (iii) ‘penalties’. JP.125 Pursuant to Article 2 of the Joint Recommendation, a mark is only used in a Member State

if it has a commercial effect there.

JP.126 Pursuant to Article 7, the conflicting national mark is infringed if the use on the Internet

(based on commercial effect) is regarded as a use in the country in question.

JP.127 Liability for infringement is only possible after notification and if no grounds for exemption

exist (Articles 9–12). This system corresponds with the central interest of the WIPO, which is to permit the coexistence of two equally legitimate rights-holders on the Internet. The user of the mark on the Internet is not liable under Articles 9 and 10 if: (i) he has a legal right to use the trademark in his own country; (ii) the acquisition or use of the right was not in bad faith; and (iii) he states his contact address on the website. The person receiving the notification must inform the party issuing the notification of at least one of the exemptions listed above, in the manner required by Article 11. Under Article 12, a conflict between marks can also be overcome by a declaration on the website that the user of the site maintains no relationship with the owner of the intellectual property right. The Member States intend to recognize such disclaimers as a ground for exemption.

JP.128 Articles 13 to 15 regulate the penalties against the user of a mark on the Internet when it is

in conflict with a national intellectual property right and has no valid ground for exemption.

  Available at: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/marks/845/pub845.pdf

88

638

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law When determining the penalties, the courts should take into account the specific commercial effect and, where possible, avoid imposing a worldwide prohibition on use. Not all of these principles have been adopted by the courts in Japan. The principles that are JP.129 not mandatory have not (yet) been implemented in national law.

(b) Commercial Effect According to one view, current national law denies the commercial effect of the use of a mark JP.130 on the Internet where the court determines that there has been no ‘use’ of the mark in a trademark sense. That is, the goods or services bearing the mark are only offered abroad (outside of the region in which an identical or similar third-party mark is registered), or the trademark or trading name in question is not well known or famous. In the authors’ opinion, which is likely to be shared by the Ministry of the Economy, the commercial effect and use of a mark can be denied if, despite formal usage, the mark has no reputation in Japan.89 The Japanese courts have not yet decided any cases concerning the ‘commercial effect’ of the JP.131 use of a mark on the Internet. Accordingly, it is still uncertain whether a Japanese rights holder can successfully take meas- JP.132 ures against an international user of his protected mark on the Internet. The legality of possible claims by foreign mark holders against Japanese users of a disputed mark is equally unclear. In the interests of legal certainty, it would be useful for the Japanese legislature (together with as many other countries as possible) to implement the provisions on ‘commercial effect’ contained in the Joint Recommendation into national law.

(c) Notification The Joint Recommendation outlines the requirements for notification in infringement cases JP.133 and allows for the coexistence of rights holders, provided that the infringing party can assert his own rights upon notification. The question arises whether, under current Japanese law, the user of a mark on the Internet is only liable following a notification. According to Japanese law, intent or negligence is necessary for a claim for damages. The JP.134 question of fault does not depend on whether notification has been made and whether the act took place before or after the notification. It has not been determined whether notification leads to an assumption of fault for subsequent acts. If notification is a precondition for liability under the Joint Recommendation, negligence or bad faith can be assumed for acts subsequent to notification. However, fault cannot automatically be assumed if the Japanese principle is applied, which states that fault must be determined independently of any timeframe. Therefore, current Japanese law is at odds with the provisions of the Joint Recommendation, and the default position under the Recommendation (that there can be no finding of fault with regard to acts committed before notification) is not the rule in Japan. A reform of Japanese law would be necessary in order for liability to depend on notification JP.135 principles.

(d) Penalties Articles 13 to 15 of the Joint Recommendation propose that the court should reach a reason- JP.136 able (ie differentiated) decision appropriate to the commercial effect of the use of the mark

89  The use of a sign that has no function as an indication of origin or as a means of geographic distinction does not constitute an act of use within the meaning of the Trademark Act and the UCA. Nevertheless, the question of when there has been a commercial act according to the Joint Recommendation may not need to be decided by recourse to national law.

639

Japan (‘.jp’) and the interests of both parties.90 Where possible, the court should not impose a worldwide prohibition on use. However, a general prohibition on use is unsatisfactory if the defendant enjoys protection for the mark used on the Internet in his home country (ie two respective rights holders possessing territorially-limited rights in the relevant mark). JP.137 For the future, the author believes it would be advisable for Japanese lawmakers to adopt

measures in accordance with the provisions of the Joint Recommendation. Changes are necessary to ensure that the claims specified in the operative provisions of any rendered judgment remain enforceable.

(e) Summary JP.138 Full compliance with the Joint Recommendation would require extensive amendments to

the current legal rubric of Japan. The implementation of any such new rules into Japanese law would necessarily require appropriate legislative reforms.

90  For instance, a statement that the user is not in a relationship with the rights holder, or that the goods are not supplied to a particular country or gateway webpages (Art 14(2)).

640

NETHERLANDS (‘.nl’) Adonna Alkema*

I. Overview of the National System of Trademark and Other Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names  (1) Introduction  (2) Trademark Law  (3) Trade Name Law  (4) Tort Law 

(5) Overview of the ADR-Procedure  (6) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Panelists  NL.01 NL.01 NL.03 NL.06 NL.09

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws 

NL.67 NL.81

(1) Comparison of ADR versus Court Action  NL.81 (2) Cybersquatting  NL.82 (3) Trademark Infringement  NL.87 (4) Trade Name Infringement  NL.91 (5) Infringement of Personal Names  NL.93 (6) Infringement of Names of Cities and Other Public Law Corporations  NL.96 (7) Infringement of Titles  NL.97 (8) Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available  NL.98

II. The ccTLD (‘.nl’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

NL.10 (1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry  NL.10 (2) Structure of the Name Space, Syntactic Requirements, and Prohibited Terms  NL.12 (3) Registration Requirements  NL.14 (4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement  NL.17 (5) Transfer of Domain Names  NL.29 (6) Statistics  NL.31

III. ADR Mechanism for the ‘.nl’ Domain Space 

NL.41

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers for Contributory Trademark Infringement  VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law 

NL.33

(1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding  NL.33 (2) Statistics  NL.36 (3) Material Scope of the Proceedings  NL.37 (4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceedings through the Registration Agreement  NL.39

(1) Jurisdiction (2) Extent of jurisdiction (3) Applicable Law

NL.103

NL.104 NL.105 NL.109 NL.109 NL.114 NL.115

Links SIDN (Registry): http://www.sidn.nl Complaints and Appeal Board (College voor Klachten en Beroep): http://cvkb.nl Court decisions in domain name conflicts: http://www.domjur.nl; http://www.boek9.nl ADR decisions in ‘.nl’ domain name conflicts: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisionsx/index-cctld.html

*  Adonna Alkema would like to gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Dr Dirk JG Visser, Remy D Chavannes and Lars L Huisman in the preparation of the first edition of the Handbook.

641

Netherlands (‘.nl’)

I.  Overview of the National System of Trademark and Other Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names (1) Introduction NL.01 In the Netherlands, there is no legislation dealing with the registration and use of domain

names. Domain name conflicts are therefore decided on the basis of existing laws, such as laws regarding the protection of trademarks and trade names and tort law.

NL.02 Domain name conflicts often lead to court proceedings, resulting in over 500 decisions ren-

dered by first instance courts so far and more than 90 decisions rendered by appeal courts.1 Since 2003, domain name conflicts may also be submitted to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center, currently pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy (UDRP)-based Dispute Resolution System for ‘.nl’ Domain Names. Details of these proceedings are set out in Section III.

(2)  Trademark Law NL.03 The protection of trademarks is governed by the Benelux Convention on Intellectual

Property (BCIP) which harmonizes trademark law in the contracting states, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxemburg. In terms of trademark law the Benelux countries are a union. This means the Benelux countries do not have their own national trademark laws and that they share a single trademark registry, administered by the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP). Trademark protection is obtained through registration. The registration process is similar to that of Community trademarks and includes an examination on absolute grounds followed by a two-month opposition period. The BCIP is in line with the European Trademark Directive.

NL.04 The owner of a Benelux trademark registration can act against the use by third parties of a

sign that is identical or similar to the trademark and that is being used for goods or services identical or similar to the goods or services the trademark has been registered for, if this causes likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. Since the use of a domain name often constitutes use of a sign for goods and services, trademark owners frequently oppose the use of a domain name on this basis. Alternatively, if a domain name is used for purposes other than to distinguish goods or services, the owner of a Benelux trademark registration may oppose the use thereof if such use without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the trademark. The owner of a well-known trademark can act against the use of any identical or similar sign that is used to distinguish either similar or dissimilar goods or services, if this causes dilution or takes unfair advantage of the repute of the trademark.

NL.05 Obviously, a Community Trademark registration may be invoked in a domain name dis-

pute as well, in which case the dispute is decided on the basis of the Community Trademark Regulation (CTMR). The most important difference between the Benelux Convention and the CTMR is that the latter does not offer protection against the use of a sign for purposes other than to distinguish goods or services.

(3)  Trade Name Law NL.06 The Dutch Trade Name Act adopted in 1921 affords protection of trade names against the

use of confusingly similar or misleading trade names by others. A trade name is defined as 1

  Estimate based on published case law updated May 2015.

642

II.  The ccTLD (‘.nl’) Registration Conditions and Procedures the name under which an undertaking runs its business. The right to a trade name is established through the use thereof in the course of trade and is limited to the geographic area in which the trade name is being used. Registration of the trade name in the trade register is no prerequisite. An undertaking can use (and hence acquire rights in) more than one trade name. Foreign trade names are also protected on condition that the trade name is used in the Netherlands or is to some extent known in the Netherlands. This follows from Article 8 of the Paris Convention: ‘A trade name shall be protected in all countries of the Union without the obligation of filing or registration, whether or not it forms part of a trademark.’2 A trade name does not have to be distinctive in order to be protected, but non-distinctive trade names generally do have a limited scope of protection. The Trade Name Act prohibits the use of a trade name that is similar to an older trade name NL.07 if, considering the territory in which both trade names are used and the type of goods and services offered under the trade names, this causes likelihood of confusion among the relevant public. The use of a trade name that creates the false impression that the company using the trade name is owned by another (natural or legal) person is also prohibited, unless the trade name was rightfully acquired from said person, for example, in the context of a takeover. The use of a domain name is in certain circumstances considered to constitute trade name NL.08 use. This means the use of a domain name may be opposed on the basis of earlier trade name rights and that the use of a domain name could lead to the domain name being protected as a trade name.

(4)  Tort Law In cases where the laws governing trademarks and trade names do not apply, one has to rely NL.09 on general tort law as laid down in Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code. It applies particularly where the use of a domain name creates likelihood of confusion or a false impression or where such use causes detriment to, or takes unfair advantage of, a third party’s reputation or efforts. Examples of cases where Article 6:162 may be relevant are cases involving names of associations, foundations, and government bodies and names of famous persons, all of which are not protected under the Trade Name Act by lack of a business being ran.

II.  The ccTLD (‘.nl’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1)  Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry The ‘.nl’ domain was acquired in 1985 by Piet Beertema of the Centre of Mathematics NL.10 and Information Technology. It was the first active ccTLD outside the United States. In 1996 Beertema co-founded SIDN (the Foundation for Internet Domain Registration in the Netherlands), a private not-for-profit organization that still manages the ‘.nl’ domain today. Apart from registering and assigning domain names, SIDN ensures the accessibility of the ‘.nl’ zone on the Internet. SIDN has exclusive control over the ‘.nl’ zone file and therefore has a de facto monopoly. This NL.11 position has been the subject of debate among scholars and interested parties, and in government circles. In this context it has been considered to transfer the responsibility for the allocation of domain names to OPTA (the Independent Post and Telecommunications Authority), the Dutch government body in charge of the allocation of telephone numbers. Although in

2  See, for example, District Court of Almelo, 19 December 2001, DomJur 2002-128 with comment Chavannes (‘cnn.nl’); Pres. District Court of The Hague, 9 February 2001, DomJur 2001-63 (‘vodafone.nl’).

643

Netherlands (‘.nl’) 2001 the Minister of Economic Affairs announced an examination into this, the idea has since been abandoned. Instead, SIDN and the Minister have signed a ‘Covenant on Maintenance of the.nl domain’,3 stating: ‘The Minister concludes that, as the registry for the .nl domain, SIDN is effective in maintaining continuity and stability on the basis of self-organisation and self-regulation. It is therefore assumed that self-organisation and self-regulation will remain the basis for governance of the.nl domain by SIDN.’ The Covenant is aimed at ensuring the continued availability of the ‘.nl’ domain. It includes an obligation for SIDN to ‘indefinitely maintain the association between the .nl domain and the Netherlands’, ‘indefinitely ensure the continued availability of the .nl domain to users in the Netherlands’, and to ensure ‘that its services will indefinitely continue to be provided from within the Netherlands, … subject to Dutch law.’ The Minister in turn, committed to providing government assistance if SIDN should encounter circumstances beyond SIDN’s control which threaten the continuity and stability of the ‘.nl’ domain.

(2) Structure of the Name Space, Syntactic Requirements, and Prohibited Terms NL.12 The ‘.nl’ ccTLD is not divided into further second-level domains. The syntactic require-

ments a domain name has to meet are laid down in SIDN’s Technical Requirements for the Registration of ‘.nl’ Domain Names,4 which currently contain the following requirements: –  A domain name may contain only letters, numbers,5 and/or hyphens. –  Hyphens may be used only between letters and/or numbers. –  A domain name must consist of at least two characters and must contain no more than 63 characters. –  The domain names ‘ftp.nl’, ‘mail.nl’, ‘nl.nl’, and ‘www.nl’ are excluded from registration.

NL.13 A further requirement is that a domain name may not be inconsistent with public order or

decency. SIDN does not investigate whether a domain name complies with this requirement, but anyone who believes that the registration of a ‘.nl’ domain name, as a consequence of the name’s use, is inconsistent with public order or decency may submit a complaint to the Complaints and Appeals Board, an independent body consisting of five specialists. Only three complaints have been submitted so far, all of which were considered to be unfounded.6 In its decisions on these complaints, the Board held that for a domain name to be deemed inconsistent with public order or decency, ‘the nature of the domain name must be undeniably such that the majority of the general public would find the name sufficiently shocking to make its continued registration unacceptable’.

(3)  Registration Requirements NL.14 Applications for the registration of a ‘.nl’ domain name must be submitted through a regis-

trar authorized by SIDN. Most registrars are hosting providers or Internet service providers, but they also include an increasing number of multinationals, trademark agencies, and advertising agencies. Any legal person, other than a private individual (unless acting in a commercial or occupational capacity), based in the European Union may apply to become an SIDN

3 See https://www.sidn.nl/fileadmin/downloads_en/Miscellaneous/Convenant_on_Maintenance_of_the_ .nl_domain.pdf. 4 See https://www.sidn.nl/downloads/terms-and-conditions/Technical%20requirements%20for%20the% 20registration%20of%20.nl%20domain%20names.pdf. 5  Since 2008, SIDN has also allowed the registration of domain names containing numbers only. 6 See http://www.cvkb.nl/en/cab-decisions/: C&AB, 8 June 2007, Case numbers 2007-14 and 2007-15 (‘nymphe.nl’ and ‘nymphepoolman.nl’); C&AB, 8 June 2007, Case number 2007-13 (‘huiselijkgeweldhaarlem.nl’); C&AB, 31 May 2004, Case number 2004/12 (‘firstclassrijswijkfailliet.nl’). Last updated May 2015.

644

II.  The ccTLD (‘.nl’) Registration Conditions and Procedures registrar.7 Agreements between registrars and SIDN are governed by the General Terms and Conditions for Registrars.8 There are currently more than 1,900 registrars authorized to apply for the registration of a domain name in the ‘.nl’ ccTLD. Any legal or natural person based anywhere in the world may apply to register a ‘.nl’ domain NL.15 name through a registrar. SIDN does not require applicants to submit identification documents or an extract from the Trade Register, but SIDN may attach additional conditions to applications made by applicants based outside the European Union. With regard to persons based outside the Netherlands, SIDN’s General Terms and Conditions for ‘.nl’ Registrants9 state that, by default, the applicant chooses domicile at SIDN’s office address, where writs and other formal documents relating to the registration of the domain name can be served on the registrant by a bailiff. SIDN accepts domain name applications on a first-come, first-served basis without checking NL.16 for conflicts with existing rights in signs and without requiring the applicant to assert his right to register the domain name.

(4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement (a)  Registration Process The registration process starts by selecting an authorized registrar to file an application for NL.17 registration with SIDN. A full list of authorized registrars is made available through SIDN’s website. The registrar provides the applicant with a copy of SIDN’s registration contract, which usually consists of an application form. By completing and signing the form, the applicant concludes an agreement with SIDN directly and accepts the applicability of SIDN’s General Terms and Conditions for ‘.nl’ Registrants. The form must be submitted to SIDN through the registrar. The exact process for concluding the registration agreement with SIDN may differ from one registrar to another. The registrar pays the fees SIDN charges for the registration of a domain name, for the NL.18 subsequent maintenance of those registrations and for certain other procedures requested by registrars on behalf of their registrants. It is up to the registrar to determine the fees it in turn charges to registrants. Apart from concluding a registration contract with SIDN, the registrant will have to con- NL.19 clude an agreement with the registrar regarding the registration services (and possibly other services) provided by the registrar.

(b)  Basic Features of the General Terms and Conditions for ‘.nl’ Registrants The General Terms and Conditions for ‘.nl’ Registrants state that the registrant must sub- NL.20 mit all communications with SIDN regarding the domain name registration through the registrar. The registrant therefore has to ensure that he or she is represented by a registrar throughout the registration period. The General Terms further provide that the registrant is responsible for ensuring that neither NL.21 the domain name nor its use is inconsistent with public order or decency and that neither the registration nor the use of the ‘.nl’ domain name infringes the rights of third parties or is unlawful or illegal in any other way. As to SIDN’s liability towards the registrant, the General Terms 7  SIDN may choose to accept applications from applicants based outside the European Union, subject to certain conditions. 8 See https://www.sidn.nl/dotAsset/15ef3914-70d3-473d-9731-94f1ba6e3d25.pdf. 9 See https://www.sidn.nl/dotAsset/9bb0ff9e-08a8-4784-9b9c-54cf37441c25.pdf.

645

Netherlands (‘.nl’) and Conditions contain a limitation of liability, stating that SIDN is not liable for damages arising from non-accessibility of the ‘.nl’ domain name and limiting SIDN’s liability for other types of damage suffered by the registrant. NL.22 By accepting the General Terms, the registrant accepts that Dutch law shall be applicable and

that the Dutch courts shall be competent to hear the case if a third party starts legal proceedings in the Netherlands against a registrant in connection with a ‘.nl’ domain name.10 In addition, the registrant must accept the applicability of SIDN’s Dispute Resolution Regulations for ‘.nl’ Domain Names and the Complaints and Appeals Regulations.

NL.23 If the registrant fails to comply with any of its obligations under the General Terms, SIDN

has the right to cancel the domain name registration, unless the registrant has rectified the non-compliance within 30 calendar days after receiving notice of non-compliance from SIDN. The registrant can file an appeal against SIDN’s decision to cancel the domain name with the Complaints and Appeals Board.

NL.24 SIDN may also cancel a ‘.nl’ domain name if SIDN is of the opinion that the domain name

is being used in an unlawful or criminal manner (for example, to publish unlawful or criminal content on a website). Any party that believes that a ‘.nl’ domain name is being used in an unlawful or criminal manner may draw the matter to SIDN’s attention by following the Notice and Take Down Procedure published on the SIDN website.11 If SIDN decides to take action the registrant may appeal to the Complaints and Appeals Board.

(c)  Privacy and WHOIS NL.25 Another important feature of the General Terms is that the registrant must accept that certain information concerning each domain name will be recorded in SIDN’s publicly accessible WHOIS database.12 It concerns the name of the registrant, the e-mail addresses of the administrative and technical contact persons, details of the registrar acting for the registrant, and technical data. NL.26 The register used to contain the registrant’s address details as well, but due to privacy consid-

erations such information is no longer made publicly available in the WHOIS database. The registrant, however, does have to accept that SIDN may disclose the registrant’s address to an attorney or bailiff registered to practise in the Netherlands, if the attorney or bailiff requests the information in order that legal proceedings may be taken against the registrant on behalf of a client.

NL.27 A registrant who has special reasons for wishing to prevent the publication of his personal

details may request SIDN to withhold his name and the e-mail addresses of the administrative and technical contact persons from the publicly accessible WHOIS database. If such opt-out request is granted, SIDN replaces this information with the contact details of the relevant registrar. An opt-out request is granted only ‘where anonymity is vital and cannot be secured except by withholding information’. If SIDN decides to decline the request, appeal against the decision may be made to the Complaints and Appeals Board.

10  This only applies to disputes related to the domain name itself, not to disputes regarding the content of the website offered under the domain name; See Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 22 February 2012, DomJur 2012-817 (‘klokkenluideronline.nl’). 11  Available at: https://www.sidn.nl. 12  SIDN’s WHOIS Terms, privacy policy and Data Protection Policy are published on SIDN’s website at: https://www. sidn.nl/a/about-sidn/whois-terms-and-conditions-of-use/; https://www.sidn.nl/downloads/terms-and-conditions/SIDN_ and_privacy.pdf; https://www.sidn.nl/downloads/terms-and-conditions/SIDN%20s%20Data%20Protection%20Policy. pdf.

646

III.  ADR Mechanism for the ‘.nl’ Domain Space In light of the strict conditions applying to an opt-out request, such a request is almost NL.28 never granted. Applicants that wish to remain anonymous therefore often choose to have the domain name registered in the name of the registrar, in which case the registrar will become the registrant of the domain name and only the registrar’s details will be published in the publicly available WHOIS database. Although the General Terms and Conditions for Registrars provide that a registrar must register a ‘.nl’ domain name in the name of and using the details of the applicant, it is allowed to register the domain name in the registrar’s name if the applicant has explicitly agreed thereto. If the domain name is registered in the name of the registrar, the registration agreement regarding the domain name is concluded between SIDN and the registrar only. SIDN warns applicants that this means that only the registrar will be recognized by SIDN as having the right to make decisions about the domain name, such as decisions regarding transfer and cancellation of the domain name.

(5)  Transfer of Domain Names A domain name registration can be transferred to a third party by submitting a request for NL.29 the transfer of a domain name with SIDN. The request must be submitted through the registrar acting on behalf of the current registrant of the domain name. The exact procedure for requesting a change of registrant differs from one registrar to another. Upon the transfer of a domain name registration, the new registrant has to conclude a new registration contract with SIDN.13 There are circumstances in which SIDN does not allow the registrant to transfer the domain NL.30 name, for example if a third party has placed an attachment on the domain name pursuant to a court order or if the domain name is the subject of dispute resolution proceedings.

(6) Statistics The historical statistics show a continued growth in the number of domain names in the ‘.nl’ NL.31 ccTLD. While in 1996 only 9,814 were registered, the number of ‘.nl’ domain names had grown to 1.7 million in 2005 and to over 4 million in 2010. In July 2012, SIDN celebrated the registration of the 5 millionth ‘.nl’ domain name. 2011 showed the largest growth in the number of ‘.nl’ domain names. Since 2012 the net growth has been declining, mainly due to a higher number of cancellations, attributed to unfavourable economic circumstances. In 2011, the VeriSign Domain Name Industry Brief ranked the ‘.nl’ ccTLD as the third NL.32 largest country-code domain in the world.14 Since then the ‘.nl’ ccTLD has dropped to sixth place.15

III.  ADR Mechanism for the ‘.nl’ Domain Space (1)  Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding Since 29 January 2003, it has been possible to request the transfer of a ‘.nl’ domain name in NL.33 ADR proceedings. Until 2008, the ADR proceedings consisted of arbitration proceedings administered by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (WIPO). The disadvantage of such proceedings was that arbitration decisions have the effect of a final decision between

 See https://www.sidn.nl/a/nl-domain-name/changing-your-domain-names-registrant.   VeriSign Domain Name Industry Brief, 11(2) August 2014. 15  According to the SIDN Annual Report 2012, ­chapter 2. The ‘.tk’ ccTLD, which is the domain of the small island nation of Tokelau with a population of roughly 1,200 citizens only, owes its popularity to the fact that ‘.tk’ domain names can be registered for free. 13 14

647

Netherlands (‘.nl’) the parties and can only be set aside by an ordinary court in very restricted circumstances. Another disadvantage was that it was not possible to institute both court proceedings and arbitration proceedings regarding the same ‘.nl’ domain name. NL.34 On 28 February 2008, SIDN replaced the arbitration mechanism by adopting new Dispute

Resolution Regulations quite similar to the UDRP Regulations. Under the new Regulations, which have most recently been amended on 31 December 2013,16 participation in the ADR proceedings does not prevent the respondent or the complainant from instituting court proceedings as well, either during or after the ADR proceedings. A court judgment always takes precedence over a decision under the Regulations.

NL.35 Disputes are resolved by qualified independent specialists, referred to as ‘panelists’, appointed

by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. The Dispute Resolution Regulations provide for a mediation process as well. The mediation process is optional and is offered by SIDN as a free service to the parties involved in ADR proceedings.

(2) Statistics NL.36 Under the new Dispute Resolution Regulations applicable since 2008, a total number of 539

complaints have been filed so far.17 231 cases were terminated before a decision was rendered, probably as a result of settlements. 249 cases led to the transfer of the domain name to the complainant, leaving only 59 cases in which the complaint was denied.

(3)  Material Scope of the Proceedings NL.37 The material scope of the ADR proceedings has been expanded over the years. Initially,

complaints could only be based on trademark rights with validity in the Benelux (including Community Trademarks) and on Dutch trade name rights. Under the latest version of the Regulations, complaints may also be based on personal names registered in the Dutch Municipal Register, names of Dutch government bodies and names of associations or foundations registered in the Netherlands.

NL.38 Complaints cannot be based on trademarks registered in foreign jurisdictions or on foreign

trade names, unless the relevant trade name is used or known in the Netherlands.18 Foreign rights holders will therefore have to bring their claims before a regular court, either in the jurisdiction in which the domain name holder is domiciled or in the jurisdiction in which the alleged infringement has taken place. Due to the territorial character of trademark rights and rights similar thereto, it is likely that such claim can be successful only if the website is (also) aimed at the jurisdiction in which the rights holder owns rights.19

(4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceedings through the Registration Agreement NL.39 The General Terms and Conditions for ‘.nl’ Registrants state that by concluding the registration

agreement, the registrant accepts the applicability of the Dispute Resolution Regulations for ‘.nl’ Domain Names. Registrants are thus contractually bound to the Dispute Resolution Regulations.

NL.40 The Regulations state that SIDN may, at any time, amend or replace the Regulations to

introduce new regulations. This ensures that the latest version of the Dispute Resolution

16 See https://www.sidn.nl/downloads/procedures/Dispute_Resolution_Regulations_for_.nl_Domain_ Names.pdf. 17  Last updated May 2015 18  See para NL.06. 19  Compare Section VIII.

648

III.  ADR Mechanism for the ‘.nl’ Domain Space Regulations applies to all ‘.nl’ domain names irrespective of the date of registration of the relevant domain name.

(5)  Overview of the ADR-Procedure (a)  Legal Framework Complaints may be submitted by any party that asserts and establishes that a domain name NL.41 is identical or confusingly similar to a sign20 in which the complainant has rights, provided that the complainant asserts and establishes that the registrant has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name and that the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. (b)  ADR Complaint The complainant may initiate proceedings by submitting a complaint to the WIPO NL.42 Arbitration and Mediation Center (referred to in the Regulations as the ‘center’). The complaint may relate to more than one domain name if the domain names are registered in the name of the same registrant. The complaint must be submitted in accordance with the ‘model complaint’ attached as NL.43 annex 1 to the Regulations. The model indicates precisely the minimum information that should be provided in the complaint and the minimum supporting documents that should be included. This includes the full name, address details and, if relevant, legal status, place of incorporation, and principal place of business of the complainant and the respondent (the latter in as far as this information is known), information on the registrar, a print-out of the WHOIS details relating to the domain name as shown in the SIDN register and information on other proceedings, including court proceedings, that have been instituted or terminated in connection with or relating to the domain name. On the basis of Article 7.2 of SIDN’s Data Protection Policy,21 SIDN may provide a (prospective) complainant with the registrant’s address details at the complainant’s request, which request should be made through an attorney or bailiff established in the Netherlands.22 It is also possible to ask SIDN to provide further information, such as information on the history of the domain name registration. The completed model complaint and supporting documents should be submitted to the NL.44 Center by e-mail in accordance with the practical guidelines published on the Center’s website.23 The language of the proceedings is Dutch if the parties are both residents or are registered in the Netherlands and English if either the plaintiff or the defendant resides or is registered outside the Netherlands. The complaint must also contain the indemnification clauses included in the model com- NL.45 plaint, stating that by submitting the complaint, the complainant waives the possible right to institute claims and remedies against the Center, the panelist, the registrar, and SIDN and indemnifies these entities against any claims for damages resulting from the submission of the complaint. If the Center finds the complaint not to have been drafted and submitted in accordance with NL.46 the Regulations, it will notify the complainant after which the complainant has five calendar days to correct the omission and to re-submit the complaint. If the complainant fails to do   Trademark or (trade) name, see para NL.37.  See https://www.sidn.nl/downloads/terms-and-conditions/SIDN%20s%20Data%20Protection%20 Policy.pdf. 22  This is not absolutely necessary as the Center forwards the complaint to the respondent and can obtain the address details from SIDN. 23 See http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cctld/nl/index.html. 20

21

649

Netherlands (‘.nl’) so the procedure shall not continue, without prejudice to the complainant’s right to submit a new complaint. NL.47 If the complaint does meet the requirements, the Center forwards the complaint together

with a notification document to the respondent, SIDN, and the registrar. The proceedings commence on the date mentioned in the notification document.

(c)  ADR Response NL.48 The response must be submitted within 20 calendar days after the date of commencement of the proceedings in accordance with the ‘model response’ attached as annex 2 to the Regulations. The response should include the respondent’s name, address, and contact details and information on other proceedings that have been instituted or terminated in connection with or relating to the domain name. NL.49 If the respondent submits a response within the time limit, the Center confirms receipt of

the response to the parties, after which the mediation process starts. If the respondent fails to submit a response to the Center, the proceedings continue without mediation.

(d) Mediation NL.50 Mediation is a free, optional service made available by SIDN. The mediation process commences within five calender days of the Center forwarding the response to SIDN. If the parties choose to enter the mediation process, SIDN provides a mediator to help the parties reach an amicable solution. If the mediator concludes that an amicable settlement cannot be reached, the ADR proceedings continue. The mediation process ends within 30 days of its commencement, which period may be extended twice with the consent of both parties. The information gathered during mediation and the documents sent to the mediator are kept confidential and may not be consulted by the panelist, unless one of the parties submits such information or documents to the panelist in the course of the ADR proceedings. (e) Procedural Issues NL.51 Submissions may be filed by the parties themselves or by an authorized representative, such as a lawyer or an attorney. Representation by an attorney in the proceedings is not compulsory. NL.52 In principle, the dispute is decided on the basis of the complaint and the response only, but

the panelist may invite the parties to submit further statements or documents. Statements or documents submitted without being so invited are generally not accepted. In-person hearings are held only if the panelist considers it necessary for deciding the dispute.

NL.53 The overall burden of proof is on the complainant. This means the complainant must provide

the panelist with all information and documentation necessary to decide the matter, such as copies of trademark registrations, proof of use of a trade name, print-outs of the website offered under the domain name and possible previous correspondence with the respondent regarding the domain name.

NL.54 Although the overall burden of proof is on the complainant, the respondent has to demon-

strate its rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name if the complainant has made a prima facie case that the respondent has no such rights or interests. This will be discussed in more detail in para NL.75.

NL.55 The failure to provide certain essential proof or information is not always detrimental to the

party that should have submitted such proof or information, as Dutch panelists are known to do some investigation work themselves, for example, by visiting both parties’ websites, checking the trade register or by obtaining information from SIDN. This means the dispute may be decided on the basis of information not submitted by the parties themselves.

650

III.  ADR Mechanism for the ‘.nl’ Domain Space ADR decisions are not confidential and are published by the Center on the Center’s website NL.56 in full, unless the panelist determines otherwise. The parties can, for example, request the panelist to withhold the parties’ names.

(f )  Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center serves as the ADR Dispute Resolution NL.57 Provider. The Center’s role is to administer the proceedings. This includes verifying that the complaint satisfies the formal requirements of the Regulations and that the respondent indicated in the complaint is the actual registrant of the domain name(s) and a verification of the respondent’s contact details. The Center is also responsible for sending out all case-related notifications to the parties and for appointing the panelist who will decide the dispute. (g)  Role of the Administrative Panel The Center appoints one panelist from a list of potential panelists published by the Center. NL.58 The list consists of well-established specialists in the field of trademark law, trade name law and Internet-related issues, including judges, scholars, and attorneys. In cases relating to ‘.nl’ domain names the Center usually appoints a Dutch panelist. Unlike the UDRP, the Regulations do not provide for the option of having three panelists appointed at the parties’ request. (h) Costs ADR proceedings are relatively inexpensive. The amount payable to the Center consists of NL.59 administration costs and a panelist fee, and depends on the number of domain names the dispute relates to. Currently, the total costs for cases relating to no more than five domain names come to €1500 and the costs for cases relating to six to ten domain names come to €2,000.24 In cases concerning more than ten domain names and in cases that, in the opinion of the panelist or the Center, ‘require special action’, the Center is entitled to charge the parties an additional amount. The complainant has to pay the applicable amounts within ten calender days after the Center NL.60 has confirmed receipt of the respondent’s response to both parties or, if no response has been submitted, within ten calendar days after the Center has confirmed to the claimant that no response has been submitted. If the parties enter into the mediation process, the claimant does not have to pay the fees until SIDN has determined that the mediation has not been successful.

(i)  Relationship between the ADR and Court Proceedings As discussed in para NL.34, participation in the ADR proceedings does not prevent the NL.61 respondent or the complainant from instituting court proceedings, either during or after the ADR proceedings. A court judgment always takes precedence over a decision under the Regulations. If court proceedings are instituted after the commencement of the ADR proceedings, it is NL.62 up to the Center, the mediator, or the panelist to decide on the implications this has for the ADR proceedings. It can be assumed that this results in a suspension of the ADR proceedings until a final decision has been reached in the court proceedings. If a party commences court proceedings after the panelist has rendered a decision, SIDN will not implement the decision if the respondent, within ten calendar days of SIDN receiving the decision, has submitted proof to SIDN that the respondent has initiated court proceedings in the Netherlands concerning the disputed domain name against the complainant.   See annex 3 to the Regulations.

24

651

Netherlands (‘.nl’) (j)  ADR Decision NL.63 The only remedy available under the Regulations is the transfer of the domain name to the complainant. The Regulations do not provide for an award of costs. NL.64 A decision is rendered within 14 calendar days after the appointment of the panelist. Unless

the parties opt for entering into the mediation process during the proceedings, the ADR proceedings roughly take around eight weeks from submission of the complaint to conclusion.

NL.65 If the panelist decides to order the transfer of the domain name to the complainant, SIDN

implements the decision ten working days after being notified of the decision by the Center, unless the respondent submits proof of having initiated court proceedings in the Netherlands against the complainant regarding the domain name within this time limit.

NL.66 The Regulations do not provide for the option of instituting appeal against the decision of

the panelist.

(6)  ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Panelists (a)  Differences between Regulations and the UDRP NL.67 The Regulations are nearly identical to the UDRP as far as it concerns the decision criteria

(likelihood of confusion, rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and bad faith). The only difference is that under the Regulations it is not required that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Under the Regulations it is sufficient to establish that the domain name has either been registered or is being used in bad faith.25

NL.68 The examples of circumstances in which the respondent is considered to have rights to or

legitimate interests in the domain name, as well as the examples of bad faith, are also very similar to the examples given in the UDRP. In ‘.nl’ domain name proceedings the panelists therefore frequently refer to the Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions and to decisions taken under the UDRP.

NL.69 Below, a short overview is given of the application of the decision criteria by panelists under

the Regulations.

(b)  Likelihood of Confusion NL.70 First of all, it should be noted that the Regulations, just as the UDRP, do not require that the rights in the sign the complainant relies on predate the registration or use of the domain name. Both under the Regulations and under the UDRP, it is established case law that the registration of a domain name before a complainant acquires rights in a sign does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.26 The fact that the registration of the domain name predates the acquisition of rights in the sign may, however, be a factor in assessing whether the respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name and whether the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. NL.71 The assessment of confusing similarity is based on a direct (phonetic and visual) comparison

of the domain name and the sign, without having regard to the content of the website and the goods or services offered under the domain name.27 Obviously, the top-level domain ‘.nl’ is disregarded in assessing the similarity of the domain name and the sign.28 25  See, for example, WIPO Case No DNL2012-0014 (‘swobbit.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2010-0006 (‘simplan.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2008-0004 (‘bza.nl’). 26  See, for example, WIPO Case No DNL2012-0014 (‘swobbit.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2011-0003 (‘nutriakt.nl’). 27  WIPO Case No DNL2011-0042 (‘gebruiktlego.nl’ [usedlego.nl]). 28  This rule is repeated in almost every panel decision, with reference to WIPO Case No DNL2010-0067 (‘taylormadegolf.nl’) and WIPO Case No DNL2008-0008 (‘deroompot.nl’).

652

III.  ADR Mechanism for the ‘.nl’ Domain Space A domain name is considered to be confusingly similar to a sign if the average Internet user NL.72 may, when confronted with the domain name, believe that the domain name is owned by, or related to, the owner of the rights in the relied-upon sign.29 This is generally considered to be the case if the relevant sign forms part of the domain name and is recognizable as such within the domain name. The mere addition of generic, descriptive or common terms is generally regarded as insufficient to prevent confusion.30 If the trademark in question is a word/figurative mark, it must be considered whether the NL.73 textual elements of the mark are sufficiently dominant and distinctive for a domain name containing those same textual elements to create likelihood of confusion with the word/figurative mark.31 This is especially relevant if the textual elements of the mark are descriptive. In a case involving the word/figurative mark ‘Meubelvoordeel’ (which means something like ‘Furniturebargain’) for example, the panelist held that the word element, being descriptive, did not form the dominant part of the word/figurative mark and that therefore the mere fact that the domain name contained the same descriptive word element was insufficient to cause confusion.32 As soon as the textual elements do have some distinctive character however, (or have acquired distinctive character through use) the absence of figurative elements in the domain name generally does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. In a matter concerning the word/figurative mark ‘Misterbed’ for example, the panelist found that the word element did have ‘some distinctive character in itself ’ and considered the domain name ‘misterwaterbed.nl’ to be confusingly similar to the trademark.33 If the domain name in question is identical to the sign relied-upon, panelists do not investigate NL.74 whether the use of the domain name leads to a risk of confusion as described above. The fact that a domain name is identical to a sign is in itself sufficient to establish that the first criterion has been met, even in cases where the sign (and therefore also the domain name) is descriptive. In such cases, the possible descriptive character of a sign does play a role in considering whether the other criteria have been met (bad faith and rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name).34

(c)  Rights or Legitimate Interests The Regulations contain the same non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which the respond- NL.75 ent is considered to have rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name as the UDRP does. It is on the respondent to demonstrate that such circumstances apply, provided that the complainant has made a prima facie case that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name. This means the complainant can suffice by stating that, to its knowledge, the respondent has no rights in the domain name and by substantiating that the circumstances of which the complainant is aware do not demonstrate that the respondent has legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of proof is on the respondent.35   WIPO Case No DNL2011-0042 (‘gebruiktlego.nl’ [usedlego.nl]).   See, for example, WIPO Case No DNL2012-0002 (‘mywirecard.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2012-0004 (‘electroluxlaundrysystems.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2011-0057 (‘intimissimi-shop.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2011-0042 (‘gebruiktlego.nl’ [usedlego.nl]); WIPO Case No DNL2010-0067 (‘taylormadegolf.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2010-0024 (‘deepsonspecialist.nl’ and ‘epsonshop.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2010-0020 (‘boelsverhuur.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2009-0053 (‘tomtominternetclub.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2009-0052 (‘legoracers.nl’). 31  WIPO Case No DNL2010-0006 (‘simplan.nl’). 32  WIPO Case No DNL2010-0070 (‘meubelvoordeel.nl’). 33  WIPO Case No DNL2010-0003 (‘misterwaterbed.nl’). 34  See, for example, WIPO Case No DNL2010-0002 (‘ecodrive.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2012-0020 (‘greencab.nl’). 35 WIPO Case No DNL2011-0014 (‘loikidz.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2009-0001 (‘air-france. nl’); WIPO Case No 2008-398 (‘auto5.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL 2008-388 (‘oakley.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2008-0002 (‘technischeuni.nl’). 29 30

653

Netherlands (‘.nl’) NL.76 The examples the Regulations give of circumstances in which the registrant may have rights

or legitimate interests all seem to require that the registrant already uses—or has at least ‘made demonstrable preparations’ to use—the domain name or a name corresponding thereto. The mere fact that the respondent does not use the domain name, however, has been considered insufficient to conclude that the respondent does not have such rights or interests.36 In this respect, Dutch panelists have observed that it is in principle not illegitimate to register a domain name with the purpose of selling it37 or reserving it for future use. The claimant will therefore have to show that there are additional circumstances from which it follows that the respondent has no legitimate interest, for example, by substantiating that any possible use of the domain name will infringe the complainant’s rights in the sign. This may especially be a problem in cases where the domain name has a dictionary meaning.38

NL.77 In cases where the respondent did commence its use of the domain name before having

notice of the dispute, the respondent has to demonstrate that it concerns bona fide use. Bona fide use can be defined as any use that does not infringe the complainant’s rights in the sign and that does not without due cause take unfair advantage of, or cause detriment to, the repute or distinctive character thereof. Examples of bona fide use are the use of a descriptive domain name in connection with a website relating exclusively to the dictionary meaning of the domain name39 and the use of a domain name incorporating the complainant’s trademark for (inter alia) the reselling of products bearing that trademark. For resellers, the requirement that such use may not take unfair advantage of, or cause detriment to, the complainant’s rights in the sign, means that the branded products or services must actually be offered through the website, that no other products or services are offered or advertised and that the website does not create the false impression (for example, through the website’s appearance) that the registrant or website is affiliated to the complainant.40 It is further required that the trademark owner is not barred from using its trademark as a domain name, which may be the case if the reseller has registered a large number of obvious domain names incorporating the trademark. As will be discussed in para NL.90, Dutch courts seem to be more strict when it comes to the use by resellers of domain names incorporating a trademark.

NL.78 The use of a domain name for a pay-per-click website or parking page may also consti-

tute bona fide use in the circumstances referred to above, for example, if the links on the pay-per-click website are based exclusively on the dictionary meaning of the domain name 36 WIPO Case No DNL2014-0015 (‘tet.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2014-0018 (‘dekinderplaneet. nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2012-0066 (‘quickstep.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2012-0020 (‘greencab.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2011-0055 (‘vliegticket.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2010-0080 (‘verzekeringsplein. nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2010-0051 (‘define.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2010-0049 (‘hangon.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2010-0009 (‘doka.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2008-0013 (‘wlanshop.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2008-0004 (‘bza.nl’). 37  Unless the circumstances show that it is likely that the domain name was registered knowing that the claimant had rights in the sign and with the purpose of selling it to the claimant, see, for example, WIPO Case No DNL2012-0016 (‘jan.nl’). 38  See above n 36. 39  WIPO Case No DNL2014-0019 (‘plexiglas.nl’); see also above n 36. This may be different if the trademark is descriptive for the goods it has been registered for but has acquired distinctive character through use. The use of a domain name similar to the trademark for the same goods may in these circumstances constitute infringement. The same applies if the sign relied upon concerns a trade name that is descriptive for the business ran under the trade name, because a trade name does not have to be distinctive in order to be protected. 40  WIPO Case No DNL2014-0012 (‘robot-coupe.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2012-0014 (‘swobbit.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2012-0004 (‘electroluxlaundrysystems.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2011-0074 (‘louislatour.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2011-0042 (‘gebruiktlego.nl’ [usedlego.nl]); WIPO Case No DNL2010-0077 (‘honda-occasions.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2010-0024 (‘deepsonspecialist.nl’ and ‘epsonshop.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2009-0049 (‘porscheclassics.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2009-0003 (‘sikkensvoordelig.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2008-0042 (‘gewaterontharder.nl’).

654

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws or if the website contains links to websites offering the complainant’s products or services only.41 Again, such use may not take unfair advantage of the trademark or trade name, which is the case if the website contains advertisements for competitors of the complainant or for competing goods. As to the circumstances in which the use of a personal name may constitute bona fide use, NL.79 only two decisions have been rendered so far. In both cases it concerned the registration of a domain name containing a personal name, with the purpose of spreading defamatory statements about that person. In both cases, the panelists held that this did not constitute bona fide use, because there was insufficient evidence that the statements were true and because the public was likely to expect the domain name to lead to a website owned by the relevant person himself.42 The panelists seemed to find the latter circumstance in itself sufficient to conclude that the registrant did not have a legitimate interest. If this is correct, this could mean the registration and use of another person’s personal name as a domain name can never be considered bona fide.

(d) Bad Faith In most cases, if the panelist concludes that the domain name is confusingly similar to the NL.80 sign and finds that the respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name, it is easily assumed that the respondent has registered or is using the domain name in bad faith. In this respect, it is not required that the complainant submits positive proof of the fact that the respondent was aware of the complainant’s rights in the sign. Such knowledge may also be derived from the circumstances.43 If it concerns a well-known trademark for example, or a domain name that is not descriptive or common in any way, it is considered likely that the respondent registered or uses the domain name with the complainant’s sign in mind. The mere fact that the registration of the mark predates the registration of the domain name or that the registrant has offered to sell the domain name to the complainant for a price that exceeds the cost of registration, does not suffice to establish bad faith.44 Conversely, the fact that the registration of the domain name predates the registration of the trademark obviously rules out registration in bad faith, in which case the complainant will have to show that the registrant is using the domain name in bad faith.45

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (1)  Comparison of ADR versus Court Action The most important difference between proceedings under the Regulations and court pro- NL.81 ceedings is probably that the Regulations require bad faith on the part of the registrant. In case law under the Regulations, this difference has been summarized as follows: ‘As regards

41  WIPO Case No DNL2011-0039 (‘huurcomissie.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2011-0014 (‘loikidz.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2011-0002 (‘comingsoonarnhem.nl’). 42  WIPO Case No DNL2014-0041 and WIPO Case No DNL2010-0056 (to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned, the decisions do not contain their names or the domain names in question). 43  See, for example, WIPO Case No DNL2012-0037 (‘minutemaid.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2012-0023 (‘huisdierenvoordeelshop.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2012-0010 (‘ohrabankonline.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2012-0006 (‘adipure.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2012-0004 (‘electroluxlaundrysystems.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2012-0003 (‘showroomprive.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2012-0002 (‘mywirecard.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2011-0002 (‘comingsoonarnhem.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2010-0070 (‘meubelvoordeel.nl’). 44  WIPO Case No DNL2012-0014 (‘swobbit.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2012-0016 (‘jan.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2011-0002 (‘comingsoonarnhem.nl’); WIPO Case No DNL2008-0004 (‘bza.nl’). 45  See, for example, WIPO Case No DNL2014-0002 (‘klipon.nl’).

655

Netherlands (‘.nl’) the use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainant argues that the use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent violates Community trademark law. In this respect it should be noted that the Regulations do not offer the same protection as trademark law, and are only meant to deal with excesses such as domain name hijacking, on the basis of a limited set of rules. If a complainant wishes to address other forms of trademark infringement, it may do so before a regular court.’46 Another important difference is that the Regulations only provide for the transfer of the domain name to the claimant, whereas additional claims may be instituted in court proceedings (see para NL.98).

(2) Cybersquatting NL.82 Cybersquatting or domaingrabbing, that is, the registration of a domain name with the inten-

tion of selling it to the owner of a corresponding trademark or trade name or of misleadingly diverting Internet users to the website offered under the domain name (for instance through typosquatting), can be fought on the basis of trademark law or tort law.

NL.83 Under Benelux trademark law, cases of cybersquatting are decided on the basis of Article

2.20(1)(d) BCIP, which applies to the use of a sign for purposes other than to distinguish goods or services. The reason for this is that cybersquatters usually do not offer a website under the domain name (other than a simple parking page) and therefore do not use the domain name for goods and services within the meaning of Articles 2.20(1)(a), (b), or (c) BCIP (or Articles 9(1)(a), (b), or (c) CTMR).47 Under 2.20(1)(d) BCIP the registration of a domain name constitutes infringement of the rights in the corresponding trademark if the registrant has no ‘due cause’ to use the domain name itself and if, in keeping the domain name registered, the registrant takes unfair advantage of or causes detriment to the distinctive character or the repute of the trademark. It is steady case law that the registration of a domain name with the intention48 of selling it to the owner of a corresponding trademark does not constitute ‘due cause’ and takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character of the trademark.49

NL.84 If Article 2.20(1)(d) BCIP cannot be invoked, which may be the case if the plaintiff does not

own trademark rights or owns a Community Trademark Registration only, domaingrabbing is considered abuse of the right to register a domain name or a tortuous act.50

NL.85 Both under tort law and under trademark law, a problem arises if the cybersquatter claims

‘due cause’, which claim can be successful if the cybersquatter manages to come up with a good story. The registrant of the domain name ‘garnier.nl’, for example, stated that he   Panelist A Meijboom in WIPO Case No DNL2012-0014 (‘swobbit.nl’).   For examples of case law, see Cohen Jehoram/Van Nispen/Huydecoper, Industriële Eigendom Deel 2, Merkenrecht, Kluwer Deventer 2008, para 8.5.3., who also point out that case law is not completely consistent on this subject. Some courts have held that the mere registration of a domain name constitutes a threat that the domain name will be used for goods and services in the future, including the goods and services covered by the trademark. In this approach, there is always a threat that the domain name will be used for identical or similar services within the meaning of art 2.20(1)(a) or (b) BCIP, which means there is always sufficient basis to order the transfer of the domain name. 48  This is easily assumed if the registrant is a domain name trader. 49  See, for example, Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 11 December 2001, DomJur 2001-114, with comment Hugenholtz (next.nl); Arnhem Court of Appeal, 30 January 2001, DomJur 2001-83 (‘akcros.nl’, ‘anp-online,’ etc); Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 7 December 2000, DomJur 2001-45 with comment Visser (‘passies.com’ [passions.com]); Pres. District Court of The Hague, 8 September 2000, DomJur 2001-82 (‘at5.com’, ‘at5. net,’ et al.); Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 3 August 2000, DomJur 2001-53 (‘iqu.nl’); Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 13 July 2000, DomJur 2000-19 with comment Visser (‘ahold.nl,’ et al.); Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 6 July 2000, DomJur 2000-21 (‘valvoline.nl’). 50  See, for example, Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 7 December 2000, DomJur 2001-45 with comment Visser (‘passies.com’ [passions.com]); Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 31 August 2000, DomJur 2000-38 (‘ziengs.com’). Also see the case law mentioned in n 66. 46 47

656

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws planned on using the domain name for a website on an artist called Laurent Garnier. On this basis, the court held that there was due cause on the part of the registrant of the domain name and denied Labaratoire Garnier’s claims.51 Another example concerned the domain name ariel.nl (Ariel is a well-known detergent brand in the Netherlands). In this case, the registrant successfully claimed due cause by stating that Ariel is a Jewish name that means ‘lion of God’ and that he chose to register this name as a domain name because he was Jewish and fond of lions.52 Although one can never be sure whether in these cases the registrants were truthful in their due cause claims, these cases do show that the trademark holder’s claims may be denied if the cybersquatter comes up with a good story, leaving the trademark holder with no option other than to try to purchase the domain name from the cybersquatter. Similar problems arise if the domain name identical to a trademark has a descriptive character, in which case due cause can easily be claimed on the basis that the registrant intends to use it for a website based exclusively on the dictionary meaning of the domain name. In this respect it is also relevant that the business of registering descriptive domain names with the purpose of selling them to the highest bidder is not considered abusive or unfair, but rather smart business.53 Problems such as the ones described above usually do not arise in cases of typosquatting, NL.86 because the mere act of typosquatting already forms a strong indication of bad faith on the part of the registrant.54

(3)  Trademark Infringement As discussed in para NL.04, the use of a domain name constitutes trademark infringement NL.87 within the meaning of Article 2.20(1)(a) and/or (b)  BCIP—and Article 9(1)(a) and/or (b)  CTMR—if (a)  the domain name is identical to the trademark and is used for goods and services identical to the goods and services covered by the trademark; or (b) the domain name is similar to the trademark and is being used for goods or services similar to the goods or services the trademark has been registered for, if this causes likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. The owner of a well-known trademark55 can also take action on the basis of Article 2.20(1)(c) BCIP—or Article 9(1)(c) CTMR—if the domain name is used for dissimilar goods or services if such use without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the trademark. Although this seems to render well-known trademarks a larger scope of protection, Dutch case law shows that the use of a domain name identical or similar to a well-known mark for dissimilar goods cannot always be fought on this basis.56   Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 12 October 2000, DomJur 2000-39 (‘garnier.nl’).   Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 24 February 2000, DomJur 2000-3 with comment Visser, IER 2000, No 59, p 276 with comment Arkenhout (‘ariel.nl’). The domain name is now owned by Procter & Gamble. 53  Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 7 December 2000, DomJur 2001-45 with comment Visser (‘passies.com’ [passions.com]); Arnhem Court of Appeal, 30 January 2001, DomJur 2001-83 (‘akcros.nl’, ‘anp-online’ etc.); District Court of Utrecht, 16 July 2003, DomJur 2003-177 (‘prinsesmaxima.nl’); District Court of Utrecht, 4 March 2015, DomJur 2015-1109 (‘ok.nl’). Different: Pres. District Court of Rotterdam, 26 April 2001, DomJur 2001-189 (‘staal.nl’ [steel.nl]). 54  Pres. District Court of Zutphen, 30 March 2000, DomJur 2000-2 (‘wwwad.nl’, ‘wwwnrc.nl’); Pres. District Court of Dordrecht, 13 September 2001, DomJur 2001-106 (‘dukab.nl’); Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 2 March 2005, DomJur 2005-222 (‘startpaginanl.nl’). 55  For Benelux trademarks, it is sufficient if the trademark is well known in one of the Benelux countries, see:  ECJ 14 December 1999, C-375/97, NJ 2000, No 376, with comment Verkade (Chevy). For Community Trademarks see ECJ 6 October 2009, IER 2009, No 86, p 347, with comment Gielen (Pago). 56  See, for example, The Hague Court of Appeal, 2 October 2012, DomJur 2012-896 (‘bulldog.com’ and ‘buldog.com’), in which the Appeal Court held that although ‘The Bulldog’ is a well-known trademark for coffee shops in the Netherlands, the relevant public will not establish a link between this trademark and the domain names bulldog.com and buldog.com for a pornographic website. 51 52

657

Netherlands (‘.nl’) NL.88 Article 2.20(1)(a), (b), and (c) BCIP—and Article 9(1)(a), (b), and (c) CTMR—require that

the domain name is being used ‘for goods or services’. Whether the use of a domain name constitutes use ‘for goods and services’ depends on the perception of the relevant public which in turn depends on how the domain name is used.57 If the registrant offers goods and services on the website connected to the domain name, this is usually regarded as use of a sign ‘for goods and services’.58 This may be different if the domain name is descriptive for the goods and services offered on the website. If this is the case, Dutch courts investigate whether the domain name is used ‘as a trademark’ and not just as an internet address.59

NL.89 Article 2.20(1)(a), (b), and (c) BCIP—and Article 9(1)(a), (b), and (c) CTMR—must be inter-

preted in line with the Trademark Directive and European case law on this subject. The assessment under Dutch law of the infringement criteria is therefore identical to the assessment under harmonized European trademark law and will not be discussed in detail here.

NL.90 It is, however, worth mentioning that the BCIP—other than the CTMR—also protects trade-

marks against the use of an identical or similar sign for purposes other than to distinguish goods or services, if such use, without due cause, takes unfair advantage of or causes detriment to the trademark. As discussed above, this may especially be relevant in cases of domaingrabbing. Before the implementation of the European Trademark Directive into Benelux trademark law, the use of another party’s trademark by resellers of products bearing that trademark or by parties specialized in (for example the repair of) such products, was also considered to constitute use for purposes other than to distinguish goods. Following the ECJ’s decision in BMW/Deenik such use is now considered to constitute use for goods or services.60 This applies to the use of the trademark as part of a domain name as well. Trademark owners have often acted successfully against such use, in which respect several Dutch courts have held that the use of a trademark as part of a domain name may, in itself, be capable of creating the false impression that there is a commercial connection between the registrant and the trademark owner.61

(4)  Trade Name Infringement NL.91 The owner of rights in a trade name can act against the use by third parties of a trade name

that is identical or similar to the older trade name if this causes likelihood of confusion. In the assessment of likelihood of confusion, not only the nature of the businesses must be considered but also the geographic area in which both businesses operate. Under Dutch trade name law, there is in principle no likelihood of confusion if the areas in which the undertakings

57  The Hague Court of Appeal, 13 September 2007, DomJur 2007-334 (‘netschaap.nl’ and ‘natschaap. nl’); The Hague Court of Appeal, 22 November 2001, DomJur 2001-112 (‘idnl.nl’). 58  Pres. District Court of The Hague, 20 July 2012, DomJur 2012-874 (‘orly-nederland.nl’); District Court of Alkmaar, 20 October 2010, DomJur 2011-632 (‘voetbalreizenAZ.nl’); see also the case law referred to in Cohen Jehoram/Van Nispen/Huydecoper, Industriële Eigendom Deel 2, Merkenrecht, Kluwer Deventer 2008, para 8.5.3. 59  Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 3 March 2011, DomJur 2011-665 (‘vakantieveilingen.nl’); Pres. District Court of The Hague, 10 October 2012, IEPT20121010 (‘green-graffiti.nl’); The Hague Court of Appeal, 13 September 2007, DomJur 2007-334 (‘netschaap.nl’ and ‘natschaap.nl’). 60  CJEU 23 February 1999, Case C-63/97 (BMW/Deenik). 61  The Hague Court of Appeal, 15 January 2013, boek9.nl, IEPT20130115 (‘porschespecialist.nl’); Pres. District Court of The Hague, 20 July 2012, DomJur 2012-874 (‘orly-nederland.nl’); Pres. District Court of Haarlem, 17 May 2006, DomJur 2006-264 (‘saabservice.nl’); Arnhem Court of Appeal, 12 April 2005, DomJur 2006-234 (‘x5-centrum.nl’); Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 7 July 2005, DomJur 2005-242 (‘subaruvdvelde.nl’); Pres. District Court of Breda,14 January 2004, DomJur 2004-191 (‘vanmeeterenmercedes.nl’). Different: District Court of The Hague, 31 October 2012, DomJur 2012-911 (‘psvshop.nl’); Pres. District Court of The Hague, 10 December 2009, DomJur 2010-515 (‘hyundaivdvliet.nl’); Den Bosch Court of Appeal, 1 February 2005, DomJur 2005-231 (‘carrerawaspik.nl’); Pres. District Court of Breda, 25 September 2002 and 31 October 2002, DomJur 2003-164 and 2003-165 (‘ford-occasion.nl’).

658

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws operate do not overlap. Although technically speaking a domain name is accessible in the whole country (or even the whole world) this remains an important factor in determining whether there exists a likelihood of confusion in cases where the domain name is used for a local business, such as a restaurant.62 The use of a domain name is considered to constitute use of a trade name within the mean- NL.92 ing of Article 5 of the Trade Name Act if the public is likely to perceive the domain name as the name (or as one of the names) under which the undertaking offering the website runs its business.63 This is easily established if the trade name used on the website corresponds to the domain name. In cases where the website does not mention a trade name, courts have also found that the public is likely to perceive the domain name as a trade name, even if the domain name is descriptive of the services offered through the website.64 This may be different if the website clearly features a different trade name.65 In such cases, the transfer of the domain name is nevertheless ordered if the use of the domain name is likely to cause confusion or to take unfair advantage of the repute of the older trade name.66 This constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Dutch tort law. The mere registration or reservation of a domain name does not constitute trade name use.67

(5)  Infringement of Personal Names Article 1:8 of the Dutch Civil Code states that a person who uses another person’s name com- NL.93 mits a wrongful act if he thereby creates the impression that he is the other person or that he belongs to his family. Although this provision may apply to the use of personal names in domain names as well, it has not been applied in domain name case law yet. The reason for this is that websites offered under a domain name containing another person’s personal name usually do not create such false impression. So far, conflicts involving the registration and use of personal names as domain names have therefore been decided on the basis of tort law. Dutch case law on personal names in domain names first of all includes cases where the NL.94 domain name is used to spread defamatory statements about a person. In such cases, the right to respect for a private life (Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) needs to be balanced against the right to freedom of expression (Article 10 ECHR). Which of those rights prevails depends on the circumstances, such as the nature and gravity of the accusations, the effects the accusations may have on the other person’s personal life, the existence of a public interest, the extent to which the accusations are true and supported by evidence

62  See, for example, Den Bosch Court of Appeal, 7 June 2011, DomJur 2011-693 (‘shoetime.nl’); Pres. District Court of The Hague, 26 March 2009, DomJur 2009-479 (‘einsteindelft.nl’). 63  District Court of Amsterdam, 24 April 2013, DomJur 2013-969 (‘vliegticket.nl’); District Court of Arnhem, 6 April 2011, DomJur 2011-682 (‘agenda.nl’); Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 4 January 2011, DomJur 2011-655 (‘thuisbezorgd.nl’ [homedelivered.nl]); Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 23 November 2010, DomJur 2011-637 (‘cityspa-amsterdam.nl’); Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 19 October 2006, DomJur 2007-303 (‘quickprint.nl’); The Hague Court of Appeal 22 November 2001, DomJur 2001-112 (‘idnl.nl’). 64  See, for example, Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 15 January 2008, DomJur 2008-370 (‘thuisbezorgen. nl’ [homedelivery.nl]). 65  Pres. District Court of Overijssel, 31 May 2013, DomJur 2013-966 (‘beste-autobod.nl’); The Hague Court of Appeal, 28 June 2011, DomJur 2011-698 (‘fysio-reeuwijk.nl’); Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 4 January 2011, DomJur 2011-655 (‘thuisbezorgd.nl’ [homedelivered.nl]). Also compare: Den Bosch Court of Appeal, 5 July 2011, DomJur 2011-706 (‘previtas.nl’). 66  See, for example, Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 4 January 2011, DomJur 2011-655 (‘thuisbezorgd.nl’ [homedelivered.nl]); District Court of Dordrecht, 27 November 2012, DomJur 2012-906 (‘artiestenverloning.nl’); Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 21 June 2013, DomJur 2013-974 (‘lesalonamsterdam.nl’). Also compare: The Hague Court of Appeal, 18 November 2008, DomJur 2010-490 (‘juridischloket.info’). 67  Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 26 April 2001, DomJur 2001-101 (‘gezondslapen.nl’ [healthysleeping.nl]).

659

Netherlands (‘.nl’) and the content, tone, and form of the statements.68 As to the form of the statements, there is generally no need to spread them by using the other person’s name in a domain name. Also considering that this has a large impact on a person’s private life, the public interest in being informed needs to be sufficiently significant to justify this.69 NL.95 In cases regarding the registration of names of famous Dutch persons and politicians by

domaingrabbers, Dutch courts have consistently ordered the transfer of the domain names based on a balance of interests.70 Whether this balance may tip in favour of the registrant if the domain name is used for a fan site or another ‘due cause’ has not been dealt with in case law yet. In a matter involving the names of candidates competing in the television programme ‘Idols’ the argument that the registrant intended to use the domain names for a fan site was not accepted as a valid reason, on the ground that a fan site may also be offered under a domain name which is not identical to the personal name of the famous person, but this matter was decided on the basis of trademark law.71

(6)  Infringement of Names of Cities and Other Public Law Corporations NL.96 Names of government bodies are not protected under the Dutch Trade Name Act. The reg-

istration of such names as domain names is considered to constitute a tortuous act and/or abuse of authority within the meaning of Article 3:13 of the Dutch Civil Code.72 Reasons given by Dutch courts include the likelihood of confusion caused by the fact that the public will expect a domain name consisting of the name of a government body to belong to the government and to contain official government information, the hampering of the free flow of information to the public and the blocking effect of a domain name registration. Understandably, the courts also ordered the transfer to the government of a domain name containing the number 112 (the Dutch equivalent of 911), due to the urgent public interest in that domain name belonging to the government.73 The government was, however, unsuccessful in its attempt to recover domain names consisting of terms associated with the government (such as the Dutch equivalent of the term ‘State Budget’), because these terms were considered too general to cause confusion.74 The District Court of Amsterdam also denied the transfer of domain names consisting of city names to city governments on this ground, adding that city governments do not have an exclusive right to a domain name consisting of the names of their cities.75

68  See, for example, Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 5 July 2011, DomJur 2011-705 (personal name of a neurosurgeon). 69  Arnhem Court of Appeal, 18 September 2012, DomJur 2012-894 (personal name of a doctor); Den Bosch Court of Appeal, 24 January 2012, DomJur 2012-808 (Facet); Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 5 July 2011, DomJur 2011-705 (personal name of a neurosurgeon). 70  Pres. District Court of Haarlem, 1 September 2011, DomJur 2011-771 (ministerpresidentrutte). See, for example, Pres. District Court of Maastricht, 24 February 2011, DomJur 2011-654 (‘kewjaliens.nl’); President District Court of Arnhem 3 December 2002, DomJur 2002-159, with comment Tsoutsanis (‘janpeterbalkenende.nl’); Pres. District Court of Groningen, 5 April 2001, DomJur 2002-149 (‘rentema.nl’). 71  Pres. District Court of Arnhem, 10 March 2006, DomJur 2006-253 (candidates Idols). 72 Pres. District Court of Groningen, 17 March 2010, DomJur 2010-572 (‘gemeenteoldambt.nl’); Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 25 October 2001, DomJur 2002-125 (‘2ekamer.com’, ‘tweedekamer.com’); Pres. District Court of Utrecht, 11 January 2001, DomJur 2001-58, with comment Hugenholtz (‘ministers. nl’); Pres. District Court of Amsterdam 3 August 2000, DomJur 2000-22 (‘staten-generaal.nl’). 73  Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 31 July 2008, DomJur 2008-377 (‘112.nl’). 74  Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 20 February 2003, DomJur 2003-170 (‘prinsjesdag.nl’, ‘miljoenennota. nl’, and ‘troonrede.nl’); Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 28 February 2002, DomJur 2002-131 (‘betuwe-route. nl’); Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 20 September 2001, DomJur 2001-111 (‘verkiezingen.nl’ [elections.nl]); Pres. District Court of Rotterdam, 17 August 2000, DomJur 2001-44 (‘kamer.nl’). 75  Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 2 May 2002, DomJur 2002-140 (‘citynames.info’).

660

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (7)  Infringement of Titles Titles of publications, films, and television programmes can be registered as trademarks and NL.97 thus be protected under trademark law. Alternatively, titles may benefit from some protection under competition law if the use of the title creates likelihood of confusion. The use of titles as domain names has not been dealt with in Dutch case law yet.

(8)  Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available A rights owner who is of the opinion that a particular domain name infringes his rights can NL.98 bring civil proceedings on the merits before the competent District Court. Remedies available in such proceedings include the transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff or an order to cancel the domain name registration, an injunction enforced by a penalty, an order to pay damages and an award of legal costs.76 Proceedings on the merits usually take six to 18 months. If the plaintiff has an urgent interest in obtaining an immediate decision (and this is often NL.99 considered to be the case in domain name disputes), he can initiate summary injunction proceedings before a Preliminary Measures Judge. Although in summary proceedings only provisional measures may be taken, this has not prevented judges from ordering the transfer of the domain name in addition to granting an injunction.77 Summary proceedings also provide for an award of costs.78 Damages are not awarded in summary proceedings.79 Depending on urgency, summary proceedings can take between a few hours (extremely rare) to eight weeks. After the summary proceedings, the plaintiff must commence proceedings on the merits within a certain period determined by the court, unless the parties reach a settlement. If the plaintiff ’s urgent interest in obtaining an immediate injunction is such that even sum- NL.100 mary proceedings would take too long to prevent serious and irreparable damage, the plaintiff may also file an ex parte request with the competent Preliminary Measures Judge. In ex parte proceedings, the matter is decided without hearing the defendant. The only remedy available is an injunction enforced by a penalty. The judge usually decides on the request within a day. Ex parte proceedings must be followed up by proceedings on the merits. The defendant has the option of requesting the Preliminary Measures Judge to lift the injunction in summary proceedings if he is of the opinion that the injunction should not have been granted. In cases based exclusively on the Trade Name Act, the plaintiff may also bring proceedings NL.101 before the subdistrict court. Such proceedings do not provide for the transfer of the domain name. The subdistrict court may order the defendant to change its trade name only. In order to block a domain name from being transferred, it is possible to levy an attachment NL.102 on a ‘.nl’ domain name by submitting a request with the competent Preliminary Measures Judge.80 The judge decides on the request without hearing the defendant. The request is

76  The full costs of the proceedings may be awarded only if the decision is based on an infringement of intellectual property rights. If the claims are based on tort law, the court may only award limited fixed fees. 77  Although there are exceptions. See, for example, Pres. District Court of The Hague, 14 June 2013, DomJur 2013-972 (‘systek.nl’) and Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 3 March 2011, DomJur 2011-665 (‘vakantieveilingen.nl’), in which the courts held that the plaintiff did not have an urgent interest in the transfer of the domain name in addition to an injunction. 78  See above n 76. 79  The plaintiff may request the court to order the defendant to pay an advance on the damages, if there is an urgent interest in obtaining such advance, but this is usually denied. 80  See, for example, Den Bosch Court of Appeal, 17 January 2007, DomJur 2007-302, Mf 2007, no 10, p 99 with comment Chavannes, IER 2007, no 50, p 186 with comment Van Engelen; CR 2007, no 73, p 165 with comment Meijboom; BIE 2009, no 10, p 32 (‘beautypartners.nl’); Pres. District Court of Utrecht, 23 June 2005, DomJur 2005-226 (‘woonboulevardutrecht.nl’); Pres. District Court of Amsterdam, 2 March 2005, DomJur 2005-222 (‘startpaginanl.nl’). Different: Pres. District Court of Den Bosch, 27 December

661

Netherlands (‘.nl’) granted on condition that a claim is brought in the principal action within a certain period of at least eight calendar days. SIDN blocks the domain name from being transferred as soon as the bailiff has informed SIDN that the request has been granted and served on the defendant.

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name NL.103 As discussed in para NL.08, the use of a domain name may lead the domain name holder

to acquire trade name rights in the domain name, provided that the relevant public will perceive the domain name as the name (or as one of the names) under which the company offering the website runs its business and not just as the company’s internet address. Other than that, the mere use of a domain name does not lead to the acquisition of intellectual property rights in the domain name.

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers for Contributory Trademark Infringement NL.104 There have as yet been no court decisions on the question of whether SIDN, the registrar

and/or the Internet Service Provider (ISP) can be held liable if the registration or use of a domain name constitutes infringement of trademark rights or rights similar thereto. It is highly unlikely that this question will ever be answered in the affirmative as the concept of contributory infringement does not exist under Dutch law. In theory, it may be possible to bring an action against these parties based on tort law, if they have been made aware of the fact that a domain name unmistakably conflicts with the rights of third parties and have refused to take subsequent action (parallel to the liability of the ISP pursuant to the E-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC dated 8 June 2000). In practice, there is no reason for accepting liability of SIDN, the registrar, or the ISP, since the rights owner can always bring an action against the registrant.

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property NL.105 The legal status of domain names in the Netherlands is still unclear. The question has come

up in several court cases81 but until now has never been fully answered. Most authors argue that a domain name registration is a relative right (ius in personam), that is, a contractual right that can only be exercised against SIDN. A smaller group of authors has argued that domain names should be compared to ‘other’ forms of intellectual property and that therefore the registration of a domain name, just as the registration of a trademark, provides the registrant with an absolute right (a ius in rem).

NL.106 The consequences of this distinction are not merely academic. Under Dutch civil law abso-

lute rights cannot be assigned, pledged, or attached, unless this is specifically provided for by law. Relative rights can be transferred, pledged, or attached, unless Dutch law or the nature 2005, DomJur 2006-250 (‘vacancesolei.nl’); Pres. District Court of Den Bosch, 6 August 2002, DomJur 2002-148, with comment Van Hees (‘ltur.nl’). 81  See above n 80. Also see: Pres. District Court of Zutphen, 27 January 2003, DomJur 2003-116 (‘deanmoor.nl’); Pres. District Court of Arnhem, 6 May 2002, DomJur 2003-171 (‘campings.nl,’ etc); District Court of Almelo, 19 December 2001, DomJur 2002-128 with comment Chavannes (‘cnn.nl’).

662

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law of the relevant right dictates otherwise. Since there is no law on domain names, there is no provision that provides for the transferability of domain names. If a domain name were to be considered as an absolute right, it would therefore be impossible to assign the domain name to a third party. In practice however—as proponents of both views acknowledge—domain names are (and SIDN’s regulations explicitly provide that domain names may be) transferred, attached, and pledged. The relevant procedures are described on SIDN’s website. A domain name may also be licensed, in the sense that the registrant may permit a third party to use (or ‘rent’) the domain name under conditions agreed upon between the parties. If the registrant of a domain name is put into bankruptcy, SIDN will not cancel the regis- NL.107 tration, unless the registrant ceases to fulfil its (financial) obligations towards SIDN. If the trustee considers the domain name to be an important asset of the estate, he will continue to fulfil those obligations and try to sell the domain name against a price that represents the commercial value thereof.82 Given the profits of the non-profit organization SIDN, as annually reported, and the covenant NL.108 between SIDN and the Dutch government (see para NL.11) it is highly unlikely that this organization will be put into bankruptcy. Nevertheless, the question of what will happen to all the domain names that SIDN has allocated should this event ever occur is worthy of consideration. Given the urgent technical, social, and economic necessity of an administrator of the ‘.nl’ zone file, a transfer of all assets is to be expected. In view of the fact that SIDN has a de facto monopoly, many candidates will be keen on taking over SIDN’s business. Under these circumstances the proprietary status of domain names becomes once again important as only absolute rights acquired from the bankrupt continue to exist. If domain names are to be qualified as relative rights, registrants may no longer be able to exercise their contractual right to the domain names. This would enable the party acquiring SIDN’s assets to re-allocate all domain names.

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (1) Jurisdiction The jurisdiction of the Dutch court is governed by EU Regulations and International NL.109 Conventions, most importantly EC Regulation 44/2001, the BCIP and the CTMR. In cases where such Regulations and Conventions do not apply, the jurisdiction of the Dutch court is determined on the basis of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP). The applicable jurisdiction rules can be summarized as follows. The Dutch court is competent to hear any claim brought against a natural or legal person NL.110 domiciled in the Netherlands.83 This means claims regarding domain names registered in the name of a Dutch registrant can be brought before a Dutch court. The Dutch court is also competent (irrespective of where the defendant is domiciled) if NL.111 the website offered under the domain name is aimed at the Netherlands (or also at the Netherlands), which usually is the case for websites offered under ‘.nl’ domain names.84   See, for example, Pres. District Court of Zutphen, 27 January 2003, DomJur 2003-116 (‘deanmoor.nl’).   Compare art 4.6 BCIP; art 97 CTMR; art 2 EC Regulation 44/2001 and art 2 DCCP. 84  Pursuant to art 4.6(5) BCIP the Dutch court has jurisdiction if ‘the obligation in dispute has arisen, or has been or should be enforced’ in the Netherlands. This is the case if the obligation not to use the infringing domain name exists in the Netherlands, in other words, if the use of the domain name constitutes infringing use that (also) takes place in the Netherlands. Under art 97(5) CTMR the Dutch court has jurisdiction if the ‘infringement’ takes places in the Netherlands or threatens to take place in the Netherlands. See also: art 5(3) EC Regulation 44/2001 and art 6(d) DCCP. 82 83

663

Netherlands (‘.nl’) Whether a particular website is (also) aimed at the Netherlands depends on the circumstances, such as the language of the website, the currencies used and the possibility for Dutch residents to order products offered through the website.85 The mere fact that a website can be visited from the Netherlands does not suffice. NL.112 In cases where the plaintiff relies on a Benelux or Community trademark registration, the

plaintiff also has the option of bringing the claim before a court in the Member State in which the plaintiff is domiciled, provided that the defendant is not domiciled in the Benelux or the Community respectively. 86 If this still does not lead to a competent forum in the Benelux or the Community, proceedings can be brought before the courts in Brussels, the Hague, or Luxembourg City if it concerns a Benelux trademark or, if it concerns a Community trademark, before the court in the country where the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) is established (ie Spain).

NL.113 Obviously, the above jurisdiction rules do not apply if the parties have agreed to submit the

relevant dispute to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of a specific country.

(2)  Extent of jurisdiction NL.114 The geographic extent of the court’s jurisdiction is necessarily limited to the geographic

extent of the rights the plaintiff relies on. If the relied-upon right consists of a Benelux trademark for example, the trademark owner may act against infringements taking place within the Benelux only, which means the geographic scope of a court order is necessarily limited to the Benelux.87 In domain name conflicts, this may raise questions as to whether a court may order the transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff. Since such order has global effect, in that the defendant is also prevented from any further use of the domain name in countries outside the court’s jurisdiction, it could be argued that the court is not allowed to do so if it concerns domain names and websites with an international character. In those circumstances, an order to block access to the website for visitors located in the country or countries where the plaintiff has rights could be a good alternative.

(3)  Applicable Law NL.115 After the Dutch court has declared itself competent, it will have to determine the applica-

ble law. If the parties have not chosen an applicable law, the laws of the country where the infringement or tortuous act has taken place will govern the dispute, which under Dutch law are the laws of the country in which the damage resulting from the infringement occurs.

85 Supreme Court, 18 February 2005, boek9.nl, IEPT20120224 (De Lotto/Ladbrokes); Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 22 September 2009, boek9.nl, IEPT20090922 (Dimensione/Cassina); The Hague Court of Appeal, 20 March 2008, boek9.nl, IEPT20080320 (Vitra/Classic Design); Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 11 November 1999, boek9.nl, IEPT19991111 (Cyráko/Erobaking); District Court of Breda, 6 June 2012, boek9.nl, IEPT20120606 (Oishii/OGE). 86  If it concerns a Community Trademark, this rule applies if the defendant is neither domiciled nor has an establishment in one of the Member States. 87  For claims based on Community trademark registrations, the court’s jurisdiction is also limited to the Benelux if the court establishes jurisdiction on the ground that the relevant website is (also) aimed at the Netherlands (see art 97(5) CTMR).

664

NORWAY (‘.no’) Kristine Celius

(7) Costs  (8)  Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings  (9)  ADR Committee Decision  (10) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by ADR Committee

I. Overview of the National System of Trademark/Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names 

NO.01 (1) Introduction to Norwegian Industrial Property Legislation  NO.01 (2) Protection Under the Trademarks Act  NO.03 (3) Protection Under the Business Name Act (Foretaksnavneloven)  NO.09 (4) Protection Under the Marketing Control Act (Markedsføringsloven)  NO.11 (5) The Legal Framework of Domain Names  NO.12 (6) Alternative Dispute Resolution  NO.15

NO.59 NO.60 NO.65

IV. Court Litigation and National Laws 

NO.69 (1) Abusive Registration of Domain Names (Cybersquatting)  NO.69 (2) Infringement of Trademarks  NO.74 (3) Infringement of Personal Names  NO.82 (4) Infringement of Names of Cities and Other Public Law Corporations  NO.86 (5) Infringement of Titles  NO.89 (6) Court Procedure and Remedies  NO.95

II. The ccTLD (‘.no’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

NO.16 (1) The Registry  NO.16 (2) The ‘.no’ Domain  NO.17 (3) Registration Conditions and Restrictions  NO.18 (4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement  NO.30 (5) Transfer of Domain Names  NO.35 (6) Prevention of Transfer of a Domain Name During Disputes  NO.36 (7) Statistics  NO.38

III. ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.no’ Domain Space 

NO.58

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  VI. Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers  VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  (1) Assignment and Licensing of Domain Names  (2) Domain Names in Insolvency Proceedings 

NO.39

(1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding  NO.39 (2) Statistics  NO.40 (3) Material Scope of the Proceeding  NO.42 (4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding  NO.44 (5) Overview of the ADR Procedure  NO.45 (6) Role of the ADR Committee and its Members  NO.57

VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law  (1) Introduction (2) International Jurisdiction (3) Choice of Law (4) Substantive Law Issues (5) Enforcement Concerns

NO.106

NO.110 NO.111 NO.111 NO.113 NO.114 NO.114 NO.116 NO.122 NO.127 NO.131

Links Intellectual Property Office: Norwegian Industrial Property Office: http://www.patentstyret.no Norwegian Trademarks Act (English): http://patentstyret.no/en/For-Experts/TrademarksExpert/Legal-texts/Trademarks-Act/

665

Norway (‘.no’) Domain Name System: Norid (Registry for ‘.no’ ccTLD): http://www.norid.no The Domain Regulation: http://www.lovdata.no/for/sf/sd/xd-20030801-0990.html The Policy for ‘.no’ (English): http://www.norid.no/navnepolitikk.en.html The Applicant Declaration Form (English): http://www.norid.no/regelverk/vedlegg-g. en.html Alternative Dispute Resolution: Domeneklagenemnda (Dispute Resolution Provider): http://www.norid.no/domenekonflikter/ domeneklagenemnda/index.en.html Dispute Resolution Mandate (English): http://www.norid.no/regelverk/klagenemnda. en.html Dispute Resolution Principles (English): http://www.norid.no/domenekonflikter/domeneklagenemnda/prinsipp.en.html ADR Decisions: http://www.norid.no/domenekonflikter/klagearkiv/

I.  Overview of the National System of  Trademark/Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names (1)  Introduction to Norwegian Industrial Property Legislation NO.01 In Norway, industrial property rights in signs are mainly protected by the Trademarks Act

No 8, dated 26 March 2010 (Varemerkeloven), the Business Name Act No 79, dated 21 June 1985 (Foretaksnavneloven), and the Marketing Control Act No 2, dated 9 January 2009 (Markedsføringsloven). While the two first Acts constitute systems in which exclusive rights to use a sign are granted through registration or established by use, the latter prohibits, inter alia, acts of unfair competition.

NO.02 Norwegian industrial property legislation does not include specific regulations for domain

names. Thus, if the registration or use of a domain name constitutes an infringement of a sign, the owner of the sign must seek protection, via the courts, under the principles of general legislation mentioned above. The provisions of the different laws can be applied separately or in tandem, and infringement actions are frequently based on more than one set of rules.

(2)  Protection Under the Trademarks Act NO.03 Norway is party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, dated 2 May 1992 (EEA

Agreement) and is thereby obliged to implement the Trademarks Directive.1 The Trademarks Directive and the decisions by the European Court of Justice are therefore relevant in relation to the interpretation of the Norwegian Trademarks Act.

NO.04 The general provisions of the Trademarks Act apply to the use of a domain name as a dis-

tinctive sign.2 Pursuant to the Trademarks Act (s 3), trademark rights may be acquired either by registration or through established use. This is subject to the condition that the sign is well known in Norway ‘within the circle of trade concerned’ as a distinctive identifier for the

1  Council Directive (EC) 08/95 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trademarks (codified version) [2008] OJ L299/25 (replaces First Council Directive (EC) 89/104). 2 Cf. the preparatory works to the Trademarks Act, Proposition to the Odelsting (Ot.prp.) No 98 (2008-2009) p 24, and the ‘volvoimport.no’ case.

666

I.  Overview of the National System particular goods/services (Trademarks Act, s 3(3)). If such use is established only in a part of Norway, the exclusive right has effect only within this limited territory.3 In order to obtain trademark protection in Norway by registration, one can either file a NO.05 national application directly with the Norwegian Industrial Property Office (Patentstyret),4 or file an international application with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under the Protocol to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks dated 27 June 1989 (MMP), listing Norway as a designated country. The decisive precondition for registration of a trademark, according to the Trademarks Act NO.06 (s 14(1) cf. s 2), is its distinctive character as a sign for the relevant goods and services. Furthermore, the trademark must be capable of distinguishing the goods and services of one undertaking from those of another, and of being represented visually. Pursuant to the Trademarks Act (s 4), the exclusive right to a trademark means that no one in NO.07 the course of business, without the trademark owner’s consent, can use: – an identical trademark for goods/services identical to those for which the trademark is registered; – an identical trademark or a similar sign for goods/services which are the same or similar to those for which the trademark is registered, if there exists a likelihood of confusion; or – without a valid reason, the use of a trademark which is well known in Norway (or a sign similar to the well-known trademark) for any goods/services, if such use takes unfair advantage of, or may be detrimental to the distinctiveness or reputation (goodwill) of, the well-known trademark.5 The Trademarks Act contains no provisions specifically aimed at domain names. However, NO.08 s 59 of the Act, which relates to measures that can be made in order to prevent future infringements, shall be interpreted to also constitute a right to order cancellation or transfer of domain names which have been used in conflict with the rights of a trademark owner.6

(3)  Protection Under the Business Name Act (Foretaksnavneloven) According to the Business Name Act, a company’s official name is protected in Norway either NO.09 by registration in the Norwegian Register of Business Entities or by virtue of use. Other signs used as company names (eg secondary business names) may acquire protection through established use. The Business Name Act protects business owners from third-party use of identical business NO.10 names.7 For this protection to extend to confusingly similar names, two preconditions must be met: (1) the protected business name must fulfil the distinctiveness requirement that is laid down in the Trademarks Act (s 14);8 and (2) the business names must be used for identical or confusingly similar types of business activities (branch similarity).9

  Cf. the Trademarks Act (s 3(3)).   The website can be found at: http://www.patentstyret.no. 5  Also known as the Kodak doctrine, see paras NO.78 and 79. 6  From 2010 and until 1 July 2013, s 59 of the Trademark Act contained a provision specifically aimed at domain names. It is explicitly assumed in the preparatory works of the Act that this amendment of s 59 not shall have any effect on the rights to cancellation or transfer of domain names, cf. Prop.81 L (2012–2013) ­chapter 14.11. 7  Until 1 March 2004, the scope of protection was limited to use within the same geographic area in which the business name was used or intended for use. 8  Cf. the Business Name Act (s 3-2). 9  Cf. the Business Name Act (s 3-3). 3 4

667

Norway (‘.no’) (4)  Protection Under the Marketing Control Act (Markedsføringsloven) NO.11 The Marketing Control Act supplements the Trademarks Act and the Business Name Act by

protecting industrial property interests regardless of registration. The Act contains a general provision requiring all marketing to be performed in accordance with ‘good business practice’ (s 25) as well as a number of special provisions that may be invoked against the infringement of industrial signs, that is, prohibitions relating to misleading business methods (s 26), and to the unreasonable copying of another’s product, identification marks, and so on (s 30).

(5)  The Legal Framework of Domain Names NO.12 The administration of the Norwegian top-level domain (TLD) is governed by Domain

Regulation No 990, dated 1 August 2003 (Domeneforskriften),10 issued on the basis of ss 7-1 and 10-1(2) of the Electronic Communications Act No 83, dated 4 July 2003 (Ekomloven).

NO.13 The Domain Regulation establishes a high-level administrative framework for entities that

assign domain names under the Norwegian TLD.11 Under the Regulation, the Norwegian TLD shall be administered by a single registry, which shall have the formal responsibility of developing the domain name policy for the TLD. The current Policy for ‘.no’ (Navnepolitikken) covers the rules for registering, holding, updating, transferring, and deleting ‘.no’ domains, and is part of the contract between the Norwegian registration service for the TLD ‘.no’, Norid, and the domain name holders.12

NO.14 The Policy for ‘.no’ has evolved from a strictly regulated position toward a more

liberally-managed space over the years.13

(6)  Alternative Dispute Resolution NO.15 Norway has its own Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure for domain names in

the ccTLD ‘.no’, which the domain registrants accept by signing the applicant’s declaration form. Details of the ADR procedure are discussed in paras NO.39 ff.

II.  The ccTLD (‘.no’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1)  The Registry NO.16 The registration service for the Norwegian TLD, Norid, is an independent non-profit

company, run by UNINETT AS, which is a non-governmental institution owned by the Norwegian state.14 Norid administers domain registrations under the ‘.no’ TLD by agreement with the Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority.

(2)  The ‘.no’ Domain NO.17 The ‘.no’ TLD is divided into a number of ‘category’ second-level domains (such as ‘museum.

no’ for museums and ‘priv.no’ for individuals) and a large number of geographical second-level

10  An unofficial English version of the Domain Regulation can be found at: http://patentstyret.no/en/ For-Experts/Trademarks-Expert/Legal-texts/Trademark-Regulations/. 11  Cf. the Domain Regulation (s 1). 12 An English version of the Policy for ‘.no’ can be found at:  http://www.norid.no/navnepolitikk. en.html#link17. 13  For further information about the administrative model and the current Policy for ‘.no’, see Bygrave and Bing, Internet Governance (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009) pp 179–202. 14  Further details are available in English at: http://www.norid.no/omnorid/index.en.html.

668

II.  The ccTLD (‘.no’) Registration Conditions and Procedures domains, which correspond to the names of Norwegian towns and local government authorities or regions (eg ‘oslo.no’).15

(3)  Registration Conditions and Restrictions (a)  Eligible Applicants Businesses, professionals, and individuals can all apply for domain names under the NO.18 ‘.no’ TLD.16 All applicants must have a Norwegian postal address. Businesses and professionals must also be registered as an approved type of organization NO.19 in the Central Coordinating Register for Legal Entities (Enhetsregisteret).17 The organization must run genuine operations and/or have sufficiently substantial business activities, in accordance with the specifications of the Central Register. Private persons applying must be at least 18  years old, and be registered in the National NO.20 Registry (Folkeregisteret) with a Norwegian national identity number (fødselsnummer).18 Any person who meets the requirements laid down in the Policy for ‘.no’ may have up to five domain names under the ‘.no’ TLD, five domains within any geographical domain they belong to, and up to five domains under the ‘priv.no’ category domain. For many ‘category’ second-level domains, additional registration rules apply.19 These NO.21 domains can only be registered by entities who meet the specific registration criteria. Within the geographical second-level domains, names are registered depending on where the applicants themselves feel that they belong, and shall only be granted to applicants who have a local presence in the particular locale.

(b)  Foreign Registrants Foreign business enterprises operating a business in Norway or on the Norwegian continental NO.22 shelf are obliged to register in the Register of Business Enterprises, and thereby are automatically registered in the Central Coordinating Register for Legal Entities.20 A foreign company operating a business in Norway that wishes to apply for a ‘.no’ domain name must also have a Norwegian postal address, as required by the Policy for ‘.no’. (c)  Syntactic Constraints and Prohibited Terms The general requirements for domain names are listed in the Policy for ‘.no’ (Section 3). NO.23 Domain names must consist of at least three and at most 63 characters, whilst the characters permitted in the domain name are: alphabetical letters (a–z), digits (0–9), hyphens, and the national letters ‘æ’, ‘ø’, and ‘å’.21 Certain domain names are reserved or prohibited and may not be registered (‘ftp’, ‘localhost’, NO.24 ‘whois’, and ‘www’ are prohibited for technical reasons, and various types of sub-domain names are reserved). Norid has drawn up a list of reserved and prohibited domain names.22

  Cf. Policy for ‘.no’ (s 4). A complete list can be found in Appendices B, C, and D.   The ‘.no’ TLD was made available for private individuals for the first time in June 2014. Before then private persons could only apply for Norid has initiated a public hearing on whether private individuals should be able to register domain names directly under the ‘.no’ TLD in addition to registrations under the ‘category’ second-level domain ‘priv.no’ category domain. The result analysis of the hearing is expected by 1 April 2014. 17  Cf. Policy for ‘.no’ (s 5.1) and Appendix E, see http://www.brreg.no/english/. 18  Cf. Policy for ‘.no’ (s 5.3) and Appendix E. 19  See the Policy for ‘.no’ (ss 4.1 and 4.2) and Appendix C. 20 Cf. the Business Enterprise Registration Act No 78, dated 1 January 1985 (Foretaksregisterloven) (s 2-1(2)). 21  All the general requirements can be found in the Policy for ‘.no’ (s 3.1–3.5). 22  See the Policy for ‘.no’ (s 3.5) and Appendix A. 15 16

669

Norway (‘.no’) NO.25 Terms that represent pornographic, defamatory, or discriminatory expressions are also pro-

hibited and will not be registered within the ‘.no’ domain. Norid has chosen not to publish any list with such terms, but will refuse to register prohibited words and expressions.

(d)  Other Restrictions on Domain Names NO.26 Each eligible entity may at any time have a maximum of up to 100 domain names under the ‘.no’

TLD.23 In addition, each entity may have up to five domain names under a relevant geographical second level, as well as five domain names under each relevant ‘category’ second-level domain.

NO.27 In order to register a domain name, the applicant must sign a statement saying that the

registration and the use of the domain name does not infringe the Policy for ‘.no’ or any third-party rights, does not violate Norwegian law, and does not create an unwarranted impression of being associated with public-sector administration or the exercise of public powers.24 This obligation is also expressed in the Policy for ‘.no’ at s 15.6. Norid does not make any enquiries in this respect.

NO.28 Domain names containing the names and titles of members of the Royal Family cannot be reg-

istered, such as in ‘det kongeligeslott’25 (the royal castle) or ‘kongharald’ 26 (King Harald). There is, however, no restriction concerning the registration of descriptive terms in the ‘.no’ Policy.

NO.29 Lastly, all domain names must be technically operative in order to obtain registration.27

(4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement (a)  Registration Procedure NO.30 Domain name registration requires the services of a registrar, with whom the applicant files its application. The applicant may choose from the list of registrars published by Norid.28 NO.31 The applicant must provide contact details, which are made publicly available in Norid’s

WHOIS database.29 Norid does not accept domain privacy services, which replace an applicant’s contact information in the WHOIS database with that of a forwarding service. It is sufficient, however, to supply corporate contact information for an organization, as long as the contact person can be reached there.

NO.32 The declaration form, referred to in para NO.27 above, must be electronically signed and

sent to the chosen registrar. If the registrar does not have their own set-up for it, Norid’s automat may be used.30 In both events, the applicant shall receive a copy of the finished declaration. If a copy is sent, the applicant must keep the original, which must be presented on

  Until 30 November 2011 the maximum number was 20.  Recent examples of complaints on the latter which has been upheld by the ADR Committee are DOK-2012-21 ‘alesundkommune.no’; DOK-2012-09 ‘tollvesenet.no’; and DOK-25/09 ‘tinglysning.no’. An opposing decision is DOK-2012-23 ‘norskhelsearkiv.no’. See also the Biltilsynet case. 25  ADR Case No DOK-23/2007 ‘detkongeligeslott.no’. 26  ADR Cases No DOK-15/2010  ‘kongharald.no’; DOK-16/2010  ‘dronningsonja.no’; and DOK-17/2010 ‘kronprinshaakon.no’. 27  Each domain must be served by a minimum of two name servers configured according to the requirements stipulated in Appendix F; available at: http://www.norid.no/regelverk/vedlegg-f.en.html. 28 The list of registrars can be found at:  https://www.norid.no/domeneregistrering/registrarliste. php?lang=en. 29  The national identity numbers of private individuals are not part of the contact information and will not be published. 30  More information about Norid’s Declaration automat can be found at: https://www.norid.no/registrar/ soknad/verktoy/egenerklaring/index.en.html. 23 24

670

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.no’ Domain Space request by Norid. A separate application, using Norid’s forms, must be submitted for each domain name. The declaration form may be found in Appendix G to the Policy for ‘.no’.31

(b)  The Domain Name Registration Agreement The applicant’s declaration together with the regulations in force at all relevant times, consti- NO.33 tute the contract between Norid and the domain holder. Applicants are obliged to familiarize themselves with the Policy for ‘.no’ and to comply with the policy in force at all times. By signing the declaration form, the applicant also agrees to participate in the ADR process, as well as to be bound by the decision of the ADR Committee. (c) Fees The fee for registration of a domain name is NOK 60. In addition, the holder is obliged to NO.34 pay an annual fee of NOK 60 for as long as the registration is maintained.32 The payment to Norid is handled by the registrar, who sends the owner an invoice for the annual fee and possible additional costs. The prices charged by individual registrars may vary, and it is advisable to check with different registrars before deciding which one to use. (5)  Transfer of Domain Names A ‘.no’ domain name may be freely transferred, provided that the organization or individual NO.35 to which it is transferred meets the Policy requirements. A transfer is regarded as a deletion followed by a new registration. The consequence is that the deadline for filing a complaint starts all over again, cf. para NO.44 below. Transfers must be performed by a registrar.

(6)  Prevention of Transfer of a Domain Name During Disputes It is not possible to transfer domain names while they are subject to ADR proceedings. The NO.36 blocking of transfer is maintained for as long as the complaint proceedings are in progress.33 Not all cases are subject to ADR proceedings, and some are brought directly before the dis- NO.37 trict court. If the holder of a trademark right wishes to block the transfer of someone else’s domain name during pending litigation, he or she has to obtain an interim court order.34

(7) Statistics Since the launch of the ‘.no’ TLD in 1983, the number of registrations has grown almost NO.38 exponentially. Today, Norid receives about 10,000 requests for registration per month. As of 10 May 2015, the number of existing domain names had reached 663,524, and the total number of registrations had risen to 1,182,244.35

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.no’ Domain Space (1)  Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding The ADR Committee (Domeneklagenemnda) is the complaints forum for registrations NO.39 under the Norwegian TLDs managed by Norid, as well as for the decisions made by Norid in 31 English version available at:  http://www.norid.no/regelverk/vedlegg-g.en.html. Note that only the Norwegian declaration is legally valid. 32  A list of Norid’s prices may be found at: http://www.norid.no/domeneregistrering/priser.en.html. 33  Cf. Domain Regulation (s 7(5)) and Appendices H, I, and J to the Policy for ‘.no’. 34  See para NO.102. All claims for suspension must be submitted in writing to Norid by email to info@ norid.no, or by post to UNINETT Norid AS, Postboks 4769 Sluppen, NO-7645 Trondheim, Norway. 35  The latest statistics can be found at: http://www.norid.no/statistikk/index.en.php. Domain names that have been deleted are not taken into account.

671

Norway (‘.no’) accordance with the Policy for ‘.no’.36 The Committee is an independent body with expertise in domain name regulation, which has been appointed to provide a rapid, low-cost and simple alternative for dispute resolution concerning domain names. Given these requirements, the Committee primarily deals with straightforward disputes. The Committee may reject a case if it finds it so complex or doubtful that it is not suitable for consideration and decision within the scope of the ADR proceedings.

(2) Statistics NO.40 Since the ADR Committee was founded in 2003, and up to May 2015, it has dealt with 481

complaints relating to domain names. The various results of the cases are as follows: –  295 were decided in favour of the complainants; –  10 were resolved by mediation; –  111 were decided in favour of the defendant; and –  65 were rejected and referred to the legal system.

NO.41 Considering that the total number of new registrations in the same period soon reached

1,000,000, the number of complaints filed is still very low; the conflicts amount to about 0.05 per cent of the total number of domain registrations.

(3)  Material Scope of the Proceeding NO.42 Any person who finds that someone has registered a domain name illicitly may bring a case

before the Committee. The framework for the ADR procedure is laid down in the Domain Regulation (ss 7 and 8). The Regulation specifies six potential situations which the complaint board is authorized to hear. These can be divided, essentially, into three different types of complaints: (i) complaints about third-party rights (complaint type A);37 (ii) complaints about Norid’s decisions (complaint type B);38 and (iii) complaints about registration in conflict with the applicant declaration form or the Domain Regulation (complaint type C) (eg Norid may file a complaint about a registration if the registrant has provided false contact details).39 In the main, these three types of complaints are heard and resolved according to the same formal procedures.

NO.43 The Committee may not make a decision in conflict with the regulations applicable to

the ‘.no’ TLD, nor enter any finding on the basis of grounds outside of those pled by the complainant.

(4)  Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding NO.44 If the complaint is received within the deadline, which normally is three years from the registra-

tion date,40 the holder of a domain name is obliged to participate in the complaint process, as well as to be bound by the Committee’s decision.41 Complaints received after the time limit for   For example, Norid’s decisions on deletion, suspension, or compulsory change of holder of a domain name.   Policy for ‘.no’ (s 17) and Appendix H. 38  Policy for ‘.no’ (s 17) and Appendix I. 39  Only Norid or the Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority may submit Complaint type C, cf. the Policy for ‘.no’ (s 17) and Appendix J. 40  The applicant or the domain holder’s complaint against a decision made by Norid in relation to the Policy for ‘.no’ must be filed within 30 calendar days from the date on which notification of the decision was received by the applicant or domain name holder. 41  See above, para NO.33. 36 37

672

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.no’ Domain Space complaints has elapsed will be rejected. As mentioned above, a transfer of a domain name shall be regarded as a new registration, and thus as the new starting point for calculating the time limit for complaints regardless of the time passed since the first registration, cf. para NO.35.

(5)  Overview of the ADR Procedure (a)  Legal Framework The Committee is given its mandate by Norid, and the Domain Regulation. The Domain NO.45 Regulation and the Policy for ‘.no’ form the basis of the Committee’s decisions in all types of complaints, but in cases involving third-party rights, Norwegian law, especially the Trademarks Act and the Marketing Control Act, will also be highly relevant to the outcome and reasoning in the decision. (b)  ADR Complaint All complaints must be written in Norwegian and submitted to:

NO.46

–  Norid, at [email protected]; and – Domeneklagenemnda c/o UNINETT Norid AS, Postboks 4769 Sluppen, NO-7645 Trondheim, Norway. The correct complaint form must be used when submitting a case for consideration. It may NO.47 be completed as a Word document, according to the guidelines in the Policy for ‘.no’. There is a different form for each of the three types of complaints (type A, B, and C).42 A complaint cannot include more than one domain name. The information that must be included in complaint type A and B is described in Appendices NO.48 H and I to the Policy for ‘.no’. In addition, Norid has prepared filing guidelines for complaints, which serve as a checklist of the key elements.43 Due to the language requirements, these lists and filing guidelines are only available in Norwegian. If the complaint does not fulfil the formal requirements, Norid shall inform the complainant. NO.49 If the complainant does not send a new and corrected complaint within three working days after receiving the notice from Norid, the complaint will be rejected. A receipt for payment of the complaint fee must be sent to Norid within ten working days NO.50 after Norid has received the complaint.44

(c)  ADR Response The respondent is not obliged to respond to the complaint, but it is recommended. The NO.51 response must be submitted on Norid’s form and sent to Norid within 20 working days after the date on which the holder received the complaint.45 Apart from the respondent’s contact information, the response should include the holder’s NO.52 arguments rejecting the complainant’s claim (maximum 2,000 words) and a declaration stating that the information provided in the response is correct and that the domain name has not been registered in bad faith. Guidelines on how to respond to a complaint can be found on Norid’s web page (only available in Norwegian, see above at para NO.48).46

  Cf. Policy for ‘.no’ (s 17); available in English at: http://www.norid.no/navnepolitikk.en.html#link17.  See http://www.norid.no/domenekonflikter/klage.html. 44  See details about the costs at para NO.58. 45  The Response form can be found at: http://www.norid.no/regelverk/skjema-vedlegg_h-abonnent.html. 46 See http://www.norid.no/domenekonflikter/tilsvar.html. 42 43

673

Norway (‘.no’) NO.53 If the response does not fulfil the formal requirements, Norid shall inform the holder of any

defects. The holder will then be given three working days to provide Norid with a corrected response, before the case documents are forwarded to the ADR Committee.

(d) Procedural Issues NO.54 Although lawyers represent most complainants, the system is sufficiently simple to enable use

by persons without legal qualifications.

NO.55 The complainant carries the burden of proof, and must provide evidence to substantiate his

or her claim. More detailed information is provided below (para NO.65).

NO.56 As a general rule, ADR proceedings before the Committee are conducted in writing. The

parties may, however, be requested to appear before the Committee if this is found to be necessary. Meetings involving attendance in person require the complainant’s consent.

(6)  Role of the ADR Committee and its Members NO.57 The ADR Committee shall consist of at least nine members, who are appointed by Norid. The

majority of the members and its chair shall be lawyers. Three members shall participate in the adjunction of each case, and are chosen by the Chair of the Committee based on a rotation system. Neither the complainant nor the respondent may participate in the election of the members.47

(7) Costs NO.58 The fee for filing a complaint is four times the court fee,48 which in 2015 is NOK 3,440. If

the Committee determines that an in-person hearing is necessary, the complainant must pay an additional fee of three to six times the court fee. If the case is won, the respondent must reimburse the complainant’s fees.

(8)  Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings NO.59 The ADR settlement proceedings are not intended to restrict the jurisdiction of the ordinary

courts. Both parties are therefore entitled to bring the dispute before the ordinary court at any time during an ADR proceeding, and also after the conclusion of the case. If court proceedings are commenced before or during ADR proceedings, both parties have a duty to inform Norid immediately.49 The case will then be stayed in anticipation of a final and legally enforceable court decision, and resumed only if no final judgment is given or no court settlement is reached.

(9)  ADR Committee Decision NO.60 For complaints regarding infringement of third-party rights (type A) the Committee is

restricted to deciding whether the domain name shall be deleted or transferred to the complainant. Decisions about compensation or coverage of legal costs for the parties fall outside the mandate of the Committee.50 The Committee cannot make decisions that entail the loss of rights for third parties that not are involved in the case. When the complaint is against a decision made by Norid (type B), the Committee may make a new decision.51

47  Under the UDRP, the complaint shall designate whether the complainant wishes to have the dispute decided by a single-member or a three-member Panel and, in the event a complainant elects a three-member Panel, it shall provide the names and contact details of three candidates to serve as one of the Panellists, cf. the Rules for UDRP (ss 3(b)(iv) and 5(b)(iv)). 48  The court fee is NOK 860 (2015). 49  Cf. Appendices H (s 2.8), I (s 2.8), and J (s 2.7) of the Policy for ‘.no’. 50  Cf. Policy for ‘.no’ (s 17.5). 51  See further at: http://www.norid.no/domenekonflikter/domeneklagenemnda/typer_vedtak.en.html.

674

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.no’ Domain Space The processing time varies depending on the type of complaint; a list of time limits can be NO.61 found in Section 3 of each of the Appendices (H, I, and J) to the Policy for ‘.no’. It normally takes two to three months to get a decision in a dispute under complaint type A. The Committee’s decision is final and cannot be appealed. Both parties, however, may initi- NO.62 ate court proceedings before, during or after the ADR proceedings, cf. para NO.59 above. Norid is obliged to implement the Committee’s decision within seven working days from the NO.63 date on which it was rendered.52 All decisions of the Committee are published on Norid’s web page and in Lovdata’s informa- NO.64 tion system ‘Lovdata Online’.53 Exceptions can be made where the decision contains information that should be kept confidential for competitive reasons.54 The party who wishes such information to be excluded from public access must submit a request for secrecy. It is up to the Committee to decide whether the request shall be granted.

(10)  ADR Decision Criteria and Application by ADR Committee For an ADR complaint to succeed, the complainant must establish that the following two NO.65 cumulative criteria are met: (i) the disputed domain name is identical to or can be confused with a name or a mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. The Committee will first consider whether the complainant holds rights to the domain name NO.66 in question, and whether the dispute can be resolved on the basis of the documentation that has been submitted. The non-fulfilment of any of these requirements will lead to dismissal of the complaint. As a main rule, the complainant must have a right to the name in Norway. This criterion is met if the right is based on a Norwegian trademark registration. However, the ADR committee has assumed that rights in other countries, for example, the right to a Community Trade Mark (CTM), may be sufficient if the complainant can prove that the registrant should have been aware of this right.55 If the proceedings continue, the next question is whether the domain name holder has NO.67 registered or used the name in bad faith. The Policy for ‘.no’ defines ‘bad faith’, which is demonstrable in cases where the registrant infringes the complainant’s rights either knowingly or through gross negligence.56 In cases where the domain name is confusable with the complainant’s name or their public powers, or would mislead people into believing that it is connected to the complainant or the complainant’s public powers, the bad faith requirement will automatically be considered satisfied. If the domain name was registered in good faith but later transferred to the registrant, the question is whether the transfer was done in bad faith. If the ADR Committee finds that both the criteria are met, it upholds the complaint and NO.68 the domain name is transferred or deleted according to the complainant’s request. Foreign companies which request a transfer, but which do not meet the requirements in the Policy

  Cf. the Domain Regulation (s 7(4)).   Lovdata Online is an official website containing legal information (laws, regulations, court verdicts, etc.). 54  Cf. the Domain Regulation (s 7(9)). 55  See ADR Cases No DOK-2008-7 ‘promotech.no’; and DOK-2012-53 ‘igmarkets.no’. Opposing decisions are DOK-2010-18 ‘lycamobile.no’; and DOK-2008-61 ‘gaydar.no’ in which foreign registered trademarks and domain names not were sufficient to establish a right to the name in Norway. 56  See Appendix H (s 1.2.1(b)) to the Policy for ‘.no’ for examples of relevant factors. 52 53

675

Norway (‘.no’) for ‘.no’, will have to designate a company in Norway to which the domain name may be transferred, see paras NO.22 and NO.35.57

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (1)  Abusive Registration of Domain Names (Cybersquatting) NO.69 Many owners of protected signs have been faced with the registration of domain names identical

or confusingly similar to their protected signs, without there being any use of the domain name.

NO.70 In such cases, the Trademarks Act or the Business Name Act cannot be invoked against the

domain name registrant, as an infringement under these Acts requires the sign in question to be used for goods/services or as the name of a business.58 The registration may, however, represent a violation of the protection accorded to the rights holder under the Marketing Control Act.

NO.71 In determining whether an act is contrary to ‘good business practice’ according to the

Marketing Control Act (s 25), a wide range of factors may be relevant, amongst others whether or not the registration of the domain name was done in bad faith. In cases where a trademark has been registered as a domain name, however, it can usually be concluded that the registration constitutes a violation if the registrant was or should have been aware of the protected sign and the purpose of the registrant was either to sell the domain name to the rights holder or to block the rights holder from using the domain name. In the Bailine case the court found that the registration of the domain names ‘bailine.as’ and ‘bailine.co.uk’ constituted a violation of the Marketing Control Act, because the registrant had tried to sell the domain names to the rights holder. In the ‘ellevilledager.no’ case, the court found that the defendant’s registration of the domain name was done in bad faith since it could be assumed that the purpose was to sell the domain name to the plaintiff.

NO.72 If the sign in question is well known and the registrant cannot prove any legitimate interests in

the sign, it is usually clear that the domain name was registered in violation of the Marketing Control Act (s 25). For less well-known signs, the outcome may be more uncertain.

NO.73 For claims of transfer or cancellation of domain names with legal basis in the Marketing

Control Act, see para NO.94.

(2)  Infringement of Trademarks (a)  Risk of Confusion NO.74 A trademark is only infringed by the use of a domain name if the use of the domain name

causes a likelihood of confusion. The requirement of confusing similarity is shown where more than an insignificant section of the potential customers within a relevant business sector may be likely to believe that the products or services have the same commercial origin or that there is another commercial link (inter alia a licence agreement) between them.59

NO.75 The evaluation of likelihood of confusion is an overall comparison of the similarity of the

signs and the similarity of the goods/services.60 Consequently, the use of a domain name will normally only infringe a trademark right if the domain name is used in relation to goods/

57  This was set as a precondition for the transfer of the domain name ‘igmarkets.no’ in which case the complainant was an English company. 58  Cf. the Ladbroke case and the ‘ellevilledager.no’ case. 59  Cf. Birger Stuevold Lassen, Oversikt over norsk varemerkerett (Overview of Norwegian Trademark Law), Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 1997 p 263. 60  See the Trademarks Act (s 4(1)(b)).

676

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws services that are similar to those for which the trademark is protected. The following discussion highlights some of the key aspects of these types of conflicts. If a domain name is identical to a trademark and the website is used for identical or similar NO.76 goods/services for which the trademark is protected, it can in general be concluded that the domain name infringes the rights of the trademark holder.61 If the trademark has a particular degree of distinctiveness it will normally also be an infringement even if the trademark is combined with a generic or nonsense prefix or suffix, and, in the case of well-known and distinctive trademarks, even if the domain name is combined with a distinctive sign. In case law, the domain name ‘volvoimport.no’ has been found to infringe the registered trademark ‘VOLVO’, and ‘wwwsol.no’ has been found to infringe the trademark ‘S-OL’. The risk of misspelling will be taken into account when considering the likelihood of confusion requirement. In this context, however, a disclaimer on the website, stating that there is no commercial link between the trademark owner and the website, cannot be taken into consideration.62 In cases where there are more significant differences between the domain name and the trade- NO.77 mark a more comprehensive evaluation must be conducted, taking into account the degree of similarity between the goods/services and the degree of similarity between the signs (see the relevant circumstances referred to above). In such cases additional circumstances may be considered, including inter alia the overall impression of the website, whether the website contains advertisements or sells the actual goods/services, or whether it only contains links to the goods/services.

(b)  Well-known Trademarks For well-known trademarks, the Trademarks Act (s 4(2)), establishes an exception to the NO.78 usual requirement of similarity of goods/services, and thus an exception to the requirement of likelihood of confusion, as referred in para NO.07 above.63 Protection under the so-called Kodak rule may only obtained where: –  the trademark is well-known in a substantial part of Norway, and –  the use of the opposing sign: • creates a risk of association64 with the well-known trademark amongst the average consumers; and •  takes ‘unfair advantage of ’ or is ‘detrimental to the distinctiveness or reputation of the well-known trademark’. For famous trademarks the limited scope of the Kodak doctrine will usually not cause any NO.79 problems for the trademark owner, as a risk of association is a likely and easily demonstrable result where an identical or similar sign is later adopted by a third-party registrant and used as a domain name. The decision by the District Court in the ‘google.no’ case, however, which allowed the defendant to use the domain name ‘google.no’ for the selling of sunglasses, illustrates that even famous trademarks may be used by others if the use does not take unfair advantage of the well-known marks’ reputation.

(c)  Comparison of ADR v Court Action in Cases Involving the Infringement of Trademarks The ADR procedure is clearly a cheap and simple alternative compared to ordinary court NO.80 proceedings. The statistics referred to in para NO.40 above show that the Committee rules in favour of the complainant in a majority of the cases. This suggests that ADR proceedings

  Cf. Lassen (1997) (above n 59) p 270.   Unless both parties have a legitimate interest in the sign. 63 Cf. Birger Stuevold Lassen and Are Stenvik, Kjennetegnsrett (Trademark Law), Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 2011 p 363. 64 Ibid., p 371. 61 62

677

Norway (‘.no’) are effective as well. It is also beneficial that, during ADR proceedings, Norid automatically blocks transfer of the domain name, thereby preventing the domain name holder from transferring the domain. NO.81 The ADR proceedings are, however, designed and intended for more clear-cut cases, which

is why the ADR Committee, for legal or practical reasons, rejects cases which require more thorough review. Considering that the ADR proceedings are limited, it may also be difficult for the complainant to substantiate claims for unregistered trademark rights established by use, or the existence of bad faith. Moreover, whereas the court may find that the use of a domain name constitutes an infringement of a trademark right regardless of whether the use was undertaken in bad faith, the ADR Committee will be forced to dismiss the case if bad faith cannot be proven.

(3)  Infringement of Personal Names NO.82 According to the Business Name Act, a company name or a secondary business sign can-

not include a sign that may be understood as another person’s name, artist’s name, and so on. Thus, if a domain name is being used as a company name or a secondary business sign, it may constitute an infringement of a personal name according to the Business Name Act. It should be noted that a personal name is only protected when more than 200 persons have it as their family name.65

NO.83 A personal name may also be protected under the Trademarks Act (s 1). If a person right-

fully uses his personal name in the course of trade, another person cannot commence using this name for his goods/services if the signs may be confused in the ordinary course of trade. A person is not prohibited, however, from using his own personal name, name of business, or address ‘in the course of trade in accordance with fair trade practice’ (s 5(2)). Consequently, the protection of personal names against other persons with a legitimate interest in the name is more limited than the regular scope of protection under the Trademarks Act.

NO.84 As opposed to the Business Name Act, the wording of the Trademarks Act does not seem to

protect personal names that have not been used in the course of trade. It is the general view, however, that a personal name is protected against use as a sign for goods/services (including as a domain name) even where the rightful owner of the name has not used his name in the course of trade.

NO.85 Personal names may also be protected under the Personal Data Act No 31, dated 14

April 2000.

(4)  Infringement of Names of Cities and Other Public Law Corporations NO.86 Apart from geographical indications for wine and spirits, there are no specific legal regula-

tions prohibiting the use of a city name as a sign for goods/services or other uses, such as a domain name. Sub-domains comprising names of towns (‘townname.no’) with over 5,000 inhabitants, however, are reserved for legal persons based in that town.66

NO.87 If a domain name consisting of the name of a local governmental body/agency is registered

and used by an entity without connection to this body/agency, the legal basis for prohibiting the use can in most cases be found in the Marketing Control Act, s 26, which forbids misleading business methods, or s 25, which forbids business conduct in breach of honest

  Cf. The Personal Names Act No 19 dated 7 June 2002 (s 3(1) and (2)) (Navneloven).   Cf. para NO.17.

65 66

678

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws business practice. Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement is an important guide for the interpretation of these provisions. The use of the name of a public body as a domain name may violate the Trademarks Act NO.88 and the Marketing Control Act. Similarly, in a case under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), it was held that the domain name ‘skatteetaten.com’ was to be transferred from the registrant to the Norwegian Directorate of Taxes.67 The term ‘skatteetaten’ is, in Norway, a well-known reference to the tax authorities. The Panel found that the term had acquired protection as a trademark in Norway through use.

(5)  Infringement of Titles Titles of publications may enjoy protection under the following statutes:

NO.89

(a) Copyright Act (ss 2 and 46);68 (b) Trademarks Act (ss 3 and 4) and Business Name Act (s 3-1); or (c) Marketing Control Act (ss 25, 26 and 30). With regard to point (a), a title may in itself be considered to be a work and hence protected NO.90 under the Copyright Act, but very few titles fulfil the requirements for a work. Should a title enjoy protection as a work, however, the use of an identical or very similar domain name, without the author’s permission, is likely to be an infringement. Even though a title may not enjoy protection as a copyrighted work, some titles do enjoy NO.91 protection under the Copyright Act, s 46. The section reads as follows: A literary, scientific or artistic work shall not be made available to the public under a title, pseudonym, mark or symbol that is likely to cause confusion with a previously issued work or its author.

Thus, the prohibition prevents the publication of a new work utilizing a title which is likely NO.92 to cause confusion with a previously issued work. Usually a domain name cannot be regarded as the title of a work, but it may in some instances. In a decision by the ADR Committee concerning the domain name ‘rodsno.no’, the Committee found that the title of the Norwegian book ‘RØD SNØ’ was protected under the Copyright Act (s 46) and that the defendant had deliberately exploited the association to the complainant’s title. Thus, the domain name had been used to take unfair advantage of the complainant’s rights.69 Despite the wording of the Copyright Act (s 46), only titles that are to a certain extent unique enjoy protection under this section. Concerning point (b), the title of a publication may also be registered as a trademark, or NO.93 obtain protection as a trademark or as a secondary business name through use. On this point, reference is made to the comments on the protection of trademarks and secondary business names, see paras NO.03 ff. With regard to (c), the use of a title as a domain name may also constitute an infringement of NO.94 the Marketing Control Act, s 25 (conduct in breach of honest business practices), s 26 (unfair and misleading business methods) or s 30 (imitation of another’s marks or identification). The decision whether a title is infringed by a domain name will mainly depend on how well known the title is, the similarity between the title and the domain name, and the design of the website.   WIPO Case No D2000-1314 ‘skatteetaten.no’.   The Copyright Act No 2 dated 12 May 1961 (Åndsverkloven). 69  ADR Case No DOK-2008-38 ‘rodsno.no’; cf. also Case No DOK-2008-39 ‘redsnow.no’, concerning a similar domain name, only translated to English. 67 68

679

Norway (‘.no’) (6)  Court Procedure and Remedies (a)  Injunctions to Prevent Further Infringements NO.95 If the court finds that the use of a domain name constitutes trademark infringement or another breach of intellectual property rights, it can issue an injunction restraining the use or transfer of the domain name. In the ‘volvoimport.no’ case, and the Carlsberg and the Playstation2 cases, the courts ordered the domain name holders to refrain from using the domain name. (b)  Cancellation/Transfer of Domain Names NO.96 Under the provisions of the Trademark Act (s 59(2)), the court may order the infringing party to delete or assign to the rights holder any domain names used in contravention of the rights holder’s trademark. NO.97 Section 5-2 of the Business Names Act also provides a legal basis for such claims, stating

that: ‘the court may … take those measures necessary to prevent continued use of the business name in an unchanged form’.

NO.98 According to recent case law, it may not be possible to secure the transfer of a domain name

solely on the basis of the Marketing Control Act.70 A cancellation claim may, however, be granted (cf. the ‘nordlandsposten.no’ case, where the court refused to transfer the domain name, but upheld the alternative claim of cancellation).

(c) Damages NO.99 An infringement of industrial property rights may give the rights holder a claim for damages

for financial loss if the infringement was committed intentionally or negligently. Reasonable damages may be granted at the discretion of the court even where the use was undertaken in good faith. The Trademarks Act (s 58) grants the injured party a claim to a reasonable licence fee for the use of the trademark, in addition to any further losses caused by the use.

NO.100 In three cases, injured parties have been granted reasonable licence fees and additional dam-

ages, for a total amount ranging from NOK 50,000 to NOK 125,000.71

NO.101 It is difficult to quantify the rights owner’s loss when a trademark is used as a domain name,

and it may also be difficult to find a basis for a licence fee. It can usually be assumed, however, that the use of a protected sign as a domain name causes damage at least through dilution of the protected sign. Norwegian judicial decisions may award damages, even though the amount cannot be quantified, if it is probable that the infringement has caused damage. The amount of compensation, as the above cases show, is then estimated at the court’s discretion.

(d)  Interim Injunctions NO.102 It usually takes six months from the filing of a writ of summons with the court until an ordinary hearing is held, sometimes even longer. The court may, however, impose an interim measure prohibiting the use of the sign until a final and binding judgment has been rendered.72 These proceedings usually take place within a day or two if considered urgent, and a decision is normally made between one and two weeks from the filing of a request for an injunction.

70  Cf. the Appeal Court’s obiter dictum in the Champagneria case; see also the ‘nordlandsposten.no’ case where the court held that transfer can only be granted in cases where the domain name infringes an exclusive right, such as a trademark right. The opposite view was held in the Ladbroke and ‘ellevilledager.no’ cases, the latter in which the court granted transfer based on its finding that the mere registration was illegal. 71  See the Playstation2, the Carlsberg and the ‘wwwsol.no’ cases. 72  Enforcement cases are in most districts handled by the ordinary court of first instance, according to special regulations.

680

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name An interim injunction against the domain name will usually prohibit the domain name holder NO.103 from using, selling, or otherwise transferring the domain. Damages cannot be awarded at this stage, since the decision is preliminary. An interim injunction can only be granted if the plaintiff proves that he has a claim against NO.104 the registrant (for instance, based on infringement through the use of the domain name). In addition, one of the following criteria must be fulfiled: (i) the injunction is necessary because the defendant’s behaviour indicates that resolution of the conflict will otherwise be substantially more difficult; or (ii) it is necessary in order to prevent substantial damage or inconvenience.73

(e) Costs The cost of court proceedings for intellectual property rights conflicts relating to signs amount, NO.105 as a rule, to at least NOK 75,000 for each party to the litigation, but could also be considerably higher depending on the complexity of the dispute. According to the Norwegian Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) No 90 dated 17 June 2005 (Tvisteloven), the costs are generally to be borne in full by the losing party. It is not certain, however, even where a case is won that the losing party will be ordered, or be in a financial position, to pay.

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name The mere registration of a domain name does not itself give the holder any legal rights to the NO.106 name.74 As pointed out above, however, a sign may obtain protection as a trademark or as a secondary business sign through use, see para NO.04. When assessing whether a trademark or a secondary business name has been established by NO.107 use, all types of use are relevant as evidence, including use on the Internet. The number of hits on the website may be important evidence. In the Google case, the District Court found that the number of Norwegian search queries per day (about 100,000) made it reasonable to assume that the search engine was fairly well known among Norwegian Internet users at that time. Based on this evidence, the court determined that the mark ‘GOOGLE’ might be so well-known that it could be considered to be established in Norway. The domain name ‘rasfare.no’ is an example of a domain name that may have become estab- NO.108 lished as a trademark through use in the Oslo area. The domain name ‘rasfare.no’ (‘danger-oflandslide.no’) has been marketed during several winters in the streets of Oslo, on streamers on buildings where there is a danger of snow or ice falling from the roof, or where roof snow is being cleared.75 In many cases, however, the use of the domain name must be combined with other types of use in order to obtain protection as a trademark or a secondary business name. It is important to note that a trademark or a secondary business name must be distinctive. Such NO.109 distinctiveness may be obtained through use. A descriptive term that has acquired a secondary meaning through use may therefore be protected as a trademark or a secondary business sign.76   Cf. s 34-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 2005.   This is clearly stated in the Policy for ‘.no’ (s 14.2). 75 See Lang-Ree, p 4, to be found at: http://www.norid.no/domenekonflikter/domeneklagenemnda/ en-NIR-varemerkerett-og-domenenavn.pdf. 76  A Supreme Court decision published in Rt. 2005 p 1601 (Case No 2005/539) concerning the distinctiveness of the mark ‘Gule Sider’ (‘yellow pages’) for yellow pages, illustrates that it takes a lot to establish distinctiveness by use. 73 74

681

Norway (‘.no’)

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers NO.110 According to s 15.1 of the Policy for ‘.no’, the domain holder shall bear the sole responsibil-

ity, including criminal liability and liability for damages, for consequences of the registration and use of the domain name. The applicant commits to this responsibility by signing the applicant’s declaration form (see para NO.33).

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property (1)  Assignment and Licensing of Domain Names NO.111 A domain name is to be regarded as the property of the registrant. Consequently, the reg-

istrant is entitled to transfer or lease the domain name to another entity. A transfer is to be regarded as a deletion followed by a new registration. The domain name licence contract requires no particular formalities.

NO.112 A contractual lien cannot be created on a domain name (see the Mortgage Act No 2, dated

8 February 1980 (s 1-2(2)), which states that a contractual lien can only be validly created if it is ‘authorized by this Act or by another statute’). Section 3-4 of the Mortgage Act includes the right to place liens on trademarks, but cannot be interpreted so as to include domain names.77

(2)  Domain Names in Insolvency Proceedings NO.113 According to the Recovery Act No 59, dated 8 June 1984, s 2-2, creditors are, unless ordered

otherwise, entitled to seek seizure of any property which belongs to the debtor at the time of attachment and which can be sold, leased, or otherwise converted into money. This provision generally covers domain names, which can be the subject of execution or be seized as part of the bankruptcy estate.78 The viewing of a domain name as an ‘object’ was confirmed in a decision given by the Supreme Court in 2009, in a case regarding confiscation under the Criminal Procedure Act.79

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (1) Introduction NO.114 The issues related to international conflicts regarding domain names have not been the subject of

any court decisions in Norway. The ‘Varemerkeutredningen II’ report,80 however, commented on the report of the Fifth Session of the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications,81 which formed the basis for the Joint Recommendation

77  Cf. Torjus Torjusen, Beslag i domenenavn (Execution of domain names), Masters Thesis, University of Oslo, 2000, p 40 and Tonje Røste Gulliksen, Internet domain names and trademarks, CompLex 2/01, p 25. 78  Cf. Torjusen, (above n 77) pp 43 and 45, Gulliksen, (above n 77) p 25 and Knut Rønningsbakk, Salg av domener ved konkurs (Sale of domains during bankruptcy), Lov&Data 2003/73, p 13. 79  Cf. The Supreme Court decision, dated 26 August 2009 (Case No 2009/1396). 80  See NOU 2001:8 (Norwegian Official Gazette) n 1. 81  Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications, Fifth Session, Geneva, 11–15 September 2000.

682

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law concerning the Protection of Marks and other Intellectual Property Rights in Signs on the Internet, as follows: Varemerkeutredningen II finds that the principles reviewed above [the Standing Committee report] are a suitable starting point in relation to how holders of rights to signs and users of signs on the Internet should act.

Against this background, it could be assumed that the Joint Recommendations might provide guidance for resolving disputes with an international reference in Norway. According to Article 2 of the Joint Recommendation, a sign used on the Internet shall constitute NO.115 use in Norway ‘only if the use has a commercial effect’ in Norway.

(2)  International Jurisdiction The jurisdiction of Norwegian courts is regulated by the CCP. The CCP applies even if the par- NO.116 ties are persons with a place of residence outside Norway. Pursuant to s 1-2 of the Code, however, its application is subject to the restrictions of international law. Norway has ratified the Lugano Convention,82 which regulates international jurisdiction, recog- NO.117 nition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.83 The general legal venue follows from Article 2; subject to the provisions of the Convention, ‘persons domiciled in a Contracting State shall, … be sued in the courts of the state’. Thus, if no other state has exclusive jurisdiction, a person domiciled in Norway can always be sued in Norway. Since a Norwegian domain only can be owned by Norwegian citizens or entities with a Norwegian postal address, jurisdiction relating to the ‘.no’ TLD will, naturally, lie with the Norwegian courts.84 Outside the scope of the Lugano Convention, the question of jurisdiction is governed by NO.118 s 4-3 of the CCP, which states that ‘disputes in international matters may only be brought before the Norwegian courts if the facts of the case have a sufficiently strong connection to Norway’. In matters regarding intellectual property rights (except the validity of registered rights), NO.119 neither Norwegian internal law nor the provisions of the Lugano Convention include any specific clauses. A claim of tort based on an infringement of industrial property rights may, however, be brought before Norwegian courts according to Article 5(3) of the Lugano Convention, which states that a person domiciled in a Contracting State may be sued ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasidelict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred’.85 As a website can technically be accessed worldwide, the question arises whether the mere NO.120 possibility of access should be sufficient to establish jurisdiction in Norway. In relation to the publication of copyrighted material on the Internet, ‘Wagle and Ødegaard’86 state that in their opinion the provision in s 5-5(3)87 can only establish jurisdiction in Norway if the material in question is directed towards the Norwegian market. In the author’s opinion, a similar approach must be taken in order to decide whether a claim for damages based on an infringement of industrial property rights falls within the jurisdiction of Norwegian courts 82 Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters dated 30 October 2007, OJ L339/3. 83  Cf. CCP (s 4-8). 84  Cf. para NO.18. 85  Section 4-5(3) of the Norwegian CCP has an identical provision. 86  Cf. Anders Wagle and Magnus Ødegaard Jr, Opphavsrett i en digital verden (Copyright in a digital world) (Cappelen Akademisk Forlag, Oslo 1997) p 454. 87  Section 5(3) is similar to s 29 of the previous CCP (Tvistemålsloven).

683

Norway (‘.no’) under the CCP or Article 5(3) of the Lugano Convention. This decision will depend on whether the use of the sign ‘has a commercial effect’ in Norway and on the criteria in Article 3 of the Joint Recommendation. NO.121 In domain name disputes, however, rights holders usually focus on claims for injunctions, or

the cancellation/transfer of the domain name. If such remedies are sought, the rights holder must bring the case before a competent court in the state where the registrant is domiciled.

(3)  Choice of Law NO.122 There is no specific Norwegian legislation or case law related to choice of law for cases based

on the infringement of industrial property rights. In areas where there are no choice of law provisions, it is up to the court to make an overall assessment of the country most closely connected with the case.88 In many cases, although not in industrial property cases, the so-called Irma-Mignon formula has been invoked. The formula is based on a judgment by the Norwegian Supreme Court, which held: ‘a natural basis for the assessment is that any case should preferably be considered by the law in the country to which the case has its strongest connection or is most closely related’.89

NO.123 Recently, however, the Norwegian Supreme Court has abandoned the Irma-Mignon formula

as a main rule for the choice of law.90 In order to create predictability, the court shall now strive to clear the way for more permanent rules, recognized in practice and doctrine in other areas of jurisdiction (such as the law of the place where the damage were committed for tort (lex loci delicti) and the law of the place where property is situated (lex rei sitae)).91 The IrmaMignon formula is still applicable, however, in certain areas without recognized rules on the choice of law.

NO.124 There are a number of arguments in favour of applying the Irma-Mignon formula in domain

name disputes,92 and such application could also have recourse to the criteria set out in Article 3 of the Joint Recommendation.

NO.125 If a Norwegian court in a domain name dispute determines that it is competent on the basis

of the special jurisdiction in tort, it can be assumed that in most cases the court would also conclude that Norwegian law is applicable. It is of course possible, however, that the connection to another country would be stronger.

NO.126 The decision whether, and under what conditions, a case will be subject to the law of the

defendant’s jurisdiction will ultimately depend on the specific circumstances. In any event, if the defendant’s commercial activity, and in particular the business conducted on the website, is mainly directed towards the Norwegian market,93 and if the language on the website is Norwegian,94 it will usually be appropriate to conclude that Norwegian law is applicable.

88  Cf. Hans Petter Lundgaard Gaarders, Innføring i internasjonal privatrett (Introduction to international private law), Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 2000 p 92. 89  The case is published in Rt. 1923 II p 58. 90  Cf. the ‘Bookseller in Kabul’ case, published in Rt. 2009 p 1537. 91  Giuditta Cordero Moss, Domskommentar—En mer moderne og systematisk rettspraksis om lovvalg etter Bokhandleren i Kabul-dommen (A more modern and systematic case law concerning choice of law after the ‘Book seller in Kabul’-case), Tidsskrift for rettsvitenskap 2012, pp 819–42. 92  Cf. Wagle and Ødegaard (above n 88) p 457, concerning the publication of copyrighted material on the Internet. 93  Cf. Art 3(b) of the Joint Recommendation. 94  Cf. Art 3(d)(iv) of the Joint Recommendation.

684

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (4)  Substantive Law Issues The mere fact that a website can be accessed in a territory cannot be sufficient to constitute NO.127 an infringement of an industrial property right. Industrial property rights in signs are subject to territorial limitations. Placing too much emphasis on the technical possibilities of the Internet could easily lead to an unwarranted broadening of the scope of protected signs, which may impinge upon the rights of mark holders in other territories. In Norway, as in most other countries, an important reason for granting trademark rights NO.128 is to prevent others from unreasonably gaining commercial benefit from another’s efforts. This intention should be an important guideline when applying traditional trademark law to Internet-related issues. While in general trademark law the intent to infringe is not a necessary ingredient for a find- NO.129 ing of infringement, it is an important consideration in relation to the use of signs on the Internet. The legitimate interests of the alleged infringer in the disputed sign, and the measures taken to prevent commercial effect in a specific territory (ie by including a disclaimer on the website), should also be taken into account. Consequently, the courts must take a practical approach when deciding whether the use of NO.130 a sign as a domain name, or in other ways, on the Internet constitutes an infringement in the territory in question. The criteria in Article 3 of the Joint Recommendation seem to be a suitable starting point in this respect.

(5)  Enforcement Concerns According to Norwegian law an industrial property right in a sign only confers the right to NO.131 prohibit infringing use within Norwegian territory. Consequently, court decisions based on Norwegian law cannot prohibit the use of a sign in a territory outside Norway. In order to be able to take appropriate measures against an infringer on the Internet, however, a court decision in one country must in some cases be permitted to have an effect outside the territory, for instance by cancellation or transfer of the domain name. According to Article 33 of the Lugano Convention, a judgment by a contracting state shall, NO.132 as a general rule, be recognized in another contracting state without any special procedure required. Furthermore a judgment shall be enforceable in another state bound by the convention when it, on the application of any interested party, has been declared enforceable there, cf. Article 38(1). Outside the scope of the Lugano Convention, the question of enforceability in a foreign state NO.133 will depend on the internal laws of the other state.

685

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (‘.cn’) Lian Yunze and Liu Yuping

I. Overview of the National System of Trademarks, Industrial Property Rights, and Domain Names 

(1) Types of Protected Intellectual Property Rights  (2) Development of Domain Name Law

(7) Role of the Administrative Panel  CN.46 (8) Costs  CN.47 (9) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings  CN.49 (10) ADR Decision  CN.52 (11) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by Administrative Panel  CN.55 IV. Court Litigation and National Laws  CN.76 (1) Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation  CN.76 (2) Infringement of Trademarks and Unfair Competition  CN.79 (3) Infringement of Personal Names, Names of Cities, and Other Public Law Corporations  CN.97 (4) Infringement of Titles CN.102 (5) Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available CN.103

CN.01 CN.01 CN.08

II. The ccTLD (‘.cn’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

CN.10 (1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry  CN.10 (2) The Structure of the Name Space CN.15 (3) Registration Restrictions  CN.18 (4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement  CN.23 (5) Transfer of Domain Names  CN.25 (6) Locking of the Domain Name During an ADR or Court Proceeding  CN.29 (7) Statistics  CN.30

V. Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights Using a Domain Name VI. Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law 

III. ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.cn’ Domain Space 

CN.31 (1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding  CN.35 (2) Statistics  CN.38 (3) Material Scope of the Proceeding CN.39 (4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding through the Registration Agreement  CN.40 (5) Overview of the ADR Procedure  CN.41 (6) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider  CN.45

(1) International Jurisdiction (2) Choice of Law

CN.114

CN.116 CN.121 CN.122 CN.122 CN.124

Links Industrial Property Rights and the Internet Trademark Office State Administration of Industry and Commerce (Chinese/English): http:// www1.cnnic.cn/ State Intellectual Property Office of China (SIPO) with all major industrial property right legislation (Chinese/English): http://www.sipo.gov.cn Ministry of Information Industry MII (Chinese/English): http://www.mii.gov.cn China Internet Network Information Centre CNNIC (Chinese/English):  http://www. cnnic.cn Ministry of Commerce (Mofcom) (English): http://english.mofcom.gov.cn

687

People’s Republic of China (‘.cn’) Courts Supreme People’s Court of the PRC with explanations on the court system, background information and case law (only Chinese): http://www.court.gov.cn Higher People’s Court of Beijing City (only Chinese): http://www.bjgf.gov.cn Higher People’s Court of Shanghai (only Chinese): http://www.hshfy.sh.cn Alternative Dispute Resolution for “.cn” and “.com.cn” Dispute Resolution Provider China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission CIETAC (Chinese/ English): http://www.cietac.org.cn Alternative Dispute Resolution for “.hk” and “.com.hk” Dispute Resolution Provider Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC): http://www.hkiac.org/ Policy and Rules CNNIC Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (CNDRP): http://www.cnnic.cn/html/ Dir/2003/11/20/1380.htm Rules for CNNIC Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (CNDRP Rules): http://www. cnnic.cn/html/Dir/2003/11/27/1510.htm Supplemental Rules to CNNIC Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (Supplemental Rules): http://dndrc.cietac.org/static/english/engfrmain.html General Information on Chinese law Links and references for searches on the Chinese web (Chinese/English): http://ls.wustl.edu/ Chinalaw/ Xinhua News Agency, one of the official party organs (Chinese/English): http://www.xinhua. org or http://www.xinhuanet.com China Economic Information Network (only Chinese): http://www.cei.gov.cn Commercial information providers with information on Chinese law (English): http://www. chinaonline.com and http://www.insidechina.com General information on Chinese civil law, including legislation and decisions, with links to all fields of Chinese civil law (Chinese/English): http://www.civillaw.com.cn For searches for legislation, decisions and regulations since the foundation of the People’s Republic of China (only Chinese): http://www.law.com.cn

I.  Overview of the National System of Trademarks, Industrial Property Rights, and Domain Names (1) Types of Protected Intellectual Property Rights CN.01 In China, trademarks are governed by the Trademark Law (amended in 2001)  and the

Regulations for Implementation of the Trademark Law (amended in 2002), which provide that any natural person, legal person, or other organization intending to acquire the exclusive right to use a trademark for the goods produced, manufactured, processed, selected, or marketed by him or it, or for the goods provided by him or it, shall file an application for the registration of the trademark with the Trademark Office. The China Trademark Office (CTMO) of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) of the People’s Republic of China is responsible for trademark registration and administration. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce

688

I.  Overview of the National System of the People’s Republic of China is responsible for hearing appeals against the CTMO’s decisions and cancellation cases. Trademarks, service marks, collective marks, and certification marks can be registered as CN.02 trademarks in China. A trademark can consist of a word, a design, letters of an alphabet, numerals, three-dimensional symbols, combinations of colours, and any combination of the above as long as the trademark is capable of distinguishing the goods or service of one natural person, legal entity, or any other organization from that of others. Unless a specific class of goods is mandated by Chinese law to carry a registered trademark, CN.03 Chinese law also recognizes the concept of an unregistered trademark. At present, ‘cigarettes’ is the only class of goods which is mandated to carry a registered trademark. As the principle of first-to-file has been adopted in China, trademark registration requires no evidence of prior use or ownership, but can provide for stronger and better protection. Neither an intent-touse format nor use evidence is required for a trademark registration, as the CTMO does not consider whether the trademark is being used or intended to be used when granting the registration, since use and intention to use are not factors in the trademark registration procedure. But a registered trademark is required to be used within three years from registration, since any party has the right to file a cancellation against the registration based on non-use in three consecutive years. If no non-use cancellation is filed, the registration will be valid since the registrant is not required to demonstrate use if the mark has not been challenged by others, and the CTMO will not cancel it actively. With a trademark registration, the registrant can use the mark on the designated goods/services without any risk of trademark infringement, and is entitled to stop others from using the identical or similar trademarks in respect of identical or similar goods/services. There is even greater protection for ‘famous’ trademarks. In China, a famous trademark CN.04 (‘well-known’ trademark) means a trademark that has become famous in China before the filing date of the trademark in dispute or before starting date of the infringement actions. There is no particular registration system for famous trademarks, but they should be recognized by the CTMO, the TRAB, or the courts on a case-by-case basis. Pursuant to Article of 13 of the Trademark Law, a trademark application shall be rejected for CN.05 registration and prohibited from use where: (1) in cases concerning unregistered famous trademarks, protection is only provided where the potentially infringing junior mark is used for identical or similar goods or services. Thus, where the applied-for trademark has been filed for use in conjunction with identical or similar goods or services, and is therefore a reproduction, an imitation, or a translation, of another party’s famous trademark that is not registered in China, as this junior mark is liable to create confusion it will be prohibited from use; or (2) in cases concerning registered famous trademarks, the scope of protection is more broad, and can extend to instances where the applied-for junior mark is used in connection with non-identical or dissimilar goods or services. Thus, where the applied-for mark has been filed for use in conjunction with non-identical or dissimilar goods or services, but constitutes a reproduction, imitation or translation of the famous mark of another person (in China) that has been registered in China, misleads the public and is likely to create prejudice to the interests of the well-known mark registrant, it will be prohibited. No greater protection is provided to a famous trademark which is not registered in China in CN.06 conjunction with non-identical, or dissimilar, goods or services. As to a trademark application

689

People’s Republic of China (‘.cn’) which is identical with or similar to a prior (non-Chinese) registration in conjunction with identical or similar goods or services, it is unnecessary to recognize the famous trademark as protection has already been provided to the prior trademark registration. CN.07 A trade name or a company name, a personal name, or a product name peculiar to well-known

goods are protected by the provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China1 (‘the Anti-Unfair Competition Law’) and the Judicial Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law to the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Involving Unfair Competition issued by the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China on 30 December 20062(the Interpretation Concerning Unfair Competition).

(2) Development of Domain Name Law CN.08 There are currently no separate statutory provisions protecting trademarks and other intel-

lectual property rights from infringing use in domain names in China. Domain names cannot be cited independently as the basis upon which to oppose a trademark application or cancel a trademark registration. The Judicial Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law to the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Involving Computer Network Domain Names Promulgated by the Supreme People’s Court on 17 July 2001 (the Interpretation Concerning Domain Names) and the Judicial Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law to the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Involving Trademark promulgated on 12 October 2002 (the Interpretation Concerning Trademark) are the main grounds for the interface between domain names and other intellectual property rights.

CN.09 According to the Interpretation Concerning Trademark, it is a trademark infringement

action to register, as a domain name, words that are identical or similar to another’s registered trademark and to use the domain name to carry out electronic commerce on the trading of the relevant goods, which is liable to cause misidentification among the relevant public.

II.  The ccTLD (‘.cn’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry CN.10 The designated manager or registry for the ‘.cn’ ccTLD and Chinese domain names is the

China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) which was founded as a non-profit organization on 3 June 1997.

CN.11 The CNNIC is authorized by the Ministry of Information Industry (MII) with regard to

its daily business activities, although it is under the administrative oversight of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). The Computer Network Information Center of the CAS has the responsibility for running and providing administration for the CNNIC.

1  Article 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law states that the operator shall not adopt any of the following unfair means to carry on transactions in the market and cause damage to competitors: passing off the registered trademarks of others; using, without authorization, the names, packaging or decoration peculiar to well-known goods or using names, packaging or decoration similar to those well-known goods so that their goods are confused with the well-known goods of others, causing consumers to mistake them for the well-known goods of others; using, without authorization, the enterprise names or personal names of others on their own goods, leading consumers to mistake them for the well-known goods of others; forging or falsely using, on their goods, symbols of quality such as symbols of authentication and symbols of famous and high-quality goods; falsifying the origin of their goods; and making false representations which are misleading as to the quality of the goods. 2 The Chinese version can be found at:  http://www.court.gov.cn/qwfb/sfjs/201006/t20100609_5953. htm.

690

II.  The ccTLD (‘.cn’) Registration Conditions and Procedures The CNNIC is authorized to operate and administer the ‘.cn’ ccTLD and the Chinese CN.12 Domain Name (CDN) systems; to initiate the Internet Protocol (IP) Allocation Alliance and provide IP address and Academy of Sciences (AS) Number application services to domestic Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and users; to set up and maintain the state top-level network catalogue database; to provide information search services related to Internet users, web addresses, domain names, AS numbers, and so on; to carry out relevant technical research and oversee technical projects of interest to the state; and to carry out a series of statistical surveys on Internet information resources for the public welfare. Chinese domain names are currently available through the 89 registrars presently accredited CN.13 by the CNNIC, including 72 domestic registrars3 and 17 overseas registrars.4 The CNNIC is authorized to operate and administer the ‘.cn’ domain space in accordance CN.14 with the Provisional Administrative Rules for Registration of Domain Names in China issued by the National Council on 30 May 1997.

(2)  The Structure of the Name Space The ‘.cn’ domain name registrations are divided into two types. First, there are second-level CN.15 domain names, which are registered directly under the ‘.cn’ top-level domain, and secondly, there are third-level domain names, which are registered under the second-level domains. Third-level domains are composed of two categories. One is called Generic Domains, which are CN.16 classified by industry type, and may be registered under the following designate second levels: • ‘ac.cn’ for academic institutions; • ‘com.cn’ for industrial, commercial, or financial enterprises; • ‘edu.cn’ for educational institutions; • ‘gov.cn’ for government departments; • ‘net.cn’ for network information centres and network operation centres; • ‘org.cn’ for non-for-profit organizations; and • ‘mil.cn’ for military organizations. The second category is the Administration Area Domains, which represent administrative CN.17 districts in China and comply with national standards promulgated by the former National Technology Bureau. The category is composed of 34 administrative district names, corresponding to the names of domestic provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities. For example, ‘.bj.cn’ is used for the city of Beijing, and ‘.gd.cn’ is used for the province of Guangdong. According to CNNIC’s recent practice, third-level domain names are open to all individuals and entities.

(3) Registration Restrictions Any ‘.cn’ domain name which contravenes the following rules is not permitted to be regis- CN.18 tered or used by any organization or individual:5 (1) Those which contravene the basic principles prescribed in the Constitution; (2) Those which jeopardise national security, leak state secrets, intend to overturn the government, or disrupt state integrity;

3 The list of ‘.cn’ domestic accredited registrars is available at:  http://www.cnnic.cn/jczyfw/CNym/ cnzcfwjgcx/cnzcjg_ndsq/201206/t20120614_28273.htm. 4  The list of ‘.cn’ overseas accredited registrars is available at:  http://www.cnnic.cn/jczyfw/CNym/ cnzcfwjgcx/cnzcjg_ndsq/201207/t20120702_30267.htm. 5 Article 27 of China Internet Domain Name Regulations, see http://www1.cnnic.cn/PublicS/ fwzxxgzcfg/201208/t20120830_35734.htm.

691

People’s Republic of China (‘.cn’) (3) Those which harm national honour and national interests; (4) Those which instigate hostility or discrimination between different nationalities, or disrupt national solidarity; (5) Those which violate the state religion policies or propagate cult and feudal superstition; (6) Those which spread rumors, disturb public order or disrupt social stability; (7) Those which spread material related to pornography, obscenity, gambling, violence, homicide, terror; or instigate crimes; (8) Those which insult, defame others or infringe other people’s legal rights and interests; or (9) Other content prohibited by law, rules or administrative regulations. CN.19 Pursuant to the Implementing Rules of Domain Name Registration issued by the CNNIC

(2009 Implementing Rules) which took effect on 5 June 2009 (but was annulled on 29 May 2012), a natural person was not allowed to register a ‘.cn’ domain name, meaning that only companies, institutions, and governmental bodies were authorized to register within ‘.cn’.

CN.20 However, according to the current CNNIC Implementing Rules of Domain name

Registration (2012 Implementing Rules) which were revised by the CNNIC and took effect on 29 May 2012, any natural person or organization that is able to bear its own civil responsibilities independently has the right to apply for registration of ‘.cn’ domain names except under the exceptional conditions defined by the 2012 Implementing Rules. In fact, however, there are no such exceptional conditions defined in the 2012 Implementing Rules.

CN.21 When applying for a ‘.cn’ domain name, the applicant shall submit his identity certificate,

the identity certificate of the contact person (ie the administrative and/or technical contact) of the domain name, and any other materials that are required to be submitted in accordance with the requirements of the CNNIC. According to the CNNIC’s recent practice, to register a ‘.cn’ domain name, the photocopied copy of a passport or ID of the individual registrant or a duplicated copy of the Company Incorporation Certificate of the entity registrant together with a photocopy of a passport or ID of the contact person should be filed when registering the domain names. If possible, the website or contact of the competent authority, or a notarized and legal Company Incorporation Certificate should be provided so that the CNNIC can check the authenticity of the Company Incorporation Certificate. Foreign registrants are allowed to register ‘.cn’ domain names, and no additional documents are required. In addition, there is no requirement for the foreign entities to do business in or have ties to China, nor to have local representatives. However, different local registrars may have different requirements for foreign registrants who are interested in registering a ‘.cn’ domain name through them.

CN.22 Registrars should verify the authenticity, accuracy, and integrity of the materials submitted,

and then transmit these materials to the CNNIC, within one working day from the date when they are verified, in order to be qualified.

(4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement CN.23 The principle of first-come, first-served has been adopted by the CNNIC with the registra-

tion of ‘.cn’ domain names. All domain name registration requests are to be submitted online via accredited registrars. As well as the payment of the registration fee, the applicant should also submit the required documents electronically when applying for registration of ‘.cn’ domain names. It takes between three working days and one week for the relevant registrar to review the documents; they will then have them reviewed by the CNNIC.

CN.24 The domain name registration agreement is completed electronically in order to register a

‘.cn’ domain name, and represents a binding contract between the applicant and the registrar.

692

II.  The ccTLD (‘.cn’) Registration Conditions and Procedures Each accredited registrar has its own format of registration agreement. The following assurances must be made by the applicant, which are common to all ‘.cn’ registration agreements: (1) to comply with laws and regulations related to the relevant Internet networks; (2) to comply with the procedures and other relevant regulations of competent authorities; (3) to comply with the rules and other regulations including the domain name dispute resolution policy, that is, to accept the provisions of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure for ‘.cn’ domains; and (4) to ensure the authenticity, accuracy, and integrity of the registration information and materials submitted.

(5) Transfer of Domain Names Under the 2009 Implementing Rules, it was required that all Domain Name Transfer Application CN.25 Forms be stamped with the assignor’s official seal or be notarized, and that the identity certificate of the assignor should be submitted with the application form. The domain name transfer request should be filed by the assignor. In the currently effective 2012 Implementing Rules, a valid and effective Domain Name CN.26 Transfer Application Form and the identity certificate of both assignor and assignee are required. There is no further requirement concerning the ‘validity and effectiveness’ of the Domain Name Transfer Application form. When the assignor is a company founded in the People’s Republic of China, it is usually necessary for the application form to be stamped with the official seal of the company. In the case where the assignor is a company incorporated outside the People’s Republic of China, or the assignor is an individual, it is sufficient for the application form to be signed by the assignor. No notarization or legalization is required for the transfer documents, but the application for transfer should be filed by the assignor and not the assignee. The concerned registrar will then review the submitted materials, within three working days CN.27 from the date of receipt, and shall re-assign the domain name registration accordingly if all the requirements are satisfied upon a through examination. In practice, each accredited registrar has its own specific requirements for the transfer of ‘.cn’ CN.28 domain names. A duplicated copy of the identity certificate of the assignee and the identification card of the contact person of the assignee are often also required. The application for transfer of a ‘.cn’ domain name should, in all cases, be submitted by the assignor.

(6) Locking of the Domain Name During an ADR or Court Proceeding Pursuant to the 2012 Implementing Regulations, section 49, during alternative dispute reso- CN.29 lution proceedings the domain name registrar shall take all necessary measures to prevent the ‘.cn’ domain name in dispute from being cancelled or transferred. It is the registrar’s responsibility to lock the domain name once a notification has been received from the Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center (DNDRC).

(7) Statistics As of July 2012, approximately 4,129,514 ‘.cn’ domain names were active and approximately CN.30 2,752,508 had been registered in the second-level space, which accounts for 66.7 per cent of the total ‘.cn’ domain names.6

6 Internet statistics are provided by the CNNIC at:  http://www.cnnic.cn/jczyfw/CNym/CNymtjxxcx/ cnymtjtb/2012/201206/t20120613_28053.htm (statistics compiled on 24 August 2012).

693

People’s Republic of China (‘.cn’)

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.cn’ Domain Space CN.31 The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) does not apply to ‘.cn’

domain name registrations.

CN.32 In China, the CNNIC Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the CNDRP), which

was revised and implemented on 28 June 2012, provides an alternative dispute resolution procedure for ‘.cn’ domain names which have been registered or used in bad faith. The Rules for CNNIC Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the CNDRP Rules) and the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission Supplemental Rules to CNNIC Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the CNDRP Supplemental Rules), which were revised and implemented on 28 June 2012, provide the administrative structure for the alternative dispute resolution procedure.

CN.33 The CNDRP is similar to the UDRP, but there are some differences between the two policies.

For example, the CNDRP complaint must be filed within two years from the registration date of the disputed domain name. The complaint can be based on either a trademark right or a trade name right. Furthermore, the CNDRP only requires a complainant to demonstrate that the disputed domain name was registered or used in bad faith, unlike the UDRP which requires both elements to be present.

CN.34 The DNDRC of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission

(CIETAC), which was established in 2000, is responsible for administering the ‘.cn’ dispute resolution procedure, under the appointment of the CNNIC. The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) is also appointed by the CNNIC to resolve ‘.cn’ domain name disputes.

(1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding CN.35 Unlike the traditional arbitration procedure in China, which is utilized only on a voluntary

basis where the parties have entered into an arbitration agreement in order to avoid litigation, the ADR is a special dispute resolution procedure designed only for domain name conflicts. Pursuant to Article 3 of the CNDRP Supplemental Rules, the CNDRP is a part of the domain name registration agreement between the registrant and the registrar, and is therefore binding on all ‘.cn’ domain name holders.

CN.36 Unlike the traditional arbitration procedure, which excludes court proceedings unless both

parties have agreed otherwise, the CNDRP does not prevent either party from seeking legal redress. A party may at any time—before a complaint is filed, during the dispute resolution proceedings, or after the expert panel has rendered its decision—begin court proceedings concerning the same domain name with the Chinese court at the place where the CNNIC’s office is located, or submit the dispute to a Chinese arbitration institution for arbitration (subject to an agreement between the parties).7 However, since the civil lawsuit concerning domain name dispute is based on trademark infringement or unfair competition, pursuant to Judicial Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law to the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Involving Computer Network Domain Names Promulgated by the Supreme People’s Court on 17 July 2001,8 the court proceedings could be initiated with the

7  Article 15 of CNNIC Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, see http://www1.cnnic.cn/PublicS/ fwzxxgzcfg/201208/t20120830_35737.htm. 8 The Chinese version can be found at:  http://www.court.gov.cn/zscq/sfjs/201004/t20100414_4091. html.

694

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.cn’ Domain Space court where the defendant is located, or where the infringement action is committed, or where the computer terminal on which the plaintiff identified the domain name is located, if the previous two can not be determined. In practice, the jurisdiction of the defendant’s location is usually the first choice. In comparison to litigation proceedings before a court, the ADR is easy, fast, efficient, and CN.37 cost-saving: • To commence the ADR proceedings, it is sufficient to have a signed power of attorney form (POA). A notarized and legalized POA and a Certificate and Legal Representative and Company Registration Certificate are all required in order to initiate a court action. • In general, a dispute decision is available within 60 calendar days from the filing date of the complaint. However, the statute term of the first instance civil court action is six months for a case involving domestic parties. There is no requirement for the statute terms of a court action involving a foreign party or parties. • A photocopied copy of evidence is acceptable in the ADR proceedings. This is unlike court proceedings, where notarized and legalized evidence in the original is required. • The registrar should enforce the dispute decision speedily, and indeed must cancel the disputed domain name or to transfer it to the claimant in a successful action, if no conditions for suspension of the decision occur within ten calendar days. • An oral hearing is not a common procedure in the ADR proceedings, but is required in most court actions. • The attorney fees in ADR proceedings are much lower than in court proceedings, since the ADR proceedings are less time-consuming.

(2) Statistics Between 2006 and 2012, the DNDRC issued roughly 1,100 domain name decisions con- CN.38 cerning 1,480 ‘.cn’ domains. In 176 of those cases the domain name was retained by the respondent, in 24 the domain names were cancelled, and in 1,280 the domains were transferred to the relevant complainants.9 During the same time frame, the HKIAC issued 451 decisions, although they do not provide detailed statistics regarding case outcomes.

(3)  Material Scope of the Proceeding Disputes arising from the registration or use of Internet domain names are covered under the CN.39 CNDRP. As the CNDRP does not define ‘name or mark’ in detail, any civil rights or interests under the General Principle of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China (‘General Principle of the Civil Law’) may be protected in a CNDRP action, including for example, a trademark, trade name, personal name, a name peculiar to well-known products or services, domain names, and so on.

(4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding through the Registration Agreement The ADR proceedings are applicable to all ‘.cn’ domain names which have been registered CN.40 for less than two years. The CNDRP is included in the domain name registration agreement is made binding on the registrant once the domain name is registered. During the ADR proceeding and before the enforcement of the ADR decision, the domain name registrant shall not apply for the transfer or cancellation of the disputed domain name, nor change

9  Internet statistics provided by the DNDRC are available at:  http://dndrc.cietac.org/static/kindsdecs/ frmainkindsdecs.html.

695

People’s Republic of China (‘.cn’) the registrar, unless the transferee agrees in writing to accept the decision of the Dispute Resolution Service.

(5) Overview of the ADR Procedure CN.41 Under the CNDRP rules, the language of the ADR proceedings shall be Chinese, unless

otherwise agreed by the parties or determined by the panel.

CN.42 The complainant files a complaint with evidence on-line and pays the arbitration fee. Upon

receiving the complaint, the DNDRC confirms the registration information with the registrant and conducts a formal examination of the complaint. If the complaint is unacceptable, the DNDRC requests the complainant to make relevant amendments within a prescribed time limit. The complaint will be regarded as withdrawn if no reply is made before the deadline.

CN.43 After the DNDRC has accepted the complaint and received the payments, a notification

of Commencement of Procedure and the complaint will be transferred to the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent is entitled to file a response online within 20 calendar days. Five days after receipt of the response, or on expiration of the deadline (when no response is made), an expert panel will be established.

CN.44 An ADR decision is rendered by the expert panel within 14 calendar days from the establish-

ment of the expert panel. Then the decision will be published on the DNDRC’s website and notified to the complainant, respondent, registrar, and CNNIC for enforcement within three days following receipt of the decision.

(6) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider CN.45 As the ADR dispute resolution provider for disputes involving ‘.cn’ domain names, the

DNDRC and HKIAC conduct the administrative proceedings brought under the CNDRP in accordance with the CNDRP Rules and the CNDRP Supplemental Rules. The DNDRC and HKIAC take no active role in the proceedings.

(7) Role of the Administrative Panel CN.46 The administrative panel independently renders an ADR decision on the domain name

dispute based on the complaint, response, and all evidence filed by the complainant and respondent.

(8) Costs CN.47 Unlike the UDRP, the costs of the panel are entirely borne by the complainant in the ADR

proceedings involving ‘.cn’ domain names. A summary of the arbitration fees is available on the CIETAC website.10

CN.48 The arbitration fee depends on the chosen type of panel and the number of domain names.

For a single panellist, the arbitration fee is RMB 8,000 (around US$1,334) for a case dealing with one domain name; RMB 12,000 (around US$2,000) for two to five domain names; and RMB 16,000 (US$2,667) for six to ten domain names. For three panellists, the arbitration fee is RMB 14,000 (around US$2,334) for handling one domain name; RMB 20,000 (around US$3,334) for two to five domain names; and RMB 24,000 (US$4,000) for six to ten domain names. If there are ten or more domain names, the arbitration fee will be determined by the DNDRC or the HKIAC.

 See http://dndrc.cietac.org/static/english/engfrmain.html.

10

696

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.cn’ Domain Space (9) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings The ADR and court proceedings are parallel for ‘.cn’ domain names, meaning that the use CN.49 of the ADR mechanism does not in any way preclude the filing of a law suit, or vice versa. In accordance with the Article 15 of the CNDRP, before a complaint is filed pursuant CN.50 to this policy, or during the dispute resolution proceedings, or after the expert panel has rendered its decision, either party may institute an action concerning the same domain name with the Chinese courts or may submit the dispute to a Chinese arbitration institution for arbitration. According to the CNDRP Rules, the DNDRC or the HKIAC or the expert panel can decide CN.51 to suspend or terminate a dispute resolution proceeding, at its discretion, if either party institutes a court action or arbitration before the ADR proceedings have formally commenced or during the course of an active ADR proceeding.

(10) ADR Decision An ADR decision should be rendered and forwarded to the DNDRC or HKIAC by the CN.52 administrative panel within 14 calendar days from the date of its appointment in the absence of exceptional circumstances. The DNDRC or HKIAC shall notify the decision to the complainant, respondent, and registrar in writing and publish it on their respective websites. In an ADR Decision, the panel shall order that the disputed ‘.cn’ domain name be cancelled CN.53 or transferred to the complainant based on the complaint if the panel finds the complaint is justified and should be supported. Otherwise, the panel should reject the complaint and allow the disputed domain name to be retained by respondent. Neither money awards nor damage compensation can be included in the ADR decision, CN.54 including attorney fee, costs, and so on.

(11)  ADR Decision Criteria and Application by Administrative Panel The CNDRP sets out the substantive terms and conditions by which a party can file a com- CN.55 plaint against the registration or use of a ‘.cn’ domain name in bad faith. As per the CNDRP, the complainant should prove all the following requirements: • the disputed domain name is identical with or confusingly similar to the complainant’s name or mark in which the complainant has civil rights or interests; • the disputed domain name holder has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name or major part of the domain name; and • the disputed domain name holder has registered or has been using the domain name in bad faith. The failure to prove any of the conditions above will cause the complaint to be rejected.

CN.56

(a)  Complainant’s Prior Civil Rights and Interests Under the CNDRP, the complainant must establish that the disputed domain name is CN.57 identical with or confusingly similar to the complainant’s name or mark in which the complainant has prior civil rights or interests before registration date of the disputed domain name. The CNDRP does not define ‘name or mark’ in detail. In principle, any civil rights or inter- CN.58 ests under the General Principle of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China (General Principle of the Civil Law) can be considered as the complainant’s name or mark, such as the trademark, trade name, personal name, the name peculiar to well-known products or services, domain name, and so on.

697

People’s Republic of China (‘.cn’) CN.59 The trademark right is currently the most common right cited in the ADR decisions. There

are no requirements on designated goods or services of the registered trademark, but in practice, the trademark to be protected should have been registered by the CTMO before the registration date of the disputed domain name, or have actually been used in business in China and have obtained great fame in China and abroad through its wide commercial use. Thus, either a trademark registered in China, or unregistered in China but famous abroad, could be cited to fight against a disputed domain name. However, a trademark neither registered nor used in China could not be protected under the ADR mechanism for ‘.cn’ even if it is famous abroad.

CN.60 The complaint can also be based on a prior trade name which has been used in business

with great fame in the People’s Republic of China, without regard to whether or not the trade name has been registered in China. As the CNDRP does not define the requirements on trade names to be protected in detail, in practice, the fame of the trade name is required by the panel pursuant to Article 6 of the Interpretation Concerning Unfair Competition, which stipulates that a trade name of certain market fame and notoriety amongst the relevant public in China could be considered as an enterprise name as stated in section 3 of Article 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Therefore, it is necessary to prove that the trade name has actually been used in China and has become well known to the relevant public in China before the registration date of the disputed domain name. The trade name of a Chinese company should also be used with great fame in China in order to secure protection under the ADR mechanism for ‘.cn’. The standard for a famous trademark is taken as a reference for determining the recognition of well-known trade names, since there is no such standard for evaluating a well-known trade name in accordance with the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.

CN.61 In MARTOR KG v Tianjin Jinlaiyi Trading Co., Ltd,11 the panel confirmed that a trade name

could be protected as a kind of civil interest, like trade secrets, and thus all the trade names used with great fame in China could be protected in the judicial practice.

CN.62 A name peculiar to well-known goods or services, which is defined under the the Anti-Unfair

Competition Law, is a kind of prior right under the CNDRP. The recognition of whether or not a name is peculiar to well-known goods or services is made by the panel on a case-by-case basis. The standard for a famous trademark is taken as recognition of the well-known goods or services which they represent. Currently, there are no CNDRP decisions which support the complainant based on a name peculiar to well-known goods or services.

CN.63 In Well Link Consultants Ltd v Suzhou Fuyu Trading Ltd Co (‘spinexpo.cn’),12 the complainant

argued that the disputed domain name infringed its famous service mark SPINEXPO, which it had used for a long time, and its domain name ‘spinexpo.com’. To support its arguments, the complainant filed media articles, advertisements, and other evidence. The respondent made no counterargument on the complainant’s civil rights. The panel held that the evidence submitted by the complainant showed that before the registration date of the disputed domain name, SPINEXPO had already been used as the name peculiar to the Shanghai International Fashion Yarn Exhibition, which had been organized twice each year since 2003 and had been reported widely. As SPINEXPO is a creative word with high distinctiveness, it had been connected to Shanghai International Fashion Yarn Exhibition among the relevant public through advertisements and use. Therefore, SPINEXPO should be recognized as the famous service name for Shanghai International Fashion Yarn Exhibition which is protected under Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the PRC. However, the panel did not support the

  Decision CND-2013000002.   Decision CND-2011000051.

11 12

698

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.cn’ Domain Space complaint’s claim for rights on the basis of the domain name ‘spinexpo.com’ because there was insufficient evidence to prove that the name had become famous before the registration date of the disputed domain name. Similarly, the panel rejected the complainant’s claim for trademark rights to SPINEXPO, because the complaint had not registered the trademark in China or other countries or areas, and the trademark had never been recognized as an unregistered well-known trademark in China. In this ADR decision, the disputed domain name was transferred to the complainant. A domain name is also a kind of prior right under the CNDRP. There are no specific require- CN.64 ments for domain names to be protected, but the premise commonly accepted by most panellists is that the domain name should become well-known or famous in China as a well-known or famous trademark through wide use before the registration date of the disputed domain name. In Williams-Sonoma Inc v Wenshui Xinxing Maohan Jiegou Factory,13 the panel held that since CN.65 there was no current legal grounds for recognizing a domain name right, registration of a domain name could not be a right asserted by the complainant in an ADR decision unless the domain name was famous through use and/or had become the name of a famous product or service pursuant to Anti-Unfair Competition Law of PRC. Furthermore, the complainant’s domain name should be famous in China before the regis- CN.66 tration of the disputed domain name. In Chanel (China) Trading Co Ltd v Tongling Xinghui Net Technology Co Ltd,14 the panel confirmed that the domain name user had benefitted from the use of a famous domain name under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of RPC, but in this case, the panel rejected the complainant’s claim because the complainant’s evidence was insufficient to prove the use and fame of its domain name among the Chinese consumers before the registration date of the disputed domain name. A  complaint can also be based on a personal name which is famous and thus serves as a CN.67 source-indicator for commercial interests. Some panellists hold that a personal name should be treated as a sign in the same way as a trademark or trade name in such a case. Although there are, as discussed above, several mechanisms for the protection of trademarks CN.68 and trade names, both under Chinese law and through the CNDRP, there are still no laws or regulations protecting a domain name holder’s rights in a domain name registration. The panel in the decision on ‘thomaspink.com.cn’ held that although the complainant had proved its registration of nine domain names, according to the Chinese laws and regulations, there was neither ownership caused by domain name registration nor other civil rights or interests defined by the law, so the activity to register the nine domain names could not be considered as the complainant’s prior civil rights or interests in this case.15 In some ADR decisions, a domain name has been found to have accrued sufficient goodwill CN.69 or notoriety as a name peculiar to well-known products, and thus to have become imbued with civil right or interests. The panel in the decision on ‘isover.cn’ held that a domain name which has a certain level of fame could be considered as an asset with goodwill and attendant legal interests.16 The panel in the decision on ‘spinexpo.cn’ (CND-201100005) held that the domain name registrant did not enjoy any rights or legitimate interests on the basis of mere registration of a domain name, unless the domain name had become well known through use

  Decision CND-2012000094.   Decision CND-2013000001. 15  Decision CND-2012000018. 16  Decision CND-2012000028. 13 14

699

People’s Republic of China (‘.cn’) and advertising and could accordingly be protected as a name peculiar to well-known goods or services under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, in the same way as an unregistered trademark.17

(b)  Respondent’s Right or Legitimate Interest CN.70 Like the UDRP, the CNDRP provides a list of what a domain name registrant may rely on

to legitimize its registration.

CN.71 If none of the above requirements are satisfied, the complainant’s case may be deemed to

be supported. In most cases, when the complainant claims the respondent has no right or legitimate interest based on the online searches conducted, such as searches in the database of the CTMO to see if the respondent has any trademark registration, and the fact that the complainant has never licensed or assigned any rights to the respondent, if the respondent makes no response, the panel will conclude the respondent has no right or legitimate interest and support the complainant in this respect.

CN.72 The panel in the decision on ‘swissotel.com.cn’ held that the respondent’s failure to file a

response can be concluded as indicating that it possesses no right or legitimate interests.18

(c)  Respondent’s Bad Faith Registration or Use of the Domain Name CN.73 Like the UDRP, the CNDRP provides a non-exhaustive list of bad faith factors.The initial burden to prove the respondent’s bad faith is on the complainant. The evidence proving use, fame, and distinctiveness of the complainant’s prior name or mark are taken into consideration by the panel when deciding on ‘other factors which may prove the bad faith’. In addition, whether a response is made by the respondent is also taken into account. CN.74 In ACCOR v Xiamen Ename Information and Technology Ltd Co (‘grandmercurehotel.cn’),19

the complainant argued that the respondent should have known of the complainant and its hotel brand when registering the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name had never been used. The complainant had filed evidence proving the fame of its trademark GRAND MERCURE, and that the disputed domain name was not in use, and copies of the correspondence between the complainant’s lawyer and the registrant of the disputed domain name. The respondent claimed that it had never misled or confused others in the three months after getting the disputed domain name by assignment; that it would not and had not begun to use the disputed domain name; that it would not sell, lease, or assign the disputed domain name in order to earn illegal profits although it had not begun to use the domain name; and that it had not taken any action to harm the complaint’s trade reputation. The panel summarized the position: the complaint’s evidence could prove it had used the trademark GRAND MERCURE in China in actual business with some fame. Despite hearing the respondent’s arguments, the panel held that the respondent had not acquired the disputed domain name in good faith because the respondent did not enjoy any legal rights to the disputed domain name, the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark which had been used in China with certain fame, and the respondent had not begun to use the disputed domain name in good faith but only to register and keep it to prevent the right owner from registering and using it.

CN.75 In the current domain name administration system in China, registering or holding domain

names not for one’s own use, and later assigning and trading such domain names, is not forbidden, but this does not mean that such registering and holding activities are legal.   Decision CND-201100005.   Decision CND-201000082. 19  Decision CND-2012000055. 17 18

700

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws Therefore, in this case, the panel concluded that the disputed domain name was assigned and held in bad faith according to the facts and evidence.

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (1)  Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation In China, the principal sources of law and regulation include international treaties, laws, CN.76 regulations, administrative rules, judicial interpretations, administrative interpretations, and others, such as local regulations, judicial replies, administrative replies, and so on. Laws are made and amended by the National People’s Congress or its Standing Committee, and regulations are made by the State Council of China, while judicial interpretations are made by the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China. Judicial interpretation plays an important role in the court litigation. With respect to domain names, there are no special laws or regulations except for the CN.77 Interpretation Concerning Domain Names.20 The General Principle of the Civil Law, the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (Civil Procedure Law), the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and the Trademark Law are also sources of law of Anticybersquatting. The Interpretation Concerning Domain Names is the main legal grounds for civil law- CN.78 suits concerning domain names. This interpretation only contains eight articles, but briefly includes the main points pertaining to domain name civil lawsuits, including identifying the courts with jurisdiction, the requirements for claims of trademark infringement or unfair competition, conditions of defendant’s bad faith, the recognition of well-known trademarks in lawsuits concerning domain names, and liabilities.

(2)  Infringement of Trademarks and Unfair Competition Pursuant to Article 4 under the Interpretation Concerning Domain Names issued by the CN.79 Supreme Court, registration and/or use of a domain name constitutes an act of infringement or unfair competition if each of the following criteria is satisfied:21 • the civil rights or interests for which the plaintiff seeks protection are legitimate and effective; • the disputed domain name or its main part is a copy, imitation, translation, or transliteration of a famous trademark of the plaintiff; or it is identical with or similar to a registered trademark, domain name, etc. of the plaintiff which will mislead the relevant public; • the defendant does not enjoy rights or interests to the disputed domain name or its main part, and has no justification to register and/or use the domain name; and • the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith. Pursuant to this interpretation, a prior domain name registration by the complainant would CN.80 serve as a sufficient basis for a claim against a later-registered, similar domain name, only when registration and use of the disputed domain name will mislead the relevant public. In practice, the complainant’s prior domain name should be used in China with certain fame which can be protected as a legal interest in the form of an unregistered trademark or product name peculiar to well-known goods or services.

  The Chinese version can be found at: http://www.court.gov.cn/zscq/sfjs/201004/t20100414_4091.html.   Article 4 of the Interpretation Concerning Domain Names.

20 21

701

People’s Republic of China (‘.cn’) CN.81 The Interpretation Concerning Domain Names does not define which acts constitute

infringement and which acts constitute unfair competition. In practice, it is easier to recognize acts of trademark infringement, so if possible, trademark infringement will be the first choice of most filing parties. The unfair competition claim is usually chosen when the acts cannot constitute trademark infringement. For example, in a case based on a trade name, no trademark infringement could be claimed.

CN.82 In Royal Canin SA v Liu Weize,22 the plaintiff, who was a pet food manufacturer, had obtained

trademark registration for ‘Royal Canin’ in China and had been doing business in China since 1997. On 28 June 2004, the plaintiff registered the domain name ‘royalcanin.com.cn’, but did not use it prior to 6 January 2006, when the disputed domain name ‘royalcanin.cn’ was registered by the defendant. The website ‘www.royalcanin.cn’, hosted by the defendant, was non-commercial and designed to answer visitors’ questions about use of the plaintiff ’s pet food sold under the ‘Royal Canin’ mark. The defendant offered a price of RMB 5,000 (around US$806) via e-mail to sell the domain name to the plaintiff when an inquiry for assignment was made. Based on these facts, the plaintiff filed a complaint for arbitration before the DNDRC, but was not successful.

CN.83 In the first instance court action, Beijing No 2 Intermediate People’s Court held that the

registration and use of the disputed domain name constituted an act of unfair competition and ordered that the domain name should be cancelled, based on the fact that the plaintiff enjoyed prior trademark and trade name rights to ‘Royal Canin’. The Court found that the disputed domain name was identical with the plaintiff ’s domain name ‘royalcanin.com.cn’, the plaintiff ’s trademark and trade name, and held that the offer to sell the name for RMB 5,000 revealed the defendant’s bad faith.

CN.84 However, the second instance court, Beijing Higher People’s Court, entered a contrary opin-

ion on the defendant’s bad faith. The second instance court held that the website ‘www. royalcanin.cn’ was non-commercial and that the defendant expressed clearly that the website that it was not the plaintiff ’s official website, so there were no grounds to say that the domain name was registered or used in bad faith. With respect to the quotation of RMB 5,000 offered by the defendant, the second instance court held that an e-mail making such an offer was insufficient to prove the defendant intended to sell the domain name illegally. From this point of view, the second instance court overthrew the first instance court decision and rejected the plaintiff ’s claims.

CN.85 Under the Interpretation Concerning Trademark promulgated by the Supreme People’s

Court on 12 October 2002 and effective as of 16 October 2002, trademark infringement can be constituted by registering a domain name that is identical with or similar to another’s registered trademark, and using the domain to carry out electronic commercial business in related goods, thereby easily misleading the relevant public.23

CN.86 In The Ruhof Corp v Beijing Que Xiang Medical & Technology Co Ltd,24 the defendant, who

had formerly been the agent of the plaintiff, registered the domain names ‘ruhof.com. cn’ and ‘ruhof.cn’ when they had a business relationship. After the cooperation ended, the defendant was still using the two domain names. The plaintiff initiated a court action asking the defendant to transfer the domain names back. The first instance court, Beijing

22  Cheng Yongshun, Court Decisions Concerning Trademark and Domain Name, Intellectual Property Publishing House, 2010, 202. 23  Article 1 of the Interpretation Concerning Trademark. 24  Cheng Yongshun, Court Decisions Concerning Trademark and Domain Name, Intellectual Property Publishing House, 2010, 135.

702

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws No 2 Intermediate People’s Court, held that trademark infringement had been committed since the domain names were similar to the plaintiff ’s prior registered trademark ‘Ruhof ’, the defendant had no legal grounds to use the domain names, and the products being promoted by the defendant on the websites were identical with the plaintiff ’s products, which might mislead the relevant public. The Court upheld the plaintiff ’s claim and asked the defendant to withdraw the two domain names and allow the plaintiff to use them. According to the Interpretation Concerning Trademark, the use and registration of a domain CN.87 name which is identical with or similar to another’s trademark should be considered as trademark infringement instead of unfair competition. There are conflicts between the above two interpretations. Pursuant to the Interpretation CN.88 Concerning Domain Names, registration of a domain name may infringe another’s registered trademark. For example, trademark infringement might be established even if a disputed domain name entirely identical to a prior registered trademark has been registered by a third party but is not in use, as long as the domain is likely to cause confusion. However, in accordance with the Interpretation Concerning Trademark, the act of registering a domain name without actual use will not cause trademark infringement. The Interpretation Concerning Trademark was promulgated after the Interpretation Concerning Domain Names, and China follows the principle that later laws prevail over those which preceded them. Thus, except for famous trademarks, an action for trademark infringement requires not only that the respondent’s domain name be identical with or similar to the prior registered trademark, but also that the respondent must be using the domain name for electronic commercial business in related goods that is likely to cause confusion amongst Chinese consumers. In conclusion, the copying, imitation, transliteration, or translation of a famous trademark in CN.89 a domain name may constitute trademark infringement or unfair competition even with no actual use of the domain name. Moreover, registration and actual use of a domain name in connection with related goods or services which may cause confusion with a prior registered trademark (even if not famous) may constitute trademark infringment.

(a)  Risk of Confusion Between Domain Names and Registered Trademarks Under the Trademark Law, a trademark registrant enjoys exclusive right to its registered CN.90 trademark and is entitled to prevent any party from using the trademark in respect of identical or similar goods or services without authorization.25 Risk of confusion is a factor in deciding the similarity of trademarks or goods or services but it is not a premise of trademark infringement, especially when the marks and goods of both parties are identical. For example, even if the claimant’s cited trademark has not been used and will not be used in China, and use of an identical trademark will not cause confusion, trademark infringement will likely also be found and the identical trademark will not be allowed to be used without authorization. From this point of view, no likelihood of confusion should be established in trademark infringement concerning use of a trademark against a prior registered trademark. In other words, when deciding trademark infringement issues, it should be considered whether the two marks are identical or similar and whether the goods or services are identical or similar. Unlike a trademark infringement concerning two trademarks, risk of confusion is a funda- CN.91 mental requirement when assessing disputes arising from the registration of a domain name and a registered trademark. This is true even if the domain name is completely identical with the prior registered trademark, unless the registered trademark had become famous in China before registration date of the disputed domain name. Where there is no risk of confusion,

  Article 51 of the Trademark Law.

25

703

People’s Republic of China (‘.cn’) it is not possible to find that the registration and/or use of the domain name constitutes trademark infringement.26

(b)  Protection of Famous Marks CN.92 There are strict rules governing the recognition of famous trademarks in China. In prin-

ciple, a trademark could be recognized as famous unless the claimant has other legal grounds to protect itself and stop the infringement. For example, if the claimant has a prior registered trademark which is identical or similar to the trademark being used by the infringer on identical or similar goods or services, the claimant’s trademark will not be recognized as a famous mark. In addition, the famous trademark should be recognized on a case-by-case basis.

CN.93 With respect to the recognition of famous trademarks in a domain name dispute, pursuant to

the Interpretation Concerning Domain Names brought into force on 24 July 2001, a famous trademark can be recognized in a case where the registration of the disputed domain name infringes upon an already existing famous mark. Article 4 of the Interpretation Concerning Domain Names states that ‘trademark infringement might be considered if the disputed domain name or its main part is a copy, imitation, translation or transliteration of a famous trademark of the plaintiff’.

CN.94 However, the Judicial Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law

to the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Involving Famous Trademark issued by the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and brought into force on 1 May 2009 (Interpretation Concerning Famous Trademark) excludes the recognition of famous trademarks in a civil court action concerning domain names. The Supreme Court held that it is unnecessary to recognize famous trademarks in a court action concerning domain names because the trademark owner is entitled to claim trademark infringement based on the Interpretation Concerning Trademark effective as of 16 October 2002, which does not require a determination that the mark in question is well known as a precondition for relief. The Interpretation Concerning Trademark defines the trademark infringement, in the context of domain name disputes, via a consideration of the likelihood of confusion. If a domain name which is identical or similar to another’s registered trademark is being used to carry out electronic commercial business in related goods, thereby misleading the relevant public, then trademark infringement is proven. There is no need in this context for the court to consider whether or not the mark in question is famous or well known.

CN.95 Based on the effective dates of the three judicial interpretations, from 1 May 2009 up to

the present, there is no special protection for famous trademarks in infringement cases concerning domain names, although a trademark with great fame may receive a higher level of protection when determining the similarity of the trademark and the disputed domain name and assessing the possible risk of confusion.

(c)  Comparison of ADR v Court Action CN.96 Compared to court actions, ADR is now far more commonly adopted in China to solve

domain name disputes since ADR is efficient, less expensive, and effective. The key differences between ADR and court action are as follows: • ADR should be commenced within two years from the registration date of the disputed domain name, but there are no such requirements for a court action.

26 Kong Xiangjun, Trademark and Unfair Competition Law Principles and Cases, Law Press China, 2009, 575.

704

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws • All ADR regarding ‘.cn’ domain names should be filed with the DNDRC or HKIAC, while the court action is filed before the court where the defendant is located or the infringement deed occurs. • It generally takes around 60 days to get a decision using ADR. In accordance with the civil procedure law, the first instance court action should be concluded within six months from the official acceptance date. • In an ADR decision, the disputed domain name could be transferred to the complainant, or be cancelled, or be maintained by the respondent. In a court action decision, damage compensation may be available. • It is sufficient to submit copies of evidence in an ADR decision, but in the court action, all the evidence generated outside China should be notarized and legalized and the evidence generated in mainland China should be the original documents. • Chinese is the legal language in the court action, but English can also be accepted in an ADR procedure unless otherwise agreed by the parties or determined by the panel. • The ADR is less expensive than court action.There are no travel or lawyer’s fees for any hearings under an ADR procedure.

(3) Infringement of Personal Names, Names of Cities, and Other Public Law Corporations Currently, there are no provisions restricting registration or use of city names as ‘.cn’ CN.97 domain names. Article 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law specifies that a business operator should not CN.98 harm other competitors in market transactions by resorting to any unfair means: (1) to counterfeit the other’s registered trademark; (2) to use the specific name, package, or decoration peculiar to the famous commodities, or use a similar name, package, or decoration peculiar to the famous commodities, which leads to confusion among the relevant consumers; (3) to use the name of another enterprise or personal name which causes confusion among the consumers; or (4) to forge or counterfeit authentication marks, famous-and-excellent-product marks or other product quality marks, to forge the origin of products, or to make false advertisements which cause misunderstanding about the quality of products. According to the Interpretation Concerning Unfair Competition, a personal name used in CN.99 business, or pen-name or stage name used with great fame in the market, should be considered to be a protected name under Article 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Based on the above provisions, personal names and the names of public law corporations can CN.100 be considered as grounds for unfair competition actions in a ‘.cn’ domain name dispute. In practice, the fame of the personal name or the name of the public law corporation is required to be established by the plaintiff. Otherwise, it is difficult to say that confusion has been or will be caused. In Schneider Electric (China) Co Ltd, Tianjin Meilanrilan Co Ltd, Schneider Electric Industries CN.101 SAS v Shanghai Meilanrilan Electric (Group) Co Ltd,27 the defendant registered the trade name ‘梅兰日兰’ (Meilanrilan in Chinese characters) in March 1993 and the domain name ‘meilanrilan.com.cn’ in 1999. Shanghai Higher People’s Court, the second instance court, 27  Cheng Yongshun, Court Decisions Concerning Trademark and Domain Name, Intellectual Property Publishing House, 2010, 37.

705

People’s Republic of China (‘.cn’) held that since the defendant’s trade name was registered in bad faith (which violates the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, registration and use of the trade name), it could not be considered as a legal ground for the defendant to register and use the domain name ‘meilanrilan.com.cn’. Contrarily, the disputed domain name ‘meilanrilan.com.cn’ registered by the defendant is a pinyin-script version of the trade name of Tianjin Meilanrilan Co Ltd (one of the plaintiffs) which had enjoyed great fame before 1999. The products being sold by the defendant were identical with those of Tianjin Meilanrilan Co Ltd, and were marketed on the website ‘meilanrilan.com.cn’. Therefore, the court held that registration and use of the disputed domain name might cause confusion among the relevant public and damage the legal rights and interests of Tianjin Meilanrilan Co Ltd which should be considered an act of unfair competition. The defendant was asked to stop using the domain name ‘meilanrilan. com.cn’.

(4)  Infringement of Titles CN.102 In China, literary titles are not protected under intellectual property laws unless they are

used or registered as a trademark, trade name, or other intellectual property sign. However, if use and registration of a famous literary title as a ‘.cn’ domain name has misled consumers or caused confusion, it may violate Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, which states that business operators shall abide by the principle of voluntariness, equality, impartiality, honesty, and good faith, and also adhere to public commercial morals in their business transactions.

(5) Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available (a) Outline of Court Procedure CN.103 Trademark infringement, anti-unfair competition and contractual court proceedings concerning domain names are regulated by Civil Procedure Law, which outlines the mechanisms for the case-filing, case acceptance, submission of counter-arguments, exchange of evidence, hearings, rulings and execution. In court hearings, the cross-examination of evidence and witnesses will be held. CN.104 Most cases are examined and adjudicated by a collegial panel of three members. There is

often one People’s assessor joining the court as a member of the collegial panel, who has equal rights with the judge during the period of his services. When the case is very important or complicated, it will be handled by a judicial trial committee of the court. Contrarily, where all parties accept the facts of the case with supporting evidence, it is clear who bears the liability and who enjoys the right, and all parties have no disagreements on substantial issues of the case, the matter can be handled by one judge through a summary procedure in the people’s courts, under the intermediate people’s court. The court decides whether the summary procedure or normal procedure is taken in a case. In practice, the summary procedure is seldom taken in a foreign-related case, and thus a panel is almost always organized in a foreign-related case.

CN.105 In China, a lawsuit is initiated with the court for a first instance judgment. Any party who

is not satisfied with the first instance judgment is entitled to appeal before a higher court for a second instance judgment, either through the first instance court or the second instance court within 15 calendar days (for a domestic party) or 30 calendar days (for a foreign party) from the date of receipt of the judgment. Otherwise, the judgment will enter into force.

CN.106 To initiate civil court proceedings, a Power of Attorney, a Certificate of Legal Representation,

and a Certificate proving existence of the plaintiff (ie a Company Registration Certificate, passport, etc) are required. When the plaintiff is from outside the People’s Republic of China, all the above-mentioned required documents should be notarized and legalized as well as the

706

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws evidence generated abroad. The original evidence generated in the People’s Republic of China should be shown in the cross-examination of evidence. Otherwise, the lawsuit will not be accepted officially by the court, and the evidence will not be accepted unless the adverse party clearly agrees to accept such evidence. According to Civil Procedure Law in general, the first instance infringement court action CN.107 should be concluded within six months after the case has been formally accepted by the court, and the second instance should be concluded within three months after the appeal has been formally accepted by the court. However, there is no time limit for a civil case involving a foreign party or parties under Civil Procedure Law.

(b)  Remedies Available Article 8 of the Interpretation Concerning Domain Names reads:28

CN.108

Once the people’s court determines that conduct such as the registration and/or use of a domain name constitutes infringement or unfair competition, it may order the defendant to cease the infringement and/or deregister the domain name, or, at the request of the plaintiff, order that the domain name be registered and used by the plaintiff. If the said conduct has caused actual damage to the holder of the rights, the people’s court may order the defendant to pay damages.

In civil procedures, a full compensation principle (rather than punitive compensation) is CN.109 adopted in China. But the concept of punitive damages is introduced by the Third Trademark Law which was enforced on 1 May 2014. The relevant provision states that the court may award damages of between one and three times normal damages in respect of malicious infringement. Based on the Third Trademark Law which was enforced on 1 May 2014, there are three methods CN.110 used to calculate compensation; that is, calculating the monetary losses suffered by the plaintiff; the profits of the infringer during the period of the infringement; and the royalties. The three methods should be adopted successively. In the event that it is difficult to prove actual loss, profits, or royalties, the courts may prescribe greater statutory damages in infringement cases of up to RMB 3 million, which is a significant increase of the previous cap of statutory damages of RMB 0.5 million. Pursuant to Article 16 of the Interpretation Concerning Trademark, when determining the CN.111 damage compensation, the nature of infringement, the period and the consequences of the infringement, the reputation of the prior trademark, the amount of trademark licensing royalties, the types, periods, and scope of trademark licensing, the reasonable expenses incurred in stopping the infringement should all be taken into consideration.29 In March 2013, the Supreme People’s Court published three typical trademark cases to guide CN.112 the courts at lower levels, wherein the case Bestseller v Mr Cui Huanxin and Mr Du Xinghua was listed. The plaintiff, who was a licensee of the trademark Jack & Jones and owner of the trademark ‘杰克琼斯’ (Jack & Jones in Chinese characters), had found the defendants had registered the domain name ‘jackjonescn.net’ to promote clothing branded with Jack & Jones and 杰克琼斯 in bad faith. The court made a decision requesting the defendants stop selling the relevant clothing, close the relevant website, stop using the domain name ‘jackjonescn. net’, transfer the domain name to the plaintiff, make an apology in the newspaper and on the SINA website, and compensate the plaintiff in the sum of RMB 2,000,000. This case

  Article 8 of the Interpretation Concerning Domain Names.   Article 16 of the Interpretation Concerning Trademark.

28 29

707

People’s Republic of China (‘.cn’) is a typical one concerning disputes arising from online infringement. The court supported nearly all of the plaintiff ’s claims in order to stop the infringement.30 CN.113 In practice, it is very hard to have a request for preliminary injunctions approved by the court

in intellectual property cases, although the plaintiff could file such a request. It is unusual for the court to grant preliminary injunctions in infringement cases concerning domain names.

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights Using a Domain Name CN.114 It is a contentious issue whether the domain name is a kind of intellectual property right.

There are four viewpoints in theory and practice, including negativism, which denies domain name as an intellectual property right completely; the theory of expectancy, which denies the domain name as an intellectual property right, accepted currently but believes such intellectual right should be recognized in the future; the theory of civil rights and interests, which denies the domain name as an intellectual property right, but supports its protection as a civil right and interest; and finally the theory of intellectual property rights, which opines that a domain name functions as a trademark, or a trade name, or an internet sign and should therefore be protected as an intellectual property right.31

CN.115 No laws or court decisions have as yet been issued as to the nature of domain names. But the

commonly-accepted point of view is that the domain name should be protected as a kind of civil right and interest, unless provisions specifying it as an intellectual property right are made.

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers CN.116 There are no legal grounds for the liability of the CNNIC as a domain name registry for the

infringement of intellectual property rights.

CN.117 Registrars similarly bear no liability for the infringement of intellectual property rights. But

pursuant to the newly revised CNNIC Implementing Rules of Domain Name Registration, the registrars shall strengthen domain name registration examination and ensure domain names registered through them do not violate the administrative measures for domain names, and will be required to establish a blacklist database of illegal websites to ensure blacklisted domain names are not re-registered or reused. In addition, the registrars bear the responsibility for customer information protection. Where registrars leak customer information, they shall compensate customers in accordance with their customer agreements.

CN.118 The Tort Liability Law of the People’s Republic of China, which was promulgated on 26

December 2009, stipulates that:

(1) The Internet users and ISPs shall assume tort liability if they utilize the Internet to infringe the civil rights and interests of others. (2) If an Internet user commits tortious acts through Internet services, the infringee shall be entitled to inform the ISP and request it to take necessary measures, including, inter alia,

 See http://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2013/03/id/932600.shtml.   Research on Conflicts between Internet Domain name and Trademark, Chinese People’s Public Security University Press, 2011. 30 31

708

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law deletion, blocking, and unlinking. If the ISP fails to take necessary measures in a timely manner upon notification, it shall be jointly and severally liable with the said Internet user for the extended damage. (3) If an ISP is aware that an Internet user is infringing on the civil rights and interests of others through its Internet services and fails to take necessary measures, it shall be jointly and severally liable with the said Internet user for such infringement.32 In July 2013, the first case regarding an ISP’s infringement was concluded by Xinxiang CN.119 Intermediate People’s Court of Henan Province.33 This case refers to infringement of an individual’s reputation. The registrar was requested to pay RMB 5,000 as damage compensation after failing to cooperate with the deletion of false information after being notified several times. To date, there are no laws or judicial interoperation concerning the ISPs’ liability for trade- CN.120 mark infringement or unfair competition, although the Interpretation of Several Issues Relating to the Application of Law to Trial of Cases of Disputes Involving Copyright on Computer Network (the Interpretation Concerning Copyright) issued by the Supreme People’s Court details an ISP’s liability for copyright infringement on a website. Pursuant to Article 5 of the Interpretation Concerning Copyright, if an internet service provider that provides content services and is well aware that a network subscriber has used its network to infringe upon a third party’s copyright, or the copyright owner has submitted a substantiated warning, but the ISP fails to take such measures as removing the infringing content, the People’s Court shall pursue the joint liability for infringement of the ISP and the network subscriber pursuant to Article 130 of the Civil Law General Principles.34

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property Even though it has not yet been agreed whether or not domain names are intellectual prop- CN.121 erty rights, it has been agreed that domain name are items of property since they can be valued, sold, bought, licensed, and so on. In 2006, People’s Court of Dong Cheng District, Beijing sent the CNNIC a notification of assisting enforcement asking the CNNIC to ‘seize’ the domain name ‘www.chinalawnet.cn’ registered by the defendant. The court held that as a new type of right, a domain name is an intellectual property right with value, so it could be seized in accordance with the Civil Procedure Law and the relevant regulations.35 However, the notification issued by the Dong Cheng Court is not a judgment, but only an Assisting Enforcement Notification to CNNIC.

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (1)  International Jurisdiction Pursuant to Article 2 of the Judicial Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application CN.122 of Law to the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Involving Computer Network Domain Names issued by the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (the Interpretation of

  Article 36 of the Tort Liability Law of the People’s Republic of China.  See http://news.xinhuanet.com/legal/2013-07/11/c_116500507.htm (in Chinese). 34  Interpretation of Several Issues Relating to the Application of Law to Trial of Cases of Disputes Involving Copyright on Computer Network. 35 See http://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2006/04/id/203489.shtml for the report in Chinese. 32 33

709

People’s Republic of China (‘.cn’) Concerning Domain Name), infringement cases involving domain names shall be under the jurisdiction of intermediate People’s Courts in the place where the infringement takes place or where the defendant has his domicile. Where it is difficult to determine the place where the infringement takes place or where the defendant has his domicile, the location of the equipment, such as a computer terminal, through which the plaintiff discovered the domain name(s) may be regarded as the place of the infringement.36 CN.123 In cases in which one or both of the parties are foreigners, stateless persons, foreign enter-

prises or organizations, international organizations, or in which the domain names in question are registered abroad, jurisdiction shall be determined according to Article 243 of Civil Procedure Law which states: in the case of an action concerning a contractual dispute or other disputes over property rights and interests, brought against a defendant who has no domicile within the territory of the People’s Republic of China, if the contract is signed or performed within the territory of the People’s Republic of China, or if the object of the action is located within the territory of the People’s Republic of China, or the defendant has distrainable property within the territory of the People’s Republic of China, or if the defendant has its representative office within the territory of the People’s Republic of China, the court of the place where the contract is signed or performed, or where the object of the action is, or where the defendant’s distrainable property is located, or where the torts are done, or where the defendant’s representative office is located, shall have jurisdiction.37

(2)  Choice of Law CN.124 A choice of law is only permissible in contractual disputes involving domain names in China.

In accordance with Article 126 of the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China (Contract Law), parties to a contract with an international aspect may select the applicable law for the resolution of contractual disputes, except where otherwise provided by law. Where parties to such a foreign-related contract omit to decide the applicable law, the contract shall be governed by the law of the country with the closest connection to the contract.

CN.125 Pursuant to Article 146 of the General Principle of the Civil Law, the law of the place where

the infringement was committed shall be applied when handling compensation claims for any damages caused by the infringement action. If both parties are citizens of the same country or have an established domicile in another country, the law of their own country or their country of domicile may be applied. An act committed outside the People’s Republic of China shall not be treated as an infringing act if under the law of the People’s Republic of China it is not considered an infringing act.38 As ‘.cn’ domain names are registered through the CNNIC in China, Chinese law can be applied in all infringement cases involving these domain names.

  Article 2 of the Interpretation of the Supreme Court.   Article 243 of Civil Procedure Law. 38  Article 146 of the General Principle of the Civil Law. 36 37

710

POLAND (‘.pl’) Justyna Ożegalska-Trybalska

(6) Role of the ADR Provider  PL.34 (7) Role of the Administrative Panel  PL.36 (8) Costs  PL.38 (9) Relationship between the ADR and Court Proceedings  PL.39 (10) ADR Decision  PL.40 (11) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Administrative Panel  PL.45 (12) Special Problems Discussed in ADR Decisions  PL.46

I. Overview of the National System of Trademark and Other Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names  PL.01 (1) Types of Protected Industrial Property Rights  PL.01 (2) Development of Domain Name Law  PL.06

II. The ccTLD (‘.pl’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

PL.07 (1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry  PL.07 (2) The Structure of the Name Space  PL.08 (3) Registration Restrictions  PL.09 (4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement  PL.12 (5) Transfer of Domain Names  PL.14 (6) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding  PL.16 (7) Statistics: Number of Domain Name Registrations  PL.17

IV. Court Litigation and National Laws 

(1) Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation  (2) Trademark Infringement  (3) Infringement of Personal Names, Names of Cities, and Other Public Law Corporations  (4) Infringement of Titles  (5) Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available 

V. The Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  VI. Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers  VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law 

III. ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.pl’ ccTLD Space 

PL.18 (1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding  PL.19 (2) Statistics  PL.20 (3) Material Scope of the Proceeding  PL.21 (4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding through the Registration Agreement  PL.22 (5) Overview of the ADR-Procedure  PL.23

PL.49 PL.50 PL.53 PL.62 PL.67 PL.68

PL.77 PL.79 PL.81 PL.84

Links Polish Patent Office: http://www.uprp.pl Trademark Law: http://www.uprp.pl/uprp/_gAllery/38/29/38293/Industrial_Property_Law.doc Domain Name System: ccTLD Registry: http://www.nask.pl Rules for Registration: http://www.dns.pl Alternative Dispute Resolution: Dispute Resolution Provider: http://www.piit.org.pl/sad-polubowny Dispute Resolution Regulation: http://www.piit.org.pl/_gAllery/92/87/9287/Rules_of_the_ Arbitration_Court_v2010.pdf Decisions: http://www.piit.org.pl/orzecznictwo

711

Poland (‘.pl’)

I.  Overview of the National System of Trademark and Other Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names (1)  Types of Protected Industrial Property Rights PL.01 Protection of industrial property in Poland, including trademarks, is governed by the

Industrial Property Law (Ustawa prawo własności przemysłowej), dated 30 June 2000 (hereinafter the IPL).1 According to Article 120 of the IPL, any sign capable of being represented graphically may be considered as a trademark provided that such a sign is capable of distinguishing the goods of one undertaking from those of other undertaking organizations or entities.

PL.02 Trademark protection may be secured through the registration of the relevant mark with the

Polish Patent Office.2 Trademark registration confers on the mark holder the exclusive right (prawo ochronne na znak towarowy) to use the trademark for profit or professional purposes throughout the territory of the Republic of Poland,3 and the right to prohibit any third party (acting without the consent of the trademark’s owner) from using the trademark for identical or similar goods or services, which may cause confusion among customers including, in particular, a risk of associating the third party’s sign with the holder’s registered trademark.4 If a trademark has an established reputation, this protection extends beyond the fields of similar goods or services, and protection will be available to the trademark holder irrespective of whether or not there is any likelihood of actual confusion among consumers. The infringement of a renowned trademark takes place if such use without due cause would bring unfair advantage to the user or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trademark.5

PL.03 Unregistered trademarks and other commercial designations (company names, abbrevia-

tions, characteristic symbols, firma)6 fall within unfair competition law as codified in the Act against Unfair Competition (Ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji) dated 16 April 1993 (hereinafter the AUC).7 The AUC forbids any act which is unlawful or contrary to recognized commercial practices and which threatens or infringes the interests of another undertaking or a customer. According to the provisions of the AUC, acts of unfair competition include, in particular, the misleading designation of an enterprise (Article 5), false or deceptive marking of the geographical origin of goods or services, and the misleading marking of goods or services (Article 10). The prerequisites for the protection for commercial

1  OJ 2013, s 1410 (consolidated text). The English version is available at: http://www.uprp.pl/English/ Law/. 2  The main website of the Polish Patent Office is located at: http://www.uprp.pl. 3  Art 153(1), IPL. 4  Art 296(2), paras 1 and 3, IPL:  ‘Infringement of the right of protection for a trademark consists of unlawful use in the course of trade of: (1) a trademark identical to a trademark registered in respect of identical goods, (2) a trademark identical or similar to a trademark registered in respect of identical or similar goods, if a likelihood of misleading the public, including in particular a risk of associating the trademark with a registered trademark, exists.’ 5  Art 296(2), para 3, IPL: ‘Infringement of the right of protection for a trademark consists of unlawful use in the course of trade of … a trademark identical or similar to a renown trademark registered for any kind of goods, if such use without due cause would bring unfair advantage to the user or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trademark.’ 6  According to Art 43¹ of the Civil Code, firma is a commercial designation under which an entrepreneur carries out his commercial activity. 7  OJ 2003 No 153 s 1503 (consolidated text). The English version is available at: http://www.uokik.gov. pl/download.php?plik=7635.

712

II.  The ccTLD (‘.pl’) Registration Conditions and Procedures designations under the AUC are: priority over the use of a particular trademark or identifying element in the market, and third-party’s use of a later, conflicting sign that may create confusion among customers. Personal names of individuals and legal persons are provided in Poland by the provisions PL.04 (Articles 23 and 24 in conjunction with Article 43) of the Civil Code (Ustawa kodeks cywilny).8 According to these Articles, rights in a personal name are infringed when a given exploitation of that personal name threatens or interferes with the proper identification of an individual or a legal person and is unlawful. Additionally, a company name (firma) can be protected according to the provisions of PL.05 Article 431 of the Civil Code. The provisions of this regulation provide protection to the firma name disclosed in the proper register against an entry in a register of new firma names that do not differ sufficiently from those already registered.9 The protection extends, however, only to entities active within the same market.

(2)  Development of Domain Name Law The above-mentioned regulations are the sole legal basis for providing protection for PL.06 trademarks and other distinctive signs registered and used in domain names by third parties. Since the legislature has not adopted any statutory provisions for the regulation of domain name conflicts or ccTLD registry functions, Polish domain name law has developed on the basis of the existing laws. Holders of trademarks and other commercial designations may enforce their rights against domain name registrants, both before common courts and by using special ADR proceedings (discussed in detail in Section III). In practice, most disputes are resolved by one of the two arbitration courts for domain names,10 which between 2003 and mid 2015 issued around 240 decisions in almost 930 proceedings.

II.  The ccTLD (‘.pl’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1)  Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry In Poland, the registry institution responsible for the allocation and registration of the ‘.pl’ PL.07 ccTLD is the Research and Academic Computer Network (Naukowa i Akademicka Sieć Komputerowa—hereinafter NASK). NASK is a development unit with the status of a legal entity, operating on the basis of the Law of 30 April 2010 concerning research institutes.11 The conditions of providing domain names services by the NASK are set out in the Domain Names Regulation of 18 December 2006, last amended in December 2013.12

(2)  The Structure of the Name Space The registration system set up by NASK provides for the possibility of registering domain PL.08 names directly under the ‘.pl’ ccTLD and under 33 functional second-level domains.13

  OJ 2014 s 121.   Art 433, s 2 Civil Code. 10  Domain Name Arbitration Court at Polish Chamber for Information Technology and Telecommunications. 11  OJ 2010 No 96 s 618. 12  For details see: http://www.dns.pl. 13  The list includes: ‘.aid.pl’, ‘.agro.pl’, ‘.atm.pl’, ‘.auto.pl’, ‘.biz.pl’, ‘.com.pl’, ‘.edu.pl’, ‘.gmina.pl’, ‘.gsm. pl’, ‘.info.pl’, ‘.mail.pl’, ‘.miasta.pl’, ‘.media.pl’, ‘.mil.pl’, ‘.net.pl’, ‘.nieruchomosci.pl’, ‘.nom.pl’, ‘.org.pl’, 8 9

713

Poland (‘.pl’) There are also almost 120 regional sub-domains that correspond with the names of certain Polish administrative units offered for registrants.14 From June 2013, NASK also manages the ‘.gov.pl’ domain name. Additionally, the Polish registry offers a possibility for registration of domain names with Polish letters; for example, ‘ż’, ‘ó’, etc. (Internationalized Domain Names in the ‘.pl’ ccTLD). All types of domain names are registered under the same registration rules. There are no eligibility criteria for registrants, excluding regional domain names, which are registered with some restrictions as indicated below. Registrants are free to register their names, symbols, and trademarks in functional or regional sub-domains, depending on the functional or regional type of activity conducted under the domain name.

(3)  Registration Restrictions PL.09 A  domain name with a ‘.pl’ ending may consist only of the following characters:  Latin

alphabet letters, digits, and hyphen ‘-’ and may consist of up to 63 characters in total. There are no restrictions regarding terms which are not eligible for registration as well as no limits regarding the number of registered domain names an entity may own, nor on the nationality or domicile of an applicant. Domain names in the ‘.pl’ ccTLD can be registered both by commercial entities and private individuals located in Poland, and by applicants from other countries.

(a)  Documents Required for Registration PL.10 For registration of a domain name in the ‘.pl’ ccTLD an applicant is required to submit: (1) a correctly completed electronic application via the website of NASK or via a registrar which has concluded a corresponding agreement with NASK; and (2) a signed application by post or fax within seven days after submission of the electronic application. PL.11 Each application for a domain name registration should specify the domain name, the appli-

cant’s personal identification data, including contact details, together with details of a person authorized to act on his behalf and at least two servers intended to maintain the domain name.15 An applicant is not obliged to submit documents proving or confirming his rights to the particular domain name unless requested by NASK, but he is liable for the consequences of providing incorrect information and the submission of false data, including false statements as to his rights to the specific domain name.

(4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement PL.12 A registration agreement for a ‘.pl’ domain can be concluded directly with the registry or indi-

rectly with one of the NASK-accredited registrars. Entering into the registration agreement does not mean that the domain name registrant obtains any rights to the domain name except for the contractual rights clearly resulting from the agreement. The registration of a domain name requires entering into an agreement with a registry or a registrar, which qualifies as an agreement for rendering telecommunication services. The subjects of this contract ‘.powiat.pl’, ‘.pc.pl’, ‘.priv.pl’, ‘.realestate.pl’, ‘.rel.pl’, ‘.sex.pl’, ‘.shop.pl’, ‘.sklep.pl’, ‘.sos.pl’, ‘.szkola.pl’, ‘.targi. pl’, ‘.tm.pl’, ‘.tourism.pl’, ‘.travel.pl’, and ‘.turystyka.pl’. Available at: http://www.dns.pl/dns-funk.html. 14  A full list of regional domain names is available at: http://www.dns.pl/dns-regiony.html. 15  Registrants’ details are publicly available through the WHOIS database accessible on the NASK website. Pursuant to the provisions of data-protection law, contact details of individuals may only be publicly available in the WHOIS database under the explicit consent of the individual domain name holder.

714

II.  The ccTLD (‘.pl’) Registration Conditions and Procedures are a payable registration fee by the registrant and the maintenance of the domain name by the registry/registrar. The following elements may be considered the most important conditions of a registration agreement: (1) an obligation on the registrar to register and maintain the domain name for the benefit of its holder; (2) an obligation on the domain name holder to pay an annual fee for the maintenance of the domain name; (3) an obligation on the registry to execute a change of the domain name holder; and (4) an obligation on the domain name holder to submit to one of the ADR proceedings specified by a registrar in the registration rules, by signing an arbitration clause, in the event of a third party filing a motion in which a demand is made to desist the infringement of said party’s rights resulting from the registration of the domain name. There are no domain privacy services provided for holders of ‘.pl’ domain names since such PL.13 services are not accepted by the registry.

(5)  Transfer of Domain Names Since the registration of a domain name does not create any absolute transferable right to the PL.14 domain name per se, but only contractual rights and obligations deriving from the registration agreement, only those rights and obligations may be transferred to a third party, for example, by means of a contract between the registrant and the party interested in obtaining an already registered domain name. In order to ‘assign’ the domain name to the third party, a signed application requesting the change of the domain name registrant must be submitted to NASK.16 NASK, following the request by the registrant, will transfer the domain name within 14 working days, after the submission of a correctly completed and signed application form. NASK does not perform a change of the ‘.pl’ domain name, serviced directly, to a natural PL.15 person not conducting a business activity. In this case, one should first transfer the ‘.pl’ domain name service to one of registrars (NASK’s partner), and then perform the change of the domain name subscriber in accordance with the procedure offered by a new registrar. If a domain name is serviced by a registrar other than NASK, it is necessary to use a valid procedure for the change of domain name holder used by this registrar.

(6) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding In any case, when an ADR or a court dispute over a domain name arises, it is possible for PL.16 a party claiming infringement of its rights to prevent the transfer of the domain name in dispute to a third party. After receiving a document confirming that a dispute has arisen, the registry will suspend any changes of the registrant of the disputed domain name until the dispute is concluded, but not later than one year from the notification. This period may be extended, if the third party claiming infringements demonstrates that the dispute has not yet been concluded.

(7)  Statistics: Number of Domain Name Registrations As of mid of March 2015, roughly 2,590,647 ‘.pl’ ccTLD domain names have been registered PL.17 in Poland.17 The most popular domains are within the ‘.pl’ (1,858,312 ), ‘.com.pl’ (418,312),

16  The sample application for a change of a registrant is available at: http://www.dns.pl/english/transfer. html. 17 See http://www.dns.pl/statystyki.html.

715

Poland (‘.pl’) ‘.net.pl’ (45,094), and ‘.org.pl’ (27,748) extensions. The number of registrations are increasing every year: there were 88,958 registrations in 2000; 443,249 registrations in 2005; and over 2.5 million registrations in 2015.

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.pl’ ccTLD Space PL.18 As yet the Polish registry has not recognized the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP),

but the Polish Chamber for Information Technology and Telecommunications (PCITT) and the Polish Chamber of Industry have established independent alternative dispute and mediation procedures that the applicant for a domain name accepts when concluding the registration contract. The PCITT’s ADR proceeding, however, only applies if one or both parties have their place of residence or business in Poland. If this is not the case, the WIPO Expedited Arbitration Rules for Domain Name Dispute Resolution Under .PL apply.18

(1)  Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding PL.19 In Poland, most domain name disputes are resolved under ADR proceedings provided by

the Domain Name Arbitration Court at PCITT (hereinafter Arbitration Court at PCITT), and therefore the principal characteristics of just this proceeding are discussed in more detail below. PCITT’s ADR proceeding applies to all domain names registered under ‘.pl’, that is, including the functional and regional second-level sub-domains. Unlike the UDRP, which requires a showing of bad faith domain registration, the Polish alternative dispute resolution procedure applies to all disputes resulting from the infringement of third-party rights by the registration and use of domain names (including infringements of trademark rights, unfair competition law concerns, personality rights, and firm name rights).

(2) Statistics PL.20 From 2003 to the mid of 2015, 90 mediations and 839 arbitration proceedings were initiated

before the Arbitration Court at PCIIT, with an average number of 80 to 90 cases per year over the last few years. Only 6 mediation and 16 arbitration proceedings ended in settlement, 235 decisions were issued, and 23 disputes were terminated.19 In other cases, either the holder of the domain name did not sign an arbitration clause or the proceeding did not enter the dispute resolution stage.

(3)  Material Scope of the Proceeding PL.21 The material scope of the proceeding is limited only to an analysis as to whether (on the

basis of relevant existing IP laws) the registration and use of a domain name infringes a third party’s rights, in particular the rights to a trademark or other distinctive signs, personal rights or rights established pursuant to the rules of unfair competition. The proceeding does not provide a possibility for claiming compensation for the damage incurred as a result of the infringement or claiming transfer or cancellation of the disputed domain name.

(4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding through the Registration Agreement PL.22 By registering a ‘.pl’ ccTLD domain name, the registrant accepts the applicable registra-

tion rules, which become a part of an agreement with the registry for the registration and

 See http://www.piit.org.pl/documents/10181/24063/196.pdf.   All statistical data concerning disputes are published at: http://www.piit.org.pl.

18 19

716

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.pl’ ccTLD Space maintenance of the domain name. According to these rules, if any third party initiates a legal action in the arbitration court against the registrant claiming that the registration and use has infringed that person’s rights, by entering into the registration agreement, the registrant is obliged to submit to the relevant arbitration court a duly signed arbitration clause that includes a consent for the dispute to be resolved in an ADR proceeding. Non-signing of the arbitration clause results in the termination of the registration agreement after three months, following the claim by a rights-holder whose rights have been allegedly infringed by the registration and use of a domain name. If in the ADR proceeding an arbitrator holds that a right has been infringed by the registration of the domain name, the registration contract is terminated as of the date when the award comes into force.

(5)  Overview of the ADR-Procedure The PCITT dispute resolution procedure is broken down into two stages: (a) a voluntary PL.23 mediation procedure; and (b) mandatory arbitration proceedings. If no agreement is reached between the parties with the help of a neutral mediator during the mediation proceedings, the complainant may initiate the (binding) arbitration proceeding. Prior to commencing arbitration proceedings, the claimant should pay the administration fee PL.24 in an amount prescribed in the fee schedule, as well as file a pre-trial motion with information concerning its intention to file a suit. After that, the parties to the dispute should sign their respective arbitration clauses. Following submission of a complaint and a response by the parties, all documents are forwarded to the chosen arbitrator. The arbitration proceeding is conducted by one arbitrator acting with the power of an arbitration court within the meaning of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. As a general rule, the arbitration proceeding is conducted via electronic communication with PL.25 the parties; as an exception, however, the Mediation and Arbitration Rules do provide for the possibility of ordering a hearing if deemed necessary.

(a)  Legal Framework According to the Mediation and Arbitration Rules, disputes are subject to Polish law and the PL.26 PCITT Rules. The PCITT, however, only contains rules setting out the mechanism for the proceedings. The arbitrator’s decision is thus based only on the substantive Polish law (IPL, AUC, and the provisions of the Civil Code concerning the protection of personal names and firma). In regard to general rules of arbitration, the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply. (b)  ADR Complaint Although a sample complaint for use in the Arbitration Court at PCIIT is available,20 PL.27 it is not mandatory to use it. Most complaints submitted to the Arbitration Court at PCIIT are prepared on a standard form complaint, as required in court proceedings. A complaint should be written in the Polish language unless the arbitrator decides otherwise upon a joint request of the parties, and must include (at a minimum) the following information: (1) details regarding the claimant and the defendant21 and the disputed domain name or domain names;

  Available at: http://www.piit.org.pl.   Information on the registrant of a domain name (either a commercial entity or individual) is publicly available in the WHOIS database accessible via the NASK website at: http://www.dns.pl. 20 21

717

Poland (‘.pl’) (2) a request for a determination that by the registration and use of the disputed domain name the defendant has infringed the claimant’s rights; (3) a citation of factual circumstances which justify the request, and evidence supporting the circumstances cited; (4) an indication of a preferred arbitrator from the list of arbitrators; and (5) if applicable, the complainant may cite the provisions of Polish law which form the basis for its claims, as well as a request for the reimbursement of the procedural costs from the defendant. If the complaint is filed through a professional representative, a power of attorney needs to be enclosed with the complaint.

(c)  ADR Response PL.28 The response in an ADR proceeding before the Arbitration Court at the PCIIT should be

submitted to the Court within seven days from the date on which the complaint was delivered to the defendant.22 Responses may be submitted either by using a sample response form, or in any other format that includes information such as:

(1) the defendant’s arguments and objections, including lack of jurisdiction for the arbitration according to the Mediation and Arbitration Rules; (2) a citation of the factual circumstances which may substantiate the respondent’s defences and a presentation of evidence to support these defences; (3) consent to the resolution of the dispute by the arbitrator indicated in the complaint or an indication of another arbitrator from the list of arbitrators; and (4) if applicable, a citation of the provisions of Polish law which form the basis of the respondent’s defences.

(d) Procedural Issues PL.29 In arbitration proceedings conducted by the Arbitration Court at the PCIIT, there is no obligation to utilize professional legal support. However, any party who is domiciled or located outside of the territory of the Republic of Poland must appoint an attorney ad litem or a person authorized to receive judicial writs who maintains an address in Poland. PL.30 A complaint and any other documents, as well as correspondence, can be prepared and sub-

mitted by any person having appropriate authority from the party involved in a dispute. Any natural person with full authority to act at law may serve as an authorized representation in the dispute, irrespective of citizenship or professional qualifications.

PL.31 According to the general rule expressed in Article 6 of the Civil Code, applicable also in ADR

disputes, the burden of proof relating to any fact rests on the person who makes the assertion and bases any legal argumentation on that fact. Thus, the burden of proof rests on the party bringing an infringement claim. Some standard types of evidence provided in domain names disputes are: copies of printouts from the website under a disputed domain name (in order to confirm the content of the website), correspondence between parties, copies of trademark certificates, and other relevant evidence.

PL.32 At the request of both parties or at its own discretion, when the arbitrator deems it neces-

sary for the comprehensive explication of the circumstances of the case, a hearing may be ordered for the purpose of assessing the testimonial evidence of witnesses, expert opinions or the parties themselves. 22  This seven-day time frame is important to note, particularly if acting as a defendant’s representative in any PCIIT action, as it is substantially shorter than the response period proscribed under the UDRP and many other ccTLD dispute policies.

718

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.pl’ ccTLD Space A fact of a commencement of a dispute, as well as any information conveyed by the parties PL.33 participating in the arbitration proceedings, is treated as confidential. In general, decisions are not confidential and many of them are published on the website of the Arbitration Court at the PCIIT. However, within 14  days from the delivery of the award, the parties may demand the exclusion from the publication of certain identifying data.

(6)  Role of the ADR Provider In 2015 the Arbitration Court at the PCITT is the main ADR provider for domain names PL.34 disputes in Poland. The role of this dispute resolution provider is to offer a platform for resolving a domain name PL.35 dispute out of the common courts. The provider’s duties include the management of the dispute resolution process by providing arbitrators and supporting administrative services.

(7)  Role of the Administrative Panel A dispute is resolved by one arbitrator conducting arbitration proceedings within the mean- PL.36 ing of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The complainant selects an arbitrator from the list submitted to him by the Arbitration Court. In its response, the respondent can consent to this arbitrator or select another from the list. If no arbitrator has been appointed by the parties, the arbitrator is chosen by the provider following a proscribed mechanism for the selection of an alternative arbitrator. The parties may also jointly request the proceeding to be conducted by an arbitration court composed of three arbitrators. Only a person who has full legal capacity, enjoys all public rights, has the necessary legal PL.37 knowledge and professional experience, has completed legal studies, and works as legal counsel, an attorney or patent agent, or at least has a doctorate in law, may become an arbitrator.

(8)   Costs The procedural fees (including 23 per cent VAT) amount to: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

PL.38

PLN 246 as an office fee (approximately €60); PLN 3,690 (approximately €900) for arbitration proceedings before one arbitrator; PLN 7,380 (approximately €1,800) for proceedings before a panel of three arbitrators; PLN 615 (approximately €150) for the commencement of mediation proceeding; and PLN 1,230 (approximately €310) due at the end of the mediation proceeding.

In the first instance the complainant must pay the full procedural fees, but the losing party bears all the costs incurred by the parties in connection with the proceedings, including reasonable costs of representation and costs of legal support claimed by the winning party.

(9)  Relationship between the ADR and Court Proceedings According to Article 711(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, the decision of an arbitration court PL.39 and an agreement concluded before such a court have the same legal force as the decision of a national court or an agreement concluded before it. This means that the decision issued in an ADR proceeding is binding for the parties in regard to the claims addressed in the decision of the arbitration panel, and that the subject matter of the decision cannot be raised again between the parties either in the same venue or in a different court. Thus, if a losing domain name registrant files a lawsuit after the ADR decision has been rendered, the claimant might object to it on the basis of a res judicata defence. For the same reason, when the same dispute is initiated during the pendency of the ADR procedure before the court or another arbitration forum, the later proceeding needs to be suspended until the final decision in the ADR proceeding is issued.

719

Poland (‘.pl’) (10)  ADR Decision PL.40 One of the advantages of an ADR proceeding is the short time needed for the dispute to be

resolved. According to the Arbitration and Mediation Rules, an arbitrator should close an arbitration proceeding within 30 days after its appointment, and should issue the decision within the following ten days.

PL.41 The decision issued by the Arbitration Court at the PCITT needs to be written in Polish and

should be limited merely to a statement that, by registering and using the disputed domain name, the domain name holder (the respondent) has infringed the claimant’s rights. The Arbitration Court has no power to order the cancellation or transfer of a domain name in the decision; neither is it authorized to decide on any damage claims. It can, however, award the winning party (at the cost of the losing party) the costs of the arbitration proceedings, including any procedural fees as well as the reasonable costs of representation and legal support claimed by the winning party. A legally binding decision of the arbitration court, stating that the domain name holder has infringed a third party’s rights, once submitted to the registry, will trigger the immediate termination of the registration agreement with the holder of the infringing domain name.

PL.42 Thus, in terms of a final result of the ADR decision, this termination mechanism is similar

to the cancellation remedy under the UDRP. However, in contrast to the UDRP, where the transfer or cancellation of a domain name are listed as the remedies available for the claimant, under the Polish ADR system, the arbitration courts cannot order transfer or cancellation, but are only allowed to issue a decision stating that the infringement by the domain name has occurred. In other words, transfer or cancellation of the domain name is not a legal effect of a decision, but a factual result. It is not within the power of the Arbitration Court at the PCIIT to decide about the cancellation but the registry, according to registration rules (which provides such result as one of the options when a registration agreement is terminated without prior notice).

PL.43 In contrast to a common court proceeding, the decisions of arbitration courts are not subject

to traditional appeal procedures, and can only be challenged by a claim to repeal the decision on limited grounds, such as, among others: (1) no arbitration agreement was signed or the agreement was invalid; (2) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement; or (3) the final judgment has already been made in the same case between the same parties.

PL.44 Access to publicly-available selected decisions are provided online. The records are organized

chronologically, so that the most important decisions and problems are prominently discussed, in order to ensure a degree of consistency across the issued decisions.

(11)  ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Administrative Panel PL.45 In an ADR proceeding before the Arbitration Court at the PCIIT, the complainant has to

prove that by the registration and use of the disputed domain name, the holder of a domain name has infringed his rights. The arbitrator closes the arbitration proceeding and issues a decision if he finds that all circumstances which have material impact on the resolution of the case have been demonstrated.

(12)  Special Problems Discussed in ADR Decisions (a) Generic terms PL.46 Descriptive terms may be used freely as domain names. As the case law confirms, if the domain name is generic, use of such domain name even in the face of a complainant’s rights (eg right to a trademark, right to a company name) may be legitimate. As argued, registration 720

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.pl’ ccTLD Space of generic domains should be allowed to anyone with respect to priority, under the ‘first-come, first-served rule’, especially if a claimant has no exclusive rights to it.23 According to the court’s reasoning, even when the generic domain name corresponds to a trademark there is no infringement, since a right to the trademark involving a generic term does not provide a trademark owner with an absolute right to the use of such term on the market. Generic terms belong to the public domain and as such shall not be monopolized by one party.24 A common practice of using generic terms in trademarks owned by different parties weakens the distinctive character of such trademarks in regard to particular goods or services. Thus, particular generic terms may create many different associations, not necessarily an intuitive connection with the goods (or services) of a trademark owner.25 A similar approach is taken in regard to an infringement of rights to commercial designations (eg firma) involving generic terms, which are used by third parties in their domain names.26 It also confirmed that registration and use of a domain name involving a generic term identical or similar to another party’s protected sign should not per se be considered as an act of unfair competition under Article 3 of AUC (a commercial activity contrary to recognized good practices).27

(b) Criticism Sites The legal approach on criticism sites was presented in a landmark decision concerning the PL.47 domain name ‘nasza-biedronka.pl’, incorporating the name of popular food markets, which identified a website with a discussion forum open for opinions and views about the markets.28 In the court’s view, a constitutional right of freedom of expression, collecting and disseminating information provided in Article 54 of the Polish Constitution might be performed, among other ways, through creating an Internet discussion forum. Exchange of information via a forum between customers about a particular company and its goods or services requires references to its commercial designations. Thus—according to the decision—using the complainant’s trademark in the domain name aimed at helping Internet users to find opinions about the trademark’s owner on the Internet is solely of informative purpose. Consequently, there was no use of the allegedly infringed trademark as an indication of source of particular goods and services, and thus, a trademark infringement has not occurred. In addition, infringement of the complainant’s personal right was not confirmed by the court. As argued, the mere creation of a platform for a public discussion about the food market’s network ‘as such’ is not detrimental to the goodwill of the markets, especially as it has not been proven that the domain name holder supported offensive or negative opinions presented by customers in the forum. The above-presented approach taken by the court is considered quite controversial, since the court has declared primacy of a constitutional right of freedom of expression over intellectual property rights, without any attempt to balance the rights and interests of both parties in this particular case. (c)  Main Differences from the UDRP The Polish ADR system29 for domain names disputes includes a number of important differ- PL.48 ences from the UDRP: (1) The complainant’s rights are not restricted to trademark or service mark rights. They may include other rights such as: rights to a commercial designation (company name,

  11/06/PA (31 May 2006, ‘krzywydomek.pl’).   13/10/PA (17 June 2010, ‘twojesoczewki.pl’). 25  11/05/PA (20 September 2005, ‘euro.pl’). 26  20/07/PA (3 August 2007, ‘armatura.pl’). 27  28/05/PA (9 June 2005, ‘przegladsportowy.pl’, ‘przegladsportowy.com.pl’). 28  13/12/PA (5 September 2012, ‘naszabiedronka.pl’). 29  The comparison is in respect to the UDRP and ADR procedure of the Arbitration Court at PCIIT. 23 24

721

Poland (‘.pl’) abbreviation, characteristic symbol, firma), or rights to personal name, title, or copyright. The complainant may also seek, via the ADR procedure, protection against acts of unfair competition (unfair exploitation of renown, misleading advertisement involving domain name). (2) The ADR mechanism does not provide any specific rules for resolving domain names disputes similar to the UDRP’s three requirements test (similarity, no legitimate interest, bad faith). Disputes are resolved according to the provisions of binding regulations, including the IPL, the AUC, provisions of the Civil Code, and press law. In regard to legal background, there is no difference between the ADR and traditional court litigation procedure. (3) In contrast to the administrative UDRP’s decisions, those issued under PCIIT Rules have equal legal effect as decisions of a common court. In regard to the same dispute between the same parties, the decision is considered as having res judicata status. There is no possibility for parties to the dispute to file a complaint in a common court, or other arbitration court, after the decision of the arbitration court has been enforced. (4) There is no specific provision for cybersquatting. Cases involving bad faith registration of domain names are resolved under the ADR procedure on the basis of general provisions of the AUC. (5) ‘Bad faith’ at the registration or during the use of domain name is not a sufficient condition for deciding about an abusive registration (cybersquatting or other form of infringement of a complainant’s rights). (6) There is no strict requirement for the complainant to show that the respondent has no legitimate rights in the name in order to bring a complaint. Nonetheless, lawful or unlawful use of a domain name is still investigated by an arbitrator in most cases, as it is one of the conditions for determining, under the applied regulations, whether an infringement has occurred.30 (7) There are no specific provisions that deal with false details as an bad faith abusive registration. (8) An arbitration court has no power to decide about cancellation or transfer of a domain name, but only about infringement that has (or has not) occurred. If an infringement is confirmed, such decision (submitted by a complainant to the registry) causes termination of the registration agreement with a domain name holder. Once the disputed domain name is free, a complainant may register it.

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws PL.49 Over the last few years, dozens of domain name disputes have been successfully resolved in

Poland, mainly via ADR proceedings. Common courts have also been confronted with the problem of infringement of IP rights due to the registration and use of conflicting domain names. Both the domain names decisions issued in traditional court litigation and ADR proceedings were based on existing national IP laws.

(1)  Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation PL.50 As yet, no special law dealing with cybersquatters, who register domain names consisting of

trademarks or other distinctive signs solely for the purpose of selling them to the legitimate

30  For example, ‘unlawful use’ is one of the conditions for determining infringement of trademark right under Art 296, (2), IPL, and personal rights under Art 24, Civil Code.

722

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws trademark holders, has been introduced in Poland. Thus, protection of trademarks and other commercial signs against cybersquatters must be sought under the traditional provisions of trademark and unfair competition law. If a domain name is registered solely with the intent of selling it to or impeding another, PL.51 and it has not yet been used to offer any specific goods or services, there are a number of difficulties in applying the infringement provisions under the law relating to intellectual property rights in signs. Moreover, claims under traditional trademark law, established under the IPL on the basis of a risk of confusion, are difficult to prove where the registrant has not used the domain name to offer specific goods or services in a specific trade sector. Nor do claims based on unfair competition law appear entirely free of problems, since these require a dishonest act in the course of trade performed only by an ‘entrepreneur’ within the meaning of the AUC (meaning an entity which by performing, even casually, a commercial or professional activity, participates in economic activity).31 Since many cybersquatters are individuals, a practical question may be raised if the offer to sell a ‘grabbed’ domain name by such an individual constitutes ‘participation in economic activity’. According to case law, the answer should be negative in regard to a single sale of a domain name, even where that domain corresponds to the distinctive sign of a third party.32 In cases where an alleged cybersquatter is a company or another entity involved in a commercial activity (so there is no doubt that the AUC provision may apply), it is argued that such conduct is in breach of recognized commercial practices that infringe the interests of another entrepreneur pursuant to Article 3(1) of the AUC.33 Even though many ‘cybersquatting cases’ confirm this approach, in some disputes the courts PL.52 have decided that trading in domain names corresponding to another party’s trademark or distinctive sign, due to particular circumstances of the case, should not be considered as an act contrary to good commercial practices. For example, in one of the cases the court has refused a ‘cybersquatting’ claim, despite the fact that an offer to sell the domain name corresponding to the complainant’s trademark was made by the domain name holder.34 As the court noted, the offer was not made until the court asked the parties to present their proposals for a settlement of the dispute during an arbitration proceeding. In the court’s opinion, in this particular situation there was no bad faith in the respondent’s offer to make a transfer of the domain name for a price much higher than the registration fees, since the respondent had a right to present such proposal for signing a settlement and he was not obliged to offer the disputed domain name to the complainant for free. In another case, the court recognized the following circumstances confirming that the offer to sell the domain name ‘gtv.pl’ was not aimed at illegally profiting from the complainant’s symbol used as a domain name.35 First, the symbol ‘gtv’ had not yet been registered as a trademark (only an application for registration had been filed), and had been used by the complainant only as a symbol of one type of product in a catalogue for professionals. In addition, similar symbols and domain names incorporating such symbols were used in the market by other entities, thus there was no common recognition of this symbol as a characteristic designation of products offered by the complainant. Secondly, even though the respondent was involved in

  See IX GC 457/08 (District Court of Krakow, 10 February 2009, LEX 522313).   61/05/PA (17 March 2006, ‘sitagroup.pl’). 33  Even though a claim under this provision does not require bad faith, a proof of bad faith is interpreted as an important indication when assessing whether the conduct in question is in breach of good practices. 34  59/10/PA (23 April 2011, ‘ochikara.edu.pl’). 35  56/06/PA (25 February 2007, ‘gtv.pl’). 31 32

723

Poland (‘.pl’) a professional activity focused on trading in domain names, he offered only ‘neutral’ domain names, mainly consisting of three letters (eg. ‘ptv.pl’, ‘mtv.pl’, etc), not domain names corresponding to other parties’ names or trademarks. Thus, in the court’s opinion, the disputed domain name was more likely to be registered by the respondent automatically together with many similar domain names and not chosen with the intent to profit from the special value of any ‘gtv’ reputation or the symbol’s connotation with the complainant.

(2)  Trademark Infringement PL.53 The legal basis for the protection of a registered or well-known trademark against its unlawful

use as a domain name is found in Article 296(2) of the IPL, in the light of which a trademark is infringed when the following conditions are met.

PL.54 First, the registration and use of the trademark as a domain name must be unlawful. An

unlawful use is defined as any circumstance where a registrant cannot rely on its own right to the trademark or does not use the trademark within the provisions of the IPL regarding ‘fair use’ of the trademark.36 According to case law, legitimate use of a trademark must generally be based on the explicit consent of a trademark owner. For determining, if such consent exists, the courts will look at the previous or current commercial relations between the parties and/or any cooperation between the holder of a trademark and the domain name registrant.37

PL.55 As to the second condition, which requires that the domain name be used in commerce, most

cases confirm that a domain name should be considered as being ‘used in the course of trade’ if it connects to a website that advertises, promotes and/or offers for sale any goods and/or services,38 or directs users to other commercial websites.39 As correctly stated in the decisions, the right to use a trademark does not automatically extend to the right to register and use a domain name corresponding to that trademark. Consequently, the mere registration of such a domain name does not as such meet trademark infringement requirements.40 A distinction has also been made between the ‘use of trademark in the course of trade’ and the transaction of ‘commercial activity’ by a registrant.41 However, some decisions present a controversial approach according to which the discussed condition is met despite the absence of an active website under a domain name, and even if there is no evidence of any active (actual) use of the disputed domain name.42

PL.56 Thirdly, the domain name must be used within the territory of Poland. In practice, there is

no detailed analysis made in the decisions by the courts on that condition, since the circumstances of the disputed cases (eg content of the website, contact addresses indicated at the website, website written in Polish, offers presented in PLN), clearly indicate that the target group of the websites are customers from Poland. Thus, the use of the domain names has had a commercial effect in Poland.

PL.57 Finally, subject to what is said below in relation to famous trademarks, a trademark is only

infringed if the domain name is identical or similar to the trademark and is used in connection

  Arts 156–160, IPL.   22/05/PA (23 March 2006, ‘eurortv.com.pl’); 07/03/PA (22 October 2003, ‘mikomax.pl’); 72/06/PA (21 June 2007, ‘farbyduux.pl’); 38/10/PA (27 December 2010, ‘securio.com.pl’). 38  I  ACa 1228/05, (Appeal Court in Poznań, 24 April 2006, LEX OMEGA No 214296); 28/05/PA (11 October 2005, ‘przegladsportowy.pl’); 02/07/PA (26 April 2007, ‘exponet.pl’). 39  17/04/PA (20 December 2004, ‘innoxplus.pl’). 40  17/05/PA (9 January 2005, ‘friko.pl’). 41  16/10/PA (20 October 2010, ‘barf.pl’). 42  19/04/PA (18 November 2005, ‘manpower.pl’); 14/03/PA (29 March 2004, ‘lennox.pl’); 72/06/PA (21 June 2007, ‘farbydulux.pl’, ‘farbydulux.com.pl’). 36 37

724

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws with identical or similar goods or services. Generally speaking, there are no controversies over establishing identity or similarity of the goods or services. In regard to the similarity of the domain name and the trademark, general trademark law rules are used for the assessment of similarity, according to which minor differences between the domain name and the trademark are not sufficient to make the compared signs different.43 In some decisions, however, unjustifiably broad criteria for the interpretation of similarity were applied.44

(a)  Risk of Confusion Where there is no identity in regard to the goods or services offered by the trademark owner PL.58 and the domain name holder, the use of the domain name must be of a kind likely to cause confusion among customers, in particular by evoking associations between the trademark and the domain name. As to the analysis of this requirement of trademark infringement, different standards are used by arbitration panels in domain names disputes. On one hand, there are decisions in which (with reference to EU trademark law) an assessment of the risk of confusion was made from the point of view of a ‘reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect consumer’, who is not very likely to be confused in regard to Internet services.45 On the other hand, in some decisions the courts found that the mere existence of a domain name corresponding to the protected trademark on the Internet, despite the content of the website under the domain name, is sufficient for a risk of confusion to arise.46 In any case, the decisions confirm that the ‘risk of confusion’ requirement is met even if there is no evidence demonstrating actual Internet user mistakes is enough to establish that such mistakes are likely to occur.47 (b)  Protection of Famous Marks According to Article 296(2) para 3 of the IPL, the holders of registered trademarks with a PL.59 ‘reputation’ in Poland are entitled to protection against the use of an identical of similar mark in relation to any kind of goods or services, if such use takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or reputation of the registered trademark. As the domain name cases decided under Polish law confirm, the infringing situation may PL.60 occur when a domain name holder (by attempting to trade on the reputation of the renowned trademark) uses a domain name corresponding to the trademark in order to attract Internet users to his website.48 Infringement of a renowned trademark may also take place when a third party’s use may dilute the trademark’s ability to distinguish the goods or services for which the trademark was registered.49 The holder of a right to a trademark that has a reputation in Poland can also prevent others from using a domain name corresponding to his trademark if such use tarnishes the reputation of the trademark. As several exceptional cases confirm, rights in a renowned trademark may be infringed by the mere registration of domain corresponding to that trademark.50

43  07/09/PA (17 September 2009, ‘prowident.pl’), where the courts fund that registering domain name with deliberate spelling mistake (‘prowident.pl’ instead of ‘Provident’) does not distinguish both signs. 44  02/10/PA (23 June 2010, ‘dora-go.pl’), where a court fund similarity between ‘Dora Metal’ trademark and ‘dora-go.pl’. 45  22/05/PA (23 March 2006, ‘eurortv.com.pl’); 41/07/PA (19 December 2007, ‘mybaby.pl’). 46  17/06/PA (7 July 2006, ‘asus.pl’), where the court found risk of confusion despite a disclaimer on the website under the domain informing the visitor that it is not the official website of a known producer of computers. 47  16/10/PA (20 October 2010, ‘barf.pl’). 48  06/09/PA (3 July 2009, ‘tvpsport.pl’). 49  73/10/PA (18 May 2011, ‘twojstyl.pl’); 67/06/PA (29 December 2006, ‘orange.pl’). 50  07/09/PA (17 September 2009, ‘prowident.pl’).

725

Poland (‘.pl’) (c)  Comparison of ADR v Court Action PL.61 In Poland the ADR procedure is the prevailing way of resolving domain names disputes. In many aspects, however, there are similarities between the ADR mechanism and court action. First, decisions issued in ADR proceedings and by the courts are based on the same material IP law. Secondly, the legal effects, as well as the results of any decision confirming infringement by a domain name holder, are analogous. However, as compared to a traditional court action, resolving disputes under the ADR procedure has several advantages. These advantages include the shortened time needed to secure a final decision,51 an easier and more user-friendly procedure,52 the usually lower costs involved, and the high expertise of the arbitrators.53 An important disadvantage of the ADR procedure is the limitation of claims that can be executed before an arbitration court (no claim for damages) as well as limited possibilities for an appeal of the decision (only a claim to repeal the decision is allowed, and even then only on the basis of a few grounds). (3) Infringement of Personal Names, Names of Cities, and Other Public Law Corporations PL.62 In Poland the protection of personal rights is provided by the provisions of the Civil Code.54

As confirmed by the domain name case law, these provisions can be possible legal grounds for prohibiting the unlawful registration and use of domain names corresponding to personal names of individuals, legal persons, names of cities, and the unauthorized exploitation of the renown associated with them.

PL.63 As confirmed by relevant decisions, even when a personal name of an individual is registered

as a domain name, the infringement of personal rights would not occur, unless: (1) the website identified by the domain refers implicitly to a particular holder of a personal name; and (2) the website contains negative or false information or opinions, which might discredit the holder of the relevant personal name. This approach was confirmed, for example, in a dispute over the infringement of the personal rights of a well-known politician by the registration of a domain name corresponding to his name where the court stated that the mere registration of a domain name corresponding to his name, even with the proved intent to sell it, is not enough to find the infringement of personal rights.55

PL.64 According to the case law, where the names of legal persons (eg company names), the names

of cities, and the abbreviations of personal names are registered without authorization as domain names, infringement occurs if such registrations could potentially cause confusion among Internet users as to the existing connections between the holder of the domain name and the holder of the relevant personal name.56 For instance, in a dispute between an individual and a municipality regarding a domain name which corresponded to the name of a Polish

51  The average duration of an ADR proceeding is a few months compared to a few years for a proceeding before a common court. 52  There are simplified requirements regarding documents submitted during ADR procedure, online communication, and no court hearings. 53  Arbitrators are specialists in IP and Internet law, while most judges in common courts have a general specialization in civil law. 54  Art 43 in conjunction with Arts 23 and 24. 55  Since there was no information available at the website identified by the disputed domain which could reasonably mislead users as to the political opinions of the complainant or discredit him, a claim for personal right infringement was found premature. In the court’s opinion, a finding for the complainant would create a precedent requiring the blockage of all domain name registrations corresponding to the personal names of third parties, and such a limitation is not consistent with the commercial purpose of domain name registration (09/08/PA 24 June 2008). 56  (06/09/PA 3 June 2009, ‘tvpsport.pl’).

726

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws town, the infringement claim was refused due to the existence of a link to the official website of the town’s municipality, as well as the clear display on the website of a disclaimer, indicating that the domain name was not owned by the town. In the court’s opinion, the existence of the link and the disclaimer effectively eliminated any confusion by Internet visitors as to the ownership of the website.57 However, it should be noted that the case law is not fully consistent in this regard, since there are also decisions which assert that the mere registration of a domain name corresponding to a name or a distinctive abbreviation of an entity would result in a direct threat of (potential) damage.58 With regard to personal names, the renown associated with them can be infringed by the PL.65 registration and use of a domain name. Such harm takes place, in particular, when the name of an entity known in the relevant market is used in order to draw Internet users’ attention to the website identified by the domain name and make it more attractive, or to channel Internet users to the website.59 The infringement of renown can also be found when, due to specific circumstances related PL.66 to the use of a disputed domain name, there is a loss of positive attitude towards the holder of a personal name, or a loss of consumer trust of positive affiliations with the trademark. Relevant circumstances identified by the courts include, among others, the dissemination of untrue or unreliable information via the website;60 the creation of a false website under the domain name (which is graphically similar to the original, authorized website of the holder of the personal name); and statements displayed on the website connected to the infringing domain name which indicate that the website is out of order and/or the display of false contact details designed to make contacting the legitimate owner of the name more difficult.61 Finally, relevant decisions confirm that the renown associated with the name of a legal person cannot be infringed by a mere registration of a domain corresponding to that name.62

(4)  Infringement of Titles As confirmed by the Polish domain name case law, the use of work titles as domain names PL.67 can also lead to conflicts. In practice, the rights to a title of a book, magazine, newspaper, or another work may be enforced under copyright law, press law, and unfair competition law if registered as a domain name by an unauthorized third party. However, the court decisions are not consistent concerning the provision of protection for titles under the first two of the above-mentioned regulations. On the one hand, there are decisions confirming that the unauthorized registration and use of a press title as a domain name may cause the infringement of publisher copyrights to a title of collective works under Article 11(2) of the Copyright Act, and the right to a registered press title according to Article 21 of the Press Law Act.63 On the other hand, in some decisions such claims were refused. Two main points of discussion have arisen in these cases and have guided the courts’ reasoning. First, as correctly stated in the decisions, Article 11(2) of Copyright Act does not create a sui generis right for a publisher to a title of a collective work unless it meets the requirements for a copyrighted work, which is

  04/08/PA (19 August 2008, ‘olsztyn.pl’).   27/05/PA (3 October 2005, ‘komputronix.pl’); 60/06/PA (1 June 2007, ‘gardaradio.pl’). 59 02/05/PA (9 June 2005, ‘pilkanozna.pl’); 09/08/PA (24 July 2008, ‘callan.waw.pl’); 17/07/PA (22 November 2007, ‘goretex.pl’); 56/07/PA (14 April 2008, ‘playmobil.pl’). 60  22/06/PA (30 November 2006, ‘mercedes.com.pl’). 61  75/05/PA (10 July 2006, ‘millnet.pl’). 62  31/07/PA (5 December 2007, ‘alfredo.pl’). 63  02/05/PA (9 June 2005, ‘pilkanozna.pl’). 57 58

727

Poland (‘.pl’) not the case for most short, descriptive, and non-individual titles.64 Secondly, the decisions confirm that the registration of a title of a newspaper or magazine under the press law is of an administrative character, and does not create any exclusive right to such a title.

(5)  Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available PL.68 In case of infringement of the right to a trademark (eg by the registration of a domain name),

the IPL provisions provide for the following remedies available in a proceeding before the common court:65 (1) (2) (3) (4)

ceasing of the infringement; handing over the unlawfully obtained profits; redressing the damage;66 requesting the court to decide on publishing the judgment in full or in part, or the mention of the judgment, in a manner and to the extent specified by the court; and (5) ordering that the infringer pay the holder of the trademark right an adequate amount of money (if the act of infringement was committed unintentionally). PL.69 Additionally, even before an action is brought, the party whose right is allegedly infringed

may request a court to secure evidence and—if the infringement is very likely—the court may oblige the alleged infringer (or any party other than the infringing party) to provide information which will be necessary for the aggrieved party to enforce its claims.67

PL.70 Where an act of unfair competition is committed which involves distinctive signs registered as a

domain name, the entrepreneur whose interest is threatened or infringed may request under the AUC that the registrant:

(1) ceases the prohibited practices; (2) removes the effects of the prohibited practices; (3) makes one or repeated statements of appropriate content and form (eg a statement confirming that infringement activities took place published in a particular newspaper, Internet website, etc); (4) redresses the damage, pursuant to the general rules of civil law; or (5) recovers unjust profits, pursuant to the general rules of civil law. PL.71 Additionally, the court may award an adequate amount of money to the determined social

goal connected with the support of the Polish culture or national heritage (where the act of unfair competition has been deliberate).68

PL.72 If a personal right has been infringed under provision of the Civil Code, apart from the above

measures available under the AUC, a claim for compensation is also available.69

PL.73 As can be seen, one of the most attractive claims which is generally available in domain

name disputes (eg under UDRP), namely the transfer of the conflicting domain name, is not provided for under the Polish law (among the above mentioned remedies). However, a legally valid decision of an arbitration court, or the common courts, stating that the registrant of a domain name has infringed a third party’s rights is a basis for the termination of   64/06/PA (29 October 2007, ‘machina.pl’).   Art 296(2) in conjunction with Art 287, IPL. 66  Damage can be calculated either in accordance with the general principles of law, or by the payment of the equivalent of the licence fee or of other reasonable compensation, which while being vindicated would have been due on account of consent given by the holder to exploit his trademark. 67  Art 2861, IPL. 68  Art 18, AUC. 69  Art 24, Civil Code. 64 65

728

V.  The Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name the registration agreement and—if the winning party so applies—the later registration of the domain name by that party. In Poland, there is no specific jurisdiction for industrial property right disputes. According PL.74 to the general provisions, jurisdiction for these disputes lies with the district courts. In case of a need for speedier relief for the party alleging infringement of industrial property rights, an interlocutory injunction can be issued to secure a claim if: (1) the claim is likely to prove well-founded; (2)  the enforcement of the claim would be frustrated without the interlocutory injunction; and (3) it is necessary to ensure the enforcement of a court decision.70 In addition, there is a specific regulation concerning interlocutory injunctions in disputes that result from the infringement of competition law. Pursuant to Article 21(2) of the AUC, the court can, as part of an interlocutory injunction, forbid the sale of the specific goods at a defined price or other form of sale, as well as advertising of a specific content. The common court costs include a court registration fee proportional to the amount at issue PL.75 and a fixed administration fee determined by special regulations on court fees. The minimum attorney, legal adviser, and patent attorney fees are also laid down in the relevant regulations, which determine the minimum fee amounts for cases concerning the infringement of a personal name or the protection of trademark rights. As a rule, however, most attorneys charge considerably more than the minimum fees. In general, slightly lower fees may be charged by professionals providing legal services in ADR proceedings than in court actions, because there are usually no costs associated with hearings and less complicated procedural requirements (eg online correspondence with the arbitrator, no detailed requirements for the documents submitted to the court, etc). The court fees for the filing of the action are to be paid by the plaintiff. Each party pays their PL.76 attorney fees. The losing party in the proceeding is obliged to refund the procedural costs (court fees, attorney fees, travel expenses, etc) to the prevailing party.

V.  The Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name From the point of view of the Polish law, the registration of a domain name creates only PL.77 contractual rights and obligations. It does not constitute an absolute right to a domain name ‘as such’ that could allow the domain name holder to exclude others from using identical or similar domain names.71 Since a domain name is beyond doubt of value for the purpose of identifying an enterprise on the Internet and the goods or services offered and advertised via the website it identifies, it may be eligible for protection as a registered trademark and/or as a distinctive commercial sign. Registration as a trademark is subject to the condition that the domain name is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one enterprise from goods of the same kind offered by another enterprise in the course of trade. In addition, the domain name must be sufficiently distinctive. As practice shows, many domain names are being registered in Poland as trademarks.72 As soon as a domain

  Art 730(1), the Code of Civil Procedure.   ACa 272/06 (Court of Appeal in Katowice, 13 June 2006, LEX No 196078). 72 The list includes, among others:  ‘onet.pl’ (Registration No 361999); ‘www.stolica.pl’ (Registration No 140145); ‘www.pf.com.pl’ (Registration No 147323); and ‘www.polishpages.pl’ (Registration No 147325). 70 71

729

Poland (‘.pl’) name has been registered as a trademark at the Polish Patent Office, it enjoys absolute protection against the unauthorized use of an identical or confusingly similar sign in connection with similar goods or services. PL.78 In addition to the potential for protection through trademark registration, a domain name

may acquire protection as a trademark through use under Article 10 of AUC and as an identifier of an undertaking under Article 5 of the AUC.73 Under these provisions, the party that first used the domain name in the course of trade as an indication of goods or services or as an identifier of the undertaking acquires protection of such domain name as a trademark or an identifier of the undertaking, respectively. It is important to note that the protection secured under these sections of the AUC is effective only against competing undertakings that wish to use an identical or similar trademark or business identifier in a way that may cause confusion on the market.

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers PL.79 Generally speaking, Polish law does not provide specific grounds for contributory trademark

infringement liability. Nevertheless, the owner of a right infringed by the registration of a domain name can attempt to make the registry or registrar liable for abetting the infringement and for the resulting damage under general provisions of the civil law. The legal basis for such a claim can be found in Article 422 of the Civil Code, which indicates that not only the party who directly causes the damage, but also any party that actively helps in committing a tort or does not prevent others from so doing, may be held liable for damages. The latter provision is arguable only if the party in question is obliged to prevent an illegal act. Moreover, as set out in the domain name registration agreement for ‘.pl’ domains, NASK’s only involvement and responsibility in the respondent’s activities concerns its role in the registration and maintenance of the domain name indicated by the applicant in its application for domain name registration. NASK does not render any service which includes checking the applicant’s right to a particular domain name. According to registration rules, NASK is not required to examine whether or not by entering into or performing the registration agreement the registrant has infringed any third party’s rights or the law, and cannot be held liable for infringements resulting from the registration of a domain under the ‘.pl’ ccTLD by a third party. Thus it would be difficult to find any grounds upon which NASK may be deemed to be obliged to prevent the registration of domain names which infringe third-party rights.

PL.80 Under the Law on rendering electronic services 18 July 2002 (Ustawa o świadczeniu usług

drogą elektroniczną),74 a special liability regime is established for the registry, the registrar, and any other Internet service provider in regard to the infringement of third-parties’ rights. According to Article 15 of this regulation, providers of electronic services are not obliged to monitor whether or not any third parties’ rights might be infringed through their customers’ use of their electronic services, and they have no duty to control or restrict such use. Their liability for contributory infringement is excluded provided that once they became aware of any infringement they fulfil the obligations listed in Article 12-14 of the above-mentioned Act. The relevant case law confirms this approach.75

  15/06/PA (13 November 2006, ‘e-intymna.pl’).   OJ 2013 s 1422 (consolidated text). 75  IV CSK 665/10 (High Court, 8 June 2011, LEX No 1112886). 73 74

730

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property Under Polish law and the current domain name registration conditions, a domain name is to PL.81 be considered as a product of a contract for services and not as an item of property. A domain name registrant does not acquire any property or any absolute transferable ‘right to a domain name’ through the registration, but merely a contractual right to the exclusive association of the registered domain name with a given IP number for an unlimited period of time, which is inextricably bound to the domain name services provided by NASK. Formally, licensing a domain name ‘as such’ is not possible, unless such a domain name is PL.82 protected by an exclusive IP right, for example, a trademark right. However, in practice it is possible to conclude an ‘agreement for using a domain name’, under which the actual domain name registrant allows the third person to use a website available at a particular domain name under agreed financial and technical conditions. Under Polish law, domain names ‘as such’ cannot be executed since a domain name does not PL.83 fall in any of the categories provided by the law76 that might be subject to execution proceedings. Although domain names ‘as such’ are inherently not capable of execution, the contractual rights related to domain names can be subject to execution. In this case, the rules for the execution of receivables apply. In cases when a domain name is registered as a trademark, or a company name (firma), and enjoys protection as an exclusive, economic right, it may become the subject of execution or the subject of insolvency/bankruptcy proceedings. As a distinctive sign, many domain names represent valuable assets of an enterprise, but since a domain name as such cannot be considered an item or a right, from the legal point of view the use of domain names as collateral or escrow property is questionable, although not impossible.

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law As a general rule, the Polish courts, if confronted with a dispute involving parties from dif- PL.84 ferent countries, will normally declare themselves to have jurisdiction if the defendant has domicile in Poland.77 If this is not the case, a national court would have jurisdiction if the infringement of the other party’s right has occurred within the territory of, or otherwise closely in connection with, Poland. As otherwise in the case of international conflicts based on intellectual property rights in PL.85 signs, the infringement of signs on the Internet is subject, at the level of the conflicts of laws, to the principle of the country of protection (lex loci protectionis). In any case, a general problem has arisen concerning how to reconcile the territorial prin- PL.86 ciple of trademarks and other distinctive signs with the global nature of the use of domain names corresponding to them. However, as yet there has been no in-depth discussion of what possible corrective measures should be made to the provisions of substantive Polish intellectual property law in signs in this regard. It can be assumed that the WIPO ‘Joint Recommendation concerning the Protection of Marks and other Industrial Property Rights in Signs on the Internet’ will, despite being merely a proposal, be accepted as a guideline in the application of substantive intellectual property law.78 In particular, the proposed criterion

  Arts 895–912, Code of Civil Procedure.   Art 1103, Code of Civil Procedure. 78  The document can be found at: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/marks/845/pub845.pdf. 76 77

731

Poland (‘.pl’) of ‘commercial effect’ intended to restrict infringement claims under intellectual property law, seems to be potentially available in Poland by way of statutory interpretation without any need to amend the law. PL.87 It remains to be seen how far the other requirements of the Joint Recommendation, in par-

ticular the proposed exemption from liability and adjustment of remedies, can be taken into account on the basis of current Polish trademark and competition law. As yet, no amendments to legislation are planned to implement the Joint Recommendation.

732

PORTUGAL (‘.pt’) Alexandre L Dias Pereira and Carla Valério

I. Overview of the National System of Trademarks and Other Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names 

(7) Costs  (8) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings  (9) ADR Decisions  (10) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by Administrative Panel 

PT.01 PT.01

(1) Introduction  (2) Types of Protected Intellectual Property Rights  PT.04 (3) The Development of Domain Law  PT.19

PT.59 PT.60 PT.63 PT.68

IV. Court Litigation and National Laws  PT.77 (1) Specific Anticybersquatting Legislation  PT.77 (2) Infringement of Trademarks  PT.78 (3) Infringement of Personal Names, Names of Cities, and Other Public Law Corporations  PT.97 (4) Infringement of Titles PT.99 (5) Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available PT.100

II. The ccTLD (‘.pt’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

PT.21 (1) The Structure of the Name Space  PT.21 (2) Registration Restrictions  PT.23 (3) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement  PT.30 (4) Transfer of Domain Names  PT.33 (5) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding  PT.34 (6) Statistics  PT.37

V. Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name VI. Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers VII. Domain Names as Items of Property VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law 

III. ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.pt’ Domain Space 

PT.39 (1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding  PT.41 (2) Statistics  PT.42 (3) Material Scope of the Proceeding  PT.43 (4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding through the Registration Agreement  PT.44 (5) Overview of the ADR-Procedure  PT.45 (6) Role of the Administrative Panel  PT.57

(1) International Jurisdiction (Brussels I Recast) (2) Conflict of Laws/Choice of Law

PT.105

PT.108 PT.113 PT.115 PT.115 PT.124

Links Industrial Property Office (Instituto Nacional de Propriedade Industrial): http://www.marcasepatentes.pt/ .PT Registry (Associação DNS.PT): http://dns.pt/en/ .PT Domain Registration Rules: http://dns.pt/en/domains-2/domain-rules/preamble/ .PT Two-Character Domain Name Registration Rules:  http://dns.pt/en/domains-2/ registration-rules-2-characters/preamble/ ADR Provider (ARBITRARE): https://www.arbitrare.pt/en/index.php ADR Procedural Rules (ARBITRARE Arbitration Rules): https://www.arbitrare.pt/en/sub_ regulamentos.php?id=47

733

Portugal (‘.pt’)

I.  Overview of the National System of Trademarks and Other Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names (1) Introduction PT.01 In Portugal, several intellectual property (IP) rights are protected, including both trademarks

and logotypes. Personal names, as well as literary and artistic names, company names and names of other legal persons, are also protected as exclusive rights which do not strictly qualify as IP rights under Portuguese law.

PT.02 Article 1303 of the Civil Code (CC) establishes that intellectual property (propriedade

intelectual) is a special kind of property which is covered by two branches of law—copyright (authors’ rights) and industrial property rights—which are regulated by specialized legislation. First, there is the Code of Industrial Property,1 which concerns patents and utility models, integrated circuits, models and designs, marks, logotypes (names and brands), rewards, denominations of origin and geographical indications, and unfair competition provisions including the protection of undisclosed information (trade secrets). Secondly, there is the Code of Author’s Right and Related Rights,2 which governs artistic and literary works as well as performances of artists, sound/video recordings, and broadcasts. Literary or artistic names of authors and/or works (including periodical publications) are also protected under copyright law.

PT.03 Portuguese IP legislation implements several international treaties, in particular a number of

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)-Administered Treaties, such as: The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883, as revised by the Stockholm Act 1967); The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886, as revised by the Paris Act 1971); and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS 1994). Additionally, as a Member State of the EU, it is thus bound to its relevant treaties, legislation,3 and judgments.

(2)  Types of Protected Intellectual Property Rights (a)  Names of Natural Persons PT.04 The right to name is protected as a personality right (Article 71(1) CC). Names of individual natural persons are registered at the Civil Registry. In case of similar names being used by different persons, particularly in exercising professional activities, the courts shall issue equitable injunctions to optimize the parties’ interests (Article 71(2) CC). Notorious pseudonyms are legally protected as names (Article 74 CC). 1  ‘Código da Propriedade Industrial’ (CPI), enacted by Decree-Law 36/2003 of 5 March, and amended by Decree-Law 46/2011 of 24 June. 2  ‘Código do Direito de Autor e dos Direitos Conexos’ (CDADC), enacted by Decree-Law 63/85 of March 1985 and as last amended by Law 32/2015 of 24 April. Copyright regulation is complemented by special Acts concerning, inter alia, computer programmes and databases. 3  For example, Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ L299, 8.11.2008, pp 25–33, which repealed Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988); Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L78, 24.3.2009, pp 1–42, which repealed Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94, OJ L11, 14.1.1994, p 1); Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ L157, 30.4.2004, pp  45–86). There are other relevant instruments of EU law with impact on IP rights, notably Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce) (OJ L178, 17.7.2000, p 1).

734

I.  Overview of the National System (b)  Literary and Artistic Names Authors of copyrighted literary and artistic works have the right to identify themselves as PT.05 such either under their civil names, their initials, through the use of pseudonyms or via any other conventional signs (Article 28 CDADC). In order to avoid confusion, it is not permissible to use a literary, artistic, or scientific name PT.06 which is capable of confusion with a name previously used in connection with another work (regardless of its kind), or with the name of a celebrity or well-known historical figure (Article 29(1) CDADC).

(c)  Titles of Works Copyright in a literary or artistic work extends to its title, regardless of registration, provided PT.07 that the title is original and cannot be confused with the title of another published work by a different author (Article 4(1)). Titles are not considered sufficiently original or distinctive if composed of generic designations, or the names of historical, dramatic, literary, or mythological characters, or the names of living persons (Article 4(2) CDADC). Registration is required for copyright protection of the titles of journals or other periodical PT.08 publications (Article 5 CDADC).

(d)  Names of Legal Persons Legal persons (including associations, foundations, partnerships, companies, and coopera- PT.09 tives) have to adopt a name. The general regulations concerning the names of legal persons are provided by the Regulation of the National Registry of Legal Persons.4 Special Acts provide specific rules for each type of legal company. The names of legal persons are called firms (firma) and there are three main types:  name PT.10 firms, denomination firms, and mixed firms. Registration of a firm confers an exclusive right, enabling that registrant to prevent others from using that firm name in the course of trade. Illegal use of firm names can be a cause of action for infringement and damages. Firm names are also protected by the laws prohibiting unfair competition.

(e)  Industrial Property Rights in Trademarks and Names Trade signs covered by industrial property statutes include marks, logotypes, rewards, denom- PT.11 inations of origin, and geographical indications. The Industrial Property Office (Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial—INPI) is responsible for the registration of signs in Portugal. Most industrial property rights are subject to exhaustion in the internal market (Articles 103, 146, 166, 205, 259 CPI). Infringements to industrial property rights are deemed criminal offences (Articles 321–330 CPI). Industrial property rights can be, in whole or in part, transmitted or licensed by contract, although such agreement must be concluded in writing (Articles 31 and 32 CPI). (i) Marks  Marks are defined as signs (eg emblems), or combinations of signs (eg com- PT.12 binations of colours), capable of graphic representation, and they may be protected if they can distinguish the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings (Article 222 CPI). Protection will not be granted for signs containing customary-usage terms or indications, unless such signs have acquired distinctive character in commercial practice (Article 223(1)(2) CPI). Protection requires registration of the mark with INPI (Articles 233 ff. CPI), although unregistered famous marks enjoy special protection against registration by third parties (Articles 241 and 242 CPI). 4  ‘Regime do Registo Nacional de Pessoas Coletivas’ (RRNPC), enacted by Decree-Law No 129/98 of 13 May, as amended by Decree-Law No 250/2012 of 23 November.

735

Portugal (‘.pt’) PT.13 In order to qualify for protection, marks must be truthful and distinctive. Registration is

made in respect of specified goods or services, according to the Nice classification categories (Article 224(1) CPI). Registration will be refused where, for instance, the applied-for sign is deceptive or misleading (Article 238(4)(d) CPI). Although registration is granted only with respect to specified products or services, registration of a new mark will be denied if the mark is identical or very similar to a prestigious mark, even if used in connection with different goods (Article 242 CPI).

PT.14 The owner of a registered mark has the right to prohibit other persons from using identical or

similar marks in commerce for identical or related products where, by virtue of the similarities, confusion or association in the minds of the public is likely to occur (Article 258 CPI).

PT.15 Registration lasts for ten years, but may be renewed without limit for equal periods (Article

255 CPI), although mark registration can be extinguished on the grounds of nullity, preclusion, or caducity. Grounds of caducity specifically include non-serious use of the mark, or situations where the mark becomes generic or deceptive (Article 269(1)(2) CPI). Additionally, this exclusive right cannot prevent certain informative uses of the mark (Article 260 CPI). The regulation of brand names and insignia has been united under the designation of ‘logotypes’ (logotipos). Logotypes can be composed of a sign or a combination of signs, namely nominative or figurative elements, or a combination thereof, and must be adequate to distinguish an entity that provides services or trades products (Article 304-A CPI). Logotypes which are deceptive, or contain or offend symbols utilized by the State, cannot be registered (Article 304-H (3) CPI). Registration lasts for ten years and may be renewed (Article 304-L CPI). Logotype owners can prevent others from using identical or confusingly similar signs (Article 304-N CPI).

PT.16 (ii)  Brand Names and Insignia 

Denominations of origin concern the names of regions, places or even countries where products originate. Upon registration, these identifying names become protectable IP and can only be used by those who make their products in the designated locale under a licence (Article 305 CPI). Protection is not limited in time, and generally confers an exclusive right of economic exploitation (Article 312 CPI). Registration can be extinguished by several causes, including nullity or caducity (Article 315(1) CPI).

PT.17 (iii)  Denominations of Origin and Geographical Indications 

(f )  Unfair Competition PT.18 The prohibition of unfair competition targets every form of competition which is against the norms and honest practices of economic or business activity (Article 317 CPI), including acts causing confusion, misleading advertising, wrongful comparisons, and parasitism. Unfair competition law grants only defensive protection, and enables rights-holders to prevent abusive activity within their relevant market.5

5  See Supreme Court of Justice, judgments of 21 February 1969, BMJ nº 184(1969), of 11 February 2003, CJ/ASTJ 2003/I, p 93, and of 20 December 1990, BMJ nº 402 (1991), p 567. However, more recently, the Supreme Court of Justice decided that there is an act of competition not only among identical, replaceable or complementary economic activities but also among those which target the same kind of clients (judgment of 26 September 2013, Proc. 6742/1999.L1.S2, Rel. Conselheiro Oliveira Vasconcelos). On Portuguese trademark and unfair competition law see, notably, A Ferrer Correia, Lições de Direito Comercial Vol I (Coimbra, 1973, 252–369); J Oliveira Ascensão, Direito Comercial Vol II Direito Industrial (Lisboa, 1994); Id. Concorrência Desleal (Coimbra, 2002); JM Coutinho de Abreu, Curso de Direito Comercial Vol I (9th edn Coimbra, 2013) pp 158–82, 343–99). Carlos Olavo, Propriedade Industrial (2nd edn Coimbra, 2005), Couto Gonçalves, Manual de Direito Industrial—Propriedade Industrial e Concorrência Desleal (4th edn Coimbra, 2013), Nogueira Serens, A Monopolização da Concorrência e a (Re-)Emergência da Tutela da Marca (Coimbra, 2007), Silva Carvalho, Direito de Marcas (Coimbra, 2004).

736

II.  The ccTLD (‘.pt’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (3)  The Development of Domain Law The regulation of the ‘.pt’ ccTLD was formerly provided by the Foundation for National PT.19 Scientific Computing (Fundação para a Computação Científica Nacional-FCCN). This private, non-profit institution with a public utility status was responsible for the management, registration, and maintenance of ‘.pt’ domains, under the authority of IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority), and later the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The Portuguese Government ratified the FCCN’s legitimacy by the Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 69/97 of 5 May 1997. The FCCN issued several Domain Name System .PT regulations, the latest dating from 2012.6 Recently, however, the government approved Decree-Law No 55/2013 of 17 April,7 which PT.20 extinguished the FCCN and provided that the management of ‘.pt’ would be attributed to a private law association (Article 21).8 This entity, named Associação DNS.PT (hereinafter ‘DNS.PT Association’), was formally created on 9 May 2013 and has managed such duties since June 2013. The founders of the DNS.PT Association are the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT, IP), the Portuguese Association of Electronic Commerce and Interactive Advertising (ACEPI), the Portuguese Association for Consumer Protection (DECO) and a designated IANA representative, who is responsible for delegation. On 16 June 2014 the DNS.PT Association issued the most recent and currently in force .PT Domain Name Registration Rules (hereinafter ‘DNS.PT Rules’).9

II.  The ccTLD (‘.pt’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1)  The Structure of the Name Space Domain registration in the ‘.pt’ space may be undertaken directly at the second level, or via PT.21 a number of established, classifying second-level domains (.pt sub-domains), namely: ‘.gov. pt’, ‘.org.pt’, ‘.edu.pt’, and ‘.com.pt’.

6  .PT Domain Name Registration Regulation (2012), Legal Deposit no 340473/12. This version of the Regulation aimed to implement the recommendations of WIPO within the Internet Domain Name Process and as adopted by ICANN (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, http://www.icann.org/udrp/ udrp-policy-24oct99.htm). 7 Decree-Law No 55/2013 of 17 April; English translation available at: https://www.dns.pt/ documents/10156/f74ae988-d341-40f4-9752-7800bd4ce9c9. 8  For Portuguese specialized literature on domain names law, see notably D Moura Vicente, ‘Problemática internacional dos nomes de domínio’, RFDUL (2002), p 147; Id., ‘Nomes de domínio e marcas’, Sub Judice 35 (2006), pp 31–42 Direito Industrial, vol V (2008), pp 563–83); Pedro Gonçalves, ‘Regulação Administrativa da Internet’, Revista de Direito Público da Economia no 1 (2003), Direito da Sociedade da Informação, vol V (2004), p 234; Almeida Andrade, Nomes de Domínio na Internet (A regulamentação dos nomes de domínio sob.pt) (Famalicão, 2004); J Ramos Pereira, Compêndio jurídico da sociedade de informação (Lisbon, 2004); Ana Maria Pereira da Silva, ‘Nomes de domínio e marcas—conflito real ou conflito virtual?’, Direito Industrial, vol V (2008), p 529–61; Alexandre Dias Pereira, ‘Empresa, comércio electrónico e propriedade intellectual’, Empresas e Sociedades, ed A Pinto Monteiro, vol I, (Coimbra, 2007), pp 439–78; Id., ‘Nomes de Domínio.PT’ Revista da ABPI 129 (2014). Some LL.M dissertations submitted to the Faculty of Law of the University of Coimbra have addressed domain names, notably, Maria Antónia Sousa Rua, Nomes de domínio e Cybersquatting (Coimbra, 2009), and Carla Valério, Marcas e Internet—Uma abordagem jurídica (Coimbra, 2010). There are also some interesting postgraduate research papers available online, such as Hugo Daniel Lança Silva, Marca e nome de domínio—Em busca da compatibilidade (‘estig.ipbeja.pt’), José Ricardo Cotrim Saraiva de Aguillar, Marcas e Nomes de Domínio (Coimbra, 2003 ‘ipn.pt’), Miguel Pupo Correia, A utilização das marcas na Internet (‘apdi.pt’), and Sofia Isabel Gomes Vairinho, A actual repartição de competências entre o INPI, o RNPC e a FCCN—o passado, o presente e o futuro (Coimbra, 2005 ‘verbojuridico.net’). 9  .PT Domain Registration Rules (2014), Legal Deposit No 376640/14, including the Annex regarding the Registration Rules of Domains with two characters, as of 1 November 2014.

737

Portugal (‘.pt’) PT.22 The general conditions for composing names can be found in Article 8 of DNS.PT Rules.

Accordingly, ‘.pt’ domains must contain between two and 63 alphanumeric characters, and may utilize special characters from the Portuguese alphabet (IDN domains), including: á, à, â, ã, ç, é, ê, í, ó, ô, õ, and ú. Hyphens are acceptable, although they may not be used at the beginning or end of a domain.

(2)  Registration Restrictions (a)  General Registration Restrictions and Eligibility Requirements PT.23 The DNS.PT Rules specify prohibited domain names in Article 9. A domain name may not, inter alia, correspond to words or expressions contrary to law, public order or morality; correspond to any top-level Internet domain; be misleading as to its ownership; correspond to any terms defined by the IETF; or correspond to a geographical name (except for registrations in ‘.com.pt’, and directly under ‘.pt’). PT.24 The same domain name cannot be registered twice in each hierarchy, but it can be registered

in different hierarchies by different persons (eg ‘universia.edu.pt’ for an educational institution and ‘universia.com.pt’ for an insurance company). However, the registrant of a ‘.pt’ domain name must guarantee that the domain (and its ownership) does not conflict with the rights of others and is not misleading.

PT.25 Finally, geographic names can only be legitimately registered by the legal administrative

authority, whether at the national, regional, or local level.

(b) Attribution/Naming Rules PT.26 After the liberalization of ‘.pt’ domain registration, which took place on 1 May 2012,

domain names under ‘.pt’ may be registered by all individual or corporate entities (Article 10). Therefore, at the present time, no restrictions or specific requirements for foreign registrants are in place. This is true, however, only within the ‘.com.pt’ sublevel domain (Article 19), and there are different eligibility requirements for other sublevel ‘.pt’ spaces.

PT.27 Domain names under ‘.gov.pt’ may be registered by entities which are part of the govern-

mental structure of the Portuguese Republic (Article 12), and they must coincide with the denomination of its registrant, its abbreviation or acronym, or its projects (Article 13). The registrar for ‘.gov.pt’ is CEGER—Centro de Gestão da Rede Informática do Governo (Management of the Government’s IT Network).10

PT.28 The ‘.org.pt’ space is reserved for non-profit organizations and individuals (Article 15), and

must coincide with the registrant’s name, acronym, or activities (Article 16).

PT.29 Public and private teaching establishments may register domains under ‘.edu.pt’ (Article 17),

which must coincide with the name listed on its official documentation or an abbreviation/ acronym thereof (Article 18).

(3) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement PT.30 To register a ‘.pt’ domain name, the interested party has two options: an accredited registrar11

or the registry itself.12 To register a ‘.pt’ domain online, the registrant must obtain a ‘nic

  Available at: http://www.ceger.gov.pt.   The list of the DNS.PT registrars can be found at: https://www.dns.pt/en/registrars-list. 12  Domain names may be registered at: http://www.dns.pt. 10 11

738

II.  The ccTLD (‘.pt’) Registration Conditions and Procedures handle’13 by completing a simple form, including the registrant’s name, address, taxpayer number, telephone number, and e-mail address. After securing a nic handle, a prospective registrant must then choose the domain name (the availability of which is automatically verified) and provide information for the administrative and technical contacts (which may be undertaken by the registrant himself ). In order to complete the registration, the registrant must accept the relevant terms and PT.31 conditions, although the acceptance of the arbitration clause is optional. The applicable registration fees range from €22, €45, or €65, depending on the length of registration (one, three, or five years). For a two-character domain name, the first year registration fee is €100. If the applicant is interested in registering a ‘.com.pt’ or ‘.org.pt’, domain, the fees will be €15, €35, or €50 respectively. During the registration process of a ‘.pt’ or ‘.com.pt’ domain name, no documents are required. All fees are subject to VAT at the prevailing rate. The registration agreement for a domain name takes the form of an adhesion contract, by PT.32 which the registrant must accept the terms and conditions, including the DNS.PT Rules, and must accept the disclosure of WHOIS data.14 However, the registrant may challenge such disclosure by informing DNS.PT Association in writing.

(4)  Transfer of Domain Names The DNS.PT Rules allow the transfer of domain names upon express request by the reg- PT.33 istrant. Additionally, when presented with a valid decision issued by an arbitral body or a judicial decision, the DNS.PT Association transfers the domain name of its own motion (Article 30 (3)(6)).15

(5) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding The DNS.PT Rules entitle a rights-holder to request an injunction against the use of a dis- PT.34 puted domain where he/she is able to show a risk of serious and irreparable harm (Article 39). Such injunctions are exclusively available in the context of arbitration proceedings, and grant temporary suspension of the domain. Moreover, ARBITRARE’s Arbitration Rules provide in Article 9 that the arbitration panel has the power to order appropriate interim measures, unless otherwise agreed by the parties involved. In the course of court proceedings, the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code (CPC)16 similarly PT.35 provides for the imposition of interim measures, including conservation or other anticipatory actions adequate to ensure protection (Articles 362 ff.). These actions may include the suspension of certain domain names, or other suitable measures. The Code of Industrial Property also provides for interim measures, which entitle a PT.36 rights-holder to request adequate interim action to prevent infringement or the risk of serious harm (Article 338-I(1)). The applicant is requested to provide evidence of ownership of

13  According to the DNS.PT:  ‘A Nic-handle is the unique identifier used to associate a contact in the process file of a domain.’ See https://www.dns.pt/en/faq. 14  The WHOIS policy and personal data processing rules for ‘.pt’ obey the applicable Portuguese legislation, namely legislation regarding personal data protection Law 67/98 of 26 October, Law for the Protection of Personal Data. This provision is incorporated as an Annex to the Rules (Art 24(2), DNS.PT). 15  Domain names removed under the ‘monitoring and immediate removal procedure’ become available for registration by any interested party (Art 22(5), DNS.PT). In addition, domains under the pending delete procedure are available for request by prior rights holders (Art 35, DNS.PT). 16  Law 41/2013 of 26 June.

739

Portugal (‘.pt’) the IP right and of the alleged infringement or threat (Article 338-I(2)). Injunctions may be requested against intermediaries whose services are being used to commit the infringement (Article 338-I(3)).

(6) Statistics PT.37 As at May 2015, there were approximately 720,000 domain names registered in ‘.pt’, and

270,000 are registered through ‘On the spot firms’.17 Only about 35 per cent of registered ‘.pt’ domain names are active.

PT.38 The registration of domain names has significantly increased since 2005. 2012 was a record

year, which saw more new registrations (over 113,000) than any other year. Considering that Portugal has a population of roughly 10 million people, the ratio of domain name registrations per capita is quite high.

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.pt’ Domain Space PT.39 When registering a domain name, the registrant may agree to an arbitration clause governing

the resolution of domain disputes. The Centre ARBITRARE has been authorized as the relevant dispute resolution provider for such procedures (Article 38, DNS.PT Rules).

PT.40 ARBITRARE specializes in the resolution of domain name disputes.18 Established in 2008,

it is an Institutionalized Arbitration Centre under the authority of the Ministry of Justice for the resolution of IP, domain name, and company and business name disputes.19 The Centre’s procedures are regulated by the ARBITRARE Arbitration Rules (hereinafter, AAR).20

(1)  Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding PT.41 ARBITRARE can moderate disputes in either the Portuguese or English languages, depend-

ing on party preference (Article 8, AAR). All phases of the proceedings are conducted electronically, which removes the necessity of travel. The arbitration decision has the same effect as a first instance court in terms of its enforceability, but the arbitration proceeding is faster (maximum time of six months), simpler, and is generally significantly less costly.

(2) Statistics PT.42 ARBITRARE has been active since 2008. Up to 2013, nearly 200 complaints had been filed.

Only 33 of these were related to domain name matters, primarily during 2012, and some of the decisions have been made available on ARBITRARE’s website.

(3)  Material Scope of the Proceeding PT.43 Arbitration proceedings against a domain registrant may be requested by any allegedly injured

rights holder. Alternatively, the aggrieved rights holder may commence proceedings against

17  ‘On the spot firm’ is a project by the Ministry of Justice, which allows proprietors to set up a company in a simplified way, using pre-determined company names, forms, and statutes. When constituting an ‘On the spot firm’ (or Association) its domain name is also automatically registered. The domain name will match the created company name. If the domain is not updated within a one-year period, it will be removed. See Decree-Law No 111/2005 of 8 July. A similar proceeding is provided for online constitution of companies by Decree-Law No 125/2006, of 29 June. 18  ARBITRARE’s website is located at: https://www.arbitrare.pt. 19  Order No 28519/2008 of 22 October, Diário da Republica, 2nd Série, No 216, 6.11.2008. 20  Approved on 13 December 2012 and amended on 27 March 2014. English translation is available at: https://www.arbitrare.pt/sbo/downloads/news_93_download_en.pdf.

740

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.pt’ Domain Space the registry (DNS.PT Association), for deleting or registering a domain in a manner contrary to the Rules (Article 40(3), DNS.PT Rules).

(4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding through  the Registration Agreement When registering a domain name, the registrant may elect to opt-in to the voluntary arbi- PT.44 tration clause. Even if the registrant does not accept this clause during registration, however, should a dispute arise, the aggrieved party may submit a petition requesting use of the arbitration mechanism. Upon receipt of a petition, ARBITRARE will assess the willingness of the domain holder to utilize arbitration, and provide information concerning inter alia the AAR, the identity of the claimant, and the subject matter of the potential proceedings (as described in the petition). If the holder does not agree, ARBITRARE archives the proceeding and informs all parties concerned (Article 7, AAR). The parties would still have recourse to the courts.

(5)  Overview of the ADR-Procedure (a)  Legal Framework The arbitration procedure is regulated in Articles 19 to 32 of the AAR. The Voluntary PT.45 Arbitration Act21 (‘VAA’) has subsidiary application in all matters not foreseen under the ARBITRARE Rules. The procedural formalities of the arbitration should meet the following basic princi- PT.46 ples: (a) parties are treated with absolute equality; (b) the defendant is ordered to submit a defence; (c) in all stages of the proceedings, strict observance of the contradictory principle is guaranteed; and (d) parties must be heard, orally or in writing, before the final award is made (Article 19, AAR). If the defendant does not provide a response, the Arbitral Tribunal will decide based on the case file (Article 24(2), AAR).

(b)  ADR Complaint Complaints are submitted electronically via a platform on the ARBITRARE website PT.47 (Article 33, AAR). In the online application, made available in both Portuguese and English, the complainant is required to supply the information required by Article 21, AAR. Specifically, the complaint must identify the interested parties and provide their contact information; indicate the number of disputed domain names; state the legal basis for the complaint; supply proof to support the claims; indicate the value of the dispute (in euros); indicate the preferred language for the dispute; specify the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal; and appoint arbitrators. The petition must be accompanied by an existing arbitration agreement, the claimant’s supporting documentation, and proof of payment (Article 21(3), AAR). (c)  ADR Response Responses are also submitted electronically through ARBITRARE’s webpage. The response PT.48 must provide the respondent’s name and contact information; facts, legal contentions and argumentation opposing the complaint; claims of the complainant; the preferred language for the dispute; and the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal and appointment of arbitrators. The response must be accompanied by proof of payment for the procedural costs (Article 22, AAR).

21  An English translation of Law 63/2011 of 14 December can be found at: http://arbitragem.pt/legislacao/2011-12-14--lav/lav-english.pdf.

741

Portugal (‘.pt’) PT.49 The time limit to respond is 20 calendar days. In especially complex cases, upon the

respondent’s request, this time limit may be exceptionally extended for ten calendar days by ARBITRARE. Where the defendant enters a counterclaim, the claimant will also be given 20 calendar days to answer.

(d) Procedural Issues PT.50 The parties’ submissions do not have to be prepared and submitted by a lawyer, but given the

inherent complexities in preparing a case, lawyers are commonly employed.

PT.51 The burden of proof is a civil standard, and rests on the alleging party. The arbitral tribunal

will accept any evidence allowed by law, including testimonial and expert evidence (Article 25, AAR).

PT.52 After the written submissions have been filed, the parties will be invited to resolve the dispute

through mediation. If the parties elect to participate, a mediation session will be arranged (electronically or in person). Mediation agreements are confidential and, once approved by the arbitral tribunal, have the same force as an arbitral award (Article 26, AAR).

PT.53 If mediation is not elected, or proves unsuccessful, the parties will be notified of the appoint-

ment of the Arbitral Tribunal and its anticipated actions. When possible (and where the parties agree) hearings may be carried out by videoconference. The Arbitral Tribunal may also elect not to hold a hearing (Article 29, AAR).

PT.54 Once the taking of evidence has ended, the Tribunal shall decide the dispute within 30

calendar days in accordance with the law, unless the parties have expressly chosen a decision in equity (in which case, no appeal is possible). Copies of the decision will be sent to the parties within five calendar days and the original shall be deposited at ARBITRARE (Article 31, AAR).

PT.55 Until the end of the hearing the parties may settle their dispute, which will be noted in

the record and ratified by the arbitrator, thus having the same force as an arbitral award (Article 28, AAR).

PT.56 Arbitration participants must respect confidentiality regarding all information submitted

during the proceedings (without prejudice to the parties’ rights or legal duties), but this does not prevent the publication of tribunal decisions. Parties may, however, oppose the publication of any identifying or sensitive information.

(6)  Role of the Administrative Panel PT.57 The Arbitral Tribunals are composed by fully capable natural persons freely selected by the

parties. Additional qualification requirements are agreed upon by the parties. Selected arbitrators must comply with the ‘Code of Ethics of the Arbitrator’22 which, for instance, imposes duties of confidentiality, disclosure of any facts which may raise doubts to his impartiality and independence, forbids communications in private with the parties, and prohibits the solicitation of appointment for any arbitration (Article 13, AAR).

PT.58 The Arbitral Tribunal generally consists of a sole arbitrator jointly selected, but the parties may

instead select an Arbitral Tribunal composed of three arbitrators; one member selected by each side, and the final arbitrator jointly agreed upon by the parties. Whenever the parties fail to reach an agreement, the Chair of the Board of ARBITRARE selects the arbitrator from a list

  Approved on 27 March 2014.

22

742

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.pt’ Domain Space approved by the Board of Directors of ARBITRARE, containing the names of highly qualified arbitrators or, exceptionally, individuals not named on this list (Articles 12 and 14, AAR).

(7)   Costs The costs associated to the procedure depend on the number of disputed domain names; PT.59 one to five domains, six to ten domains, or more than ten domain names. The costs, per party, for these brackets are €200, €400, and €900, respectively. As for interim measures, the corresponding costs are €70, €180, and €290 (excluding VAT). These costs comprise the fees of the sole arbitrator and the mediator, and the administrative costs of the proceedings (Article 3, ARBITRARE Regulation for Procedural Costs).

(8)  Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings If a proceeding in a national court is initiated while there is a valid arbitration agreement PT.60 in effect between the parties, the defendant must request his acquittal in the process (by invoking the agreement) before he submits the response to the Arbitral Tribunal. The CPC confirms that the state court does not have the power to raise the issue of pretermission on its own motion (Article 578, CPC). The court must acquit the defendant, unless it finds the arbitration agreement to be null and PT.61 void, ineffective, or unenforceable. In such case, the arbitration proceeding would be terminated, and a decision could be sought through the courts (Article 5, VAA). As the arbitral decision has the same effects as a court decision, any subsequent lawsuit PT.62 between the same parties, with the same cause of action and same claim, would violate the res judicata principle. But there are two situations in which the dual actions are compatible and/ or complementary. First, interim measures may be sought via state court before or during the arbitral proceeding (Article 7, VAA). Secondly, parties may request annulment of an arbitral decision before the state court (Article 46, VAA).

(9)  ADR Decisions The issuance of panel decisions is stipulated in the DNS.PT Rules, although their form PT.63 will depend on the identity of the respondent (ie the registrant or the registry). Where the action concerns the registrant, the panel may order the domain to: remain with the holder, be deleted, or be transferred to the complainant (Article 40(1), DNS.PT Rules). Where the proceeding concerns the registry, the panel may order the deletion of a domain that was unduly accepted, or the acceptance of a registration that was unduly refused (Article 40(3), DNS.PT Rules). The tribunal must decide the dispute within 30 calendar days from the production of evi- PT.64 dence, and a maximum of six months after the constitution of the tribunal, except where stipulated by the parties. This latter time limit may be extended where necessary, but arbitrators who unjustifiably delay may be held liable for damages (Articles 31 and 32, AAR). Disputes can, in some instances, be decided in two or three months.23 A copy of the decision is sent to the parties within five calendar days and the original is depos- PT.65 ited at ARBITRARE (Article 31(4), AAR). Within 30 calendar days, the parties may request the correction of any calculation, clerical or typographic mistakes in the decision, or request clarification as to ambiguities (Article 45, VAA).

 See https://www.arbitrare.pt/en/faqs_lista.php?id=1.

23

743

Portugal (‘.pt’) PT.66 According to the VAA, the arbitral award can only be appealed via state court if the parties so

stipulated in the arbitration agreement, unless the dispute was decided in equity or through amiable composition (Article 39(4), VAA). The ‘opt-in’ clause available during registration, however, does not provide for such appeals. Therefore, in these situations, the parties cannot challenge a decision unless it was actually illegal.

PT.67 To challenge a decision, the parties must submit an application for annulment within

60 calendar days of the decision’s notification. The grounds for annulment of an arbitral decision are listed in Article 46(3) VAA, and include: a party’s incapacity, illegality of the arbitration agreement, fundamental procedural violations, irregularities in panel composition, material unsuitability of the decision, and conflict of the decision with the public policies of the Portuguese Republic. The Supreme Court of Justice has reviewed the validity of a number of arbitral decisions, taking into account the surrounding circumstances and facts of each case.24

(10)  ADR Decision Criteria and Application by Administrative Panel PT.68 When a case is brought against the registrant of a domain name, the elements for evaluation

(codified in Article 40(2)) are similar to those of paragraph 4 of the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), namely: (a) The domain name matches, is identical or is capable of causing confusion with a name or designation protected under the current legal disposition in favour of the claimant of the arbitration proceedings; (b) The domain name was registered without being based on any rights or legitimate interests previously acquired by its holder; and (c) The domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

PT.69 Bad faith may be demonstrated, inter alia, where the domain name: (i) was registered for

resale to the claimant; (ii) was intended to disturb the professional business of the claimant; (iii) was intentionally used to attract Internet users for commercial gain; or (iv) comprises one or more first names, or combines a first name and the claimant’s surname (Article 40(2), DNS.PT Rules).25

PT.70 In proceedings against the registry, the arbitrator must determine whether any of the

applicable registration rules were violated, particularly those prohibiting: the registration of ‘.pt’ domains that are contrary to law, public order or morality; domains which are identical to any TLD space; or domains which correspond to a geographical name, for

24  See, for example, Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, Judgment of 11 October 2011, Proc. 6/10.1TVPRT. P1.S1; Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, Judgment of 29 May 2012, Proc. 5971/09.9TBOER.S1; Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, Judgment of 30 October 2012, 1333/06.8TBFLG.G2.S1; Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, Judgment of 4 July 2013, Proc. 536/11.8TTPRT-A.P1.S1. 25  ECJ Judgment of 3 June 2010, Internetportal GmbH v Schlicht (C-569/08) regarding the interpretation of Arts 21(3) and 21(1)(b), Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004, ruled, respectively, that bad faith can be established by circumstances other than those listed in Art 21(3)(a)–(e) of that regulation, which are similar to the ones established on Art 40, DNS.PT Rules, and that courts must take into consideration all the relevant factors specific to the particular case. Concerning the trademark’s registration, the court must consider: the market for which protection was sought; the presentation of the trademark; whether large numbers of ‘generic’ marks were registered; and the timing of the registration. With regard to registration of ‘.eu’ domains, courts must consider: the abusive use of special characters or punctuation marks; timing of the registration; and whether large numbers of ‘generic’ domains were requested. These criteria may stand mutatis mutandis for evaluating abuse in ‘.pt’ domains.

744

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws which the registrant is not a proper legal administrative authority (Article 40(4), DNS. PT Rules). There are two important differences between the DNS.PT Rules and the UDRP: namely, PT.71 that the UDRP is mandatory within applicable TLDs, and that under the UDRP the complainant must be a mark owner and the respondent a domain registrant. Under ‘.pt’, however, the arbitration agreement is optional, and the scope of the applicable parties is much broader. As at May 2015, the Centre has issued several decisions concerning domain names.26 All cases PT.72 between a domain registrant and the registry have been dismissed. In the remaining decisions, complainants have been successful where their trademarks were PT.73 registered prior to the domain, but not where the complainant’s rights were post-dated. In the decisions concerning ‘quintadacotovia.pt’,27 ‘shuttledirect.pt’,28 and ‘palheirosdo- PT.74 castelo.pt’,29 registration had been denied by the registry because the underlying trademarks combined letters and images. The arbitral tribunal recalled the DNS.PT rules, which restricted the registry to recognition of nominative marks, and therefore denied the claims. In ‘prom.pt’,30 the claimant requested the removal of the domain name ‘prom.pt’, arguing PT.75 that the only permissible domain name for the company ‘prom.pt’ would be ‘prom.pt.pt’. However, the arbitral tribunal denied the claim, noting that the DNS.PT Rules allows for the use of abbreviated company names (eg ‘prom’). Finally, in ‘desportosdeginasio.pt’,31 the claimant asked the arbitral centre to remove the reg- PT.76 istration of the domain name ‘desportosdeginasio.pt’, owned by a competitor. The claimant already held several gTLD and ccTLD domains containing the term to display a website on sports dietary supplements. Both parties had applied for trademark registration of the name ‘Desportos de Ginasio’.

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (1)  Specific Anticybersquatting Legislation Although the Portuguese legal system does not have any specific anticybersquatting legislation, PT.77 the DNS.PT Rules provides an appropriate mechanism for redress via the above-mentioned ADR proceedings.

(2)  Infringement of Trademarks Portuguese trademark protection is outlined in Chapter IV, Articles 222 to 270 of the CPI. PT.78 A trademark is acquired through registration with INPI. The first come, first (and only) served mechanism of domain name registration makes PT.79 domains even more unique than trademarks, since marks are subject to the principles of specialty and territoriality. Thus, domains are a common source of infringement issues.

  Decisions at https://www.arbitrare.pt/en/decisoes.php.   Available at: https://www.arbitrare.pt/sbo/downloads/decisions_30_download.pdf. 28  Available at: https://www.arbitrare.pt/sbo/downloads/decisions_18_download.pdf. 29  Available at: https://www.arbitrare.pt/sbo/downloads/news_50_download.pdf. 30  Available at: https://www.arbitrare.pt/sbo/downloads/decisions_27_download.pdf. 31  Available at: https://www.arbitrare.pt/sbo/downloads/news_58_download.pdf. 26 27

745

Portugal (‘.pt’) (a)  Risk of Confusion PT.80 Trademark registration confers a right of exclusive use (Article 224, CPI), and enables a mark holder to prevent the adoption of an identical or similar sign for similar products where consumer confusion is likely (Article 258, CPI). PT.81 This provision grants protection against the registration of a domain name that uses another’s

previous trademark where: the domain is used in commerce; the signs and/or goods are identical or similar; there is a risk of confusion or association (including the inference of a commercial connection between the parties);32 the trademark has been used (Article 269, CPI), and there is a lack of consent to the domain’s use (noting that domain licences are legitimate under Articles 32 and 264, CPI).33 If these conditions are not met, the claimant may still have recourse under other provisions of Portuguese law.

PT.82 Article 317(1) CPI establishes prohibitions against unfair competition, which broadly encom-

passes any commercial act undertaken in violation of honest market practices. Paragraph (a), which prohibits any ‘[a]‌cts that may create confusion as to the company, establishment, products or services of competitors, regardless of the means employed’, and Paragraph (c), which prohibits ‘[u]nauthorized claims or references made with the aim of deriving benefit from the credit or reputation of another person’s name, establishment or trademark’, are extremely useful where a trademark has been improperly used to cause confusion or take advantage of reputation.

PT.83 Unfair competition is considered an administrative offence, and may be punished by fine of

€3,000 to 30,000, if the liable party is a legal person, and between €750 and 7,500, in the case of a natural person (Article 331, CPI).

PT.84 The DNS.PT Rules also provide protection for well-known trademarks. Under Article 9(c),

domains which would cause source confusion due to similarities with prestigious third-party trademarks are prohibited. Also, under Article 36, the registrant assumes full liability for its choice of a domain name and must ensure that the domain does not interfere with another’s IP rights. The registry may immediately delete any domain names which do not meet the registration conditions (Article 22, DNS.PT Rules).

PT.85 The mere registration of a domain name which is identical or similar to another’s prior trade-

mark does not necessarily constitute infringement, particularly where the mark itself has not been used as a distinctive sign (Article 258, CPI). However, if the domain were registered to prevent the mark owner from using it, recourse may be had under Article 40, DNS.PT Rules. Injunctions or other interim measures may be deemed inappropriate by the courts if the periculum in mora requirement is not met, and thus the Rules may offer the only mechanism for relief.

PT.86 Regarding domain parking and PPC monetization, such activity should be found to con-

stitute trademark infringement under Article 258, CPI. There is clearly commercial employment of the trademark, and it must be considered ‘use’ of a distinctive sign since potential consumers are likely to base their purchasing decisions on a false impression as to the source, origin, or endorsement of the offered goods. Therefore, the likelihood of consumer confusion

  Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa, Judgment of 13 March 2012, Proc. 1111/08.0TYLSB.L1-1.   It is questionable whether a distributor or a reseller may legitimately register a domain name containing a trademark. It is plausible to defend the right of an exclusive distributor to register a domain name, as a generic consent to promote the products would be presumed. As for a mere reseller, courts are likely to find that this arrangement would fail to demonstrate the requisite consent, thus giving rise to actionable trademark infringement without prejudice to Art 260(c), CPI. 32 33

746

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws is high. In such cases, the owner may request the transfer of the domain, and an injunction to prevent further damage.

(b)  Protection of Famous Marks Portuguese IP law protects two different forms of famous marks:  well-known (notorious) PT.87 marks (Article 241, CPI and Article 6bis Paris Convention) and prestigious marks (Article 242, CPI). While the first category is protected beyond national boundaries, within the principle of specialty, the latter is protected beyond the principle of specialty, but requires express registration in Portugal (or the EU, where the mark is a Community Trade Mark). A mark is considered to be well-known when it is recognized by most of the target consumers PT.88 in the country or region where protection is requested.34 Where a mark is well-known, it may be protected without any requirement that the mark be registered within in that country, although in order to utilize this protection, the mark owner must apply for registration within the national territory (Article 241(2), CPI). The concept of a prestigious mark is quite different. In the case of prestigious trademarks, PT.89 their distinctiveness is so strong that the risk of confusion is low. Prestigious marks are generally associated with positive consumer experience. Thus, prestigious marks demand protection against the risk of dilution35 and the risk of association,36 even if the products offered by the infringer do not belong to the same class of goods. The protection of famous trademarks allows their holders to oppose the registration of identi- PT.90 cal or similar marks, under the above-mentioned circumstances (Articles 241 and 242, CPI). Where a famous mark is being used in a different manner, in a domain name or otherwise, the general clause of Unfair Competition (Article 317, CPI) may be applicable, in addition to the specialized provisions of paragraphs (a) and (c) (see above, para PT.83). Moreover, Article 9 of the DNS.PT Rules specifically prohibits the registration of domain PT.91 names which could lead to confusion as to their source or ownership, including domains corresponding to well-known or prestigious third-party trademarks. Thus, the DNS.PT Rules offer protection for both famous and prestigious marks, in line with their status under Portuguese law. Finally, when a dispute is subject to the ARBITRARE procedure, the bad faith requirement PT.92 is easier to establish when the mark in question is famous, particularly where the registrant’s goal was to increase traffic or disturb the claimant’s business. In matters of criticism websites, which often occur in relation to famous marks, it is essential PT.93 to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial criticism. When the registrant aims to realize commercial gain from the publication of criticism it should be considered an act of unfair competition (Article 317, CPI), which may lead to a claim for domain deletion and damages.37 Non-commercial criticism, however, is protected by the Constitution,38 and preserves the domain name holder’s right to express personal thoughts. The criticism must, however, avoid confusion with the trademark holder. Excessive criticism towards natural or   ECJ Judgment of 22 November 2007, Nuno v Franquet (C-328/06).   Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa, Judgment of 22 January 2009, Proc. 1383/05.1TYLSB. 36  Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, Judgment 13 May 2003, Proc. 03A1134. 37  There may, however, be legal justification, notably comparative advertising, within the limits of the law. On meta-tags, comparative advertising, trademarks, and unfair competition, see Alexandre Dias Pereira, ‘Meta-tags, marca e concorrência desleal’, Direito Industrial, vol III (2003) pp 241–53, Id., ‘Publicidade comparativa e práticas comerciais desleais’, Estudos de Direito do Consumidor no 7 (2005), pp 341–78. 38  Art 37 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic (‘Everyone shall have the right to freely express and publicize his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, 34 35

747

Portugal (‘.pt’) legal persons may fall under the criminal provisions for defamation (Articles 180 and 181, Portuguese Penal Code).39

(c)  Comparison of ADR v Court Action PT.94 There is an important published decision of Portuguese courts concerning domain names

disputes: the 21 January 2003 judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice.40 In that matter, the complainant held the registered business name and logotype VINIPORTUGAL. The defendant, an individual wine producer, owned the domain name ‘viniportugal.com’. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant did not have any right to use ‘Viniportugal’ as a business name or logotype, but that he could maintain the domain name ‘viniportugal.com’ because a domain registration does not confer an exclusive right of use or priority in Portugal. Objections have been raised on the basis of IP doctrine, stating that domains are the object of an exclusive right and may lead to IP conflict and damage. More recently, the Supreme Court of Justice has ruled that: ‘Internet domain names, similarly to trademarks or to the names of commercial companies, has an inductive function, communicating information and suggestions about a certain product or service, and for that reason the use of a domain, however correctly granted from a technical viewpoint, may amount to infringement of legislation on industrial property, notably in what concerns the rules of protection of trademarks and unfair competition’ [Judgment of 26 February 2015 (Proc No 1288/05.6TYLSB.L1.S1, Fernanda Isabel Pereira)]

PT.95 By contrast, ARBITRARE decisions have been more consistent. There is one decision, how-

ever, which is particularly worthy of attention in this context, the ‘desportosdeginasio.pt’ case.41 In that matter, the complainant was the prior owner of four domains containing the ‘desportosdeginasio’ text, and sought to rely on those registrations as prior rights. Several considerations were raised, namely regarding lack of use in commerce and the ‘generic’ nature of the terms (which simply mean ‘gym sports’). The panel decided to allow the registrant to retain ownership, holding that ownership of a prior domain name does not enable the holder to use former Article 43(2) of the DNS.PT Regulation (currently Article 40(2) of the Rules) against other registrants because domains are not appropriately protected designations. The domain name was acquired through a contractual agreement established by private entities (the FCCN, replaced by the DNS.PT Association).

PT.96 Although the DNS.PT Rules refer to contractual terms and obligations, a domain name

registration might be considered an administrative concession of public utility. The DNS.PT Association is a private entity, but it performs public functions under the powers delegated by ICANN, which were originally granted by the US government. Moreover, the Portuguese government has already acknowledged the registry’s powers by its Resolution of the Council of Ministers No 67/97 of 5 May 1997,42 suggesting that the management of the ‘.pt’ domain space is a public task, and Decree-Law No 55/2013 of 17 April, mandating that the task

to inform one-self and to be informed without hindrance or discrimination’), and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art 11 (Freedom of expression and information):  ‘1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.’ On freedom of information and IP see notably, Alexandre Dias Pereira, Direitos de Autor e Liberdade de Informação (Coimbra, 2008). 39  Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, Judgment of 24 February 1960, Proc. 030057. 40  Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, Acórdão of 21 January 2003, Proc. 02A3531, Colectânea de Jurisprudência no 166 (2003/I), p 34. 41  Also discussed above at para PT.75. 42  See Pedro Gonçalves (above n 8).

748

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws would fall to a private law association. Additionally, the subdomain ‘.gov.pt’ is presently managed by a branch of the Portuguese government.

(3) Infringement of Personal Names, Names of Cities, and Other Public Law Corporations Article 72 CC states that everyone has the right to use his/her name, in full or abbreviated PT.97 form, and to oppose others that use it illegally. A name holder cannot, however, especially in the exercise of a professional activity, use his/her own name to harm the interests of others who may have fully- or partially-identical names. Where such abusive practices occur, the court will resolve the matter under the CC, according to rules of equity, in a manner that best conciliates the conflicting interests (Article 72, CC). Concerning names of cities or other geographical names, Article 9 of the DNS.PT Rules PT.98 establishes the general restrictions regarding their registration as domain names. Article 11(b) clarifies that only the appropriate legal authorities may register domains corresponding to geographic or city names.

(4)  Infringement of Titles Registered domain names must be selected and maintained in a manner designed to respect PT.99 protected titles.43 As mentioned above, Articles 5(a) and 36 of the DNS.PT Rules provide that the registrant must assume liability for the choice of the domain string and responsibility for its use, and must ensure that the domain name does not conflict with third-party IP rights.

(5)  Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available Since 2012, there has been a state court with specialized competence in IP issues.44 This court PT.100 is competent to oversee proceedings for declaratory relief which concern domain names, and to hear appeals of DNS.PT Association decisions. Although such appeals follow a simplified procedure, the most common mechanism is the PT.101 Ordinary Action, which is also used in other IP infringement actions. In Ordinary Actions, the parties must be represented by attorneys. After the pleadings are entered, the court will circulate a list of the facts established by consensus, and a list of the facts that need additional substantiation. The parties may present their proofs, and additional evidence is produced during hearings. An award of damages is possible, if requested in the claim, under Article 483 CC (which provides that whosoever, with intent or through reckless action, unlawfully violates the rights of others, or any relevant statutory provision, is obliged to compensate the injured party for damages). The CPC provides several interim measures which are considered urgent procedures, inclu­ PT.102 ding an unspecified measure which enables any rights holder who has a grounded fear of impending irreparable harm to request conservatory or anticipatory measures (Articles 362 ff.). The Code of Industrial Property contains a similar provision in the event of infringement or impending harm under Article 338-I(1). The applicant must provide evidence of ownership of the industrial property rights and of the anticipated or current infringement (Article 338-I(2)). Such injunctions may also be requested against relevant intermediaries (Article 338-I(3)).

  See above at para PT.07.   Ordinance 84/2012, of 29 March, implementing Law No 46/2011 of 24 June, replaced by Law No 62/2013, of August, Article 83(3)(a). 43 44

749

Portugal (‘.pt’) PT.103 The costs of court proceedings vary considerably and depend on the value of the dispute. In

trademark infringement or domain names disputes, which are immaterial interests without precise value, the CPC provides that the value is €30,000 (the limit of the court of appeal) plus €0.01 (Article 303, CPC). This enables appeals to the Supreme Court of Justice (Articles 629 and 678, CPC). Currently, the associated judicial fee is €550.80.

PT.104 Every party to a judicial proceeding must pay the initial fee. One of the mandatory ele-

ments of a judgment is a determination of costs and the party/parties liable for payment. The winning party may ask the losing party, within five calendar days of the decision, for reimbursement of the judicial fee and related expenses, plus attorney’s fees (the latter capped at a maximum of 50 per cent of the total costs). These provisions are codified in Articles 25 and 26 of the Regulation of Procedural Costs.45

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name PT.105 Under Portuguese Law, IP rights are subject to the principle of ‘legal type’, meaning that

only IP rights established by special law (eg the Code of Industrial Property) are recognized. Currently, domain names have not been so qualified. The acquisition of exclusive IP rights under national law generally requires registration at INPI,46 and such rights cannot usually be acquired through mere use. Domains are referred to in legal literature as atypical distinctive signs,47 but in principle, IP rights cannot be acquired by using a domain name.

PT.106 Nonetheless, domain names can benefit from some aspects of IP law. In particular,

Article 227 CPI provides that ‘[w]‌hoever uses an unregistered trademark for a period of no longer than six months has the right of priority, during that period, to register the trademark and can oppose to any registration applications made by other entities.’ A  domain name may be considered an unregistered trademark if it has been seriously used in commerce,48 and thus may grant its holder priority in applying for a corresponding trademark.49 Holders of domain names may also oppose third parties who attempt to register similar trademarks.

PT.107 After this priority right lapses, the domain name registrant may still rely on

Article 239(1)(e), CPI, if a later third-party trademark application would result in unfair competition. Thus, where a registrant has utilized its domain in a trademark sense in connection with a bona fide business offering for an extended period of time, but has not registered the corresponding trademark, it may still be possible to prevent the mark’s adoption by a third party.

  Decree-Law No 34/2008 of 25 February, last amended by Law 72/2014, of 2 September.   Exception is made for well-known trademarks, which are protected independently of registration under national law. 47  See Moura Vicente, 2006 (above n 8). 48  In order to protect unregistered trademarks, Portuguese Courts have required: (a) evidence of use of the trademark; and (b) evidence of ‘regularly’ applying for the registration within a period of six months. Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa, Judgment of 5 November 2009, Proc. 3520/08.6. 49  To obtain the registration, the name must fulfil all the necessary trademark requirements (Arts 222 and 223, CPI). 45 46

750

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers Articles 5 and 36 of the DNS.PT Rules provide that a domain registrant assumes liability for PT.108 the choice of string text and responsibility for its use. Further, the registrant must ensure that the domain does not conflict with any third-party IP rights or legitimate interests. Although the DNS.PT Association is responsible for the technical and administrative main- PT.109 tenance of ‘.pt’ domain names, it is not liable for trademark infringement because the registrant is fully responsible for the domain’s selection (Article 37). For the same reason, the registrar will not be held responsible for trademark infringement. Internet service providers, however, could potentially be held liable for any illegal content, owned PT.110 by their customers, which they transmit or host. In principle, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are not held liable for illegal third-party content, even when the ISP has used caching facilities. The regulation of ISP liability is provided for by the Electronic Commerce Act.50 The Act PT.111 stipulates that mere access providers cannot be held liable for third parties’ illegal content if they do not: (i) initiate the transmission; (ii) select the recipient; and/or (iii) select or modify the information transmitted. Hosting providers are exempted from claims for damages if:  (i)  they were not reasonably aware of the illegal activity; and/or (ii) once they became aware of the illegality, they quickly removed or disabled access to the infringing information. ISPs have no general obligation to monitor the information they transmit and/or host. If they are made aware of illegalities, however, they have a duty to cooperate with competent authorities and/or to block access to such illicit content. On the use of advertising keywords as possible trademark infringement the European Court PT.112 of Justice (ECJ) has issued two relevant decisions. In the first matter, Google was held exempt from liability under the E-Commerce Directive as a mere ‘neutral host’, as Google had no knowledge of, or control over, the data stored.51 The second case held that Article 5(1) of Directive 89/104 grants trademark proprietors the right to prohibit advertisers from making non-consensual use of keywords identical with or similar to their marks for the promotion of similar goods or services, as such practice may result in source confusion.52

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property The principle of ‘legal type’ prevents domain names from being considered items of property. PT.113 This seems to be the opinion of the Supreme Court of Justice.53 Nonetheless, the economic value of domains makes them important assets, especially for corporations. The DNS.PT Rules allow for the transfer of domain names,54 and thus, companies and individuals may freely exchange domains in the course of trade and treat them as business assets.

50  Enacted by Decree-Law No 7/2004 of 7 January, implementing Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), OJ L178, 17.07.2000. 51  ECJ Judgment, 23 March 2010, Google France & Others v Louis Vuitton Malletier & Others (Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08, and C-238/08). 52  ECJ Judgment, 25 May 2010, Bergspetche v Trekking.at (C-278/08). 53  See Section V above. 54  Described above in Section II.

751

Portugal (‘.pt’) PT.114 Although there is no special provision concerning the execution of domain names, it has

become accepted practice for creditors to attach domains. Although there is no provision or court decision governing the role of domain names in bankruptcy or insolvency matters, it appears possible and logical that domains could constitute assets therein. Thus, it is reasonable that domains should be subject to seizure by creditors, particularly where they constitute business assets. Similarly, although there are no specific provisions, it seems that domains could be used as collateral.

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (1)  International Jurisdiction (Brussels I Recast) PT.115 International jurisdiction of the Portuguese courts55 is governed by several instruments,

notably:  the CPC (Articles 59, 62–63, 94),56 the Brussels57 and Lugano58 Conventions, and Regulation Brussels I Recast.59 However, the basic instrument concerning international jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters is Regulation Brussels I  Recast, because the provisions of the CPC have only residual value,60 and the Lugano Convention is a parallel Convention to the Brussels Convention, which has been superseded by Regulation Brussels I  as between Member States.

55  On intellectual property and private international law see, notably, Lima Pinheiro, ‘A lei aplicável aos direitos de propriedade intelectual’, RFDUL 42 (2001), p 63; D Moura Vicente, A Tutela Internacional da Propriedade Intelectual (Coimbra, 2009); A Dias Pereira, ‘Intellectual Property, Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Portugal: An Overview’, BFDUC, vol 86 (2010), p 149; A Dias Pereira, ‘A Jurisdição na Internet segundo o Regulamento 44/2001 (e as alternativas extrajudiciais e tecnológicas)’, BFDUC, vol 77 (2001) p 368. On the international discussion of domain names, D Moura Vicente, Direito Internacional Privado—Problemática Internacional da Sociedade da Informação (Coimbra, 2005, pp 193–201). 56  Código de Processo Civil, Law 41/2013 of 26 June. 57 Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, concluded on 27 September 1968 (Brussels Convention). OJ L299, 31.12.1972, p 32, consolidated version in OJ C27, 26.1.1998, p 1. 58 Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, concluded on 16 September 1988 between Member States and EFTA States (revised in 2007), which is a parallel Convention to the 1968 Brussels Convention. 59 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I), OJ L12, 16.1.2001, p 1 was repealed by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p 1). Regulation 1215/2012 entered into force on 10 January 2015 and was last amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/281 of 26 November 2014 (OJ L54, 25.2.2015, p.1). Concerning Community unitary IP rights, several instruments contain specific provisions on jurisdiction, notably Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ L78, 24.3.2009, pp 1–42 (which repealed Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94, OJ L11, 14.1.1994, p 1). Community Trade Mark Regulation lays down a jurisdiction framework concerning infringement and validity proceedings over Community trademarks, in which decisions have effect and cover the entire area of the Community in order to prevent inconsistent decisions on the part of the courts and the Office and to ensure that the unitary character of Community trademarks is not undermined, decisions regarding their validity and infringement must have effect and cover the entire area of the Community. 60  According to the ECJ: ‘The Convention of 27 September 1968, which seeks to determine the jurisdiction of the courts of the contracting states in civil matters, must override national provisions which are incompatible with it’—Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 November 1983, C-288/82, Ferdinand MJJ Duijnstee v Lodewijk Goderbauer [1983] ECR 03663. See also Supreme Court of Justice, Judgment of 3 October 2007, Proc. 07S922.

752

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (a)  General Framework Brussels I Recast states that jurisdiction is generally based on the defendant’s domicile (Article PT.116 4(1)—actor sequitur forum rei).61 Identically to Brussels I, the recast Regulation asserts that jurisdiction must always be available on this ground, except in a few well-defined situations in which the subject matter of the litigation or the autonomy of the parties establishes a different linking factor. In addition to the defendant’s domicile, Brussels I Recast establishes alternative grounds of jurisdiction based on a close link between the court and the action, or in order to facilitate the sound administration of justice (eg proceedings in rem). Finally, in insurance, consumer contracts and employment matters, the weaker party is protected by more favourable rules of jurisdiction. Specific matters such as arbitration are excluded from the scope of this Regulation (Article 1(2)). (b)  Alternatives and Ubiquitous Infringement The Portuguese courts may also have special jurisdiction over proceedings concerning persons PT.117 domiciled in other Member States, particularly in contracts actions, if the relevant place of performance is in Portugal, and in tort, delict or quasi-delict matters, if the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur is located in Portugal (Article 7(1)(2) of Brussels I Recast). Concerning ubiquitous infringement on the Internet, the mere accessibility of a website in a PT.118 country may not be enough to establish jurisdiction, if the defendant does not target consumers or engage in activities therein. According to the ECJ, ‘the jurisdictional rules [are to be] interpreted in such a way as to enable a normally well-informed defendant reasonably to predict before which courts, other than those of the State in which he is domiciled, he may be sued’.62 On the other hand, the ECJ63 has held that, concerning offences to personality rights perpetuated by website content, the victim may sue the infringer for damages before the courts of the Member State where either the infringer is established or the victim has his/her centre of interests. Alternatively, the victim may sue the infringer before the courts of each Member State where the online content is or has been available, but only for damages caused in each respective State.

(c)  Choice of Court Portuguese courts may also have jurisdiction through a choice of court agreement executed by the PT.119 parties (provided that one or more of the parties is domiciled in a Member State) (Article 25(1) of Brussels I Recast). Choice of court agreements must be evidenced in writing (including electronically) where there is a durable record of the agreement, or in a form consistent with the parties’ established prior practices, or, in the context of international trade or commerce, in a form which accords with industry practices (Article 25(2) of Brussels I Recast). According to relevant ECJ case law, no other formal requirements can be mandated under domestic law.64 It is not clear whether party-designated courts also have jurisdiction to assess the validity of PT.120 registered IP rights, particularly where these questions are merely incidental. Concerning

61  Companies, associations or other legal persons are deemed to be domiciled in Portugal if they maintain their statutory seat, central administration, or principal place of business therein (Art 63(1)). Concerning natural persons, the judge applies its internal legislation (Art 62(1)). The Portuguese Civil Code provides that a person is domiciled at the place of his usual residence (Art 82(1)). 62  Judgment of 17 June 1992, C-26/91, Jakob Handte & Co GmbH v Traitements Mécano-chimiques des Surfaces SA [1992] ECR I-3967. 63  Judgment of 25 October 2011, C-509/09 and C-161/10 (eDate Advertising v X and Olivier and Robert Martinez v MGN). 64  Judgment of 24 June 1981, C-150/80, Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Jacqmain [1981] ECR 01671 (‘the legislation of a contracting state may not allow the validity of such an agreement to be called in question solely on the ground that the language used is not that prescribed by that legislation’). See also the Supreme Court of Justice, Judgment of 8 October 2009, Proc. 5138/06.8TBSTS.S1.

753

Portugal (‘.pt’) IP contracts, there is jurisprudence holding that a choice of court agreement for a licensing contract does not determine the appropriate jurisdiction for termination disputes or tort liability in Portugal.65 However, recently the Supreme Court of Justice accepted that choice of court agreements may concern any dispute that arises out of the main contract, whether contractual or in tort.66 PT.121 On the other hand, Portuguese courts hold that Brussels I does not allow for challenge to

the jurisdiction of a court chosen by agreement,67 and deviation may only be permitted if there is scope therefore provided for in the agreement.68 However, according to the ECJ, the court shall decline any jurisdiction conferred upon it by virtue of an unfair contractual term.69

(d)  Exclusive Jurisdiction PT.122 Regardless of domicile, Portuguese courts have exclusive jurisdiction in certain matters by

virtue of Article 24 of Brussels I Recast. For example, Portuguese courts have competency in proceedings concerning the registration or validity of patents, trademarks, designs, and similar rights applied for or registered in Portugal, or, under a Community instrument or international convention, where such application/registration is deemed to have taken place therein (Article 24(4)). This rule of exclusive jurisdiction may be construed as applying to ‘.pt’ domain names, since domain rights require registration.

(e)  Provisional Measures PT.123 The jurisdiction of the Portuguese courts also includes provisional, including protective, meas-

ures available under Portuguese law, even if, under Brussels I Recast, the courts of another Member State have jurisdiction over the underlying dispute (Article 35). The Copyright Act and the Code of Industrial Property provide for such provisional measures as required by the TRIPS Agreement (Article 50) and the EU Enforcement Directive 2004/48 (Article 9). The Lisbon Court of Appeals held in several judgments that an international arbitration agreement does not exclude the international jurisdiction of the Portuguese courts when concerning related interim provisional procedures.70

(2)  Conflict of Laws/Choice of Law PT.124 The CC provides an advanced system for conflict-of-law resolution (Articles 14 to 65).

However, domestic provisions do not apply where an international or Community instrument provides otherwise, including international IP treaties, the Rome Convention concerning contractual obligations,71 and most significantly, Regulation Rome I  (contractual obligations)72 and Regulation Rome II (non-contractual obligations).73

  Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, Judgment of 12 April 1997, Proc. 98B292.   Judgment of 8 October 2009, Proc. 5138/06.8TBSTS.S1. 67  Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeals), Judgment 21 May 2009, Proc. 8748/2008-6. 68  Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, Judgment of 17 December 2004, Proc. 04B4076. 69  Judgment of the Court of 27 June 2000, Joined Cases C-240/98–C-244/98, Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Roció Murciano Quintero (C-240/98) and Salvat Editores SA v José M Sánchez Alcón Prades (C-241/98), José Luis Copano Badillo (C-242/98), Mohammed Berroane (C-243/98) and Emilio Viñas Feliú (C-244/98) [2000] ECR I-04941, paras 24, 29, 32. 70  Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa, Judgments of 2 December 2003 and 13 March 2007. 71  Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome Convention 1980), OJ C334, 30.12.2005, p 1. 72  Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ L177, 4.7.2008, p 7. 73  Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), OJ L199, 31.7.2007, p 40. 65 66

754

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (a)  The Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations—Rome I The parties’ freedom to choose the applicable law for their dispute is one of the ‘cornerstones’ PT.125 of Rome I. Contracts are governed by the law chosen by the parties, which may be selected in whole or in part, provided the choice is expressly made or clearly demonstrated in the contract or by other circumstances (Article 3(1)). In the absence of choice, Rome I provides specific criteria for different types of contracts, such as: (i) contracts for the sale of goods are governed by the law of the seller’s habitual residence; (ii) service contracts are governed by the law of the service provider’s habitual residence; (iii) franchise and distribution contracts are subject to the law of the franchisee or distributor’s residence; and (iv) contracts relating to a right in rem in immovable property are governed by the law of the country where the property is situated (Article 4(1)). Where the contract cannot be categorized as being one of the above-specified types, or where PT.126 its elements fall within more than one category (eg a contract consisting of a bundle of rights and obligations), it shall be governed by the law of the country where the party required to effect performance resides (Article 4(2)), as determined at the time of the contract’s conclusion (Article 19(3)). Concerning consent and validity of contracts, Rome I establishes, through a rule of multiple PT.127 alternative links, the principle of favor negotii (with some exceptions, primarily concerning consumer contracts).

(b)  Law Applicable to Contractual and Non-Contractual Obligations—Rome II Rome II establishes a flexible framework for conflict-of-law balancing, taking into account PT.128 the requirement of legal certainty and the need to do justice in individual cases, comprising a general rule, specific rules and ‘escape clauses’ (Recital 18). As for the general rule, the law of the country in which the damage occurs (lex loci damni) is pro- PT.129 vided for in Article 4(1), ‘irrespective of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred and irrespective of the country or countries in which the indirect consequences of that event occur’. For example, in cases of personal injury or property damage, the relevant country is the location where the injury was sustained or the property was damaged (Recital 17). An exception to the general rule is provided for in Article 4(2), which states that where the parties habitually reside in the same country at the time of damage, the law of that country applies. Moreover, where it is clear from all the circumstances that the tort/delict is manifestly more connected with another country, the law of that country applies according to the ‘escape clause’ of Article 4(3). Additionally, Rome II provides specific rules for special torts/delicts, such as product liability, PT.130 unfair competition, and acts restricting free competition, environmental damage, infringement of IP rights, and industrial action (Articles 5–9). In matters of unfair competition, Article 6(1) provides for a connection to the law of the country where competitive relations or the collective interests of consumers are, or are likely to be, affected. Infringements of IP rights are also special torts/delicts for which the ‘universally acknowledged’ principle of lex loci protectionis is provided under Article 8(1), that is, the law of the country in which protection is claimed.74 This criterion governs the law applicable to IP torts related to domain names. It prevails over any freedom of choice provisions, as the applicable law may not be derogated from by a choice-of-law agreement under Article 8(3), concerning the infringement of IP rights.

74  Concerning unitary Community IP rights and only for any question that is not governed by the relevant Community instrument, the law applicable is the law of the country in which the act of infringement was committed, ie lex loci delicti (Art 8(2)).

755

THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA (‘.kr’) Ho-Hyun Nahm

(10) ADR Decision  KR.45 (11) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Administrative Panel  KR.46 (12) Brief Review of the Case History  KR.50

I. Overview of the National System of Trademark/Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names 

KR.01 (1) Intellectual Property Rights Protected in Korea  KR.01 (2) Development of the Domain Name Law  KR.07

IV. Court Litigation and National Laws 

KR.66 (1) Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation: the Act on Internet Address Resources  KR.66 (2) Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act  KR.72 (3) Trademark Act  KR.90 (4) Infringement of Personal Names, Names of Cities, and Other Public Law Corporations  KR.99 (5) Infringement of Titles  KR.102 (6) Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available  KR.103

II. The ccTLD (‘.kr’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

KR.09 (1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry  KR.09 (2) The Structure of the Name Space  KR.10 (3) Registration Restrictions  KR.14 (4) Hangeul.kr Operating as the Second Level (excluding ‘.hangeul.kr’)  KR.15 (5) Documents Required for Registration  KR.17 (6) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement  KR.20 (7) Statistics  KR.23

III. ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.kr’ Domain Space 

V. Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name VI. Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers VII. Domain Names as Items of Property VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law 

KR.25

(1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding  KR.25 (2) Statistics  KR.27 (3) Material Scope of the Proceeding  KR.29 (4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement  KR.30 (5) Overview of the ADR-Procedure  KR.31 (6) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider  KR.40 (7) Role of the Administrative Panel  KR.41 (8) Costs  KR.43 (9) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings  KR.44

(1) International Jurisdiction (2) Choice of Law (3) Choice of Law between the UDRP and Domestic Laws (4) Substantive Law Issues (5) WIPO Joint Recommendation (6) Geotargeting

KR.108

KR.109 KR.113 KR.115 KR.115 KR.120 KR.121 KR.122 KR.123 KR.128

Links Korea Intellectual Property Office: http://www.kipo.go.kr/kpo/user.tdf?a=user.english.main. BoardApp&c=1001 Trademark Act: http://www.kipo.go.kr/kpo/user.tdf?a=user.english.html.HtmlApp&c= 93007&catmenu=ek04_05_01#_ Domain Name System –  ccTLD Registry: http://krnic.kisa.or.kr/jsp/english/krnic/intro.jsp –  Rules for Registration: http://krnic.kisa.or.kr/jsp/english/domain/policy.jsp

757

The Republic of Korea (‘.kr’) – Terms and Conditions for Registration: Alternative Dispute Resolution: http://krnic.kisa. or.kr/jsp/english/domain/policy.jsp –  Dispute Resolution Provider: http://www.idrc.or.kr/english/index.jsp –  Dispute Resolution Policy:  http://www.idrc.or.kr/english/regulations/engRegulationsView.jsp?boardNo=2155 –  Dispute Resolution Rules:  http://www.idrc.or.kr/english/regulations/engRegulationsView.jsp?boardNo=2157 – Decisions: http://www.idrc.or.kr/jsp/dm/dmIncList.jsp?flag=1

I.  Overview of the National System of Trademark/Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names (1)  Intellectual Property Rights Protected in Korea KR.01 Trademark rights in Korea are based on registration. The Trademark Decree was promulgated

in 1908 and the Trademark Act was firstly enacted and enforced on November 28, 1949. Since that time, the Trademark Act has been amended 39 times, with the most recent amendment on June 11, 2014 (this amendment took effect as of June 11, 2014). The Trademark Act is composed of ten chapters divided into General Provisions, Requirements and Application for Trademark Registration, Examination, Trademark Registration Fees and Trademark Registration, Trademark Rights, Protection of Owners of Trademark Rights, Trial, Retrial and Litigation, International Application under the Protocol, and Supplementary Provisions.1 Trademarks and service marks are protected in the Republic of Korea under the Trademark Act; and for such protection, marks should be registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). The use of a trademark is not a prerequisite for filing an application for the registration of a trademark. Although the Trademark Act does not protect unregistered marks, it does provide protection of well known or famous marks by restricting the registration of an identical or similar mark thereto. There is no course of action against infringement of a well known or famous unregistered trademark under the Trademark Act, but action may be pursued under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (UCPA). The Korean Trademark Law is characterized by (i) first-tofile rule; (ii) substantive examination; and (iii) pre-grant opposition. Provisions related to domain names are Articles 65 to 70 (trademark infringement).

KR.02 The use of a trademark is not required for registration, and although an intent-to-use element

is stipulated in the Trademark Act, it is neither required for a trademark application nor necessary to grant a trademark registration. Any person who uses or intends to use a trademark in the Republic of Korea may file an application for the registration of a trademark. Although the Korean Trademark Act has adopted a registration system, which does not require an a priori proof of use, the applicant should have a bona fide intent to use the applied-for trademark in the Republic of Korea. Nonetheless, trademarks which are not used can also be registered. Such trademarks, however, will be subject to cancellation if they remain unused for three or more consecutive years after their registration. The matter of intent-to-use is very exceptionally subject to disputes on the validity of a trademark registration. An application for trademark rights must be filed with the KIPO. Trademark applications have to undergo a substantive examination for absolute grounds in terms of distinctiveness of the mark and public interests as well as relative grounds (conflict with another person’s senior marks).

1 An English version of the Trademark Act is found at:  http://www.kipo.go.kr/upload/en/download/ TRADEMARK%20ACT_201308.pdf.

758

I.  Overview of the National System In terms of ‘public interests’, the Trademark Act does not allow the registration of trade- KR.03 marks which are identical with or similar to: the national flag, national emblem, etc, of the Republic of Korea or any of the allied nations of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property; titles and abbreviated names of the Red Cross, the International Olympic Committee or renowned international organizations; armorial bearings, flags, etc of allied nations designated by the Commissioner of the KIPO; seals or signs used for indicating supervision or certification by allied nations, etc designated by the Commissioner of KIPO; any trademarks which falsely indicate a connection with a state, race, ethnic group, etc; famous marks designating non-profit business(es) of the state or a public organization; any marks whose meaning or contents are feared to be contrary to the virtuous customs that are deemed to represent the prevailing moral sense of the ordinary people or to contravene public order; trademarks which are identical or similar to other persons’ previously applied for or registered marks or other persons’ unregistered but well-known marks.2 A trademark right is not conferred merely by the use of a certain mark. However, if a mark KR.04 has become well known in Korea it can be protected by the UCPA,3 even if it is not a registered mark. The UCPA was initially adopted on December 30, 1961 and entered into force on January 1, 1962. The Act has been amended 19 times since its inception, with the most recent update on January 28, 2015 (with effect from January 28, 2015). This Act is comprised of four chapters:  General Provisions, Prohibition of Unfair Competitive Acts, Protection of Trade Secrets, and Supplementary Provisions. Provisions related to domain names are found in Article 2, paragraph 1, items (i), (ii), and (viii). The protection of business names is provided for under the Commercial Code on the basis KR.05 of use.4 The Commercial Code was enacted on January 20, 1962 and enforced on January 1, 1963, with a number of subsequent amendments. The Commercial Code is comprised of six parts: General Provisions, Commercial Activities, Companies, Insurance, Marine Commerce, and Air Transportation. Provisions related to domain names are found in Articles 18 to 28. Protection under the Commercial Code is limited to the specific geographical area where the pertinent business names are used. As a matter of course, the owner of a business name may enjoy the protection of its name as a trademark or a service mark by having it registered as a trademark or a service mark. The standard for infringement of trademark rights is an assessment of whether there is a likelihood KR.06 of confusion as to the source or association of the junior user’s goods or services. Infringement is, in principle, limited to registered marks. However, even unregistered marks—marks in which the owner enjoys common law rights by virtue of well-known status—also qualify for infringement protection as a type of unfair competition act under the UCPA. In addition to the law of infringement, there is dilution law (use of a similar mark diminishing the distinctive value of a famous mark), which is another type of unfair competition activity recognized under the UCPA. Trademark injuries may also be addressed under general unfair competition principles.

(2)  Development of the Domain Name Law The legislature has adopted statutory provisions5 for the regulation of domain name conflicts, KR.07 and the domain name law has been further developed on the basis of the existing intellectual property (IP) law.   See Art 7 of the Trademark Act.  An English version is available at:  http://www.kipo.go.kr/upload/en/download/TRADEMARK%20 ACT_201308.pdf. 4  An English version of the Commercial Code (or Commercial Act) may be found at: http://www.moj.go.kr/HP/ COM/bbs_03/BoardList.do?strOrgGbnCd=109000&strRtnURL=ENG_4030&strNbodCd=noti0316. 5  Specifically, the AIAR, the UCPA, and the Trademark Act. As to the key provisions related to domain names, please refer to chapters IV.1.1 AIAR, IV.1.2. UCPA, and IV.1.3. Trademark Act. 2 3

759

The Republic of Korea (‘.kr’) KR.08 Domain name disputes in Korea may either be handled through the courts or via the ADR

procedures developed for the ‘.kr’ space, as set out in more detail below.

II.  The ccTLD (‘.kr’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1)  Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry KR.09 As mentioned above, the designated manager or registry for the ccTLD ‘.kr’ is KISA, which

is a special corporation established by the legislature.6 KISA is supervised by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (MSIP), which is a government agency. ‘.kr’ domain names are currently available through approximately 30 KISA accredited registrars.

(2)  The Structure of the Name Space KR.10 The basic structure of the Domain Name System (DNS) is systematically organized in a hier-

archical tree structure that is segregated by a dot, meaning that registrations within ‘.kr’ may be sold at the second and third levels. The first-level domain in this case is, naturally, the country-code ‘.kr’, as defined by ISO 3166. The ‘.kr’ domain is further subdivided into a range of second-level domains (SLDs). There are 12 SLDs classified for specific purposes, as well as one SLD for individuals, and 16 regional SLDs. The total number of SLDs is 29. The list of SLDs and their registration restrictions/eligibility requirements are shown in Table 1 below: Table KR.1:  List of Second-Level Domains Second-Level Domains

Criteria

co.kr ne.kr or.kr re.kr pe.kr go.kr

commercial companies legal entity or natural person network-related organizations non-profit organizations research institutes individuals natural person governmental authorities Korean governmental authorities that are organized and exist according to the laws of Korea military authorities military authorities that are organized and exist according to the laws of Korea colleges/universities Educational institutions established according to the Framework Act on Education, the Higher Education Act, or other special Acts high schools high schools that are organized and exist according to the laws of Korea middle schools middle schools that are organized and exist according to the laws of Korea elementary schools elementary schools that are organized and exist according to the laws of Korea schools & educational any schools or education institutes that have equal institutes position according to the laws of Korea kindergarten kindergartens that are organized and exist according to the laws of Korea

mil.kr ac.kr hs.kr ms.kr es.kr sc.kr kg.kr

Qualifications

6  Art 52, Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc.

760

II.  The ccTLD (‘.kr’) Registration Conditions and Procedures seoul.kr busan.kr daegu.kr incheon.kr gwangju.kr daejeon.kr ulsan.kr gyeonggi.kr gangwon.kr chungbuk.kr chungnam.kr jeonbuk.kr jeonnam.kr gyeongbuk.kr gyeongnam.kr jeju.kr

Seoul Busan Daegu Incheon Gwangju Daejeon Ulsan Gyeonggi Gangwon Chungbuk Chungnam Jeonbuk Jeonnam Gyeongbuk Gyeongnam Jeju

any organization, company and/or individuals connected with that region

Domain names, written in ASCII and Hangeul scripts, can be registered directly under ‘.kr’. KR.11 Within the third-level domain space, registrants can choose any available text, including company names, names of patented inventions, trademarks, dictionary words, or personal names. Some words, however, may not be registered, such as reserved or obscene words. Registrants must abide by the applicable terms and conditions, discussed in more detail below. Thus, there are two kinds of top national domains in Korea:  ‘.kr’ and ‘.한국’ (the latter KR.12 representing the Korean phonetic equivalent of HANKUK, meaning ‘Korea’). The ‘.kr’ domain has been established as a three-level system (eg ‘abc.co.kr’), since its introduction in 1986. Registration of two-level domains (eg ‘Korean alphabet.kr’) was introduced in 2003 and the two-level English system (eg ‘abc.kr’), was introduced in 2006. A total of 1,074, 203 addresses were registered in the ‘.kr’ domain as at the end of March 2015. For the details of top national domains in Korea, see Table 2 below: Table KR.2:  Classification and Characteristics of the National Domains of ‘.kr’ and ‘.한국’ .kr Second Level

.한국 Third Level

Second Level

English letters (upper case and English letter (upper case and lower case not differentiated), lower case not differentiated), Korean alphabet (2,350 complete numbers (0–9), hyphen (-). Korean syllables**), numbers (0–9), hyphen (-).

English letters (upper case and lower case not differentiated). Korean alphabet (11,172 complete Korean syllables**), numbers (0–9), hyphen (-). [Desired letters].[kr] [Desired letters].[second-level [Desired letters must include one or more Korean syllables]. ※ Minimum of one English/Korean public domain].[kr] [한국] letter must be included. ※ Choose one out of 29 second-level public domains. 3–63 letters 2–63 letters 1–17 letters ※ If including Korean alphabet, 2–17 letters. ** The number of the theoretically possible Modern Hangul syllables in Unicode is 11,172. Among these, the top 2,350 syllables occupy 99.9 per cent of all that are used.

761

The Republic of Korea (‘.kr’) KR.13 According to the demand of non-English speaking countries that want to use their own

languages for the domain, ICANN finalized its plan in October 2009, to introduce multi-­ language top national domains. So the KCC (Korea Communications Commission) decided to use the Korean characters of ‘.한국’ (‘.Korean phonetic equivalent of HANKUK meaning ‘Korea’) for the top national domain considering the representative nature of Korea and the economic effect when entering the address for Internet usage. ICANN delegated KISA as the authority for the management of the ‘.한국’ (‘.Korean phonetic equivalent of HANKUK meaning ‘Korea’ domain in February 2011, and the registration of the ‘.한국’ domain began on May 25, 2011.

(3)  Registration Restrictions KR.14 Registrants must have a local presence within the Republic of Korea, and they must meet cer-

tain criteria that are classified by the characteristics of the various second-level domain spaces.

(4)  Hangeul.kr Operating as the Second Level (excluding ‘.hangeul.kr’) KR.15 Hangeul characters must be included in the second-level Hangeul.kr domain space (at least

one character). Available characters include: the 2,350 Hangeul syllables, the ASCII alphabet (a–z), numbers (0–9), and the hyphen symbol (-). A  domain name that utilizes Hangeul characters must contain more than two and fewer than 17 characters.

KR.16 The Korea Network Information Center (KRNIC) has established a list of restricted words

that cannot be registered as domain names, in order to stabilize management of the DNS and to protect the public interest. Certain classes of words have been restricted and cannot be used for publicly-accessible domain names:  obscene words, abusive words, and sexually-related words (60 words comprise this list). An affiliated professional committee and public hearings determine the list of obscene words. The list of banned terms is made publicly available for all spaces within ‘.kr’. The list of terms is given in the Supplementary Rules for Domain Name Registration and Change.7

(5)  Documents Required for Registration KR.17 Individuals and entities obtaining a domain name are not required to assert their right to reg-

ister a particular domain name, or provide evidence of trademark ownership or incorporation under the particular name, although, as described below, the applicant must prove its identity. Most of the registration applications are processed automatically by a computer that only checks for duplicates. Registrants shall ensure that all information in the registration records of a domain name is up-to-date, complete, and accurate. Upon registration of a domain name, it is the registrant’s responsibility to take any necessary steps to avoid infringing the rights of others in violation of the law.

KR.18 The applicant shall submit an application to KISA via an authorized registrar and provide

the following information on the application: the domain name applied for; the name and address of the applicant; the name, address and e-mail address of the administrator; name server information; and any other specific information required by KISA or the authorized registrar. Where the applicant is a foreigner, he or she is additionally required to prove a certificate of residence in Korea or a presence of business entities in Korea.

KR.19 The applications are registered in the KISA database on a first-come, first-served basis. If bulk

applications are anticipated to be submitted simultaneously, the registrations may be assigned through alternative means, such as drawing upon prior notification by KISA. KISA reserves

7

 See http://krnic.kisa.or.kr/jsp/infoboard/law/detailReg.jsp.

762

II.  The ccTLD (‘.kr’) Registration Conditions and Procedures the right to restrict the registration of certain domain names in the public interest and in the interest of stable management of the DNS. The applicant for a domain name registration should submit one of the following documents: a certified copy of its incorporation, a copy of its business registration, a copy of its residence registration, a copy of its foreigner’s registration, a copy of its driver’s licence, or a copy of its passport.

(6) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement All registrants for ‘.kr’ domain names must sign a registration agreement concluded with KR.20 their respective registrars. It includes the duties of the registrant, and a statement that the registrant agrees to be bound by the dispute policies adopted by the applicable registry and to indemnify and hold the registry and the registrar harmless pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in the Dispute Policy, in case any dispute arises with any third party. The ADR policy is also incorporated into the registration agreement. The ‘.kr’ registry does permit the use of domain privacy services, which replace the user’s KR.21 information in the WHOIS with the information of a forwarding service, restricted by the terms and conditions to the effect that the registrant is the domain name holder of record. Therefore, the user (in this instance the privacy service) is responsible for providing his/her own contact information, and for providing and updating accurate administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that may arise in connection with the pertinent domain name, and the registrant accepts all liability for harm caused by wrongful use of the domain name by his/her licensee, unless the registrant promptly discloses the identity of the licensee to a party providing the registrant with reasonable evidence of actionable harm. It is also required that the registrant should provide notice of the terms and conditions in the registration agreement to its licensee, and that its licensee agrees to all the terms in the registration agreement. As yet, there have not been any panel decisions issued which address the questions potentially raised by the use of privacy services within the ‘.kr’ space. The transfer of domain names is possible. The person named as the registrant in the KR.22 WHOIS database is the registered domain name holder. The person named as the administrative contact at the time the controlling account identifier and password are secured shall be deemed the designee of the registrant, with the authority to manage the domain name. It is also possible to prevent the transfer of the domain name to a third party during an ADR proceeding or court proceeding. The ‘lock’ mechanism utilized in the ADR proceeding for ‘.kr’ domain names mirrors the type used in gTLD spaces under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP). On the other hand, in the context of court proceedings, the plaintiff is required to initiate separate court proceedings to request the locking of the disputed domain names (eg a preliminary injunction seeking prohibition of information change of the disputed domain name) where the court dispute does not originate from ADR proceedings.

(7) Statistics As of March 2015, approximately 1,110,000 domain names were registered in the ‘.kr’ KR.23 second-level space. Since the adoption of the ADR mechanism, a substantial body of case law has been devel- KR.24 oped. Since the first reported domain name dispute case decided on October 8, 1999,8 330 8  Chanel case (Seoul District Court GA HAP 41812 decided October 8, 1999, prohibition of infringement on trademark right).

763

The Republic of Korea (‘.kr’) judicial cases including 15 Supreme Court cases9 have been reported as at December 31, 2014. Plaintiffs claimed prohibition of use of domain names, cancellation or transfer of domain name registration in 187 cases. For the remaining 143 cases, plaintiffs requested provisional injunctions such as prohibition of disposition, prohibition of change of information, application for provisional attachment, as a previous stage prior to prohibition of use of domain names or cancellation of domain name registration. It is analyzed that 75 per cent of judicial cases ended up with decision on prohibition of use of domain name, transfer, or cancellation of domain name registration. In some cases, there was a sentence of criminal punishment on the ground that registration and use of domain name on the Internet infringed trademark rights.10

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.kr’ Domain Space (1)  Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding KR.25 The UDRP does not apply to ‘.kr’ registrations because the MSIP directly regulates the ‘.kr’

domain name space. However, in July 2002, the registry, KISA, adopted a dispute process similar to the UDRP, called the ‘krTLD Dispute Resolution Policy’ (KDRP). The characteristics of this dispute resolution system are: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

speedy and low-cost dispute resolution; helps avoid inefficiencies and excessive litigation costs of lengthy court procedures; written statements and communications ensure rapid, cost-efficient procedures; fast arbitration enables quick recovery of stability after disputes; specialized dispute resolution; panels with a high level of expertise are ensured, and court litigation burdens are reduced; (vii) deals only with disputes related to domain names; and (viii)  the complainant is responsible for dispute resolution fees. KR.26 A complainant may file a complaint for the resolution of a dispute regarding a ‘.kr’ domain

name, and request the dispute resolution committee to transfer or cancel the disputed domain name. As such procedures warrant speed and economy, e-filings may be used by concerned parties and the arbitration panel/dispute resolution committee to submit and exchange applications, responses and other necessary materials, in addition to registered mail service. In order to save time, the panel will rely more on written statements than on real meetings, and indeed in-person hearings are rarely required. A concerned party or its representative may 9 Supreme Court August 25, 2011, 2010DO7088 Violation of the Trademark Act; Supreme Court May 26, 2011 2009DA15596 Damage Compensation (‘hpweb.com’ case); Supreme Court February 1, 2008 2004DA72457 (‘ccfhsbc.com’, ‘hsbc.com’ case); Supreme Court, March 11, 2005 2004DA64562 Confirmation of ownership (‘hsbccard.com’ case—plaintiff-registrant of domain name defeated); Supreme Court, January 27, 2005, 2002DA59788 compensation for damage (‘hpweb.com’ case, original instance dismissing lawsuit due to jurisdiction matter reversed), Supreme Court, May 14, 2004 2002DA13782 lawsuit claiming prohibition of infringement of trademark etc. (‘viagra.co.kr’ case, in favour of plaintiff supporting original instance decision but decided original decision being partially against law); Supreme Court February 13, 2004, 2001DA57709 prohibition of trademark infringement and act of unfair competition (rolls-royce.co.kr case, appeal dismissed—favour of domain name registrant), Supreme Court March 27, 2003 2002DA68492 prohibition on domain name use (‘altavista.co.kr’/‘alta.co.kr case’ appeal on registration cancellation dismissed—domain name registrant defeated). 10  Seoul District Court November 14, 2000 2000Godan5178 Violation of Trademark Act (‘himart. co.kr case’), Busan District Court October 25, 2001 2001Godan5644 Violation of Unfair Competition Prevention Act (‘Busan Sangjo.com’ case), Seoul District Court January 22, 2002 2001Godan203 Violation of Unfair Competition Prevention Act (‘internetebs.co.kr’ case), Busan District Court May 22, 2002 2002Godan101 (‘psktdom.com’ case).

764

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.kr’ Domain Space not unilaterally contact the arbitration panel directly. In order to ensure utmost neutrality and objectivity in all proceedings, all communications must occur between the panel/dispute resolution committee and both parties, and such communications must go through the secretariat of the provider according to the rules set forth by the committee.

(2) Statistics Since 2002, when the Domain Name Dispute Resolution Committee (DDRC) started to KR.27 receive applications for ‘.kr’ dispute resolution, the Committee had processed 126 cases before it was dissolved in September 2004. On October 8, 2004, the Internet Address Disputes Resolution Committee (IDRC) was established by the Act on Internet Address and Resources (AIAR) and it began its activities in February 2005. Between that time and April 2015, it had processed 410 cases. The total number of cases as received by DDRC and IDRC is 568, and they had processed 536 cases as at April 2015. The IDRC started to receive dispute resolution applications from February 2005 and KR.28 processed 41 cases in 2005, 40 cases in 2006, 37 cases in 2007, 35 cases in 2008, 25 cases in 2009, 30 cases in 2010, 56 cases in 2011, 64 cases in 2012, 40 cases in 2013, and 37 cases in 2014. 92 per cent of the complaints were granted cancellation or the transfer remedy and 8 per cent of the complaints were dismissed. Overall, the percentage of single-member panel cases is 92 per cent, as compared to 8 per cent of cases which use three-member panels.

(3)  Material Scope of the Proceeding The rights protected via the ADR mechanism for ‘.kr’ are broader than those covered by the KR.29 UDRP. Trademark holders, whose rights are registered in Korea and protected under the Trademark Act, may seek redress through the KDRP, as well as the owner of a well-known business or brand. Moreover, a complainant may bring an action where the respondent’s use of a domain name damages the distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s personal name, name, indication, or trade name prominently well known in Korea.

(4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement The Mandatory Administrative Proceeding under the Act on the Internet Address and KR.30 Resources has become binding on all ‘.kr’ domain name registrants by way of its contractual recognition through the Registration Agreement.

(5)  Overview of the ADR-Procedure (a)  Legal Framework The Domain Name Dispute Resolution Committee (DDRC) was established within KR.31 KRNIC and was implemented for the resolution of disputes concerning ‘.kr’ domain names in January 2002. In January 2004, the AIAR was enacted to provide a legislative foundation for Internet addresses, which included a provision for the establishment of the IDRC, for preemptive prohibition and Internet address dispute resolution of domain names. Dispute resolution through registration agreement stipulations is governed by dispute KR.32 resolution mechanisms that are selectively established according to the Domain Name Administration Working Rules. The KDRP, which provides procedures for such dispute resolution, is included as part of the domain name registration agreement, and is therefore binding upon the registrant. Originally, there exited two competing ADR mechanisms utilized within ‘.kr’, one of which KR.33 was binding and one which was not. As noted above, the non-binding mechanism was rarely

765

The Republic of Korea (‘.kr’) used (there is not even one single case reported) and it therefore did not work, while the binding mechanism worked well. 92 per cent of the complaints were granted cancellation or the transfer remedy, and 8 per cent of the complaints were dismissed. For more detailed statistics, please refer to Section III.2 above. KR.34 The original ADR mechanism outlined under the AIAR was a mediation procedure with-

out binding effect, and therefore it was rarely used and became meaningless. Instead the Mandatory Administrative Proceeding under KDRP was mostly used where the service provider was IDRC. The panel’s decision under this procedure has a binding effect on the basis of the contractual recognition by the registrant’s accord to the terms and conditions of the registration agreement and, where incorporated, the KDRP was actively used. In 2009, as the ADR (a mediation system) under the AIAR had been found ineffective, the AIAR was amended to convert the mediation system to the Mandatory Administrative Proceeding, having binding effect of the contractual recognition (the registrant’s signing the registration agreement) by reflecting most of the existing KDRP. Apart from the unification of divergent dispute resolution system, amendment legislation this time included major subjects like allowance of domain name transfer, ensuring effectiveness, and timeliness, of Internet domain dispute resolution procedures.

KR.35 Currently, all domain name registrations in the ‘.kr’ space are subject to registration agree-

ments, via the holders’ respective registrars, binding them to the mandatory dispute resolution provisions under the KDRP.

(b)  ADR Complaint KR.36 The dispute resolution proceeding is initiated by submitting a complaint in writing or in

electronic form to the committee and by paying a fee.11 The language of the proceedings shall be Korean, and any document submitted in another language shall be accompanied by its Korean translation. There is a standard format in which a complaint should be submitted.12 The information such as the party’s name, business registration number, personal residence registration number, the name of the representative person in case of incorporation or organization, e-mail address, physical address, telephone numbers, the desired remedies of the complainant and detailed grounds of its complaint, the choice of a single or three member person panel, and so on, should all be included in the complaint. The complaint should be accompanied by a certified copy of incorporation or a certified copy of personal residence registration for the complainant, and supporting materials evidencing the grounds of the complaint. A complaint can include more than one domain so long as the disputed parties are the same. The use of a legal representative is a matter of choice of the parties. One can access information on the registrant of a domain name by visiting the WHOIS database.

(c)  ADR Response KR.37 There is a standard format in which a response should be submitted.13 The information such as the case number, the disputed domain name(s), the party’s name, business registration number, personal residence registration number, the name of the representative person in case of incorporation or organization, e-mail address, physical address, phone numbers, and single or three-member panel election should be included. It should be accompanied by a certified copy of incorporation or a certified copy of the respondent’s personal residence registration, and supporting materials evidencing the grounds of the response.

  More details can be found at: http://www.idrc.or.kr/english/index.jsp.   A model complaint can be found at: http://www.idrc.or.kr/jsp/info/boardView.jsp?boardNo=2134. 13  A model response form can be found at: http://www.idrc.or.kr/jsp/info/boardView.jsp?boardNo=2133. 11 12

766

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.kr’ Domain Space The respondent shall submit a response and supporting materials within 14 calendar days KR.38 from the date of receipt of the complaint and its supporting materials. The respondent may request an extension of the period for submitting a response, and if the panel deems it necessary, the response period may be extended.

(d) Procedural Issues A  party’s submission does not have to be prepared and submitted by a lawyer. The com- KR.39 plainant carries the burden of proof and there is no specifically established standard of proof. Normally, in-person hearings are not provided, although they are up to the panel’s discretion. The IDRC has been trying to protect the privacy of the parties as much as possible, and therefore the ADR provider does not publish all of the decisions on a website but only a selected number of decisions for the public’s reference. (6)  Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider The IDRC is the sole ADR dispute resolution provider. The IDRC comprises not more KR.40 than 30 members (term of office is three years), including one chairman, under Article 16, paragraph 2 of the AIAR. One of the major roles of IDRC is to provide the Internet address dispute resolution service. It also performs deliberation and coordination on related laws of Internet address dispute resolution. The secretariat’s roles include: (i)

receiving complaints and conducting an investigation for the confirmation of submitted documents; (ii) acting as a contact point between the parties and panel; (iii) preparation and maintenance of minutes of the committee meetings; (iv) management of the official seal of the committee; (v) providing training and promotion of the dispute resolution system; (vi) investigating and conducting research on the dispute resolution system; (vii) establishment of cooperative relations between domestic and foreign dispute resolution organizations; and (viii)  other tasks which are required to support the committee’s activities.

(7)  Role of the Administrative Panel The members of the IDRC are appointed or entrusted by the commissioner of the KCC. KR.41 All members must possess the qualifications as set forth in the subparagraphs of Article 16, paragraph 3 of the AIAR. They are well experienced law professors or former professors, high ranking government officials or former officials who have experience on the Internet address or intellectual properties, judges, public prosecutors, lawyers or patent/trademark attorneys. The panel is appointed by the chairman in accordance with Article 15, paragraph 3 of the AIAR. Although there is no express provision on the scope of the panel’s discretionary powers, it KR.42 is generally recognized that the panel must base its decision only on the parties’ allegations and their submitted exhibits. However, in exceptional circumstances panels may perform independent research (visiting websites, viewing Wayback machine records, and so on) for the purpose of confirming the parties’ allegations.

(8)   Costs The fees are 880,000 KRW (Korean Won), or approximately US$800, for a dispute reso- KR.43 lution proceeding concerning one domain name, with an additional fee of 110,000 KRW (approximately US$100) per each additional domain name, where a single-member panel has been selected. In the case of a three-member panel, the fee for a single domain name case starts at 1,760,000 KRW (approximately US$1,600), and for more than one domain an

767

The Republic of Korea (‘.kr’) additional fee of 220,000 KRW (approximately US$200) will be assessed for each of the additional domain names.

(9)  Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings KR.44 If a national court case is initiated during an ADR proceeding, the panel is supposed to sus-

pend the proceeding until the court case has become final and conclusive without recourse pursuant to the AIAR.14 In case a losing domain name registrant fails to submit one of the certificates proving the lodging of a lawsuit or an arbitration petition in accordance with the Arbitration Act within 15 calendar days from the date of receipt of the decision, then the complainant may request the IDRC to execute the decision.15 The decision is implemented by the registrar at the request of the provider.

(10)  ADR Decision KR.45 The administrative panel takes calendar 14 days, following its appointment, to issue a deci-

sion. Normally it takes two to three months to get a decision from the filing date of a complaint. The KDRP limits the available remedies to cancellation or transfer of the domain name and does not award any monetary amounts, provides a 15-day delay in implementing a cancellation or transfer decision in order to give the domain holder sufficient time to bring a court action if it so chooses, and does not preclude judicial review at a later point, as KISA did not intend the KDRP to usurp sovereign authority over or to limit either party’s access to the courts. The complainant may request the IDRC to execute the decision after the lapse of 15 days following the respondent’s receipt of the decision. The IDRC does not publish all of the decisions on a website but only a selected number of decisions for the public’s reference. In order to maintain consistency, all of the decisions are distributed to all members of the IDRC.16 In order to ensure the consistency of the decisions, the IDRC holds regular workshops where the members of the IDRC review the previous decisions, discuss critical issues, and exchange useful information.

(11)  ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Administrative Panel KR.46 The criteria under the AIAR17 are as follows:

(1) If the respondent’s use of an Internet address falls under any of the following categories, the panel may decide that the respondent’s Internet address should be transferred to the complainant or cancelled: (i) the respondent’s use of the Internet address infringes the complainant’s rights protected under the Trademark Act, where such rights in a trademark or service mark are registered in Korea, (ii) the respondent’s use of an Internet address causes confusion with the complainant’s goods or business operations widely known in Korea, or (iii) the respondent’s use of an Internet address damages the distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s personal name, name, indication, or trade name prominently well known in Korea. (2) The panel may make the same decision specified in paragraph (1) if the respondent’s registration, holding ownership, or use of an Internet address is conducted for the purpose of interfering with the registration or use of the Internet address by the person who has   Para 2, Art 21 of AIAR.   Art 20 of AIAR. 16  All of the members of the IDRC are ADR panellists, and there are no other ADR panellists other than the members of the IDRC. 17  Art 18bis of the Act On Internet Address and Resources. 14 15

768

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.kr’ Domain Space legitimate rights, or to obtain unjustifiable profit including but not limited to selling or renting the Internet address to a party who has the legitimate rights on personal name, name, indication, or trade name.18 (3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1)  and (2), the panel may dismiss the complaint if the respondent’s Internet address is identical with the personal name, name, indication, or trade name for which the respondent has the legitimate rights or interests, or the respondent has the legitimate rights or interest to register or use the Internet address. The complainant must prove that an Internet address falls under any one item as provided in paragraph 1 of Article 18bis above or paragraph 2 of the same Article. In relation to the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP, the protectable rights of the KR.47 complainant are limited to trademark or service mark while under the KDRP, they include personal names, names and indications so long as they are prominent and well known in Korea, as well as a trademark or service mark registered in Korea. Under the UDRP, a trademark or service mark recognized either by registration or common law anywhere in the world falls under the scope of legitimate rights of the complainant, whereas under the KDRP they are limited to trademark or service marks registered in Korea or marks unregistered but well known in Korea.19 The third element of paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires that the domain name has been KR.48 registered and is being used in bad faith. In case of item 1 (infringement of trademark or service mark registered in Korea) of paragraph 1, Article 18bis of the AIAR (KDRP) and item 2 (infringement of marks unregistered but well known in Korea), unlike the UDRP, the complainant does not have to prove the bad faith of the respondent. In addition, in the application of paragraph 2 of the AIAR (KDRP) requiring the registrant’s bad faith, the conjunction of both registration and use is not required. It is sufficient for the complainant to prove the respondent’s registration, holding, ownership or use of an Internet address in bad faith. Paragraph 3 of Article 18bis of KDRP (AIAR) mirrors the second element of paragraph KR.49 4(a) of the UDRP. In terms of process there is not much difference between the UDRP and the KDRP.

18  Under this provision, there is no express requirement that the complainant is known in or does business in Korea. As such, theoretically, it is possible for a trademark owner who has no contacts with Korea to recover a ‘.kr’ domain name which is being used to target its business. ‘Legitimate rights’ in this provision is interpreted to mean the same as the ‘ legitimate rights’ in Art 12 of AIAR under which a person shall not register, use, or hold domain names in bad faith, including preventing a legitimate rights holder from registering domain names or gaining unfair profits from a legitimate rights holder (Paragraph 1, Art 12 of AIAR) and a legitimate rights holder may request the court to transfer or cancel a domain name registered in violation of Paragraph 1, Art 12 of AIAR. As the courts began to recognize that a person who has a legitimate right in a foreign jurisdiction is entitled to claim the transfer or the cancellation of a domain name registered in the gTLD spaces in the interpretation of the term ‘a person having a legitimate right’ in the provision of Art 12 of AIAR (‘nca.com’ case, Daegu District Court, August 17, 2010, 2009 GA HAP 11550; ‘celluarsouth.com’ case, Choungju District Court Young Dong Branch, April 21, 2010, 2009 GA HAP 132), it is the author’s view that it is possible for a trademark owner who has no business contacts with Korea to recover a ‘.kr’ domain name. In that case, however, such a foreign complainant who does not have a business presence (or residence in case of individual person) will have to seek cancellation of the disputed domain name, as such a foreign business entity or person is not entitled to the ownership of a ‘.kr’ domain name. 19  In the interpretation of the term ‘a person having a legitimate right’ the courts began to recognize that a person who has a legitimate right in a foreign jurisdiction is entitled to claim the transfer or the cancellation of the domain name for gTLD (‘nca.com’ case, Daegu District Court, August 17, 2010, 2009 GA HAP 11550; ‘celluarsouth.com’ case, Choungju District Court Young Dong Branch, April 21, 2010, 2009 GA HAP 132). On the other hand, there is a court case ruling that a person who has a legitimate right means a lawful right holder in the Republic of Korea (‘caselogic.co.kr, et.als’ case, Seoul Central District Court, November 13, 2008 GA HAP 126340).

769

The Republic of Korea (‘.kr’) (12)  Brief Review of the Case History (a)  Trademark Infringement (Paragraph 1, Item 1, Article 18bis of AIAR) KR.50 There are cases where the panel recognized trademark infringements. In the ‘alibaba.kr’ case,20 which is the first ADR case since the enforcement of the 2009 Amendment to the AIAR, the panel recognized the respondent’s infringement of the service mark right of the complainant by ruling that the mark ‘alibaba’ and its Korean phonetic equivalent were being used on the website to which the disputed domain name resolved, whereon the respondent was providing similar services to those designated by the complainant’s registered service mark (paragraph 1, item 1, Article 18bis of AIAR). KR.51 In the ‘cnnews.co.kr’ case, the panel found that the use of the disputed domain name as a

URL alone falls under the scope of use of a trademark under the Trademark Act. However, because the respondent also provided services including the publication of news and information, and so on, the panel found that the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered service mark ‘CNN’, and thus the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constituted trademark infringement (paragraph 1, item 1, Article 18bis of AIAR).

KR.52 In the ‘morinaga.co.kr’ case,21 the respondent arranged for the disputed domain name to be

automatically forwarded to its website selling WAKODO products, which the respondent imported. The panel found that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name fell under the advertisement provision pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 1(6), item (c) of the Trademark Act, and concluded that the use of the disputed domain name infringed the complainant’s trademark. Further, the panel held that the disputed domain name fell under Article 8, paragraph 3(1) of the former KDRP. The panel further found that the registration of the disputed domain name was done with bad faith in consideration of the well-known status of the complainant’s trademark in Japan and thus, under the circumstances, the disputed domain name, and thus recognized that the respondent’s activities fell under Article 8, paragraph 3(4) of former KDRP. The respondent lodged a lawsuit with the court which was dismissed and upheld the panel’s view.22

(b) Likelihood of Confusion with a Well-Known Mark (Paragraph 1, Item 2, Article 18bis of AIAR) KR.53 In the ‘imbc.co.kr’ case,23 even though the respondent’s company name was identical to the disputed domain name, the panel ordered the transfer of the disputed domain name by ruling the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain (as well as its use of its company name) constituting an act of unfair competition. The panel’s decision was based on the fact that the complainant’s pertinent company name was well known in Korea, and that the respondent incorporated a company using a name which was extremely similar to the disputed domain name exactly one day before the acquisition and registration of the disputed domain name, and that the respondent simply linked the newly-acquired domain to its existing website. KR.54 In the ‘wooribank.co.kr’ case,24 the respondent opened and operated a finance-related web-

site which it connected to the disputed domain name. The panel decided to order the transfer

  IDRC Case No D2009-0019, February 25, 2010.   Morinaga Seika Kabushiki Gaisha v Commerce Japan Co Ltd, IDRC Case No KR2003-0007, ordering cancellation, March 24, 2003. 22  Seoul District Court 2003 GA HAP 24685. 23  Munhwa Broadcasting Corp and iMBC Co Ltd v iMBC Korea Co Ltd, IDRC Case No KR2004-0007; ‘transfer’ May 22, 2004. 24  Woori Bank Co Ltd v ‘Individual’, IDRC Case No D2006-A013: ‘transfer’ August 1, 2006. 20 21

770

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.kr’ Domain Space of the disputed domain name on the ground that the respondent’s use of the ‘worribank’ term caused confusion with the complainant’s widely and well-known financing business in Korea, pursuant to Article 9, paragraph 1(2) of the former KDRP. The disputed domain name resolved to a website showing financial related services such as loans, insurance, auto insurance, collateral, loans on credit, and so on.

(c) Damaging to Distinctiveness or Reputation of Prominently Well-Known Mark (Paragraph 2, Article 18bis of AIAR) In the ‘marriott.co.kr’ and ‘mariott.kr’ cases,25 where the websites to which the disputed KR.55 domain names resolved simply indicated that the sites were ‘forthcoming’, the panel found that the registration and holding of the disputed domain names was likely to damage distinctiveness and reputation of the complainant’s prominently well-known mark in Korea (paragraph 2, Article 18bis of AIAR). In the ‘pioneer.co.kr’ case,26 the panel recognized that the complainant’s name ‘pioneer’ was KR.56 well known in the field of audio and video equipment around the world and prominently well known within Korea, and thus the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name caused confusion with the complainant’s products or business. The panel held that damage to the distinctiveness of the complainant’s mark was likely, given that the mark was prominently well known in Korea, and the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name interfered with the registration and use of the disputed domain name by the complainant who had a legitimate right and interest in the mark. The respondent lodged a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court, which dismissed it by reasoning that registration and holding of the disputed domain name constituted an act of unfair competition pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 2(1) item 8 of the UCPA.

(d)  Passive Holding and the Respondent’s Bad Faith In the ‘jpmorgan.co.kr’ case,27 even though the disputed domain name was not actually used KR.57 but passively held, the panel recognized the respondent’s purpose of interfering with the registration and use of the domain name by the complainant who has the legitimate right. The former registrant of the disputed domain name did develop a website or connect the disputed domain name to Internet content for a long time. When the complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the former registrant, it immediately transferred the domain name to the respondent who opened a website with no substantive content. In the ‘sens.co.kr’ case,28 the panel recognized the respondent’s purpose of interfering with KR.58 the registration or use of a domain name by the person who has the legitimate rights, even though the disputed domain name was not used at all. The panel ordered transfer of the disputed domain name, finding that the respondent interfered with the potential registration or use of a domain name by the complainant, who held the legitimate right to do so. The panel reasoned that: (i) the complainant has registered the well-known trademark ‘SENS’ and has the legitimate right to use the SENS trademark; and (ii) the respondent had not used the disputed domain name at all for nine years since its registration (Article 9, paragraph 2 of former KDRP). Immediately after the panel’s decision, the respondent lodged a lawsuit seeking the court’s decision seeking a determination that the complainant had no right to claim the cancellation of domain name registration held by the KDRP respondent, in the Seoul Central District Court. The defendant (the complainant in the KDRP case) lodged a counter lawsuit, seeking execution of the cancellation   IDRC Case No D2009-0025, March 5, 2010.   Pioneer Kabushiki Gaisha v Moon Tech, IDRC Case No D2007-A006: ‘cancellation’ April 2, 2007. 27  JP Morgan & Chase & Co v OOO, IDRC Case No D2007-A010, ‘cancellation’ May 28, 2007. 28  Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v OOO, IDRC Case No D2007-A019, ‘transfer’ August 29, 2007. 25 26

771

The Republic of Korea (‘.kr’) decision. The court dismissed the plaintiff ’s (KDRP respondent’s) claim, and granted execution of the domain name cancellation, by relying on the UCPA and not on the former KDRP.29 One critical difference between the UCPA and the KDRP is that the latter allows for either a cancellation or transfer decision, while the UCPA allows only cancellation of the domain name registration.

(e) Typosquatting Cases KR.59 In the ‘goople.co.kr’ case,30 the panel found that the disputed domain name was confusingly

similar to the complainant’s mark ‘google’ and that respondent’s act of forwarding the website resolved by the disputed domain name to another website fell under the circumstance of damaging the distinctiveness of the complainant’s prominently well-known mark (Article 9, paragraph 1(3) of the former KDRP).

(f )  Titles of Books KR.60 In the ‘harrypotter.co.kr’ case,31 the issue of whether a title per se can be grounds for a complain-

ant’s rights under the KDRP was not discussed, because the pertinent title was registered as a trademark. On the other hand, there is an ADR case which addressed the title issue directly. In the ‘vocabible.co.kr’ and ‘vocabible.kr’ case,32 the panel found that the title of a book is descriptive, and thus open to the free use of the public, and cannot be exploited by a certain person unless it has acquired a secondary meaning or it is considered as a title of a series books, citing the Supreme Court’s precedents.33 The panel dismissed the complainant’s (publisher’s) complaint by reasoning that the pertinent title of the book is not considered as being a title of a series of the book and that the respondent (the author) has legitimate interest in the title of his own book, especially after the expiration of the publishing agreement with the complainant.

(g)  Reseller Rights, Registration, and Use By Present or Ex-Agents KR.61 There are about 30 cases addressing the issues of reseller rights.34 Among them, all of the cases except one were decided in favour of the relevant complainants. In most of the cases, the panels did not recognize trademark infringement by applying the doctrine of the exhaustion of trademark rights. On the other hand, panels have found evidence of acts causing confusion or misunderstanding amongst Internet users, in the respondents’ intentional misleading of Internet visitors into believing that the websites resolved by the disputed domain names were the official sites operated by the complainants. KR.62 In the ‘seiko.co.kr’ case35 where the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name

to operate a website providing sales and repair services of the complainant’s genuine SEIKO

29  The reasons why the court elected to rely on the UCPA instead of the KDRP were not clearly stated. It is the author’s view that the judges were reluctant to rely on the KDRP, which would allow the transfer of the disputed domain names, where such remedy was not available under the substantive laws. It is my assumption that the judges had doubts as to whether the provision of the KDRP allowing the transfer of disputed domain names was in violation of substantive laws or not. Unlike in the past, now the AIAR allows the transfer of the disputed domain name while the UCPA does not. As such, even now it is important for the complainant to base its complaint on the AIAR rather than on the UCPA when the desired remedy is not mere cancellation but transfer of a disputed domain name. 30  Google Inc v Interpark Mobile Co Ltd, IDRC Case No D2008-A018, ‘cancellation’, October 22, 2008. 31  IDRC Case No D2005-A012, June 24, 2005. 32  IDRC Case No D2011-0031, November 9, 2011. 33 Supreme Court, December 10, 2002 2000 HU 3395; Supreme Court, August 25, 2005, 2005 DA 22770. 34  D2006-A005 ‘seiko.co.kr’ case, KR2003-0033 ‘samculylespo.co.kr’ case, D2006-A002 ‘delonghi.co.kr’ case, KR2002-0044  ‘timberland.co.kr’ case, D2005-A035  ‘nextbase.co.kr’ case, KR2002-0021  ‘shiseido. co.kr’ case, etc. 35  IDRC D2006-A005 ‘seiko.co.kr’ case, April 7, 2006.

772

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws watches, the panel found that there existed a considerable degree of confusion between the business of the complainant and that of the respondent due to the respondent’s operation of the website resolved by the disputed domain name. The panel further recognized that there was a likelihood of damaging the distinctiveness and the reputation of the complainant’s mark, which was well known in Korea. In the ‘samculylespo.co.kr’ case,36 the respondent was an official sales agent or distributor of KR.63 the complainant’s products (bicycles) while the complaint was pending. Although the panel did not recognize trademark infringement, since the reasons the respondent was selling the complainant’s genuine goods, he found that there was a likelihood of damaging the goodwill of the complainant’s well-known mark.

(h)  Respondent’s Legitimate Rights or Interests There are a handful of cases where the panel dismissed the complaint on the grounds of the KR.64 respondent’s legitimate rights or interests.37 The ‘jeilbank.co.kr’ case is one of a few cases where Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the former KR.65 KDRP were applied but the complaint was dismissed pursuant to paragraph 3 (respondent’s legitimate rights or interests) of the former KDRP. In this case, the panel found that the use of the disputed domain name to resolve to the respondent’s own website, may fall under a circumstance of damaging distinctiveness of the complainant’s prominently well-known business name in Korea, and that it may fall under Article 9, paragraph 1(3) of the former KDRP. However, in this case, the respondent was also the holder of a registered service mark for the term ‘Jeil Mutual Savings Bank’. The prominent portion of the disputed domain name, ‘jeilbank’, was regarded as the abbreviated name of the respondent’s registered service mark or trade mark, and thus the respondent has legitimate rights and interests in the disputed domain name.

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (1) Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation: the Act on  Internet Address Resources (a)  Substantive Criteria Under the AIAR The AIAR defines Internet addresses as ‘information systems consisting of numbers, letters, KR.66 characters or their combinations that allow identification of and access to specific systems of information on the Internet according to internationally recognized standard methods in line with information and communication rules’. Internet address category examples provided in the Act include Internet protocol addresses (for recognition by computers and other information and communication equipment), domain names (for humans to more easily remember Internet protocol addresses) and other addresses devised to allow identification of specific systems of information on the Internet.38 Under the AIAR, a person shall not register, use, or hold domain names in bad faith, includ- KR.67 ing preventing a legitimate rights holder from registering domain names or gaining unfair profits from a legitimate rights holder.39

  DDRC KR2003-0033 ‘samchulylespo.co.kr’ case, October 4, 2003.   ‘rasara.co.kr’ case, IDRC Case No D2005-A001; ‘jeilbank.co.kr’ case, Korea Standard Chartered First Bank Co Ltd v Jeil Mutual Savings Bank Co Ltd, IDRC Case No D2007-A020 ‘dismissed’ September 18, 2007. 38  Paragraph 1, Art 2 of AIAR. 39  Paragraph 1, Art 12 of AIAR. 36 37

773

The Republic of Korea (‘.kr’) KR.68 The AIAR,40 as amended in April 2009, incorporated the existing mandatory administrative

proceedings and the substantive criteria of the former KDRP. For further details, see above Section III.11,. The courts have recognized that the AIAR is the applicable law for gTLD dispute cases as well as ‘.kr’ domain name disputes in the interpretation of the scope of application of the Act (Article 4 of AIAR).41

(b)  AIAR Remedies KR.69 A legitimate rights holder may request the court to transfer or cancel a domain name regis-

tered in violation of paragraph 1, Article 12 of the AIAR above. In the interpretation of the term ‘a person having a legitimate right’, the courts began to recognize that a person who has a legitimate right in a foreign jurisdiction is entitled to claim the transfer or the cancellation of a domain name registered in the gTLD spaces.42 On the other hand, there is a court case ruling that a person who has a legitimate right means a lawful right holder in the Republic of Korea.43 For some illustrative statistics regarding the outcome of domain name dispute cases under national law, see above under Section II.7.

(c)  Illustrative Example of Case Law Under the AIAR—A Case of Laches KR.70 In the case of ‘amway.co.kr’,44 the plaintiff (the registrant of the disputed domain name, and the respondent in the KDRP procedure under the AIAR) set forth allegations to the effect that the defendant (the complainant in the KDRP procedure) should be deemed to have waived its right to claim the transfer of the disputed domain name because the defendant had neglected to pursue a legal remedy for as long as 14 years since the registration of the disputed domain name. In addressing the issue of laches, the court did not recognize the plaintiff ’s allegation by reasoning that mere negligence in pursuing a legal remedy for a long period of time should not constitute a waiver on behalf of the defendant, preventing it from pursing the transfer of the disputed domain name. The court concluded that the defendant should not be deemed to have waived the right to claim the transfer of the disputed domain name, having taken the various facts and circumstances of the case into account, including: the defendant’s election to bring the complaint before the IDRC under the AIAR, the time between the registration of the domain name and the filing of the claim pursuant to the AIAR, and the defendant’s absence of motivation or reason for waving its right to request transfer. KR.71 In this context, however, the author wishes to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that

the court considered the nature of the right to claim the transfer of a domain name as being a contractual right, the extinctive prescription of which is ten years. The court deemed the starting point of reckoning of the extinctive prescription as being the date of enforcement of the AIAR, that is, September 10, 2009. As of this date, the extinctive prescription has not lapsed in the subject case. If interpreted otherwise, in the case of ‘.kr’ domain names if the right holder neglects to pursue a legal remedy for more than ten years after the registration of a disputed domain name (after September 10, 2009), then the right to claim the transfer of the domain name would lapse.

  Art 18bis of AIAR.   The ‘nca.com’ case, Daegu District Court, August 17, 2010, 2009 GA HAP 11550; ‘celluarsouth.com’ case, Choungju District Court Young Dong Branch, April 21, 2010, 2009 GA HAP 132. 42  ‘nca.com’ case, Daegu District Court, August 17, 2010, 2009 GA HAP 11550; ‘celluarsouth.com’ case, Choungju District Court Young Dong Branch, April 21, 2010, 2009 GA HAP 132. 43  ‘caselogic.co.kr, et.als’ case, Seoul Central District Court, November 13, 2008 GA HAP 126340. As to the types of rights to claim status as a ‘rights holder’ in Korea, a mere registered trade or service mark, or well-known status within Korea would be sufficient. 44  The ‘amway.co.kr’ case, Seoul Central District Court, September 26, 2012 GA HAP 10121. 40 41

774

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (2)  Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (a)  Substantive Criteria Under the UCPA There have been two meaningful amendments to the UCPA in terms of fighting against KR.72 cybersquatting. One is the Amendment of July 1, 2001 which introduced the anti-dilution provision. The other is the Amendment of July 20, 2004 which introduced the provision for the prohibition of cybersquatting. Even before introducing the provision for the prohibition of cybersquatting, abusive domain KR.73 name registration was frequently regulated by the existing provisions for the prohibition of acts of unfair competition prevention under the UCPA. Prior to the Amendment of July 1, 2001, the courts applied the provisions of the preven- KR.74 tion of acts of unfair competition on the basis that such behaviour risks causing confusion between the disputed domain name and the legitimate rights-holder’s activities. The relevant types of acts of unfair competition the court applied were: (i) an act causing confusion with another person’s goods by using signs identical or similar to another person’s name, trade name, trademark, container or packaging of goods, or any other sign widely known in Korea as an indication of goods, or by selling, distributing, importing, or exporting goods in connection with such signs (Article 2, item (i) of the UCPA); and (ii) an act of causing confusion with another person’s commercial facilities or activities by using signs identical or similar to another person’s name, trade name, emblem or any other sign widely known in Korea as an indication of commerce (Article 2, item (ii)). However, there was a limitation to the effective regulation of cybersquatting just on the basis of the risk of confusion. This was because according to the existing provisions of laws, for example in order to claim trademark infringement, the complainant had to establish the use of the disputed domain name as a trademark in respect of goods or services similar or identical with those of the complainant’s registered trade mark or service mark. Even under the previous provisions of the UCPA, the complainant had to prove the domain name registrant’s act was capable of causing confusion. However, in most cybersquatting cases, it is hard to establish such trademark infringement or the act of causing confusion. The Amendment of July 1, 2001 introduced the provision of anti-dilution by adding KR.75 to the types of acts of unfair competition and item (iii): an act of doing damage to distinctiveness or reputation attached to another person’s sign by using any sign identical with or similar to another person’s name, trade name, trademark, container or package of goods, or any other sign widely known in Korea as an indication of goods or commerce, or by selling, distributing, importing or exporting goods with such signs, without due cause as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, for instance non-commercial use (Article 2, item (iii) of the UCPA). Some meaningful court precedents, including the Supreme Court decisions regulating cybersquatting by applying this anti-dilution provision, have been issued. It remained difficult, however, to effectively regulate cybersquatting because one of the requirements constituting the act of unfair competition under this anti-dilution provision required the prominently well-known status of the lawful holder’s mark in Korea. The Amendment of July 20, 2004 introduced a provision prohibiting cybersquatting, which KR.76 formally defined the term ‘domain name’, referring to a number, letter, or sign, or any combination of these, that functions as an Internet address (paragraph 4, Article 2 of the UCPA). The Amendment clearly prohibits cybersquatting as one of the types of unfair competition, by adding the following acts to the existing types of unfair competition: An act of registering, possessing, transferring or using a domain name by an unlawful holder for any of the following purposes where the domain name is identical or similar to another

775

The Republic of Korea (‘.kr’) person’s name, trade name, trademark or other mark widely recognized in the Republic of Korea (Paragraph 1, Article 2, item viii of UCPA): (a) selling or assigning a mark, such as a trademark, to an lawful holder or a third party; (b) preventing a lawful holder from registering or using a domain name; or (c) obtaining any commercial interests. KR.77 This new provision has been found to better regulate cybersquatting in that it does not nec-

essarily require the risk of confusion or dilution.

(b)  UCPA Remedies KR.78 The cancellation of a disputed domain name is available under the UCPA, but its transfer is

not. A person whose business interest is injured or threatened by an act of unfair competition may seek a court injunction or a preventive order against a person who engages in the act of unfair competition.45 When a person seeks legal action under this provision, the person may request the following: (i) destruction of the goods that promote the act of unfair competition; (ii) removal of the facilities used during the act; (iii) cancellation of the domain name registration; and (iv) other measures necessary for the prevention of unfair competition. 46

KR.79 The cancellation of the domain name registration (item (iii) above) was first introduced in the

Amendment of July 20, 2004. However, even before the Amendment, the courts granted the cancellation of the domain name registration by applying items (i) and (ii) above.

KR.80 A  person who intentionally or negligently causes damage to another person’s business

interest is liable for compensation of damages. However, Article 2, paragraph 1, item (iii) of this Act only applies to intentional acts of unfair competition (Article 5). The court may order a person who intentionally or negligently damages the business reputation of a person by an act of unfair competition to take necessary measures in restoring the business reputation of the owner, in lieu of or in addition to compensation for damages under Article 5.

KR.81 A person who engages in an act of unfair competition, such as causing confusion or doing

damage to the distinctiveness or reputation of another person’s prominently well-known mark in Korea, is liable to imprisonment with labour not exceeding three years, or to a fine not exceeding 30  million KRW.46 If a disputed domain name falls under such an act of unfair competition, the registrant is subject to criminal liabilities. However, the domain name registrant who falls under the category of the prohibition of cybersquatting provision47 is not subject to criminal sanctions. For some illustrative statistics regarding the outcome of domain name dispute cases under national law, see above under Section II.7.

(c)  Illustrative Examples of Case Law Under the UCPA (i) Cases Recognizing ‘Doing Damage to the Distinctiveness or Reputation of Legitimate Right Holder’s Mark’ KR.82 (A)  The ‘viagra.co.kr’ Case  This Supreme Court case did not recognize the act of causing confusion as to the business entity or the source of origin for the goods in relation to the use

  Paragraph 1, Art 4 of the UCPA.   Paragraph 3, Art 18 of UCPA. 47  Item viii, Paragraph 1, Art 2, of UCPA. 45 46

776

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws of the disputed domain name, but recognized instead the act of unfair competition based on the damage to the ‘distinctiveness’ or ‘reputation’ of the plaintiff ’s mark under the UCPA (as amended and enforced as of July 1, 2001).48 The noteworthy point of this case is that, as long as the disputed domain name is not used as a trademark for goods transacted on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, the defendant’s use of the domain does not constitute use as a trademark in respect of goods, but rather as a service mark for the relevant services. However, while acknowledging the use of a domain name as a ‘service mark’, this case did not acknowledge that the defendant’s acts caused confusion as to the business entity or the source of origin which produced or supplied the goods, and acknowledged only the act of unfair competition with respect to any damage caused to the distinctiveness or reputation of the pertinent mark. Another noteworthy point of this case is the ruling that the original court did not abuse its KR.83 discretion and properly applied the revised Act, even though it had conducted two hearings and announced a later sentencing date, after which it allowed the plaintiffs’ motion to reopen another hearing to apply the revised Act when it was about to be enforced.

(B)  The ‘sungrak.co.kr’ and ‘sungrak.pe.kr’ Case  Here, the high court case recognized the KR.84 act of operating a website at the disputed domain name which criticized the rights holder as an act of unfair competition under the UCPA.49 The court recognized the fact that a member of a widely known church, which established an offshoot and registered a domain name extremely similar to that of the well-established church and criticized it and found that such activities caused damage to the distinctiveness or reputation of another’s trademark under Article 2(1) of the UCPA. (ii)  Unfair Competition Where the Domain Name Registrant Holds Trademark KR.85 Rights  The most illustrative case under Korean law concerning a domain name dispute in which the respondent held independent rights in the textual phrase of the domain was the ‘karma-online.com’ and ‘karma-online.co.kr’ case.50 The respondent in this action made a meaningful case for the claim that his use of the disputed domain name was a proper exercise of his own registered trademark rights, and therefore it did not constitute an act of unfair competition. His argument, however, was rejected on the ground that such actions constitute ‘abuse of a trademark right’ vis-à-vis the complainant’s mark. (iii)  Passive Holding of Disputed Domain Names  There is a case where the registration KR.86 and use of a domain name solely for unjust purposes was recognized as constituting an act of unfair competition.51 A mere non-use of a domain name, no attempt to sell the domain name, or to contact a holder of the trademark does not excuse one of unjust purposes. In such cases of passive holding, defined as a circumstance in which the other party is the owner of a popular trademark or business, and the registrant of a domain name conceals his identity or does not have a bona fide intention to use a website for it, or otherwise use the domain name in good faith, the purpose of gaining unjust profit in violation of social norms or good faith should still be inferred. There is another case where passive holding or use of a domain name by way of having it forwarded to other sites was recognized as constituting ‘the purpose of hindering

  Supreme Court, May 14, 2004 2002DA 13782 Prohibition of Trademark Infringement.   Seoul High Court, January 11, 2002 2001 LA428 Provisional Injunction for Prohibition of Domain Name Use. 50  Seoul District Court, April 29, 2003, 2003 GA HAP 439, Preliminary Injunction on Use of Trademark. 51  Seoul Central District Court, May 1, 2008 2007GA HAP79720, 2008 GA HAP 1236 (confirmation of a right to claim cancellation of a domain name registration). 48 49

777

The Republic of Korea (‘.kr’) registration and use of domain name’.52 On the other hand, there is a court case which denied an act of unfair competition.53 Where the domain name registrant has used a domain name to connect to a website with sponsored links or advertisements for products services similar to those of the relevant rights-holder, using a similar domain name to generate domain traffic, the court has held that such activity could result in damage to the mark-holder’s rights or runs the risk of causing damage to mark-holder’s business interests due to the respondent’s act of unfair competition.54

KR.87 (iv)  Offering a Domain Name to a Domain Traffic Advertising Agency for Profit 

The court recognized and found that the plaintiff had been offering customer services for sound equipment through the website to which the dispute domain name resolved, and that the plaintiff unfairly caused damage or was likely to cause damage to the business interest of the defendant. As such, the registration and maintenance of the disputed domain name by the plaintiff constituted an act of unfair competition under Article 2(2) item (viii) of the UCPA.55

KR.88 (v)  Resolving to Website Offering Customer Services 

The court has held that typo-squatting cases constitute acts of unfair competition.56 Taking into account various facts, such as creation and transfer of the domain name, and the pattern of use and operation of the domain name, and the website managed by the plaintiff, the court found that it could be inferred that the plaintiff affirmatively intended to earn commercial gain and incidental interests for several reasons, namely: (i) the plaintiff attracted users who misspelled the defendant’s domain name to the plaintiff ’s website; and (ii) the plaintiff connected such users to a website which offered similar services and might damage the business credibility of the defendant.

KR.89 (vi)  Typosquatting Cases 

(3)  Trademark Act (a)  Trademark Infringement—Risk of Confusion KR.90 According to the Trademark Act, the use of a mark identical with or similar to another per-

son’s registered mark in respect of identical or similar goods to those designated by another person’s registered trademark57 constitutes trademark right infringement. Although the Trademark Act does not use the term ‘risk of confusion’, the Korean courts have determined that the similarity of marks and similarity of goods are relevant in terms of assessing the likelihood of confusion. The question as to whether there is a likelihood of confusion has turned on multi-factor tests, which consider such factors as the strength or distinctiveness of the pertinent registered mark, channels of trade, and so on. The same tests have been applied to domain name issues.

52  Seoul Central District Court, July 4, 2007 2006 GA HAP 86516 (confirmation on non-existence of obligation to cancel domain name ‘nvidia.com’ case). 53  Seoul Central District Court, April 13, 2007 2006 GA HAP 58818, confirmation of rights in domain name (‘disneystore.co.kr’ case). In this matter, the court recognized the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the right holder’s name. However, the court reasoned that the disputed domain name had never been used, and thus the mere existence of confusing similarity was insufficient to demonstrate the defendant’s purpose of selling or renting the domain, or preventing a lawful holder from registering or using it, or obtaining any commercial interests in the name. As the complaint was dismissed, the defendant was allowed to keep the disputed domain name. 54  Seoul Central District Court, October 11, 2007 2006 GA HAP 74971 (prohibition on domain name use and confirmation of non-existence of right to claim transfer ‘wes.com’ case). 55  Seoul Central District Court, sentenced November 21, 2007 2007 GA HAP 31803 (Verification of Non-existence of Obligation to Cancel Domain Name ‘pioneer.co.kr’ case). 56  Seoul Central District Court, August 30, 2007, 2006 GA HAP53066 (Cancellation of Domain Name Transfer—‘myspce.com’ case). 57  Art 66 of the Trademark Act.

778

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (b)  Remedies Under the Trademark Act Transfer of the disputed domain name is not available under the Trademark Act. The can- KR.91 cellation of a domain name registration is available by way of applying the provision for the destruction of articles and facilities involved in the trademark infringement.58 Injunctions, including preliminary injunctions, restoration of damaged reputation, damage compensation, destruction of the mark, goods, and facilities involved in the infringement, and criminal remedies are available. For some illustrative statistics regarding the outcome of domain name dispute cases under national law, see above under Section II.7. (c)  Illustrative Examples of Case Law Under the Trademark Act (i)  Cases Recognizing Trademark Right Infringement  Some court cases have recog- KR.92 nized the use of disputed domain names may constitute trademark infringement. The act of trademark infringement under the Trademark Act and the act of unfair competition under UCPA are subject to criminal penalties as well as civil liabilities. However, the act of unfair competition in relation to cybersquatting of domain names is not subject to criminal penalties. So far as the domain name issues are concerned, only the act of causing confusion or the act of damaging the reputation of another’s well-known mark are subject to criminal penalties under the UCPA. The criminal case and the civil case are heard by different courts, although they concern the same disputed domain names between the same parties. The degree of criminal penalties varies on the significance of the crime. Although there is a court case in which the defendant was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, where the court found trademark infringement in relation to use of a disputed domain name, the average amount of criminal penalties is US$3,000.00 in the case of trademark infringement or an act of unfair competition. The courts have denied trademark infringement in a civil case, while acknowledging the KR.93 infringement of the trademark and service mark right between the same parties in the ‘ecomist.co.kr’ case.59 There is another case where the court denied the existence of trademark infringement in a civil case while acknowledging such trademark infringement in the respective criminal case.60 The reasoning of the criminal case was that after registering a domain name, where one sells or offers goods or services that are identical with or similar to the designated goods or services of another’s registered trademark or service mark, it constitutes ‘use of trademark’ by ‘advertising goods or indicating and displaying trademark on signs’ under Article 2, paragraph 1(6) of the Trademark Act. There is also a court case which acknowledged the use of a disputed domain name as a use of service mark in respect of a broadcasting service as constituting trademark infringement.61 The significance of this latter case is that the court acknowledged the use of domain name simply as a URL as constituting the use of service mark.

(ii)  Cases Addressing the Use of a Domain Name as a URL Alone  There is a Supreme KR.94 Court case62 denying trademark infringement in a case where the disputed domain name was used as a URL alone. By ruling that the use of a domain name that is identical to a third party’s trademark as a URL alone does not fall under trademark infringement of Article 66

  Paragraph 2, Art 65 of the Trademark Act.   Seoul High Court, November 30, 2005 2005 NA 57792 claim to return domain name. 60  The ‘himart.co.kr’ case (Seoul District Court, November 14, 2000, 2000 Go-Dan5178—trademark infringement). 61  The ‘startv.co.kr’ case (Seoul District Court, December 12, 2003 2002GA HAP 79664—confirmation of the non-existence of a right to claim transfer of the domain name). 62  The ‘rolls-royce.co.kr’ case (Supreme Court, February 13, 2004 2001DA 57709 Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition). 58 59

779

The Republic of Korea (‘.kr’) of the Trademark Act, the Supreme Court did not support the lower court cases where such registration and use of domain name merely as a URL was found to fall under ‘displaying and advertising of signs’ and ‘trademark use’ under Article 2, paragraph 1(6) of the Trademark Act. This case takes a different position from the number of existing lower court cases which ruled that domain names constitute ‘signs’ in terms of the definition of trademark use under the Trademark Act, in that the Supreme Court case particularly ruled that a domain name (which indicates an Internet address) does not constitute a sign under the Trademark Act, and thus the use of a domain name merely as a URL does not constitute use of a trade mark in respect of the advertised goods. KR.95 On the other hand, there is a Patent Court case,63 decided after the Supreme Court case

above, which found the extension of trademark rights to disputed domain names, even where the disputed domain name was used as a URL alone, and where there was no use of any similar mark(s) on the website active at the disputed domain name of the respondent, which offered goods similar to those of the plaintiff ’s pertinent trademark registration.

KR.96 Generally speaking, given the contradictory Supreme Court decision, it is the author’s opin-

ion that it would be hard to establish the use of a trademark merely relying on the use of the disputed domain name as a URL. However, it may depend on the facts in specific cases. If a domain name registrant uses its domain name as a URL, resolving to a website offering goods or services which are similar to those of another person’s trademark registration, it is the writer’s opinion that such a use of domain name as a URL should be deemed as a use of a trademark and would thus constitute trademark infringement.

(d)  Protection of Famous Marks KR.97 The Trademark Act protects famous marks well known in Korea or outside of Korea. However,

the protection of famous marks under the Trademark Act simply prevents another person from registering a trademark identical or similar to the famous mark. Only when the mark has been registered under the Trademark Act does the owner of the registered mark have the right to exclude another person’s use of a mark identical or similar to its registered mark. Regardless of a mark’s registration status, however, redress for the infringement of a famous mark is provided for under the UCPA, as discussed above.

(e)  Comparison of ADR v Court Action KR.98 There is not much difference in the elements necessary for a finding of trademark infringe-

ment in the context of domain name disputes between ADR and court actions. One of the only material differences in terms of remedies, as the transfer as well as the cancellation of the disputed domain name is available in an ADR procedure, whereas in court actions the cancellation, but not the transfer of the disputed domain name is available. Other remedies available under the Trademark Act, such as injunction, damage compensation, and so on are not available in the ADR context. It takes two to three months to obtain an ADR decision while it takes six to 12 months to have a court decision in the first instance issued.

(4) Infringement of Personal Names, Names of Cities, and Other Public Law Corporations KR.99 A certain level of protection for the use of personal names against confusingly similar domain

names exists in Korea. First, the AIAR provides grounds for the transferring or cancelling of disputed domain names confusingly similar to famous personal names or personal names

63  ‘vanillamint.co.kr’ case (Patent Court December 1, 2010, 2010 HEO 2346, confirmation on scope of right).

780

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws which are not necessarily well known in Korea (requiring the bad faith of the domain name registrant) via the ADR proceeding.64 The UCPA provides for transfer or cancelation of disputed domain names found confusingly KR.100 similar to personal names well known in Korea. The general remedies such as injunction, damage compensation, and restoration of damaged reputation are available against the holders of disputed domain names similar to personal names well known in Korea.65 There are no restrictions on the use of names of cities as domain names in conjunction with KR.101 ‘.kr’ domains. For example, ‘seoul.co.kr’ is registered by Seoul Newspaper, a company that provides media services to the public. It is completely unaffiliated with any local or state government entities.

(5)  Infringement of Titles Titles of publications are typically considered to be descriptive of their contents and there- KR.102 fore not protectable absent secondary meaning. When a title of a publication is a name of the publication series, then it is entitled to trademark registration.66 When the titles of publications have become well known in Korea as signs of the source of the relevant publications and where the title serves as the name of a series of publications, it may be protected under the UCPA.

(6)  Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available (a)  Injunctions to Restrain Further Infringements Injunctions, including preliminary injunctions, to restrain further infringements are avail- KR.103 able under the UCPA when the registrant of the disputed domain name committed an act of unfair competition involving the disputed domain name as discussed above. And the same injunction remedies are available when the use of the disputed domain name is identical to a registered trademark right which is thus infringed under the elements of the Trademark Act. (b)  Order that the Domain Name Holder Transfers or Deletes a Domain Name Through an ADR procedure under the AIAR, it is possible to obtain a transfer or cancella- KR.104 tion order with regard to a disputed domain name. Where an ADR decision is challenged in the courts, the court may confirm the ADR order of transfer or cancellation of the disputed domain name. When the disputed domain name constitutes an act of unfair competition under the UCPA or constitutes trademark infringement under the Trademark Act, the court is only able to order cancellation of the disputed domain name, as transfer is not available. In order to enjoy the transfer remedy, it is required to base the claim on the AIAR. (c) Award of Damages, Options in Cases Where There is a Need for Speedier Relief, Expedited/Interlocutory Injunctions and Summary Judgments A  lawful rights holder may claim damage compensation under the UCPA or under the KR.105 Trademark Act. A  successful challenger may elect to recover statutory damages of up to 50 million KRW (approximately US$45,000), at the discretion of the court, where it is found that the disputed domain name infringed the registered trademark right. This statutory damage provision was introduced in the Amendment of December 2, 2011 to the Trademark

  Paragraph 1, item 3 and Paragraph 2, Art 18bis of AIAR.   Paragraph 1, Art 2, item (i), (ii), and (viii) of UCPA. 66 Supreme Court, December 10, 2002 2000 HU 3395; Supreme Court, August 25, 2005, 2005 DA 22770. 64 65

781

The Republic of Korea (‘.kr’) Act which took effect on March 15, 2012.67 As to a speedier relief, a preliminary injunction is generally used. It normally takes two to four months to obtain a preliminary injunction order. An interlocutory judgment is also available.68 The interlocutory judgment has the effect of sentence (binding effect) but has neither the effect of excluding further litigation (res judicata) nor any executive force (enforceability).

(d)  Costs KR.106 As attorney’s fees are totally dependent on a multitude of factors, such as the volume of work

and the expertise of the relevant attorneys, they can be hard to estimate outside the context of a given dispute. Generally speaking, however, national law proceedings are roughly three to five times more expensive as compared to ADR mechanisms. When a plaintiff initiates a lawsuit, he/she must pay the official fees of the court proceeding. At the request of the parties, the court normally decides who should pay the additional costs of a court proceeding. Although normally the losing party bears the costs of a court proceeding, it is not always the case. The court determines the ratio of the costs to be borne between the parties, the assessment of which remains at the sole discretion of the court. Attorney’s fees are recognized as a part of the costs of a court proceeding69 and are subject to reimbursement. However, not all of the attorney’s fees are generally reimbursed. The portion of the attorney’s fees which may be reimbursed are calculated pursuant to the schedule set out by the Supreme Court Rule on the Calculation of Attorney’s Fees. The Attorney’s fees are not recognized as a part of an award of damage compensation.70

(e)  UDRP v Court Action KR.107 A comparison of remedies available under the UCPA, the Trademark Act, and/or the AIAR on the one hand, and UDRP or KDRP proceedings on the other, is helpful in determining which action to bring. As a preliminary matter, trademark owners should remember that the UDRP requires a showing of bad faith registration and bad faith use, while the UCPA and the AIAR require only bad faith registration or bad faith use, and bad faith is not a requirement under the infringement or dilution law, though its absence or presence is a relevant factor. And while UDRP proceedings are quick and inexpensive, relief is limited to transfer or cancellation of the gTLD domain name only. Moreover, UDRP decisions are also subject to de novo review in a court of competent jurisdiction. The litigation route, if successful, provides various other remedies, but typically costs significantly more and is quite time-consuming.

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name KR.108 A domain name can become a trademark if it is registered as a trademark, and satisfies the

requirement of distinctiveness which is required of all trademarks. It is well established that mere registration of a domain name is not sufficient to acquire intellectual property rights. Mere use of the domain name does not create any protectable trademark rights. If and when the domain name has become well known in Korea as a sign indicating the source of goods or services, then it is subject to protection regardless of its registration status in Korea.

  Art 67bis of the Trademark Act.   Art 186 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 69  Art 109 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 70  Supreme Court 96 DA 27889, November 8, 1996. 67 68

782

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers Absent collusion, or some other affirmative malfeasance on the part of the registry, Korean KR.109 courts will not hold registries or registrars of domain names liable for contributory trademark infringement or unfair competition. There is one reported court case which denied contributory unfair competition liabilities KR.110 under the UCPA on the part of an Internet address registrar,71 by reasoning that the tort committed by the Internet address registrant, as well as the contents of the website to which the address resolved, were totally beyond the management and control of the registrar. As for the case of Internet Service Providers, the Korean courts set out criteria to recog- KR.111 nize contributory trademark infringement liabilities. In the ‘HINOKI’ case,72 a trademark right holder sought a preliminary injunction against Operators of Open Markets, where HINOKI-branded shampoos and conditioners were being sold, by claiming joint liabilities or aiding and abetting liabilities of trademark infringement. The court recognized the online service provider’s joint liabilities and granted preliminary injunctive relief for preventing the Operator of the Open Market from selling or displaying the infringed product, by reasoning that online service provider owes a duty of care to prevent and stop trademark infringing activities conducted by individual sellers on their websites. If the operators do not fulfil such obligations, then they may be liable for aiding and abetting trademark infringement by the individual sellers. On the other hand, there are court cases which have denied online service providers’ contributory liabilities, depending on the specific circumstances.73 Currently, there are no reported court cases in relation to domain parking providers, and it is KR.112 yet to be fully resolved whether privacy or proxy service providers are liable for contributory infringement. They must exercise common sense and best practices to reduce the likelihood of contributory trademark infringement liability or unfair competition liabilities to mitigate their risk, particularly until specific standards are outlined via case law. If it is found that they clearly knew or should have known the website to which a domain name resolves is undertaking activities which constitute trademark infringement or unfair competition, the provider should be liable.

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property Domain names are actually considered to be and treated as items of property. There is no KR.113 question that domain names are freely assigned and licensed. Each domain registrar has its own procedure to be followed by the parties in transferring a domain name from one party to another. The execution and attachment of domain names is legally available. Domain names are KR.114 treated as property in insolvency/bankruptcy proceedings. There is court precedent recognizing the attachment of a domain name,74 and at least one court case ordered the attachment

  See the so-called ‘SECOM’ case, Seoul Central District Court, August 28, 2005.   Seoul Central District Court 2008 KA HAP 1901, August 5, 2008. 73 The K2 case (Seoul Central District Court 2006 GA HAP 46488, November 20, 2008); the Adidas case (Seoul High Court Decision 2009 RA 1941, May 10, 2010 pending before the Supreme Court). 74  Seoul District Court, news release of October 10, 2003 Seoul YTN. 71 72

783

The Republic of Korea (‘.kr’) and sale of domain names pursuant to an action for debt collection.75 There is also a court case recognizing encashment of domain names by the court’s order.76 Domain names may also be used as collateral property, and there are cases in which domain names have been used as collateral for bank loans.77 Although there is controversy as to whether domains constitute property rights or contractual property, the latter has become the more consensus view, as the exclusivity of domain names is due to a technical factor rather than the establishment given by legal provision.

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (1)  International Jurisdiction KR.115 In Korea, in the case of a trademark infringement, the court having jurisdiction over the place

of the defendant has the jurisdiction just as in other lawsuits pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Procedural Act. In addition, the court having jurisdiction over the place of the infringing act has jurisdiction to hear the matter. If a defendant submits a response to a lawsuit without arguing the suitability of the jurisdiction, the receiving court of the lawsuit will be deemed to have jurisdiction via consent.

(a)  International Jurisdiction in the Context of UDRP Decision Implementation KR.116 The general, principle of international jurisdiction is provided in the Private International Act. In case a party or a matter in dispute is substantively related to Korea, a Korean court shall have international jurisdiction. In this case, the court shall obey reasonable principles, compatible to the ideology of the allocation of international jurisdiction in judging the existence of the substantive relations.78 A court of Korea shall judge whether or not it has international jurisdiction in light of the relevant jurisdictional provisions of domestic law(s) and shall take full consideration of the unique nature of the dispute, in line with the provisions of paragraph 1, Article 2 of the Private International Act. The protection of intellectual property rights shall be governed by the law of the place where such rights are violated.79 KR.117 The forms of litigation on domain name disputes may be categorized into two types,

namely: (1) a lawsuit to suspend the execution of the Administrative Panel’s decision on the transfer or cancellation of the disputed domain name under the UDRP, and (2) a lawsuit to claim the prohibition of infringement, deletion of registration, damage compensation, etc. before the court attaining legitimate jurisdiction irrespective of the UDRP.

KR.118 It is well established that mutual jurisdiction, as agreed under the UDRP, is restricted only to

a lawsuit to suspend the execution of the Administrative Panel’s decision. The mutual jurisdiction as agreed upon in the process of the UDRP is regardless of the determination of the jurisdiction on the lawsuit to claim the prohibition of infringement, deletion of registration, damage compensation, etc. of the disputed domain name under the UDRP.

KR.119 In case a lawsuit to suspend the execution of the Administrative Panel’s decision is

brought before a court that is not that of the elected mutual jurisdiction, it will prove insufficient to suspend the execution of the Administrative Panel’s decision. When a

  Seoul Southern District Court 2001TAGI 3829, September 11, 2001.   Seoul Southern District Court 2004 TACHAE 4986, May 17, 2005. 77  Ho-Hyun Nahm, ‘Patents and Domain Names can be used as Security’, Challenging the 21st Century with Intellectual Property Rights (Barun IP & Law, 2010) pp 250–52. 78  Paragraph 1, Art 2 of the Private International Act. 79  Art 24 of the Private International Act. 75 76

784

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law lawsuit claiming both the suspension of the execution of the Administrative Panel’s decision, and the prohibition of infringement, deletion of registration, damage compensation, and so on of the disputed domain name, is brought before a court that does not correspond to the mutual jurisdiction election in the underlying UDRP action; the court may exercise jurisdiction over the lawsuit. However, such a lawsuit will not have the effect of suspending the execution of the Administrative Panel’s decision.80 This position concerning jurisdiction has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.81 Therefore, in order to suspend the execution of the Administrative Panel’s decision in a UDRP action, the lawsuit must be brought before the court of the mutual jurisdiction. Some of the lower court cases recognize the effect of the suspension of the Administrative Panel’s decision even when the lawsuit has been brought before a court not of the mutual jurisdiction.82 However, this position no longer prevails.

(2)  Choice of Law In the case of a lawsuit seeking the transfer or cancellation of a domain name registration, the KR.120 court in the venue of the registrar (not the registry) should have jurisdiction. In consideration of the fact that the lawsuit seeking the transfer or the cancellation of the domain name registration is similar to the one seeking the cancellation of an intellectual property right and the fact that it would be difficult for the registrar to refuse an order of the court in its own venue, it would be appropriate to recognize the jurisdiction of the court in the venue of the registrar of the disputed domain name.83 In the ‘hpweb.com’ case (which was remanded to the Appellate Court twice and was appealed to the Supreme Court three times over ten years, and became conclusive and final without recourse by the third Supreme Court decision in the matter),84 the court held that: (i) the venue where the enrichment has occurred due to the transfer of the disputed domain name is the state of California of the United States being the place of principal office of HP (defendant), and thus the law of California is the applicable law as to the establishment and effect of the unjust enrichment;85 (ii) in order to determine the establishment of the unjust enrichment, it is necessary to review whether HP has a substantive right to seek the prohibition of the use of the disputed domain name and the choice of applicable law must be decided pursuant to the provision of the Private International Act separately from the issue of the unjust enrichment; (iii) the right to claim the prohibition of the use of the dispute domain name is based on the tort which the registration and use of the disputed domain name infringes the trademark right of HP. As such the applicable law is the law of the United States where the trademark infringement occurred.86 HP has the substantive right to claim the prohibition of the use of the disputed domain name under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) (USC Article (d)(1)(A) and 15 USC Article 1116 on the injunctive relief ). In case of the issue whether the disputed domain name infringes the trademark

80  Seoul Central District Court 2000GA HAP 67360 December 14, 2001 and its Appellate Court, Seoul High Court 2002NA4896 August 28, 2002. 81  The ‘hpweb.com’ case, Supreme Court 2002 DA59788 January 27, 2005. 82  The ‘myspce.com’ case, Seoul Central District Court 2006 GA HAP 53066 August 30, 2007. 83 Sung Joon Choi, ‘International Jurisdiction on the Domain Name Disputes’, Whitepaper on the Domain Name Disputes 2012 (KISA June 2012) p 469. 84  Supreme Court 2009 DA 15596, May 26, 2011. 85  According to Art 31 of the Private International Act, unjust enrichment shall be governed by the law of the place where such enrichment occurs. 86  A tort shall be governed by the law of the place where it occurred (Art 32, formerly Art 13 of the Private International Act).

785

The Republic of Korea (‘.kr’) right of HP, the federal law of the United States should supersede the law of California. According to ACPA, the registration and use of the disputed domain name by the plaintiff (registrant of the domain name) were found unlawful and having no right to claim the return of the disputed domain name; and (iv) the transfer of the disputed domain name to the defendant (HP) has legal ground, the enrichment (getting the transfer of the dispute domain name) is found not unjust, and thus the plaintiff (the registrant of the dispute domain name) does not have the right to claim the return of the disputed domain name.

(3)  Choice of Law between the UDRP and Domestic Laws KR.121 There are a number of lower court cases that acknowledge that the UDRP was an applicable

standard on the issue of gTLD disputes before the Korean courts.87 However, such a position no longer prevails following Supreme Court case 2004 DA72457, decided on February 1, 2008 (the ‘ccfhsbc.com’ and ‘hsbcccf.com’ case). This Supreme Court case has ruled as follows: The dispute resolution policy stipulated by ‘ICANN’ is incorporated into the registration clause agreed to by the domain name registrar and the registrant where disputes arise between the domain name registrant and the holder (hereinafter ‘third party’) of trademark or service mark (hereinafter ‘right to trademark’); the clause merely is a provision with respect to the registrar’s administrative proceeding to enhance the efficiency of registration process by promptly making decisions on maintenance, cancellation or transfer of such registration. Absent exceptional circumstances, between the domain name registrant and the third party, the dispute resolution policy does not have binding force to regulate matters relating to rights to trademark, etc. and the registration or use of domain names, and therefore the third party may not claim that, beyond the mandatory administrative proceeding, he/she has a right to directly demand that the registrant should not use domain names under the requirements of such policy. In such dispute resolution policy, the definition of trademark or service mark is not clear, relevant provisions are not clearly defined and it is not consistent with the territorial principle of Article 6, Paragraph 3 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and is not compatible with the legal systems of many countries, all of which is evidenced by the fact that such dispute resolution policy itself predicts circumstances where the court with international jurisdiction may ultimately resolve the disputes as to domain names under applicable laws even before, during or after initiation of such mandatory administrative proceeding.88 As such, the court which reviews and rules on cases relating to domain names should base their judgment on applicable laws not on the Dispute Resolution Policy. Nevertheless, the original court ruled that such dispute resolution policy which is merely a provision on the administrative procedure of the domain name registrar has binding force between the parties with respect to rights and obligations, and therefore ruled that the

87  The ‘morinaga.co.kr’ case (Seoul District Court, December 26, 2003, 2003 GA HAP 24685, confirmation on non-existence of obligation to cancel domain name registration); the ‘startv.co.kr’ case (Seoul District Court, December 12, 2003, 2002 GA HAP 79664, confirmation on non-existence of right to claim for transfer of domain name); the ‘kangwonland.co.kr’ case (Chuncheon District Court Yeongwol Branch, April 9, 2004, decision 2003 GA HAP 556 (principle claim), 2004 GA HAP 140 (counter claim for cancellation of trademark registration); the ‘kbsi.co.kr’ case (Seoul District Court Southern Branch, June 4, 2004, 2003 GA HAP 9484, confirmation of right to use the domain name); the ‘imbc.co.kr’case (Seoul District Court Northern Branch, November 11, 2004, 2004 GA HAP 2018 (original claim, prohibition on unfair competition), 2004 GA HAP 3363 (counterclaim, confirmation of right to retain domain name)); the ‘harrypotter. co.kr’ case (Daegu District Court Gyeongju Branch, November 12, 2004, 2003 GA HAP 943, prohibition of cancellation of domain name); and the ‘nvidia.co.kr’ case (Seoul Central District Court, July 4, 2007, 2006 GA HAP 86516, confirmation on non-existence of obligation to cancel domain name registration). 88 Paragraph (k), Art 4 of the Dispute Resolution Policy; Paragraph (a), Art 18 of the Dispute Resolution Rule.

786

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law defendant has a right to directly demand under the dispute resolution policy that the plaintiff should cease to use the disputed domain names. The original court misunderstood the legal rationale on the binding forces and applicable laws of such dispute resolution policy, and therefore it drew incorrect conclusions.

(4)  Substantive Law Issues Substantive law issues relating to international conflicts are set forth above in Sections VIII.2 KR.122 (Choice of Law) and VIII.3 (Choice of Law between the UDRP and Domestic Laws) as well as generally throughout the chapter. Additionally, the Korean legal system is in large part consistent with the Paris Union—World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 2001 Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Marks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs, on the Internet, as discussed below.

(5)  WIPO Joint Recommendation The Joint Recommendation has not been officially incorporated in the legal system of Korean KR.123 law. There are no reported court cases directly based on the Joint Recommendation either. However, most parts of WIPO’s Joint Recommendation Concerning Protection of Marks, and other Industrial Property Rights have been reflected in the intellectual property laws and case law. The Joint Recommendation determines the legal position of the trademark user on the KR.124 Internet in relation to the rights holder from three points of view: (i) ‘use of a sign within the territory of a trademark holder’; (ii) ‘notification procedures and exemptions’; and (iii) ‘penalties’.

(a) Commercial Effect According to the Joint Recommendation, the use of a sign on the Internet shall constitute KR.125 use in a Member State for the purposes of these provisions, only if the use has a commercial effect in that Member State (Article 2). However, the use of a sign must first be recognized as constituting as the use of a mark or a sign under the Trademark Act or under the UCPA. If it is considered as being a use of a mark or a sign within the Republic of Korea, the use of the mark or the sign would constitute infringement of a trademark right or an act of unfair competition. So long as the use of a mark or a sign is recognized as the use of a mark or a sign under the Trademark Act or the UCPA, it is likely that it constitutes infringement of a trademark right or an act of unfair competition regardless of its commercial effect. It is the author’s opinion that the commercial effect of the use may be considered as one of the factors in determining the likelihood of confusion. (b)  Penalties, Remedies, and Enforcement Concerns The guideline and spirit on the remedy proportionate to commercial effect (Article 13 of KR.126 the Joint Recommendation) and limitations of use of a sign on the Internet have already been taken into account by the courts in the context of the substantive law in relation to intellectual property protection in Korea. On the other hand, however, the guideline on the limitation on the prohibition of use of a sign on the Internet may not be fully accepted by the Korean courts in light of the territoriality principle of trademark rights. (c) Notification In order to constitute infringement of a trademark right or an act of unfair competition, an KR.127 intent or negligence is necessary. The use of a mark or a sign on the Internet following the notification to its user is likely to be assumed as the user’s intent or negligence. However, the intent or negligence is recognized irrespective of the notification considering the specific circumstances of the use of a mark or a sign on the Internet. 787

The Republic of Korea (‘.kr’) (6) Geotargeting KR.128 Although there are no reported court cases on the issue of ‘geotargeted’ websites, in light of

the general principle of international jurisdiction (as provided for in the Private International Act), that in case a party or a case in dispute is substantively related to the Republic of Korea, a court of Korea shall have the international jurisdiction, and it is likely that a ‘Korean-targeted’ website would be a highly substantial factor in determining whether a ‘substantive relation’ to Korea exists.

788

RUSSIAN FEDERATION (‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’) Iouri Kobiako von Gamm and Natalia Gulyaeva

I. Overview of the National System of the Protection of Trademarks and Related Intellectual Property Rights  RU.01

III. Alternative Dispute Resolution  IV. Court Litigation 

RU.26 RU.27 RU.27 RU.42 RU.51

(1) Trademark Law  (2) Protection of Names  (3) Competition Law Claims  (4) Civil Law Protection Pursuant to Article 138 RCC  RU.55 (5) Remedies and Procedural Law Issues  RU.56 (6) Review of Pertinent Case Law  RU.68

(1) Trademark Law  RU.02 (2) Name Rights  RU.04 (3) Competition Law and Unfair Competition  RU.05

II. The ccTLD (‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

RU.07 (1) Registration Rules  RU.07 (2) Statistics  RU.09 (3) Organizations for the Registration of Domain Names  RU.10 (4) Persons Entitled to Register  RU.11 (5) Signs that can be Registered  RU.14 (6) Registration Principles and Procedure  RU.18 (7) Cancellation of ‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’ Domain Names  RU.23

V. Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name VI. Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers VII. Domain Names as Items of Property VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law 

RU.133 RU.134 RU.139 RU.141

Links Industrial Property and Telecommunications Organizations Russian Patent and Trademark Office: http://www1.fips.ru Ministry of Information Technologies and Communications of the Russian Federation: http:// english.minsvyaz.ru/enter.shtml Domain Organizations Coordination Centre for TLD RU/РФ (Координационный центр национального домена сети Интернет): http://www.cctld.ru Courts and Court Rulings Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: http://www.ksrf.ru Supreme Court of the Russian Federation: http://www.supcourt.ru State Commercial Courts of the Russian Federation: http://www.arbitr.ru Intellectual Property Court: http://www.ipc.arbitr.ru Moscow City Commercial Court: http://www.msk.arbitr.ru Commercial Court for the City of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region: http://www.spb. arbitr.ru Legislative Texts Collection of legislative and sub-legislative regulations on intellectual property on the Russian Patent Office website (in Russian): http://www.rupto.ru/docs

789

Russian Federation (‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’)

I.  Overview of the National System of the Protection of Trademarks and Related Intellectual Property Rights RU.01 To date, the Russian legislature has not adopted any specific statutory provisions on domain

law, and therefore conflicts arising from domain names containing third-party trademarks are governed by international treaties and Russian civil and competition law regulations. The existing substantive provisions of both intellectual property (IP) and procedural law offer protection to the holders of Russian and foreign IP rights, and thus there is currently no perceived immediate need for new legislation. The main substantive provisions of Russian IP law are codified in Part Four of the Russian Civil Code (RCC),1 in effect since 2008, which contains the majority of the relevant IP provisions previously found in other, non-codified laws such as the Law on Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Origin of Goods (Trademark Act) of 1992.

(1)  Trademark Law RU.02 The statutory basis for trademark protection is found in Article 1477 RCC, and requires that

such signs are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one enterprise from those of another. Applications are examined ex officio for absolute (eg non-distinctiveness, descriptiveness, etc) and relative (conflicts with other IP rights) grounds for refusal in registration pursuant to Article 1483 RCC.

RU.03 Articles 1508 and 1509 RCC, contain express provisions on the protection of well-known

trademarks and authorize the Russian Patent and Trademark Office (RuPTO) to determine well-known status of trademarks.

(2)  Name Rights RU.04 Russian law distinguishes between the protection of a firm and personal names. While

only legal entities are entitled to protect their firm names, pursuant to Article 54 RCC, the right to use a personal name in the narrower sense (Article 19 RCC) is held by individuals. Additionally, Article 1538 RCC introduces protection of business trade names, available to legal persons and registered entrepreneurs, without a registration requirement (which is mandatory for firm names).

(3)  Competition Law and Unfair Competition RU.05 Competition issues are regulated under Article 14 of the Law on Protection of Competition

(Competition Act) dated 26 July 2006,2 which lists examples of prohibited acts.

RU.06 Unfair competition claims concerning domain names are generally based on Article

10bis of the Paris Convention which prohibits acts contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters, including those which may create confusion with the business establishment, products, or industrial or commercial activities of a competitor.

  Available in Russian at: http://base.garant.ru/10164072/70/#block_40000.   Available, in Russian, at: http://base.garant.ru/12148517/. This law supersedes the Law on Competition and the Restriction of Monopolistic Activity in the Goods Markets of 22 March 1991. 1 2

790

II.  The ccTLD (‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’) Registration Conditions and Procedures

II.  The ccTLD (‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1)  Registration Rules The Coordination Centre for TLD.RU and .РФ (Coordination Centre), founded in 2001, is RU.07 a non-commercial organization and the administrator of the ‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’ (Cyrillic for ‘rf ’)3 TLDs. The Coordination Centre is in charge of developing registration terms and conditions for these TLDs, the accreditation of registrars, management of the nation’s Domain Name System (DNS) structure, and future development projects related to Russian TLDs.4 The new Terms and Conditions5 of domain name registration under the ccTLDs ‘.ru’ and RU.08 ‘.рф’ were developed by the Coordination Centre to streamline the registration process, and to set the legal framework for second-level domains.6

(2) Statistics According to the official website of the Coordination Centre,7 4,896,025 ‘.ru’ and 839,478 ‘.рф’ RU.09 domains were registered as of mid-May 2015. To compare, the 2010 figures for ‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’ were 3,128,660 and 700,427 respectively. Most registrations in ‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’ are held by owners in Moscow, the Moscow Region and St Petersburg. As of April 2015, 43.8 per cent of ‘.ru’ domain names had operative websites, as did 24.3 per cent of ‘.рф’ domain names. Roughly 6.2 per cent of ‘.ru’ domain names remain non-delegated, in contrast to the 16.7 per cent available in ‘.рф’.8 In addition to ‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’, the top-level domain ‘.su’ (which stands for Soviet Union) exists but does not appear popular. According to the Coordination Centre’s website,9 only 117,562 ‘.su’ domains had been registered by mid-May 2015.

(3)  Organizations for the Registration of Domain Names According to the list published on the Coordination Centre’s website,10 there are currently RU.10 31 accredited registrars (the largest being ‘Ru-Centre’).11 In accordance with the applicable Registrar Accreditation Requirements,12 accredited registrars must comply fully with the registration Terms and Conditions. Thus, while each registrar still has its own individual registration rules, such practices may not conflict with the Center’s regulations.

(4)  Persons Entitled to Register The ccTLD ‘.ru’ is an open ccTLD, and thus domain names can be registered by both legal RU.11 entities and individuals of any nationality. However, a domain can only be registered by one individual or legal entity. Other mandatory conditions for domain applicants are contained in the registration agree- RU.12 ment itself. Different rules apply depending on the identity of the registrant (also known

 See: http://cctld.ru/en/about/.  Ibid. 5 See: http://www.nic.ru/news/en/2011/rules_descr.html. 6 See: http://cctld.ru/en/docs/rules.php. 7 See: http://www.cctld.ru/en/ or http://statdom.ru/. 8 Ibid. 9  The Center’s website is accessible at: http://www.cctld.ru/en/ (English) and: http://statdom.ru/ (Russian). 10 See: http://www.cctld.ru/en/registrators. 11 See: http://nic.ru/. 12  Art 3.1 of the Registrar Accreditation Requirements is available in English at: http://cctld.ru/en/docs/ requirementsrf.php. 3 4

791

Russian Federation (‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’) as ‘domain administrator’), and whether it is an individual, a legal entity, or a registered entrepreneur. RU.13 Some personal data relating to domain holders, including contact information, is publicly

available in the WHOIS records.13 If the WHOIS data is insufficient to enable the preparation of a complaint, however, a plaintiff ’s attorney (or the relevant court) may contact the registrar for additional information.

(5)  Signs that can be Registered RU.14 Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions developed by the Coordination Centre14 s 3.1.1, ‘.ru’

domains must contain between two and 63 characters, and must begin and end with either a Latin-script letter or a number. Other characters may comprise Latin letters, figures, or hyphens (although hyphens may not hold the third and fourth positions).

RU.15 Pursuant to s 3.1.2, ‘.рф’ domains must contain between two and 63 characters in

PUNYCODE. Such domains must begin and end with a letter of the Russian alphabet or a number, and the remaining text may contain Russian letters, figures, or hyphens.

RU.16 Pursuant to s 3.1.3, it is the domain name holder’s responsibility to ensure that its domain will

not infringe third-party rights, and shall bear the risk of losses associated with any improper use. Thus, s 3.1.4 urges applicants to check for any conflicting rights prior to registration. If the registrar is named as a party in any suit by a third party, the domain holder must indemnify the registrar for any loss.

RU.17 Under s 3.1.5 the registrant may not register any domain names which are contrary to public

interests or the principles of humanity or morality (eg obscene content or slogans which insult human dignity or religious feelings). The Coordination Centre maintains a ‘stop list’ of such impermissible designations.

(6)  Registration Principles and Procedure RU.18 The most important conditions for the registration of ‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’ domain names are found

in the agreements provided by accredited registrars. The key provisions, and general registration framework, are dictated by the Terms and Conditions of the Coordination Centre.

RU.19 Domain names in ‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’ are registered on the basis of a private law contract between

the applicant and the accredited registrar. Such contracts may also provide access to additional services offered by the accredited registrar.

RU.20 Registration is offered on a first-come, first-served basis. Where there are several applications

for the same string, the registrar shall grant the domain to the first applicant who satisfies the relevant registration conditions.

RU.21 Applications for registration may be refused where:

(1) the selected domain name has already been registered; (2) the domain text contains a term included in the stop list (see para RU.17 above); (3) the selected domain name does not meet technical requirements set forth in the Terms and Conditions;15 or (4) the registrant failed to provide his/her name and contact details.

 See: http://www.ripn.net/nic/whois/en/ or https://www.nic.ru/whois/.   The Terms and Conditions of Domain Names Registration for ‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’ are available at: http://cctld. ru/en/docs/rules.php. 15  See paras RU.14–RU.17 above. 13 14

792

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution A registrar is not permitted to refuse registration for any reason other than those provided RU.22 by the Terms and Conditions. If requested, the registrar must provide written reasons for its refusal to register a domain. Where there are no grounds for refusal, registration must occur within three working days, and the standard registration term is one year.

(7)  Cancellation of ‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’ Domain Names The grounds for cancellation of ‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’ domains are found in s 8 of the Terms and RU.23 Conditions. Registration of a domain name is subject to cancellation:

RU.24

(1) if the domain name registration was made in violation of then-current technical requirements; (2) if the domain name registration was made in violation of the relevant Terms and Conditions and was connected with unfair actions by the registrant; (3) upon the expiration of the ‘preferential extension’ period (in the absence of an injunction, generally 30 calendar days following the expiration of the registration); (4) upon the registrant’s application; (5) if ordered by a competent court; (6) upon the registrant’s termination of its contract with the registrar; or (7) if the registrant refuses to abide by the Terms and Conditions provisions governing the use of personal data. Registration of a domain name may not be cancelled upon the registrant’s application:

RU.25

(1) if the domain name registration validity period is terminated; (2) within 30 calendar days following transfer of rights to the domain from the the registrant to a new registrant; (3) within 30 calendar days of a intra-registrar transfer; or (4) if the registrant has failed to reply to the registrar’s request for updated contact details.

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution As yet, Russia has not adopted the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy RU.26 (UDRP) for the resolution of domain conflicts, nor has it set up specific administrative dispute resolution proceedings for second-level domains under the top-level domains ‘.ru’. and ‘.рф’ Russian law does not, however, exclude the application of the UDRP if the parties have mutually agreed that the UDRP shall apply. Though the Charter of the Coordination Centre lists the development of ADR procedures for domain name disputes as one of its goals,16 the Russian courts, especially the commercial courts (see para RU.57), remain the customary and trusted forum. The Coordination Centre has adopted, however, regulation ‘On procedures to be applied for arising domain disputes’, which is a supplement to the Rules for domain registration.17 This regulation is the product of work by the Coordination Centre and concerned industry players. It reflects restrictions which the registrar may introduce with respect to a domain name in dispute per a plaintiff ’s request at the pretrial stage (eg in the form of prohibition to assign such a domain name within 14 calendar days in view of the anticipated claim filing). It is also aimed at smoothing enforcement of domain-name-related court rulings. The

  See s 3.3(5) at: http://cctld.ru/ru/about/charter.php?sphrase_id=62620.  See: http://cctld.ru/en/news/news_detail.php?ID=3754&sphrase_id=59263; http://cctld.ru/ru/docs.

16 17

793

Russian Federation (‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’) Russian IP Court followed in 2014 with a guideline to state commercial courts on domain name disputes resolution18 where it referred to the ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy of 26 August 1999,19 and, in particular, to provisions 4(a) to (c), and recommended the use of these provisions to the courts.

IV.  Court Litigation (1)  Trademark Law (a)  Risk of Confusion RU.27 In Russia, domain name actions based on the provisions of trademark law have been the most

frequently successful.

RU.28 The basis for trademark law protection against the abusive registration and use of domain

names is found in Article 1484 RCC. This article lists the rights due to the holder of a trademark protected in Russia, and provides examples of potential infringement, including use of the trademark: (i) on goods (including on labels and packaging) which are manufactured, offered, sold, demonstrated at exhibitions and fairs, or otherwise introduced into the Russian market; (ii) when conducting works and rendering services; (iii) on documents connected to sales in the Russian market; (iv) on proposals concerning the sale of goods, fulfilment of work, the rendering of services, and on billboards and advertising; and (v) on the Internet, including in a domain name.

RU.29 Infringement of a trademark protected in Russia comprises the following features:

(i) there must be an unauthorized use of another’s trademark or a confusingly similar sign; (ii) this use must take place with respect to goods or services for which another’s trademark is registered, or close goods and services; and (iii) as a result of such use the likelihood of confusion arises. The basic condition for an infringement claim is ownership of a mark protected in Russia, either via Russian or appropriate international registration (eg under the Madrid Agreement). The Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation20 has confirmed that trademark rights may be protected against unauthorized use as domain names, holding that trademark protection must be absolute and extend to all possible lawful uses of the mark, including on the Internet.21

RU.30 (aa)  Trademark Protection 

RU.31 An additional level of protection may be available for well-known marks on the basis of

Article 6bis of the Paris Convention and Articles 1508–1509 RCC.

18  Information letter on issues arising in the course of domain name dispute resolution, approved by the Resolution of the Presidium of the IP Court on 28 March 2014 No СП-21/4; available in Russian under http://ipcmagazine.ru/official-cronicle/the-questions-that-arise-when-considering-domain-disputes. 19 See: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en. 20  As a result of the court reform in 2014, the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation ceased to exist and currently the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is the supreme judicial authority in Russia. 21  Presidial Council of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation, Case No A56-46111/2003 (‘denso.com’); see para RU.54.

794

IV.  Court Litigation (bb)  Infringing Use  Any trademark protected in Russia (pursuant to Article 1484 RCC) RU.32 may also be defended against unlawful third-party use in a domain name. With some exceptions (eg the case concerning the domain name ‘kamaz.ru’22), use of an appropriately protected trademark in an identical domain name is a solid basis for an infringement claim (see eg ‘baxter. ru’,23 ‘nivea.ru’,24 etc). It is important to note, however, that competing trademark rights may be present, which can lead to different results.25 (cc)  Similarity of Signs  Pursuant to Article 1484 RCC, the trademark holder has a right to RU.33 prohibit any unauthorized use of signs that are confusingly similar to his protected trademark. The similarity of trademarks is usually determined on the basis of their phonetic, graphic and semantic characteristics, which may sometimes be confirmed by expert opinion (see the cases concerning ‘nivea.ru’,26 ‘googl.ru’ and ‘gugl.ru’,27 and ‘avtosoft.ru’28). (dd)  Similarity of the Goods or Services  A trademark enjoys protection with respect to RU.34 the types of goods or services for which it is registered.29 Protection may be extended beyond similar classes of goods or services for trademarks recognized as well-known in Russia, pursuant to Articles 1508–1509 RCC. Although nowadays courts are more inclined to uphold infringement actions where the RU.35 domain name in question was not used to disseminate information about goods or services that were identical or similar to the goods or services covered by the plaintiff ’s trademark,30 judges may still require such a showing of similarity.31 In some cases, this criterion has resulted in unfavourable decisions for trademark owners. In one such case, concerning the domain ‘avtosoft.ru’, the court of first instance dismissed the action since the goods and services covered by the plaintiff ’s trademark were not similar to the domain owner’s services (this ruling was revised on appeal).32 Similarly, the court in the ‘kamaz.ru’ case limited infringement recovery to instances concerning similar goods or services.33 A different result may be returned in cases relating to famous (though not necessarily recognized RU.36 as well-known in Russia) trademarks, largely on the basis of unfair competition, even where the domain was not used for similar goods and services.34

(b)  Well-Known Trademarks As mentioned above, Articles 1508 and 1509 RCC contain express provisions for the pro- RU.37 tection of well-known trademarks. Well-known status is determined by the RuPTO,35 and   Dzderginsky District Court of the City of Volgograd, Case No 2-171/2001, see para RU.85.   Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-12817/02-110-138, see para RU.90. 24  Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-12272/01-15-107, see para RU.87. 25  Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-40168/03-67-412, see para RU.113. 26  Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-12272/01-15-107, see para RU.87. 27  Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-7239-2012, see para RU.121. 28  Sverdlovsk Region Commercial Court, Case No A60-27671/2002-C3, see para RU.94. 29  Cf. Information Letter no 19 by the Presidial Council of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the RF dated 29 July 1997 in ‘Intellectual Property’, 11–12/97, pp 42 ff. 30  For the ‘miele.ru’ case, see para RU.109. 31  See eg Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-7239-2012 ‘googl.ru’ and ‘gugl.ru’, see para RU.121. 32  See the Ruling of the Sverdlovsk Region Commercial Court, Case No A60-27671/2002-C3 ‘avtosoft. ru’; para RU.94. 33  Dzderginsky District Court of the City of Volgograd, Case No 2-171/2001. 34  See eg Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation, Case No A40-47499/2010 ‘mumm.ru’, para RU.126; Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-111177-2012 ‘nike.ru’, para RU.96; Federal Commercial Court of Moscow Region, Case No A40-4514-2011  ‘tissot.ru’, para RU.129; Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-42141/01-26-190 ‘miele.ru’, para RU.109. 35  See the Order on ‘The Rules for the Recognition of Well-Known Trademarks’ issued by the President of the Russian Patent Trademark Office on 17 March 2000, available at: http://www.rupto.ru/rupto/portal/7 21aa42c-1770-11e1-bad7-9c8e9921fb2c. 22 23

795

Russian Federation (‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’) requires the trademark in question to have acquired a high degree of consumer notoriety on the basis of intensive use in the Russian Federation. RU.38 The RuPTO will undertake such an examination upon the request of, and submission

of documentary evidence by, the trademark owner. If the requirements are satisfied, the RuPTO will note the mark’s well-known status on the register of the Russian Federation.36

RU.39 If well-known status is recognized, the mark may be protected as against use in connec-

tion with dissimilar goods and services, provided that such use is likely to cause consumer confusion.

RU.40 The RuPTO allows the rights holder to specify the sought priority date for a determination

of well-known status, and to provide documentary evidence accordingly. In practice, this approach grants the RuPTO wide discretion in assessing the relevant evidence.

RU.41 The extended protection of well-known trademarks pursuant to Article 1508 RCC has not

yet played a key role in domain name conflicts, although well-known status may assist judges in assessing consumer confusion, as was noted in the ‘nike.ru’ case.37

(2)  Protection of Names RU.42 A distinction must be made between the protection of a firm name and a name in the nar-

rower sense. While pursuant to Article 54 RCC only legal entities are entitled to rights in firm names, under Article 19 the holder of a name right is an individual.

(a)  Right to a Firm Name RU.43 As stated above, only legal entities are entitled to a firm name in Russia. Russian legal entities acquire such rights in a firm name only upon state registration. RU.44 Article 54(4) RCC obliges every legal person pursuing a commercial activity to have a firm

name, and further provides that the registered owner of a firm name has the exclusive right to use it. Additionally, this Article outlines the legal consequences of unlawful use of another’s firm name. A legal person whose firm name is unlawfully used by a third party can obtain an injunction and, if the holder has suffered loss thereby, may also be entitled to claim damages. Further regulations are provided in Articles 1473 to 1476 RCC.

RU.45 An infringement of a firm name right depends on whether relevant members of the public

would interpret a third-party domain containing the name as a reference to the firm name holder’s enterprise.38 Decisive factors include the distinctive character and reputation of the firm name, as well as its period of use.39

RU.46 The first domain dispute heard by the Russian courts (in 1999) related to an infringement

of a firm name, ‘Mosfilm’, in the domain name ‘mosfilm.ru’.40 The plaintiff in the ‘kodak. ru’ was successful on similar grounds.41 In other cases, however, the Russian courts have been more conservative. For example, in the ‘quelle.ru’ case, the court denied protection based on the plaintiff ’s firm name, noting that only the full form (‘Quelle Aktiengesellschaft’) enjoyed

  See the ‘Register of well-known trademarks’ available at: http://www1.fips.ru/wps/portal/Registers/.   Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-111177/2012, see para RU.96. 38  In the decision by the Moscow Arbitration Court dated 19 June 2000, the case of ‘Kodak’ v RosNIIROS (RIPN), the court held that the firm name serves to individualize the legal person itself and not its goods or services. 39 Cf. Eremenko V. ‘Unfair marketing of goods through the unauthorized use of intellectual property’ in ‘Intellectual Property’, 10/2000, pp 27 ff. (‘Интеллектуальная Собственность’, No 10, 2000, стр. 27); ibid., p 31. 40  Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-22492/99-15-232, see para RU.69. 41  Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-46846/99-83-491, see para RU.72. 36 37

796

IV.  Court Litigation protection under Russian law.42 Accordingly, practitioners commonly base (where possible) their claims on both trademark and firm name rights. For example, this practice was followed by the Coca-Cola Company in the ‘coca-cola.ru’ and ‘sprite.ru’ dispute.43 Conflicting rights scenarios may arise in this context as well, as noted in the ‘redo.ru’ case, where the plaintiff owned the REDO mark, but the defendant used ‘REDO’ as part of its firm name.44 In this case, the court took into account the defendant’s rights to the firm name and upheld the claim only with regard to conflicting goods and services. According to Russian law, a legal person’s firm name necessarily consists of two elements;45 a RU.47 name chosen for the company by the shareholder(s), and a compulsory part that refers to the relevant corporate form.46 According to the wording of Article 54(1) RCC, only the complete firm name (containing both portions) is protected. The contrary may apply, however, to famous firm names.

(b)  Right to a Trade Name As mentioned above, trade names may be used by legal entities or registered entrepreneurs to RU.48 identify their businesses, and do not need to be registered in order to receive protection (Articles 1538 to 1541 RCC). Protection for trade names is roughly equivalent to firm name and trademark rights, but will terminate if the trade name holder does not use it continuously for a year. Firm names may also operate as trade names, but protection as a trade name arises irrespective of any firm name rights. Similarly, trade names (or portions thereof) may be used as trademarks. (c) Name Rights The right of an individual to use his name is regulated in Article 19 RCC. Pursuant to Article RU.49 19(1) sentence 1, a citizen holds rights in his personal name, which generally includes the family name, the given name, and the patronymic.47 In certain cases, a pseudonym may be treated as equivalent to a civil name (Article 19(1), sentence 2 RCC). Article 19(5) RCC regulates the consequences of an infringement of a name right, specifi- RU.50 cally providing for compensation of damages. To date, however, the Russian courts have not considered any major cases focusing solely on a conflict between personal name rights and abusive domain registrations.

(3)  Competition Law Claims Competition law protection against the abusive registration and use of domains is found RU.51 in Article 14 of the Federal Law on Protection of Competition (Competition Act). This article lists specific examples of unfair competition, including the unlawful sale of goods through exploitation of another enterprise’s intellectual property, and the dissemination of incorrect, imprecise, or falsified information capable of damaging another entity. Article 10bis of the Paris Convention also applies in Russia, and may ground an unfair com- RU.52 petition claim in domain name cases.48 This position is supported by the Russian IP Court.49   Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-20169/00-51-210, see para RU.82.   Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-27877/01-83-349, see para RU.81. 44  Commercial Court of Kaliningrad Region, Case No A21-13/02 of 16 April 2002, see para RU.91. 45  Cf. Sergeev A.P. in Sergeev A.P. (ed), ‘Textbook on Civil Law’, Vol 3, ‘Prospekt’, Moscow 1999, pp 158 f. 46  For instance, joint stock corporations, limited liability companies, etc. 47  That is the name of an individual’s father. 48  Cf. for instance the decisions in the case ‘OOO Kodak’ v RosNIIROS (RIPN) (decision of the Supreme Court dated 25 January 2001) or the case of ‘miele.ru’ (first instance decision dated 10 January 2002). 49 Section 2 of the Information letter on issues arising in the course of domain name dispute resolution, approved by the Resolution of the Presidium of the IP Court on 28 March 2014 No СП-21/4; available in Russian under http://ipcmagazine.ru/official-cronicle/the-questions-that-arise-when-considering-domain-disputes. 42 43

797

Russian Federation (‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’) RU.53 The courts upheld unfair competition claims on the basis of both Russian law and Article

10bis of the Paris Convention in the ‘kodak.ru’50 and ‘miele.ru’51 cases, which has become relatively standard practice. In the case of ‘quelle.ru’,52 however, although the plaintiff argued, inter alia, for competition law claims, the court did not comment on these points in the ruling (in favour of the plaintiff).

RU.54 Similarly, in the ‘denso.com’ case, the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian

Federation established criteria for determining whether a domain name registration is unfair, namely: (1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a third-party trademark; (2) the domain owner has no legal interest in the domain name; and (3) the domain name was registered and used unfairly.53 These criteria are now widely used by the Russian courts, including in the cases concerning ‘googl.ru’ and ‘gugl.ru’,54 as well as the ‘mumm.ru’55 and ‘tissot.ru’56 domains. The criteria coincides with the criteria set out in paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy of 26 August 199957 recommended by the Russian IP Court for use by courts in domain name disputes.58

(4)  Civil Law Protection Pursuant to Article 138 RCC RU.55 In the past the rights accorded by civil law protection were worded more broadly than trade-

mark law,59 and could provide for injunction and cancellation claims where a domain name had only been registered but not yet used.60 Currently, Article 138 RCC is no longer in force and may not be used in domain name dispute resolution.

(5)  Remedies and Procedural Law Issues (a) Remedies RU.56 A  remedy commonly imposed by the Russian courts in domain name disputes is the

requirement that the defendant must refrain from using the sign in question, and thus from using the disputed domain. In some rulings,61 the courts have expressly recognized that the administration of the domain name by the defendant itself constitutes an act of unfair competition. In contrast, current practice of the courts rarely includes an obligation to cancel a domain.

  See paras RU.72–RU.80.   See paras RU.107–RU.108. 52  See paras RU.82–RU.84. 53 Presidial Council of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation, Case No A56-46111/2003, see para RU.118. 54  Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-7239/2012, see para RU.121. 55  Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation, Case No A40-47499/2010, see para RU.126. 56  Federal Commercial Court of Moscow Region, Case No A40-4514/2011, see para RU.129. 57 See: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en. 58  Section 2 of the Information letter on issues arising in the course of domain name dispute resolution, approved by the Resolution of the Presidium of the IP Court on 28 March 2014 No СП-21/4; available in Russian at: http://ipcmagazine.ru/official-cronicle/the-questions-that-arise-when-considering-domain-disputes. 59  Art 138 provided that ‘exclusive rights (intellectual property) of natural or legal persons in the results of intellectual activity and equated means of individualization of legal persons, individual signs of products, works or services (firm names, trademarks, service marks etc) are recognized’, and that third parties ‘may only use these results of intellectual activity and equated means of individualization that are the subject matter of exclusive rights with the consent of the right holder’. 60  Cf. for instance the decision in the ‘quelle.ru’ case; paras RU.82–RU.84. 61 See eg Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-7239/2012  ‘googl.ru and gugl.ru’, see para RU.118; Presidial Council of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation, Case No A56-46111/2003 ‘denso.com’, see para RU.118. 50 51

798

IV.  Court Litigation (b)  Courts of General Jurisdiction and Commercial Courts In this context, a distinction must be made between state commercial courts (so-called RU.57 ‘arbitrazh courts’, referred to as commercial courts) and courts of general jurisdiction. While the commercial courts are primarily responsible for disputes between legal entities and registered entrepreneurs, the courts of general jurisdiction are primarily responsible for disputes involving individuals.62 The majority of domain name disputes are heard by the commercial courts, except in very unusual circumstances (eg where the defendant is an individual who has not used the domain commercially). In December 2011, the Arbitrazh Procedure Code (APC)63 was amended, establishing a specialized Intellectual Property Court within the system of Russian commercial courts,64 which became operational in July 2013. While the IP Court has limited competence for acting as a court of first instance,65 it hears cassation appeals in IP infringement cases66 including cases that relate to domain name conflicts. It is important to note the required elements of a claim under the APC.67 For the most fre- RU.58 quent types of disputes (involving legal entities or entrepreneurs), the claim requirements are regulated by Article 125 APC.68 A high degree of care is required in the wording of the claim and respective motions,69 and it is advisable to take account of the specific terminology used by the registrar.

(aa)  Duration of the Proceedings  In contrast to a number of foreign legal systems, RU.59 judicial proceedings concerning IP disputes are fairly speedy in Russia. This is primarily due to the fact that the law specifies a timeline.70 For instance, Article 152 APC states that a dispute must be decided by the first instance court within three months of its filing date. For example, the first instance71 decision in the ‘quelle.ru’ proceedings was rendered within RU.60 one month,72 and even one of the most complex domain law disputes (concerning ‘kodak.ru’), took only two years to pass through its decision of first instance to the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation.

62  For details on the jurisdiction of the Russian arbitration courts, cf. Ruling No 11 of the Plenum of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation dated 9 December 2003; published in the ‘Information Sheet of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation’, 2/2003. 63  The current version of the APC dated 25 June 2012 (in Russian) is available at: http://www.arbitr.ru/ law/docs/12027526/. The procedural law equivalent of the APC for the ordinary courts is the RCC, the current version can be found at: http://www.rg.ru/oficial/doc/codexes/GPK/138-fz.shtm. 64  Federal Law of 8 December 2011 No 422-FZ: ‘On introducing amendments into various legislative acts of Russian Federation in connection with establishment of the Court for IP rights’. This document (in Russian) can be found at: http://base.garant.ru/70103516/#block_8602058. 65  See Art 34(4) APC. 66  See Art 274(3) APC. 67  Cf. Ruling No 11 of the Plenum of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation dated 9 December 2003; published in the ‘Information Sheet of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation’, 2/2003; also available on the Internet at: http://www.vestnik-vas.ru/statfree.asp?ID=1255. 68  The current version of the APC dated 25 June 2012 (in Russian) is available at: http://www.arbitr.ru/ law/docs/12027526/. The procedural law analogue of the APC for the ordinary courts is the RCC, the current version can be found at: http://www.rg.ru/oficial/doc/codexes/GPK/138-fz.shtm. 69  See above, paras RU.24 ff. and ‘How to Formulate Domain Dispute Claims in the “Right” Way’, at: http://www.nic.ru/about/law/en/lawsuit.html. 70  Cf. eg Art 134, 152 APC. 71  Rendered by the Moscow City Commercial Court. 72  Cf. eg Tabastaeva Ju.G., ‘Domain names, firm names and trademarks: legal protection. Court practice in Russia (on example of ‘quelle.ru’)’, this document (in Russian) can be found at: http://www.ifap.ru/pi/02/ r14.htm.

799

Russian Federation (‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’) Russian law also provides for preliminary injunctions in infringement matters in the 8th Chapter APC.73 Preliminary injunctions (obespetchitelnie mery) may be imposed by the commercial courts.

RU.61 (bb)  Preliminary Injunction 

RU.62 Pursuant to Article 90(1) APC, the court, upon application by one of the parties to a proceed-

ing (or, if specifically provided by the APC, a third party), may grant a preliminary injunction aimed at securing the subject matter of the claim or the plaintiff ’s financial interests. Pursuant to Article 90(2) APC, preliminary injunctions are permissible at any stage of the proceedings if deemed necessary for the eventual enforcement of the decision, or to avoid substantial damage.

RU.63 Article 91(1) Numbers 1–6, APC lists the measures that can be imposed within the scope

of a preliminary injunction. An application for preliminary injunction can be filed together with the statement of claim or separately, until the decision on the merits is rendered (Article 91(1) APC). The court must consider the preliminary injunction request no later than one day after its receipt, without notification of the parties (Article 93(1) sentence 1, APC). A single judge decides the application (Article 91(1) sentence 2, APC).

RU.64 Until recently, preliminary injunctions were considered exceptional in domain name dis-

putes, likely due to the speed of commercial court proceedings. This trend was reversed, however, in the ‘comforel.ru’74 dispute. Here, a preliminary injunction75 was granted to the plaintiff approximately three months before the date of the hearing. Preliminary injunctions are gradually becoming more common in domain name disputes. The most important questions concerning the use of Internet-based evidence in litigation before the commercial courts are regulated by Chapter 7 APC.76

RU.65 (cc)  Use of Evidence from the Internet 

RU.66 It is important to note that a simple printout of the defendant’s website operational at the

disputed domain name is not regarded as sufficient evidence by the commercial courts, and accordingly such documents should be certified by a Russian notary77 in accordance with the provisions of the ‘Legislative Principles for Notaries’.78 Without such precautions, courts have been inclined to hold that a simple printout cannot confirm that the defendant placed the material in question on the website (see the ‘quelle.ru’ case).79 The notary protocol is now commonly used, however, and judges may additionally review websites themselves.

The procedural costs, including the court and reasonable attorney fees of both sides, are generally borne by the losing party (Article 110 APC). The fees due to the commercial courts are fairly reasonable: for a preliminary injunction, the fee is RUB 2,000 (€50); for claims to recognize IP rights, the fee is RUB 4,000 (€100); and, for example, the fee due for a claim to recover damages of RUB 1,000,000 (€25,000) would be RUB 23,000 (€575).80 The average cost of an expert opinion for establishing confusing similarity (eg between domain names and trademarks) is about RUB 30,000–40,000 (€750–1,000).

RU.67 (dd)  Procedural Costs 

  Art 90 ff. APC.   Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-40168/03-67-412, see para RU.113. 75  The domain holder was forbidden to transfer the disputed domain to any third party with the exception of the plaintiff. 76  The current version of the APC dated 25 June 2012 (in Russian) is available at: http://www.arbitr.ru/ law/docs/12027526/. 77  Cf. A.A. Waischnurs, ‘Interlocutory protection and using the Internet to obtain evidence. Procedural law status of evidence obtained using the Internet’ in the ‘Information Sheet of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation’. 78 See: http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=131961. 79  Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-20169/00-51-210, see paras RU.82–RU.84. 80  The official fee calculator is available at: https://my.arbitr.ru/#commission. 73 74

800

IV.  Court Litigation (6)  Review of Pertinent Case Law The number of domain name disputes decided by Russian courts has been gradually increas- RU.68 ing, but overall the number is relatively modest. It is worth noting that the majority of these disputes were decided in favour of the IP rights holders.

(a)  Infringement of Rights to Firm Name and Trademark (aa)  ‘mosfilm.ru’  The first Russian judicial decision concerning abusive domain regis- RU.69 tration was rendered in 1999 by the Moscow City Commercial Court, and concerned the domain name ‘mosfilm.ru’.81 The plaintiff, a successor in title to the Russian film studio operating under the abbreviation ‘Mosfilm’ and holder of the corresponding Russian trademark, asserted rights to the domain which was held by a well-known cybersquatter. An important aspect of this case is the fact that the action was filed against the domain RU.70 name registry RosNIIROS (RIPN). The court ordered the defendant to refrain from registering and using the domain name, on the basis of Article 138 in conjunction with Article 54 RCC. This decision has been superseded in many respects by subsequent decisions, particularly RU.71 the inclusion of the registry as a defendant. Additionally in this case, the decision appears to place more emphasis on trademark protection than the plaintiff ’s firm name, as firm names are generally protected in their full form (cf. Article 54 RCC), although actions based on protected firm names are possible.

(bb) ‘kodak.ru’  Some additional important cases in Russian domain name law are two RU.72 concerning the domain ‘kodak.ru’. The first proceeding was brought by the Eastman Kodak Company (USA), based on its ‘Kodak’ trademark protected in Russia, while the second action was filed by OOO Kodak, the Russian subsidiary of Kodak (USA), on the basis of a Russian firm name. (i)  Eastman Kodak Company v Domain  Holder  The first action, filed by the foreign RU.73 owner of the Russian-protected ‘Kodak’ mark, was directed against the Russian holder of the domain, an entrepreneur, who used the domain commercially. The plaintiff asked that the defendant be forbidden from using the domain containing the ‘Kodak’ trademark, and a second petition requested publication of the decision in a Russian daily newspaper, to help re-establish goodwill. While the first two courts dismissed the action, the Supreme Commercial Court of the RU.74 Russian Federation set aside the decisions of the lower courts and returned the action to the first instance for rehearing (with a dissenting opinion). The court held that ‘domain names have de facto become a means that have taken on the function of a trademark’. Upon remand, the first instance court adopted the opinion of the Supreme Commercial RU.75 Court and upheld the action, basing its finding on the manner in which the domain was used.

(ii)  OOO Kodak v RosNIIROS  (RIPN)  In the second proceeding, the plaintiff OOO RU.76 Kodak argued that it could derive the right to the domain ‘kodak.ru’ from its firm name. As with the ‘mosfilm.ru’ proceedings, the action was directed against the domain name reg- RU.77 istry, RIPN. However, after numerous dismissals, the plaintiff directed its claims against the domain holder, which resulted in a successful outcome.

  Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40–22492/99–15–232.

81

801

Russian Federation (‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’) RU.78 In its decision, the court relied on provisions of competition law, namely on the former

Article 10 (now Article 14) of the Competition Act. The court ruled that the marketing of goods or services by unlawfully exploiting intellectual property was prohibited (Article 138 RCC). In order to reach this conclusion, the court assumed that the element ‘Kodak’ in the firm name ‘OOO Kodak’ was independently entitled to protection.

RU.79 The appeals filed by the defendant were unsuccessful. RU.80 (iii)  Surrender of the Domain ‘kodak.ru’  The above two decisions concerning the domain

‘kodak.ru’ obliged the domain holder to cease using the domain, but did not require its transfer or cancellation. In order to acquire the domain ‘kodak.ru’, Kodak commenced proceedings against the registry, RIPN. Following recent changes in the registration Terms and Conditions, however, there is no longer any need for such an action. In practice, the claimant first seeks a preliminary injunction preventing transfer of the domain to any party other than the plaintiff, which will remain valid until the court’s ruling on merits comes into force, after which time the winning party may employ preferential rights for transfer. The case concerning these two domains, registered by an unaffiliated party, was based on the Coca-Cola Company’s registered Russian trademarks and firm name (pursuant to Article 8 of the Paris Convention). Although the court of cassation appeal set aside the decisions of the lower courts due to procedural errors, it raised no objection to the substantive law findings, which were subsequently upheld by the Moscow City Commercial Court.

RU.81 (cc)  ‘coca-cola.ru’ and ‘sprite.ru’ 

RU.82 (dd) ‘quelle.ru’  In this case, the plaintiff discovered that the disputed domain, ‘quelle.

ru’, was being used by an unauthorized third party to display its company catalogue and its trademark. The domain holder expressed its willingness to transfer the domain for substantial consideration, which the plaintiff rejected and filed an action before the Moscow City Commercial Court.

RU.83 In this case, too, the court regarded the mere registration of the domain ‘quelle.ru’ as an

infringement of the plaintiff ’s exclusive rights pursuant to Article 138 RCC. The court based its decision, however, only on the infringement of the plaintiff ’s trademark ‘Quelle’. The court expressly denied protection based on the plaintiff ’s firm name, on the grounds that only the entire firm name of the plaintiff, consisting of two parts, ‘Quelle Aktiengesellschaft’, was protected by Russian firm name law.

RU.84 The court additionally refused to find infringement of the trademark on the basis of the

plaintiff ’s printout of the website, showing the Quelle catalogue and mark. The court held that the Internet printout could not be regarded as sufficient evidence.82

RU.85 (ee) ‘kamaz.ru’  The decisions regarding the domain ‘kamaz.ru’ have been widely criti-

cized, as both the court of first instance and appeal court dismissed the action due to the respondent’s status as a private person and the fact that the domain name was not used in the course of business.

RU.86 The unconditional assumption by the court in this matter, that there is no need for protec-

tion against domains registered for private purposes, opened up countless possibilities for domain name abuse. Fortunately, subsequent case history has revised this position in matters relating to other domain names.

  See paras RU.65–RU.66.

82

802

IV.  Court Litigation (ff) ‘nivea.ru’  The ‘nivea.ru’ case was based on the Russian ‘Nivea’ trademark held by a RU.87 foreign plaintiff, and resulted in an order against the defendant (a Russian legal person) to cease use of the domain on the basis of the Paris Convention and the former Article 4 of the Trademark Act. Interestingly, the plaintiff introduced an expert opinion from the Federal Institute for Industrial Property under the RuPTO, confirming confusing similarity between the trademark and domain name. (gg) ‘ntv.ru’  The case concerning ‘ntv.ru’, filed by the holder of the trademark ‘NTV.RU’ RU.88 against the registry RosNIIROS, resulted in a denial, as the domain name was registered by the holder and had not been ‘put into circulation’ by the registry. Following the changes in the Terms and Conditions, this type of action no longer arises. The trademark owner also filed an action against the holder of the domain ‘ntv.ru’. According RU.89 to a press release by the RU-Centre, the disputed domain was voluntarily transferred to the plaintiff without a judicial decision.

(hh) ‘baxter.ru’  The ‘baxter.ru’ matter, filed by a US healthcare company, demonstrates RU.90 the importance of careful claims drafting. The plaintiff ’s election to change the wording of its request, to clarify its intention to prevent the ‘use of trademark “BAXTER” in the domain name “baxter.ru” by the defendant’, helped the plaintiff to prevail in its claim. (ii) ‘redo.ru’  This was a very interesting case, decided by the Commercial Court of RU.91 Kaliningrad Region, as it was the first dispute in Russian judicial practice to consider a domain name conflict between a trademark owner and the holder of a protected firm name. The court partly upheld the plaintiff ’s action, ordering the defendant to refrain from using RU.92 the registered trademark ‘redo’ in the domain name ‘redo.ru’ but only with respect to specific goods and services in Classes 9, 37, 41, and 42. However, RIPN refused to recognize this conditional decision as an appropriate ground, pursuant to its Regulations, for cancellation of the domain.

(jj)  ‘gianfrancoferre.ru’, ‘ferrejeans.ru’, and ‘ferresport.ru’  This action, initiated by an RU.93 Italian designer, ended in a settlement which required the holder of the domains to refrain from their use. It is interesting to note, however, that the plaintiff did not assert a claim for transfer. (kk) ‘avtosoft.ru’  This case concerned a Russian entrepreneur and holder of the trade- RU.94 mark ‘AutoSoft’ and a company (OOO ‘Company Avtodiler’) who was using the domain ‘avtosoft.ru’ under contract from the domain holder. Although the courts awarded the plaintiff monetary compensation for the illegal use of its trademark, the court held that the proper defendant in such action must be the domain name owner itself and not its licensee. The court further noted the dissimilarity between the goods and services covered by the plaintiff ’s trademark and the advertising services provided by the domain name holder to the named defendant. The appeal filed by the plaintiff, however, was successful. In the appeal, the plaintiff pro- RU.95 duced an expert opinion from the Federal Institute for Industrial Property under the RuPTO, which confirmed the similarity of AUTOSOFT and AVTOSOFT names as well as the similarity between the goods and services of the plaintiff and those offered by the defendant. The plaintiff additionally argued that the defendant could not escape liability simply because the domain name was used under contract. The appeals court agreed and granted the requested relief.

(ll) ‘nike.ru’  In this case, NIKE International Ltd brought a claim against a private per- RU.96 son who held the domain ‘nike.ru’. The plaintiff referred to its rights in the firm name and 803

Russian Federation (‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’) well-known trademarks. The holder of the domain used his website to display information about the Greek goddess Nike. In this action, however, the court of first instance refused to grant a preliminary injunction, claiming that such measures were unnecessary to enable enforcement of the judgment. RU.97 In its ruling the court confirmed that administration of the domain name ‘nike.ru’ by the

defendant constitutes infringement of the plaintiff ’s trademark rights and prohibited the def­ endant from using the sign ‘nike’ in the domain name.

The suit was brought by the US companies Alticor Inc and Amway Corp against the Russian owner (a private individual) of the domain names ‘amway.ru’, ‘artistry.ru’, and ‘nutrilite.ru’. The peculiar aspect of this case was that ‘amway.ru’ was used by the defendant as a discussion forum concerning the plaintiff ’s business and products. The disputed domain names ‘artistry.ru’ and ‘nutrilite.ru’ were merely registered and not used. The defendant had offered the domain names for sale.

RU.98 (mm)  ‘amway.ru’, ‘artistry.ru’, and ‘nutrilite.ru’83 

RU.99 The action was based on the Russian trademarks AMWAY, ARTISTRY, and NUTRILITE of

the first plaintiff, Alticor Inc, on the firm name of Amway Corp, and on breach of the unfair competition law provisions. The case was decided in favour of the plaintiffs.

RU.100 First, the court held that the trademark holder’s rights in the sign AMWAY were infringed

even if the defendant used the disputed domain for a discussion forum, particularly as said forum was used to provide consulting services to its participants. The AMWAY mark was registered for the class of services concerning business consulting. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the disputed website was not used in the course of trade because there was no intent to generate a profit, as such intent is not required in infringement actions.

RU.101 Moreover, the court considered the defendant’s offer to sell the disputed domains as evidence

of the intention to generate profit, and thus use in the course of trade.

RU.102 The court additionally based its judgment on the infringement of Amway’s company name

within the meaning of Article 54 RCC and Article 8 of the Paris Convention.

RU.103 (nn) ‘suntour.ru’  The plaintiff, a Russian tour operator, was the owner of the Russian

trademarks САНТУР, SANTOUR, and SUNTOUR, registered for services of Classes 39, 41, and 42. The defendant had registered the domain name ‘suntour.ru’ and used it in conjunction with travel services.84

RU.104 The court regarded the registration and use of the disputed domain as an infringement,

issued an injunction against its use, and ordered the defendant to assign the domain to the plaintiff and pay damages.

RU.105 (oo) ‘fordcredit.ru’  In this case,85 the Dorogomilovsky District Court regarded the reg-

istration of the domain ‘fordcredit.ru’ by the defendant as an infringement of the plaintiff ’s (Ford Motor Company) exclusive rights to the international trademark FORD.

RU.106 The defendant (a private individual) was willing to assign the disputed domain to the plaintiff

for money. The latter rejected this offer and filed the court action.

  Kalininsky District Court of the City of Novosibirsk; Case No 2-867/2004.   Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-34209/04-51-336. The full text of the decision is available at: http://www.santour.ru/ch/suntour_news_3.php. 85  Dorogomilovsky District Court of the City of Moscow, judgment dated 6 December 2004; available at: http://info.nic.ru/st/44/out_917.shtml. 83 84

804

IV.  Court Litigation (pp) ‘dobrolet-avia.ru’  In this case, airline companies OAO Aeroflot and OOO Dobrolet RU.107 launched proceedings before the Saint Petersburg Commercial Court against the owner of the domain name ‘dobrolet-avia.ru’. The plaintiffs stated that the domain name ‘dobrolet-avia.ru’ contains the original part of the DOBROLET company name. The ‘dobrolet-avia.ru’ domain name was registered after the state registration of OOO DOBROLET and priority date of DOBROLET trademark owned by the plaintiff. The court of first instance established that the defendant used the ‘dobrolet-avia.ru’ website to sell airline tickets and, therefore, infringed opponents’ trademark and company name rights. The ruling was made in favour of the plaintiffs and at the time of editing this handbook appeal proceedings were pending. (rr) ‘bestwatch.ru’  In this case, several Swatch Group companies including Rado, RU.108 Longines, and Certina brought a case against the owner of domain name ‘bestwatch.ru’. The case started in 2012, when the plaintiffs found out that goods marked by their trademarks were offered for sale without the trademark owner’s authorization. The court of first instance prohibited the defendant from using the plaintiffs’ trademarks on the website. However, the owner of the ‘bestwatch.ru’ website merely changed the administrator and the registrar of the domain name and continued the infringing activity. The ruling of the court of first instance was made in favour of the plaintiffs and as at mid-May 2015 appeal proceedings were pending. Remarkably, the appeal court satisfied the plaintiffs’ motion for a broad preliminary injunction and prohibited the owner of the domain name ‘bestwatch.ru’ from changing the domain name administrator and changing the domain name registrar, as well as from offering for sale watches under the trademarks of the claimant. (b)  Dissemination of Negative Information (aa) ‘miele.ru’  The plaintiff in the ‘miele.ru’ case was the German holder of the trademark RU.109 ‘Miele’, protected in Russia pursuant to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks. The defendant was a Russian legal person and holder of the domain ‘miele.ru’. The court held that the trademark holder’s exclusive rights to the sign ‘Miele’ had been RU.110 infringed, even if the defendant had not used the disputed domain to disseminate information about its goods or services. The court held that the defendant’s registration of the domain prevented the plaintiff, the trademark owner, from using the second-level domain and thus restricted its business. Further, the court noted that potential customers might believe the plaintiff ’s products were unavailable on the Russian market, thus constituting the dissemination of negative information.

(bb) ‘telejob.ru’  In this case, a claim was brought by the Russian company OOO RU.111 ‘Roosblikprom’ against an individual, the owner the domain ‘telejob.ru’, and its registrar. The claimant requested damages for the online publication of information discrediting its business reputation and suspension of the domain’s hosting services by the registrar. The owner of the domain name insisted that the information on his website was published by RU.112 anonymous users, without his involvement, and he was not responsible for the content. The court of cassation appeal (in agreement with the lower courts) sustained the claim, noting that the domain holder was responsible for designing the website format (allowing anonymous posts). Meanwhile, the courts of all three instances dismissed the claim against the domain registrar as its involvement was only limited to hosting.

(c)  Co-Existence of Businesses (aa) ‘comforel.ru’  This case concerned an action by the Swiss owner of the trademark RU.113 ‘COMFOREL’, protected in Russia on the basis of an international registration in Classes 22–25. The defendant, however, used the name with the consent of the Russian company 805

Russian Federation (‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’) OOO ‘Optim Alt’, the owner of a coexisting trademark registration for ‘COMFOREL’ covering goods in Classes 22 and 25. RU.114 Although the court found a likelihood of confusion under Russian trademark law, the action

was nevertheless dismissed due to the fact that the defendant had used the mark with appropriate consent.

RU.115 Another interesting feature of this proceeding was that the court granted a preliminary

injunction to the plaintiff prior to the hearing. The preliminary injunction was set aside by the court when the action was dismissed.

RU.116 (bb) ‘karavay.ru’  In this case, a bakery company, OAO Karavay, brought proceedings

against the owner of domain name ‘karavay.ru’ before the Moscow Commercial Court. The court of first instance established that the plaintiff had been the manufacturer of a wide range of bakery products for more than 80 years and was the owner of series of KARAVAY trademarks. The court did not confirm that the plaintiff ’s trademark rights were infringed by the registration of the domain name ‘karavay.ru’. The defendant succeeded in proving that he chose ‘karavay’ as a domain name because the word ‘karavay’ was common in Russia and was associated with national traditions, and hence it was a suitable name for the website devoted to Russian wedding traditions. The court took into account the fact that the defendant used the website with respect to wedding-related services and did not use the domain name to sell any goods or services similar to goods covered by the claimant’s trademarks.

(d)  Breach of Contract RU.117 (aa) ‘off-road.ru’  In the ‘off-road.ru’ case, the plaintiff requested transfer of the domain name on the basis of a contractual dispute. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was obliged to register the disputed name in the name of the plaintiff, but that the defendant had breached the agreement and completed the registration in its own name. The court upheld the action. (e)  Unfair Competition RU.118 (aa) ‘denso.com’  This case is unusual in Russia, as it was brought to the Russian courts

following a successful UDRP proceeding. In the action before the court, the Russian company DenSo brought a claim against Denso Corporation asking the court to order the defendant to cease using the ‘denso.com’ domain. The case received numerous hearings in several lower courts before being heard by the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation, resulting in the rejection of DenSo’s claim.

RU.119 In its ruling, the Supreme Commercial Court pointed out that some judgments of the lower

courts (that erroneously granted the claim), were delivered on two mutually exclusive assumptions: that Denso Corporation possessed exclusive rights to the ‘denso’ trademark, and that the Russian firm DenSo could be permitted to use the domain ‘denso.com’. According to the Supreme Commercial Court, trademark protection must be absolute and exclusive, extending to all possible lawful use, including as a ccTLD domain.

RU.120 The Supreme Commercial Court also noted Denso Corporation’s evidence, showing that its

‘denso’ had been used internationally for many years, whereas the Russian company DenSo had been registered only a few days before the ‘denso.com’ domain. Furthermore, the court noted DenSo’s use of ‘denso.com’ to post copied news updates from other websites, and that the domain had been used as collateral under a leasing agreement, neither of which the court found to be fair use. The Supreme Commercial Court further established the criteria to be used for assessing unfair domain name registration, namely: (1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark of third party; (2) the domain name owner has no

806

IV.  Court Litigation legal interest in the domain; and (3) the domain name was registered and used unfairly. These criteria are generally in line with provisions 4(a) to (c) of the ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy of 26 August 1999.86 The criteria are now commonly applied by the Russian courts in domain name disputes and are covered by the Russian IP Court’s guidelines to state commercial courts on domain name disputes resolution.87

(bb)  ‘googl.ru’ and ‘gugl.ru’  In this case, the court of the first instance agreed with the RU.121 arguments of Google Inc, holder of the ‘GOOGLE’ trademarks in Latin and Cyrillic, and ordered the defendant, owner of the above domains, to cease using both of them. The court found that use and administration of the domains ‘googl.ru’ and ‘gugl.ru’ by the defendant violated the exclusive IP rights of the trademark holder and represented unfair competition. This case is one of the rare examples in which the court sought an expert opinion concerning RU.122 confusing similarity. Based on the experts’ reports, the court established confusing similarity between the domain names and the trademarks of Google Inc. The court found that the owner of the domains ‘googl.ru’ and ‘gugl.ru’ did not have any rights RU.123 or lawful interests in the domains, that it was not affiliated with Google Inc., and that the registrations of Google’s trademark enjoyed an earlier priority date than the domain registrations. Finally, the court held that the domains were not used fairly. The domain ‘googl.ru’ was used RU.124 to provide services close to those offered by Google Inc, and the domain ‘gugl.ru’ had not been used. The court applied the provisions of the RCC concerning trademark rights, and the Paris RU.125 Convention on the prohibition of unfair competition, and sustained the plaintiff ’s claim. The appeal filed subsequently by the defendant was unsuccessful.

(cc) ‘mumm.ru’  G.H. Mumm & Cie filed an action against an individual domain holder RU.126 to stop use of the domain ‘mumm.ru’. The claimant referred to its exclusive rights in the ‘MUMM’ trademark and alleged its unlawful use by the defendant. The court of first instance and court of cassation appeal dismissed the claim, as G.H. Mumm RU.127 & Cie had failed to prove unlawful use by the domain holder. The plaintiff registered the MUMM trademark in International Classes 32 and 33, but the defendant was not a businessman, and thus not involved in any similar business activities. Thus, the court held that the defendant’s use did not violate the claimant’s rights. The court of cassation appeal ruled that the use of a similar name couldn’t constitute a breach RU.128 of the trademark owner’s rights as long as the domain was held by a bona fide user, and further noted that the plaintiff could have elected to register the domain name itself (given that its trademark predated the first registration of the domain). The Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation, however, revised this ruling, holding the registration not to be bona fide and finding it to constitute an act of unfair competition.

(dd) ‘tissot.ru’  Tissot AG filed an action against the owner ‘tissot.ru’, who in turn argued RU.129 that it was not violating the plaintiff ’s rights as it did not gain profits from the use of the domain and did not compete with the plaintiff in the market. The courts of appeal and cassation appeal rejected the defendant’s arguments, holding the use of the domain without permission to constitute an act of unfair competition and an abuse of the plaintiff ’s rights.  See: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en.   Information letter on issues arising in the course of domain name dispute resolution, approved by the Resolution of the Presidium of the IP Court on 28 March 2014 No СП-21/4; available in Russian at: http:// ipcmagazine.ru/official-cronicle/the-questions-that-arise-when-considering-domain-disputes. 86 87

807

Russian Federation (‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’) RU.130 The court noted that the defendant owned a number of domains containing famous brands

(eg ‘breitling.ru’, ‘bulgary.ru’, ‘hennessy.ru’, ‘viagra.ru’, etc). The court ruled that the use of any domain name identical to a trademark required the trademark owner’s permission, and otherwise represents an impediment for the trademark owner. In this case, Alibaba.com Group Holding Ltd, a New  York-listed privately-owned Hangzhou, China-based group of Internet-based e-commerce businesses providing a platform for global wholesale trade, secured rights to the domain name ‘alibaba.ru’ registered in the name of a third party. The claim was based on Alibaba.com Group Holding Ltd’s trademark and firm name rights. The opponent owned a defensive trademark registration that was cancelled in full due to non-use in parallel proceedings. The court ruling on the opponent’s trademark invalidation was sustained by the Presidium of the Russian IP Court.

RU.131 (ee) ‘alibaba.ru’ 

RU.132 Due to a chain of appeals brought by the opponent, the domain name infringement case

has been meticulously considered by the court of first instance, the court of appeal, and the Russian IP Court. The courts confirmed: (1) the presence of identity or confusing similarity of the domain name ‘alibaba.ru’ and Alibaba.com Group Holding Ltd’s trademark and firm name; (2) the absence of the opponent’s legal interest in the domain name ‘alibaba.ru’; and (3) the opponent’s act of unfair competition by administrating alibaba.ru. The courts have also taken into account the fact that the domain name ‘alibaba.ru’ was linked with the ‘asia.ru’ website, offering services similar to those provided by the claimant via the ‘alibaba.com’ website held by Alibaba Group Holding Ltd’s affiliate. As a result of the court proceedings, the opponent was requested to cease violation and ‘alibaba.ru’ was successfully transferred to the claimant, Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name RU.133 The question as to whether domain names in Russia enjoy independent protection remains

uncertain. Current legal literature suggests that domains should be regarded as items of intellectual property or as business designations. Domain names are not, however, incorporated into the list of IP objects provided by the RCC and hence cannot be regarded as a separate category of IP rights.

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers RU.134 In the past, the Russian Commercial Courts were unwilling to order the transfer or cancella-

tion of domains, and merely imposed injunctions against further use. This meant, in practice, that proceedings against the registrar were necessary to secure cancellation or transfer (eg the case of ‘mosfilm.ru’).88

RU.135 This is no longer necessary under s 8 of the Terms and Conditions, as a domain name is to be

cancelled by the registry upon receipt of an effective court order.

RU.136 The recent practice of Russian courts has been consistent in determining the roles of the

registry, registrar, and Internet service providers in court proceedings. While a plaintiff ’s claim for relief (monetary or otherwise) needs to be directed against the domain name owner   See above, paras RU.69–RU.71.

88

808

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property (defendant), the registry and Internet service provider (eg hosting company) are regularly introduced into court proceedings as third parties. This practice is aimed at involving the registry and Internet service provider in the case from the very beginning, to ensure smooth transfer of the domain name where necessary. This approach has been applied in the majority of recent cases, including inter alia ‘googl.ru’ and ‘gugl.ru’, ‘mumm.ru’, and ‘nike.ru’.89 A similar position was indirectly taken by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation RU.137 in its recent judgment dealing with the constitutionality of Article 152 RCC,90 protecting the honour, dignity and business reputation of citizens and legal persons with the Russian Constitution.91 In the reasoning of its decision,92 the Constitutional Court (obiter dictum) pointed out that the obligation of a website’s administrator to remove any informational content which discredits the honour, dignity and/or business reputation of a citizen should not be understood as a personal responsibility for the content. In addition, the Russian anti-piracy legislation has been recently amended93 and now con- RU.138 tains tools for restriction of access to copyright-protected content (except for photographs) which has been placed on websites illegally. The rights holder may seek a preliminary injunction before the Moscow City Court against illegal use of content on a particular websites. Once a preliminary injunction has been obtained, the rights holder may file an application with the Russian state authority in charge—Roskomnadzor94—seeking restriction of access to the website. Simultaneously the new regulations allow the rights holder to undertake an out-of-court measure by sending a complaint to the website owner. Within 24 hours of the complaint’s receipt, the website owner must cease the infringement or present proof evidencing the lawful use of content on the website. To make this work the law obliges the website owners to disclose his/her/its name, address, and email on the website. The law further provides for a possibility of perpetual restriction of access to a website where infringing content was placed repeatedly, and this has been confirmed by the court’s ruling. Upon such court’s ruling, Roskomnadzor will send the information on such website to telecom operators, which in turn must restrict access to the website within twenty-four hours upon receipt of the Roskomnadzor’s notification.

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property Under the RCC, domain names do not constitute objects of IP rights. While in the initial RU.139 draft of the RCC domain names were supposed to become independent objects of IP rights, this novel provision was excluded before the law came into force and, therefore, despite the substantial value of many ccTLD domains, their status still remains unclear.

89  Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-7239-2012; Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation, Case No A40-47499/2010; Moscow City Commercial Court, Case No A40-111177/2012. 90  An English translation of Art 152 is available at:  http://www.russian-civil-code.com/PartI/SectionI/ Subsection3/Chapter8.html. 91  Cf. judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 9 July 2013, Case No 18-П. The complete text of the judgment (Russian) is available at: http://www.ksrf.ru/ru/Decision/Pages/default.aspx and a summary (English) is available at: http://www.ksrf.ru/en/Decision/Pages/ViewItem.aspx?ParamId=116. 92 Cf. s 4.1. 93  Federal Law No 364-FZ dated 24 November 2014 ‘On introduction of amendments to Federal law “On information, information technologies and the protection of information” and the Russian Civil Code’ is available (in Russian) at: http://www.rg.ru/2014/11/27/gpk-dok.html. 94 Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecom, Information Technologies and Mass Communications.

809

Russian Federation (‘.ru’ and ‘.рф’) RU.140 Since domain names are not recognized by Russian law as intangible property, domain

name-related transactions are often governed by foreign law. In addition to each agreement (eg assignment agreement), substantial transfer-of-rights-related paperwork needs to be signed, upon the request of the responsible registry. Some domain name registries have established escrow procedures, used to ensure smooth and safe domain name transfer.

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law RU.141 Russian courts would normally have jurisdiction over ‘.ru’, ‘.рф’ and ‘.su’ domain-name-related

disputes notwithstanding the origin of the parties involved. Depending on the parties involved, such disputes will either fall within the competence of the Russian commercial courts (usually disputes between registered entrepreneurs and legal persons) and courts of general jurisdiction (disputes involving individuals). Interestingly, the extension of competence of Russian commercial courts to domain name disputes involving individuals has been developed based on the criteria of ‘personal use v commercial use’. In the dispute concerning ‘etro.ru’, the court of cassation appeal confirmed the competence of the Russian commercial courts, stating that even if the defendant was not registered as an entrepreneur, the domain was registered by the defendant for the advertisement and sale of the goods of the defendant’s company.95 According to the court of cassation appeal, the latter constituted commercial use and, therefore, the dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the commercial courts.

RU.142 While Russian courts usually consider disputes concerning ‘.ru’, ‘.рф’, and ‘.su’ domain names,

under exceptional circumstances they may consider generic top-level domain (gTLD) cases. In the ‘denso.com’ case, the jurisdiction of the Russian courts was invoked by the Russian owner of ‘denso.com’ in order to prevent enforcement of a UDRP ruling.96 Though the proceedings were not successful for the owner of ‘denso.com’, the case established that the jurisdiction of the Russian courts would apply to any case where the domain name was registered in the territory of Russia (eg via the Russian registry) and the rights to the domain have been obtained by a company in the territory of Russia.

RU.143 Since the number of domain disputes heard by the Russian courts is continually increasing,

it is likely that further court practice relating to jurisdiction and choice of law will be established in the near future.

  Federal Commercial Court of Moscow Region, Case No А40-52842/04-110-496.   Presidial Council of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation, Case No A56-46111/2003.

95 96

810

SINGAPORE (‘.sg’) Tan Tee Jim, S.C.

I. Overview of the National System of Trade Mark/Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names  II. The ccTLD (‘.sg’) Registration Conditions and Procedures  (1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry  (2) The Structure of the Name Space  (3) Registration Restrictions  (4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement  (5) Transfer of Domain Names  (6) Transfer of a Domain Name During Pending Court or ADR Proceedings  (7) Statistics 

(7) Role of the Administrative Panel  SG.50 (8) Costs  SG.51 (9) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings  SG.53 (10) ADR Decisions  SG.55 (11) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Administrative Panel  SG.61

SG.01 SG.12 SG.12 SG.13 SG.14

IV. Court Litigation and National Laws 

SG.79 (1) Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation  SG.79 (2) Infringement of Trade Marks  SG.80 (3) Infringement of Personal Names, Names of Cities, and Other Public Law Corporations  SG.93 (4) Infringement of Titles  SG.97 (5) Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available  SG.98

SG.21 SG.24 SG.28 SG.29

III. ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.sg’ Domain Space 

SG.30 (1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding  SG.30 (2) Statistics  SG.31 (3) Material Scope of the Proceeding  SG.32 (4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceedings through the Registration Agreement  SG.33 (5) Overview of the ADR-Procedure  SG.34 (6) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider  SG.49

V. The Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  SG.103 VI. Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers  SG.104 VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  SG.106 VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law  SG.107

Links Intellectual Property Office of Singapore: http://www.ipos.gov.sg Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed): http://statutes.agc.gov.sg Singapore Network Information Centre (SGNIC) Pte Ltd: http://www.nic.net.sg Singapore Mediation Centre: http://www.disputemanager.com.sg

I.  Overview of the National System of Trade Mark/Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names Under Singapore law, protection for trade marks may be available both under the Trade SG.01 Marks Act (Cap. 332, 2005 Rev Ed ‘TMA’) and at common law. These two systems function independently of each other. This section provides a brief summary of the two systems, with a more detailed analysis being provided under Section IV (Court Litigation and National Laws).

811

Singapore (‘.sg’) SG.02 Statutory protection under the TMA is conditional upon registration of the trade mark with

the Registry of Trade Marks within the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS). There is one exception in this regard: special protection is granted under the TMA to ‘well known’ trade marks, regardless of whether they are registered in Singapore. A trade mark is deemed to be well known in Singapore if it is well known to a relevant sector of the public in Singapore.

SG.03 A trade mark must fulfil three key criteria in order to be registered: the subject matter must

be: (i) a ‘trade mark’, which (ii) is ‘distinctive’, and (iii) does not conflict with an earlier trade mark. Upon registration, a trade mark will enjoy an initial period of protection of ten years from the date of registration. The trade mark registration may thereafter be renewed for further periods of ten years.

SG.04 At common law, it is an actionable wrong for a defendant to falsely represent that his goods

are those of another, or his business is that of another. This is known as the tort of ‘passing off ’, and co-exists as a second system of trade mark law in Singapore, which is independent to the statutory regime under the TMA.

SG.05 Briefly, a claimant must prove three elements in order to succeed in an action for passing

off: (1) goodwill; (2) misrepresentation; and (3) damage.

SG.06 Aside from these civil remedies, the proprietor of a registered trade mark may also enforce

his trade mark rights in criminal proceedings. The following infringing acts can give rise to criminal liability under the TMA: (1) (2) (3) (4)

counterfeiting a registered trade mark; falsely applying a registered trade mark to goods or services; making or possessing articles for committing offences; and importing or selling etc goods with a falsely applied trade mark.

SG.07 The claimant in a passing off action, or an action for trade mark infringement under the

TMA, must prove his case on the balance of probabilities. In criminal proceedings, the criminal liability of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

SG.08 Singapore has not been unaffected by the global trends relating to the development of the

Internet, and the legal issues that result. For instance, there is the familiar inherent tension in Singapore between the use of a domain name and the protection of a trade mark under the TMA. The ‘first-come, first-served’ basis of assigning domain names and the existing technical constraints which preclude two or more companies from using the same domain name contrast starkly with the terrestrial rules relating to trade marks of the TMA which tolerate multiple and concurrent registrations and use of a trade mark by unrelated companies across a wide spectrum of goods and services. The purpose of the rules is to impose a measure of discipline in the marketplace through the avoidance of confusion within well-defined physical boundaries. This serves to achieve a harmonious balance between the interests of consumers and those of trade mark owners. In contrast, the Internet does not seem capable of acknowledging such rules and interests, as epitomized by its unique ‘first-come, first-served’ (effectively, ‘winner takes all’) principle. In the light of these factors, rules have been put in place in Singapore to prevent any unmeritorious registration and use of domain names.

SG.09 While the legislature has not adopted any statutory provisions for the regulation of domain

name conflicts, policies and documents have been developed for the effective management of the ‘.sg’ country code top-level domain (ccTLD). In addition, the Singapore Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) sets out the framework governing how a dispute between the registrant and any party over the registration and use of the registrant’s ‘.sg’ domain name is to be resolved.

812

II.  The ccTLD (‘.sg’) Registration Conditions and Procedures The SDRP provides a framework for resolving ‘.sg’ domain name disputes. This offers a SG.10 quicker and cheaper alternative to resolving disputes compared to litigation in the courts. The ADR mechanism under the SDRP will be elaborated on in Section III below. To date, the Singapore courts have not released any written judgments which relate solely to SG.11 a domain name dispute. The ADR mechanism under the SDRP, however, has produced a total of 21 written decisions since January 2002. Such decisions may be subject to challenge by court proceedings in the Singapore courts.

II.  The ccTLD (‘.sg’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry The ‘.sg’ ccTLD space in Singapore is regulated by the Singapore Network Information SG.12 Centre Pte Ltd (SGNIC). SGNIC is endorsed by the Singapore government as the appropriate body to operate and control the ‘.sg’ ccTLD from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

(2) The Structure of the Name Space The ‘.sg’ ccTLD is divided into the following commercial and non-commercial second-level SG.13 domain names: –  ‘.com.sg’ for companies and businesses; –  ‘.net.sg’ for network providers; –  ‘.org.sg’ primarily for societies and charitable bodies; –  ‘.edu.sg’ for schools and educational institutions; –  ‘.gov.sg’ for governmental organizations; –  ‘.per.sg’ for natural persons; – ‘.新加坡’, the Chinese equivalent of the ‘.sg’ category; and – ‘.சிங்கப்ர்’, the Tamil equivalent of the ‘.sg’ category.

(3) Registration Restrictions SGNIC has accredited a number of registrars in Singapore for the registration of ‘.sg’ domain SG.14 names and the provision of related services such as the updating, transfer, removal, renewal, and reinstatement of ‘.sg’ domain names. Currently, 14 registrars have been accredited. A list of the accredited registrars is available at http://www.nic.net.sg. The annual registration fee ranges from S$35 to S$105.

(a) Registration Requirements SGNIC’s Registration Policies, Procedures and Guidelines (RPPG) set out the different eli- SG.15 gibility requirements for the ‘.sg’ top-level domain name (gTLD) and also the various categories of open second-level domain names such as ‘com.sg’, ‘org.sg’, and ‘edu.sg’. Essentially, an applicant must be a ‘Singaporean’ in order to qualify for registration. In the case of a commercial entity, this means that it has to be a company or firm incorporated or registered in Singapore. In the case of a natural person, he has to be a Singapore citizen or permanent resident above the age of 18. If he is below the age of 18 years, his parents or legal guardian above the age of 18 years may apply on his behalf. The RPPG contains a non-exhaustive list of domain names which cannot be registered with- SG.16 out SGNIC’s sole discretionary approval. The prohibited names are generally those that suggest a link to the government or SGNIC, are geographical names or country names in any

813

Singapore (‘.sg’) language, or form existing gTLDs or names such as ‘www’ or ‘http’. Examples of such names include ‘Singapura’, ‘NIC’, ‘Malaysia’, and ‘.net’. SG.17 In addition, registrars are required to seek SGNIC’s approval when registering domain

names which:

(1) are the full or abbreviated name or an acronym of a ministry, statutory board, or government agency of Singapore; or (2) may be contrary to public interest or order, national harmony, or offend good taste or decency, religious beliefs, or any other social objectives. SG.18 SGNIC also has the discretion to prohibit or reserve additional names from time to time.

(b) Attribution and Naming Rules SG.19 In order for a foreign registrant to apply for a ‘.sg’ domain name, it would have to appoint a

local agent having a valid Singapore postal address as its Administrative Contact. The foreign registrant is then required to submit to the registrar a duly authorized letter confirming the appointment of the locally registered entity.

(c) Documents Required for Registration SG.20 An applicant who wishes to register a domain name may make an online application to the

chosen registrar, thereby minimizing the amount of documentation required. Registrants in the different domain name categories must produce the relevant documents to show that they satisfy the requirements for registration in that category. For example, a registrant in a ‘.com.sg’ category must furnish relevant documents to show that it is registered in Singapore and is currently active.

(4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement SG.21 Registrants will be bound by a Registrant Agreement with SGNIC upon approval of the

domain name. They will also be bound by a commercial agreement with the registrar.

SG.22 When registering a ‘.sg’ domain name, the applicant must agree to give a number of warran-

ties, including that:

(1) the domain name applied for is for his/its own use and the use is for his/its own benefit as well as for lawful purposes; (2) the domain name applied for does not infringe any registered trade mark in Singapore, is not identical or confusingly similar to either a registered trade mark, or company or business name in Singapore, and does not infringe the rights of any third parties in relation to any applicable treaties or international agreements; and (3) the applicant will not allow another party to use the domain name, whether for profit or otherwise, and will not deal with the domain name in any manner whatsoever. SG.23 The RPPG also obliges the registrar to prescribe, and the applicant to agree to be bound

by, the terms and conditions of the SDRP. The terms and conditions, which are discussed below, are broadly similar to those in the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP). As at May 2015, 28 disputes have been resolved through the SDRP.

(5) Transfer of Domain Names SG.24 Under the SDRP, SGNIC may cancel, transfer, or otherwise make changes to domain name

registrations under the following circumstances:

(1) its receipt of written or appropriate electronic instructions from the registrant or the registrant’s authorized agent to take such action;

814

II.  The ccTLD (‘.sg’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (2) its receipt of an order from a court in Singapore requiring such action; and/or (3) its receipt of a decision of an administrative panel requiring such action in any administrative proceeding to which the registrant was a party and which was conducted under the SDRP.1 The RPPG provides a framework for the transfer of domain names. The process for such SG.25 transfer would vary depending on whether the current registrant (transferor registrant) and the new registrant (transferee applicant) belong to the same or different registrars. If the registrants belong to the same registrar, the transfer is effected as follows: (1) the registrar will have to obtain appropriate authorization from both parties; (2) the transferee applicant must agree to be bound by the Registrant Agreement; (3) the transferee applicant must submit a transfer request to the registrar indicating the domain name and the transferor registrant’s password for verification; (4) upon receiving the request, the registrar will then send a notification e-mail to the transferor registrant who will have seven days to either confirm/approve or reject, with reasoning, the transfer request; and (5) if the transferor registrant does not respond to the transfer request within seven days, the registrar will not proceed with the transfer and the request will be rejected. If the registrants belong to different registrars, the transfer is effected as follows:

SG.26

(1) both registrars must first obtain appropriate authorization of the transfer; (2) the transferor registrar should provide the password of the domain name to the transferor registrant within three working days. The transferor registrant will then pass the password to the transferee applicant; (3) the transferee applicant must send a transfer request to its registrar; (4) the transferee registrar will then submit the request to the Shared Registry System (SRS), which will then send an e-mail to both registrars and also mark the registration in SGNIC’s WhoIs database as a pending transfer; (5) The transfer will be completed if the transferor registrar expressly approves the request, or does not respond within seven days of the date and time of the SRS notification. The transferor registrant can also reject the transfer within the seven-day period, but must give reasons for doing so. SGNIC may also cancel, transfer or otherwise make changes to a domain name registration SG.27 in accordance with the terms of the registrant’s Domain Name Registration Agreement or other legal requirements.2

(6) Transfer of a Domain Name During Pending Court or ADR Proceedings While administrative proceedings are pending and for a period of 15 working days after SG.28 the proceedings have concluded, the registrant must not transfer the disputed domain name registration to another holder. He must also not transfer the domain name while court or arbitration proceedings are under way in respect of the domain name, unless the party to whom the domain name registration is being transferred agrees, in writing, to be bound by the decision of the court or arbitrator.3 SGNIC reserves the right to cancel any transfer of a domain name registration to another holder that is made in violation of these provisions.4   SDRP, para 3(a).   SDRP, para 3(b). 3  SDRP, para 8. 4 Ibid. 1 2

815

Singapore (‘.sg’) (7) Statistics SG.29 According to SGNIC’s website, there are a total of 150,844 ‘.sg’ domain names registered as of

July 2013. Although the website only provides statistics from June 2009 onwards, the available data indicates an approximate 38.7 per cent increase in registration over the last four years.

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.sg’ Domain Space (1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding SG.30 The SDRP provides a framework for resolving ‘.sg’ domain name disputes. SGNIC has adopted

it as the registration authority for ‘.sg’ domain names, as it offers a quicker and cheaper way of resolving disputes compared to litigation in the courts. The SDRP sets out the types of disputes that the registrant is required to submit to mandatory administrative proceedings. The proceedings are to be conducted before a panel in accordance with the Rules of Procedure (the Rules) and the Supplemental Rules (the Supplemental Rules) issued jointly by the Singapore Mediation Centre and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (which are the joint operators).

(2) Statistics SG.31 As at May 2015, 28 disputes have been brought under the SDRP. Sixteen of the disputes

resulted in the administrative panel requiring the domain names to be transferred to the complainants, whilst in four of the disputes a decision in favour of the respondent was given. The rest were settled or withdrawn.

(3) Material Scope of the Proceeding SG.32 A party who wishes to challenge a ‘.sg’ domain name registration must lodge a complaint

with the Secretariat for the Singapore Domain Name Dispute Resolution Service. The complaint must comply with the requirements of the SDRP and the Rules. The Secretariat will then appoint an Administrative Panel to resolve the dispute through an administrative proceeding. If the parties agree to resolve the dispute by mediation, the Administrative Panel will take steps to help the parties resolve the dispute amicably. If the parties do not agree to mediation, the Administrative Panel will then resolve the dispute itself. The decision of the Administrative Panel will be implemented by SGNIC, but a dissatisfied party has the option of submitting the dispute to the Singapore courts for independent resolution. If they do so, the dispute would not be decided under the SDRP, but would likely be decided under the local law of passing off and trade mark infringement. The relationship between ADR and court proceedings will be elaborated on below at paras SG.53 and SG.54.

(4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceedings through the Registration Agreement SG.33 The SDRP is incorporated by reference into the Domain Name Registration Agreement

between SGNIC and the registrant or domain name holder of a ‘.sg’ domain name.5

(5) Overview of the ADR-Procedure (a) Legal Framework SG.34 The registrant is required to submit to mandatory administrative proceedings in the event that

a third party (the complainant), in compliance with the Rules, asserts to the secretariat that:

(1) the registrant’s domain name is identical with or confusingly similar to a name, trade mark, or service mark in which the complainant has rights; 5

  SDRP, para 1(b).

816

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.sg’ Domain Space (2) the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name that is the subject of the complaint; and (3) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.6 The complainant must prove each of these three elements in order to be entitled to the remedies available under the SDRP (which include the cancellation or transfer of the domain name). Note in particular that the third element requires only registration or use in bad faith. The SDRP provides a list of circumstances which may serve as evidence of bad faith registra- SG.35 tion and use: (1) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the registration to the complainant who bears the name or is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant for consideration in excess of the registrant’s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; (2) the domain name was registered in order to prevent the owner from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name provided that the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; (3) the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting a competitor’s business; or (4) by using the domain name, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the registrant’s website or other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s name or mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the registrant’s website or location or of a product or service on the website or location.7 This list is non-exhaustive and other factors have been held to be indicative of bad faith; for example, the passive holding of the domain name by the respondent,8 and the respondent’s failure to file a response.

(b) ADR Complaint A party intending to make a complaint (complainant) may submit a complaint in accordance SG.36 with the SDRP and the Rules to the Secretariat for the Singapore Domain Name Dispute Resolution Service. In drafting the complaint, the complainant may follow the format set out in the model com- SG.37 plaint form provided under the SDRP. The model complaint form is available online.9 The complaint should be submitted in the English language. The Rules set out the information which should be included in the complaint. Such infor- SG.38 mation would include: (1) the domain name(s) that is/are the subject of the complaint; (2) the name(s), trade mark(s), or service mark(s) on which the complaint is based. For each name or mark, the complainant must describe the goods or services, if any, with which 6  SDRP, para 4(a). It is expressly provided in r 15(e) of the Rules that if the administrative panel concludes that the dispute is not within the scope of SDRP, para 4(a), it shall so state. 7  SDRP, para 4(b). It is expressly provided in r 15(e) of the Rules that if the administrative panel finds, after considering the parties’ submissions, that the complaint was brought in bad faith (for example, in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the registrant), the panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. 8  See, for example, PM-International AG v LHT (Case No SDRP-2009-0003(F)) and Facebook, Inc v Zheng Zhongxing (Case No SDRP-2012-0003(F)). 9 See http://www.mediation.com.sg/business-services/singapore-domain-name-dispute-resolution-services/.

817

Singapore (‘.sg’) the name or mark is used, and separately describe other goods and services with which it intends, at the time the complaint is submitted, to use the name or mark in the future; (3) the grounds on which the complaint is made; (4) the remedies sought; and (5) whether the complainant agrees to have the dispute mediated by the panel before the panel is called upon to decide the dispute.10 SG.39 The complaint may relate to more than one domain name,11 provided that the domain names

are registered by the same domain name holder. The complaint may not, however, be made against multiple entities.12 The amount of fees payable to the Secretariat would increase depending on the number of domain names included in the complaint.

SG.40 A complainant may access information on the registrant of a particular domain name via a

WHOIS service provided on the SGNIC website.

SG.41 Upon receipt of the complaint, the secretariat will review it for administrative compliance

with the SDRP and the Rules.13 If there is compliance, the secretariat will forward the complaint to the domain name registrant within three working days of the date of receipt of the complaint or the date of receipt of the fees to be paid by the complainant in accordance with the Rules.14 If, however, the complaint is administratively deficient, the secretariat may request for the complaint to be resubmitted.15 The administrative proceedings are deemed to commence on the date on which the secretariat completes its responsibilities in connection with forwarding the complaint to the registrant.16

(c) ADR Response SG.42 In drafting a response, the respondent to a complaint may follow the format set out in the model response form provided under the SDRP. The model response form is available online.17 SG.43 The Rules set out the information which should be included in the response. Such informa-

tion would include:

(1) a specific response to the statements and allegations contained in the complaint, including any and all bases for the respondent to retain registration and use of the disputed domain name; (2) identification of any other legal proceedings that have been commenced or terminated in connection with or relating to the domain name(s) that are the subject of the complaint; and (3) whether the complainant agrees to have the dispute mediated by the panel before the panel is called upon to decide the dispute.18   r 3 of the Rules.   r 3(d) of the Rules. 12 In Teck Leong Metals Pte Ltd v Teck Leong Industries Pte Ltd (Case No SDRP-2005-0005(L)), the complaint was initially made against two separate entities. This was an administrative deficiency which necessitated a re-submission of the complaint. 13  r 4(a) of the Rules. 14  r 4(a) of the Rules. 15  This was the case in Teck Leong Metals Pte Ltd v Ban Soon Cheong Pte Ltd (Case No SDRP-2005-0004(L)) and .Ihlas Pazarlama Anonim Sirketi v Xu Run Electrical Supply Pte Ltd (Case No SDRP-2013-0001). 16  r 4(c) of the Rules. For the avoidance of doubt, administrative proceedings are not a form of arbitration, but an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for resolving disputes over the registration and use of ‘.sg’ domain names. The submission of a dispute to administrative proceedings does not constitute a submission of the dispute to arbitration, and the SDRP, the Rules of Procedure, and the Supplemental Rules do not constitute an arbitration agreement or procedural rules for arbitration: see the SDRP, para 4(l). 17 See http://www.mediation.com.sg/assets/downloads/singapore-domain-name-dispute-resolution-services/ sdrp-response-model-doc-editedss.pdf. 18  r 5 of the Rules. 10 11

818

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.sg’ Domain Space The registrant has 15 working days from the date of commencement of the administrative SG.44 proceedings to respond (both in hard copy and electronically).19 If the registrant fails to respond, and in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the panel must decide the dispute based on the merits of the complaint and draw ‘such inferences therefrom as it deems appropriate’ in respect of the respondent’s default.20 While the panel will not summarily find for the complainant without a proper adjudication of the merits of the complaint, it is telling that every complaint where the respondent failed to provide a response has thus far been decided in favour of the complainant.21 The registrant can defend the complaint by demonstrating its rights to or legitimate interests SG.45 in the domain name at issue. It can do so by showing that: (1) prior to receipt of notice of the dispute, it has used or demonstrably prepared to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offer of goods or services; (2) it has been commonly known by the domain name as an individual, business, or other organization, even if it has not acquired any trade mark or service mark rights in the name; or (3) it is making a legitimate, non-commercial, or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.22

(d) Procedural Issues There is no need for lawyers to be involved in the preparation of the parties’ submissions, as SG.46 long as the complaint complies with the administrative requirements under the SDRP and its subsidiary Rules. Once the proceedings have been concluded, the decision is published on the SDRP and Singapore Mediation Centre websites.23 Except where the panel, in its discretion and in exceptional circumstances, determines that SG.47 a hearing in person is necessary for mediating or deciding the complaint, no such hearing (including by teleconference, videoconference, and web conference) will be held.24 As mentioned above, the complainant must show, in compliance with the Rules, that the SG.48 necessary elements have been made out before it is entitled to any of the remedies under the SDRP. The standard of proof is on the balance of probability.

(6) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider The dispute resolution provider under the SDRP is a joint secretariat of the Singapore SG.49 Mediation Centre and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. The secretariat plays an administrative role in facilitating the proceedings, such as by ensuring that the procedures in the Rules are followed, forwarding the complaint to the registrant, and appointing the administrative panel. Communications between the parties and the administrative panel are generally made through the secretariat.   r 5(a) and (b) of the Rules.   See rr 5(f ) and 14(b) of the Rules. This occurred in Unilever PLC v Fuzhou Zhongsikong Network Service Co Ltd (Case No SDRP-2009-0002(F)), and led to the panel drawing the adverse inference that the respondent was unable to establish any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name. 21  See, for example, PM-International AG v LHT (Case No SDRP-2009-0003(F)) and Arrow Electronics, Inc v Arrow Global Co Ltd (Case No SDRP-2011-0002(F)). 22  SDRP, para 4(c). 23 See http://www.disputemanager.com/SDRP/Proceedings_info.htm and http://www.mediation.com. sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=123&Itemid=276. 24  r 13 of the Rules. 19 20

819

Singapore (‘.sg’) (7) Role of the Administrative Panel SG.50 An administrative panel appointed by the secretariat handles the dispute. The panel may

comprise one or three members. Generally, the secretariat will appoint a single-member panel. If either the complainant or the registrant elects to have the dispute decided by a three-member panel, the secretariat will then appoint three panellists. A list of all the current domain name panellists is available on the Singapore Mediation Centre website.25

(8) Costs SG.51 All fees charged by the secretariat in connection with any dispute before a panel shall be

paid by the complainant. However, where the registrant elects to expand the panel from one to three panellists, the registrant and the complainant will split all fees evenly.26 The fees payable for administrative proceedings under the SDRP differ according to the number of panellists appointed and the number of domain names included in the complaint. If more than 15 domain names are included in the complaint, the fee will be decided by the panel in consultation with the secretariat. The exact amount to be paid is set out in Annex C to the Supplemental Rules.

SG.52 In the event of a withdrawal of a complaint or the termination of an administrative proceed-

ing prior to the appointment of a panel, the secretariat shall be entitled to retain an administrative fee of S$1,000. If the administrative proceeding is terminated after the appointment of a panel, the same administrative fee shall be retained, and the secretariat will have the sole discretion to determine whether the balance of the fees paid should be refunded. Generally, no fees will be refunded once the file has been forwarded to the panel.

(9) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings SG.53 The mandatory administrative proceedings do not prevent either the registrant or the com-

plainant from submitting the dispute to a Singapore court for independent resolution before the administrative proceedings are commenced, or after the proceedings have been concluded. However, the registrant and the complainant cannot commence any court proceedings in respect of the registrant’s domain name while an administrative proceeding is still pending in respect of that domain name.27

SG.54 If the panel decides that the domain name registration should be cancelled or transferred,

SGNIC will wait ten working days from when it is informed by the secretariat of the panel’s decision before implementing that decision. SGNIC will then implement the decision unless SGNIC has received from the registrant during the ten working days a sealed copy of a writ of summons or an originating summons showing that the registrant has commenced court proceedings against the complainant in Singapore in respect of the domain name. If SGNIC receives such documentation within the ten working days, SGNIC will not implement the panel’s decision, and will not take any further action, unless SGNIC receives: (1) evidence satisfactory to SGNIC of a resolution between the parties; (2) evidence satisfactory to SGNIC that the registrant’s court proceedings has been dismissed or withdrawn; or (3) a copy of an order from a Singapore court dismissing the registrant’s court proceedings or ordering that the registrant does not have the right to continue to use the domain name.28

 See http://www.mediation.com.sg/expert-panels/international-mediator.   SDRP, para 4(g). 27  SDRP, para 4(k). 28  SDRP, para 4(k). 25 26

820

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.sg’ Domain Space (10) ADR Decisions The panel has the discretion to conduct the proceedings in such manner as it deems appropri- SG.55 ate, provided that it is in accordance with SDRP and the Rules.29 It has the power to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality, and weight of the evidence.30 In exceptional cases, it may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, extend a period of time fixed by it or the Rules.31 The panel is to treat the parties equally and give each party a fair opportunity to present its case.32 It must be impartial and independent and, before accepting appointment, must have disclosed to the secretariat any circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubt as to its impartiality or independence. If, at any stage in the administrative proceedings, new circumstances arise that could give rise to such justifiable doubt, the panel must promptly disclose such circumstances to the secretariat, in which event the secretariat has the discretion to appoint a substitute panel.33 Panel decisions will be based on the statements and documents submitted and in accordance SG.56 with the SDRP, the Rules, and any rules and principles of the law of Singapore that the panel deems applicable.34 In the case of a three-member panel, the decision is reached by a simple majority.35 The decision must be in writing, provide the reasons on which it is based, indicate the date on which it is rendered, and identify the name(s) of the panellist(s).36 Absent exceptional circumstances, the panel must issue a decision within ten working days of the date of its appointment or of the date of termination of the mediation, as the case may be.37 If the parties agree on a settlement, whether as a result of mediation by the panel or oth- SG.57 erwise, and the parties consent to having the terms reflected in a decision of the panel, the panel must render a decision that is consistent with the terms of the settlement and state that the decision is made pursuant to a settlement between the parties.38 This was the case in Fujifilm Corporation & Fujifilm (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Huang Qingyin.39 On the other hand, if the parties agree on a settlement, whether as a result of mediation by the panel or otherwise, but either party does not consent to having the terms of the settlement reflected in a decision of the panel, the panel (or, if the panel has not been appointed yet, the secretariat) shall terminate the administrative proceedings, such termination to be without prejudice to the initiation of further administrative proceedings in respect of the same matter.40 If the parties fail to reach agreement after mediation by the panel, and the parties do not agree SG.58 that the dispute should be decided by the panel which mediated the dispute, the panel shall terminate the administrative proceeding and request the secretariat to appoint another panel to decide the dispute. The termination is without prejudice to the initiation of further administrative proceedings by the complainant in respect of the same matter.41 If the parties fail to reach agreement after mediation by the panel, but the parties agree that the dispute may be decided by the panel which mediated the dispute, that panel must proceed to decide the dispute.42   r 10(a) of the Rules.   r 10(d) of the Rules. 31  r 10(c) of the Rules. 32  r 10(b) of the Rules. 33  r 7 of the Rules. 34  r 15(a) of the Rules. 35  r 15(c) of the Rules. 36  r 15(d) of the Rules. 37  r 15(b) of the Rules. 38  SDRP, para 4(e)(iii). 39  Case No SDRP-2012-0004(F). 40 Ibid. 41  SDRP, para 4(e)(iv). 42 Ibid. 29 30

821

Singapore (‘.sg’) SG.59 Neither the SDRP nor the Rules provide a mechanism for appeal. However, either the reg-

istrant or the complainant may submit the dispute to a Singapore court for independent resolution after the administrative proceedings have been concluded.

SG.60 As mentioned above, once the administrative proceedings have been concluded, the decision

of the panel will be published on the SDRP and Singapore Mediation Centre websites.

(11) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Administrative Panel SG.61 Under the SDRP, unlike the UDRP, the parties are encouraged to mediate their dispute.

They will be invited to consider having their dispute mediated by the administrative panel appointed to hear their dispute, before the panel decides the dispute.43 If the parties agree to have the dispute mediated, the panel will facilitate discussions between the parties to help them to resolve the dispute amicably.44 In so doing, the panel must ensure that the mediation is concluded within 15 working days of the date of its appointment.45

SG.62 If the dispute is not mediated, the complainant must prove that:

(1) the registrant’s domain name is identical with or confusingly similar to a name, trade mark, or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (2) the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name that is the subject of the complaint; and (3) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.46 As mentioned in section 5(a) above, each of these three elements must be proved in order for the complainant to be entitled to the remedies available under the SDRP. SG.63 To date, there have been 29 administrative proceedings under the SDRP. To give a flavour of

the proceedings, six cases will be summarized briefly. These cases have been chosen to highlight the three elements which the complainant is required to prove, as stated above.

(a) First Element—The Registrant’s Domain Name is Identical with or Confusingly Similar to a Name, Trade Mark, or Service Mark in which the Complainant has Rights SG.64 In Viacom International Inc v Elitist Technologies Co Ltd,47 the complaint failed as the first element was not established. The complainant operated a television service called ‘MTV: Music Television’ which featured entertainment oriented programmes (such as music videos, news, animations, and documentaries) and was also the registered proprietor of a number of trade marks incorporating the initials ‘MTV’. Since 1995, the service had been broadcast to various parts of Asia, including Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. The respondent, a Taiwanese company, registered the domain name ‘mtv.com.sg’ in Singapore and used the domain name for its website providing e-mail services and links to entertainment websites. SG.65 The complainant brought administrative proceedings against the respondent under the

SDRP, seeking a transfer of the domain name from the respondent to the complainant. In accordance with para 4(a) of the SDRP, the complainant contended that: (1) the disputed domain name was identical with or confusingly similar to the ‘MTV’ mark in which the complainant had rights;

  SDRP, para 4(e).   SDRP, para 4(e)(I). 45  r 10(f ) of the Rules. 46  SDRP, para 4(a). It is expressly provided in r 15(e) of the Rules that if the administrative panel concludes that the dispute is not within the scope of SDRP, para 4(a), it shall so state. 47  Case No SDRP-2002/0001(F). 43 44

822

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.sg’ Domain Space (2) the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (3) the respondent’s domain name had been registered or was being used in bad faith. The panellist refused to order the transfer of the domain name. He reasoned that the com- SG.66 plainant had failed to show that it had exclusive rights to the use of the initials ‘MTV’ to the extent that it would be able to override the respondent’s rights to its registered domain name, and had thereby failed to satisfy the first element. It had in its trade mark registrations disclaimed the letters ‘M’ and ‘TV’ and the words ‘Music Television’, and the legal effect of such disclaimers was that the complainant had no rights to the exclusive use of these elements in its ‘MTV’ trade marks. The evidence adduced by the respondent showed that the Chinese entertainment industry had used the initials ‘MTV’ as an abbreviation for ‘music videos’, and these initials had entered the mainstream Chinese language in Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong as a substitute for the Chinese expression for ‘music videos’. Thus, the initials had become ‘customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade’ under the Singapore Trade Marks Act. Further, there was also no clear or unequivocal evidence to show that the respondent had, by using the domain name, intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion. In Mediacorp News Pte Ltd v iLabs Technologies,48 the complaint also failed on the first ele- SG.67 ment. The complainant had been operating a teletext service under the name ‘Teletext’. In May 1996, it began providing an Internet version of the service under various domain names, all incorporating the word ‘teletext’. The service provided entertainment, news, and documentaries. The respondent was a firm offering web hosting, web design and Internet consulting services. In January 1999, the respondent registered the domain name ‘teletext.com. sg’ and claimed that the domain name was registered after it had ascertained that the word ‘teletext’ was not registered as a trade mark in Singapore and was a term used ‘in the global industry’. The panellist did not accede to the complainant’s request for the transfer of the domain SG.68 name. He held that the complainant’s application to register the word ‘teletext’ as a trade mark did not confer the requisite rights in the word for the complainant to claim relief under the SDRP. Further, he was also not satisfied that the complainant could succeed under the law of passing off. There was no clear evidence that the public in Singapore had come to identify the word with the complainant’s teletext services, as opposed to using the word as a description of teletext services in general.

(b) Second Element—The Registrant has no Rights or Legitimate Interests in Respect of the Domain Name that is the Subject of the Complaint As regards the second element, the case of Teck Leong Metals Pte Ltd v Teck Leong Industries SG.69 Pte Ltd 49 is instructive, because the complaint failed on, inter alia, the second element. The complainant was in the business of providing retail services pertaining to hardware and engineering materials under the registered trade marks ‘Teck Leong’ and its Mandarin translation, ‘德隆’. The respondent, which was owned by members of one Kuah family under a group of companies known as the ‘Kuah Group’, was in the same business as the complainant. It claimed that the ‘Teck Leong’ mark was invented and first used by one of the patriarchs of the Kuah family, and that the Kuah group had spent substantial amounts of money promoting the ‘Teck Leong’ mark in relation to its goods and services.   Case No SDRP-2002-0002(L).   Case No SDRP-2005-0005(L).

48 49

823

Singapore (‘.sg’) SG.70 On 11 April 2000, the respondent registered the domain name ‘teckleong.com.sg’. The

complainant subsequently brought administrative proceedings against the respondent under the SDRP.

SG.71 The panellist did not accede to the complainant’s request for the transfer of the domain

name. While the panellist found that the complainant had rights in the name ‘Teck Leong’, and had therefore succeeded in proving the first element, the panellist also found that the respondent was using the contested domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. The respondent was part of a family business that was commonly known by the domain name, and its use of the domain name was fair and legitimate. The complaint therefore failed on the second element.

SG.72 (c)  Third Element—The Domain Name has been Registered or is Being Used in Bad Faith

In Google, Inc v Googles Entertainment,50 the complainant developed and operated a search engine service and website under the name ‘Google’ which was a play on the word ‘googol’, meaning the number represented by 1 followed by 100 zeros. At the time the search engine had an index of more than 1.5 billion web pages and offered Internet users comprehensive search tools to search for content in several languages. In September 1997, it registered the domain name ‘google.com’. SG.73 The respondent was in the business of organizing conventions, conferences, and events in

Singapore. It was incorporated on 3 July 2002, and registered the domain names ‘google. com.sg’ and ‘googles.com.sg’ on 5 and 16 July 2002 respectively.

SG.74 The panellist ordered the transfer of the domain names to the complainant. The complainant

had rights in the registered trade mark ‘Google’, and there was evidence of extensive use of its search engine in Singapore. In contrast, the respondent failed to show evidence that it had any rights or legitimate interests in the mark. Its websites were inactive, and it did not show any use or preparations to use the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Notably, the panellist was also satisfied that there was bad faith on the part of the respondent for a number of reasons, including the fact that it did not explain why it chose the word ‘googles’ even though the word had no natural association with its business and that it had failed to respond to and address the claims made in the complainant’s solicitors’ demand letter.

SG.75 In Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Funexpress.com.sg Pte Ltd,51 the complainant had been using

its ‘Samsung’ trade marks on goods in Singapore and around the world since 1993 and had several trade mark registrations in Singapore in respect of the marks in various classes. Sales and advertising of its goods bearing the marks had been very substantial. On discovering that the respondent, a Singapore company, had registered the domain name ‘samsungmobile.com.sg’ in July 2002, the complainant instituted administrative proceedings under the SDRP seeking the transfer of the name. The respondent did not submit a response.

SG.76 The respondent’s failure to respond, accompanied by its refusal or failure to contradict the

assertion that it registered the domain names in question in order to benefit from the complainant’s well-known mark, helped to support the panellist’s finding of bad faith. The panellist also inferred bad faith on the part of the respondent from the fact that it must obviously have known of the complainant’s mark at the time of registration and failed to respond to the complainant’s cease-and-desist letter. As the complainant had also proved the first and second elements, the panellist therefore ordered the transfer of the name.   Case No SDRP-2002-0003(F).   Case No SDRP-2002-0003(F).

50 51

824

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws In McDonald’s Corporation v Website Development,52 the complainant had been using its SG.77 ‘McDonald’s’ trade marks in respect of a wide range of goods and services in Singapore and around the world, and had commenced use of its registered McDonald’s marks since 1979. The goodwill and reputation associated with the McDonald’s marks is substantial. The complainant also owned the domain name ‘mcdonalds.com.sg’ in Singapore. In 2006–2007, the respondent registered the domain names ‘macdonald.com.sg’, ‘macdonalds.com.sg’, and ‘mcdonald.com.sg’. The complainant then instituted administrative proceedings, ordering the transfer of the domain names. The respondent did not submit a response. The panellist ordered the transfer of the domain names to the complainant. He held that SG.78 the complainant had rights in the mark ‘McDonald’s’ because it had registered the mark and because of the substantial reputation and goodwill it had built up. It was found that the respondent was making use of the websites for commercial gain with no legitimate fair use of the domain names, and so the respondent had no legitimate right in the domain names. Bad faith was established from the wide spectrum of domain names registered which corresponded to possible typographical errors of ‘McDonald’s’, confirming the respondent’s behaviour as a ‘typosquatter’, along with the respondent’s failure to respond to the complainant.

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (1) Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation There are currently no specific regulations or laws existing in Singapore relating to anticyber- SG.79 squatting measures.

(2) Infringement of Trade Marks Under the TMA, the acts amounting to infringement of a registered trade mark essentially SG.80 comprise the use of a sign in a manner which conflicts with the registered trade mark. There is no requirement to prove that the acts were done with the knowledge or intention of the defendant or that they caused damage. Specifically, a person infringes a registered trade mark if, without the consent of the proprietor of the trade mark, he uses in the course of trade a sign which is identical with the trade mark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which it is registered.53

(a) Risk of Confusion It is also an infringement if, without the consent of the proprietor, a third party uses in the SG.81 course of trade a sign where, because: (1) the sign is identical with the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services similar to those for which the trade mark is registered; or (2) the sign is similar to the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the trade mark is registered, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public as a result.54 The test for likelihood of confusion involves a global assessment and appreciation of the likelihood of confusion on the part of the public as to the trade origin of the goods or services in question. This in turn requires an assessment of the distinctiveness of the mark and taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the particular case, including the visual, aural, and conceptual similarities of the subject trade marks, the distinctiveness of the earlier trade   Case No SDRP-2008-0003(F).   TMA, s 27(1). 54  TMA, s 27(2). Although the issue has yet to be decided, it is submitted that use of a sign as a description would not give rise to the likelihood of confusion. 52 53

825

Singapore (‘.sg’) mark, whether inherently or through its reputation with the public (the more distinctive the mark, the greater is the likelihood of confusion), the market share held by the mark, how intensive, geographically widespread, and long-standing use of the mark has been, the amount invested by the trader in promoting the mark, and the degree of similarity of the trade marks as well as similarity of the goods or services. SG.82 The person to be considered in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion is the average

consumer, who is neither too careful nor too careless, but reasonably well informed, reasonably observant, and circumspect. This hypothetical person rarely has the chance to make direct comparisons between the marks and must instead rely upon the imperfect recollection of the marks he has in his mind. Allowance is to be made for his defective recollection, which will, of course, vary with the goods or services in question. He normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyze its various details.

SG.83 In proceedings for infringement of a registered trade mark, the defendant can, apart from

denying infringement, raise the following defences in respect of his use of an identical or similar sign or mark: (1) he uses his name or the name of his place of business; (2) his use of the sign or mark is to indicate the kind, quality, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, or other characteristics or goods or services or the time of production of goods or of the rendering of services, and the use was in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters; and (3) his use of the mark (a) constitutes fair use in comparative commercial advertising or promotion; (b) is for a non-commercial purpose; (c) is for the purpose of news reporting or news commentary; or (d) is in relation to goods which have been put on the market, whether in or outside Singapore, under the mark by the proprietor of the registered trade mark or with his express or implied consent (conditional or otherwise).

SG.84 Defence (3)(d) above does not, however, apply if:

(1) the condition of the goods has been changed or impaired after they have been put on the market; and (2) the use of the registered trade mark in relation to those goods has caused dilution in an unfair manner of the distinctive character of the registered trade mark. SG.85 Irrespective of whether a trade mark is registered under the TMA or not, the owner of the trade

mark can also institute an action under the tort of passing off if he is able to establish that:

(1) the mark has goodwill in Singapore as a result of substantial sales or promotion; (2) there is a likelihood of confusion arising from the use of a sign which is identical with or similar to the mark; or (3) he has suffered, or is likely to suffer, damage as a result of the use of an identical or similar sign. If any of these elements is not established, however, the defendant will be able to resist the passing off action.

(b) Protection of Famous Marks SG.86 As regards a registered trade mark which is well known in Singapore, infringement arises if:

(1) without the consent of the proprietor of the trade mark, there is use in the course of trade of a sign which is identical with or similar to the trade mark in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered;

826

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (2) the use in relation to those goods or services would indicate a connection between those goods or services and the proprietor; (3) there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public because of such use; and (4) the interests of the proprietor are likely to be damaged by such use. Whether a trade mark is well known in Singapore is a question of fact. In considering this SG.87 question, it shall be relevant to take into account any matter from which it may be inferred that the trade mark is well known, including the following matters: (1) the degree to which the trade mark is well known to or recognized by any relevant sector of the public in Singapore; (2) the duration, extent and geographical area of: (a) any use of the trade mark; or (b) any promotion of the trade mark, including any advertising of, any publicity given to, or any presentation at any fair or exhibition of, the goods or services to which the trade mark is applied; (3) any registration or application for the registration of the trade mark in any country or territory in which the trade mark is used or recognized, and the duration of such registration or application; (4) any successful enforcement of any right in the trade mark in any country or territory, and the extent to which the trade mark is recognized as well known by the competent authorities of that country or territory; and (5) any value associated with the trade mark.55 Where it is determined that a trade mark is well known to any relevant sector of the public in SG.88 Singapore, the trade mark shall be deemed to be well known in Singapore.56 ‘Relevant sector of the public in Singapore’ includes any of the following: (1) all actual consumers and potential consumers in Singapore of the goods or services to which the trade mark is applied; (2) all persons in Singapore involved in the distribution of the goods or services to which the trade mark is applied; and (3) all businesses and companies in Singapore dealing in the goods or services to which the trade mark is applied.57

(c) Comparison of ADR v Court Action It is possible for a complainant to bring a domain name dispute to court, and seek relief SG.89 in the form of a domain name transfer. Such a claim may be brought under the TMA or the law of passing off. However, it is worth noting that, to date, there has not been a reported case in Singapore where the ownership of a domain name was the sole issue. This suggests that domain name disputes are generally resolved via administrative proceedings under the SDRP, and that the SDRP has made good on its claim that it ‘offers a quicker and cheaper way of resolving ‘.sg’ domain name disputes compared to litigation in the courts’.58 In practice, the costs incurred through ADR are likely to be significantly lower than the costs SG.90 incurred in a court action. ADR is also likely to be concluded within three to four months at most, compared to a court action which may last longer than a year.

  TMA, s 2(7).   TMA, s 2(8). 57  TMA, s 2(9). 58 See http://www.disputemanager.com.sg/SDRP/how.htm. 55 56

827

Singapore (‘.sg’) SG.91 However, the only types of relief available under ADR are the cancellation or transfer of the

domain name. In contrast, the range of remedies available under a court action is greater, as will be covered in more detail below.

SG.92 In the course of a statutory action for trade mark infringement, the defendant may dispute

the validity of the registration of the trade mark and counterclaim for the revocation of the registration or for a declaration of invalidity of the registration on a number of grounds, including: (1) the mark does not satisfy the definition of a trade mark; (2) the mark is devoid of any distinctive character; (3) the mark consists exclusively of a sign or indication which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods or of rendering of services, or other characteristics of goods or services; (4) the mark consists exclusively of a sign or indication which has become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade; (5) the mark consists exclusively of: (a) the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves; (b) the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result; or (c) the shape which gives a substantial value to the goods; (6) the mark is: (a) contrary to public policy or to morality; (b) of such a nature as to deceive the public (for instance as to the nature, quality, or geographical origin of the goods or service).

(3) Infringement of Personal Names, Names of Cities, and Other Public Law Corporations SG.93 There are no rights of personality in Singapore. Indirect protection may be available under

the tort of passing off to prevent any misrepresentation arising from the commercial use of a personal name.

SG.94 SGNIC has a list of surnames which cannot be registered under the ‘.per.sg’ domain name

space. They comprise mainly the common Chinese surnames (such as ‘Tan’ and ‘Lee’). For personal names which are nevertheless registered under the ‘.per.sg’ domain name space, SIGNIC’s rules stipulate that there must be no commercial activities or information displayed on the website.

SG.95 Names of cities and other public law corporations are not registrable as domain names.

Further, any use of such a domain name may be prohibited if the name is a registered trade mark or the use is likely to lead to passing off.

SG.96 However, if the applicant can show that the name is the same as the acronym of his goods or

services or for his business or company name and that the applicant has been registering the same acronym as a domain name in other ccTLDs or gTLDs, SGNIC will consider granting registration of the name, provided the registration does not contravene any of the other provisions of its terms and conditions.

(4) Infringement of  Titles SG.97 No specific statutory intellectual property protection exists for the titles of publications.

However, their protection may be sought as service marks under the TMA (if the titles are registered) and as common law trade marks under the tort of passing off.

828

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers (5) Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available The range of remedies which the Singapore court can order in civil infringement proceedings SG.98 includes injunctions to restrain further infringements, either damages or an account of profits, and orders for delivery up and/or disposal of infringing articles. Where the infringement involves the use of a counterfeit trade mark, the court may also choose to award statutory damages of up to S$1 million without proof of actual loss. Where the infringement relates to the enforcement of the anti-dilution right of well-known registered trade marks, however, the only remedy available is an injunction. With regard to domain names in particular, the court may order that the domain name SG.99 holder transfers or deletes a domain name. In cases where urgent relief is sought, a plaintiff may apply for an interlocutory mandatory SG.100 injunction directing that a domain name holder transfer or delete an infringing domain name. As a guideline, the court will only grant such an injunction if it has ‘a high degree of assurance’ that at the trial it will appear that the injunction was rightly granted. In other words, the plaintiff will usually have to show that he has an unusually strong and clear case before such an injunction is granted. In cases where it is clear that the defendant has no real defence to the claim, the plaintiff SG.101 may apply to court to enter summary judgment against the defendant. To avoid summary judgment being entered, the defendant must show that the dispute concerns a triable issue or that there is some other reason for trial. As mentioned above, the costs involved in a court action would generally be substantially SG.102 higher than the costs of ADR proceedings. The successful party in a court action would generally be allowed to claim its costs of the action from the losing party.

V.  The Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name In light of the above, it is possible for a domain name to be protected under intellectual SG.103 property rights if it: (1) is registered as a trade mark under the TMA; and/or (2) has been used in Singapore to a substantial extent such that it has acquired the requisite goodwill for establishing passing off. It is, however, suggested that the protection would not extend to descriptive use of the name. In addition, the mere registration of a domain name, without more, would not grant or generate the requisite goodwill for establishing passing off.

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers In theory, a registry can be held liable for contributory trade mark infringement under the SG.104 TMA as a person who ‘authorizes’ another person to use the trade mark. But there has been no case law to date concerning such liability. In the RPPG, it is expressly stipulated that SGNIC’s aggregate liability to a registrant, related SG.105 to and in connection with the RPPG, whether for liability in contract, tort, or otherwise,

829

Singapore (‘.sg’) shall be limited to the amount of S$500 or the total registration fee or activation fee of the affected domain name, whichever is lesser. Furthermore, under no circumstances shall SGNIC be liable to the registrant for any special, indirect, incidental, exemplary, punitive, or consequential damages or for loss or damage resulting from loss of use, lost business revenue, lost profits or third party damages arising out of and in connection with the RPPG.

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property SG.106 According to the RPPG, a domain name in Singapore is registered on the basis that the

registrant has the right to use it but not the right to own it. As such, the registrant does not have the right to sell or transfer the name to any other person whether for profit or otherwise.

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law SG.107 The courts in Singapore can assume jurisdiction in a matter involving a foreign party if the

criteria for ‘personal’ and ‘subject matter’ jurisdiction are fulfiled in the circumstances of the case. Personal jurisdiction requires that the defendant has a presence in, or submits to, the jurisdiction of Singapore. Subject matter jurisdiction is concerned with the forum conveniens or the courts’ competence to determine the matter and the most appropriate forum for adjudicating the matter.

SG.108 There are statutory provisions in Singapore which provide for ‘long arm’ jurisdiction ena-

bling foreign service of Singapore proceedings. Specifically, the Rules of Court provide that a person who is outside Singapore can be served with a writ or other originating process if, amongst other things:

(1) he is domiciled, ordinarily resident, carrying on business, or has property in Singapore; (2) an injunction is sought ordering him to do or refrain from doing anything in Singapore (whether or not damages are also claimed in respect of a failure to do or the doing of that thing); (3) the claim against him is founded on a tort, wherever committed, which is constituted, at least in part, by an act or omission occurring in Singapore; (4) the claim is wholly or partly founded on, or is for the recovery of damages in respect of, damage suffered in Singapore by a tortious act or omission wherever it occurred; or (5) the claim is founded on a cause of action arising in Singapore. SG.109 A registered trade mark infringement or an incidence of passing off will qualify as a cause

of action or a tort arising or occurring in Singapore. Damage arising in Singapore from the cause of action or tort will also qualify.

SG.110 The tort of passing off also has a further potential territorial reach. The courts in Singapore

will exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction over an act of passing off committed in a foreign country, if the act is actionable in the foreign country and would have been actionable as passing off if it had occurred in Singapore (the ‘double actionability’ rule).

SG.111 As regards ‘subject matter’ jurisdiction, the TMA is applicable only to infringements commit-

ted in Singapore in respect of a trade mark registered in Singapore. The place of infringement is therefore important. For instance, if the download location is considered to be the place of infringement, the Singaporean courts will be able to assume jurisdiction. The courts will

830

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law also assume jurisdiction for acts of passing off committed in Singapore. For example, it is suggested that the courts would consider such an act to have been committed in Singapore if a foreign website targets Singaporean consumers and the plaintiff has shown that he has relevant goodwill in Singapore. As at May 2015, there are no Singaporean domain name cases concerning the issue of SG.112 jurisdiction.

831

SOUTH AFRICA (‘.za’) Charné le Roux

I. Overview of the National System of Trade Mark/Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names (1) Types of Protected IP Rights  (2) Development of the Domain Name Law 

II. The ccTLD (‘.za’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

(1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry  (2) The Structure of the Name Space  (3) Registration Restrictions  (4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement  (5) Transfer of Domain Names  (6) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding  (7) Statistics: Number of Domain Name Registrations and Growth 

ZA.01 ZA.01 ZA.17 ZA.23 ZA.23 ZA.24 ZA.25

(6) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider  (7) Role of the Administrative Panel  (8) Costs  (9) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings  (10) ADR Decisions  (11) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by Adjudicator  (12) The ADR Appeal Process  (13) Brief Review of the ‘.co.za’ Case History 

ZA.112

IV. Court Litigation and National Laws 

ZA.118

(1) Specific Anticybersquatting Regulations  (2) Infringement of Trade Marks  (3) Infringement of Personal Names, Titles, Names of Cities, and Other Public Law Corporations  (4) Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available 

ZA.29 ZA.47 ZA.49 ZA.52

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name VI. Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers  VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  VIII. International Conflicts and Jurisdiction 

III. ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.za’ Domain Space 

ZA.53 (1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding  ZA.53 (2) Statistics  ZA.56 (3) Material Scope of the Proceeding  ZA.58 (4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement ZA.59 (5) Overview of the ADR-Procedure  ZA.61

Links Derebus—South African Attorneys Journal: www.derebus.org.za ccTLD Registry: https://registry.net.za ccTLD Domain Administration: http://co.za Higher Education domain registry: http://www.ac.za/ Non-Commercial Organizations domain registry: http://www.org.za/ Government departments or organizations domain registry: http://dnsadmin.gov.za Domain Name Authority: http://www.zadna.org.za Alternative Dispute Resolution: http://domaindisputes.co.za South African Institute of Intellectual Property Law: http://www.saiipl.org.za Arbitration Foundation of South Africa: http://www.arbitration.co.za

833

ZA.75 ZA.77 ZA.79 ZA.82 ZA.85 ZA.92 ZA.99

ZA.118 ZA.119 ZA.122 ZA.123

ZA.130 ZA.131 ZA.134 ZA.135

South Africa (‘.za’)

I.  Overview of the National System of Trade Mark/Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names (1) Types of Protected IP Rights (a) Protected Rights ZA.01 The protection of trade marks in South Africa is governed by both common law and statute, specifically, the Trade Marks Act 94 of 1993 (TMA). ZA.02 Trade mark law in South Africa protects as its subject symbols and signs which are intended

to indicate the origin of the goods or services to which they relate1 and extends to trade marks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks.2 A mark includes any sign capable of being represented graphically, including a device, name, signature, word, letter, numeral, shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation, colour, or container for goods or any combination of the aforementioned attributes.3

ZA.03 The TMA is also supplemented by the Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997, the Merchandise

Marks Amendment Act 61 of 2002, and the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.4 Furthermore, the Companies Act 71 of 2008 and Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 provide for the registration of business names. Both Acts prohibit the registration of a business name which is the same as or confusingly similar to, inter alia, an earlier protected trade mark.5

(b) Acquisition of Protected Rights ZA.04 Statutory protection is afforded to trade marks registered in terms of the TMA or deemed to

be registered under the repealed Act (Act 62 of 1963).6 The repealed Act required that a trade mark be ‘adapted to distinguish’ in order to be registrable in terms of Part A of the Act, and in order to be registered under Part B the mark must be capable, through use, of becoming registrable pursuant to Part A.

ZA.05 Under the repealed Act, a trade mark’s primary function was recognized as a source indicator,

whether the source’s exact identity was known or not. This function was incorporated in the TMA, which also recognizes that a trade mark has commercial magnetism.7

ZA.06 Registration of a trade mark under the TMA may be secured through a properly executed

application made to the Registrar of Trade Marks in the prescribed manner.8 Registration of a trade mark confers upon the proprietor the exclusive right to use the mark in relation to the goods and services for which the mark was registered.9

ZA.07 The test for registrability of a trade mark is purely factual10 and should be determined on the

merits of each respective application. In terms of Section 9 of the TMA, in order for a trade

1  CE Webster and GE Morley, Webster and Page: South African Law of Trade Marks, (Lexis Nexis, 2014) para 1.1, pp 1–3. 2  Adams & Adams, Practitioner’s Guide to Intellectual Property Law, 1st edn, (Pretoria University Law Press, 2011) para 7.2.1, p 131. 3  s 2(1) of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993. 4  Webster and Morley, Webster and Page (above n 1) para 1.4, pp 1–12. 5  Ibid., para 16.1, pp 16-5–16-7. 6  s 3 of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993. 7  M Jansen SC, The New Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993—Clarity or confusion? (Consultus, June 1999). 8  Webster and Morley, Webster and Page (above n 1) para 12.3, pp 12–6. 9  Ibid., para 5.2, p 5-3. 10  Adams & Adams, Practitioner’s Guide (above n 2) para 7.2.2, pp 132–3.

834

I.  Overview of the National System mark to be registrable, it must be capable of distinguishing the goods and services of the person or entity to whom the mark is registered (or proposed for registration), from the goods or services of another person or entity. A trade mark will comply with this requirement if, at the date of application for registration, it is capable of distinguishing the goods and services to which it relates by reason of prior use of the mark. Notwithstanding the above, certain marks are specifically precluded from registration under ZA.08 Section 10 of the TMA because:  (i)  they lack any inherent capability to distinguish the particular goods or services; (ii) they consist exclusively of words, terms, or signs which are descriptive indications of, or designate various characteristics of, the goods and services; (iii) they have become customary in current language; or (iv) they are reasonably required for use in trade by market participants.11 In terms of common-law protection, the exclusive right to use a trade mark will only accrue ZA.09 to a proprietor once the mark in question has been used to such an extent that it has acquired a reputation in the minds of the relevant public, and has become a unique identifier of the goods and services of the proprietor.12

(c) Standards of Infringement Section 33 of the TMA provides that no person shall be entitled to institute infringement ZA.10 proceedings in terms of the Act in relation to an unregistered trade mark, and thus establishes registration as the first pre-requisite to formal trade mark infringement proceedings. It does not, however, preclude the holder of an unregistered mark from bringing an action under common law. The TMA precludes the proprietor of a registered trade mark from interfering with or ZA.11 restraining third-party use of an identical or highly similar mark, even in respect of the same classes of goods or services for which the proprietor’s mark is registered, where the third party in question (or its predecessor in interest) has made continuous and bona fide use of the similar trade mark from a date anterior: (i) to the first use of the proprietor’s trade mark in relation to those goods or services; or (ii) to the registration of the proprietor’s trade mark in respect of those goods or services, either in the proprietor’s name or the name of its predecessor in interest, whichever is earlier.13 In order to establish a case for trade mark infringement under Section 34 of the TMA, the ZA.12 mark holder must demonstrate unauthorized use by another person or entity, in the course of trade, of an identical or highly similar mark in relation to goods or services that is likely to give rise to deception or confusion.14 The TMA further provides protection against infringement of rights in marks which are considered well known, irrespective of whether or not they are registered in South Africa. Section 35 of the TMA grants, in terms of the Paris Convention,15 protection to a well-known ZA.13 mark, even where no associated goodwill or registration exists in South Africa. This protection may be accorded to marks which are well known in South Africa that are owned or held by members of either a national of (or a person domiciled in) a Convention country, or an entity who has a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in a Convention country.   Ibid., para 7.2.2, p 133.   Webster and Morley, Webster and Page (above n 1) para 5.1, pp 5–3. 13  s 36 of the TMA. 14  Adams & Adams, Practitioner’s Guide (above n 2) para 9.1.1, p 169. 15  s 35 was enacted to give effect to South Africa’s obligations under s 6bis of the Paris Convention. 11 12

835

South Africa (‘.za’) Section 35 has been interpreted by the High Court to exclude nationals of the Republic of South Africa from claiming protection for their unregistered well-known marks.16 ZA.14 In determining whether a trade mark is well known in the Republic of South Africa for

the purposes of Section 35, regard will be given to the repute of the trade mark in the relevant sector of the public, including knowledge of the trade mark obtained as a result of its promotion.17

ZA.15 The proprietor of a well-known trade mark which is entitled to protection as aforesaid is in

the position to restrain the use in the Republic of South Africa of a trade mark which constitutes, or the essential part of which constitutes, a reproduction, imitation, or translation of the well-known trade mark, in relation to goods or services which are identical or similar to the goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is well known and where the use is likely to cause deception or confusion.18

ZA.16 Section 34(1)(c) of the TMA protects registered, well-known, trade marks (whether their

proprietors are local or foreign) and can be said to be the classic anti-dilution provision. It provides that rights in a well-known mark which has been registered in the Republic of South Africa shall be infringed by the unauthorized, commercial use of a mark which is identical or similar to the registered well-known mark. Such use may be in relation to any goods and services, provided that it is likely to take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the registered well-known trade mark, notwithstanding the absence of deception or confusion. The scope of this section and in particular the meaning of the undefined terms ‘take unfair advantage of ’ and ‘detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the registered mark’ have given rise to highly contested litigation on Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court levels.19

(2) Development of the Domain Name Law (a) Statutory Provisions ZA.17 The South African legislature adopted the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act

25 of 2002 (the ECT Act), and its accompanying Regulations, for the regulation of domain name conflicts. The ECT Act repealed both the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act and has, as its goal, the promotion of the union between the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors.20

ZA.18 Chapter 9 of the ECT Act, called the Protection of Critical Databases, contains provisions

relating to the alternative dispute resolution process for domain names and requires of the Minister of Trade and Industry to make regulations for an alternative mechanism for the resolution of disputes in respect of the ‘.za’ domain name space. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Regulations consequently came into being, setting out various definitions, rules, and processes to be followed in domain name disputes.

(b) Regulation of the ccTLD Registry ZA.19 Initially, the administration of ‘.za’ domain name registrations was delegated to Uninet,21

while the ccTLD space was essentially considered an academic project, but once the number

  Blue Lion Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd v National Brands Ltd and Another 2004 BIP 84 (T).   s 35(1)(1A) of the TMA. 18  s 35(1)(3) of the TMA. 19  CE Webster and GE Morley, Webster and Page: South African Law of Trade Marks, 4th edn, ch 12. 20  D Van Der Merwe, A Roos, T Pistorius, and S Eiselen, Information and Communications Technology Law, (Lexis Nexis, 2008) p 31. 21 Ibid., p 223. 16 17

836

II.  The ccTLD (‘.za’) Registration Conditions and Procedures of registrations started rapidly increasing, it became necessary to hand over the management and administration of all ‘.za’ domain name registrations to a more appropriate organization.22 With the introduction of the ECT Act, and more specifically Section 59, provision was made ZA.20 for the establishment of a ‘.za’ Domain Name Authority. The objectives of the Authority include the administration of ‘.za’ top-level domains and the licensing and regulation of registries and registrars.

(c) Dispute Resolution The ADR process established for the ‘.za’ ccTLD space, governed by Section 69 of the ECT ZA.21 Act and the ADR Regulations to this Act,23 forms the foundation of domain name law in South Africa. The ADR Regulations were promulgated in November 2006.24 A  substantial body of case law in respect of domain disputes in South Africa has not yet ZA.22 been developed. Domain name disputes that have come before the courts in South Africa have, for the most part, been ancillary issues in cases that dealt primarily with statutory or common-law trade mark infringement. Decisions to cancel or transfer the relevant domain names were largely dependent on the outcome of the principal actions.

II.  The ccTLD (‘.za’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry A juristic person, known as the ‘.za’ Domain Name Authority (ZADNA), was established under ZA.23 the ECT Act in August 2002.25 The Authority was established for the purpose of assuming responsibility for the entire ‘.za’ domain name space. The Authority assumed responsibility for the space on 18 May 2007. Each second-level domain space has its own registry (eg the ‘.co.za’ domain space registry is ZACR, formerly known as UniForum SA), but ZADNA has overarching authority over the whole of the ccTLD.

(2) The Structure of the Name Space The ECT Act enables the Authority to license and regulate registries, including registrars ZA.24 for the respective registries, for the purpose of administering second-level domain names.26 There are currently 14 recognized and administered second-level domain spaces, namely ‘co. za’, ‘ac.za’, ‘edu.za’, ‘gov.za’, ‘law.za’, ‘mil.za’, ‘nom.za’, ‘org.za’, ‘school.za’, ‘alt.za’, ‘net.za’, ‘ngo. za’, ‘tm.za’, and ‘web.za’. A registrant is allowed to select any second-level domain name, provided that it meets the requirements set out by the relevant registry. Most of the second-level domain spaces do not, however, require an applicant to meet set eligibility requirements.

(3) Registration Restrictions (a) Syntactic Constraints and Prohibited Terms/Registration Restrictions and Eligibility Requirements The various elements of a domain name can be a combination of any letters in the alphabet, ZA.25 the numbers 0–9 and the hyphen (-). While technical limits requiring a minimum of seven

  For more historical information, see http://www.zadna.org.za.   Government Gazette, 22 November 2006. 24  D Pillay, .za ccTLD: Domain Names under ECTA, (De Rebus, 2004) and see also http://www.derebus.org.za. 25  M Viljoen, ‘In the Pursuit of Cyberpirates: The New ADR System for.co.za Domain Name Complaints’, Journal of Information, Law and Technology (January 2009); and see also http://www.derebus.org.za. 26  s 65 of the ECT Act. 22 23

837

South Africa (‘.za’) characters and a maximum of 255 characters have been set, a practical limit of 30 characters has also been imposed.27

(b) Requirements for Foreign Registrants ZA.26 There are no specific requirements for foreign registrants, and all domain name registrants regard-

less of location must comply with the same terms and conditions as set out by the Authority.

(c) Documents Required for Registration ZA.27 In order for an applicant to successfully register a ‘.za’ domain name, at least two independent

nameserver hosts (primary and secondary) are required. All nameservers should be operational prior to submitting an application form for the registration of a domain name.

ZA.28 The registration form, provided by the registrar or registry as the case may be, generally

requires the contact details of the registrant, as well as the administrative and technical contacts for the domain. These contact details must include postal addresses, telephone numbers, fax numbers, and e-mail addresses for the relevant individuals or entities. The e-mail address of the billing agent also has to be submitted.28

(4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement ZA.29 The registration agreement concluded by the registrant of a new domain name may be either

with the registry or the registrar, depending on the nature of the second-level domain name to be adopted. In the ‘.co.za’ domain name space, for example, the registrant has the option of concluding the registration agreement directly with the registry or with a registrar (which in most cases are Internet Service Providers (ISPs)).

(a) Summary of Terms and Conditions ZA.30 (i)  The ‘.co.za’ Domain Space  The registrant must, within 30 days of the effective date (ie the date on which the domain name registration is allocated), pay the appropriate fee, together with an annual renewal fee. ZA.31 The registrant must warrant that:

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

all of its statements and representations in the registration agreement are correct; it has the right, without restriction, to use and register the domain name; it has a bona fide intention to use the domain name on a regular basis; the use/registration of the domain name does not interfere with, nor does it infringe the rights of a third party; (v) it is not seeking to use the domain name for unlawful purposes; (vi) it has secured an operational name service from at least two operational Internet servers for the domain name; (vii) the registrant agrees to indemnify the registry, who shall not act as an arbiter of disputes arising out of the registration and use of the domain name or refund any fees paid by the registrant regardless of the outcome of any relevant dispute; (viii) the registrant agrees that the registry shall have the right to withdraw the domain name registration, as a whole or in part (there is uncertainty about how a partial withdrawal is to be effected in practice) or transfer the domain name, pursuant to: (a) the registrant failing to pay any of the prescribed fees set out in the terms and conditions; (b) the registry receiving an order by a competent court having jurisdiction;

  For more information concerning domain name constraints, see http://co.za/ and https://registry.net.za.  See http://co.za/.

27

28

838

II.  The ccTLD (‘.za’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (c) the registrant failing to remedy any breach of the terms and conditions within 14 days of written notice from the registry; and (d) the registry receiving a decision by a dispute resolution provider; (ix) the registrant agrees that all information provided to the registry may be disseminated and/or published, in a manner generally accepted in the domain name industry, and that the registry is entitled, on presentation of evidence indicating that the domain name violates the rights of a third party, to provide the registrant’s contact details to a complainant; and (x) the registrant consents to the jurisdiction of the High Court of South Africa.29

(ii) The ‘ac.za’ Domain Space  In order to register a domain name within the ‘ac.za’ ZA.32 second-level space, the registrant must be able to demonstrate the following: (i) that the registrant is a juristic person registered in the Republic of South Africa; (ii) that the primary objective of the registrant must be to act as a higher education institution that is: (a) established in terms of the Higher Education Act (no 101 of 1997); or (b) registered as a private higher education institution in terms of the said Act; Or, if the registrant is not acting as a higher education institution, one of the following four conditions is met, namely that it: (c) conducts scholarly research and places a reasonable proportion of the results in the public domain, as a primary purpose or core activity; or (d) provides direct, specialized support for higher education and/or scholarly research, as a primary purpose or core activity; or (e) it is a national association, regional association or consortium of institutions, each of which meets at least one of the four above criteria [numbers (a)–(d)]; or (f ) it is a learned society.30 (iii) The registrant must be willing and able to provide a domain name service for its selected third-level domain(s) in accordance with established internet practice. An ISP or other third party may provide the domain name service for the third-level domains on behalf of the registrant.

(iii)  The ‘edu.za’ Domain Space  Registration of an ‘edu.za’ domain name is limited to ZA.33 specific training institutions that have been registered as distance learning organizations with the Correspondence College Council, in terms of the Correspondence Colleges Act.31 Registration is free of charge. (iv)  The ‘gov.za’ Domain Space  Registration of a ‘.gov.za’ domain name is limited to gov- ZA.34 ernment departments or organizations. There is no registration fee, although the ‘gov.za’ domain administrator reserves the right to amend this at any stage. (v)  The ‘law.za’ Domain Space  Registration of a domain name in the ‘law.za’ space is lim- ZA.35 ited to practising firms of attorneys in good standing with their respective law societies. The initial registration fee is R300 and subsequent payments of R100 per annum are applicable.32 (vi)  The ‘mil.za’ Domain Space  Registration is limited to divisions or sections within the ZA.36 Department of Defence, with no registration fee.33   For more information about the terms and conditions, see http://co.za/.  See http://www.ac.za/. 31  See No 59 of 1965. 32 See http://www.zadna.org.za. 33 Ibid. 29 30

839

South Africa (‘.za’) ZA.37 (vii)  The ‘nom.za’ Domain Space  Registration of a ‘nom.za’ domain name is limited to

individuals34 and no registration fee is required. The conditions for registration include that:

(i) the registrant registers a personal name with no commercial value; (ii) the registration of a ‘nom.za’ domain name does not interfere with, nor infringe any assumed rights of a third party to a trade mark, service mark, trade name, company name, copyright or any other intellectual property right; (iii) registrants do not own their domains, but are merely custodians thereof; (iv) a maximum of one domain will be allowed per registrant; (v) at the time of the initial sign up of the domain name, the registrant has operational Domain Name Servers from an ISP or a free domain hosting service for its domain name. Each server must be fully connected to the Internet and be capable of receiving queries under the ‘nom.za’ domain name; and (vi) a bona fide intention exists to use the domain name on a regular basis, online. ZA.38 (viii)  The ‘org.za’ Domain Space  Registration is commenced by the completion of the

registration form required by the selected accredited registrar.

ZA.39 The administration of the ‘org.za’ domain space was transferred to ZACR and its accredited

registrars in September 2014. The eligibility requirements for a registrant are as follows:

(i) a registrant must be a South African citizen, resident, or a South African statutory body, partnership, charity, NGO, trade union, political party, religious institute, club or any other type of association, a foreign organization licensed to trade or operate in South Africa, or the owner/applicant of a South African trade mark; and (ii) the registrant is to use the registered name for non-commercial purposes only. ZA.40 (ix)  The ‘school.za’ Domain Space  Registration of a ‘school.za’ domain name is limited to

schools registered with the Department of Education. There is no registration fee involved in registering a ‘school.za’ domain name.35

ZA.41 (x)  The ‘alt.za’ Domain Space  This domain space is administered by Mr Allan Barret. ZA.42 (xi)  The ‘net.za’ Domain Space  In order to register a domain name within the ‘net.za’

second-level space, the registrant must be at least one of the following:

–  an Internet Service Provider; –  a member in good standing of an industry representative body, recognized as such in terms of Section 71 of the ECTA; –  The operator of an Internet exchange point, Internet registry, top-level domain (TLD), country code second-level domain (ccSLD) name server, or any other Internet structure; – an entity licensed by the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) to provide communication network services; or –  a provider of communication network services who has been granted a licence exemption by ICASA. The registrant must use the registered name for the identification of South African Internet infrastructure. ZA.43 (xii) The ‘ngo.za’ Domain Space  Registration of a ‘ngo.za’domain name is limited to

non-governmental organizations. Registration is moderated by SANGONET.

 Ibid.  See http://www.esn.org.za/?page_id=35.

34 35

840

II.  The ccTLD (‘.za’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (xiii)  The ‘tm.za’ Domain Space  The domain space was intended to be used by the legal ZA.44 owners of registered trade marks, and is operated by Mr Mike Jensen. (xiv)  The ‘web.za’ Domain Space  This domain space was intended for registration of names ZA.45 for any purpose. There are no eligibility requirements for registering a ‘web.za’ domain name. (b) Use of Privacy Services Provision is not made by the ‘.za’ Domain Name Authority for the use of privacy services. It ZA.46 requires the information of all domain name registrants to be made public. (5) Transfer of Domain Names The registrar must ensure that a registrant can easily transfer registered domain names to ZA.47 another registrar or registrant. Once a transfer request has been initiated by the domain name holder, the process entails the registrar sending a transfer request to the registry for the domain name it wishes to transfer. The domain will subsequently be marked and prepared for transfer. All applicable contacts listed for the domain name will then be notified of the proposed trans- ZA.48 fer, and the registrant must then elect either to approve or deny the transfer. If there are no objections raised in respect of the proposed transfer of the domain name, at the conclusion of a pre-determined waiting period the transfer of the domain to the new registrar or registrant will be finalized.

(6) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding Where the registry (referred to as the second-level domain name administrator) is informed ZA.49 of a domain name dispute, it must take steps to ensure that the domain name is not transferred or allowed to be deleted during the course of the dispute. In practice, the disputed domain name will be locked. A registrant may, however, continue to update technical information during the ADR proceedings. Immediately following the notification of a domain name dispute, there is a separate obliga- ZA.50 tion (imposed by the ADR Regulations) on a registrant not to transfer, delete, or to refuse to renew a domain name which is the subject of an ADR proceeding, except as the result of a written settlement. Once a signed copy of the settlement agreement is transmitted to the provider, said provider must issue instructions to the second-level domain name administrator to effect a transfer or deletion. There is no mechanism to prevent the transfer of a disputed domain name during court pro- ZA.51 ceedings. The only practical way to effect this would be to obtain an order from the court, compelling the second-level domain name administrator to keep the domain name in locked status until the finalization of the court proceedings, prior to the institution of the principal court action.36

(7) Statistics: Number of Domain Name Registrations and Growth There are, as of January 2015, over one million domain names registered in the ‘.za’ space.37 ZA.52 The ‘.co.za’ space is the most popular sub-category, and constitutes at least 90 per cent of these registrations.

  ss 12 and 17 of the ADR Regulations to the ECT Act.   For more information about ‘.za’ domains, see http://www.zadna.org.za.

36 37

841

South Africa (‘.za’)

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.za’ Domain Space (1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding ZA.53 The ADR mechanism for the ‘.co.za’ space is contained in the ADR Regulations to the

ECT Act.38

ZA.54 ZADNA has the power to make regulations, subject to the approval of the Minister of

Communications, that deal with the terms of the domain name registration agreement which registries and registrars must adopt and use in registering domain names. As indicated in paragraph ZA.23 supra, ZADNA was established in terms of the ECT Act, to assume responsibility for the ‘.za’ domain name space and has the primary function of administering and managing the ‘.za’ domain name space.39 Section 69 of the ECT Act, however, requires that the Minister of Communications, in consultation with the Minister of Trade and Industry, make the regulations for ADR mechanisms in the ‘.za’ domain name space. It is important to note that the ADR Regulations published in November 2006 only deal with domain names registered in the ‘.co.za’ second-level domain name space. It is therefore only these domain names that are open to an ADR process under these Regulations.

ZA.55 The other 13 second-level domains in the ‘.za’ space have not yet demonstrated a demand for

ADR and, as a result, domain disputes which arise in respect of these second-level domains must be dealt with by way of High Court proceedings. The Minister of Communications may, however, in due course, extend the scope of the ADR Regulations to be binding on these remaining second-level domains as well.

(2) Statistics ZA.56 The first complaint under the ADR Regulations was filed in April 2007. Since then, an

additional 123 complaints have been filed and 90 decisions have been issued. Of the 123 complaints filed, 78 resulted in the transfer of the disputed domain name, 28 complaints were settled, 12 complaints were refused, two complaints were withdrawn, and three are still pending.40

ZA.57 It is possible to search ‘.co.za’ domain name decisions which were administered by the South

African Institute for Intellectual Property Law (SAIIPL) by selecting checkboxes relating to certain subjects.41

(3) Material Scope of the Proceeding ZA.58 The ADR Regulations apply to all domain names in the ‘.co.za’ space. A registrant within this

second-level space must submit to proceedings under the ADR Regulations if a complainant asserts rights in respect of a name or trade mark which is identical or similar to the domain name, and can show that, in the hands of the registrant, the domain name registration is abusive or offensive.42 A complainant is required to prove on a balance of probabilities that the elements established by the ADR Regulations are present.43

  s 68 of the ECT Act.   ss 59 and 65 of the ECT Act. 40  To view ‘.za’ cases and decisions, see http://www.domaindisputes.co.za. 41  Available at: http://www.domaindisputes.co.za/search_profile.php. 42  s 3 of the ADR Regulations. 43  Van Der Merwe et al., Information and Communications Technology Law (above n 20) p 223. 38 39

842

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.za’ Domain Space (4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement Given that the registration agreement that the registrant enters into may be either with the ZA.59 registry or a registrar, the terms of each agreement will differ somewhat. It cannot, therefore, be said with certainty whether such an agreement will make specific provision for ADR proceedings. The ‘.co.za’ registry (Uniforum SA), however, issued an advisory notice in 2006 in terms of ZA.60 which the ADR Regulations were made applicable to all current and future domain name registrations in that space.44 In one of the very early ADR decisions,45 the adjudicator held that the registrant, who questioned in its response to the complaint the legal authority of the ADR panel, was contractually bound by the ADR Regulations as a consequence of the registry’s notice and by his agreement to the terms and conditions set by the registry. The adjudicator also confirmed that this position was in line with foreign decisions where registrants, bound by almost identical contractual provisions, unsuccessfully tried to challenge the application of the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) adopted after their domain names were registered.

(5) Overview of the ADR-Procedure (a) Legal Framework The ADR procedure is legislated in terms of the Regulations to the ECT Act. These ZA.61 Regulations only apply to domain names in the ‘.co.za’ domain name space. The ADR Regulations make provision for the accreditation of ADR providers. As of January ZA.62 2015, only two such providers have been accredited, namely the SAIIPL and the Arbitration Foundation of South Africa.46

(b) ADR Complaint A ‘.co.za’ domain name complaint can be submitted to either one of the two accredited ADR ZA.63 providers. Complaints should be submitted using a standard format, which is established jointly by Chapter 3 of the ADR Regulations and the supplementary procedures adopted by the relevant provider. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the complaint and the response must be prepared in ZA.64 English. If a party wishes to submit a complaint or response in any official South African language other than English, the provider must arrange for a translation (at the expense of the submitting party) and must suspend the proceeding until the translation of the complaint or response is received.47 A  dispute must include, subject to a provider’s supplementary procedures, the following ZA.65 information: (i) a request that the dispute be submitted to an adjudicator for decision; (ii) the name, address and specific contact details of the complainant and its authorized representative; (iii) a preferred method for transmission of material or communications sent in both paper format and electronic copy;

  For more information about the Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory, see www.coza.net.za.   Case No ZA2007-0005: Telkom SA Ltd & TDS Directory Operations (Pty) Ltd. 46  ss 37 and 38 of the ADR Regulations. 47  s 25 of the ADR Regulations. 44 45

843

South Africa (‘.za’) (iv) an indication of whether a single or three adjudicators are to be appointed; (v) specification as to how payment of the fixed fee was made, with accompanying proof of payment; (vi) the name and applicable information regarding the registrant, as well as its contact details; (vii) relevant details concerning the domain name(s); (viii) identification of the second-level domain name administrator (defined in the Regulations as the entity licensed by the ‘.za’ Domain Name Authority to operate a second-level domain name in the ‘.co.za’ space) with whom the domain name(s) is/are registered at the time that the dispute is filed; (ix) a specification of the rights on which the dispute is based and, if the complainant relies on registered rights, the full details of such registration(s); (x) detailed reasons as to why the domain name (in the hands of the registrant) is an abusive and/or offensive registration and the remedies sought; (xi) an identification of any other legal proceedings that have been initiated; and (xii) a statement that the complainant submits to the jurisdiction of the High Court of the Republic of South Africa, and an affirmation of the signature of the complainant or its authorized representative by a Commissioner of Oaths.48 ZA.66 A  dispute can include more than one domain name, provided that the same registrant(s)

registered all of the domain names subject to the complaint.49 Information regarding the registered holder of ‘.za’ domain names may be obtained from the WHOIS records of the relevant second-level domain administrator.

(c) ADR Response ZA.67 Similar to complaints, ADR responses should also be submitted using a standard format, and said format is established jointly by Chapter 3 of the ADR Regulations and the supplementary procedures adopted by the relevant provider. ZA.68 A response must answer to the statements and allegations contained in the complaint and

detail any grounds the registrant may have to prove that its domain name constitutes neither an abusive nor offensive registration, as the case may be. Further information that should be provided includes: (i) the main physical address and specific contact details of the registrant and of its authorized representative; (ii) specification of the preferred method for transmission of material or communications sent in both paper format and electronic copy; (iii) if the complainant has elected a single adjudicator in a dispute, an indication as to whether the registrant elects instead to have the dispute decided by three adjudicators; (iv) an identification of any other legal proceedings which have been commenced or terminated in connection with the domain name; (v) a specific statement or affirmation by a Commissioner of Oaths authenticating the signature of the registrant and/or its authorized representative.50

ZA.69 The registrant must submit a response to the provider within 20 working days of the date

of commencement of the dispute. The date of commencement of the dispute is the date on which the provider forwards a copy of the dispute to the registrant.51 Chapter 3 of the ADR   s 25 of the ADR Regulations.   s 16(2)(f ) of the ADR Regulations. 50  s 18 of the ADR Regulations. 51  ss 17 and 18 of the ADR Regulations. 48 49

844

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.za’ Domain Space Regulations provides that a response must be submitted in paper (in triplicate) and electronic format and comply with the provider’s supplementary procedure.

(d) Right of Further Reply The complainant may, within five working days of receiving the response from the provider, ZA.70 submit a reply to the registrant’s response.52 The registrant is not afforded a further opportunity to reply. Either of the parties may, however, request to file supplementary documentation, which the adjudicator may consider at his/her discretion. The adjudicator may also request further statements or documents relevant to the dispute, or any response or reply from either of the parties, in terms of Regulation 26. (e) Procedural Issues It is not necessary for a party’s submission to have been prepared and submitted by a lawyer. ZA.71 Many filing parties elect to use counsel, however, and it may be advisable where one party is unfamiliar with domain name dispute procedures. A complainant is required to prove to the adjudicator, on a balance of probabilities, that the ZA.72 required elements demonstrating that a domain name constitutes an abusive and/or an offensive registration are present.53 There is a rebuttable presumption of an abusive registration if a complainant proves that a registrant has been found to have made an abusive registration in three or more disputes in the 12 months before the dispute was filed. If this is shown, the registrant must then rebut the presumption by affirmatively proving that the registration of its domain name is not abusive in the present matter.54 In-person hearings are not provided for in terms of the ADR proceedings in the ‘.co.za’ ZA.73 domain name space.55 The ADR proceedings are not confidential and all disputes must be published in full, except ZA.74 those parts ruled to be confidential by an adjudicator. Publication of domain name decisions usually takes place on the website of the relevant ADR provider.56

(6) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider There are currently only two providers, namely the SAIIPL and the Arbitration Foundation ZA.75 of South Africa (AFSA). SAIIPL was established in 1952 and currently has a membership of over 164 patent attorneys, patent agents, trade mark practitioners, and academics, specializing in the field of intellectual property law. SAIIPL is widely regarded as the custodian of South Africa’s intellectual property rights and its principal object is to promote the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in South Africa.57 AFSA was founded in 1996 as a joint venture between organized business and the legal and accounting professions. It adjudicates disputes in all legal areas. Its members range from retired judges to junior advocates, and include attorneys, accountants, and industrial relations practitioners.58 The ADR provider is a domain name dispute resolution service provider accredited by the ‘.co.za’ ZA.76 Domain Name Authority to administer the ADR Rules and procedures, oversee domain name disputes, and adopt supplementary procedures to complement the ADR mechanism.59   s 19 of the ADR Regulations.   ss 3(2) and 4(3) of the ADR Regulations. 54  s 5(d) of the ADR Regulations. 55  s 27 of the ADR Regulations. 56  s 30(5) of the ADR Regulations. 57 See http://www.saiipl.org.za. 58 See http://www.arbitration.co.za. 59  ss 1 (Definition of Provider), 37 and 38 of the ADR Regulations. 52 53

845

South Africa (‘.za’) (7) Role of the Administrative Panel ZA.77 The panellists, referred to as adjudicators, are appointed by a provider in its sole discre-

tion. The Regulations require providers to publish a publicly available list of the names and qualifications of its approved adjudicators.60 In its application to the ‘.co.za’ Domain Name Authority, the provider must, in addition to the list of adjudicators and their qualifications, also provide a description of the screening requirements that the provider has used in selecting the adjudicators and a description of the training and educational measures the provider proposes to employ.61

ZA.78 In practice, attorneys and professionals with experience in intellectual property matters have

been appointed as adjudicators by the two current providers.

(8) Costs ZA.79 A complainant must pay a fixed filing fee in the amount of R10,000 to the provider for a

case with a single adjudicator or R24,000 for a case involving three adjudicators. If a registrant elects to have a dispute decided by three adjudicators, where the complainant had only requested a single adjudicator, both the registrant and the complainant must pay the provider a fixed sum of R12,000 each.62 The appeal fee is a fixed fee of R24,000, payable by the party filing the appeal.63

ZA.80 A complainant or registrant may approach the ‘.co.za’ Domain Name Authority for financial

assistance, which may be considered at the discretion of the Authority.64

ZA.81 A minimum of 10 per cent of the above-mentioned fees must be paid by the provider to the

Authority, which the Authority must use exclusively to fund complainants and registrants seeking financial assistance.

(9) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings ZA.82 If national court proceedings regarding the same domain name are initiated during the

course of an ADR dispute, the adjudicator must suspend the dispute immediately. In the event that any party to the dispute initiates any legal proceedings during a dispute, it must also promptly notify the adjudicator and the provider.65

ZA.83 The provider must communicate an adjudicator’s decision, within three working days after

receiving it from the adjudicator, to both parties as well as to the ‘.co.za’ Domain Name Authority. Five working days after such notification, the provider must forward the decision to the second-level domain name administrator, who must then wait a further five days before implementing the decision. The second-level domain name administrator must implement the decision within two days after the expiry of the five-day waiting period.66 There is, therefore, an effective waiting period of approximately 12 working days before implementation of a decision resulting in the cancellation or transfer of a respondent’s domain name.

ZA.84 If it comes to the second-level domain name administrator’s attention during this 12 working

days waiting period, by way of a Notice of Motion or Summons in which the administrator   s 20(1) of the ADR Regulations.   s 38(b) of the ADR Regulations. 62  s 34 of the ADR Regulations. 63  See Section III.12 for further details regarding the appeal process. 64  s 34(4) of the ADR Regulations. 65  s 33 of the ADR Regulations. 66  s 30 of the ADR Regulations. 60 61

846

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.za’ Domain Space is cited as a party,67 that either of the parties to the domain name dispute have commenced legal action in the High Court of South Africa concerning the domain name, the administrator may not implement the adjudicator’s decision until it receives proof of a resolution or settlement between the parties, or proof that the lawsuit has been dismissed or withdrawn, or a copy of a Court Order.68 In any event, nothing contained in the terms of the ADR Regulations prevents any party from litigating on any related matter in the High Court of South Africa.69

(10) ADR Decisions An adjudicator can make decisions:

ZA.85

(i) regarding the relevance, materiality, and weight of the evidence; (ii) with regard to a request by a party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes; (iii) regarding the acceptance of further statements or documents relevant to the complaint or response or replies from either of the parties; (iv) regarding termination of a dispute if it becomes unnecessary or impossible to continue with it.70 The specific remedies that an adjudicator may award pursuant to a dispute are limited71 to the ZA.86 transfer of the disputed domain name to the complainant (if it is an abusive registration), the prohibition of the domain name from future registration (if it is an offensive registration), or the refusal of the complaint, either with or without a finding that the complaint constituted an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking. The adjudicating panel cannot award any monetary amounts. An adjudicator may also decide whether a dispute is a resubmission of an earlier complaint, ZA.87 in which case the complaint must be rejected or, alternatively, that the new complaint contains a material difference that justifies a rehearing.72 In determining whether a dispute is a resubmission of an earlier complaint, or whether it contains a material difference and justifies a re-hearing, the adjudicator shall consider whether: (i) the complainant, the registrant, and the domain name in issue are the same as in an earlier case; (ii) the substance of the dispute relates to acts that occurred prior to or subsequent to the close of submissions in an earlier dispute; (iii) if the substance of the dispute relates to acts that occurred prior to the close of submissions in the earlier dispute, any exceptional grounds for the re-hearing or reconsideration exist, without affecting the integrity of the alternative dispute resolution process; and (iv) if the substance of the dispute relates to acts that occurred subsequent to the close of submissions in the earlier dispute, the acts on which the re-filed dispute are based are not, in substance, the same as the acts on which the previous dispute were based. The applicable ADR provider must publish all domain name decisions in full, except those ZA.88 parts ruled to be confidential by the adjudicator concerned.73 67  The administrator will be cited as a party in order to give effect to any court order and not on the basis of any liability per se. On the same basis, the Registrar of Trade Marks would be cited as a party to court proceedings wherein a trade mark is ordered removed from the Register. 68  ss 11(3) and (4) of the ADR Regulations. 69  s 11(1) of the ADR Regulations. 70  ss 24, 26, and 31(4) of the ADR Regulations. 71  s 9 of the ADR Regulations. 72  s 11(5) of the ADR Regulations. 73  s 30(5) of the ADR Regulations.

847

South Africa (‘.za’) ZA.89 An adjudicator must decide the dispute and forward its decision to the provider within 14

working days of the appointment.74

ZA.90 Either party to the domain name dispute shall have the right to appeal the decision by sub-

mitting a statement of its intention to appeal, followed by an appeal notice. It is important to note that only a decision by a single adjudicator, and not a decision by three adjudicators, may be appealed.75

ZA.91 An adjudicator must consider, and be guided by, previous decisions made in terms of the

ADR Regulations as well as decisions by foreign dispute resolution providers.76 The adjudicator must also be guided by national, foreign, and international law. The adjudicator must furthermore provide in its decision full references to all of the national and foreign ADR decisions, as well as national, foreign, and international laws that have been considered.77

(11) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by Adjudicator ZA.92 A complainant must prove on a balance of probabilities78 that:

(i) it has rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the domain name; and (ii) in the hands of the registrant, the domain name constitutes an abusive registration; or (iii) the domain name, in the hands of the registrant, constitutes an offensive registration. ZA.93 An abusive registration is defined in the ADR Regulations as a domain name which was

either registered or otherwise acquired in a manner which, at the time when the registration or acquisition took place, took unfair advantage or was unfairly detrimental to the complainant’s rights, or which has been used in a manner that takes unfair advantage of, or is unfairly detrimental to the complainant’s rights.

ZA.94 An offensive registration is defined in the ADR Regulations as a domain name in which the

complainant cannot necessarily establish rights but the registration of which is contrary to law, contra bonos mores or likely to give offence to any class of persons.

ZA.95 The ‘.co.za’ ADR rules require proof that a domain name, in the hands of the registrant, is

either an abusive registration or, alternatively, an offensive registration. Facts which may indicate that the domain name is an abusive registration largely correspond with findings made under the UDRP, except that under the regulations complainants are not required to prove that disputed domain names have been both registered and used in bad faith (as required in paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP).

ZA.96 The factors which may indicate that a disputed domain name is not an abusive registration

correspond largely with those in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, but also includes circumstances where a website has been operated solely in tribute to, or in fair criticism of, a personal business. In the latter instance, and where the domain name is identical to the mark in which the complainant asserts rights, the burden of proof shifts to the registrant to show that the domain name is not an abusive registration.79 In one recent case, the ADR panel considered what specific characteristics a tribute site should display in order to show that the domain

  s 29 of the ADR Regulations.   ss 11(7) and 32 of the ADR Regulations. Also see Section III.12 in this regard. 76  These will include, for example, UDRP decisions and decisions based on the Nominet DRS for ‘.uk’ domains. 77  s 13 of the ADR Regulations. 78  s 3 of the ADR Regulations. 79  s 5(c) of the ADR Regulations. 74 75

848

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.za’ Domain Space name is not abusive. The domain name in question was ‘citroen.co.za’. The principle that the panel adopted was that when a mark of another is appropriated for a tribute site, it must be in a manner that cannot leave scope for doubt but that is wholly descriptive and truthful. In such a case the use will be deemed acceptable. The adjudicator found that the domain name ‘citroen.co.za’ did not meet this test, as the registrant did not convey to prospective Internet users in the domain name itself that it was a tribute website, which it could have done by the mere addition of a few words, ensuring a sufficient distinction between the domain name for his tribute website and the trade mark of the complainant.80 An offensive registration, which is a term unique to the ‘.co.za’ ADR, may be indicated if ZA.97 the domain name advocates hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender, or religion, and/ or that constitutes an incitement to cause harm. It is submitted, on an interpretation of the regulations, that the text of the domain name itself has to be offensive, although the manner in which the domain name is used will be a relevant factor, since it must be shown that the domain name is offensive in the hands of the registrant. There is no ADR domain decision yet that has dealt with offensive registrations. There are two principal differences between the UDRP and ‘.co.za’ ADR procedures, namely ZA.98 that in the latter: (i) provision is made for a reply to be filed by the complainant in response to the registrant’s response; and (ii) there is a right of appeal by either party to any decision rendered by a single adjudicator.

(12) The ADR Appeal Process Following the notification of the decision by the provider to the parties, either party shall ZA.99 have the right to appeal it. The appeal procedure is outlined as follows.81 A statement of intention to appeal must be lodged along with the appeal fee of R24,000, ZA.100 which has to be paid by the party instituting the appeal. There is no provision in the ADR Regulations for the time period whereby the statement of intention to appeal has to be lodged.82 This lacuna has caused some confusion and as a practical measure, pending an approach for an amendment to the regulations, one of the providers (SAIIPL) is approaching the parties to agree to a reasonable time frame in advance. The statement of intention to appeal should contain such information to make it clear that an ZA.101 appeal is requested and should not contain the actual grounds or reasons for appeal. An appeal notice must be filed within 15 working days of lodging the statement of intention ZA.102 to appeal.83 The appeal notice may not exceed 1,000 words and must set out detailed grounds and reasons for the appeal.84 The provider must forward the statement of intention to appeal or appeal notice, as the case ZA.103 may be, to the other party within three working days of receipt of the statement of intention to appeal and the appeal fee, or the appeal notice.85 Any response to the appeal notice must be submitted by the counter party within ten work- ZA.104 ing days from receipt of the appeal notice. The appeal notice response may not exceed 1,000 words and must set out the detailed grounds and reasons why the appeal should be rejected.86   Case No ZA2008-0014: Automobiles Citroën v Mark Grand.  See http://domaindisputes.co.za. 82  ss 32(1) and 34(3) of the ADR Regulations. 83  s 32(1) of the ADR Regulations. 84  ss 32(2) and 32(3) of the ADR Regulations. 85  s 32(4) of the ADR Regulations. 86  ss 32(5) and 32(6) of the Regulations. 80 81

849

South Africa (‘.za’) ZA.105 An appeal panel is then to be appointed for the appeal by the provider, consisting of three

adjudicators. The adjudicators must be impartial and must consist of the chairperson of the provider’s group of adjudicators and the next two available adjudicators appointed by rotation from the provider’s list.87

ZA.106 The appeal panel will not take into consideration any new evidence presented in an appeal

notice or appeal notice response, unless it believes it is in the interest of justice to do so.88 The High Court handed down an order in 201289 dismissing a formal application by the registrant to set aside a decision by the appeal panel,90 in which the appeal panel admitted new evidence. The court found that the appeal panel correctly admitted the new evidence in the interest of justice.

ZA.107 The appeal decision must be forwarded to the provider within 20 working days of the

appointment of the last adjudicator.

ZA.108 The parties and .za Domain Name Authority must be notified within three working days of

receipt of the decision by the provider.

ZA.109 The second-level domain administrator in question is notified within five working days of

notifying the parties and the ‘.za’ Domain Name Authority.

ZA.110 Insofar as the implementation of the ADR’s decision is concerned, the second-level domain

administrator is to wait five working days from receipt of the decision from the provider. Following this period, a further two-working day waiting period is required before the second-level domain administrator is to implement the decision.

ZA.111 Appeal decisions are not subject to any further appeal and any aggrieved party to an appeal

decision has to seek recourse through a court process.91 ZADNA must publish all the decisions of the appeal panel on its website.92

(13) Brief Review of the ‘.co.za’ Case History ZA.112 A  legal index and search facility in respect of decisions rendered by one of the providers

appointed in terms of the ADR Regulations, namely SAIIPL was made available in 2014.

ZA.113 A review of some of the pertinent ADR decisions in respect of topical domain name issues

show that a comprehensive body of case precedent is being developed for this relatively new ADR procedure.

ZA.114 The earliest ADR cases dealt with the very essence of the rights required to meet the first thresh-

old provision of the ADR Regulations. The various panels confirmed that a complainant holds rights in a name or trade mark if it owns a registered trade mark or it can show that it has acquired common law rights, through use, in a mark. The mere registration (as opposed to use) of corporate entities, or even domain names, does not, however, confer upon an entity any rights in that name enforceable against third parties so that they may be restricted from using it.93 It was also held that while rights are widely defined in the regulations to include commercial and personal rights, any such rights must find recognition in law.94 In the matter   ss 32(7) and 32(8) of the ADR Regulations.   s 32(9) of the ADR Regulations. 89  Case No 9148/12: DayNi (Oded Dayani) v Talium Investments (Pty) Ltd. 90  Case No ZA2011-0094: Talium Investments (Pty) Ltd v DayNi (Oded Dayani). 91  s 32(10)(b) of the ADR Regulations. 92  s 11(10) of the ADR Regulations. 93 Case No ZA2007-0001: Mr Plastic CC v Mr Plastic & Mining Promotional Goods; Case No ZA2008/0020: Mxit Lifestyle (Pty) Ltd v André Steyn. 94  Case No ZA2007-0008: Homefront Trading 272CC v Ian Ward. 87 88

850

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws involving Aqua Divers International (Pty) Ltd v Divetek (Pty) Ltd,95 the panel accepted that the complainant could claim commercial rights in respect of the marks in question, pursuant to the distribution agreement upon which it based its claim, but stated that these rights are narrow in scope and cannot prevent a competitor from marketing goods in a way that is honest and fair. The ADR case law on descriptive marks confirms that words or marks that are inherently ZA.115 descriptive can acquire distinctiveness through extensive use, but this resulting distinctiveness must be proven through the production of relevant evidence. Mere use and reputation will not suffice.96 In the matter involving the domain name ‘mrplastic.co.za’ the panel found that where a mark has been used, but the use was not by the complainant nor was sufficiently controlled by the complainant through a licensing agreement, the use will accrue to the user for its own benefit and not that of the complainant.97 However, it is to be noted that if a licence agreement is concluded between a complainant ZA.116 and a third party and the complainant does not have any statutory or other rights in South Africa, the licence agreement in itself will not, according to the panel in the ‘seido.co.za’ case, give rise to sufficient use or reputation to determine the distinctiveness of an otherwise descriptive word or mark.98 The current position in respect of pay-per-click advertising is that this practice can indeed ZA.117 serve as a factor indicating that use of the domain name by the registrant is not innocent, but rather abusive by attempting to utilize the confusing similarity between the domain name and a popular trade mark to derive an undue benefit.99

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (1) Specific Anticybersquatting Regulations There are no national laws dealing specifically with cybersquatting, other than the ADR ZA.118 Regulations which form part of the ECT Act.

(2) Infringement of Trade Marks (a) Risk of Confusion The TMA and South African common law protect trade mark owners against infringement ZA.119 of their trade mark rights. Once a trade mark proprietor qualifies for trade mark protection in terms of the Trade Marks Act and/or common law, and can show that there is a reasonable likelihood that members of the public will be confused by the use of a third-party mark, the proprietor will generally be in a position to avail itself of the relief available in such circumstances. (b) Protection of Famous Marks Famous marks are protected in terms of Sections 10(17), 34(1)(c), and 35 of the TMA. ZA.120 Protection of famous marks is discussed in further detail above in paras ZA.13 ff.   Case No ZA2008-0016: Aqua Divers International (Pty) Ltd v Divetek (Pty) Ltd.   Case No ZA2011-0070: Outsource Group SA (Pty) Ltd v Muzaffar January; Case No ZA2007-0001: Mr Plastic CC v Mr Plastic & Mining Promotional Goods; Case No ZA2008/0020:  Mxit Lifestyle (Pty) Ltd v André Steyn. 97  Case No ZA2007-0001: Mr Plastic CC v Mr Plastic & Mining Promotional Goods. 98  Case No ZA2009-0030: Allstates Global Karate Do, Inc. d.b.a World Seido Karate Organization v Saids Karate. 99  Case No ZA2008-0020: Mxit Lifestyle (Pty) Ltd v Andre Steyn. 95 96

851

South Africa (‘.za’) (c) Comparison of ADR v Court Action ZA.121 While ‘.co.za’ ADR proceedings are less expensive and provide a quicker means of resolving trade mark disputes when compared to High Court proceedings, an ADR adjudicator cannot make an order to prevent infringing use that may be made of a complainant’s trade mark, requiring the surrender of any infringing materials, or for damages. Such additional forms of relief are only available in the context of a High Court action. (3) Infringement of Personal Names, Titles, Names of Cities, and Other Public Law Corporations ZA.122 These forms of intellectual property (unless specifically protected or prohibited from use by

statute) do not qualify for trade mark protection per se, but must comply with the same criteria stipulated for the protection of trade marks in terms of common law and/or the TMA.

(4) Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available (a) Applicable Court Procedures ZA.123 A trade mark proprietor will be able to claim the following relief in terms of the TMA and,

to some extent, also in terms of common law:

(i) an injunction to restrain further infringement; (ii) an order that the domain name holder transfer or delete a domain name; (iii) an award of damages which may be calculated as a reasonable royalty which would have been payable had the infringing property been used under licence; and (iv) delivery of any materials in which the infringing domain name or trade mark appeared, as well as costs. ZA.124 It is possible to apply for speedier relief by bringing an urgent application to court, which is

generally only granted in very limited, special circumstances.

ZA.125 A court injunction brought on an urgent basis as aforesaid usually takes between one week

and a month to finalize, whereas a typical application for an injunction, or a civil action, instituted in the High Court can take approximately two years to be concluded.

ZA.126 A preliminary injunction can only be granted in ex parte applications by way of a rule nisi,

where the other party to the matter has not been given the normal notice of the application due to the urgency of the matter at hand.

ZA.127 By contrast, a domain name dispute is usually concluded within two months.

(b) Costs ZA.128 Each party to a court proceeding is responsible for its own costs. Once the court renders its decision, however, a cost order usually follows in favour of the successful litigant, who is then in a position to seek a refund of its legal costs in terms of a set tariff. ZA.129 The costs of national law proceedings are more expensive when compared to the ADR mech-

anisms currently in place for domain name disputes.

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name ZA.130 The registration of a domain name does not confer on its owner enforceable rights against

third parties in the sense that third parties could be restricted from using a sign or signs which correspond to the text of the domain. In order to secure affirmative protection, the domain

852

VIII.  International Conflicts and Jurisdiction name owner would have to show that it has acquired repute as a result of use made of the domain name, and therefore that it has acquired trade mark rights at common law in the domain name.100

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers The ECT Act101 deals with the limitation and liability of a service provider, who is defined102 ZA.131 as any person providing information system services. Where a service provider is a member of a representative body for service providers, recognized by the Minister of Communications, it will not be liable where it acts as a mere conduit in transmitting or routing information or where data storage is undertaken solely to make onward transmission more efficient. A service provider is also not liable for actions taken in connection with its hosting services, provided that it acts expeditiously upon receipt of a take-down notification. Furthermore, a service provider is not liable for the wrongful take-down in response to a notification by a complainant. A service provider has no general obligation to monitor data which it transmits or stores,103 or ZA.132 to seek facts or circumstances indicating unlawful activity. The Minister of Communications may, however, in specific circumstances, require service providers to document the existence of illegal activities or to provide information regarding the identities of the service provider’s customers.104 There are no specific provisions that deal with limitation of the liability of a registrar and/ ZA.133 or registry and so far, their liability has been limited contractually as far as this is possible. Although there is no case law on this point at this time, it is presumed that they will only be held liable in cases of wilful wrongdoing.

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property A domain name will constitute intellectual property once it has acquired sufficient secondary ZA.134 meaning, qualifying it for common law protection, or if it is registered as a trade mark. It should, as such, be capable of alienation and/or transfer, licensing and execution, for example, in the settlement of debt. It should then, similarly, be capable of consideration as an asset for the purposes of insolvency proceedings or for collateral or escrow property. There has not been any specific case law on this point, however.

VIII.  International Conflicts and Jurisdiction Domain name disputes arising in situations involving foreign registrants or complainants will ZA.135 be dealt with by way of the ADR Regulations, as per the procedure set out above. 100  See Webster and Morley, Webster and Page (above n 1) para 15.8 and also Case No ZA 2007-0001: Mr Plastic CC v Mr Plastic & Mining Promotional Goods and Case No ZA2007-0008: Homefront Trading 272 CC v Ian Ward. 101  Chapter XI of the ECT Act. 102  s 70 of the ECT Act. 103  s 78 of the ECT Act. 104  Van Der Merwe et al., Information and Communications Technology Law (above n 20) p 433.

853

South Africa (‘.za’) ZA.136 If a South African national elects to litigate against a foreign national in South Africa on the

basis of a domain name outside of the ADR procedure, jurisdiction must first be established or confirmed in terms of common law. This happens by way of attachment, if the foreign national has assets in South Africa.105 A foreign national may litigate against a South African national, provided naturally that the case is brought before the South African courts.

  Bid Industrial Holdings v Strang [2007] SCA 144 (RSA).

105

854

SPAIN (‘.es’) Albert Agustinoy Guilayn

(6)  Role of the Administrative Panel  (7) Costs  (8)  Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings  (9)  ADR Decisions  (10) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by Administrative Panel 

I. Overview of the National System of Trademark/Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names 

ES.01 (1) Trademark Protection Under Spanish Law ES.01 (2) Development of Domain Name Law  ES.09

II. The ccTLD (‘.es’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

ES.54 ES.58 ES.61 ES.63 ES.65

IV. Court Litigation and National Laws 

ES.11

ES.77 (1) Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation ES.77 (2) Trademark Infringement  ES.78 (3) Infringement of Personal Names  ES.84 (4) Infringement of Titles  ES.86 (5) Use of Copyrighted or Trademarked Text as a Domain Name  ES.87 (6) Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available  ES.89

(1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry ES.11 (2) The Structure of the Name Space  ES.14 (3) Registration Restrictions  ES.17 (4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement  ES.24 (5) Transfer of Domain Names  ES.26 (6) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding ES.27 (7) Statistics Concerning Domain Name Registrations ES.29

V. The Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  VI. Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers  VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law 

III. ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.es’ Domain Space 

ES.32 (1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding ES.34 (2) Material Scope of the Proceeding  ES.36 (3) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement ES.38 (4) Overview of the ADR Procedure  ES.39 (5) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider ES.51

(1) International Jurisdiction  (2) Choice of Law  (3) Substantive Law Issues 

ES.90

ES.91 ES.93 ES.95 ES.95 ES.100 ES.103

Links Patents and Trademarks Office Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas): http://www. oepm.es Spanish Trademark Act: http://www.oepm.es Domain Name System ccTLD Registry: ES-NIC: http://www.nic.es List of Authorized Registrars: http://www.nic.es/php/registradores/registra-tu-es.php Rules for Registration: https://www.nic.es/plan-dominios/article/289

855

Spain (‘.es’) Alternative Dispute Resolution List of Approved Dispute Resolution Providers: http://www.dominios.es/dominios/es/todolo-que-necesitas-saber/sobre-registros-de-dominios/recuperacion-de-dominios World Intellectual Property Organization:  http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cctld/es/ index.html ADigital–Spanish Association for the Digital Economy: http://www.recuperatudominio.org Autocontrol–Spanish Association for the Self-Regulation of Commercial Communications: http://www.autocontrol.es Spanish High Council of Chambers of Commerce:  http://www.camaras.org/publicado/ juridico/ResConflictos_1399.html Dispute Resolution Policy Regulation Governing the Dispute Resolution Procedure for ‘.es’ Domain Names: http://www. dominios.es/dominios/sites/default/files/1197031617037.pdf Decisions: http://www.dominios.es/dominios/es/todo-lo-que-necesitas-saber/sobre-registrosde-dominios/recuperacion-de-dominios

I.  Overview of the National System of Trademark/Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names (1) Trademark Protection Under Spanish Law ES.01 Spanish protection for trademarks and distinctive signs is based on the provisions of Act

No 17/2001 (hereinafter, the ‘Spanish Trademarks Act’ or ‘STA’), which has been in force since 2002.

ES.02 Since Spain is a Member State of the European Union (EU), national trademark protection

is complemented by the Community trademark regulations (namely, Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, concerning the applicability of Community trademarks). Therefore, Community trademarks (CTMs) are fully protected in Spain.

ES.03 Trademark protection in Spain is primarily obtained through registration, which can be

secured: (i) at a national level, before the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas);1 (ii) within the EU through the registration of a CTM, which has effect in Spain and throughout the EU;2 or (iii) on an international basis, through the registration of an International Registration (IR), which designates Spain. The STA also contemplates the protection of unregistered trademarks, provided such marks have become well known in Spain (pursuant to Article 6bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property).

ES.04 In addition, Spanish legislation (namely, Article 8.3 STA) provides for protection of an unreg-

istered trademark which has become well known (‘renombrada’). This provision is restricted in scope, however, and requires a showing of very solid evidence.3

ES.05 The most important aspect of a Spanish trademark right is its exclusive source-indentifying

function in connection with specific goods or services. Pursuant to Article 34 STA, the holder

 See http://www.oepm.es.  See http://www.oami.eu. 3  Note that the registration of a domain name, by itself, does not create any specific right under Spanish law. This has been recurrently considered by the Spanish courts. See, for example, judgment No 85/2001 issued by the Audiencia Provincial from Madrid on June 20, 2001; judgment No 517/2002 issued by the Audiencia Provincial from Madrid on November 21, 2002; or judgment No 74/2003 issued by the Audiencia Provincial from Cuenca on March 13, 2003. 1 2

856

II.  The ccTLD (‘.es’) Registration Conditions and Procedures of a trademark may prevent any third party from making unauthorized use of the mark to identify the same type of goods or services, where confusion is possible.4 Article 34 STA also entitles a mark holder to prevent any third party from using the trade- ES.06 mark on telecommunications networks or as a domain name. This provision enables mark holders to prevent the registration or use of a domain name, even in connection with ‘reduced purposes’ (eg e-mail addresses).5 When a non-authorized use of a trademark is detected, the mark holder is entitled to enforce ES.07 its rights pursuant to the following potentially cumulative courses of action: (a) Seek an injunction, which may order cessation of the infringing use, withdrawal of the infringing goods or services and/or the destruction of said goods, and publication of the court decision. Delay in executing an injunction may lead to coercive fines of €600 per day. (b) Seek compensation for damages. In this respect, the STA mandates that compensation should cover:  (i)  the losses suffered by the trademark holder; (ii) unrealized income; (iii) reputational harm; and (iv) investigation costs. The court will decide on the actual amount of the compensation, although the trademark holder will have, without proving specific harm, a right to compensation corresponding to 1 per cent of the turnover obtained by the breaching party. In practice, trademark infringement actions take an average of 15 months to be decided in ES.08 Spain. This lengthy time frame explains the popularity of the Red.es ADR mechanism for disputes relating to ‘.es’ domain names (see Section III, below).

(2) Development of Domain Name Law As mentioned above, the STA was the first piece of legislation recognizing the relationship ES.09 between domains and trademarks. Pursuant to Article 34(3)(e) of the Act, trademark holders are legally entitled take enforcement action against third-party use of their marks in telecommunication networks or as domains. Additionally, the Spanish E-Commerce Act6 sets forth in its Sixth Additional Provision (Disposición ES.10 Adicional Sexta) the general principles of the legal regime applicable to domain names, later formalized by Ministerial Order No ITC/1542/2005. This Order sets forth the National Plan for ‘.es’ Domain Names (Plan Nacional de Nombres de Dominio de Internet bajo el Código de País Correspondiente a España.es) which constitutes the core legislation of domain names in Spain.

II.  The ccTLD (‘.es’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry According to the Spanish Telecommunications Act7 and the E-Commerce Act,8 the regula- ES.11 tion and operation of the registry for ‘.es’ domain names is vested in Red.es, a public corporate

4  This approach has been applied by the Spanish courts in reviewing the terms utilized in the registration agreement applicable to a given domain name. Hence, for example, judgment No 207/2002 issued by the Juzgado de Primera Instancia from Valencia on December 29, 2003 did expressly declare that, unless an express authorization from the respective trademark holder existed, no domain name could be registered by any third party. 5  Judgment No 504/2005, issued by the Audiencia Provincial from Vizcaya on July 1, 2005. 6  Act No 34/2002, dated July 11. 7  Act No 11/1998, dated April 24. 8  Act No 34/2002, dated July 11.

857

Spain (‘.es’) entity (entidad pública empresarial) that depends on the Spanish Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism. Royal Decree No 164/2002 establishes Res.es as the ‘.es’ domain names’ registry. ES.12 The basic set of provisions governing the rights and responsibilities of Red.es is contained

in Ministerial Order No ITC/1542/2005, which provides the National Plan for ‘.es’ Domain Names (Plan Nacional de Nombres de Dominio de Internet bajo el Código de País Correspondiente a España.es) (hereinafter, National Plan). This Order supersedes Ministerial Order No CTE/662/2003, and makes the registration and management of ‘.es’ domain names significantly more flexible.

ES.13 The actual registration and management of ‘.es’ domain names by end-users is undertaken by

authorized registrars, or registration agents (agentes registradores).

(2) The Structure of the Name Space ES.14 Pursuant to the above-mentioned National Plan, domains may be registered directly under the

‘.es’ ccTLD, or any of five sub-level categories (‘.com.es’, ‘.nom.es’, ‘.org.es’, ‘.gob.es’, and ‘.edu.es’).

ES.15 This dual structure is largely due to historical reasons. Prior to the relaxation of registration

criteria in 2005, obtaining a ‘.es’ domain name was extremely difficult and, consequently, by June of 2004, only 79,397 ‘.es’ domains were registered. In order to allow for wider access to ‘.es’, Red.es created several sub-level categories with more flexible criteria.

ES.16 Currently, ‘.es’ domain names may be registered using ASCII characters and using characters

included in the Spanish official languages (ie Spanish, Catalan, Basque, and Galician).9 Thus, the following IDN characters are accepted: á, à, é, è, í, ï, ó, ò, ú, ü, ñ, ç, and l·l.

(3) Registration Restrictions ES.17 Registration of ‘.es’ domains is based on the general principle of priority, even where the

string may correspond to a trademark. Injured mark-holders naturally have recourse through the applicable ADR mechanism.

ES.18 Registration of ‘.es’ and ‘.es.com’ domains is restricted to persons or entities with interests

in or connections to Spain. Red.es has indicated that this encompasses: (i) natural or legal persons established in Spain; (ii) natural or legal persons who totally or partially target their services at the Spanish market; and (iii) natural or legal persons who offer information, services and/or products which are connected with Spain. The broad scope of this concept has lead, in practice, to virtually unrestricted registration of ‘.es’ domains.

ES.19 In the remaining third-level ‘.es’ spaces, registration is restricted to the following persons or entities:

(i) in ‘.nom.es’, to natural persons with interests in or connections to Spain; (ii) in ‘.org.es’, to non-profit entities, institutions or groups, with or without legal capacity, who have interests in or connections to Spain; (iii) in ‘.gob.es’, to Spanish public authorities and the public law entities depending on them, including their departments, bodies or units; and (iv) in ‘.edu.es’, to officially-recognized entities, institutions or groups engaged in educational or research initiatives that maintain interests in or connections to Spain. ES.20 Red.es must verify the fulfilment of the above requirements before allowing registration in

the ‘.gob.es’ and ‘.edu.es’ third-level categories, although no prior verification is required in other spaces. 9 See http://www.dominios.es/dominios/sites/default/files/files/Instrucci%C3%B3n%20Red%20es%20 sobre%20caracteres%20multiling%C3%BCes%20(2).pdf.

858

II.  The ccTLD (‘.es’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (a) Syntactic Constraints and Prohibited Terms/Registration Restrictions All ‘.es’ domain names are subject to a number of syntactic rules. Domains must be regis- ES.21 tered using the ASCII alphabet and official Spanish language characters, the digits 0–9; and hyphens. The first and/or last characters in the domain cannot be hyphens, and the first four characters cannot be ‘xn--’. Second-level ‘.es’ domains must be of at least three characters, while the minimum in third-level domains is two characters. The maximum length of all ‘.es’ domains is 63 characters. (b) Attribution/Naming Rules A number of excluded names have been established by the Spanish authorities for second-level ES.22 ‘.es’ domains, including: (i) strings that match any existing gTLD, where confusion might result; (ii) domains that correspond to general Internet terms, if confusion is likely. A list of excluded terms has been established on this rule;10 (iii) domains that refer to the official names of Spanish institutions or public authorities;11 (iv) domains referring to the names or acronyms of officially recognized international organizations;12 and (v) domains that match a geographical name officially used by a Spanish public authority, and domains that match geographical names in ISO list No 3166-1.13

(c) Documents Required for Registration Other than for third-level registrations in the ‘.gob.es’ and ‘.edu.es’ sub-domains (see para ES.23 ES.20), registrants are not required to document eligibility status. (4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement During the online registration process, the user must accept the registration agreement of ES.24 Red.es. This agreement outlines the basic legal framework for the registration and use of ‘.es’ domains, and establishes the relevant rights and obligations associated therewith. Under the ‘.es’ registration agreement, a domain holder is required, inter alia, to maintain ES.25 true and accurate contact information at all times, to comply with the Red.es conditions for registration, to avoid infringement of any third-party rights, and to submit to the applicable ADR procedure. Red.es may cancel any domain registration in the event of breach.

(5) Transfer of Domain Names ‘.es’ domain names are fully transferrable. The process is managed electronically upon con- ES.26 firmation of the transfer by the domain name registrant and the gaining party. The new registrant must accept the terms of the registration agreement, and provide the necessary registration data.

  Available at: https://www.nic.es/media/2011-03/1300185913842.pdf.   This list was originally set forth in a decision issued by the General Director of Red.es on June 28, 2006 (available at:  https://www.nic.es/media/2007-12/1197041593702.pdf ). It has been complemented most recently with a new list of terms in the decision dated May 16, 2011 (available at: https://www.nic.es/ media/2011-05/1306224749182.pdf ). 12  The list is available at: https://www.nic.es/media/2007-12/1197041674512.pdf. 13 In the case of Spanish-related geographical names, the list may be found at:  https://www.nic.es/ media/2007-12/1197041705901.pdf. With regard to international geographical names, see https://www.nic. es/media/2007-12/1197041745639.pdf. 10 11

859

Spain (‘.es’) (6) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding ES.27 Under the ‘.es’ ADR regulations, disputed domain names must be blocked from the

moment Red.es receives formal notification of an ADR procedure. Blocking prevents the transfer of the domains to third parties, the cancellation of the domains, and any modification of the relevant registration data. The only management actions allowed for blocked domain names are registration renewals. Blocked status is only removed once the corresponding ADR procedure has finished and, therefore, the suspension of an ADR procedure will not unlock the domain.

ES.28 In the case of court procedures, however, domains are not necessarily blocked. In such cases,

the complainant must file a preliminary injunction request (medida cautelar) to trigger blocked status. Such requests are decided by the court pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Spanish Civil Procedure Act14 (Articles 721 ff.).

(7) Statistics Concerning Domain Name Registrations ES.29 At the end of May 2015, there were 1,775,810 registered ‘.es’ domain names, which consti-

tuted 52 per cent of the domain names registered in Spain.

ES.30 Thus, ‘.es’ is the preferred TLD for Internet users in Spain, constituting an almost 48 per

cent share of the Spanish market (the second most-demanded category after ‘.com’ domain names).

ES.31 A significant portion of these registrations are held by Spanish users, although foreign holders

also represent a significant part of the total registrations (mostly from the US and Germany).

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.es’ Domain Space ES.32 One factor contributing to the sustained growth of the ‘.es’ space is the establishment of an

effective ADR procedure that simplifies the management of domain disputes.

ES.33 The basic ADR regulation is the Instruction dated November 7, 2005, adopted by the

General Director of Red.es, which sets forth the Regulation Governing the Procedure for the Extrajudicial Resolution of Conflicts Related to ‘.es’ Domain Names (hereinafter, the ADR Regulation).15

(1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding ES.34 The ADR Regulation establishes a procedure which is aimed at offering a workable mecha-

nism for cases of abusive registrations within ‘.es’. This proceeding was obviously inspired by the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP),16 and was designed on the basis of UDRP case history and experience.

ES.35 Complaints filed under the ADR Regulation follow a different structure from the UDRP, and

are based on the cumulative fulfilment of four key elements.

  Act No 1/2000, dated January 7.  The Spanish version of the ADR Regulation is available at: http://www.nic.es/media/2007-12/ 1197031617037.pdf. 16  Numerous decisions issued under the ADR Regulation have expressly stated that the UDRP and its case history must be considered as a valid source of interpretation (Ladbrokes International Ltd v Hostinet, SL, WIPO Case No DES2006-0002; Heineken España, SA v Rubén Omar García Mantecón, WIPO Case No DES2008-0008 DES2008-0008). 14 15

860

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.es’ Domain Space (2) Material Scope of the Proceeding Pursuant to the ADR Regulation, the proceeding is applicable to all ‘.es’ domains, regardless ES.36 of their registration dates.17 The ADR Regulation is only applicable to ‘.es’ domain disputes. It does not address other ES.37 types of conflicts, such as those arising from Red.es’s decisions unrelated to the registration or use of domains,18 or to disputes concerning other areas of law.19

(3) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement As mentioned in Section II.4, the registration agreement for any ‘.es’ domain must contain ES.38 a provision specifically requiring the registrant to accept the ADR Regulation. Naturally, the registrant also retains the right to submit its dispute to the jurisdiction of the courts (see Section III.9).

(4) Overview of the ADR Procedure (a) Legal Framework The ADR Regulation was approved in the form of an Instruction (Instrucción) adopted by ES.39 the General Director of Red.es. From a formal standpoint, the Regulation comprises part of Spanish law, and any amendment would require the approval of the General Director of Red.es. (b) ADR Complaint The ADR commences with the filing of a complaint with one of the approved ADR dispute res- ES.40 olution providers (see Section III.5). Complaints may be filed by any injured person or entity. Pursuant to Article 13 of the ADR Regulation, the complaint must:  identify the disputed ES.41 domains; provide the name and preferred contact data for the complainant and any chosen representative; indicate the name and contact information of the respondent;20 provide the name of the concerned registrar; identify the complainant’s prior rights (providing proof of registration where applicable) and its claim to the disputed domains, designate the desired remedy (transfer or cancellation), list any prior or ongoing court procedures concerning the domains; and expressly accept the jurisdiction of the courts of Madrid for any further action arising from the dispute. Some ADR providers have published model complaint forms for the procedure.21 Upon receipt of a complaint, the ADR provider will review it for compliance. If any deficiencies are found, the complainant will be provided five calendar days to cure the error.

(c) ADR Response Within five calendar days of the receipt of a complaint filing, the complaint is notified to ES.42 the respondent. The respondent is entitled to file a response within 20 calendar days. Failure to file a response does not automatically result in a decision for the complainant. The complainant is charged with the burden of proving the allegations contained in the complaint, and thus, even if the respondent elects not to file any submission, the panel may deny the complaint if the claims are unsubstantiated.22   JMS v PC One Computers and Phones, SL, WIPO Case No DES2006-0015 (‘pcone.es’).   Free Consulting SL v MN, Autocontrol Case, August 14, 2006 (‘free.es’). 19  PC City Spain SA v Andrades PC Clinic, SL, CSCC Case, February 21, 2007 (‘pccity.es’). 20  Agustín Mateo García v Antonio Navarro Navarro y Beatriz Martínez SL, WIPO Case No DES2006-0011 (‘derribosmateo.es’). 21  WIPO, for example, offers a model complaint, available at: http://www.wipo.int/amc/es/docs/complaint-es.doc. 22  Open Bank Santander Consumer, SA v Cibergirona SL, Autocontrol Case, June 6, 2006 (‘open-bank.es’); Moredi SL v Printkits Ltd, Autocontrol Case, July 4, 2007 (‘cochesdeocasion.es’); Schibsted ASA v Barreiro, WIPO Case No DES2007-0028 (‘20minutos.com.es’). 17 18

861

Spain (‘.es’) ES.43 According to Article 16(b) of the ADR Regulation, the response must: specifically respond to

the allegations of the complaint, supply any relevant supporting evidence, provide the name and preferred contact information for the respondent and any chosen representative, and indicate any current or past court procedures concerning the disputed domain names. Some ADR providers have published a model response for the procedure.23

(d) Procedural Issues ES.44 Unlike under the UDRP, ‘.es’ complaints must be filed both electronically and in hard copy. ES.45 Parties are not required to be represented by attorneys, although they may elect to use counsel

during the course of the procedure.

ES.46 Pursuant to Article 8 of the ADR Regulation, the default language of these procedures is

Spanish, although the panel is entitled to allow the parties to use another language in exceptional cases. To date, this provision has never been utilized.

ES.47 A  complaint may concern more than one domain name, provided that all the included

domains are registered by the same respondent and the complainant holds previous rights corresponding to all of the domains.

ES.48 Although the parties are not entitled to submit additional filings, in exceptional cases (for

example, where the relevant circumstances change substantially during the course of the dispute), a party may request the acceptance of a supplemental filing. The appointed expert will rule on its admissibility.24

ES.49 Once the decision is rendered, it is formally reviewed and formatted by the provider before

being sent to the parties, Red.es, and the relevant registrars. Decisions ordering transfer or cancellation of disputed domain names will generally be executed within 15 calendar days of formal notification. Execution will be stayed, however, if either of the parties provides evidence to Red.es that a court procedure has been filed in connection with the disputed domain names.

ES.50 Once a decision has been issued, the complainant is not generally entitled to file a new ADR

procedure concerning the same disputed domain name(s). Re-filing is only possible if new circumstances or material evidence becomes known to the complainant.

(5) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider ES.51 ADR procedures must be filed with and managed by one of the Red.es-approved dispute

resolution providers, namely:

(i) The Arbitration and Mediation Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (ii) ADigital—The Spanish Association for the Digital Economy (Asociación Española de la Economía Digital). (iii) Autocontrol—The Spanish Association for the Self-Regulation of Commercial Communications (Asociación Española para la Autoregulación de las Comunicaciones Comerciales). (iv) The Spanish High Council of Chambers of Commerce (Consejo Superior de Cámaras de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de España).

  WIPO, for example, offers a model response, available at: http://www.wipo.int/amc/es/docs/response-es.doc.   Equitación y Caza, SA v Bolsos El Caballo, SL, WIPO Case No DES2006-0017 (‘elcaballo.es’); Accor, SA v Guiafacil, SL, WIPO Case No DES2007-0024 (‘accor.com.es’). 23 24

862

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.es’ Domain Space These entities are charged with managing ‘.es’ ADR procedures and appointing expert pan- ES.52 ellists. Experts are appointed within five calendar days of the submission of both parties’ pleadings (or the lapse of time for filing a response), and are selected from the provider’s list of qualified professionals.25 As indicated above, these entities do not conduct legal analysis of filed complaints. Their role ES.53 is limited to management and administrative support.

(6) Role of the Administrative Panel Pursuant to the ADR Regulation (and contrary to the UDRP), administrative panels in ‘.es’ ES.54 disputes may only be composed of a single expert panellist. The expert must be impartial and independent as regards both parties. Upon receipt of an ES.55 invitation to serve as a panellist in a procedure, the expert is required to review his/her position as regards the parties, and may only accept the ADR appointment if he/she is able to serve in an independent and impartial capacity. The appointed expert has the ultimate decision on all procedural and material aspects of ES.56 the procedure. Pursuant to Article 18 of the ADR Regulation, the expert must: ensure the fulfilment of the provisions of the Regulation, guarantee equal treatment for both parties (including on procedural issues, such as choice of language and acceptance of supplemental filings), decide on the admissibility of evidence,26 and require the parties to provide any necessary additional information. Panels may conduct general Internet research to confirm or clarify the parties’ pleadings, and may elect to order a hearing (in practice, however, no ‘.es’ panel has ever required a hearing). The panel must deliver its decision within 15 calendar days of the receipt of the response. ES.57 Panels may elect to deny the complaint, or may order either the cancellation or transfer of domains.

(7) Costs The ADR Regulation specifies that the administrative fees must be paid by the complainant. ES.58 Each of the ADR dispute resolution providers publishes their relevant fees on their web- ES.59 sites.27 If payment is not made within ten calendar days following the filing of the complaint, the provider is entitled to terminate the complaint. In theory, pursuant to Article 12(e) of the ADR Regulation, the expert may order additional ES.60 measures, thus incurring further costs to borne by the parties. To date, however, no panels

25 WIPO’s list is available at:  http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/panel/panelists.jsp?code=esDRP; ADigital’s list is available at:  http://www.recuperatudominio.org/losexpertos.htm; Autocontrol’s list is available at:  http://www.autocontrol.es/pdfs/Relación%20de%20expertos.pdf; and the list of the Spanish High Council of Chambers of Commerce may be accessed at: http://www.camaras.org/publicado/juridico/ Expertos_1411.html. 26  Similar to the UDRP, the panel is invested with limited powers of investigation, and moreover with the ability to request supplemental information or clarification from the parties. Moreover, the panel will only be expected to make general Internet searches, without having further powers of investigation, particularly vis-à-vis authorities or third parties (Asociación Cristiana Sociedad Bíblica de España v FAC, ADigital Case No 200609c0028 ‘sociedadbiblica.es’). 27  WIPO’s applicable fees are published at:  http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/fees/cctlds/es/ index.html. ADDigital’s fees are posted at: http://www.recuperatudominio.org/presentardemanda.htm#6. Autocontrol’s fees are available at: http://www.autocontrol.es/que_dominios.shtml. The fees applied by the Spanish High Council of Chambers of Commerce are published at:  http://www.camaras.org/publicado/ juridico/impreso_aranceles_reglamento.pdf.

863

Spain (‘.es’) have ordered such additional actions (eg in-person hearings). Panels are unlikely to do so, given the nature of the procedure as well as the resulting questions of fairness.

(8) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings ES.61 The complainant is not entitled to file an ADR procedure if a court action relating to the

disputed domains has already been filed. The fact that an ADR procedure has been filed will not prevent either of the parties from filing a court procedure concerning the disputed domains at any point. In that case, the expert will determine whether or not the procedure should continue, based in part on whether or not the court procedure shares the same object as the ADR procedure. If so, the expert panellist may either suspend or terminate the ADR procedure, at his/her discretion.28

ES.62 Moreover the execution of a decision rendered pursuant to the ADR Regulation will be sus-

pended if either of the parties (usually the respondent) elects to file a court action within the 15 calendar days following the notification of the decision.

(9) ADR Decisions ES.63 The decision issued by the expert must be congruent with the scope of the procedure and

the requested remedy, provide summaries of the parties’ arguments, and set out the panel’s reasoning.

ES.64 From a legal standpoint, the relevant legislation is the ADR Regulation and the National

Plan. Additionally, the expert may take into account pertinent criteria from legislation concerning other areas of law, such as that governing trademarks or unfair competition.29

(10) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by Administrative Panel ES.65 Panels applying the ADR Regulation have consistently looked to UDRP decisions for inter-

pretation of common issues.30 Hence, the approach adopted under the UDRP has been recurrently considered as applicable to the cases dealing with ‘.es’ domains where the issues in question are common.

ES.66 Some of the key common questions between the ADR Regulation and UDRP include:

(i) Use of privacy services. Although the use of such services is not per se contrary to the ADR Regulation, in order to defend its registration and use of the disputed domain name, the defendant must explain the use of such services and indicate why it believes that it is not violating the ADR Regulation. The lack of such argumentation, combined with the lack of identification of the defendant, will lead the panel to favour the allegations of the complainant.31

  Programa Multi-Sponsor PMS, SA v FJGS, Autocontrol Case dated June 16, 2006 (‘turiocio.es’).   Nike International, Ltd v Inmaculada Gallego Pastor, WIPO Case No DES2006-0009 (‘nikebasketball.es’, ‘nikebiz.es’, ‘nikecycling.es’, ‘nikegolf.es’, ‘nikeid.es’, ‘nike-philips.es’, ‘nikeplay.es’, ‘nikerunning. es’, ‘niketown.es’); Mastervolt BV v JBILL, WIPO Case No DES2006-0040 (‘mastervolt.es’); Fábricas Agrupadas de Muñecas de Onil, SA (Famosa) v Unidad Empresarial de Medios Avanzados y Servicios, SL, WIPO Case No DES2007-0004 (‘jaggets.es’); or Vargas Envases y Embalajes de Madera, SL v S, WIPO Case No DES2007-0019 (‘vargas.es’). 30  See, for example, Softnews Net SRL v Josep Maria Aribau Cano, WIPO Case No DES2011-0020 (‘softpedia.es’); Balnearia Internet, SL v Juan Manuel Naveira Valiño, WIPO Case No DES2011-0004 (‘clinicasaborto.es’ and ‘clinicasabortos.es’). 31  Lego Juris A/S v domainsbyproxy.com, WIPO Case No DES2011-0045 (‘legoland.com.es’, ‘legolandia.com.es’, ‘legoshop.com.es’); Carrefour SA v Domains by Proxy/Sandes Corporation, WIPO Case No DES2012-0036 (‘grupocarrefour.es’). 28 29

864

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.es’ Domain Space (ii) Use of pay-per-click (PPC) or advertising websites. This type of use is recurrently considered a breach of the ADR Regulation, as it constitutes the unfair and unapproved use of a third party’s trademark or distinctive sign for profit.32 (iii) Protection of celebrities’ personal or professional names. Panels have also expressly embraced the analysis of UDRP decisions concerning the registration of third parties’ celebrity or professional names.33 In ‘.es,’ the protection of these names is actually contemplated in the ADR Regulation itself, as the protected rights go beyond trademarks (encompassing, inter alia, the personal or professional names of well-known individuals). Given that the ADR Regulation closely mirrors the elements of the UDRP in many respects, ES.67 panels utilize a similar analytical approach and format to those employed under the UDRP. A review of some of the key issues under each of the elements of the ADR Regulation is provided below.

(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar The first mandatory requirement of the ADR Regulation is based on two elements. First, ES.68 the complainant must be the holder of a legally protected right in a given name.34 Under the ADR Regulation, such ‘previous right’ may fall into one of the following categories: (i) registered names of entities incorporated in Spain;35 (ii) denominations or indications of origin; (iii) registered trademarks and other names protected by intellectual property (IP) rights in Spain.36 For unregistered rights, the complainant must provide evidence of such rights as a consequence of recurrent and widespread commercial use of the name; (iv) personal names or well-known pseudonyms which are used professionally by, inter alia, intellectual creators, politicians,37 and sports38 or entertainment celebrities; and (v) official names of Spanish public authorities or the names that usually identify them.39 The second required element is that the disputed domain name must be identical or con- ES.69 fusingly similar to the aforementioned previous right. Identity or confusing similarity must be analyzed from a global perspective, ascertaining whether the average Internet user might be confused as to the existence of a connection between the domain name and the relevant

32  Caja de Seguros Reunidos, Compañía de Seguros y Reaseguros, SA v Flex Media, Inc, WIPO Case No DES2012-0002 (‘casersalud.es y seguroscaser.es’); Volvo Trademark Holding Aktiebolagest v Estee Mole, WIPO Case No DES2012-0011 (‘volvobuses.es’). 33  Trustees of the Marlon Brando Living Trust v Alex Lapuerta, WIPO Case No DES2012-0010 (‘marlonbrando.es’); María Kedama v Alex Lapuerta, WIPO Case No DES2012-0012 (‘jorgeluisborges.es’). 34  Note that the complainant can be the owner or a licensee of the protected name (Volkswagen-Audi España, SA v RM, WIPO Case No DES2007-0020 (‘tiguan.es’) or RGD d AV Servicios Multigráficos Multigraf, SL, CSCC Case No 2005-2002 (‘adaecuo.es’)). 35  Almeida Viajes, SL v Grupo Qualitas Turístico Pedro Gutiérrez, ADigital Case No 200610c0031 (‘almeidaviajes.es’); or Webfactory Internet, SL v Technological Factory, SL, ADigital Case No 200704c0014 (‘webfactory.es’). 36  This category has been broadly interpreted, covering rights such as shopfront names (‘rótulos de establecimiento’). See, for example, Semark AC Group SA v Grupo FX SA, CSCC Case dated August 23, 2007 (‘semark.es’), or with regard to unregistered well-known trade names see, for example, Club Atlético Boca juniors Asociación Civil v GCC, WIPO Case No DES2006-0020 (‘bocajuniors.com.es’ and ‘bocajuniors.es’); or Nintendo Co Ltd y Nintendo España, SA v SS, CSCC Case dated January 9, 2007 (‘nintendo.es’). 37  Partido Popular de la Comunitat Valenciana v JCG, Autocontrold Case dated August 29, 2012 (‘franciscocamps.es’). 38  Francesc Fabregas Soler v PG, WIPO Case No DES2008-0036 (‘cescfabregas.es’); or Daniel Alves v JCG, WIPO Case No DES2010-0013 (‘danialves.es’). 39  Gobierno de Canarias v DM, CSCC Case dated September 23, 2008 (‘canarias.es’).

865

Spain (‘.es’) previous right.40 Decisions issued under the ADR Regulation have enumerated the following general principles in connection with this element: (i) The analysis of similarity will not take into account the technical limitations of domains (eg lack of spaces between words, lack of accents or Spanish characters, or the inclusion of the suffix ‘.es’).41 (ii) If the domain name is composed of a combination of words, confusion may be found if the name in which the complainant holds a previous right constitutes the main identifying element of the domain name, regardless of the addition of another name42 or a generic word,43 or if the domain constitutes a typosquat.44 (iii) The substitution or omission of any graphical or non-ASCII characters contained in the complainant’s previous right will not be considered a relevant difference in assessing confusing similarity.45

(b) Rights or Legitimate Interests ES.70 The complainant must prove that the respondent does not hold any right or legitimate

interest in the disputed domain name, which is the third required element under the ADR Regulation. In this respect, the ADR Regulation does not contain any provision similar to paragraph 4(c) of the UDRP, listing examples by which the respondent may demonstrate the existence of any such right or legitimate interest. Nevertheless, ‘.es’ panels often look to the provisions of paragraph 4(c) of the UDRP, as well to the interpretation of previous panels.46

ES.71 Case history has indicated that the analysis of a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests

must be evaluated as of the moment of registration.47 In this respect (consistent with UDRP interpretation), ADR panels have consistently held that complainants are required to provide prima facie evidence that the respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the domain. As has been long noted under both the UDRP and the ADR Regulation, the drafting of this element often leads to the result that a complainant must, in effect, prove a negative. Accordingly, panels have held that once a complainant demonstrates a plausible, well-supported prima facie case, the burden shifts to the respondent to rebut the provided evidence. Hence, despite the general principle that the burden of proof lies with the complainant, under this element of the Policy it is the respondent who is ultimately responsible for demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests.

ES.72 Accordingly, the respondent’s allegations must be supported by evidence showing that its

invoked right or interest is real, genuine, consistent, and based on grounds of good faith.48 Moreover, the registration of a domain name comprising a generic or dictionary term should be considered acceptable, unless there is evidence suggesting that the respondent was positively aware of the mark at the time it selected the domain. If the respondent has selected the 40   More details on this test of similarity may be found in decisions such as Estudios Universitarios Superiores de Andalucía, SL v Eusanet, SL, WIPO Case No DES2006-0005 (‘eusa.es’). 41  Sanofi-Aventis, Société Anonyme v Piotr Walczak, WIPO Case No DES2006-0038 (‘acomplia.es’); or Crédito y Caución SA v Dulemba Miroslaw, WIPO Case No DES2007-0018 (‘creditocaucion.es’). 42  Alta Sastrería Siroco Flash Internovios v Sernet Multimedia SL, ADigital Case No 200703c0011 (‘internovios.es’). 43  Sanofi-Aventis v PL, WIPO Case No DES2006-0008 (‘compra-acomplia.com.es’). 44  Ferrero SpA y Ferrero Ibérica, SA v Maxtersolutions CB, WIPO Case No DES2006-0003 (‘ferreroroche. es’); Siemens SA y Siemens AG v IE, WIPO Case No DES2006-0032 (‘siemen.es’); Sistemas Kalamazoo, SL v Ofistore Internet SL, WIPO Case No DES2006-0033 (‘kalamazo.es’). 45  Centros Comerciales CECO, SA v Adlead Internet, SL, ADigital Case No 200603c0012 (‘wwwconsumer.es’). 46  Ladbrokes International Ltd v Hostinet, SL, WIPO Case No DES2006-0002 (‘ladbrokes.es’); Transacciones Internet de Comercio Electrónico, SA v Traffic 66 Service, Inc, WIPO Case No DES2006-0026 (‘entradas.es’); or Burger King Corporation v Preregistro Hostytec y Diego Buendía Pérez, WIPO Case No DES2006-0039 (‘burguerking.es’). 47  Xfera Móviles, SA v RR, WIPO Case No DES2007-0016 (‘yeigo.es’). 48  Blizzard Entertainment, Inc v VC, WIPO Case No DES2006-0036 (‘worldofwarcraft.es’).

866

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.es’ Domain Space domain with the intent to trade on the complainant’s previous rights, rather than to capitalize solely on the generic meaning of the text of the domain, such activity will be deemed to be a violation of the complainant’s rights.49 Regardless of this general approach, a more restricted interpretation has been taken in regard ES.73 to free speech. In this respect, panels have held that the registration and use of a domain name for criticism purposes (usually directed against the complainant and its products or services) should only be deemed a legitimate use in cases where: (i) there is no risk that average Internet users will believe that the domain name has been registered and/or sponsored by the corresponding trademark holder; (ii) no commercial use whatsoever is made of the domain name; and (iii) the respondent has not held any type of previous commercial or professional relationship with the affected trademark holder.50

(c) Registration or Use in Bad Faith The fourth key component of the ADR Regulation which the complainant must prove is that ES.74 the respondent registered or used the disputed domain name in bad faith. It is very important to highlight that, contrary to the provisions of paragraph 4(b) of the ES.75 UDRP, under the ADR Regulation this requirement is fulfiled where the complainant can prove that the respondent behaved in bad faith with regard to (alternatively, and not cumulatively) registration or use of the domain name. Thus, the bad faith requirement under the ‘.es’ ADR Regulation is disjunctive in nature, and requires a showing of only one of the composite elements. This means that, in theory, a complainant whose trademark was registered well after the disputed domain name could secure transfer of the domain, provided the domain name was used in bad faith. This would lead to a different result than under the UDRP (as in UDRP cases both bad faith registration and use are required). Nonetheless, in practice (and pursuant to prior decisions under the ADR Regulation), defendants in such cases will likely be found to have established rights in the disputed domain name and/or to have a legitimate interest deriving from its previous registration and/or use.51 In this respect, Article 2(j) of the ADR Regulation lists a number of actions that may provide ES.76 evidence of the respondent’s bad faith. While this list is not exhaustive, panels have indicated that it outlines the usual cases of bad faith.52 These bad faith acts are summarized by the following: (i) acquisition of the disputed domain name in order to sell, rent53 or assign it to the complainant54 or to any of its competitors55 for profit;56 49  Editorial Bosch, SA v Difusión Jurídica y Temas de Actualidad, SA, WIPO Case No DES2007-0006 (‘noticiasjuridicas.es’); or AZ Interactive, SA y La Netro Factory, SLU v RM, ADigital Case dated June 20, 2006 (‘lanetro.es’). 50  Zurich Insurance Co Ltd v JA Zorroza, WIPO Case No DES2009-0055 (‘lamentiradezurichhelppoint. es’); Mercadona SA v Porchester Partners Inc, WIPO Case No DES2011-0009 (‘portaltrabajadormercadona.es’). 51  Monte de Piedad y Caja De Ahorros San Fernando de Huelva, Jerez y Sevilla (Cajasol) v Fernando Martain, Natural Pixel SC, WIPO Case No DES2010-0043 (‘torrecajasol.es’). 52  Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) v RB, WIPO Case No DES2007-0002 (‘minicooper.es’). 53  The re-direction of Internet users to a given website in exchange for a monthly fee has been expressly considered to constitute evidence of bad faith (Tomtom International BV v Beta 5 Soluciones Informáticas, SL, WIPO Case No DES2006-0030 (‘tomtom.es’)). 54  Note that the respondent will be considered to have behaved in bad faith if it makes a ‘spontaneous’ and unrequested offer to the complainant to transfer the domain name in exchange for the payment of substantial consideration (Contratas y Obras, Empresa Constructora, SA v Cibergirona, SL, ADigital Case No 200606c0024 (‘contratasyobras.es’)). 55  Any public offering of the domain name may be considered a bad-faith action, regardless of the system of communication used (be it a website, through an e-mail or any other means) (GL v WS, ADigital Case No 200610c0029 (‘bolma.es’); or Levante Wagen, SA v Domain Park Ltd, CSCC Case No 2007-0011 (‘levantewagen.es’)). 56  The abusive nature of the requested price will be assessed in relation to the costs directly connected with the registration and maintenance of the domain name, without including any other type of cost (Clariden Holding AG v PPdIF, WIPO Case No DES2006-0018 (‘clariden.es’)).

867

Spain (‘.es’) (ii) registration or use of the domain name in order to deny its use by the holder of the previous right, provided that such registration or use has taken place within the context of a bad-faith pattern of conduct;57 (iii) registration of the disputed domain name with the basic intention of disrupting the commercial activity of a competitor;58 (iv) use of the domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s (or any third party’s) website, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of said website or of a product or service offered on that website;59 and (v) development of practices similar to those previously described in order to harm the complainant.60 57  Similar to the criteria derived from the application of the UDRP, under the ADR Regulation the following have been held to constitute evidence of a pattern of conduct under the bad faith element of the policy: (i) registration of multiple domain names corresponding to third parties’ trademarks, or being professionally engaged in the sale of domain names—Bugatti Internacional, SA v ELI, WIPO Case No DES2006-0010 (‘bugatti.es’); Telefonatiebolaget LM Ericsson v JAP y G, WIPO Case No DES2006-0029 (‘ericsson.com.es’); (ii) the existence of an obvious correspondence between the disputed domain name and a well-known trademark—Gas Gas Motos, SA v LNM, WIPO Case No DES2006-0013 (‘gasgas.es’); Endebe Catalana, SL v ROO, WIPO Case No DES2006-0028 (‘bultaco.es’); or (iii) registration of a domain name objectively aimed at obstructing and disrupting the commercial activity of the complainant—Técnicos y Asesores Informáticos Editorial, SA v Suchknecht, Autocontrol dated December 21, 2006 (‘digitalnews.es’); PMT v MS, ADigital Case No 200603c0009 (‘sto. es’). In this respect, the panels applying the ADR Regulation have recurrently considered that the use of a disputed domain name in connection with a parking website constitutes use in bad faith (see The Procter & Gamble Co v Lorena Fernández Stitner, WIPO Case No DES2012-0012 (‘clubolay.es’); UNILIN BVBA v Francisco Serrato Lovillo, WIPO Case No DES2012-0041 (‘quick-step.es’ and ‘quickstep.es’); EUTELSAT SA v Iván Fernández González, WIPO Case No DES2013-0013 (‘eutelsat.com.es’)). 58  Under the ADR Regulation, the concept has been interpreted more restrictively than under the UDRP. Indeed, panels have held in this respect that the concept of a ‘competitor’ refers only to an operator acting in the same market as the complainant (Eurotrasteros VGA SL v Almacenaje Calleja, WIPO Case No DES2007-0017 (‘eurotrasteros.es’); Galerías Tarragona, SA v IAA, ADigital Case No 200607c0025—‘expomobi.es’) or, at least, to an operator with which the complainant has maintained commercial relationships (JCFV/Repuestos y Suministros del Henares, SL v AJ/Tropical Trees Co, SL, WIPO Case No DES2007-0012—‘lamadera.es’). 59  Pursuant to the decisions issued under the ADR Regulation, the respondent’s actions will be determined to have been undertake in bad faith where, when through the website connected with the disputed domain name: (i) its own products or services are offered—Química Farmacéutica Bayer, SA v JPA, WIPO Case No DES2006-0016 (‘aspirina.es’); Feria del Cáñamo, SL v PMF, Autocontrol Case dated March 2, 2007 (‘spannabis.es’ and ‘expocannabis.es’); (ii) third parties’ products or services competing with those of the complainant are offered—Lorefar, SL v ELI, ADigital Case No 200702c0011 (‘faro.es’); Caja de Ahorros Municipal de Burgos v Kathryn Jane Tallin/Dogs. info, WIPO Case No DES2007-0005 (‘wwwcajadeburgos.es’); (iii) third parties’ products or services in general are offered—Laboratoires Expanscience v Netreg CCC, WIPO Case No DES2007-0030 (‘musti.com.es’); or (iv) pornographic content is offered—Caja de Ahorros de Vitoria y Álava—Eta Gasteiko Aurrezki Kutxa (Caja Vital) v Cibergirona, SL, WIPO Case No DES2007-0007 (‘caja-vital.es’); Towers, Perrin, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc v Artesanos del Bordado, WIPO Case No DES2007-0001 (‘towersperrin.es’); Jysk A/S v Henrik Olsen, WIPO Case No DES2007-0011 (‘jysk.es’). In any case, the complainant shall not be required to prove that profits have been obtained by the respondent, but just that the behaviour in question concerns the re-directing of Internet users (Union des Associations Européenes de Football (UEFA) v AdF, WIPO Case No DES2006-0012 ‘uefa.es’). 60  This is a final and open category that has been used to address bad faith activities which are not specifically delineated by the text of the Regulation, but which otherwise fall within the scope of application of the ADR Regulation. Hence, even though this remains an open category, it has been used in connection with the following bad faith activities: (i) failing to respond to the complaint and/or ignoring any cease-and-desist letter sent by the complainant in connection with the disputed domain name, clearly informing the respondent of the potential breach of the complainant’s previous rights and, hence, leaving no room to consider that good faith existed on the side of the respondent—Umdasch AG y Österrechische Doka Schalungstechnik Gesellschaft MBH v DBP, WIPO Case No DES2006-0034 (‘doka.es’); Nevamar Co LLC v Paegra SL, WIPO Case No DES2008-0018 (‘nevamar.es’); (ii) use by an authorized registrar of its technical advantages for registering in bad faith domain names corresponding to third parties’ trademarks—William Hill Organization Ltd v Hostinet, SL, WIPO Case No DES2006-0004 (‘willhill.es’ and ‘williamhill.es’); Eroski S Coop v GVC/Hostalia Internet SL, ADigital Case No 200603c0002 (‘wwweroski.es’); or (iii) the concurrence of other circumstances

868

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (1) Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation Under Spanish law, and in line with most other European jurisdictions, there exists no spe- ES.77 cific anticybersquatting regulation (apart from the ADR Regulation). The Spanish courts have, however, dealt with a significant number of disputes related to domain names, applying legislation relevant to trademarks, the protection of personal and geographical names, unfair competition and intellectual property.

(2) Trademark Infringement As indicated in Section I of this chapter, the STA has become one of the most applied regu- ES.78 lations when dealing with cybersquatting cases. Article 34.2(e) of the Act expressly sets forth that, pursuant to the powers deriving from a trademark right, the holder of such right is entitled to prohibit any unauthorized use of the trademark in telecommunications networks and, in particular, in connection with the registration and/or use of a domain name.

(a) Risk of Confusion In order to fall under the above-mentioned principle, however, the domain name must be ES.79 confusingly similar to a valid trademark. Accordingly, Spanish case law has developed a test for evaluating the potential risk of confusion between an affected trademark and a domain. The main guidelines of said test were summarized by the Audiencia Provincial (Provincial ES.80 High Court) of Barcelona in the following terms:61 [The comparison between the trademark and the domain name must be based in] a synthetic and global vision, counting with all the elements forming part of the trademark and the domain name, without decomposing their phonetic and graphical unity. Moreover, the similarities, in case they exist, must be referred not just to individual elements of the trademark but also, and basically, to the generality and ensemble of the different parts integrating the trademark and the domain name. This analysis must be made from the perspective of an average consumer presumably well-informed and paying reasonable attention and being minimally perceptive.62

This is the same approach that has been established for evaluating the similarity between two ES.81 different trademarks, and follows the same legal standards. Thus, if the relevant trademark combines graphical and written features, the latter are considered to be the main elements in comparing said trademark with a domain name.63

(b) Protection of Famous Marks Spanish case law has expressly recognized the privileged status of famous trademarks as ES.82 regards infringements committed through the registration or use of domain names. Indeed, the inclusion of a well-known mark in any domain has been recognized as automatically triggering a higher risk of confusion.64

that objectively lead the panel to consider that the respondent has behaved in bad faith—Media Markt Saturn Adminstración España SA v Ofistore Internet, SL, Autocontrol Case dated August 28, 2006 (‘media-markt.es’). 61  Judgment related to Case No 299/2005, dated June 22. 62  Unofficial English translation of the original Spanish text. 63  Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Barcelona No 951/1998, dated April 23, 2001. 64  Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Valencia No 800/2002, dated December 12; judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Zaragoza No 67/2005, dated February 10.

869

Spain (‘.es’) (c) Other Elements Required for a Trademark Infringement Action ES.83 Apart from the elements described above, pursuant to the STA, any action focused on a domain name allegedly breaching the rights of the trademark holder must also fulfil the general requirements set forth by Spanish law. Thus, the complainant must prove the following elements: (i) The domain name has been used by the respondent in the course of trade. Therefore, in theory, any non-commercial use of the domain should exempt the respondent from a claim of trademark infringement. Nevertheless, the courts have considered that this requirement is satisfied even in cases where such a commercial use is very limited (eg by the inclusion of secondary banners in the corresponding website).65 (ii) The trademark infringement has had effect within the Spanish territory, where the alleged trademark is valid. In this regard, a wide approach has been taken, and the courts have held that the effects of an infringement may be deemed to have effect in Spain as long as Spanish Internet users can easily access and use the website connected with the infringing domain name (noting also that in all of the cases which have been analyzed by the Spanish courts the domain names in question were connected to Spanish-language websites).66 (iii) The domain name must have been used by its holder to designate goods or services, which should be associated with the corresponding website or other uses of the domain name (eg for e-mail purposes).67

(3) Infringement of Personal Names ES.84 Under Spanish law, there is a procedure for preventing the non-authorized use of the names

of individuals for commercial purposes. This procedure is based on the provision of Organic Act No 1/1982, concerning the Civil Protection of the Right of Honour, Personal and Family Privacy, and Self-Image.

ES.85 Pursuant to Article 7.6 of that Act, the non-authorized use of the name, voice, or image of an

individual for advertising or commercial purposes is deemed an illegal violation of the right to self-image that any individual holds under the Spanish Constitution. Thus, for example, this provision has been applied in connection with the commercial use of a surname of a famous artist (Dalí) as part of a commercialized domain name.68

(4) Infringement of  Titles ES.86 No decisions have been issued in Spain in connection with the infringement of titles via the

registration and use of domain names. Nevertheless, ADR resolutions have dealt with this issue,69and the approach adopted mirrored the decisions of Spanish panels under the UDRP.70

  Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Bizkaia No 504/2005, dated July 1.   Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Zaragoza No 473/2000, dated January 15, 2001. 67  Judgment of the Juzgado de Primera Instancia from Valencia No 4, dated April 17, 2001. 68  Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Girona No 115/2006, dated March 30. A similar conclusion was reached in a UDRP case (Xavier Hernández Creus v Isidro Sentís Sales, WIPO Case No D2001-0710, ‘xavihernandez.com’), where the panel expressly stated that ‘there is no doubt that the use of the complainant as a domain name constitutes a breach in the sense contemplated in that Act, since it is a use with advertising purposes which is being developed without the authorization of the complainant’ (unofficial translation of the Spanish original text). 69  Excelentísimo Ayuntamiento de San Cristóbal de la Laguna v Laser Center, WIPO Case No DES2011-0026 (‘lalaguna.es’); Excelentísimo Ayuntamiento de San Cristóbal de La Laguna v José Rodríguez, WIPO Case No DES2011-0025 (‘ayuntamientolalaguna.es’). 70  See, for example, Gobierno de Asturias v Diego Miras Silva, WIPO Case No D2007-1392 (‘asturias.biz’); or Gobierno de Asturias v Dispal Astur, SA, WIPO Case No D2007-1233 (‘asturias.com’ and ‘asturias.org’). 65 66

870

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws There must exist clear evidence of the risk of confusion between the trademark and the domain name, and such risk of confusion will be deemed to be higher where the website associated with the disputed domain name is related to the territory where the complainant holds rights.

(5) Use of Copyrighted or Trademarked Text as a Domain Name The Spanish courts have held that the registration and use of a domain name containing or ES.87 based upon a name protected by IP rights (as defined in the Spanish Intellectual Property Act)71 by a third party who is not the relevant rights-holder may constitute a violation under the scope of the Act. Accordingly, in order to prevail in an action under the Spanish IP Act, a complainant must ES.88 prove that there exists a direct connection between the domain name in question and some type of IP rights which are owned or controlled by the complainant, including a copyrighted work or a trademark.72 Hence, in such cases, in order to avoid liability the domain name registrant should be able to prove that it is the author of the corresponding work, or holder of the mark included in the contested domain name.73

(6) Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available Under Spanish law, any claim relating to the abusive registration or use of a given domain ES.89 name will likely seek the following remedies: (i) Cessation of the infringement resulting from the registration and use of the disputed domain name. If the injured rights holder seeks not only the termination of use but also the transfer of the domain name, then transfer must be expressly requested in the corresponding complaint.74 (ii) Obtaining compensation for damages suffered in consequence of the infringement. The complainant must provide evidence of the alleged damages. The complainant is exempted from said duty only where there is no need to provide this evidence, as the damages are an evident and logical consequence of the infringement or when the relevant legislation automatically establishes a duty of compensation.75 (iii) The adoption of any other measure that is reasonably necessary to ensure the cessation of the infringement. In this regard, for example, a respondent that was determined to have infringed the complainant’s rights through the registration and use of a domain name may be forced to withdraw any advertising material containing references to that domain and to notify its customers of the corresponding judgment.76 (iv) Adopting interim measures to block the corresponding domain name in order to prevent its illegal use during the pendency of an ongoing court procedure. In this regard, the general criteria set forth by Spanish law, (namely Articles 726 and 728 of the Spanish Civil Procedures Act)77 in regard to preliminary injunctions, is applicable.78

71  Royal Legislative Decree No 1/1996, dated April 12, approving the consolidated text of the Intellectual Property Act. 72  Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Madrid No 645/2005, dated October 11. 73  Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Bizkaia No 23/2001, dated January 5. 74  Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Madrid No 517/2005, dated November 21; judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Murcia No 285/2005, dated November 2. 75  Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Zaragoza No 473/2000, dated January 15, 2001; judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Bizkaia No 504/2005, dated July 1. 76  Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Zaragoza No 528/2002, dated September 24. 77  Act No 1/2000, dated January 7. 78  Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from Asturias No 140/2004, dated April 19; preliminary judgment (‘auto’) from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil from Alicante dated October 19, 2004; preliminary judgment from the Audiencia Provincial of Barcelona No 266/2005, dated November 3.

871

Spain (‘.es’)

V.  The Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name ES.90 As indicated in Section I above, Spanish case law has established that the mere registration of

a domain name, by itself, does not grant any specific IP rights to the registrant.79 Any such rights can only derive from the commercial use of the name on which the corresponding domain is based.

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers ES.91 Both the National Plan and the registration agreement accepted by all ‘.es’ registrants expressly

exempt Red.es (as the registry operator) and the relevant registrars from any liability resulting from the registration and/or use of a domain name. Nevertheless, these operators would be considered liable if they were actively involved in or specifically aware of malfeasance conducted through the registration and/or use of a domain. Hence, if the registrar or registry acts in bad faith or with gross negligence, then they could potentially face liability in connection with a registrant’s activities.

ES.92 Concerning Internet Service Providers (ISPs), any potential liability deriving from the use

of a domain name should be evaluated pursuant to the regulatory standards set forth in the Spanish E-Commerce Act (Act No 34/2002, dated July 11). According to Article 14 of that Act, ISPs will be exempt from any liability deriving from the use of an infringing domain name unless (similar to the case of Red.es and its registrars) they have been actively involved in those infringements or possessed express knowledge of them.

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property ES.93 Under Spanish law domain names are considered to be services, rather than items of property.

In this regard, since they have not been recognized by Spanish legislation or case law as IP rights or as variants of other types of rights, they cannot be deemed as independent objects of rights in and of themselves.

ES.94 On the contrary, pursuant to their specific functionalities (since they allow the translation of

a given IP address into a combination of letters and/or numbers), the most correct approach from a Spanish legal perspective would be to consider domains to be a service, rather than a property right.80

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (1) International Jurisdiction ES.95 The general principles of Spanish international private law are applicable to any court proce-

dures relating to domain names disputes. In this respect, if the respondent is a resident of an   See above n 4.   For more details on this issue, see Agustinoy Guilayn, ¿De qué hablamos cuando hablamos de nombres de dominio?, Revista Aranzadi de Derecho y Nuevas Tecnologías, No 7, 2005. 79 80

872

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law EU Member State, the competence of the court will be established pursuant to the provisions of Regulation 44/2001, dated December 22, 2000. Pursuant to Article 5 of this regulation, if the action derives from an infringement of IP ES.96 rights, the courts located where the harmful event has occurred or may occur will be competent to decide the dispute. This provision has been broadly interpreted by the European Court of Justice, and thus covers both the place where the infringing event took place and the place where the damage was incurred. Therefore, the party filing the action has two potential choices in deciding which court to use.81 Where the defendant is domiciled in a European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Member State, ES.97 the competent court will be determined pursuant to the provisions of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, dated September 16, 1998. Finally, where the defendant is domiciled in a third country that belongs neither to the EU nor ES.98 the EFTA, judicial competence will be established pursuant to the provisions of the Spanish Act on Judicial Power.82 Under said legislation, a Spanish court will be deemed competent if the infringement took place in Spain or if the infringing party and the complainant are both Spanish residents. To date, no consolidated criteria have been established in regard to the application of the ‘place of the infringement’ concept, since in most of the cases both the complainant and the defendant have been Spanish residents.83 In all cases, preliminary injunction measures should be available pursuant to the applicable ES.99 regulations. In this respect, the applicable international cooperation measures should be executed.

(2) Choice of Law Under Spanish law, intellectual and industrial rights must be deemed protected by the legis- ES.100 lation of the country where protection is being requested. Bearing this in mind, and pursuant to Article 10.4 of the Spanish Civil Code, any infringement dispute filed before the Spanish courts concerning the registration and/or use of a domain name should rightly be decided under Spanish law (provided the relevant trademark was registered in Spain and the disputed domain name could be considered to be connected with the Spanish market), regardless of the availability of international law provisions. This issue has not been properly addressed in Spanish case law with regard to domain name ES.101 disputes. Thus, no clear interpretation criteria have been set forth to govern the potential application of international or foreign law, particularly where internationally-registered trademarks are concerned. Similarly, the criteria for determining the applicable law with regard to other types of ES.102 conflicts are, to a great extent, based on the connection of the alleged breach with the Spanish market. Specifically, pursuant to the provisions of Article 10.9 of the Spanish Civil Code, conflicts deriving from the infringement of personal names or from unfair competition behaviours shall be decided under the law of the territory where protection is being requested.

81 See, for example, the judgment of the European Court of Justice dated April 19, 2012, Case No C-523/10, Winsteiger AG and Products4U Sondermachinenbau GmbH. 82  Organic Act No 6/1985, dated July 1. 83  See, for example, the judgment of the Audiencia Provincial from A Coruña (Case No 88/2012) dated February 29.

873

Spain (‘.es’) (3) Substantive Law Issues ES.103 Spanish case law has defined general criteria in order to determine how traditional provisions

should apply to disputes relating to the registration and/or use of domain names. The key issue should be the points of connection existing between the disputed domain name and the relevant Spanish legal protection (such as, for example, trademark registrations).

ES.104 Complaints must provide evidence demonstrating use of the relevant sign, as well as proof

of the domain name’s use in the Spanish market. The complainant must also show that the infringing behaviour has a commercial effect on the Spanish market, which will in turn depend on the connection between the infringing behaviour and the Spanish market, and the relevant legal protection available in Spain.84

84 See, for example, judgment from the Audiencia Provincial of Alicante, Case No 4/2012, dated January 11, 2012.

874

SWEDEN (‘.se’) Petter Rindforth

I. Overview of the National System of Trademark/ Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names 

(1) Types of Protected Intellectual Property Rights  (2) Development of the Domain Name Law 

II. The ccTLD (‘.se’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

(1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry  (2) The Structure of the Name Space  (3) Registration Restrictions  (4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement  (5) Transfer of Domain Names  (6) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party during an ADR or Court Proceeding  (7) Statistics: Number of Domain Name Registrations; Growth 

III. ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.se’ Domain Space 

(1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding  (2) Statistics  (3) Material Scope of the Proceeding  (4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding through the Registration Agreement  (5) Overview of the ADR-Procedure  (6) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider 

(7) Role of the Administrative Panel  (8) Costs  (9) Relationship between the ADR and Court Proceeding  (10) ADR Decision  (11) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Administrative Panel 

SE.01 SE.01 SE.14

IV. Court Litigation and National Laws 

SE.19

(1) Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation  (2) Trademark Infringement  (3) Infringement of Personal Names, Names of Cities, and Other Public Law Corporations  (4) Infringement of Titles  (5) Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  (6) Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available 

SE.19 SE.22 SE.23 SE.26 SE.34 SE.36

V. The Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  VI. Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers  VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law 

SE.37 SE.39 SE.39 SE.40 SE.41

(1) International Conflicts  (2) Choice of Law  (3) Substantive Law Issues 

SE.42 SE.43

SE.60 SE.63 SE.64 SE.66 SE.72 SE.79 SE.79 SE.80 SE.86 SE.90 SE.92 SE.93

SE.97

SE.99 SE.100 SE.101 SE.101 SE.105 SE.110

SE.59

Links Intellectual Property Office Patent- and Trademarks Office: http://www.prv.se/en/ Trademark Act: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=10366 Domain Name System ccTLD Registry:  https://www.iis.se/english/Rules for Registration:  https://www.iis.se/en/ domaner/villkor/registreringsvillkor Terms and Conditions for Registration: https://www.iis.se/english/domains/se/terms-and-conditions/

875

Sweden (‘.se’) Alternative Dispute Resolution: Dispute Resolution Provider: https://www.iis.se/en/domaner/atf Dispute Resolution Policy: https://www.iis.se/english/dispute_resolution/for-se/ Dispute Resolution Rules: https://www.iis.se/english/dispute_resolution/for-se/ Decisions: https://www.iis.se/english/dispute_resolution/for-se/ongoing-matters-and-adr-decisions/

I.  Overview of the National System of Trademark/Industrial Property Rights and Domain Names (1) Types of Protected Intellectual Property Rights SE.01 Trademarks are protected by the 2010 Trademarks Act (2010:1877),1 an updated Act which

came into force on July 1, 2011 and established the general provisions for the procedures and requirements for the registration of trademarks in Sweden. Further, the Trademarks Regulation (2011:594)2 lays down relatively detailed provisions concerning the trademark registry, including what information a trademark application should contain, the fees for different trademark applications, and so on. The Swedish Trademarks Act also includes the provisions of the Trademark Directive,3 the Madrid Protocol and the EEC Directive on Community Trademarks.4

SE.02 The official body for the regulation of trademarks in Sweden is the Trademarks Department

of the Swedish Patent and Registration Office (PRV), located in the city of Söderhamn.5

SE.03 Trademark protection in Sweden can be obtained by use, by a national Swedish trademark

registration, by a Madrid Protocol registration covering Sweden, and/or by a Community Trademark registration.

SE.04 An unregistered trademark is only protected in the part of Sweden in which it has been used

and become known, and only for as long as the sign is in use.

SE.05 All formally registered trademarks have full protection throughout Sweden, preventing third

parties from using or registering a trademark, design or company name that is confusingly similar and related to the same or similar goods or services.

SE.06 Section 1:4 of the Trademarks Act, defines trademarks as being:

all signs that can be reproduced graphically, in particular words, including personal names, devices, letters, numerals and the special form or get-up of goods or packaging, provided that the signs are capable of identifying the goods or services of one particular tradesman from the goods or services of another. SE.07 Accordingly, possible trademarks which may be registered in Sweden are:

(i) word marks; (ii) numbers;

1  English translation: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=10366. The prior Swedish Trademarks Act was (1960:644). 2  English translation available at: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=10708. 3  First Council Directive of 21 December 1988, to Approximate the Laws of the Member States Relating to Trade Marks, 89/104/EC, OJ 1989 No L 40/1. 4  EC Regulation No 40/94 of the Council on the Community Trademark dated 20 December 1993. 5 See http://www.prv.se.

876

I.  Overview of the National System (iii) figurative marks/logos; (iv) colours; (v) three-dimensional trademarks; and (vi) sound trademarks (the sound must be reproducible graphically, for example, using notes). In order to have a trademark registered in Sweden, the mark must be unique, distinctive, and SE.08 bear no risk of confusion with another Swedish trademark, company/business name, or an international trademark registration that is valid in Sweden. The length of the examination and registration process is about six to nine months, provided SE.09 no obstacles are found and no objections are raised. Once accepted for registration, the PRV will issue the Certificate of Registration and publish the mark in the Official Journal. The opposition period is three months from the date of registration. Company names (trade names) are protected by the Company Name Act (1974:156).6 SE.10 Protection can be secured either through extensive use or by registration. The official body for company names is the Swedish Companies Registration Office (Bolagsverket), located at the city of Sundsvall. The remedies available in cases of trademark and trade name infringement (including use of SE.11 the mark/trade name in a web address) in Sweden include: fines, damages, transfer of relevant rights, cancellation of rights, destruction of goods, confiscation, and imprisonment. By using appropriate enforcement measures (against the offender’s assets), it is generally easy to enforce the remedies. An interlocutory injunction is a fast way to stop the further use of an infringing trade name SE.12 or trademark. The court order can normally be obtained in a couple of days. The plaintiff, however, must first prove to the court that he has an arguable case and that the matter is urgent. He must also provide sufficient financial security to cover any liability he may incur in the event that the court subsequently finds in favour of the defendant. Damages in Sweden are traditionally rather low, amounting normally to between SEK SE.13 50,000 and SEK 300,000 (approximately €4,990 and €29,920) for trademark infringement. Full court proceedings concerning the infringement of a trademark or trade name generally take between ten and fifteen months.

(2) Development of the Domain Name Law The first policy for ‘.se’ domain name allocations was drafted in 1995, in a cooperation with the SE.14 Swedish universities’ data network, SUNET, and the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). It was not until July 1, 2006 that the ‘.se’ space was regulated through legislation by means SE.15 of the Act on National Top-Level Domains for Sweden on the Internet (2006:24), also called ‘the TLD Act’. The Act designates the national communications authority, the Swedish Post and Telecom Agency (PTS), as the official inspecting and regulating body. As a result of the Act being passed, the Swedish Foundation for Internet Infrastructure, formed in August 1997, and its subsidiary company NIC-SE, were merged and formed a single organization. The PTS is the authoritative body which regulates all forms of electronic communication in SE.16 Sweden. The TLD Act contains, among other things, comprehensive provisions concerning the allocation of domain names, as well as an efficient procedure for the resolution of disputes. At the present time, there is one administrator for the allocation of domain names under the national top-level domain ‘.se’, The Internet Infrastructure Foundation (IIS). 6

  Latest version: SFS 2014:1338 .

877

Sweden (‘.se’) SE.17 Since 2001, there have been less than ten pure domain name disputes handled by courts of

first instance, and none of these have proceeded to higher courts.

SE.18 The reason for the low incidence of domain name disputes in the Swedish court system is the

existence of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) policy. The ADR mechanism was created in 2003, when the ‘.se’ domain registration policy changed to a ‘first-come, first-served’ allocation method.

II.  The ccTLD (‘.se’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry SE.19 The Internet Infrastructure Foundation (IIS)7 is responsible for handling domain names

in the national top-level domain, ‘.se’, and was appointed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on July 1, 2006. IIS is a private foundation not regulated by the Swedish government; however, its operations are governed by the TLD Act, with the PTS as the supervisory authority.

SE.20 The IIS Registry is responsible for the administration and technical operation of the national

domain name registry. Sales of domain names take place through resellers (registrars). One of the authorized registrars for ‘.se’ domains is IIS’ own registrar business, .SE Direkt.

SE.21 The Foundation’s charter states that IIS shall promote the positive development of the

Internet and positive stability in the infrastructure of the Internet. In addition, IIS shall promote research, development, training, and education in computer technology and telecommunications, with a specific focus on the Internet.

(2) The Structure of the Name Space SE.22 Domain names are registered directly under the ccTLD ‘.se’. Before June 3, 2013, there were

also six official SLDs in the system, namely:

(i) ‘.tm.se’ for registered trademarks; (ii) County-related SLDs; (iii) ‘.org.se’— for not-for-profit organizations; (iv) ‘.parti.se’— reserved for political parties registered in the ‘Register of Registered Party Designations’ of the Swedish National Tax Board; (v) ‘.press.se’— For use by periodical publications (eg magazines) with a certificate of publication issued by the PRV; (vi) ‘pp.se’— for private individuals (pp = private persons).

(3) Registration Restrictions (a) Syntactic Constraints and Prohibited Terms/Registration Restrictions and Eligibility Requirements SE.23 There are a number of categories of domain names that have been blocked or reserved by IIS. Certain domain names are completely blocked from registration while others are reserved for authorized applicants. Blocked or reserved categories include: (i) all numerical combinations with the format ‘xxxxxx-xxxx’ which comprise or may comprise a national registration number; (ii) banking control numbers (90-accounts), as well as some other specific numbers; 7

  The website can be found at: http://www.iis.se.

878

II.  The ccTLD (‘.se’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix)

90000, which is used for emergency calls; domain names that begin with two characters followed by two dashes; country codes according to the ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 code elements; domain names reserved for testing and as examples; misleading domain names;8 Swedish law; and foreign countries’ names in Swedish.

(b) Attribution/Naming Rules and Specific Requirements for Foreign Registrants Everyone is free to register whatever ‘.se’ domain the applicant is interested in, as long as the SE.24 domain name is currently available for registration, is not on the Blocked or Reserved list,9 does not infringe any third party’s rights, and does not otherwise violate Swedish law. (c) Documents Required for Registration In order to register a ‘.se’ domain name, one merely has to sign and accept the Terms and SE.25 Conditions for the Registrar,10 which includes a separate acceptance of the IIS Terms and Conditions of Registration (which is regarded as an Agreement directly between IIS and the domain holder). It is also important that the applicant files correct WHOIS information at the time the domain name is registered. (4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement Points 1.2 and 1.3 of the ‘Terms and Conditions of Registration—applicable for the top-level SE.26 domain ‘.se’ from May 27, 2015’11 state that IIS has accredited registrars who thereby are entitled to provide Registration Services for ‘.se’ domain names. Upon request from a domain owner, these registrars shall register and administer domain names. The Terms and Conditions of Registration apply to all domain names registered under the ‘.se’ TLD, and are in force as between the registrar, the domain owner, and IIS. The Terms and Conditions of Registration take precedence over each registrar’s own terms and conditions as they relate to the domain owner. Point 3.1 of the Terms and Conditions states:

SE.27

Any natural person or legal entity with a personal identification number or corporate identity number, or that can be identified via a registration designation in a register maintained by a governmental authority, or by an organization exercising state authority, may apply for registration of a Domain Name under the Top-Level Domain.se. For new registration of Domain Names, a ‘first come, first served’ principle applies, i.e. Domain Names are allocated in the order in which the applications are entered in IIS’ register.

Point 3.2 describes the technicalities concerning the ‘Formulation of the Domain Name’, SE.28 including the requirement that a ‘.se’ domain may only comprise ASCII characters, (ie the

8  This restriction is a relic from the time when ‘.se’ was restricted and all applications were previewed. It has not been used since 2003. It relates to words protected under the Act (1953:771) concerning the protection of certain international medical indications etc. (sometimes called the Red Cross Act) and the Act (1970:498) concerning the protection of weapons and certain other official designations and associated Regulation (1976:100). 9 See https://www.iis.se/statistics/barred_domains_list.txt. 10 See https://www.iis.se/en/domaner/registrera/registrarlista?country=all. 11 See https://www.iis.se/docs/Appendix-2_Terms-and-conditions_se_eng_150527.pdf.

879

Sweden (‘.se’) letters a–z, the numbers 0–9 and hyphens). The domain name must start and finish with a letter or a number, and may not consist entirely of hyphens. SE.29 Point 4 concerns the domain owner’s obligations, and s 4.1.1 states that:

In the application for registration of new Domain Names, the Domain Owner is responsible for submitting the following information: (i) full company name and contact person or, if a private individual, the first name and surname, (ii) the corporate identity number or personal identification number, (iii) VAT registration number (only for legal entities within the EU), (iv) postal address, (v) telephone number, and (vi) e-mail address. SE.30 Before a ‘.se’ domain name can be registered, the registrant’s contact information must be

complete and correct. A ‘.se’ domain name may be de-registered if the WHOIS information is incorrect or does not work.

SE.31 Points 6 and 7 describe when the IIS Registry may deactivate, deregister, or transfer domain

names, as well as the particulars of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ATF) proceeding.

SE.32 Finally, Point 9 deals with ‘Personal Information’, giving the IIS Registry the right and obli-

gation to manage personal information in accordance with the Top-level Domain Act.

SE.33 As to domain privacy services, it is important to note that the contact details, other than the

legal name of a physical person that holds a ‘.se’ domain name, are not official or searchable. If the domain holder wants to use a domain privacy service, the domain name must be formally registered in the name of that service in order to meet the requirements of Point 4.1.1 (see para SE.29 above).

(5) Transfer of Domain Names SE.34 According to Point 5.1.6 of the Terms and Conditions, ‘.se’ domain names may be trans-

ferred to new domain name holders. Upon request from the current domain owner, the concerned registrar must transfer the registration of the domain name to the new domain owner, provided that the new registrant has accepted the Terms and Conditions of Registration and provided his or her current WHOIS information.

SE.35 The registrar shall promptly, but no later than five working days from the fulfilment of the speci-

fied conditions (eg provision of WHOIS data, completion of the registration forms and payment of the registration fee), transfer the registration of the domain name to the new domain owner.

(6) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party during an ADR or Court Proceeding SE.36 Point 5.4.1 of the Terms and Conditions states that:

if an alternative dispute resolution procedure involving a Domain Name has been initiated, the Domain Name may not be deregistered or assigned until the application for the dispute has been: (i) written of, dismissed or refused, or (ii) has been approved and the decision may be executed.

(7) Statistics: Number of Domain Name Registrations; Growth SE.37 The first ‘.se’ domain name was registered in 1983. By the end of 1993 there were 605

domains registered in the ‘.se’ TLD, and by the end of 2003 there were 214,389 registrations.

880

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.se’ Domain Space As of May 18, 2015, there were 1,360,643 active ‘.se’ domain names registered, with an SE.38 approximate monthly growth of 15,000 to 20,000 new registrations.

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.se’ Domain Space (1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding The regulations stipulate the following:

SE.39

(i) that IIS shall administer the ADR proceeding and appoint an arbitrator to hear the dispute; (ii) that the complainant can choose one or three arbitrators and may request an accelerated proceeding should the counterparty fail to respond to the complaint; (iii) that an ADR complaint must be submitted in writing; (iv) that IIS must charge an application fee for the ADR procedure; (v) that an ADR matter is to be decided within 30 calendar days (one arbitrator) or 60 calendar days (three arbitrators) after it has been turned over to the arbitrators; and (vi) that an accelerated proceeding is always decided by one arbitrator within ten working days.

(2) Statistics From the first ATF in July 2003, to June 2015, 827 cases have been filed. 630 of these cases SE.40 have advanced to full proceedings (around 65 cases yearly). Of these 630 cases, 431 have ended in the transfer or cancellation of the disputed domain name, and in 199 cases the complaint was rejected. 64 cases have been decided by three-member panels, while the rest were heard by a single panellist. 92 cases have been handled as ADR Accelerated Proceedings.

(3) Material Scope of the Proceeding A domain name may be deregistered or transferred to the party requesting dispute resolution SE.41 proceedings if the following three conditions are fulfiled: (1) The domain name is identical or similar to: (a) a distinguishing product feature (trademark), (b) a distinguishing business feature (company name), (c) a family name, (d) an artist’s name (if the name is not associated with someone who died a long time ago), (e) a title of another party’s copyrighted literary or artistic work, (f ) a name that is protected by the Regulation concerning Certain Official Designations (1976:100), (g) a geographic designation or a designation of origin that is protected by the European Council’s Regulation (EU) 510/2006, or (h) a geographic designation that is protected by the European Council’s Regulation (EU) 110/2008, which is legally binding in Sweden and to which the party requesting dispute resolution can prove its rights; and (2) The domain name has been registered or used in bad faith; and (3) The domain owner has no rights or justified interest in the domain name.

(4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding through the Registration Agreement The Terms and Conditions of Registration for ‘.se’ domain names apply to all domain names SE.42 registered under the top-level domain ‘.se’, and are in effect as between the registrar, the domain holder, and IIS. The Terms and Conditions take precedence over each registrar’s

881

Sweden (‘.se’) individual terms and conditions in relation to the domain holder, and the domain holder is also (through the required acceptance of IIS’ Terms and Conditions) automatically bound by the Swedish ADR procedure by concluding the registration procedure for a ‘.se’ domain name.

(5) Overview of the ADR-Procedure (a) Language of the Proceeding SE.43 Point 7 of the Terms and Conditions of Registration deals with the ADR procedure. A complaint initiating an alternative dispute resolution proceeding must be made in Swedish or English. The decision is rendered by the panel in the language in which the complaint was filed. The counterparty (domain holder) is free to respond in either Swedish or English. (b) ADR Complaint SE.44 A complainant who wants to initiate an ADR proceeding for a ‘.se’ top-level domain must submit a written complaint to IIS by e-mail (if necessary, attachments can be sent by ordinary mail).12 At the same time the petition fee has to be paid, otherwise the matter will not be processed. SE.45 The complaint must contain information concerning the complainant’s name, personal iden-

tification, and e-mail address. Further required information includes:

(i) the claims made by the complainant with regard to the proceeding; (ii) the circumstances supporting these claims; and (iii) supporting evidence and facts, which must be verified by the submission of relevant evidence. SE.46 If a complainant is simultaneously petitioning for dispute resolution proceedings for several

domain names against the same domain owner, the complaints shall be handled in a single proceeding if they are supported by the same rights with a legal base in Sweden. This is similar to the consolidation procedure under the UDRP.13

SE.47 If the domain holder is registered as a private person, the complainant will first get full con-

tact information after the filing date of the complaint, when the case-related documents are communicated to the domain holder, with a copy sent to the complainant.

(c) Accelerated Proceeding SE.48 When filing an ADR complaint, a complainant may select an accelerated proceeding. The accelerated proceeding will only be available where the domain owner fails to respond to the ADR petition, and it offers an opportunity for the complainant to access faster processing of the case. If the complainant elects an accelerated proceeding, and due to the lack of response in the matter the case is able to continue in accordance with the accelerated procedure, the fee for the case will be reduced to SEK 2,000. SE.49 Accelerated proceedings are decided by one panellist within ten working days instead of

30 calendar days. The panellist will decide the case based upon the same principles that are applicable in a standard ADR proceeding, but will provide the decision without further justification (that is, the panellist will not provide any written grounds for the decision).

(d) ADR Response SE.50 Once an ADR complaint has been filed IIS will contact the party that has registered the

domain name, both by e-mail and letter, giving the domain holder a 30 calendar-day period 12  Send the application by e-mail to [email protected]. Attachments (if they cannot be sent by e-mail) by mail to IIS (The Internet Infrastructure Foundation), ATT: ATF, Box 7399, 103 91 Stockholm, Sweden. 13  For more information about the consolidation procedure under the UDRP, please see 10(e) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the ‘Rules’).

882

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.se’ Domain Space to file a response. The case will, however, be decided regardless of whether or not the registrant of the disputed domain name elects to respond to the complaint. The most important critical component of the response form is the section relating to the SE.51 domain holder’s claims regarding a ‘right with a legal basis in Sweden, bad faith or justified interest’. It is of paramount importance that the domain holder’s position regarding these elements is fully addressed, and that the complainant’s arguments concerning the transfer or deregistration of the domain name are responded to in a comprehensive manner. A domain name holder may be deemed to have a right or legitimate interest in the domain SE.52 particularly where it can be shown that: (i) the domain holder has used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name in conjunction with the marketing of goods or services prior to the commencement of the dispute resolution proceedings; (ii) the domain holder has become generally known by the name of, or a name clearly corresponding to, the domain name, notwithstanding that the holder has not acquired any sole right to the designation which constitutes the name; or (iii) the domain name has not been used for any commercial purpose in order to mislead consumers or to injure the reputation of a distinctive mark or designation. A response form can be found at the IIS site.14

SE.53

(e) Procedural Issues A party’s submissions do not have to be prepared and submitted by a lawyer, although it is SE.54 highly advisable to hire a lawyer who has experience in alternative dispute resolution systems for domain names. The complainant must at least file evidence to prove its claims of prior rights, such as copies SE.55 of certificates of trademark registrations. If the domain holder claims to have prior name rights, such statements must also be sup- SE.56 ported by evidence such as applications for company names, news articles, and so on. There are no hearings under the ADR procedure, and it is up to the panel to decide whether SE.57 there are any further comments or documents needed from the parties, once the complaint and the response have been filed. IIS publishes the ADR decisions, as well as summaries, online.15

SE.58

(6) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider IIS serves as the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider for ‘.se’ domain name disputes, and SE.59 handles the initial formalities, appointing panellists and corresponding between the parties and the panel.

(7) Role of the Administrative Panel The arbitrators in the Alternative Dispute Resolution proceedings make their decisions SE.60 entirely independently, in light of the regulations that apply and the practice that has been developed. All arbitrators are experienced lawyers and knowledgeable in intellectual property rights. They include professors, barristers, and information technology lawyers, and they have

 See https://www.iis.se/docs/answer_atf.pdf.  See https://www.iis.se/english/dispute_resolution/for-se/ongoing-matters-and-adr-decisions/ (only available in Swedish). 14 15

883

Sweden (‘.se’) no ties to IIS. The arbitrators are impartial and, should a conflict of interest arise, they must decline from deliberating on the particular matter. SE.61 There are currently 13 arbitrators (panellists) authorized by IIS to hear disputes.16 SE.62 If the ADR case is to be heard by only one arbitrator, IIS will select this individual. If the

complainant wants the matter to be handled by three arbitrators, then IIS will elect one of the panellists, who will also be the chair. The complainant and the domain holder will each appoint an arbitrator from among those registered with IIS. Should the domain owner not respond to the petition, IIS will elect an arbitrator in the domain owner’s place.

(8) Costs SE.63 The official fees for the ‘.se’ ADR procedure range from between 3,200 and 30,000 SEK. For

example:

–  a private individual outside the European Union, filing a dispute for one domain name and with one arbitrator, would pay 3,200 SEK; –  the same kind of dispute, but with the complainant being a legal entity within the EU, would pay 8,000 SEK; –  for a three member panel, fees would begin at 6,400 SEK; and –  a Swedish legal entity, wanting a three-member panel to handle a case including six to ten domain names, would pay 30,000 SEK.17

(9) Relationship between the ADR and Court Proceeding SE.64 If a national court case is initiated during the course of the ADR procedure, the ADR shall

continue if the parties do not agree that it should be interrupted. If action has been taken in court regarding greater rights to the domain name, the domain name may not be transferred to the plaintiff or a third party during the time that the court proceeding is under way or before a judgment has gained legal force. This presupposes that IIS has been made aware through notification that such a proceeding exists.

SE.65 There is no ADR appeals mechanism within the scope of the General Terms and Conditions

of IIS’ operations. There is, however, nothing preventing the dispute from being taken to a public court for a review under public civil law regulations. Nor is there any provision that prevents an ADR matter from being reviewed again. This applies to both standard ADR and accelerated proceedings.

(10) ADR Decision SE.66 The panellist can make a decision that the disputed domain name shall be transferred to the

complainant, be deregistered, or stay with the domain holder.

SE.67 There are no monetary awards possible. The complainant has to pay the full fee for the pro-

cedure; however, if the ADR complaint is withdrawn before the case is transmitted to the panellist, or the domain holder voluntarily agrees to the transfer, a portion of the filing fee will be refunded (except for an administrative fee of SEK 2,000). If the withdrawal is made after the matter has been sent to the arbitrator, half of the filing fee will be reimbursed.

SE.68 All decisions are available to the public on the IIS site, under the heading ‘Ongoing matters

and ADR decisions’.18

  A list of the ‘.se’ panellists is available at: https://www.iis.se/english/dispute_resolution/for-se/arbitrators-and-costs/  See https://www.iis.se/english/dispute_resolution/for-se/arbitrators-and-costs/#cost. 18 See https://www.iis.se/english/dispute_resolution/for-se/ongoing-matters-and-adr-decisions/. 16 17

884

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.se’ Domain Space An ADR matter is to be decided within 30 calendar days (one panellist) or 60 calendar days SE.69 (three panellists) after it has been submitted to the arbitrators for consideration. An accelerated proceeding is always decided by one panellist within ten working days. If the ADR decision holds that the domain name is to be transferred to another party or SE.70 deregistered, such actions will take place 14 calendar days after IIS has received the decision. There is no possibility of appealing a decision after dispute resolution within the scope of SE.71 the General Terms and Conditions and .SE’s operations. Either party may bring a case in the Swedish national courts regarding the domain name (see SE.64 above).

(11) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Administrative Panel A domain name will be cancelled or transferred to the party initiating the ADR procedure if SE.72 that party can prove that: (i) the domain name is identical to, or confusingly similar to, a trademark, trade name, family name or pseudonym (unless it refers to a long-dead artist) or the title of a work of literature or art, which is legally enforceable in Sweden and to which the party requesting dispute resolution can show a right; (ii) the domain name has been registered or used in bad faith; and (iii) the domain name holder does not hold any right to or legitimate interest in the domain name. The ‘.se’ ADR procedure was created based on the UDRP, so the process and regulations SE.73 are rather similar. The main differences are that the complainant can claim trade names and other ‘name rights’ as well as trademarks, and the disputed domain name can either have been registered or used in bad faith.19 Generally, where a dispute has involved a registered and/or well-known trade mark, business SE.74 name, or Swedish celebrity, the decision resulted in the transfer of the disputed domain name to the complainant, who was the owner of the protected name. Accordingly, in ATFs No 9 (‘peugeot.se’), No 11 (‘google.se’) and No 45 (‘dole.se’), the panellists stated that the domain names consisted of well-known trademarks and that the domain name holders had no legitimate interests in the same and had either registered and/or used the domain names in bad faith. It is important, however, for the complainant in each case to file arguments and evidence to support its claim to rights even if the trademark may be well known (see ATF No 504, regarding the domain name ‘agfa.se’). Some cases have involved misspelled version of trademarks. In ATF No 52, the adjudi- SE.75 cator stated that ‘vovlo.se’ was confusingly similar to the trademark of the Swedish car manufacturer Volvo, in spite of the fact that the (Swedish) holder asserted that he had no intention to create confusion with the well-known trademark ‘Volvo’ and that the domain name ‘vovlo.se’ was rather the acronym of the name of his pornographic website. See also the similar reasoning expressed by the panel in ATF No 345, concerning the domain name ‘dankebank.se’. The use of privacy and proxy services is not automatically considered an indication of bad SE.76 faith, unless the domain holder can be shown to have registered a number of domain names that are confusingly similar to others’ trademarks and therewith also have used the privacy/ proxy service in order to make it difficult for the complainant to identify the holder.

19  This is directly contrary to the UDRP requirement that a disputed domain name, in order to be subject to redress under the Policy, be both registered and used in bad faith.

885

Sweden (‘.se’) SE.77 Resellers have no automatic rights to register others’ trademarks as domain names under ‘.se’,

or domain names that clearly relate to a specific trademark with only a generic addition.20

SE.78 If the same registrant has domain names that are similar to several different protected rights (eg

brands or company names), owned by the same complainant, it will be possible to handle the case in one ATF. The complainant must indicate that there is reason to handle all domain name disputes at the same time and explain why it would benefit the investigation (and the panellist’s workload) to handle everything in the same proceeding. It is then up to the panellist to decide if it is beneficial to the investigation (see Point 7a of the Terms and Conditions of Registration).

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (1) Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation SE.79 There is no specific national anticybersquatting regulation in Sweden.

(2) Trademark Infringement (a) Risk of Confusion SE.80 According to the Trademarks Act, there is a risk of confusion when words and/or signs are similar and relate to the same or similar goods and services. The Swedish practice is, in many regards, very similar to the EC practice. SE.81 The risk of confusion relates to established business names in Sweden, Swedish national

trademarks, Community Trademarks and International Trademark Registrations covering Sweden. Swedish law does not distinguish between different kinds of infringement, counterfeiting, and piracy of trademarks. Thus, the conditions for liability are the same.

(b) Protection of Famous Marks SE.82 According to the Swedish Act against Unfair Competition, it is not permitted to ‘make par-

asitic use of the reputation’ of another’s trademark, and in particular of famous trademarks. Such situations may arise in the absence of both competition and a likelihood of confusion as to the source or ownership of the famous trademark.

SE.83 In order to win a claim for extended protection of a famous trademark or trade name which

has been used in a domain name, however, the text of the domain name must also be compared to the content of the connecting website.

SE.84 If the domain name as such is not confusingly similar to the trademark or trade name, and

the site’s content does not obviously refer to or take unfair advantage of the goodwill of the mark/trade name, there are no legal grounds for taking any action against the holder of the domain name, as there is—in the mind of the public—no associative connection between the famous trademark and the content of the website.

(c) Comparison of ADR v Court Action SE.85 Although the winning party in a Swedish national law court proceeding can claim damages and attorneys fees from the losing party, the costs and the time—compared to an ADR proceeding—make it impractical in all cases where the main goal is to stop the use of the infringing domain name as soon as possible. The Swedish ADR system is thus generally more effective in solving domain name disputes, and provides a more expedient resolution for concerned parties, than to sue a domain name holder in court.   See ATF No 257 (‘bootsno7.se’).

20

886

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (3) Infringement of Personal Names, Names of Cities, and Other Public Law Corporations The new Swedish Trademarks Act (SFS 2010:1877) that came into force on July 1, 2011 has lim- SE.86 ited the protection of surnames. Previously, the Act stated that ‘a trademark may not be registered if it consists of or contains something that is capable of being interpreted as someone else’s surname, pseudonym or similar, unless the name obviously refers to someone long since deceased’. In the new Act, surname objections only cover cases where a trademark consists of something which is meant to be perceived as someone else’s distinctive surname, if the use of the mark would disadvantage the bearer of the name. This will also affect the opportunities available to complainants who seek to recover ‘.se’ domain names that may be considered as someone else’s surname—if the surname is not distinctive and the domain name would not disadvantage the bearer of the surname. Most Swedish city names have long been registered as domain names for use by the local SE.87 authorities, and therefore it is no longer necessary for city names to have any specific protection. As long as the content of the corresponding website does not suggest any official affiliation with the local government of the city or the official body, the ‘first-come, first-served’ policy will apply, leaving the said city or body without any special protection. If a city name is applied for as a trademark, such city name will face the same possible descriptive bar as any other geographical word—being non-distinctive. Public law corporation names may be protected by specific laws identifying the corporation. SE.88 If, however, the name is not also registered as a trademark in the name of the corporation it may be difficult for the company to stop domain name infringement.21 There is no special protection for geographical indications, indications of source, and other SE.89 geographical terms in the domain name regulation. Misuse, however, may be treated as unfair marketing in a court action. Also, if a domain name consisting of a Protected Designation of Origin or a Protected Geographical Indication22 is used to market goods but does not comply with the requirements for such protection, it will be possible to cancel the domain registration by means of a court order.

(4) Infringement of  Titles Distinctive titles of publications are protected by the Trademarks Act and by the Company SE.90 Name Act. The PRV also registers the names of periodical publications. This protection only concerns the name in its capacity as a title of a periodical and the official examination of the name is only made against other registered periodicals as such, and not against company names, trade names, or trademarks. The holders of rights for the titles of works of literature and graphic art can also take action SE.91 in respect of the registration of their titles in bad faith as domain names in the ccTLD ‘.se’ by way of the ATF procedure.

(5)  Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name The ownership of a domain name alone gives no intellectual property rights. However, exten- SE.92 sive use of a domain name may create an ‘unregistered’ trademark right.

(6) Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available A Swedish court can order the infringing domain name holder, on pain of penalty, to imme- SE.93 diately cease the use of the domain name, as well as to cancel or transfer the name to the party   See ATF No 487, regarding the domain name ‘försvarsexportmyndigheten.se’.   Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs. 21 22

887

Sweden (‘.se’) prevailing in the litigation. According to the new conditions, the rights holder can oblige the registry to cancel or transfer the domain name by presenting the court order. SE.94 The injured rights holder, the plaintiff, normally claims both damages and seizure of all goods

marked with the infringing domain name. The court can also order the defendant, under penalty of a fine, to cancel the name or to transfer it to the plaintiff.

SE.95 The first full court dispute regarding trademark infringement on the Internet in Sweden is

still the only cited court case when dealing with these issues.23 The car manufacturer, Volvo Personvagnar AB (Volvo) sued SCT Scandinavian Car Tuning HB (SCT) in 2000 for trademark and trade name infringement. SCT, which had no connection to Volvo, had registered and used the domain name ‘volvo-tuning.com’ and had also used this domain name as a trademark for its car tuning services. SCT argued that ‘Volvo tuning’ was only used as a means of informing customers about its business activities. SCT also stated that a domain address is not a trademark and, accordingly, registration and use of the said address could never be regarded as trademark infringement. Finally, SCT pleaded that a Swedish court could not legally force SCT to cancel its domain name, ‘as the execution of such judgment depends on whether a third party accepts the judgment’.

SE.96 The district court of Stenungsund found that SCT, which was not an authorized reseller for

Volvo, could not, without permission from the trademark owner, use the VOLVO trademark for marketing purposes. SCT’s use of the domain name was therefore held to constitute trademark infringement. As to the question of trade name infringement, the court held that the domain name was not confusingly similar to Volvo Personvagnar AB. The court found no legal obstacles to ordering SCT to cancel the domain name registration. The court ordered SCT, on pain of a penalty of SEK 400,000, to immediately cease using the VOLVO trademark as part of a domain name and in other marketing activities, as well as to cancel the domain name. In addition, Volvo was awarded SEK 20,000 in damages and SCT was also ordered to pay Volvo’s attorney fees.

V.  The Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name SE.97 A domain name in Sweden is basically considered to be a technical address on the Internet. It

is not in itself a trademark nor is it a trade name. Web addresses may however, under certain conditions, be registered as trademarks or company names.

SE.98 A domain name that is widely used to market a certain enterprise, goods, or services, may

well be considered a protected trademark by virtue of such use. In Swedish practice, a non-distinctive mark may obtain protection ‘by extensive use’ after at least five years of continued use. If used on the Internet, such protection should be obtainable after only one to two years, due to the fact that advertising on the Internet will in most cases reach consumers and the general public faster and more easily than ordinary offline activities.

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers SE.99 The Terms and Conditions of Registration for a ‘.se’ domain clearly state that it is the appli-

cant’s own and sole responsibility to check that the domain name applied for does not

23  Volvo Personvagnar AB v SCT Scandinavian Car Tuning HB, Stenungsund District Court (Stenungsunds tingsrätt), decision dated 17 January 2001, Case No T202-00.

888

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law infringe any third party’s intellectual property rights. Thus, IIS, as well as the registrars and internet service providers, claims to have no liability for infringement or unfair competition. However, it remains to be seen if this position will hold up in court.

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property A  domain name as such is not regarded as an item of property in Sweden. Nevertheless, SE.100 domain names can be the subject of assignment and are even heavily traded. Documents for registration of assignments can be downloaded from Nic-Se’s website. Domain names are not treated in Sweden as property that can be executed.

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (1) International Conflicts A Swedish court has jurisdiction for all cases in which there is a connection to Sweden. It SE.101 could be that the defendant is domiciled in Sweden, or that the infringement was committed in Sweden, or that the loss or damage caused by the infringement arose in Sweden. If the case concerns the infringement of a Community trademark, the competent court is the Stockholm District Court. In order to determine whether an infringement has taken place in Sweden, the court must SE.102 take into consideration all aspects of the use of the sign on the Internet. Is the language of the site easily understood by the users? Is it possible to buy products and to contact the site owner from Sweden? Are there any specific disclaimers or other features on the website to exclude Swedish customers as possible addressees? In the ‘volvo-tuning.com’ case (see paras SE.104–SE.105), jurisdiction was an undisputed SE.103 fact, as both parties were domiciled in Sweden and the content of the website was in Swedish and directed at the Swedish market. In the absence of prior cases, questions of international jurisdiction for intellectual property SE.104 rights conflicts on the Internet have so far been rather theoretical. From discussions with Swedish judges with experience in intellectual property, however, a possible conclusion is that a Swedish court is hardly likely to handle a case where the domain name holder is not domiciled in Sweden and has no commercial connection with or is not a known competitor of the plaintiff.

(2) Choice of Law The ATF deals only with domain names featuring trade names, distinctive family names, SE.105 copyrighted titles, and trade marks which have legal effect in Sweden—that is, distinctive marks registered in Sweden and distinctive marks which, following international registration, have effect there, for example Community Trademarks or Madrid Protocol trademarks. The Swedish ccTLD, although open to Swedish and foreign natural and legal persons, irre- SE.106 spective of their place of residence or registered office, is intended for the Swedish market. The fact that the administrative ATF proceeding is not open for disputes regarding ‘.se’ domains containing a trademark with legal protection only outside of Sweden does not, however, mean that it would not be possible to seek a court order for the deregistration or transfer of a ‘.se’ domain name based on claims other than the ones stated within the ATF.

889

Sweden (‘.se’) SE.107 The Swedish domain name regulations mention three specific situations in which a ‘.se’

domain may be deregistered:

(i) deregistration or transfer after alternative dispute resolution (ADR) Proceedings; (ii) deregistration owing to inadequate performance of obligations—IIS is entitled to deregister a domain name if the domain name obviously violates a Swedish law or enactment; or (iii) deregistration on account of a judgment. SE.108 IIS shall immediately effect deregistration or transfer of a domain name upon the request of

an individual who presents a judgment or decision that has entered into final force and has legal effect in Sweden, by which it is indicated that deregistration or transfer shall take place.

SE.109 A Swedish court is entitled to handle a domain name dispute if the matter is connected to

Sweden. For example, (1) if the trademark owner is a German company with no intellectual property rights in Sweden, but the domain name holder is a Swedish company or individual (lex domicili); or (2) if the case involves a British and a French company and one of these has registered a ‘.se’ domain for the purpose of disrupting the other party’s business in Sweden (lex loci delicti).

(3) Substantive Law Issues SE.110 Contrary to what was suggested by some in the early days of the Internet, ‘cyberspace’ is not

lawless, nor the new ‘wild west’. What is illegal offline is illegal online. The problem today is rather that there are too many laws, regulations, and contracts in too many jurisdictions that may or may not be applicable to the content and/or address of a certain website. This situation not only makes it difficult for the main target of the said regulations, the users in bad faith, but also creates uncertainty for all those who wish to market their products and services using the Internet as an advertising tool and/or sales platform.

SE.111 The UDRP suits its purpose for the generic TLDs, as well as for those ccTLDs that are totally

open and used essentially as gTLDs, rather than as tightly-controlled ccTLDs. The UDRP also acts as a guideline for the forming of local regulations and ADRs. UDRP decisions do not, however, form a lex mercatoria in Sweden. Instead, infringements involving ‘.se’ ccTLD domain names should be judged in accordance with the rules and practice of the specific national jurisdiction.

890

SWITZERLAND (‘.ch’) Gallus Joller

I.  Overview of the National System of Trademark and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs  CH.01 (1) Trademark Law  (2) Company Name Law  (3) Name Law  (4) Law on Unfair Competition  (5) Development of Domain Name Law 

IV. Court Litigation 

CH.49 (1) No Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation CH.49 (2) Infringement of Trademark Law  CH.60 (3) Infringement of Company Name Law  CH.89 (4) Infringement of Name Law  CH.99 (5) Infringement of Article 3(1)(d) Act Against Unfair Competition  CH.107 (6) Specific Issues  CH.112 (7) Court Procedures and Remedies  CH.124

CH.02 CH.05 CH.07 CH.08 CH.10

II.  The ccTLD (‘.ch’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

CH.12 (1) Statutory Basis  CH.12 (2) Legal Status and Legal Basis of Registry CH.15 (3) Structure of the Name Space  CH.17 (4) Registration Restrictions  CH.18 (5) Basic Features of the Domain Name Registration Process  CH.20 (6) Transfer and Deletion of Domain Names  CH.24 (7) Statistics  CH.26 III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution  CH.27 (1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceedings CH.27 (2) Statistics  CH.28 (3) Material Scope of the Proceedings  CH.30 (4) Overview of the ADR Proceedings  CH.31 (5) Relationship to Court Proceedings  CH.36 (6) ADR Decision Criteria  CH.38

V. Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  VI. Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Provider  VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law  (1) Preliminary Comments  (2) Jurisdiction  (3) Choice of Law  (4) Use of the Sign on the Internet 

CH.140

CH.144 CH.147 CH.148 CH.148 CH.150 CH.153 CH.158

Links Patent- and Trademarks Office Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property: http://www.ige.ch Industrial Property Rights Registry of Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property: http:// www.swissreg.ch. Trademark Act: http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/c232_11.html (in German) Domain Name System SWITCH—Teleinformatic Services for Teaching and Research (‘.ch’ Registry): http://www.nic.ch Terms and Conditions for Registration: https://www.nic.ch/reg/cm/wcm-resource/download/ terms/SWITCH_AGB_en.pdf Alternative Dispute Resolution Dispute Resolution Provider: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cctld/ch/index.html Dispute Resolution Policy and Rules of Procedure:  http://www.nic.ch/reg/cm/wcm-page/ disputes/rules_v1.jsp Decisions: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisionsx/index-cctld.html Swiss Federal Supreme Court: http://www.bger.ch

891

Switzerland (‘.ch’)

I.  Overview of the National System of Trademark and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs CH.01 In Switzerland, the protection of distinctive signs is governed by the laws on trademarks,

company names, names, and unfair competition. The following sets out these legal bases and the signs they protect.

(1) Trademark  Law CH.02 Trademark law is regulated by the Federal Law on the Protection of Trademarks and

Indications of Source1 (Trademarks Act). A  trademark is a sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one enterprise from those of other enterprises.2 Only trademarks recorded in the Register3 enjoy protection, unless the mark is well known within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention.4

CH.03 The trademark owner maintains the exclusive right to use the mark to identify its relevant

goods or services,5 and may prevent the use of later similar signs for similar offerings provided there is a likelihood of confusion.6 The trademark owner cannot, however, require cessation of any use which was ongoing prior to the filing of the trademark application.7 Article 15 of the Act provides for extended protection for famous trademarks.

CH.04 Although in practice, the focus is on civil law protection,8 the Trademarks Act also contains

penal provisions and provides for assistance from customs authorities.9

(2) Company Name Law CH.05 Regulations concerning the formation of company names are set out in the Swiss Code of

Obligations (SCoO).10 Company names are the signs which sole traders and foreign proprietors of business establishments use to refer to their trades (business, enterprise), or which trading companies and cooperatives use as their registered names in the Commercial Register.11

CH.06 Registered company names must be clearly distinguishable from other entities. The scope of

protection depends on the type of corporate entity and the characteristics of the company name.12 The SCoO provides for civil law claims,13 while the penal provisions contained in the Penal Code14 are rarely applied in practice.

(3) Name  Law CH.07 Article 29 of the Swiss Civil Code15 regulates the protection of names.16 Protection extends

not only to natural persons but also to private and public corporations, including cities   SR 232.11.   Art 1(1) Trademarks Act. 3  Art 5 Trademarks Act. An international registration with effect in Switzerland has the same effect as a registration in the Swiss Register (cf. Art 46(1) of the Trademarks Act). 4  See Art 3(2)(b) Trademarks Act. 5  Art 13(1) Trademarks Act. 6  Art 3(1) Trademarks Act. 7  Art 14(1) Trademarks Act; see WIPO Case No DCH2010-0005—‘poker-palace.ch’ and WIPO Case No DCH2012-0029—‘tausche.ch’. 8  Arts 52 et seq. Trademarks Act. 9  Arts 61 et seq., 70 et seq. Trademarks Act. 10  SR 220; Arts 944 et seq. 11 ZGB-Bühler, 4th edn, Note 5 to Art 29; Bühler, Grundlagen des materiellen Firmenrechts, 1. 12  Cf. Art 951(2) and Art 946(2) SCoO. 13  Art 956 SCoO. 14  Art 326ter Penal Code. 15 SR 210. 16 ZGB-Bühler, Note 2 to Art 29; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr im Kennzeichenrecht, 86. 1 2

892

II.  The ccTLD (‘.ch’) Registration Conditions and Procedures and municipalities,17 as well as to distinctive short names, abbreviations, and pseudonyms.18 Name protection is of particular importance for trade names, commercial designations, and foreign company names not entered on the Swiss Commercial Register.19

(4) Law on Unfair Competition The purpose of the Federal Law on Unfair Competition20 (Unfair Competition Act, UCA) is to CH.08 ensure fair and undistorted competition in the interests of all concerned.21 Although competition law does not grant absolute rights, it provides indirect protection to distinctive22 signs used in trade.23 Although the UCA includes both civil and penal law provisions, in practice the civil law CH.09 claims are most important.

(5) Development of Domain Name Law In Switzerland, domain name conflicts are primarily resolved on the bases of trademark law, CH.10 name law, and the law on unfair competition. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has rendered about 25 decisions pertaining to domain names, clarifying several key questions of domain name law. According to established case law: the function of domain names as a distinctive sign causes that they have to stay away sufficiently from protected signs of third parties, in order to avoid confusion. If a sign used in a domain name is protected by name law, company name law or trademark law, the owner is basically entitled to prohibit use of this sign in a domain name, whereas conflicts between different rights are to be decided by balancing the conflicting interests. In addition, domain names have to comply with the fair competition principle (Swiss Federal Supreme Court Decisions 126 III 239 E. 2c; 125 III 91 E. 3c S. 93).24

Therefore, there is currently no perceived need for statutory provisions regulating domain CH.11 name conflicts. However, regulations governing the ‘.ch’ registry functions have been adopted, including an obligation to provide Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) proceedings.25

II.  The ccTLD (‘.ch’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1) Statutory  Basis Domain names are considered address elements or communication parameters within the CH.12 meaning of Article 3 of the Swiss Telecommunications Act.26 Therefore, the Federal Office for Communications (OFCOM) has been granted the power to issue domain names.27

  Cf. BGE 128 III 353 Consideration 4—montana.ch II; BGE 128 III 401 Consideration 5—luzern.ch IV.   Cf. Federal Supreme Court 2003 sic! Journal for Intellectual Property, Information and Competition Law 438 Consideration 3—djbobo.de II. 19 ZGB-Bühler, Notes 4 et seq. to Art 29; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 86 et seq.; HG ZH 2012 ZR Nr. 116—Handelsname. 20 SR 241. 21 Art 1 UCA. 22  Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 57 f.; cf. also Pedrazzini and Pedrazzini, Unlauterer Wettbewerb, Notes 5.64, 5.119 et seq.; Baudenbacher and Caspers, Lauterkeitsrecht, Note 10 to Art 3(d). 23 See Buri, Die Verwechselbarkeit von Internet Domain Names, 136; Weber, E-Commerce, 157; Joller, Nationale Schutzsysteme, in Bettinger (ed), Handbuch des Domainsrechts, CH 24. 24  Swiss Federal Supreme Court decision of 23 July 2002, 4C.9/2002, consideration 4—‘luzern.ch’; cf. further Swiss Federal Supreme Court Decisions 128 III 353—‘montana.ch’; 2003 sic! 438 E. 3—‘djbobo.de’; 2003 sic! 822—‘tonline.ch’; 2005 sic! 200—‘riesen.ch’; 2010 sic! 797, 798—Pneus-Online; 2011 sic! 727, 728—Jetfly. 25  See below Sections II.1 and III. 26  SR 784.10. 27  BGE 131 II 162 consideration 2—wellness-fuehrer.ch II; Six, Der Privatrechtliche Namensschutz, Note 409; Schneider, 1/2002 SWITCHjournal 15 f; Bondallaz, 2015 sic! 267. 17

18

893

Switzerland (‘.ch’) CH.13 Regulations concerning the administration and issue of domain names under the ccTLD ‘.ch’

(and the TLD ‘.swiss’) are stated in the Regulation on Internet Domains28 (RID), in effect since January 1, 2015. On the basis of Article 32 of this Regulation, OFCOM extended the existing registry contract with SWITCH.29 The Technical and Administrative Regulations on the Registration and Administration of Domain Names within the ‘.ch’ ccTLD30 (Technical and Administrative Regulations, TAR) were issued by OFCOM.

CH.14 Thus, the issue of domain names is currently regulated by Swiss public law.31

(2) Legal Status and Legal Basis of Registry CH.15 ‘SWITCH—Teleinformatikdienste für Lehre und Forschung—the Swiss Education and

Research Network’ is a foundation established in 1987 by the Federal Government and the eight university cantons. SWITCH has operated the registry for the ccTLDs ‘.ch’ and ‘.li’ since 1987 and 1993 respectively.32 In 2003, SWITCH was authorized by a contract under administrative law33 to provide registry and registrar services for the ‘.ch’ domain. Since 2015, registrar and registry functions have been separated. The current registry contract between OFCOM and SWITCH has been extended to 30 June 2017; in 2016, OFCOM will put out a public tender for the registry function.

CH.16 As of February 14, 2013, SWITCH has already discontinued its direct customer business for

‘.li’, which is now handled by authorized third-party registrars.

(3) Structure of the Name Space CH.17 The ‘.ch’ and ‘.li’ name spaces are not divided into sub-domains.

(4) Registration Restrictions CH.18 There are no specific registration restrictions. Any private person or legal entity, irrespective of

their geographical location, can register a domain under the ccTLDs ‘.ch’ or ‘.li’.

CH.19 Domain strings must consist of at least three and a maximum of 63 characters. The mini-

mum length requirement, however, does not apply in particular to abbreviations of the Swiss Federation (‘ch.ch’), the cantons (eg ‘lu.ch’) and some municipalities (eg ‘au.ch’).34 Domains must be composed of alphanumeric characters, hyphens,35 or Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) characters corresponding to umlauts and/or accents.36

(5) Basic Features of the Domain Name Registration Process CH.20 Since 2015, ‘.ch’ domain names can be registered through an authorized registrar only. CH.21 Requests are processed according to the ‘first-come, first-served’ principle.37 The registry does

not pre-screen applications. Disputes relating to claims based on distinctive signs have to be

  SR 784.104.2.   See below Section II.2; Schneider, 1/2002 SWITCHjournal 17. 30  SR 784.101.113/2.13. 31  Bondallaz, 2015 sic! 267. 32  The administration of domain names was previously the responsibility of a partially independent section of the Foundation, CH/LI DOM-REG (cf. Schneider, Domain Name Policy, 57). 33  Art 14a Address Element Regulation; cf. Federal Supreme Court 2012, 323, 324—Gewinnabschöpfung bei SWITCH; Weber, E-Commerce, 125. 34  Arts 25 and 26 RID; s 2.2 TAR. 35  The hyphen cannot, of course, be found in first, in third combined with the fourth or in last position (see s 2.1 TAR). 36  Since March 1, 2004, 31 new characters from the character set Latin-1 Supplement have been available for ‘.ch’ and ‘.li’ (see Eugster, 2/2003 SWITCHjournal 8 et seq. s 2.1 TAR). 37  Art 47(1) RID. 28 29

894

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution heard in civil law proceedings.38 According to SWITCH’s General Terms and Conditions, however, the registry may deny or revoke a registration if there is an ‘evident risk’ of liability due to the registration or use of the domain.39 If registration of a domain name is denied by the registry, the applicant can request OFCOM to issue a formal order.40 In 2004, SWITCH established a ‘.ch’ dispute resolution service. Article 14 RID stipulates the CH.22 holder has to participate in such proceedings. In this author’s view, however, the legal route of the state courts still remains available. The holder’s duty of data maintenance41 covers notably his name and address which are CH.23 publicly available on the WHOIS database. Other details listed on the WHOIS include the registration date, the language of the registration and the registrar.

(6) Transfer and Deletion of Domain Names Domain names can be deleted or transferred to a third party upon request confirmed by the CH.24 holder, on the basis of a court or arbitration decision enforceable in Switzerland, or an ADR expert’s decision under the ‘.ch’ procedure.42 Until a dispute has been determined by the court, it is important that no changes are made to CH.25 the domain registration, including deletion or transfer. A domain can be temporarily blocked and/or deactivated notably on the basis of a decision of a court43 or enforceable arbitration action, or a binding order by a Swiss authority.44

(7) Statistics Switzerland has one of the highest domain name densities, with roughly every fourth inhab- CH.26 itant owning a domain name. By March 2015, 1,939, 115 ‘.ch’ domain names and 63,654 ‘.li’ domain names had been registered.

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution (1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceedings An ADR mechanism for ‘.ch’ domain names was introduced in March 2004. The proceed- CH.27 ings consist of two stages: a conciliation attempt and an expert decision. In substantive terms, they involve special features, in particular if compared with the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceedings: they are neither limited to trademark rights nor to specific kinds of infringement, but cover all distinctive signs protected in Switzerland.45

(2) Statistics During the first eight years of the dispute resolution mechanism’s operation, 251 ADR pro- CH.28 ceedings were initiated, or roughly 31 proceedings each year. One third of the disputes were resolved before the conciliation procedure (92 proceedings), roughly 8 per cent were resolved

  Art 47 RID.   Section 3.1.2 SWITCH General Terms and Conditions (GTC). 40  Art 27 RID, Bondallaz, 2015 sic! 274. 41  Art 29(1) RID. 42  Arts 28(3) and 28(4) RID. 43  In particular within the framework of precautionary measures, see below Section VIII.2. 44  Cf. Art 30(3) RID. 45 Cf. https://www.nic.ch/reg/cm/wcm-page/disputes/rules_v1.jsp. 38 39

895

Switzerland (‘.ch’) during conciliation (20 proceedings), and expert decisions were issued in 50 per cent of the proceedings (132 decisions).46 CH.29 In nearly 40 per cent of all proceedings the domain names were transferred or cancelled.

Only about 15 per cent of all requests were denied.

(3) Material Scope of the Proceedings CH.30 The ‘.ch’ ADR procedure covers all distinctive signs protected in Switzerland. Claimants

can rely on the laws on trademarks, company names, names, and/or on unfair competition. Whether a right has been infringed is determined according to Swiss law.

(4) Overview of the ADR Proceedings CH.31 The proceedings are initiated by a written request to the Arbitration and Mediation Center

of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which acts as the dispute service provider. SWITCH then blocks the domain name in question.47 Basically, the proceedings are conducted in the language of the registration as indicated in the WHOIS data. A model request and response are available.48

CH.32 The domain holder is given an opportunity to respond to the request within 20 calendar

days.49 A conciliator is then appointed who will, during the following 20 calendar days, conduct a one-hour telephone conference to assist the parties in settling the dispute.

CH.33 If the parties do not reach agreement, an expert’s decision can be requested, and must be

issued within 14 calendar days. A party can request an oral hearing if it is willing to assume the additional costs.50

CH.34 After expiry of 20 working days, the decision (unless court proceedings have been initiated in

the meantime) is implemented by SWITCH and the disputed domain name is unblocked, transferred, or deleted.51 The decisions are published on WIPO’s website.52

CH.35 The fees for the proceedings as a rule amount to CHF 600 (conciliation attempt) or CHF

2,000 (expert decision),53 and are borne as a matter of principle by the complainant.54

(5) Relationship to Court Proceedings CH.36 According to Article 14(1)(c) Regulation on Internet Domains, an expert decision is legally

binding, unless civil court proceedings are initiated within the terms specified in the Rules of Procedure. Besides, the Rules of Procedure stipulate that they do not prevent the parties from submitting the dispute to a competent court of justice for independent decision.55 Hence it is clear that the dispute resolution proceedings are simply an alternative to court.

CH.37 Therefore, legal proceedings can be filed before the civil courts instead of, during, or after the

ADR proceedings.56 Alternative dispute resolution proceedings and judicial proceedings are  Cf. https://www.nic.ch/reg/cm/wcm-page/disputes/decisions.jsp?lid=en.   Section 13 Procedural Rules. 48 See http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cctld/ch/index.html. 49  Section 15 Procedural Rules. 50  Sections 24(f ) and 22 Procedural Rules. 51  Section 26 Procedural Rules. 52 See http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisionsx/index-cctld.html. 53  Cf. Fees Regulation for ‘.ch’ and ‘.li’ domain names. 54  Section 11 Procedural Rules. 55  Paragraph 10 Rules of Procedure. 56  Paragraph 10(3) Rules of Procedure; WIPO Case No DCH2010-0031—‘comparez.ch’ (transfer) was successfully challenged before the Zurich Commercial Court (HG ZH of April 10, 2013, HG110066). 46 47

896

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution parts of different systems, and are based on different underling law. The ADR expert’s decision is restricted to ‘clear infringements of an intellectual property right’ within the meaning of the procedural rules. Consequently, a ‘.ch’ ADR decision does not have any prejudicial effect with respect to civil proceedings.57

(6) ADR Decision Criteria An expert’s decision in ADR proceedings is limited to clear cases of intellectual property (IP) CH.38 infringement, defined in the Rules of Procedure to exist notably where: (i) both the existence and the infringement of the claimed right in a distinctive sign clearly result from the wording of the law or from an acknowledged interpretation of the law and from the presented facts and are proven by the evidence submitted; and (ii) the respondent has not conclusively pleaded and proven any relevant grounds for defence; and (iii) the infringement of the right justifies the transfer or deletion of the domain name, depending on the remedy requested in the request.58

(a) Right in a Distinctive Sign In contrast to the UDRP, the ‘.ch’ procedure requires signs to be protected in Switzerland. CH.39 Experts basically decide on the basis of the pleadings of both parties and the submitted documents; they do not generally request additional information or evidence from the parties or conduct their own independent investigations. Therefore, a request will fail if there is no evidence that the claimant has rights in a distinctive sign in the territory of Switzerland (or, in respect of ‘.li’ domain names, the Principality of Liechtenstein).59 Since trademark rights originate upon recordal in the Register, a mere trademark application CH.40 does not confer any rights.60

(b) Clear Infringement of Rights In this author’s view, an acknowledged interpretation of the law is an interpretation in line with CH.41 established case law, notably of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, and overwhelming opinion in legal writing.61 From such point of view, the legal concept of clear infringement has rarely been taken into account in practical application.62 Expert decisions focus instead on issues of fact and evidence, denying a clear infringement if—due to lack of evidence—there were doubts concerning the recognition (and related scope of protection) of trademarks,63 or, in case of terms in the public domain, about the exclusive rights of the claimant.64 Besides, experts’ decisions pointed out that ADR proceedings are designed to deal only with relatively simple cases, and are not equipped with mechanisms for detailed procurement or cross-examination of evidence. Thus, in cases requiring a thorough review of facts and/or difficult legal issues, recourse to State courts seems to be justified, so that a clear infringement has to be denied.65

57 See Kur, Entwicklungen und Trends in den Schiedsgerichtsverfahren für Domainnamen-Konflikte, 241 et seq. 58  Section 24(d) Procedural Rules. 59  WIPO Case No DCH 2005-0029—‘locationservice.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2008-0009—‘velba.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2011-0007—‘turkcelleurope.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2012-0005—‘sdv.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2012-0007—‘academia.ch’; and WIPO Case No DCG2012-0020—‘vom-kloster-interlaken.ch’. 60  WIPO Case No DCH2005-0019—‘easyhotel.ch’; and WIPO Case No DCH2012-0007—‘academia.ch’. 61  Joller, Nationale Schutzsysteme CH 60, de Werra, Domain-Dispute.ch, sic ! Sondernummer 2005, 157. 62  WIPO Case No DCH2012-0011—‘ubisoft.ch’; and WIPO Case No DCH2012-0017—‘encore.ch’. 63  WIPO Case No DCH2005-0012—‘vita.ch’. 64  See WIPO Case No DCH2006-0011—‘evolene-vacances.ch’. 65  WIPO Case No DCH2008-0030—‘kickdown.ch’; see also WIPO Case No DCH 2005-0018—‘id-media.ch’; and WIPO Case No DCH2010-0032—‘axa-assurance.ch’.

897

Switzerland (‘.ch’) CH.42 Overall, most expert decisions appear to correspond with court litigation. Notably, typosquat-

ting cases regularly result in transfer.66 On the other hand, requests are generally denied if the claimant has no prior rights,67 if the domain name and the prior distinctive sign share only public domain elements,68 or (for trademark cases) there is no similarity between the goods and services in question.69

(c) Relevant Grounds for Defence CH.43 The most effective defence is a showing that the respondent also possesses rights and that the

interests of the parties are not obviously imbalanced. For instance, a respondent could rely on trademark rights for non-similar goods,70 or both parties could revoke name rights.71 In the conflict between the German company I-D Media AG and the Swiss company Id-Média Sàrl, the Expert took the view that the matter required a thorough examination of the facts through a full presentation of evidence, which was not possible in ADR proceedings.72 However, transfer of the ‘ariel.ch’ domain name has been ordered, stating that claimant’s rights in the well-known ARIEL trademark prevail over the interest of the respondent who had registered her first name as a domain name, but had neither used the domain nor participated in the proceedings.73

CH.44 Some decisions have admitted a defence of laches, as well as claims for non-commercial fair

use. For instance, the expert denied an infringement claim where the respondent used the ‘fiat500.ch’ domain name for an information platform about Fiat 500 cars, additionally stating that FIAT was estopped by the respondent’s ten-year period of use.74

CH.45 Finally, if a domain name is used for merely private purposes, trademark law and the law of

unfair competition are not applicable.75

(d) Specific Issues CH.46 (aa)  Inactive Domain Name  The mere registration of a domain name without active use (inactive domain name) does basically not infringe trademark rights.76 As to the domain name ‘otto-versand.ch’, however, the expert decision affirmed imminent trademark infringement, arguing that the word element ‘versand’ (distribution) indicates that the domain name will be used for distance selling.77 Additionally, the mere registration of domain names might infringe name rights and/or the UCA.78 66  See WIPO Case No DCH20078-0023—‘raiffeise.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2007-0010—‘yotube.ch’ et al; WIPO Case No DCH2013-0024—‘cnforama.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2014-0002—‘copmparis.ch’; Schweizer, 2009 AJP 980; critical: Weber and Oertli, 2015 sic! 67, 71. 67  WIPO Case No DCH2004-0023—‘backstage.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2006-0024—‘d-fi.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2007-0005—‘sbs.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2008-0007—‘pneus-online.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2010-0005—‘poker-palace.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2012-0029—‘tausche.ch’. 68 See WIPO Case No DCH2009-0026—‘swissaesthetic.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2010-0034— ‘geschaeftsmieter.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2010-0005—‘poker-palace.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2011-0040  ‘comparer.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2011-0022—‘cam4.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2012-0017—‘encore.ch’; and WIPO Case No DCH2012-0016—‘chatscout.ch’. 69  See WIPO Case No DCH 2007-0006—‘smoby.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2009-0014—‘activia.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH20009-0011—‘metro-express.ch’; and WIPO Case No DCH2012-0023—‘elle-agency.ch’. 70  WIPO Case No 2007-0006—‘smoby.ch’. 71  WIPO Case No DCH2005-0014—‘jeko.ch’. 72  WIPO Case No DCH 2005-0018—‘id-media.ch’. 73  WIPO Case No DCH2006-0012—‘ariel.ch’. 74  WIPO Case No DCH2007-0020—‘fiat500.ch’. 75  WIPO Case No DCH2005-0014—‘jeko.ch’. 76  See below Section IV.2.a; WIPO Case No DCH2004-0014—‘rhäzünser.ch’; WIPO Case No 2006-0007—‘mercure.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2011-0013—‘tropicana.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2011-0029—‘akbank.ch’; Schweizer, 2009 AJP 983. 77  WIPO Case No DCH2005-0021—‘otto-versand.ch’. 78  See below Sections IV.4(a) and IV.1(a).

898

IV.  Court Litigation (bb)  Use of Domain Name by Reseller or Distributor  According to one of the first CH.47 expert decisions rendered in Switzerland, the right to register and use a trademark in a domain name belongs solely to the trademark owner. Although a reseller might be entitled to use the trademark for publicity purposes, he is not entitled to register and use a domain name comprising only the third party’s trademark.79 Similarly, the ‘dacia.ch’ decision stated that even an inactive domain name held by a reseller constitutes infringement.80 In this author’s view, such a domain name basically gives a misleading impression as to a special relationship between the reseller and the owner of the trademark.81 The assessment of domain names with additional elements appears to be less clear. In the ‘vol- CH.48 vo-import.ch’ case, the expert took into account the content of the website, noting that the reseller in question did not use the Volvo logo and offered cars of various other brands. The expert concluded that the public would not perceive the reseller being an official distributor and therefore denied infringement.82 In a more recent decision, the respondent argued that he not only offered products of AXA, but that AXA tolerated domain names consisting of the AXA trademark of other distributors as well. Under the circumstances, the expert denied clear infringement, and suggested the matter should be decided by a civil court.83

IV.  Court Litigation (1) No Specific Anticybersquatting Regulation For lack of specific anticybersquatting regulation, cybersquatting and domain grabbing issues CH.49 are determined in Switzerland primarily on the basis of the Law on Unfair Competition (UCA).

(a) Assessment Under the Law on Unfair Competition Article 2 of the UCA states that any behaviour or business practice that is deceptive or that in CH.50 any other way infringes the principle of good faith, and which affects the relationship between competitors or between suppliers and customers, shall be deemed unfair and unlawful. Basically, obstructive practices only fall under the UCA if a competitor cannot adequately CH.51 introduce his goods or services in the market.84 This is hardly likely to be the case with respect to a domain name that has been ‘blocked’ by a third-party’s registration.85 In order to establish unfair competition, additional elements are therefore required.86 Case law, however, developed a less reluctant approach,87 taking into account the intent to CH.52 obstruct.88 Such an intent to obstruct may be deduced from a respondent’s lack of legitimate   WIPO Case No DCH2004-0013—‘cachaca51.ch’.   WIPO Case No DCH20006-0030—‘dacia.ch’. 81  See below Section IV.2(a). 82  WIPO Case No DCH2006-0020—‘volvo-import.ch’. 83  WIPO Case No DCH2010-0032—‘axa-assurance.ch’. 84 Cf. Müller, Generalklausel, 66; Weber, E-Commerce, 158 Joller, 2002 AJP 954; Baudenbacher, Lauterkeitsrecht, Note 116 to Art 2; Jung, in: Jung/Spitz, Note 70 to Art 2. 85  Cf. also HG AG 2000, sic! 624 Consideration 5.b.bb.—swisslawyers; Weber, E-Commerce, 158; Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 146. 86  Jung, in: Jung/Spitz, Note 70 to Art 2. 87  HG ZH 2002 ZR 190 Consideration 4.b.aa.—‘volvo-ankauf.ch’; OG TG 2002 sic! 612 Consideration 4.b.—‘audi-ankauf.ch’; OG TG 2002 sic! 683 Consideration 4.c.aa.—‘emarket.ch’; HG ZH 2003 ZR 92 Consideration 4.a.aa.—Privatbankiers; HG SG 2003 sic! 348—‘breco.ch’; see also: Pedrazzini and Pedrazzini, Note 4.36; Weber, E-Commerce, 159; Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 146; critical: Rosenthal, Lauterkeitsrecht, 133; Spirig, Lauterkeitsrechtliche Konflikte im Internet, 184 f. 88  HG ZH 2002 ZR 190 Consideration 4.b.aa.—‘volvo-ankauf.ch’; HG ZH ZR 2003, 92 Consideration 4.a.aa.—Privatbankiers; Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 146; Weber, E-Commerce, 158 et seq.; Weber and Unternährer, 2000 SZW 263. 79 80

899

Switzerland (‘.ch’) interests in the name(s) concerned, the registrant’s ownership of numerous domain containing third-party signs, or offers to sell at unreasonably high prices.89 CH.53 The leading case ‘audi-ankauf.ch’ concerned a person who had registered 34 car brands

as domain names, each with various additions such as ‘-ankauf ’, ‘-autohandel’, ‘-garage’, ‘-handel’, ‘-occasion’, ‘-gebrauchtwagen’, ‘-service’, ‘-verkauf ’, and ‘-vertretung’. The Thurgau Superior Court upheld the finding of infringement under Article 2 of the UCA on the following grounds: The defendant has obtained a large number of domain name registrations, systematically using the trademarks of practically all car brands, despite having no entitlement to such, nor could she have asserted such rights. At the same time she offered to sell these domain names at a price of CHF 1,000 each. The defendant’s intent to earn money from the sale of the domain names she had registered ... has been established.90

CH.54 However, judicial practice does not require the signs in question to have been abused so sys-

tematically, and indeed the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has already held that lesser numbers of domain names are sufficient.91 Case law even considered the registration of a single domain name consisting of a third party’s trademark or trade name without a legitimate interest to be unfair and unlawful.92 The Zurich Commercial Court has notably held that sale of the claimant’s products was not a legitimate interest, since the defendant had profited from the trade name and prevented the owner from using the domain.93

CH.55 As far as the amount of payment requested is concerned, the Zurich Commercial Court

considered the amount of CHF 1,000 to be sufficiently high.94

CH.56 Unfair conduct also applies if the reservation of an Internet domain name exploits the rep-

utation of another’s sign.95 This was discussed by the Lucerne Superior Court in the case of ‘luzern.ch’, which held the defendant had used the website in an unfair and unlawful manner in order to attract Internet users seeking the plaintiff.96 However, in this author’s view, this is simply an example of an attempt being made to profit from the distinctive character of the name in question. A true exploitation of reputation would require a transfer of image,97 an aspect that has not yet been examined by the courts in this context.

(b) Other Bases for Claims CH.57 To date, claims based on other aspects of law have rarely been considered. Although the

‘audi-ankauf.ch’ decision did address the question of name infringement, the Thurgau

89  Cf. OG TG 2002 sic! 612 Consideration 4.b—‘audi-ankauf.ch’; OG TG 2002 sic! 683 Consideration 4.c.aa.—‘emarket.ch’; Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 146 f.; Weber, E-Commerce, 159; Six, Note 87; Spirig, 170 f.; Kikinis, 268; cf. also HG SG 2001 GVP Nr. 46—‘hundertwasser.ch’; HG SG 2003 sic! 348—‘breco.ch’. 90  OG TG 2002 sic! Consideration 4.d—‘audi-ankauf.ch’; cf. also HG ZH 2002 ZR 190 Consideration 4.b.bb—‘volvo-ankauf.ch’; HG ZH 2003 ZR 92 Consideration 4.a.bb—Privatbankiers. 91  BGE 126 III 239 Consideration 3.d—‘berneroberland.ch’. 92  HG SG 2001 GVP Nr. 46—‘hundertwasser.ch’; HG ZH 2012 ZR Nr. 116—Handelsname; cf. also Tribunal d’arrondissement de Lausanne 2002, 55—‘cofideco.ch’. 93  HG ZH 2012 ZR Nr. 116—Handelsname. 94  HG ZH 2002 ZR 190 Consideration 4.b.bb—‘volvo-ankauf.ch’; cf. however, OG TG 2002 sic! 683 Consideration 4.c.bb—‘emarket.ch’, according to which in the specific case the mere offer to sell at CHF 25,000 did not constitute unlawfulness. 95 BGE 126 III 239 Consideration 3.d—‘berneroberland.ch’; OG LU 2002 sic! 176 Consideration 5.3—‘luzern.ch’ III; KG NW dated 7.11.2001 Consideration 6.4—‘djbobo.de’ I; HG ZH 2002 ZR 190 Consideration 4.b.aa—‘volvo-ankauf.ch’; OG TG 2002 sic! 612 Consideration 4.b—‘audi-ankauf.ch’. 96  OG LU 2002 sic! 176 Consideration 5.3—‘luzern.ch’ III; in the final analysis, also KG NW dated 7.11.2001 Consideration 6.4—‘djbobo.de’ I. 97  See below Section IV.2(c)(aa).

900

IV.  Court Litigation Superior Court left the question open and decided the case on the basis of unfair competition law.98 Article 2 of the UCA only gives rise to civil law claims.99 Trademark law claims against inactive domain names are, as a rule, dismissed. In contrast, CH.58 the registration of another’s name as a domain may be an appropriation of that name100 and thus infringing.101 Finally, governmental words and symbols are protected by the Federal Act concerning the CH.59 Protection of Public Coats of Arms and other Symbols102 (Coats of Arms Act). This act was infringed by the registration of the domain name ‘bundesgericht.ch’ (federalcourt.ch).103

(2) Infringement of Trademark Law (a) General Preconditions for a Trademark Infringement A trademark protected in Switzerland can only be infringed in Switzerland, which requires a CH.60 sufficient local connection.104 Trademark protection is available against infringements that take place in the course of CH.61 trade.105 An act is in the course of trade if, irrespective of an intent to profit, it serves any business purpose of the perpetrator or a third party,106 which includes commercial offers placed on websites.107 An act in the course of trade can be assumed where the perpetrator or third party is an industrial undertaking or a proprietor of a commercial enterprise. References to the domain name in advertising may indicate trade use, and the choice of a domain may indicate commercial intent.108 For instance, the gTLD ‘.com’ suggests a commercial website,109 and the use of such domains can be assumed to be in the course of trade.110 The current Trademarks Act grants protection not only against use as a trademark in the nar- CH.62 row sense but against any use as a sign.111 The Federal Supreme Court clarified that domain names may identify the person, object, or service behind them.112 Accordingly, domains which feature trademarks are basically used as a signs.113   OG TG 2002 sic! 612—‘audi-ankauf.ch’.   Pedrazzini and Pedrazzini, Note 26.03; Baudenbacher and Glöckner, Note 2 to Art 23; cf. also Hinwil District Court 2001 sic! 212 Consideration 2.a—‘barcodedrucker.ch’. 100  Cf. below Section IV.4. 101  This is also suggested by OG TG 2002 sic! 612 Consideration 6—‘audi-ankauf.ch’. 102  SR 232.21. 103  Federal Supreme Court 2004 sic! 109 Consideration 4—‘bundesgericht.ch’ II; OG LU 2002 I LGVE No 55 Consideration 3.2—‘bundesgericht.ch’ I. 104  See below Section VIII.4. 105 MSchG-David, preliminary comments to the Third Section, Note 36; Marbach, Note 1528; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 127. 106 Cf. Joller, 2000 MarkenR 342; Menn, Internet und Markenschutz, 56. 107  Joller, 2000 MarkenR 342; see also Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 101; OG BL 2000 sic! 393 Consideration 7—‘hotmail.ch’ II; dissenting:  Rosenthal, Projekt Internet, 127; Thomann, Kennzeichnungs- und wettbewerbsrechtliche Aspekte, 47 f., according to which the mere use in the public Internet means that there can no longer be any private use. 108  Cf. also Menn, 57. 109  Cf. below Section IV.2(b)(cc). 110 Critically: Six, Note 350. 111 Cf. Marbach, Note 1453; von Büren/Marbach/Ducrey, Note 708; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 123 et seq. 112  See above Section I; BGE 126 III 239 Consideration 2.b—‘berneroberland.ch’; see also BGE 128 III 353 Consideration 3—‘montana.ch’ II. 113  Cf. Federal Supreme Court 2004 sic! 407 E. 5—Tripp Trapp III; OG BL 2000 sic! 393 Consideration 7—‘hotmail.ch’ II; RKGE 2000, 699 Consideration 3—‘internet.com’; David, 1999 AJP 1170; Joller, 2000 MarkenR 342 f., 350; Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 45 et seq.; Tissot, droit des marques, 84; Gilliéron sic! 2000, 74; Kikinis, 258; Spirig, 163; cf also Thomann, SMI 1996, 201, 211; but still left open in BGE 125 III 91 Consideration 3.a.—‘rytz.ch’. 98 99

901

Switzerland (‘.ch’) CH.63 However, a merely informative use of a trademark does not constitute infringement.114 For

instance, it is permissible for the advertising of one’s own goods or services to include a reference to another’s sign as long as the public is not given a misleading impression as to the relationship between the goods and mark owner.115 This risk applies in particular where third-party signs are included in domain names. Accordingly, use in the context of a domain name is as a matter of principle to be assumed to be a use as a sign. In exceptional cases only, the domain name as such makes it clear that the mark is included for purely informative purposes. The same applies to use protected by the Swiss constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. For example, the German courts held that the semantic content of the domain name ‘stoppesso.de’ showed that it was being used for a platform for criticism of the enterprise in question.116

CH.64 Merely registering or holding an inactive domain name does not generally constitute infringement

of a trademark right.117 In most cases, it is not apparent whether the domain name is being used in the course of trade and for what goods or services. If particular circumstances indicate a corresponding intent to use and an imminent infringement, then there may be a cause of action.118

(b) Likelihood of Confusion CH.65 (aa) Overview  The trademark right affords its owner an exclusive right with respect to

signs that are identical or similar to its older trademark and which are intended for use in respect of the same or similar goods or services, leading to a likelihood of confusion. Generally, a trademark is not only protected against direct confusion, but also against the use of similar signs if the public is likely to be misled into believing that the goods or services originate from the same undertaking (indirect likelihood of confusion) or from a related undertaking (likelihood of confusion in the broader sense).119

CH.66 The question of likelihood of confusion is a matter of law, which can be reviewed by the Swiss

Federal Supreme Court.120 It depends in particular on the prior trademark’s distinctive character, the similarity of the trademarks, and the similarity of the goods and services.121

CH.67 These elements are interrelated;122 increased similarity of goods and services means a greater

likelihood of confusion, and the necessity of clear differences between the signs. Additionally, protection is greater for strong trademarks than for weak ones.123

  Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 125 et seq., 127; BGE 128 III 146—Audi Spezialist.   BGE 128 III 146 Consideration 2.b.—Audi Spezialist. 116   Hamburg District Court 2003 MMR 53—‘stoppesso.de’. 117   Federal Supreme Court, 2005 sic! 200, 203—‘riesen.ch’; GP Bern-Laupen 2000, 24 sic! Consideration 7.1.—‘artprotect.ch’; Widmer, Rechtsschutz und Domainnamen, 95; Rosenthal, Projekt Internet, 127; AIPPI Schweiz, Internet Domain Namen, Marken und Handelsnamen (Report Q 143), 265; Gilliéron, 2000 sic! 78; ibid., 2000 SZW 219; Buri and Six, Domain Names on the Internet, 465; Pedrazzini and Pedrazzini, Note 4.33; Kikinis, 256; Spahr, Internet und Recht, 117; Menn, 53; Thouvenin/Dorigo, Note 50 to Art 13; cf. also decision of the Austrian Supreme Court, 2001 ÖBl 225, 226—‘cyta.at’. 118 Cf. Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 96 et seq.; cf. also Tribunal d’arrondissement de Lausanne 2002 sic! 55 Consideration III.b—‘cofideco.ch;’ WIPO Case No DCH2005-0021—‘ottoversand.ch’. 119  P. Troller, Kollisionen, 185 et seq.; Joller, Note 21 et seq. to Art 3; ibid., Verwechslungsgefahr, 166 et seq., 174 f.; cf. also—using a different terminology—MSchG-David, Art 3 Note 6; von Büren/Marbach/ Ducrey, Note 658; Willi, Art 3 Note 11. 120  Cf. BGE 126 III 315 Consideration 4.b—Rivella; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 178 f., 350. 121  Joller, Note 45 et seq. to Art 3; Willi, Note 14 to Art 3. 122  Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 355 f. 123  Cf. BGE 126 III 315 Consideration 6.bb, 6.cc—Rivella; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 180 et seq., 354 et seq.; MSchG-David, Art 3 Note 8, 13; Willi, Art 3 Notes 15 et seq. 114 115

902

IV.  Court Litigation (bb)  Distinctive Character  The scope of protection of a trademark is determined on the basis CH.68 of its distinctive character. For weak trademarks, the protected range of similarity is smaller than for strong ones. Consequently, for weak trademarks, modest differences are enough to distinguish the signs sufficiently.124 Distinctive character denotes the value of the designation as a sign.125 If major elements of the CH.69 trademark borrow strongly from generic terms, it is inherently weak; if, on the other hand, the trademark is conspicuous as a result of its particularly imaginative content, it is regarded as strong.126 Distinctive character also depends on the extent and intensity of use.127 It is strengthened where the trademark has acquired a high level of recognition on the market.128 These principles apply in connection with domain names, too. The Swiss Federal Supreme CH.70 Court, for instance, held that the sign ‘Integra’ was extremely weak due to its similarity to words of general linguistic usage, and thus was not infringed by the domain name ‘wintegra.ch’.129

(cc)  Similarity of Signs (1)  General Principles  A trademark enjoys protection in the form in which it is entered CH.71 on the trademarks register. The question as to whether or not a trademark is infringed is determined by a comparison between the actual or threatened use of a later sign (eg a domain name) and the trademark as it appears on the register entry.130 The similarity of signs is determined according to their overall impression, although individual elements can acquire significance which bears on the interpretation of the trademark.131 As applied to domain names,132 comparisons are made on the basis of the second-level textual string.133 The author notes, however, that this approach is in some ways questionable.134 Simply CH.72 because most top-level domains have little distinctive character (eg ‘.ch’ and ‘.com’) does not mean they must be ignored a priori, and should only be disregarded where their text is the only corresponding element between the signs, similar to the inclusion of public domain elements in trademarks.135

(2)  Similarity of Appearance  The assessment of the similarity of appearance between trade- CH.73 marks is determined by the length of the words, the word root, and the uniqueness and position of the letters used, as well as any design or graphic style used.136 124  BGE 122 III 382 Consideration 2.a—Kamillosan; MSchG-David, Note 13 to Art 3; Marbach, Note 976 et seq. 125  P. Troller, Kollisionen, 132, 203; Müller, Unterscheidungskraft, 201. 126  Joller, Note 81 et seq. to Art 3; ibid., Verwechslungsgefahr, 195 et seq.; von Büren/Marbach/Ducrey, Note 665; cf. also Willi, Notes 111 et seq. to Art 3. 127  P. Troller, Kollisionen, 132, 203; Müller, Unterscheidungskraft, 201 f. 128  BGE 122 III 382 Consideration 2.a—Kamillosan; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 196 et seq.; von Büren/ Marbach/Ducrey, Note 666; Willi, Notes 111 et seq. to Art 3. 129  Federal Supreme Court 2004 sic! 325 Consideration 1.2., 1.3—Wintegra GmbH. 130  Joller, Note 114 et seq. to Art 3. 131  A. Troller, 220 et seq.; Joller, Note 121 et seq. to Art 3; MSchG-David, Note 11 to Art 3; Marbach, 116. 132  Widmer, Rechtsschutz und Domainnamen, 94; Thomann, Kennzeichnungs- und wettbewerbsrechtliche Aspekte, 46; Tissot, 1998 SJ 741, 751; ibid, Le droit des marques, 79 f.; Gilliéron, 2000 sic! 79; ibid., Propriété intellectuelle, Note 137; Kikinis, 260; cf. also Rosenthal, Projekt Internet, 125. 133  OG BL 2000 sic! 26 Consideration 5—‘hotmail.ch’ I; OG BL 2000 sic! 393 Consideration 8—‘hotmail. ch’ II; HG SG 2010 sic! 789, 792—Refoderm; cf. also HG ZH 2001 sic! 639 Consideration IV.B.2.d—Die Gelben Seiten; HG ZH 2013 sic! 612, 614—Comparis; RKGE 2005, 804—‘otto-office.com’. 134  Critical—but with different reasons—also Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 77 et seq.; Six, Note 125; Weber, E-Commerce, 138. 135 Cf. A. Troller, 220 f.; Marbach, Note 866, MSchG-David, Note 11 to Art 3; Joller, Note 124 et seq. to Art 3. See also Cf. Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 77; Joller, 2000 MarkenR 345; Menn, 59. 136  Cf. BGE 122 III 382 Consideration 5.a—Kamillosan; Joller, Note 131 et seq. to Art 3; Aschmann, Beschreibende Inhalte von Kennzeichen, 273.

903

Switzerland (‘.ch’) CH.74 With domain names, there is no consideration of graphic designs, capital letters, or spaces,137

and hyphens provide only marginal differences.138 For this reason, the overall impression of the trademark DJ BOBO corresponds with ‘djbobo’, the distinctive element of the domain name ‘djbobo.de’.139

CH.75 (3) Phonetic Similarity  A  sound is determined by syllable measure, intonation, the

sequence of vowels140 and consonants, and pronunciation.141 This applies equally to domain names, with allowances for hyphens and dots. The Zurich Commercial Court held that a hyphen could not be heard in the pronunciation of a domain name,142 although in Germany it has been argued that the pronunciation of domain names containing hyphens includes a small pause.143 The latter approach deserves preference, since the attentive Internet user is attuned to small visual elements such as a dot. It can be assumed that hyphens or dots will be pronounced and thus heard,144 for example in personal communications or radio advertising.145

CH.76 (4)  Similarity of Meaning  Similarities in meaning of a mark may reinforce similarities in

sound or sight. Conversely, differences in meaning may compensate for visual or aural similarity; this presupposes that the different semantic content is immediately and automatically recognized.146

CH.77 In the context of domain names, meaning can notably be influenced by top-level domains147

such as ‘.com’, which designates commercial websites.148 Against this background, some commentators doubt whether a ‘.com’ domain name could infringe the rights of public authorities.149 Well-known ccTLDs lead to an assumption of certain geographical origins, whereby each country abbreviation indicates the country in which the site in question can be accessed and where the corresponding goods and services are intended to be provided.150 However, the writer feels it would be inappropriate to automatically reject a likelihood of confusion where foreign or generic TLDs are used.151

CH.78 (dd) Similarity between the Goods and Services  Article 3(1) of the Trademarks Act

requires the later sign to be intended for the same or similar goods or services as the registered trademark in order to pursue infringement. Goods or services are held to be similar if the consuming public would be likely to believe that they originate from the same undertaking or that they are manufactured by affiliated undertakings under the control of a common

  Cf. also HG ZH 2001, 639 Consideration IV.B.2.d—Die Gelben Seiten.   Federal Supreme Court 2003, 822 Consideration 3—‘tonline.ch’; HG ZH 2001, 639 E.IV.B.2.d—Die Gelben Seiten; Six, Note 117 et seq.; Beranek, 2/2003 SWITCHjournal 11. 139  In the final analysis, KG NW dated 7.11.2001 Consideration 5.6.—‘djbobo.de’ I. 140  Cf. BGE 122 III 382 Consideration 5.2—Kamillosan; 126 III 315 Consideration 6.c—Rivella; von Büren/Marbach/Ducrey, Note 649. 141  A. Troller, 214 et seq.; Joller, Note 144 et seq. to Art 3; Aschmann, 277 et seq.; Willi, Notes 70 et seq. to Art 3. 142  HG ZH 2001 sic! 639 Consideration IV.B.2.d—Die Gelben Seiten. 143  Cf. Düsseldorf District Court dated July 21 1999, 34 O 56/99—‘donline.de’. 144  Cf. also RKGE 2001, Consideration 2—Expo.02. 145 Cf. Joller, 2000 MarkenR 346. 146 Cf. Joller, Notes 159, 168 et seq. to Art 3; Marbach, Note 889; Willi, Notes 82 et seq. to Art 3; MSchG-David, Note 26 to Art 3. 147  Cf. also Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 83 et seq.; Six, Note 125 et seq. 148  Bock, 1997 sic! 269; Joller, 2000 MarkenR 347; Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 85; Six, Note 129; Menn, 60. 149  Six, Note 129; dissenting Gilliéron, 2000, 81. 150  Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 85; Six, Note 127; cf. also Rosenthal, Lauterkeitsrecht, 126; see also below Section VIII.4. 151 Dissenting Six, Note 131 et seq. 137 138

904

IV.  Court Litigation trademark owner.152 In this context the nature, purpose, place of production and distribution, and interchangeability of the goods or services are considered.153 The same criteria are also applied in connection with domain names,154 with regard to the CH.79 similarity of the goods or services on the relevant website.155 In the ‘riesen.ch’ decision, the Swiss Federal Court denied trademark infringement, since the domain name was not active and it was not apparent that it would be used for similar goods or services.156

(c) Extended Protection for Famous Trademarks Pursuant to Article 15 of the Trademarks Act, the owner of a famous trademark may pro- CH.80 hibit others from using his trademark for any type of goods or services, if such use would be detrimental to the distinctive character of the trademark or would exploit or damage its reputation. In practice, courts take into account a trademark’s recognition on the market, uniqueness, and general reputation.157 Case law has considered trademarks such as NIKE, NESTLÉ, MAGGI, and VOGUE to be famous.158 The wording of the Act does not specify whether the protection of a famous trademark is lim- CH.81 ited to its use in identical form or whether similar signs are also covered. In general opinion, famous trademarks are also protected in respect of similar signs.159 The tests for use and similarity correspond with those for registered trademarks,160 noting CH.82 that a clear similarity is required for exploitation, detriment of reputation, or dilution. In the context of domain names, famous trademarks are commonly used as second-level elements.161

(aa)  Exploitation of Reputation  The reputation of a trademark covers those character- CH.83 istics that the relevant public associates with the trademark, and may include notions of quality, business size, tradition, success, or prestige.162 Reputation is exploited if the relevant public would link the advertising messages associated with the famous trademark to the goods offered by a third party (image transfer).163 In the context of domain names, the mere fact that Internet users are attracted to a registrant’s CH.84 website does not constitute exploitation.164 It is necessary that the relevant public link the  MSchG-David, Note 35 to Art 3; critical: von Büren/Marbach/Ducrey, Note 638 et seq.  MSchG-David, Notes 37 et seq. to Art 3; Marbach, Note 820 et seq.; Joller, Notes 241 et seq. to Art 3. 154  Cf. KG NW dated 7.11.2001—‘djbobo.de’ I. 155 Federal Supreme Court 2005 sic! 200, 203—‘risen.ch’; OG TG 2002 sic! 683 Consideration 4.b.aa—‘emarket.ch’; HG ZH 2013 sic! 612, 613—Comparis; Tissot, 1998 SJ 753; Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 89; Six, Note 346; Buri and Six, Domain Names on the Internet, 465; Spahr, Internet und Recht, 117; Menn, 63; Calame, in Arter/Jörg, 304; cf. also HG ZH 2001 sic! 639 Consideration IV.B.2.c—Die Gelben Seiten; OG AR 2014 sic! 632, 633—Axxeva; Gilliéron, 2000 sic! 78 et seq.; ibid, Propriété intellectuelle; Note 128 et seq.; cf. also Decision of the Austrian Supreme Court 2001 ÖBl 225, 226—‘cyta.at’; dissenting Federal Supreme Court 2003 sic! 822 Consideration 2.2.—‘tonline.ch’. 156  Federal Supreme Court, 2005 sic! 200, 203—‘risen.ch’. 157  BGE 124 III 277 Consideration 1—Nike; Marbach, Note 1651 et seq.; MSchG-David, Note 3 to Art 15. 158  BGE 124 III 277—Nike; BGE 130 III 748 E. 1.2—Nestlé; Federal Supreme Court, 2005 sic! 390 E. 3.2—‘maggi.com’; Federal Supreme Court, 2013 sic! 41—Vogue. 159  BGE 130 III 748—Boas-EMS Clos Nestlé SA; Berne Commercial Court, 2011 sic! 313—Viagra; Schwyz Cantonal Court, 2011 sic! 108—Harry Popper; Heinzelmann, Der Schutz der berühmten Marke, 167; Troller and Joller, s 20:8. 160  See above Sections IV.2(a) and IV.2(b)(cc). 161 Cf. Joller, 2000 MarkenR 348. 162  Joller, 2000 MarkenR 348; Willi, Note 23 to Art 15. 163  BGE 124 III 277 Consideration 3.a—Nike; Troller and Joller, s 20:5. 164  Cf. however above Section IV.1(b)(aa) in connection with domain grabbing. 152 153

905

Switzerland (‘.ch’) reputation of the trademark with the goods or services offered or advertised on the website in question.165 CH.85 (bb)  Detriment of Reputation  A famous trademark’s reputation can be damaged if connected

with lower-quality products, or used to portray a contradictory image. The latter has been affirmed by the Berne Commercial Court, where the VIAGRA trademark was held damaged by the use of the sign ‘Viaguara’ for vodka, since alcoholic drinks are incompatible with pharmaceuticals.166 Detriment also occurs where the trademark is associated with obscene or disparaging content.167

CH.86 In Switzerland, there have been no such cases in the context of domain names. However,

detriment of reputation is conceivable if the choice and use of the domain name itself were detrimental,168 or if the contents of the website were detrimental to the trademark’s reputation.169 For example, detriment could arise if a toy manufacturer’s trademark was used in a domain name linked to pornography.170

CH.87 (cc) Dilution  Finally, famous trademarks must be protected against the reduction and

watering down of distinctive character through the use of similar signs.

CH.88 Trademark distinctiveness can be eroded by domain names, particularly where appropriated

as a domain’s second-level text.171 Swiss Courts did not expressly deal with this issue for a long time. Since the first decisions on exploitation of reputation ignored the concept of image transfer, a finding of dilution has been upheld in substantive terms, but without a closer examination of the issue.172 In the ‘maggi.com’ decision, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court confirmed, however, that the court of lower instance had correctly taken into account: the interest of the claimant to maintain the reputation and distinctiveness of its trademark, which might be watered down by confusions with an unknown person not related to the claimant.173

(3) Infringement of Company Name Law CH.89 Pursuant to Article 956(2) SCoO, anyone who is adversely affected by the unauthorized use

of a company name may seek an injunction preventing further use of the name and, if liability is established, file a claim for damages as compensation.

(a) Use as a Company Name CH.90 According to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, Article 944 et seq. SCoO only provides protection against the use of a sign as a company name; as such, use of a sign as a trademark or in advertising is not covered.174 CH.91 The question as to whether use of a domain name constitutes use as a company name is

disputed. The overwhelming view from Swiss legal commentators is that it does not.175 The   Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 109; ibid., Domain-Namen, 365; Joller, 2000 MarkenR 349.   Berne Commercial Court, 2011 sic! 313, 314. 167  Heinzelmann, 1993 AJP 535; Marbach, Note 1865 et seq.; Willi, Note 26 to Art 15. 168 Cf. Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 110 et seq. 169  Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 111; Joller, 2000 MarkenR 349. 170  Cf. 40 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1479—‘candyland.com’. 171 Cf. Kur, 2001 GRUR Int. 353; critical: Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 108. 172  Cf. above Section IV.1(b)(aa). 173  Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 4C.376/2004 Consideration 3.4—maggi.com. 174  BGE 127 III 160 Consideration 2—Securitas; BGE 107 II 356 Consideration 3—La San Marco; P. Troller, Kollisionen, 71 et seq.; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 258 et seq.; Guhl and Druey, Note 61 to s 82. 175  Rosenthal, Projekt, 129; Thomann, Kennzeichnungs- und wettbewerbsrechtliche Aspekte, 48 et seq.; Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 68 et seq., 159; Six, Note 338; ibid., Prozessuale Probleme, 169 et seq.; Bock and Buri, 2003 sic! 574. 165 166

906

IV.  Court Litigation contrary opinion176 can possibly be supported by the first obiter dicta of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.177 As yet there has been no express clarification in a judgment from the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. The fact that this issue is in need of clarification was evident from the decisions of the Thurgau Superior Court and the Zug Cantonal Court178 which answered this question in the negative, whereas the Lausanne District Court179 came to the opposite conclusion. This latter result can hardly be reconciled with the Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s conventional application of a narrow interpretation of use as a company name. However, in this writer’s view, it is also legitimate for company names to be given protection CH.92 against conflicting signs having a name function being used in any way as a sign.180 Thus, a company name could be infringed if used as a sign in a domain name with a naming function. In any event, under Article 956(2) SCoO, a merely inactive domain name cannot, as a matter CH.93 of principle, infringe company name law.181 In such cases, however, the sign owner will be able to rely on his name rights.182

(b) Impairment Impairment occurs if there is a direct likelihood of confusion between the conflicting signs. CH.94 A prior company name may also be infringed if, despite perceptible differences between the signs, the similarities lead to a misleading association (likelihood of confusion in the broader sense).183 Likelihood of confusion depends primarily on the similarity of the signs. In addition, the CH.95 distinctive character of the prior company name, its corporate entity,184 and any overlap in the substantive and geographical field of business.185 The similarity of the signs is determined according general intellectual property (IP) princi- CH.96 ples,186 thus reference can be made to the discussion on trademark law,187 and the distinctive character of the company name will also be taken into account.188 According to case law, company names are also protected against enterprises active in different CH.97 fields of business, although stricter requirements are imposed upon competitive undertakings.189 176  Widmer, Rechtsschutz und Domainnamen, 97 et seq.; Tissot, 1998 SJ 754 et seq.; Gilliéron, 2000 sic! 80; ibid., Propriété intellectuelle, Note 148. 177 BGE 125 III 91 Consideration 3.b—Rytz; BGE 128 III 353 Consideration 3—‘montana.ch’ II; Federal Supreme Court 2002 sic! 860 Consideration 4—‘luzern.ch’ IV; Federal Supreme Court, 2005 sic! 200, 203—‘riesen.ch’; Federal Supreme Court 4A_717/2011—Cash Back VAT Reclaim AG; Federal Supreme Court 2012 sic! 816, 818—Keytrade AG / Keytrade Bank SA; cf., however, Federal Supreme Court 2003 sic! 142 Consideration 2—ExperTeam AG. 178 OG TG 2002 sic! 683 Consideration 4.a.bb—‘emarket.ch’; KG ZG 2004 sic! 586, 589—IVF HARTMANN AG; cf. also BezGer Hinwil 2001 sic! 212 Consideration III.3.—‘barcodedrucker.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2007-0005—‘sbs.ch’; WIPO Case No DCH2010-0034—‘geschaeftsmieter.ch’. 179  Tribunal d’arrondissement de Lausanne 2002 sic! 55 Consideration III.a—‘cofideco.ch’. 180 Cf. P. Troller, Kollisionen, 73 et seq.; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 260 et seq. 181  Cf. also Gilliéron, 2000 SZW 219; dissenting: Tribunal d’arrondissement de Lausanne 2002 sic! 55 Consideration III.b—‘cofideco.ch’. 182  See below Section IV.4. 183 BGE 127 III 160 Consideration 2.a, c—Securicall AG; P.  Troller, Kollisionen, 78; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 261. 184  P. Troller, Kollisionen, 107 et seq.; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 282 et seq.; OR-Altenpohl, Note 10 to Art 951. 185 Cf. P. Troller, Kollisionen, 76 et seq.; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 262 et seq.; Hilti, Firmenrecht, 77 et seq. 186  Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 365 et seq.; ZGB-Bühler, Note 43 to Art 29. 187  See above Section IV.2(b)(cc). 188  Cf. BGE 122 III 369 Consideration 1—SMP Management Programm St. Gallen; Federal Supreme Court 4C.31/2003 Consideration 1.2.—Wintegra GmbH; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 268 et seq. 189  Federal Supreme Court 1997 sic! 69 Consideration 4—Integra Holding AG; Federal Supreme Court 2000 sic! 399 Consideration 2.b—Avia AG; Federal Supreme Court 2003 sic! 142 E.1.1—ExperTeam AG; Federal Supreme Court 4C.31/2003 Consideration 1—Wintegra GmbH; P. Troller, Kollisionen, 87 et seq.;

907

Switzerland (‘.ch’) CH.98 In domain cases, overlaps in the substantive field of business are to be determined on the basis

of the goods and services advertised on the website. The Lausanne District Court even took into account services that were to be offered in the future.190 In this writer’s view, however, a court should only reach such a conclusion in limited circumstances.

(4) Infringement of Name Law CH.99 Where a person is adversely affected because another person is using his or her name, pursuant to

Article 29(2) of the Civil Code, the aggrieved party can apply for an injunction prohibiting such use and, in the event of liability being established, can claim damages and, if justified due to the nature of the offending activity, for ‘moral compensation’.

(a) Use as a Name CH.100 An infringement of the right to a name requires that the conflicting sign is used as a sign. It is

sufficient, however, that someone uses the name of another, not to denote himself, but as a product designation, such as to identify a magazine or an appliance.191 The decisive factor is that the identifying function of a person’s name is misused for another’s purposes.192

CH.101 Unlike trademark law, the right to a name also covers private uses. Moreover, even the mere reg-

istration of an inactive domain name is sufficient to be considered ‘use’ of a name.193

(b) Impairment through Appropriation of a Name CH.102 Article 29 of the Civil Code provides for ‘name protection’, not only against the appropriation of

an identical name or its main component, but also its incorporation in a similar sign.194

CH.103 The right to name protection is infringed by the impairment of the name holder’s legiti-

mate interests in the name, including personal, intangible, financial, or business interests. In general opinion, the right to name protection is infringed if a subsequent name results in a likelihood of confusion.195 This is the case if the two signs cannot be distinguished, or where a false association may arise.196

CH.104 It is assumed that Internet users expect domains to indicate their holders. For instance, under

the domain names ‘luzern.ch’ or ‘djbobo.de’ the user expects to find the websites of the City of Lucerne or DJ Bobo, respectively (and not simply information about the city of Lucerne or about DJ Bobo).197 Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 274 et seq.; OR-Altenpohl, Note 11 to Art 951; Meier-Hayoz and Forstmoser, Notes 138 et seq. to s 7. 190  Tribunal d’arrondissement de Lausanne 2002 sic! 55 Consideration III.b—‘cofideco.ch’. 191  BGE 102 II 161 Consideration 3; P. Troller, Kollisionen, 154; Lack, Privatrechtlicher Namensschutz (Art 29 ZGB), 130; ZGB-Bühler, Note 39 to Art 29; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 328 et seq. 192  BGE 108 II 241 Consideration 5; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 329. 193 Cf. Six, Note 80; in the final analysis, cf. also Tribunal d’arrondissement de Lausanne 2002 sic! 55—‘cofideco.ch’; OG TG 2002 sic! 612 Consideration 6—‘audi-ankauf.ch’ et  al.; dissenting:  Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 129; Gilliéron, SZW 2000, 219. 194  BGE 102 II 161 Consideration 3—Otto Nägeli Stiftung; ZGB-Bühler, Note 38 to Art 29; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 327 et seq.; Six, Note 58 et seq.; Rosenthal, Projekt Internet, 130. 195 BGE 102 II 161 Consideration 4.d—Otto Nägeli Stiftung; BGE 128 III 353 Consideration 4—‘montana.ch’ II; Federal Supreme Court 2003 sic! 438 Consideration 4—‘djbobo.de’ II; HG BE 2010 sic! 274, 277—‘smw-watch.ch’; ZGB-Bühler, Note 31 to Art 29; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 328; cf also the legal situation in the Principality of Liechtenstein: FL Supreme Court 4/2000 LES 208, 211—‘eschen.li’. 196   BGE 102 II 305 Consideration 2—Abraham; BGE 128 III 353 Consideration 4—‘montana.ch’ II; BGE 128 III 401 Consideration 5—‘luzern.ch’ IV; Federal Supreme Court 2006 sic! 480 E. 3.1—‘bsa.ch’; Federal Supreme Court 2012 sic! 816, 819—Keytrade AG / Keytrade Bank SA; Federal Supreme Court 2011 sic! 727, 729—Jetfly; see also HG AG 2001 sic! 818 Consideration 3.b—‘frick.ch’; ZGB-Bühler, Note 34 to Art 29; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 332 et seq. 197   BGE 128 III 401 Consideration 7.2.2.—‘luzern.ch’ IV; AmtsGer Luzern 2001 SJZ 102 Consideration 4.d—‘luzern.ch’ II; Federal Supreme Court 2003 sic! 438 Consideration 4—‘djbobo.de’ II; KG NW dated

908

IV.  Court Litigation Likelihood of confusion is primarily determined by the similarity between the two signs, in CH.105 the form in which the names are actually used according to the same principles as in trademark law.198 In most cases, it is the second-level string which is considered for comparison purposes. However, in the writer’s view, since the TLD suffix cannot a priori be ignored only a high degree of similarity—but not identity199—exists between the signs.200 Where there is a high degree of similarity between the signs, courts will find a likelihood of CH.106 confusion and grant absolute cross-trade-sector protection.201 However, courts will also look at both the activity and the geographical location of the parties, requiring greater distinguishability in case of overlap.202

(5) Infringement of Article 3(1)(d) Act Against Unfair Competition According to Article 3(1)(d) of the UCA, where someone’s activities cause confusion with CH.107 the goods, works, services, or businesses of others, they shall be deemed to have committed an act of unfair competition. The application of Article 3(1)(d) requires the sign to have been used in the course of trade,203 CH.108 which is assessed as in trademark law.204 The UCA protects against both direct and indirect likelihood of confusion, and the likeli- CH.109 hood of confusion in the broader sense.205 It is assumed that Internet users associate domain names that contain trademarks, company CH.110 names or names with their corresponding goods, services, or persons.206 E-mail addresses follow the same presumption.207 In competition law, the likelihood of confusion depends above all on the similarity of both CH.111 the signs and of the goods and services. The similarity of the signs is essentially determined according to the same principles as in trademark law. However, competition law addresses the specific form of use of the two conflicting signs. In addition, the courts take into account all the circumstances of the specific use of the sign.208 Contrary to popular opinion, this does not mean that the likelihood of confusion can be eliminated by a website disclaimer.209 The similarity of the goods and services or of the trade sectors is also of importance.210 Accordingly, the decisive aspect in a domain name dispute is the goods and services offered or advertised on the website in question. 7.11.2001—‘djbobo.de’ I; see also HG AG 2001 sic! 818 Consideration 3.d.—‘frick.ch’; BGE 128 III 353 Consideration 4.2.2.2.—‘montana.ch’ II; cf. also the legal situation in the Principality of Liechtenstein: FL Supreme Court 4/2000 LES 208, 210 et seq.—‘eschen.li’. 198  See above Section IV.2(b)(cc). 199  Dissenting: KG NW dated 7.11.2001—‘djbobo.de’ I; HG ZH 2001 sic! 639 E.IV.B.2.d.—Die Gelben Seiten. 200  Cf. also Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 126; Six, Note 59. 201  Cf. BGE 128 III 353 Consideration 4.2.2.1—‘montana.ch’ II. 202 Cf. Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 340 et seq.; ZGB-Bühler, Note 45 to Art 29. 203 Cf. Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 298. 204  See above Section IV.2(a). 205  P. Troller, Kollisionen, 139 et seq.; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 298 et seq.; Streuli-Youssef, Lauterkeitsrecht, 143; Baudenbacher and Caspers, Note 7 f. to Art 3(d). 206   Federal Supreme Court 2006 sic! 43 Consideration 9—Ars Intermedia; see also AmtsGer Luzern 2001 SJZ 102 Consideration 5.c—‘luzern.ch’ II; HG SG 2001 GVP No 46—‘hundertwasser.ch’; OG TG 2002 sic! 612 Consideration 4.e—‘audi-ankauf.ch’; OG LU 2002 sic! 176—‘luzern.ch’ III. 207   OG LU 2000 sic! 516 Consideration 8.1—‘luzern.ch’ I. 208   Streuli-Youssef, 152 et seq., 154; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 316 et seq.; cf. also OG LU 2002 sic! 176 Consideration 5.2.1—‘luzern.ch’ III; HG ZH 2012 ZR Nr. 116—Handelsname. 209   See below Section IV.6(c). 210  Federal Supreme Court 2005 sic! 200—‘riesen.ch’; Joller, Verwechslungsgefahr, 313 et seq.; Streuli-Youssef, 148, Pedrazzini and Pedrazzini, Note 5.81, Baudenbacher and Caspers, Note 47 f. to Art 3(d).

909

Switzerland (‘.ch’) (6) Specific  Issues (a) Cases of Homonyms CH.112 All intellectual property rights in distinctive signs are of equal value under Swiss law.211 It is necessary to balance the conflicting interests in order to achieve a result that is as fair as possible.212 CH.113 A balancing of interests is primarily necessary in the case of conflicts between persons bearing

the same name, although the same applies where a number of people are possible authorized bearers or owners of distinctive signs. If the interests of the parties involved appear to be essentially equal,213 it is appropriate to determine entitlement to the domain name on the basis of the ‘first-come, first-served’ principle.214

CH.114 If, however, the interests are obviously imbalanced, the sole decisive factor is not the party

who registered the domain name first. This applies in particular in connection with famous signs. According to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, the existence of a famous prior trademark is a ground for imposing restrictions on the use of a homonym by a more recent competitor.215 It is even conceivable that a recent trademark owner’s family name can be prevented from being used if it features a trademark.216

CH.115 Such restrictions also apply to domain names. In the leading case, ‘maggi.com’, the Swiss

Federal Supreme Court held that the domain name ‘maggi.com’ suggested the famous MAGGI trademark; users would not expect to find the Internet pages of Mr Romeo Maggi’s family. In order to avoid likelihood of confusion with the famous MAGGI trademark, Mr Romeo Maggi was expected to add distinctive elements, and thus the ‘maggi.com’ domain was transferred.217

(b) Names of Cities and Local Government Authorities CH.116 Since April 1, 2007, names of Swiss local government authorities have been reserved by

OFCOM, and they can only be registered in ‘.ch’ by the relevant local authority.218 Additionally, names of cities and local governmental authorities are protected by name rights as a matter of principle,219 and the UCA may also apply.220

CH.117 Conflicts between local government authorities and private (natural or legal) persons bearing

the same name are solved by balancing their respective interests.221 The practice, at least in connection with the ‘.ch’ ccTLD, tends to give priority to the local government authority.222 In 211  BGE 107 II 356—La San Marco; BGE 125 III 91—‘rytz.ch’; P. Troller, Kollisionen, 212; ZGB-Bühler, Notes 54 and 58 to Art 29. 212  BGE 116 II 614 Consideration 5.d—Gucci; Federal Supreme Court 1997 sic! 493 Consideration 3.b—Anne Frank; BGE 128 III 353 Consideration 4.3.2—‘montana.ch’ II; Federal Supreme Court 2006 sic! 480—‘bsa.ch’. 213  Cf. also BGE 128 III 353 Consideration 4.3.2—‘montana.ch’ II. 214 Dissenting: Buri and Six, 473, according to which a split of the domain name (domain name sharing or the creation of lower lever domains) is the only appropriate solution. 215  BGE 116 II 614 Consideration 5.d—Gucci; BGE 125 III 91 Consideration 3.c—Rytz. 216  Federal Supreme Court 1977 GRUR Int. 79 Consideration 5.c—Terry. 217  Swiss Federal Supreme Court 2005 sic! 390—‘maggi.com’. 218  See Art 16(1) RID; s 3.1 TAR. 219  BGE 128 III 401 Consideration 5—‘luzern.ch’ IV; BGE 128 III 353 Consideration 4—‘montana.ch’ II; AmtsGer Luzern 2001 SJZ 102 Consideration 4—‘luzern.ch’ II; HG AG 2001 sic! 818 Consideration 3—‘frick.ch’; cf. also OG LU 2002 sic! 176 Consideration 6—‘luzern.ch’ III; cf. also the legal situation in the Principality of Liechtenstein: FL Supreme Court 4/2000 LES 208, 211—‘eschen.li’. 220  OG LU 2000 sic! 516 Consideration 7—‘luzern.ch’ I; AmtsGer Luzern 2001 SJZ 102 Consideration 5.b—‘luzern.ch’ II; OG LU 2002 sic! 176 Consideration 5.1—‘luzern.ch’ III. 221  Cf. above Section IV.6(a). 222  Cf. HG AG 2001 sic! 818 Consideration 3.d—‘frick.ch’; BGE 128 III 353 Consideration 4.2.2.2, 4.3.3—‘montana.ch’ II.

910

IV.  Court Litigation balancing the parties’ interests in the ‘montana.ch’ domain, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court based its decision, for the most part, on the recognition of the parties.223

(c) No Aversion of a Likelihood of Confusion or Deception by Use of Disclaimers In Swiss legal literature, it is in part argued that a likelihood of confusion or deception under CH.118 competition law can be avoided by means of a clear disclaimer on the website.224 At first sight, this would appear to be supported by the requirement in the UCA to take all relevant circumstances into consideration. However, likelihood of confusion or deception is, as a rule, inherent in the domain name itself. CH.119 Accordingly, it can be argued that a domain name can deceive even before the website attached to it has been viewed.225 In addition, domain names are often used as elements of e-mail addresses. The addressee of an e-mail does not necessarily view the website attached to the relevant domain name, and thus the likelihood of confusion or deception created by an e-mail address cannot be avoided by a website disclaimer. A final decisive aspect is that domain names are being used in advertising or business stationery. With such uses of the domain name outside the realm of the Internet, it is a priori impossible for a misled consumer to see the corresponding website and take into account of any relevant disclaimer.226 For these reasons a likelihood of confusion or deception created by the domain name alone cannot be avoided by the use of a disclaimer on a website. This latter view has been upheld in the majority of Swiss Court decisions227 and was con- CH.120 firmed by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in the leading case ‘luzern.ch’.228

(d) Use of Descriptive Terms as Domain Names In the ‘berneroberland.ch’ case, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court did not clarify whether a CH.121 legitimate interest exists in the free use of geographical names on the Internet.229 The lower courts have assumed that descriptive domain names can be freely registered and used,230 which accords with Swiss legal literature.231 The grounds for exclusion of descriptive terms under trademark or company name law do not apply to domain names.232 Nor is the registration of descriptive or generic terms cognizable as unfair conduct under CH.122 Article 2 of the UCA, unless perhaps their registration was undertaken solely to block their

  BGE 128 III 353 Consideration 4.3.3—‘montana.ch’ II.   Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 141 et seq., 226; ibid., Domain-Namen, 362; Weber, E-Commerce, 162; cf. also Weber and Unternährer, 2000 SZW, 262; Rosenthal, Projekt Internet, 133; Meer, 2003 Recht 80. 225  OG BL 2000 sic! 393 Consideration 13—‘hotmail.ch’ II; AmtsGer Luzern 2001 SJZ 102 Consideration 4.d—‘luzern.ch’ II; KG NW dated 7.11.2001 Consideration 4.6.b—‘djbobo.de’ I; Joller, 2002 AJP 957. 226  OG LU 2000 sic! 516 Consideration 8.1—‘luzern.ch’ I; KG NW dated 7.11.2001 Consideration 4.6.b—‘djbobo.de’ I; Six, Note 145; Joller, 2002 AJP 957 et seq. 227  OG BL 2000 sic! 393 Consideration 13—‘hotmail.ch’ II; OG LU 2000 sic! 516 Consideration 8.1—‘luzern. ch’ I; AmtsGer Luzern 2001 SJZ 102—‘luzern.ch’ II; KG NW dated 7.11.2001 Consideration 4.6.b—‘djbobo. de’ I; HG SG 2010, 789, 792—Refoderm; dissenting: HG BE 2000 MMR 216 Consideration 11—‘berneroberland.ch’; ZG BS 2005 sic! 816, 820—A. Braun / Braunpat; HG ZH 2013 sic! 612, 613—Comparis. 228 BGE 128 III 401 Consideration 7.2.2—‘luzern.ch’ IV; cf. also BGE 128 III 353 Consideration 4.2.2—‘montana.ch’ II; Federal Supreme Court 2003 sic! 438 Consideration 4—‘djbobo.de’ II; Nyffeler, in Baudenbacher/Simon, 106. 229  BGE 126 III 239 Consideration 3.b—‘berneroberland.ch’. 230  Compare HG Bern MMR 2000, 217 Consideration VI.3—‘berneroberland.ch’; HG AG 2000 sic! 624—‘swisslawyers.com’; BezG Hinwil 2001 sic! 212—‘barcodedrucker.ch’. 231  Widmer, 1/2001 SWITCHjournal 14 et seq.; Weber, E-Commerce, 164; Joller, 2002 AJP 947 et seq.; Nyffeler, 106; Calame, 296; Buri, Domain-Namen, 370; cf. also Rosenthal, 2000 sic! 421, 423 et seq.; ibid., Lauterkeitsrecht, 133 et seq.; Kikinis, 267; Gilliéron, Propriété intellectuelle, Notes 164 et seq.; dissenting Six, Notes 374 et seq. 232  Six, Note 411; Joller, 2002 AJP 953. 223 224

911

Switzerland (‘.ch’) use. In such cases, courts will consider whether other spellings, synonyms or other reasonable alternatives are available.233 CH.123 Descriptive terms in domain names are subject to the prohibition on misleading descrip-

tions, as they are considered ‘statements’ under Article 3(1)(b) of the UCA. According to Article 3(1)(b), anyone who provides incorrect or misleading statements in respect of themselves or their undertaking, trade name, goods, work, services, prices, stock, or business circumstances shall be deemed to have committed an act of unfair competition. A misleading description occurs if there is no objective relationship between the domain name234 and the goods or services offered on the website attached to it. This cannot be remedied by a disclaimer on the website235 since the issue turns solely on the domain name itself.

(7) Court Procedures and Remedies (a) Remedies in Civil Actions CH.124 (aa)  Prohibitory Injunctions  Whoever suffers or is likely to suffer prejudice to his rights in distinctive signs may request an injunction.236 The application for an injunction is irrespective of fault. All the applicant need to prove is that there is an actual or threatened infringement.237 CH.125 The application for an injunction must precisely state the relief required and the specific

conduct to be prohibited, for inclusion in the court’s order.238

CH.126 (bb)  Claim for Cancellation or Transfer  A rights holder who suffers or is likely to suf-

fer harm may request an order to remove ongoing prejudice, upon a sufficient showing of unlawful activity.239

CH.127 In general opinion, an order domain cancellation can be granted.240 In practice, plaintiffs

regularly request that defendants issue declarations of cancellation.241 The RID provides for domain withdrawal where ordered by a court or Swiss authority.242 Therefore, the courts may order cancellation directly.243

CH.128 However, most rights owners would prefer the domain name be ‘transferred’ to them,244 in

part to prevent the transfer of the domain to a third party.245 It is disputed in legal literature

  BezGer Hinwil 2001 sic! 212 Consideration III.2.b—‘barcodedrucker.ch’; Joller, 2002 AJP 954 et seq.   Joller, 2002 AJP 955 et seq.; Nyffeler, 106. 235  See above Section IV.6(c). 236  Art 55(1)(a) Trademarks Act, Art 9(1)(a) UCA, Art 29(2) Civil Code. 237  Cf. BGE 116 II 357 Consideration 2.a.—Doxycyclin; MSchG-David, Art 55 Note 16; David and Reutter, Schweizerisches Werberecht, 561 et seq.; Pedrazzini and Pedrazzini, Notes 14.08 et seq. 238  BGE 97 II 93; K. Troller, 363; David, Rechtsschutz, Notes 279 et seq.; David and Reutter, 561. 239  Art 55(1)(b) Trademarks Act, Art 9(1)(b) UCA, Art 28a s 2 Civil Code. 240  Cf. BGE 126 III 239—‘berneroberland.ch’; OG TG 2002, 612—‘audi-ankauf.ch’; KG NW dated 7.11.2001—‘djbobo.de’ I; Widmer, 1/2002 SWITCHjournal 11; ZGB-Bühler, Note 69 to Art 29; critical: Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 226 et seq. 241  Cf. BGE 126 III 239—‘berneroberland.ch’; HG ZH 2002 ZR 190—‘volvo-ankauf.ch’; OG TG 2002 sic! 612—‘audi-ankauf.ch’; KG NW dated 7.11.2001—‘djbobo.de’ I; HG ZH 2003 ZR 92 Consideration 4.b.bb—Privatbankiers. 242   Art 30(2) RID. 243   Cf. also HG ZH 2003 ZR 92 Consideration 4.b.bb—Privatbankiers. 244   ‘.ch’ and ‘.li’ domains are not formally transferred, but ‘SWITCH deletes the domain name for the previous holder while simultaneously re-registering for the designated new holder’ (cf. s 3.2.2, GTC). 245   OG LU, 2000 sic! 804 Consideration 4—‘elcotherm.ch’; Tribunal d’arrondissement de Lausanne 2002 sic! 55 Consideration III.b—‘cofideco.ch’. 233 234

912

IV.  Court Litigation whether such a remedy is possible,246 although this relief has been granted in the majority of cases where it has been sought.247 In the leading case, ‘luzern.ch’, the defendant was required to effect the transfer,248 which was upheld by all the instances.249 Although the order was initially considered compensatory damages,250 the Swiss Federal Supreme Court clarified in the Go Fast II decision that such an order is a means of removing infringement.251

(cc)  Claims for Damages, Account of Profits, and Satisfaction  Where intellectual prop- CH.129 erty rights have been infringed and liability has been established, the injured party is entitled to damages or an account of profit.252 If warranted, the court may also grant indemnity by way of ‘moral compensation’ or ‘satisfaction’.253 Concerning liability in domain law, where trademark and/or company name infringement CH.130 is charged, the question arises as to whether there is a duty to inspect the trademarks register for potential conflicts. Such a duty can be imposed on traders,254 although the extent of the search depends on the circumstances. No duty to search is imposed for non-registered distinctive signs as such investigations would CH.131 prove extremely complex,255 except in the case of particularly famous signs or situations involving direct competitors. Liability is assumed where an infringer ignores a cease and desist letter and does not investigate.256 CH.132

(b) Interim Measures According to section 261 of the Civil Procedure Code,257 the court shall order interim meas- CH.133 ures provided that: (1) the applicant shows credibly that a right to which he is entitled has been violated or a violation is anticipated; and (2) the violation threatens to cause not easily reparable harm to the applicant. According to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, relative urgency is sufficient for preliminary CH.134 protection, in accordance with the expected duration of the main litigation, provided the harm that would be difficult to compensate258 in damages.259 Case law has been inconsistent 246 Oncurring: Six, Note 249; ibid., Prozessuale Probleme, 159 et seq.; Cherpillod, 2002 JdT III 74 et seq.; Treis, 82; Kikinis, 269; Willi, Note 3 to Art 53; Gilliéron, Propriété intellectuelle, Notes 190 et seq.; cf. also Widmer, SWITCHjournal 1/2002, 10; dissenting: Burri, SIWR III/2, 389; ibid., 229 et seq., 235 et seq.; Rosenthal, 2000 sic! 425; Menn, 67. 247  Federal Supreme Court 2002 sic! 860 Consideration 8—‘luzern.ch’ IV; Federal Supreme Court 2003 sic! 822 Consideration 2.3—‘tonline.ch’; 2007 sic! 543, 545—‘swisslife.ch’; see also OG BL 2000 sic! 393 Consideration 12—‘hotmail.ch’ II; Tribunal d’arrondissement de Lausanne 2002 sic! 55 Consideration VI.a—‘cofideco.ch’; OG LU ZBJV 2002, 113 Consideration 4—‘luzern.ch’ III; HG SG 2003 sic! 348 Consideration III.3.d—‘breco.ch’; HG BE 2010 sic! 274, 277—‘smw-watch.ch’; cf. also AmtsGer Luzern 2001 SJZ 102 Consideration 7.c—‘luzern. ch’ II; in contrast, expressly dissenting KG NW dated 7.11.2001 Consideration 8.a—‘djbobo.de’ I. 248  AmtsGer Luzern 2001 SJZ 102 Consideration 7.c—‘luzern.ch’ II. 249  Federal Supreme Court 2002 sic! 860 Consideration 8—‘luzern.ch’ IV; Federal Supreme Court 2003 sic! 822 Consideration 2.3.—‘tonline.ch’; 2007 sic! 543, 545—‘swisslife.ch’; 2012 sic! 109, 112—Go Fast II. 250  See Federal Supreme Court, 2002 sic! 860—‘luzern.ch’ IV; Joller, Nationale Schutzsysteme, CH 247. 251  Federal Supreme Court, 2012 sic! 109, 112—Go Fast II. 252 Cf von Büren/Marbach/Ducrey, Notes 961 et seq. 253  Art 49 SCoO. 254 Cf. A. Troller, 983; BGE 84 IV 128; OG ZH SMI 1994, 222 Consideration 8—Levi’s Jeans. 255 Dissenting Six, Note 234. 256 Cf. Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 234; KG NW dated 7.11.2001 Consideration 10.b—‘djbobo.de’ I; cf. also Federal Supreme Court 2003, 438 Consideration 5.1—‘djbobo.de’ II. 257 SR 272. 258 OG BL 2000 sic! 26 Consideration 6—‘hotmail.ch’ I; OG LU 2000 sic! 516 Consideration 8.2—‘luzern.ch’ I; Tribunal d’arrondissement de Lausanne 2002 sic! 55 Consideration III.b—‘cofideco.ch’; cf. however, TC Valais 2001 sic! 744 Consideration 6—‘montana.ch’ I. 259  Federal Supreme Court SMI 1983/2 149—Urgence.

913

Switzerland (‘.ch’) in this context. It appears, however, that interim relief may not be granted if a sufficient period of time has passed to complete an ordinary litigation.260 CH.135 Courts will apply a higher threshold of proof where the interim measure sought involves the

provisional enforcement of the relief sought in a claim.261 This is of importance in domain matters, since they may be transferred away to unrelated parties if not locked during proceedings.262 Applications to block a domain name pending the final outcome of the action are granted as a matter of principle,263 and are occasionally granted ex parte. The court may issue blocking instructions either to the domain holder or the registry.264

CH.136 It is also possible to impose preliminary prohibitions on use of a domain.265 In some cases, the

transfer of inactive domain names has been ordered through preliminary relief,266 although the author disagrees with this practice as it anticipates the final decision and is not easily reversible, and provisional transfer appears disproportionate.267

(c) Court and Attorney Costs CH.137 The parties are subject to court fees, which are calculated according to the type of proceedings, the litigation value or the other significance of the matters in dispute, and the Cantonal scale of fees. Court fees are borne by the parties according to the extent to which they are unsuccessful in the action.268 CH.138 In respect of legal fees, it is likewise the extent to which a party is unsuccessful that deter-

mines the compensation for the winning party, based on the Cantonal Scale of Legal Fees and the circumstances of the case.269

CH.139 The ‘litigation value’ recovered in respect of damages or an account of profit corresponds with

the amount claimed. In injunctions compelling the transfer or cancellation of a distinctive sign, the award is based on the type of sign infringed. Where an insignificant trademark has been infringed, the litigation value ranges between CHF 50,000 and CHF 100,000, while for more important trademarks CHF 250,000 to CHF 500,000 is standard, and may amount to over CHF 1 million for famous trademarks. For infringements of company names, amounts between CHF 50,000 and CHF 100,000 are usual.270 In domain cases, litigation values have ranged from CHF 20,000 (‘frick.ch’) to CHF 100,000 (‘luzern.ch’) and up to CHF 1 million (‘djbobo.de’). In the ‘maggi.com’ decision, however, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court refused to refer to IP rights, assuming, as a rule, a litigation value of CHF 100,000 for domain names.271 260  von Büren/Marbach/Ducrey, Note 1026; P. Troller, Einstweilige Verfügung, 317 et seq.; David, Rechtsschutz, Note 622; Zürcher, Der Einzelrichter am Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich, 88 et seq. 261  Cf. BGE 108 II 228 Consideration 2.c.; TC Valais 2001 sic! 744 Consideration 6.a—‘montana.ch’ I; P. Troller, Einstweilige Verfügung, 314; Vogel and Spühler, Grundriss des Zivilprozessrechts, Chapter 12 Note 208. 262  Cf. OG LU 2000 sic! 804 Consideration 4—‘elcotherm.ch’. 263  Cf. KG NW 2009 sic! 609, 611—Estrolith. 264  Art 262 (a) Swiss Civil Procedure Code; s 5.2 TAR; s 3.5 GTC; Widmer, 1/2002 SWITCHjournal 11. 265 OG BL 2000 sic! 26 Consideration 6—‘hotmail.ch’ I; OG LU 2000 sic! 516 Consideration 8.2.—‘luzern.ch’ I; Six, Note 258; ibid., Prozessuale Probleme, 162; Widmer, 1/2002 SWITCHjournal 11. 266  GP Bern-Laupen, 2000 sic! 24—‘artprotect.ch’; Tribunal d’arrondissement de Lausanne 2002 sic! 55 Consideration VI.a—‘cofideco.ch’. 267  Cf. OG BL 2000 sic! 26—‘hotmail.ch’ I; Six, Note 258; ibid., Prozessuale Probleme, 161 et seq.; Buri and Six, 475; cf. also TC Valais 2001 sic! 744—‘montana.ch’ I; Calame, 299; dissenting Cherpillod, 2002 JdT III 73 et seq. 268  Vogel and Spühler, Chapter 11 Notes 20 et seq. 269  Vogel and Spühler, Chapter 11 Notes 35 et seq. 270  David, Rechtsschutz, Note 108; Zürcher, 2002 sic! 493, 505. 271  Federal Supreme Court 4C.376/2004 E. 5—‘maggi.com’; see also Federal Supreme Court, 2006 sic! 480 E. 5—‘bsa.ch’.

914

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Provider

V.  Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name There is no (absolute) exclusive right generated upon registration of a domain name.272

CH.140

Naturally, a domain name in active use can enjoy protection under the UCA,273 provided it CH.141 is inherently distinctive or has acquired distinctive character.274 Domains that perform name functions are also protected, under name law.275 It is possible to register and protect a trademark that corresponds to a domain name.276 The CH.142 Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IIP) regards the top-level component as devoid of distinctive character, and domains comprising public (generic) terms are not capable of such protection.277 For example, the proposed sign ‘internet.com’ was deemed a term in the public domain.278 Additionally, a company name which is identical to a domain can be entered in the Commercial Register.279 Copyright protection is hardly ever granted to short words, and was notably denied for the CH.143 domain ‘beam.to’.280

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Provider As yet, no decisions have been published on the question of the registry’s liability in Switzerland. CH.144 In legal literature, it is argued that liability could be established solely on the basis of the UCA.281 However, other authors argue, on the basis of the discussions conducted in Germany and Austria, that the registry should be liable only for obvious breaches of the law.282 The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has ruled, however, on hosting provider liability for third CH.145 party’s content infringing personality rights. Since Swiss law does not contain specific rules for Internet Service Provider (ISP) liability, the court referred to the law of personality rights. Article 28(1) of the Civil Code states that any person whose personality rights are unlawfully infringed may petition the court for protection against ‘all those causing the infringement’. According to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, any participation is sufficient, and such participants need not be aware of the infringement. Consequently, a newspaper hosting a blog was liable for infringing third-party content.283   Joller, Nationale Schutzsysteme, CH 208; Bondallaz, 2015 sic! 273.   Cf. HG AG 2000 sic! 624 Consideration 4.b—swisslawyers; ZG BS 2005 sic! 821, 822—‘tax-info.ch’; David and Reutter, 512, 515; Meer, 2003 Recht 82; cf. also Federal Supreme Court 2007 sic! 623—Eurojobs; OG BL 2000 sic! 393 Consideration 8—‘hotmail.ch’ II. 274 HG AG 2000 sic! 624 Consideration 4.b—swisslawyers; Federal Supreme Court, 2009 sic! 348, 350—Fairsicherungsberatung. 275 ZGB-Bühler, Note 9 to Art 29, 16; Six, Notes 33 et seq.; Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 180 et seq. 276  Cf. RKGE 2000 sic! 699 Consideration 3—‘internet.com’; RKGE 2005 sic! 804—‘otto-office.com’. 277  Cf. Guidelines for Trademark Matters (As of July 1 2012), s 4.4.6. 278  RKGE 2000 sic! 699 Consideration 5—‘internet.com’. 279  Cf. BK-Küng, Note 191 to Art 932; Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 152 et seq.; Buri and Six, 469 et seq. 280  GK VIII Bern-Laupen 2000 sic! 500—‘beam.to’. 281  Gilliéron, 2000 SZW 214 et seq. 282  Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 245 et seq.; Six, Note 241 et seq.; ibid., Prozessuale Probleme, 160 et seq.; Rosenthal, Lauterkeitsrecht, 86 et seq.; Calame, 297; cf. on the legal situation in Austria and Germany, decisions of the Austrian Supreme Court 2001 ÖBl 30, 34—‘fpo.at’ I; 2002 ÖBl 242, 243—‘fpo.at’ II; decision of the German Federal Supreme Court 2001 WRP 1305—‘ambiente.de’. 283  Swiss Federal Supreme Court 2013 sic! 293, 294—Blogs. 272 273

915

Switzerland (‘.ch’) CH.146 In response, the Swiss Internet Industry Association immediately adopted a hosting code of

conduct, which provides a notice and take down procedure. Additional measures concerning ISP liability have been requested from the Federal Council by a member of the Swiss parliament in March 2013.

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property CH.147 Domain names can be transferred and ‘licensed’. Swiss legal literature argues that domains should

be capable of seizure in compulsory liquidation proceedings,284 and domains are often realized in bankruptcy proceedings (via sale by private contract).

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (1) Preliminary Comments CH.148 In international disputes, jurisdiction and the choice of law are determined by the Swiss Federal

Act on International Private Law.285 This is subject to the application of international treaties, including the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Lugano Convention).286

CH.149 In the context of domain names, the parties’ domiciles, the location of the infringed foreign IP

rights, the location of the infringement, and the place of market effect are all possible venues for an international dispute. The mere fact that domain names are globally accessible does not establish sufficient foreign connection.287 However, the dispute is clearly international where the parties are domiciled in different countries.288 Swiss legal literature argues that a case is international if the domain was registered abroad289 or if the website is hosted abroad.290 In any event, to be heard in Switzerland, the infringement or its market effect must have a sufficient local connection.291 This depends in part on the plaintiff’s claims,292 meaning that if the plea for relief refers to Switzerland, jurisdiction is generally warranted.293

(2) Jurisdiction CH.150 Swiss courts at the defendant’s domicile have jurisdiction over actions concerning the validity

or registration of IP rights in Switzerland.294 In respect of actions concerning the violation of IP rights, Swiss courts have jurisdiction at the defendant’s domicile or at the place where the violating act was committed or had its effects.295

284  Six, Prozessuale Probleme, 167 et seq.; Auf der Maur and Bürgi Locatelli, 2001 sic! 853 et seq.; Netzle/Hayer, 655; see Art. 28(6) RID. 285 SR 291. 286  SR 0.275.11. 287  Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 202 et seq.; Six, Note 268. 288  Patocchi/Geisinger, Note 3 to Art 1; Jegher, Note 8 to Art 109; Six, Note 272. 289  Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 203; Six, Note 272; dissenting HG AG 2000 sic! 624 Consideration 1.a—swisslawyers. 290  Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 203. 291  Cf. below Section VIII.4. 292  Vogel and Spühler, Chapter 4 Note 103 et seq. 293  Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 213 et seq; ibid., Domain-Namen, 383. 294  Art 109(1) Act on Private International Law. 295  Art 109(2) Act on Private International Law; Swiss Federal Supreme Court 2014 sic! 162—Harry Potter II.

916

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law The usual location for actions based on tort is at the defendant’s domicile, or at his ordinary CH.151 place of residence or business. Alternatively, an action may be brought where the act was committed or had its effects.296 Under the Lugano Convention,297 tort actions, including IP infringement and unfair compe- CH.152 tition claims,298 can be heard at the defendant’s domicile, or—out of the State of domicile— where the harmful event occurred.299 In Swiss IP law, the territoriality principle requires the locations of the act and of its effect to be in the same national territory. This means that jurisdiction for torts in Switzerland is restricted to actions based on Swiss IP rights.300

(3) Choice of Law Intellectual property rights are basically subject to the laws of the state for which protection CH.153 is claimed. Once the damaging event has occurred, however, the parties can agree to invoke the law of the selected court.301 A distinction is to be made for company names and names: if the name or the company CH.154 name of a company registered in the Swiss Commercial Register is infringed in Switzerland, its protection is determined by Swiss law.302 On the other hand, if the dispute concerns a company not registered in the Swiss Commercial Register, the protection of its name or company name is governed by the law applicable to unfair competition or to the violation of individual rights.303 Since the latter approach appears inappropriate, it is argued that choice of law should be based on the market effect principle.304 Finally, the provisions concerning tort also apply to the protection of the names of natural persons.305 For actions based on tort, the Act on International Private Law provides that claims based CH.155 upon unfair competition are subject to the law of the state in whose market306 the unfair act has its effect.307 A further special situation is where individual rights have been violated by the media. In such CH.156 cases, the injured party can choose between the law of his ordinary place of residence, that of the infringer’s business establishment, or that of the place where the effect of the damaging act occurs.308 This provision also applies to the Internet.309 In the ‘djbobo.de’ decision, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court did not determine whether an infringement of a name right falls under this special situation.310 The prevailing view is that the market effect principle controls in the event of an infringement of commercial individual rights.311

  Art 129 Act on Private International Law.   Art 2(1) in conjunction with Art 5 s 3 of the Lugano Convention. 298  Kropholler/von Hein, Note 74 to Art 5; Weber, E-Commerce, 99; cf. also decision of the Austrian Supreme Court 2002 GRUR Int. 344—BOSS-Zigaretten I. 299  Kropholler/von Hein, Notes 81 et seq. to Art 5; Weber, E-Commerce, 101 et seq.; cf. also decision of the Austrian Supreme Court 2002 GRUR Int. 344—BOSS-Zigaretten I. 300 Cf. Bettinger and Thum, 1999 GRUR Int. 663. 301  Art 110 Act on Private International Law. 302  Art 157(1) Act on Private International Law. 303  Art 157(2) Act on Private International Law. 304  Cf. IPRG-Jegher/Vasella, Note 15 to Art 157. 305  Art 33(2) Act on Private International Law. 306  Vischer, Art 136 Note 13; Dasser, Note 12 to Art 136. 307  Art 136 Act on Private International Law. 308  Art 139 Act on Private International Law. 309  Rosenthal, 1997 AJP 1348; Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 208. 310  Federal Supreme Court 2003 sic! 438 Consideration 2—‘djbobo.de’ II. 311 IPRG-Dasser, Note 5 to Art 139 with further references. 296 297

917

Switzerland (‘.ch’) CH.157 The subsidiary application of the law of tort involves a cascade system, primarily based on the

legal relationship between the parties. Failing an existing relationship, the court will apply the law of the infringer’s residence and the injured party. Finally, the law of the place where the tort was committed shall govern.312

(4) Use of the Sign on the Internet CH.158 Domain names are globally accessible, and thus infringement might occur anywhere.

However, this does not, of itself, constitute a legally relevant ‘use’ of a sign in any particular country.313 The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has not clarified this issue, but has held that relevant use must, at a minimum, be intended use of the website.314

CH.159 According to a Joint Recommendation by WIPO and the Paris Union for the Protection of

Industrial Property,315 the use of a sign on the Internet is only deemed to occur in a particular country if ‘the use has a commercial effect in that Member State’ (Article 2). Article 3 provides a list of relevant factors, which serve as non-binding guidelines.

CH.160 These guidelines are not legally binding in formal terms, but should, in this author’s view, be

taken into consideration when Swiss law is applied. In most cases, once a number of the conditions are met, it can be assumed that there is a commercial effect316 and hence a sufficient geographical connection to Switzerland.317

CH.161 A similar situation arises with respect to the conflict-of-law question as to the local market

in which an unfair act has had its effect. The overwhelming view is that the mere possibility of access, or actual access by an individual user, does not of itself constitute a sufficient effect on the market.318 In this context, an objective assessment must be made as to which users are addressed by the offer in question. Swiss legal literature focuses on the language used, the content of the offer, contact address details, express restriction of the offer to a specific geographic market, the possibility of selecting a country when entering a user name, the top-level domain space (eg a ccTLD) and the means of payment (currency, bank account).319 In addition, the other criteria specified in the joint WIPO/Paris Union Recommendation also apply.

CH.162 On the other hand, technical measures should be taken into account as well. If access to a

website from a specific country or region is excluded (eg by means of geotargeting) there is no commercial effect and consequently no use of the related sign in that country or region. While some decisions ordering geographically restricted injunctions have been rendered in France and Germany,320 this issue has not yet been discussed in Switzerland.

  Art 133 Act on Private International Law.   Rosenthal, Projekt Internet, 126; Buri, Verwechselbarkeit, 212; ibid., Domain-Namen, 385; Weber, E-Commerce, 101 et seq.; cf. also Cherpillod, 1997 sic! 124; cf. on the legal situation in Germany: Kropholler/ von Hein, Note 86 to Art 5; Kur, 377; Hamburg Court of Appeals, 2002 MMR 822, 823—‘hotel-maritime.dk’. 314  Federal Supreme Court, 2007 sic! 543—‘swiss-life.ch’, HG SG 2010, 789, 790—Refoderm. 315  WIPO/PVÜ, Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Marks, and other Industrial Property Rights in Signs on the Internet, French translation in 2001, 859 et seq.; cf. Bettinger, 2001 WRP 789 et seq.; Buri, 2001 sic! 848 et seq. 316  Cf. also Bettinger, 2001 WRP 793. 317  Cf. also decision of the Austrian Supreme Court 2002 GRUR Int. 344—BOSS-Zigaretten I. 318  Rosenthal, Lauterkeitsrecht, 89; Weber, E-Commerce, 106; Streuli-Youssef, Auslegeordnung, 98 et seq.; cf. also Dasser, 151; cf. on the legal situation in Germany, Cologne District Court 2002 CR 58—‘budweiser.com’. 319  Rosenthal, Lauterkeitsrecht, 89; AIPPI Schweiz, Internet Domain Namen, Marken und Handelsnamen (Report Q 143), 265; Weber, E-Commerce, 107; Streuli-Youssef, Auslegeordnung, 99; Bettinger and Thum, 1999 GRUR Int. 672 et seq. 320  OVG Münster 2010 MMR 350—Geolocation; Hoeren, 2007 MMR 3. 312 313

918

TURKEY (‘.tr’) Mustafa Aksu

I. Overview of Turkish Intellectual Property and Competition Law  (1)  Types of Protected Intellectual Property Rights  (2)  Development of Domain Name Law 

II. The ccTLD (‘.tr’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

(1)  The Domain Name Ordinance and the Consequences for the Registry  (2)  The Structure of the Name Space  (3)  Registration Procedure  (4)  Registration Costs  (5)  The Domain Registration System and the Registration Principles  (6)  Transfer of Domain Names  (7)  Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding  (8) Statistics  (9)  The Registration of Descriptive Domain Names 

(7)  Role of the Administrative Panel  (8) Costs  (9)  Relationship between the ADR and Court Proceedings  (10)  ADR Decisions  (11) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Administrative Panel

TR.01 TR.02 TR.08

IV.  Court Litigation 

TR.11

TR.57 TR.58 TR.59 TR.60 TR.62 TR.66

(1)  Specific Anticybersquatting Legislation TR.66 (2)  The Infringement of Registered Trademarks by Domain Names  TR.67 (3)  The Infringement of Unregistered Trademarks TR.81 (4)  The Infringement of Firm Names and Company Names  TR.84 (5)  The Infringement of Titles  TR.86 (6)  The Infringement of Geographical Indications of Source  TR.88 (7)  The Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  TR.89 (8)  Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available  TR.90

TR.11 TR.15 TR.20 TR.21 TR.23 TR.31 TR.33 TR.35 TR.36

III. ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.tr’ Domain Space 

TR.38 (1)  Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding TR.38 (2) Statistics  TR.42 (3)  Material Scope of the Proceeding  TR.43 (4)  Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement  TR.44 (5)  Overview of the ADR-Procedure  TR.45 (6)  Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider  TR.54

V. Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers  VI. Domain Names as Items of Property  VII. International Conflicts  (1)  International Jurisdiction  (2)  Choice of Law 

TR.102 TR.105 TR.106 TR.106 TR.109

Links Registry ‘.tr’ ODTÜ (Middle East Technical University): https://www.nic.tr (to 11/07/2012, after which the new register system TRABIS applies:1 http://www.trabis.gov.tr The Senior Council for the Internet: http://kurul.ubak.gov.tr Turkish Patent Office: http://www.turkpatent.gov.tr 1  Although TRABIS will have to be put into operation following the new regulation of 11 July 2012, this has not yet happened. According to the provisional Art 4 of the Domain-Communiqué entry into service of TRABIS will be announced on the website of the ICTA, after the necessary processes (measures) have been taken. On the homepage of TRABIS, it is announced that the legal problems with METU are the reason for this delay.

919

Turkey (‘.tr’) Turkish Supreme Court: http://www.yargitay.gov.tr Turkish Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA):  http://www. tk.gov.tr (Turkish) or http://eng.btk.gov.tr/ (English) Trademark Decree-Law No 556 dated 27 June 1995:  http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/ text.jsp?file_id=129927 (English translation); 1988 GRUR Int 129 (German translation) (no available German translation on the Internet) The Electronic Communications Act (ECA) No 5809, dated 5 November 2008: http://www. trabis.gov.tr/tr/5809.html The Ordinance on the Internet Domain Names (OIDN), which is published in the Official Gazette (No: 27752) and dated 7 November 2010: http://www.trabis.gov.tr/en/ordinance.htm Registration Conditions by ODTÜ: https://www.nic.tr/forms/politikalar.pdf The Domain- Communiqué, which is published in the Official Gazette (No 28742)  and dated 21 August 2013: http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2013/08/20130821-27.htm The ADR- Communiqué, which is published in the Official Gazette (No 28742) and dated 21 August 2013: http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2013/08/20130821-28.htm WHOIS Database: https://www.nic.tr/index.php?PHPSESSID=143121182485966713086 2379&USRACTN=DOMAINSRCH or http://internet.tib.gov.tr/

I.  Overview of Turkish Intellectual Property and Competition Law TR.01 Internet usage in Turkey is constantly on the rise. Accordingly, the number of registered

domain names has increased from 62,000 (November 2004)2 to 367,515 (15 August 2015). Meanwhile there are a relatively large number of domain name disputes before the national courts, resulting in a number of illustrative high court decisions.3

(1) Types of Protected Intellectual Property Rights TR.02 Turkish intellectual property law4 is regarded as a form of private law.5 There is no express

provision for the protection of intellectual property under the Turkish constitution, but it is generally accepted that these rights are extended via the constitutional protection of property of Article 36 of the Turkish Constitution.6 2 M.  Aksu, Turkey (‘.tr’) in:  Domain Name Law and Practice An International Handbook, Edited by Torsten Bettinger, Oxford 2005, p 787 TR.01. 3 See the decision of the Court of Appeals, 11th Chamber, dated 19 October 2004, Decision No (K): 2004/10024, Case No (Esas): 2003/13570, in: Bilişim ve Hukuk 2009/1, pp 79 f.; Court of Appeals, 13th Chamber, dated 20 June 2005, Decision No 2005/10379, Case No 2005/3951 (www.kazancı.com); Court of Appeals, 11th Chamber, dated 28 March 2008, Decision No 2008/4071, Case No 2007/1677; Court of Appeals, 11th Chamber, dated 22 December 2011, Decision No 2011/17562, Case No 2010/648 (unpublished); Court of Appeals, 11th Chamber, dated 23 January 2012, Decision No 2012/556, Case No 2011/15294 (www.kazanci.com); Court of Appeals, 11th Chamber, dated 17 January 2011, Decision No 2011/166, Case No 2009/7216 in: Çolak, Türk Marka Hukuku, İstanbul 2012, p 584; Court of Appeals, 11th Chamber, dated 18 April 2011, Decision No 2011/4550, Case No 2009/11957 in: Çolak, p 589; Court of Appeals, 11th Chamber, dated 23 January 2012, Decision No 2012/556, Case No 2011/15294. For more decisions see Soysal, İnternet Alan Adları Hukuku (Domain Name Law), Ankara 2014; pp 859 ff., 1095 ff. 4  It should be noted that domain names are primarily debated in the area of intellectual property rights and therefore are treated as legally protected signs, see F. Nomer, in: Prof Dr Hayri Domaniç’e 80. Yaş Günü Armağanı, Vol 1 pp 395 ff.; Ü. Tekinalp, Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku, Istanbul 2012, 5th edn para 1, Notes 81 and 84; M. Aksu, Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 2004, pp 301 ff.; Aksu, Turkey (‘.tr’), TR.27 ff.; S. Oğuz, İnternet Alan Adı (Domain Name) Haklarının Korunması, Ankara 2012 pp 206 ff.; Soysal, (above n 3), pp 322 ff.; just decision of Court of Appeals, 11th Chamber, dated 28March 2008, Decision No 2008/4071, Case No 2007/1677 (www.kazanci.com). Cf. Şenocak, BATIDER 2009, pp 89, 97 ff. 5  See, for example, Ü. Tekinalp (above n 4), para 3 Notes 1 f.; Aksu, Annales, pp 301 ff. 6 See Ayiter, Hukukta Fikir ve Sanat Ürünleri, 2nd edn, 1981 Ankara, p 14; Ü. Tekinalp (above n 4), para 3 Note 11; cf. also S. Arkan, Markenrecht, Vol. II Ankara 1998, p 287 fn. 1.

920

I.  Overview of Turkish Intellectual Property and Competition Law The current regulations concerning intellectual property rights in signs are contained in TR.03 Decree-Law No 556 pertaining to the Protection of Trademarks dated 27 May 1995 (hereinafter the Trademark Decree-Law)7 and certain general provisions of private law which will be discussed in more detail below. The Trademark Decree-Law constitutes an important component in the alignment of TR.04 Turkish trademark law with European laws concerning intellectual property. According to the Trademark Decree-Law, protection is only possible for registered trademarks (Trademark Decree-Law, Article 6). Unregistered trademarks must instead rely on the unfair competition law provisions of Articles 54 to 63 of the Turkish Commercial Code (hereinafter TComC).8 It is worth mentioning that the old Commercial Code has now been replaced by the new Turkish Commercial Code dated 14 February 2011. The new Code (TComC)9 contains provisions requiring companies to establish company websites (specifically TComC Art 1524). Separate provisions were adopted for the protection of geographical indications of source,10 TR.05 designs, patents, and utility patents at the same time as the Trademark Decree-Law. In the context of Turkey’s intended full membership of the EU, the Turkish Patent Institute TR.06 (TPI), based in the capital city of Ankara, was founded by Decree-Law No 544 dated 19 June 1994.11 Its function is to handle the registration and publication of patents, trademarks, industrial designs, and geographical indications of source. The TPI, as a public law institution, is a public corporation. Supplementary regulations concerning intellectual property rights in signs can be found in TR.07 the Turkish Civil Code (hereinafter the TCC), which was revised in terms of language and content by the Amendment dated 22 November 200112 and by the new Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO). The new TCO, dated 11 January 2011, came into force on 1 July 2012.

(2) Development of Domain Name Law The key provisions for the solution of domain name conflicts include the civil law protection TR.08 of names (TCC, Art 26), the provisions concerning torts (TCO, Arts 49 ff.) and unjustified enrichment (TCO, Arts 77 ff.), and the general unfair competition law clause of the TCO, Art 57. This latter provision states that anyone who impairs or threatens the business reputation of another by means of incorrect, misleading, or untrue statements, or other activities in breach of good faith, can be ordered to cease its disrupting business activities and to pay compensation for the losses culpably caused by the infringement.

7  Official Gazette No 22326 dated 27 June 1995, Law No 556; the law is supplemented by an implementation regulation (Official Gazette No 22454 dated 5 November 1995); the legal regulations mentioned in this chapter are all regulations with force of law. In order to avoid repetition, this is not mentioned separately each time. 8  See, for example, E. Uysal, Probleme des türkischen Markenrechts aus der Sicht des deutschen und europäischen Rechts, Cologne et al. 1998, pp 81 f. and 91 with further references. 9  The code was enacted on 13 January 2011 numbered 6102 by Parliament, published in the Official Gazette No 27846 dated 14 February 2011. It mainly came into effect on 1 July 2012 (Art 1534 s 1 sentence 1 tHGB). Some rules came into effect on 1 January 2013 (Art 1534 ss 2–4). Art 1524 which is particularly important for domain name law, however, came into effect on 1 July 2013 (Art 1534, s I, clause 2). 10  Arts 15 and 18 of the Decree-Law for the protection of geographical indications and source (Law No 555) are of particular importance for domain name law. 11 Decree-Law on the foundation and responsibilities of the Turkish Patent Institute (hereinafter the TPI-DL), Official Gazette No 21970 dated 24 June 1994. This Decree-Law is based on Arts 111–140 of EC Regulation No 40/94 (OJ No L 11 dated 14 January 1994, p 1). 12  The new TCC (Law No 4721) was published on 8 December 2001 in the Official Gazette dated 8 December 2001 and entered into effect on 1 January 2002 (Art 1029).

921

Turkey (‘.tr’) TR.09 Also of importance for domain name law are the specific competition law provisions con-

tained in the TComC, Articles 54 to 63, which apply alongside the general clause of the TCO, Article 57.13 Article 54 II also contains a general competition law clause prohibiting any abuse of commercial competition through deception or in any other manner infringing good faith.14 Article 55 of the TComC contains a list of individual infringements, forbidding in particular deceptive or misleading business practices and any activities likely to cause consumer confusion.15 Furthermore the Trademark Decree-Law contains a specific rule (Art 9), which also regulates the trademark infringement by the domain name etc.

TR.10 Additionally, in the context of domain names, the Electronic Communications Act (ECA)16

and the domain name Ordinance (OIDN) are of considerable importance. Article 3(v) and (y)  of the ECA outline the mechanisms relating to domain name management, and pursuant to Article 35 the Ministry is authorized to regulate the specific details of the process. According to the ECA, the Ministry of Transport and Communications is authorized to develop domain name regulations within Turkey. The Ordinance was published on 7 November 2010 in the Official Gazette (No 27752) and provides for a new system, which differs in many respects from the previous system. These changes will be addressed throughout this chapter, as will the current state of them. Thus, under ECA provisions (Art 3(v) and (y), Art 5(a), Arts 34 and 35), domain name law in Turkey has been given a separate and distinct legal basis. In the different articles of the OIDN the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA) is authorized to regulate the details of the Domain Name System. The ICTA has just issued a Communiqué to the domain name (Domain-Communiqué), which is published in the Official Gazette (No 28742 dated 21 August 2013)  and currently in force. The Domain-Communiqué has many detailed regulations. The ICTA has also issued a Communiqué to ADR (ADR-Communiqué), which is published in the Official Gazette (No 28742 dated 21 August 2013). The details of the ADR procedure are regulated here.

II.  The ccTLD (‘.tr’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1) The Domain Name Ordinance and the Consequences for the Registry TR.11 As noted above, the OIDN provides the structure and foundation for the ‘.tr’ ccTLD. As

provided under the Ordinance, the ‘.tr’ space utilizes a large central database for the warehousing of registry data, known as TRABIS. This is a compound word which combines the element ‘TR’, for the ccTLD ‘.tr’, the letter representing the Turkish word for the web is ‘A’ (in Turkish, the word Web is written ‘Ağ’), and finally ‘BIS’ is an abbreviation of the term for information system (in Turkish ‘bilgi sistemi’). The TRABIS system provides the database 13  There is disagreement as to how the scope of application of the TCO, Art 57 and TComC, Art 54 et seq. is to be determined. To date, case law appears to follow the view that commercial competition within the meaning of Art 54 et seq. can only exist between merchants or business operations. This means that the contract law provision of Art 57 TCO serves as the applicable law in the case of unfair competition between non-merchants. Uysal (above n 8) p 15; see the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 14 November 1968, E. 1967/3750, K. 1968/6047 in: Doğanay, Türk Ticaret Kanunu Şerhi, Vol 1, Ankara 1990, p 316; also the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 15 May 1989, E. 1988/2889, K.1989/2929, YKD 1990, p 64; see Memiş, e-akademi, Mai 2005, Note 43. 14 See Uysal (above n 8) pp 14, 78 with further references; Doğanay, loc. cit., Art 56, p 314; Arkan (above n 6), p 293; Domaniç, Türk Ticaret Kanunu Şerhi, Vol 1, Istanbul 1988, pp 197 ff. 15 See Arkan (above n 6) pp 294 ff.; Uysal (above n 8) p 78. 16  The Electronic Communications Act was enacted as Law No 5809 on 5 November 2008 by parliament, and published in Official Gazette No 27050 on 10 November 2008.

922

II.  The ccTLD (‘.tr’) Registration Conditions and Procedures services for the ccTLD space, as well as mechanisms to enable updating of registry data and real-time implementation of domain name requests. As mandated by the Ordinance, all of these services must be implemented on a secure and continuous basis to ensure uninterrupted Internet and business access (Art 3(n) OIDN). Under the Provisional Article 1 of OIDN, the current system will be applied until the new TR.12 system is activated. The TRABIS system was due to come into force by 1 November 2012 (provisional Article 1 II OIDN). The majority of the provisions of the OIDN will only enter into force when TRABIS has been established and put into operation as provided. However, Articles 14, 15, 24 and the provisional Article 1, all came into force on 1 November 2010 (Art 33 OIDN).17 Alhough TRABIS should have been put into operation after the regulation some time ago, this TR.13 has not yet happened. According to the provisional Article 4 of the Domain-Communiqué entry into service of TRABIS will be announced on the website of the ICTA, after the necessary processes (measures) have been taken. However, as of 16 August 2015 this has not happened. The Domain-Communiqué regulates in detail the conditions which the registrar has to TR.14 satisfy (Art 5-6). The registrar must submit an application to the ICTA and pay Turkish Lira (TL) 70,000 (approximatly €23,500) as a guarantee. The registrar must first survive a test phase, which lasts 90 calendar days. When this phase has been completed successfully, the registrar receives a certificate which is valid for three years (Art 7 III Domain-Communiqué).

(2) The Structure of the Name Space Under Article 5 of OIDN, the available naming zones within the ‘.tr’ ccTLD are in the TR.15 form of both second and third-level domain spaces, for example, ‘a.b.tr’ (eg ‘istanbul.edu.tr’ or ‘google.com.tr) and ‘a.tr’ (eg ‘istanbul.tr’ or ‘google.tr’). In these examples, the ‘a’ part of the domain name is the portion which may be determined by the end user. The ‘b’ section represents a second-level domain (subdomain), which has been predetermined by the OIDN, and is limited both in number and (in some cases) by specific registration eligibility criteria. According to the transitional provision Article 3, the first registration of ‘a.tr’ requires the provision of documents showing a right or legitimate interest in the applied domain name. Further, Article 3(3) provides that in the first sunrise period of registration, public agencies, (defined as companies which are more than 50 per cent state-owned), foundations, and institutions dedicated to the public interest, and worker and employer unions will be given priority. The Domain-Communiqué has many detailed regulations for this purpose (Art 27-30). Then the principle of the supremacy of trademark owners will apply (trademark owner comes first) (Art 27 V Domain-Communiqué). This principle is again acknowledged in Article 29, for any new domain which the ICTA can accept in the future. The priority of trademark owners follows the principle that the domain name will be given after auction (Arts 27 VI;

17  Under the current (until the full establishment of TRABIS) system for the registration of domain names under the Turkish ‘.tr’ ccTLD is the responsibility of the ODTÜ (Middle East Technical University), a state university in Ankara. It has been responsible for registering domain names since the agreement (and since the first registration) concluded with INTERNIC (Internet Network Information Centre) in 1990 (see https://www.nic.tr/forms/eng/policies.pdf?PHPSESSID=143129073188235130118266375, p 2). A ‘Senior Council for the Internet’ has been established at the Ministry of Transport and has, inter alia, set up a ‘Working party for the administration and control of the domain name system’ (the Working Party). The Working Group with respect to the domain name policy has a legislature similar position. Therefore, they had some kind of Registration Regulations on registration policies, procedures, and principles for the allocation of domain names in the ccTLD.

923

Turkey (‘.tr’) 28 II a) and 29 Domain-Communiqué). Only then is the ‘first-come, first-served’ principle followed (Art 27 VII; 28 II c) and 30 III Domain-Communiqué). TR.16 The above-mentioned regulations in Domain-Communiqué, however, are quite problematic.

For example, it is unclear why only the trademark owner should have priority. In comparison to other intellectual property law positions the mark has no priority. Furthermore, the method of auction (Art 30 Domain-Communiqué) will bring many problems.

TR.17 Under Article 5 of OIDN, the user-defined portion of ‘.tr’ domain names may be comprised of

the letters from A to Z (including the IDN letters of the Turkish alphabet—‘ç’, ‘ğ’, ‘ı’, ‘ö’, ‘ş’, and ‘ü’), numbers (0 to 9), and the hyphen symbol. Domain strings must contain at least two, and no more than 36 characters, and cannot begin or end with a hyphen.

TR.18 According to the OIDN, the second-level spaces available for registration under the ‘.tr’ ccTLD

are as follows: ‘com.tr’,18 ‘.net.tr’, ‘.biz.tr’, ‘.info.tr’, ‘.bbs.tr’, ‘.name.tr’, ‘.org.tr’, ‘.web.tr’, ‘.gen. tr’, ‘.av.tr’, ‘.tv.tr’, ‘.dr.tr’, ‘.k12.tr’, ‘.tel.tr’, ‘.bel.tr’, ‘.gov.tr’, ‘.edu.tr’, ‘.pol.tr’, and ‘.tsk.tr’. Furthermore, domain names within the ‘.av.tr’, ‘.dr.tr’, ‘.k12.tr’, ‘.bel.tr’, ‘.gov.tr’, ‘.edu.tr’, ‘.pol. tr’, and ‘.tsk.tr’ subdomain spaces can only be allocated to qualified individuals or entities. In order to register a domain name within any of these restricted spaces, the prospective registrant must present the documents specified (thus their designation as documentary domain names) by the ICTA.19 The following is a list of the types of individuals and/or entities that are permitted to use these controlled spaces: – ‘.av.tr’ is for use by attorneys, law firms, and attorney partnerships which are the members of the Turkish Bar Association; – ‘.bel.tr’ is for local government institutions that are registered with the Ministry of Interior; – ‘.dr.tr’ is a dedicated space for physicians, medical communities, hospitals, and first-stage health institutions belonging to the Ministry of Health; – ‘edu.tr’ is for use by colleges and universities that are recognized by the Higher Education Board in Ankara; – ‘.gov.tr’ is for state and municipal facilities; – ‘.pol.tr’ is for law enforcement authorities; – ‘.k12.tr’ may be used by facilities for school education (schools) in all forms (nursery schools, kindergartens, elementary schools, high schools, etc), which are recognized by the Ministry of Education; and – ‘.tsk.tr’ is reserved for use by military units that are part of the Turkish security forces.

TR.19 So long as the required conditions are met for the above-named spaces, there are no other restric-

tions on the identity of prospective registrants. Consequently, an application requires neither Turkish citizenship20 nor local presence in Turkey. Domain names are allocated on a first-come, first-served basis at all levels.

18  Both the system of METU (ODTÜ) and the OIDN distinguish between Documentary domain names and Non-documentary domain names. However, it should be noted that the first group is more extensive under the current system compared to the system provided under the new ordinance (OIDN). A comparison of the provisions of the OIDN with the provisions of the current Registration Order arises from the fact, that the domain names ‘.com.tr’, ‘.net.tr’, and ‘.org.tr’ can be provided in the future without a document. 19  Since the ORC has not yet published the conditions, the old rules of METU (ODTÜ) still apply. 20  However, the Domain-Communiqué concerning the registration of ‘a.tr’ now includes a regulation that only Turkish citizens can participate in the auction, which is intended to serve as a phase in the issuing of domain names (Articles 27 IV and 30 I). This regulation is invalid in the author’s opinion, as it constitutes a definitive violation of OIDN.

924

II.  The ccTLD (‘.tr’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (3) Registration Procedure Prospective registrants of ‘.tr’ domain names must apply for their desired strings through TR.20 accredited registrars.21 A list of approved registrars will be published on the ICTA website22 for information purposes. Registrars are also responsible for the renewal of domain names and other associated management duties. The OIDN provides the rules and regulations for registrars and outlines, for example, the consequences of termination of service by the registrar or the ICTA and the transfers of domain names between registrars (Art 17–20 OIDN). The ICTA determines the minimum requirements for registrars, the applicable rules and other administrative points, and publishes these standards on its web page (Art 16 I OIDN). The ICTA can terminate the permission to operate as a registrar in cases where the registrar, for example, disobeys the related legislation, does not fulfil its obligations or loses its characteristic features. Registrars are responsible for utilizing the TRABIS system to complete the domain name registration process after accepting an application from an end-user (Art 7 VI OIDN). The aforementioned Domain-Communiqué draft sets out the details in Articles 14 to 17.

(4) Registration  Costs The costs for a domain name vary according to domain name, but generally range between TL TR.21 5 and TL 25 (approximatly €1,7–8,3) for the first year including VAT. The costs for ‘.com.tr’ domain names range between TL 25 and TL 100 (approximatly €8,3–€33,3) for five years. The amount of costs is determined by the ICTA under Article 28 of OIDN and Article 20 TR.22 of the Domain-Communiqué.

(5) The Domain Registration System and the Registration Principles Successful application for a ‘.tr’ domain name is not contingent upon a local presence in TR.23 Turkey. Thus, there is no requirement that registrants within the space be either Turkish nationals or domiciled within the country. According to OIDN, the guiding principles which must be taken into account by registrars and the TRABIS system in creating and assigning ‘.tr’ domain names are as follows: – providing and maintaining a liberal and efficient competition platform; – protecting consumer rights; – taking international applications and standards into consideration; and – protecting the rights of third parties. During their applications, prospective registrants are informed about legal results of their acts TR.24 and the consequences of giving misinformation, violating third-party rights, and so on. The applicant guarantees the accuracy of his contact details and information. He is responsible for the selection of his domain name and guarantees that the selected domain name does not infringe any third-party rights and that the domain will not be used illegally. All applicants are subject to the terms and conditions of the registration and the ‘.tr’ space. They further guarantee that the cancellation or release of domain names will not yield any right in their favour. Domain names are only registered after the registrar completes the necessary registry transactions via TRABİS, and after the prospective registrant pays the necessary fees related to the domain names (Art 8 IV OIDN).

21  The applications must be filed currently online via the ODTÜ website. After the application for a domain, if the submission of documents is required these must be produced within 15 calendar days. If the documents are complete, the domain name will be granted within two calendar days. 22 See http://www.tk.gov.tr/index.php.

925

Turkey (‘.tr’) TR.25 Non-documentary domain name registration is performed on a ‘first-come, first-served’

basis. Determination of the first-in-time applicant is based on the time record of the domain name application’s transmission to TRABİS (not according to the time at which the registrar received the request from the end-user). Documentary domain name registration is performed after the related information and/or documents are provided to the registrar, and this information and/or documents are transmitted to TRABIS (Art 8 III OIDN). The ICTA determines the required documents (Art 33, Domain-Communiqué).

TR.26 A ‘.tr’ domain name may be registered for a minimum period of at least one year, and for a

maximum of five years, with the possibility of renewal. A registrar will inform a registrant by e-mail when a renewal is required, and must provide such notice no later than three months before the expiration date of the domain name. The registrar must also provide the necessary information for the renewal process.

TR.27 The use of any domain name of whose renewal process is not completed by the end of its

registration period will be suspended for a period of two months. During this period, the registrant has the option to renew the domain name, similar to the ‘redemption grace’ period generally offered under the gTLDs. If no renewal request is entered by the registrant, the domain name will be offered for registration to the general public (Art 9 III OIDN).

TR.28 The domain owner may waive his rights in a domain name by submitting a formal request to

the registrar, which will in turn forward the request to TRABIS, (Art 10 OIDN and Art 22 V, Domain-Communiqué).

TR.29 Article 3(h) provides a list of the restrictively available domain spaces, all of which are dedi-

cated for use by individuals, organizations, or entities which reflect the historical and cultural values of Turkey (Art 3(h) OIDN). Second-level domain spaces that will be added to or deleted from the restricted list, the parties that are allowed to be registrants, and the information and documents required for registration are to be determined by the ICTA (Art 32 I OIDN). The registration of the domain name may be cancelled by TRABIS, if it is determined that the domain name in the restricted list is not registered by an appropriate party (Art 32 II OIDN).

TR.30 Additionally, there is a list of blocked domain names (Art 3(ğ), Art 31). This list is deter-

mined by the ICTA, and is composed of second- and third-level domains which are not allowed to be registered due to legislation, public order, or morality reasons (Art 3(ğ)).

(6) Transfer of Domain Names TR.31 According to the OIDN, it is possible to sell and transfer ‘.tr’ domain names via an after-

market transaction (Art 13). This is a new development, because under the previous domain name regulation of the METU (ODTÜ), domain names could not be sold. Article 13 III of the OIDN stipulates that in certain cases, such as the death, presumption of death, or declaration of presumed death by natural persons, a domain name can be transferred to an heir-at-law. The Regulation gives the registry administrator some discretionary power in this regard.23 It is anticipated that Article 13 of OIDN will come into effect in November 2015, which means that domain names will only be able to be sold via aftermarkets after that time (transitional provision Art 2 OIDN).

TR.32 The transfer of domain names is possible if the domain owner dies, disappears or is declared

dead, or if the legal persons or entities holding the domains are involved in a merger or takeover (transitional provision Art I lit (a) and (b), OIDN). This also applies to the transfer of

23  It may be assumed, however, that such a rule violates the regulation of the general statutory principles of inheritance and thus appears to be against the law. Because the legal positions that have a material value will pass to the heirs, in general, in accordance with the general principles of inheritance.

926

II.  The ccTLD (‘.tr’) Registration Conditions and Procedures intellectual property rights, including trademarks which may be incorporated into domain names (the transitional provision Art 2 I lit (c) and (ç) OIDN).

(7) Transfer of a Domain Name to a Third Party During an ADR or Court Proceeding For the transfer of a domain name to a third party, the general principles apply. This means TR.33 that the transfer conditions may be different depending on the legal position. If the domain name can be described as a trademark, the trademark rule will apply, and so on. In OIDN, it is regulated (the transitional provision Art 2 II) that for the normal transfer of a domain name, the relevant transfer application is to be submitted by completely and accurately filling out the form on the website of the registrar. The transfer transaction is finished after the registrar fulfils required procedures by TRABİS. It follows that TRABIS has a similar situation with the Turkish Patent Office. This is now regulated in detail in Article 22 of the Domain-Communiqué. The ICTA has already issued a Communiqué to ADR (ADR-Communiqué), which is pub- TR.34 lished in the Official Gazette (No 28742 dated 21 August 2013). Article 7 IX and Article 16 of the ADR-Communiqué regulates the prohibition on the transfer and the purchase of the domain name during a pending ADR proceeding. When the alternative dispute resolution service provider (ADRSP) receives the request, it will notify both TRABIS and the responsible registrar. Thus, the transfer and/or sale of the domain name can be prevented until the decision is issued.

(8) Statistics Since the new system has not yet been put into operation, there are no corresponding sta- TR.35 tistics. Statistics on the number of domain names, etc in the old (still current) system are accessible through the registry’s website.24

(9) The Registration of Descriptive Domain Names In OIDN there are no comprehensive rules on generic domain names; they are only issued TR.36 with regard to limited domain names under Article 3(h), Article 6(e), and Article 32. These are the names and terms belonging to the public in the context of historical and cultural values (Art 3(h)). It is true that this list will contain some generic names or terms. In Article 34 II of the Domain-Communiqué it is now regulated that such rules also apply to city names. It is further provided that scope of limited domain names also includes the name of certain financial or state institutions (banks, the Ministry, etc), which are necessary to regulate as cybersquatters could register domain names which give Internet users a misleading impression. According to the old, but still current rules, of METU (ODTÜ), there is no prohibition on TR.37 the registration of domain names comprised of generic or dictionary terms. Therefore, generic names that describe a trade or economic sector, and hence could generate for the applicant indirect or direct speculative/unjustified profits and/or pre-eminence, as a rule could be registered as domain names within the unrestricted second-level spaces. For the restricted domain spaces, where documentation is required, only strings corresponding to the applicant’s legal position or rights can be registered as domain names. This suggests that the generic parts of a protected trademark will not always satisfy the requirement.25 Another limitation is provided 24 See for daily Statistics about the distribution of the domain names ‘.tr’ https://www.nic.tr/index. php?USRACTN=STATISTICS&PHPSESSID=143181069788235177222137336. 25  It should be noted, however, that the Supreme Court has approved such domain names in certain instances. See the decision of the 11th Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 17 January 2011, Decision

927

Turkey (‘.tr’) with regard to domains of the forms: ‘namesurname.com.tr’, (in Turkish ‘adsoyad.com.tr’); ‘info.tr’, ‘biz.tr’, ‘web.biz.tr’, ‘ web.tr’, ‘gen.tr’, ‘tv.tr’, and so on. These kinds of domain names are kept for use by METU (ODTÜ). Thus METU will either directly operate these domain names, or may allow related non-profit-organizations or associations to use them. Such websites are used as a kind of information portal for relevant users. For example, the Turkish Bar Association is authorized to give information for that name area under ‘av.tr’.

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.tr’ Domain Space (1) Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding TR.38 The OIDN provides a detailed scheme for the non-judicial (alternative) dispute resolution

(Arts 23–27). The service providers for dealing with disputes are regulated under Article 3(o). A number of public authorities, including professional associations, universities, and international institutions are therefore qualified to act as the service providers of dispute resolution services, and currently administer these procedures. According to the already-in-force Article 14(b) of OIDN, the object of the ICTA is to determine the service providers for the settlement of disputes and to publish the information on its website. Under Article 23, the principles and procedures related to the operation of the dispute resolution mechanism are regulated by ICTA. As mentioned above,26 the ICTA has already issued a Communiqué to ADR (ADR-Communiqué). In the ADR-Communiqué are many detailed rules on the ADR process, specifically in Articles 5 to 23.

TR.39 Article 24 of OIDN stipulates that the ICTA will define the minimum requirements

of the alternative dispute resolution service provider (ADRP), and other operational rules for the dispute process. Those who wish to work as a service provider will contact the ICTA. If the applicant has the necessary conditions that will be established by the ICTA, an operating certificate will be provided. The service provider must demonstrate the technical and organizational capacity required for the successful implementation of the dispute settlement process. Article 5 of the ADR-Communiqué stipulates that the ADRP shall complete the application form, which is issued as a supplement to the ADR-Communiqué. The ADRP must have at least ten referees (experts) on their list (Art 5 III, ADR-Communiqué). The service providers must meet certain requirements with regard to their technical and organizational capacity, which must be proved and documented. If any provider were to lose these capabilities over time, or if they do not fulfil their assigned tasks in accordance with the Ordinance or the rules laid down by the ICTA, the ICTA will take the necessary steps, including the abolition of their licence as a service provider (Art 24, No 4 OIDN).

TR.40 The ADRP must be founded in accordance with the laws of Turkey. If it is an international

organization which is specialized in intellectual property law and arbitration law, they must have representation in Turkey (Art 5 II, ADR-Communiqué). However, the referees must be Turkish citizens, and this rule has been criticized. They must also be specialists in intellectual property, trademarks, trade names, or Internet law.

No 2011/166, Case No 2009/7216: Çolak, (above n 3) , p 584. That decision addresses the domain name ‘parktasarim’, (‘Park design’ case). Another decision that addresses generic domain names is the ‘maviproje’ case (‘Blue Project’). See the decision of the 11th Chamber of the Supreme Court, dated 28 March 2008, Decision No 2008/4071, Case No 2007/1677; see also the decision of the 11th Chamber of the Supreme Court, dated 3 July 2013, Decision No 2013/14152, Case No 2012/15639, in: Soysal, (above 4) pp 1135 f. 26  See above para TR.34.

928

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.tr’ Domain Space Decisions are made in these domain name disputes via judges or a referee committee (a TR.41 three-member panel). Either party may opt for a three-member panel.

(2) Statistics Because the ADR has not yet found application, there is no statistical data available at TR.42 this time.

(3) Material Scope of the Proceeding The material scope of the proceeding is not restricted. Therefore, both trademark laws and TR.43 personal rights issues can be discussed. Under Article 25 of OIDN, it is regulated that a complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or similar to its own brand, company, company name, or any other source-identifying marks. Similarly, the first or last name, or any other names or similar legal positions of persons, are included as identifiers capable of protection. Article 19 of ADR-Communiqué stipulates that the names of persons can be registered and used as a domain name in bad faith. Article 19 of the ADR-Communiqué confirms the cases in Article 25 OIDN.

(4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding Through the Registration Agreement Contractual recognition of the ADR proceeding through the registration agreement is not TR.44 provided for by the OIDN. As mentioned above, the ICTA has just issued a Communiqué to the domain name (Domain-Communiqué). The Domain-Communiqué provides that accredited registrars shall cause the applicants to accept participation in the ADR-process, if a process is initiated (Art 14 IV). However, this regulation does not mean that the applicant has to bring the conflict to arbitration absolutely. Thus, a conflict may be brought directly to court.

(5) Overview of the ADR-Procedure (a) Legal Framework The ADR-Procedure is regulated in Articles 23–27 of OIDN. According to Article 23, the prin- TR.45 ciples and procedures related to the operation of the dispute resolution mechanism are to be regulated by the ICTA. The ICTA has issued a Communiqué to ADR (ADR-Communiqué), which regulates the details, and the application procedure, the properties of the referees, the application of decisions, and so on. (b)  ADR Complaint Under Article 7 of the ADR-Communiqué, it is regulated that the complainant shall TR.46 select the provider from among those approved by TRABIS by submitting the complaint to that provider. The selected provider has the right to reject the application if its capacity is not sufficient. The complaint, including any annexes, shall be submitted in electronic form on the website of the selected provider. The complaint must include information such as the name and address information of the complainant, and must specify the domain name(s) that is/are the subject of the complaint. If the complaint is deficient, the provider will offer the applicant a period of five calendar days to eliminate the deficiency. In order to make a successful claim for relief via the ADR procedure in ‘.tr’, a complain- TR.47 ant must demonstrate that:  (1)  the disputed domain name commercially used is identical or similar to its own brand, company, company names, or any other identifier marks; (2) the domain name owner does not have any rights or has no legitimate connection to the domain name; and finally (3) the domain name was registered in bad faith by the domain

929

Turkey (‘.tr’) name holder or used in bad faith.27 If all of the above three conditions are met, the complainant may apply for relief via one of the approved ADRPs.

(c)  ADR Response TR.48 Within ten calendar days of the date of notification of the complaint to the respondent,

the respondent shall submit a response to the provider (Art 9, ADR-Communiqué). The response must include any and all bases for the domain name holder to retain registration and use of the disputed domain name. The respondent has the right to elect a three-member panel (a referee committee) or a panellist (a judge).

TR.49 At the request of the respondent, the provider may, in exceptional cases, extend the period of

time for the filing of the response.

TR.50 If a respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the

panel shall decide the dispute based upon the complaint.

(d) Procedural Issues TR.51 The three-member panel or the panellist begins work on the case after they declare in writ-

ing that they are independent and impartial relative to the respective domain name and the parties (Art 26 II OIDN). The panel or the panellist shall decide the dispute according to the documents and records that are present in the action folder. In general, the parties are not personally heard. The panel may otherwise determine freely their working method. If the solution of the conflict requires additional documentation, the referee may request the needed documents via the DRSP (Art 13, ADR-Communiqué).

TR.52 The language of the proceeding is Turkish, unless both parties agree otherwise (Art 18,

ADR-Communiqué). Articles 7 IX and 16 of the ADR-Communiqué regulate the prohibition on the transfer and the purchase of a domain name during a pending ADR proceeding. The transfer and purchase of a domain name during a pending ADR proceeding are prohibited (Art 7 IX and Art 16, ADR-Communiqué). The domain name will be frozen during this period.

TR.53 The time frame for the ADR procedure for issuing a decision by a single-member or a

three-member panel is 15 calendar days. A five-day extension is possible, if it is required.

(6) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider TR.54 The Dispute Resolution Provider (ADRP) has a formative role in the whole process.

Following the acceptance of the ADR complaint, the ADRP will notify the disputed domain name to TRABIS. The ADRP also notes the existence of the conflict on their home page.

TR.55 After the acceptance of the ADR application, the ADRP shall inform the respondent

about the complaint, the applicable procedures, and the referee selection made by the complainant within one working day. In addition, the full complaint file will be sent to the respondent.

TR.56 In the event that the complainant and the respondent opt for the resolution of conflict by a

single panellist, the ADRP then appoints the panellist from its own list. Either party may opt for a three-member panel. In this case, the ADRP will ask the two parties to each nominate two referees (one original and the other a substitute) from the list of the applicable ADRPs. If the parties do not appoint their respective judges, they are appointed by the ADRP. The two selected referees then choose a third referee. This final referee serves as the president

  For a criticism of the regulation of these conditions, see Oğuz, pp 406 ff.

27

930

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.tr’ Domain Space of the three-member-panel. If the two selected referees cannot agree on the selection of the third referee within three calendar days, the appointment will be made by the ADRP.

(7) Role of the Administrative Panel Panel decisions are made by simple majority and abstention is not allowed. The decision with TR.57 the panel’s reasoning and, if there is one, with the minority opinion, shall be notified to the provider.

(8) Costs The costs of the ADR process are regulated in Article 20 of the ADR-Communiqué. TR.58 Accordingly, the cost is born by the complainant as the initiating party of the dispute. The cost for each arbitrator is currently TL 1,000 (approximatly €333). The cost for the provider is half of the referee costs. If the respondent elects to opt for a three-member panel decision, he or she must pay the additional costs within seven calendar days from the date of the notification of the conflict. The unsuccessful party may be required to pay the costs of the other party (the cost for the ADRP and the arbitrators) (Art 20 VI, ADR-Communiqué).

(9) Relationship between the ADR and Court Proceedings This is regulated in Article 15 of the ADR-Communiqué. If no judicial interim measure is TR.59 made during the ADR procedure or within 15 calendar days of notification of the ADR decision, the ADR decision will be immediately executed. However, if there is an interim measure during the ADR procedure or within 15 calendar days after notification of the decision, the ADR procedure will continue as normal but the ADR decision will not be implemented.

(10) ADR Decisions The arbitrators will decide the case by relying on the documents submitted to them. They TR.60 usually do not require a hearing (Art 26 OIDN). The arbitrators can decide the invalidity of a domain name registration and transfer it to the applicant, or can order or the rejection of the application. Once the decision has been rendered, the ADRP will notify the parties and the ICTA of the TR.61 decision within one day, and will publish the text on its website (Art 27 II, OIDN).

(11) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Administrative Panel In order to make a successful claim for relief via the ADR procedure in ‘.tr’, a complainant TR.62 must demonstrate that:  (1)  the commercially used disputed domain name is identical or similar to its own brand, company, company name, or any other identifying marks; (2) the domain name owner does not have the any rights or has no legitimate connection to the domain name; and finally (3) the domain name was registered in bad faith by the domain name holder or used in bad faith (Art 25 OIDN).28 If all three conditions are met, the complainant may apply for relief via one of the approved ADRPs. This regulation of the OIDN is detailed by the ADR-Communiqué. The rules of the TR.63 ADR-Communiqué mainly correspond to the provisions of the UDRP (promulgated by ICANN). The ADR-Communiqué (Art 19) lists several inclusive examples of bad faith, for example, TR.64 indications that the domain name has been registered for the purpose of selling or otherwise transferring it to the complaining owner of the trademark, service mark, firm name,

 Ibid.

28

931

Turkey (‘.tr’) company name, personal name etc, or their competitor. Another example is the registration of the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark, service mark, firm name etc, from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name. Another unfair act is the registration of the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business or activities of the domain name holder’s competitor. As a final example in Article 19 of the ADR-Communiqué, it is regulated that by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s trademark, etc, the domain name is used for commercial gain, in a manner designed to conduct Internet users to the respondent’s own (or any other) website. TR.65 The above examples are without restriction, as the referee may come to the decision by apply-

ing other criteria, that the Internet domain name was registered or used in bad faith (Art 19 II, ADR-Communiqué).

IV.  Court Litigation (1) Specific Anticybersquatting Legislation TR.66 To date, there is no specific and direct anticybersquatting legislation enacted in Turkey.

Therefore, aggrieved rights holders must bring their claims either via the ADR procedure discussed above,29 or within the national court system under an action for trademark infringement.

(2) The Infringement of Registered Trademarks by Domain Names (a) Confusion between Registered Trademarks and Domain Names TR.67 The elements of infringement for registered trademarks are set out in the Trademark

Decree-Law, Article 61. According to this provision, the imitation of a trademark through the use of the mark in an identical or confusingly similar form, without the consent of the proprietor of the trademark, constitutes an infringement of the exclusive right to the trademark (Trademark Decree-Law, Art 61 (b)).30 The substantive scope of protection, and the right to prohibit third-party use, is laid down in Article 9 of the Decree-Law in the form of three possible infringements. According to this, the trademark holder can prevent all third parties from using the trademark without consent as described in the following scenarios. Thus, a third party is barred from the use of any sign:

(a) which is identical to the registered trademark in connection with goods and services which are identical to those for which the trademark is registered; (b) where, because of its identity with or similarity to the registered trademark and identity or similarity of the goods and/or services covered by the registered trademark and sign, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public including likelihood of association between the sign and the trademark; or (c) which is identical with or similar to the registered trademark in relation to goods and/or services which are not similar to those for which the trademark is registered, where the use of that sign (without due cause) takes unfair advantage of the trademark because of the level of reputation of the mark in Turkey, or is detrimental to the distinctive character or the reputation of the registered trademark.

  See above paras TR.45 ff.   On this and other infringements of trademark rights see Uysal (above n 8) pp 186 ff.; Arkan (above n 6) pp 281 f. 29 30

932

IV.  Court Litigation The forms of infringement set out in the law are not listed exhaustively, but merely consti- TR.68 tute examples of typical infringements in practice.31 Consequently, the use of a trademark as a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark,32 which is not expressly regulated in the law, can nonetheless constitute an infringing use of a registered trademark.33 The Trademark Decree-Law was partially changed by Act of 21 January 2009 (Law No 5833). TR.69 It is regulated in Article 9 II(e) that when a sign which is identical or similar to a trademark is used in the course of trade (in a commercial context) as a domain name, meta tag or keyword (eg keyword advertising), where the provisions of the Act are met the mark holder can prevent such use of the mark online, provided that the user of the sign has no right to use or no legitimate (justifiable) connection to the string text. This change has considerable importance for domain name law.34 First, the required ‘use in trade’ TR.70 under this provision needs to be on the Internet. It may be clearly inferred from the new rule that the legislature has recognized a priority provision in the context of domain name conflicts concerning a prior rights holder, which supersedes the general principle of ‘first-come, first-served’ registration. If, however, there is no rights holder with appropriate legal status in connection with the domain name string, the first-in-time priority principle remains applicable.35 In grounding a claim for a prior right, sufficient to request relief from the courts, it must TR.71 be noted that Article 12 Trademark Decree-Law can provide an appropriate basis.36 The question of whether the use of the mark as a domain name by, for example, a distributor, is legitimate is debatable. The prevailing theory is that it is legitimate, provided that the website is used only for goods and/or services within the scope of the trademark and the legal position of the parties is clearly illustrated.37 If the domain holder is merely acting privately, or if he is not operating in the field of the goods TR.72 or services protected by the trademark, there can as a matter of principle be no assumption of 31  See, for example, Arkan (above n 6) p 211; Kırca, Tescilli Markanın Üçüncü Kişi Tarafindan Alan Adı Olarak Kullanılması in:  Prof Dr Ömer Teoman’a 55. Yaş Günü Armağanı, Vol II, Istanbul 2002, p 527; F. Nomer (above n 4) pp 395, 408. 32  It is disputed what conditions apply to the assumption of identity or similarity between the trademark and the domain name. While one opinion requires complete identity for a finding of identity, another opinion assumes that the decisive factor is the overall impression of the trademark, with the result that complete identity is not necessary (see Kırca, (above n 31), pp 527, 529 ff.). Nor is there agreement on the part of the domain that is relevant (on this discussion see Kırca, (above n 31), pp 527, 531 ff.). 33  Cf. F. Nomer (above n 4) pp 395, 409; Aksu, Turkey (‘.tr’), TR.28. The decision of the 11th Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 22 December 2011, Decision No 2011/17562, Case No 2010/648 (unpublished) can be evaluated in this context. In this case, the domain name was registered unlawfully before the trademark. See also decision of the 11th Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 28 March 2008, Decision No 2008/4071, Case No 2007/1677 (‘kazanci.com’); decision of the 11th Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 17 January 2011, Decision No 2011/166, Case No 2009/7216, Çolak, (above n 3) p 584; decision of the 11th Chamber of the Supreme Court, dated 12 May 2008, Decision No 2008/6163, Case No 2007/4298, Çolak, (above n 3) p 587. 34  Bozbel, Markanın Alan Adı, Yönlendirici Kod (Metatag) ve Anahtar Sözcük (Keywords) Olarak Kullanılması (MarkaKHK m 9/II, E bendi), in: Haluk Konuralp Anısına Armağan, Istanbul 2009, Bd. III, Haluk Konuralp Anısına Armağan, pp 219 ff.; Şenocak, BATIDER 2009, pp 89 ff. 35  For the application of the priority principle in domain name conflicts, particularly within the scope of trademark law, see Ü. Tekinalp (above n 4) para Notes 86 ff.; Bozbel, Haluk Konuralp Anısına Armağan, pp 219, 228, 254; Şenocak, BATIDER 2009, pp 89, 104 ff., 138 ff. The Supreme Court has also applied the priority principle in the context of domain name disputes. See the decision of the 11th Chamber of the Supreme Court, dated 18 April 2011, Decision No 2011/4550, Case No 2009/11957 in:  Çolak, (above n 3), p 589. 36 See Şenocak, BATIDER 2009, pp 89, 136. 37  For the details and the other conditions see Şenocak, BATIDER 2009, pp 89, 137 ff.

933

Turkey (‘.tr’) an impairment of trademark rights.38 If the website accessible under the domain name is used for purely private purposes, but it is clear from the facts of the case that the domain name has obviously been acquired by the registrant with the aim of selling it to the trademark owner, it would be possible to regard this as an act in the course of trade.39 Registration of a domain name cannot be regarded as a commercial use. However, the cases of domaingrabbing must be evaluated differently. TR.73 If the domain name is used for goods or services that are not similar to those for which the

trademark is protected, there can be no assumption of a likelihood of confusion. Claims to infringement remedies are then only possible if the specific conditions for the protection of well-known trademarks are satisfied, and if the use of the domain name injures the reputation or distinctive character of the trademark.40

TR.74 If there is a conflict between a domain name and a company name, and if the domain name

registrant can rely on his own trademark right, the owner of the earlier right is, in the event of a likelihood of confusion, entitled to a claim to an injunction. If there a conflict between a domain name and a corporate name, and if the domain owner had the domain name because of his own trademark, under the new rules in Article 9 of the Trademark Decree-Law it is accepted that the proprietor of the earlier corporate name is not entitled to demand the cessation of the infringing act. That does not mean that if there is an economic competition between the parties, the corporate name owner under the rules on unfair competition would be left without any legal options.41 The issues raised on the basis of the content of a website can also be solved by the general rules.

TR.75 It should also be noted that the use of a domain name according to Article 8 III of the

Trademark Decree-Law can be considered use of a protected sign, and therefore a prior domain name holder could oppose the registration of an identical trademark.42

(b)  Protection of Well-Known Trademarks in Domain Names TR.76 Well-known trademarks include marks that are recognized as well-known on an international basis according to Article 6bis of the Paris Convention (Trademark Decree-Law, Art 7(1)(i)), and well-known trademarks within the meaning of Article 8(4) of the Trademark Decree-Law, which have acquired a certain degree of fame amongst the public.43 Well-known trademarks enjoy special protection to the extent that the infringement of the trademark right does not, as a matter of principle, require the trademark to be used in an identical or confusingly similar form for the same or similar goods or services (Trademark Decree-Law, Arts 8(4), 9(1)(c)). In addition, according to the Trademark Decree-Law, the protection of well-known trademarks does not depend on registration of the trademark pursuant to the Trademark Decree-Law.44 38 See Arıkan, Markaların Alan Adlarına Karşı Korunması, Istanbul Barosu Dergisi, Vol 74, No 7–8–9, 2000, 781, 786; cf. also Kırca, (above n 31) p 527, 528, 543; F. Nomer (above n 4) p 395, 409. 39  Bozbel, Haluk Konuralp Anısına Armağan, pp 219, 232; cf. Arıkan, (above 38) 781, 786; cf. also Poroy/ Yasaman, Commercial business law, pp 284 f., Note 429. Şenocak, BATIDER 2009, p 89, 110 ff. 40   Cf. for example, Arıkan (above n 38) 781, 789. 41  See Bozbel, Haluk Konuralp Anısına Armağan, pp 219, 229. 42   See for details Şenocak, BATIDER 2009, pp 89, 102 ff. 43   See, for example, Ü. Tekinalp (above n 4) para 25, Notes 29 ff. 44   See Ü. Tekinalp (above n 4), para 23, Note 4, para 25, Note 32; Şenocak, BATIDER 2009, S. 89, 106; cf. Çolak, (above n 3) p 195. According to case law protection of a well-known trademark against unlawful registry does not require that it has been registered or used in Turkey, see decision of the Supreme Court dated 10 April 1997 (Case No 1920/2708) (unpublished); ruling of the Supreme Court dated 23 June 2000 (Case No 5459/5902), unpublished—both cited from Ü. Tekinalp (above n 4), para 23, Note 4; the decision of the Supreme Court dated 13 March 1998 and the ruling of the Supreme Court dated 20 November 1998 (BATIDER 1998, Vol 19, pp 283 f.), both translated by Hamdi Pinar, 2001 GRUR Int. 650; see also the decisions of the Supreme Court dated 15 February 2001 (11th Chamber, Case No 9896/1214) and The Great Chamber, dated 19 November 2003, Case No 2003/11-578, Decision No 2003/703.

934

IV.  Court Litigation The fact that a trademark is well-known (within the meaning of the Paris Convention for TR.77 the Protection of Industrial Property—Article 6bis) constitutes an absolute obstacle to registration for identical and similar trademarks for use in connection with the same or similar goods or services (Trademark Decree-Law, Article 7(1)(i)).45 On the other hand, the fame of a trademark (pursuant to Article 8(4), first sentence of the Trademark Decree-Law), is merely a relative obstacle to registration, with the result that the holder of such a trademark must file an opposition during the registration proceedings to prevent the registration of a conflicting trademark. This is the case even if an identical or similar trademark is registered and used outside the field of similarity. The owner of a well-known trademark, however, only has this possibility if the registration of the trademark would represent a dishonest advantage resulting from the fame of the trademark among the relevant public (exploitation of reputation), if the reputation of his trademark could suffer damage (damage to reputation); or if the registration of the trademark could lead to the impairment of the trademark’s distinctive character (risk of dilution).46 The owner of a well-known trademark can also request the ordinary courts for an injunction and cancellation on the grounds of exploitation of reputation, risk of dilution, and damage to reputation (Trademark Decree-Law, Arts 62(1)(a), 42(1)(a) and (b)).47 Although these regulations provide special protection for well-known brands, the gen- TR.78 eral mechanism for domain name registration functions on a ‘first-come, first-served’ principle. In each dispute, where a trademark has been included in a domain name, the legal fact-finder will have to assess whether or not the registrant has a legal right to the use of the domain name (Trademark Decree-Law Article 9 II lit (e)). If a well-known trademark is registered as a domain name by a third party, despite the current strict ODTÜ practice or if the registration proceedings are still in progress, the owner of the well-known trademark can file an opposition and accordingly prevent registration of the domain name. The registry has a de facto monopoly which is comparable to that of the TPI. For this reason, it can be assumed that it can of itself (for instance, ex officio) refuse an application for the registration of a domain name in the ‘.com. tr’ second-level domain if the domain name contains a well-known trademark within the meaning of Article 7(I)(i) of the Trademark Decree-Law. If the registration of the domain name in the ‘.tr’ ccTLD has not been prevented by the registry, an action can also be brought by the mark holder on the grounds of an exploitation of reputation pursuant to Articles 62(1)(a) and 42(1)(a) and (b) of the Trademark Decree-Law. The trademark law provisions protect the trademark not only against unlawful use as a trademark but also against unlawful use of another type of sign. However, it is very possible that in the actual application of the new system (TRABIS) there TR.79 will be domain name conflicts in this area. As mentioned above,48 if the applicant has a sufficient legal basis for the ownership of the TR.80 domain name, the proprietor of the well-known trademark can force the domain name owner to relinquish the domain. However, where the registration of the trademark is unlawful as such, or the registered domain name is used in a manner contrary to the good faith principle, the proprietor of the trademark can take legal action.

  See Ü. Tekinalp, (above n 4), para 25, Note 31.   Uysal (above n 8) p 149 ff.; Ü. Tekinalp (above 4), para 25 Notes 63 f.; F. Nomer, (above n 4) pp 485, 494 ff. 47  See, for example, Ü. Tekinalp (above n 4), para 25, Note 33, para 30, Notes 12 ff., para 30, Notes 22 ff. 48  See above para TR.78. 45 46

935

Turkey (‘.tr’) (3) The Infringement of Unregistered Trademarks TR.81 Unregistered trademarks are as a matter of principle protected by the general provisions of unfair

competition law.49 In this context, Articles 54 and 55 of the TComC may be of relevance.50 By virtue of these provisions, anyone who issues incorrect or misleading information about their own personal situation, their own goods, work products, commercial activities or business relationships, and thereby acquires a competitive advantage, is deemed to have acted against the established principles of good faith. These provisions focus on behaviour which is likely to mislead, deceive, or cause confusion.51 According to the TComC, Article 55(a), the intention to cause confusion with the goods, work products, business or commercial operations of another constitutes unfair competition. The protection against unfair competition is available for unregistered trademarks,52 firm names, and the names of commercial operations or businesses, unless otherwise provided for in special legislation.53 Thus if the trademark to which another is legally entitled, or a name, abbreviation etc. similar to the trademark, is used as a domain name with the result that there is a likelihood of confusion, there is in accordance with the above principles a case for unfair competition.54 Pursuant to the provisions of the TComC, Article 56, the rights owner may seek a declaration that the infringement is unlawful, as well as an injunction and the elimination of the infringement. In the case of intent or negligence, the rights owner is entitled to damages (TComC, Art 56 lit (d)).55 In addition, there may be claims for an order that any misleading statements be corrected (TComC, Art 56(1)(c)), and for publication of the decision at the expense of the losing party (TComC, Art 59), as well as an interlocutory injunction pursuant to Article 61 of the TComC.56

TR.82 If intangible losses result from an act of unfair competition, compensation (pursuant to Art

58 of the TCO in conjunction with the TComC Art 56(1)(e)) can be claimed if the other conditions for the infringement of personality rights are satisfied.57

TR.83 Pursuit to the TComC, Article 56, the plaintiff can be anyone who has been injured by unfair

competition or whose commercial interests are endangered. Additionally, consumers whose economic interests have been infringed by unfair competition, professional and special interest groups, consumer organizations and the governmental organizations who aim to protect consumer rights (ie the protection of consumers targeting) should likewise have a right to appeal (TComC Art 56 II and III).58

(4) The Infringement of Firm Names and Company Names TR.84 Firm names, names of business operations, and company names are regulated in the TComC

as commercial designations (TComC, Arts 39 ff.). Both firm names and company names

49  See, for example, Uysal (above n 8) pp 81 f., 91, with further references; Poroy/Yasaman (above n 39) p 285 Note 430; Çolak, (above n 3) p 7. 50 For the importance of the general rules of unfair competition see Karahan/Suluk/Saraç/Nal, Fikri Mülkiyet Hukukunun Esasları, extended 3rd edn, Ankara 2012, p 412: decision of 11th Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 28 March 2008, Decision No 2008/4071, Case No 2007/1677 (www.kazanci.com). 51 See Arkan (above n 6) pp 294 ff.; Uysal (above n 8) p 78. 52  For the protection of unregistered trademarks under Turkish law see Ü. Tekinalp (above n 4) para 22, No 37, para 25 No 54. 53 See Uysal (above n 8) pp 87 f.; see also Arkan (above n 6) p 298; pp 17 f.; Memiş, MHB, 1999–2000, pp 513, 518. 54  See F. Nomer (above n 4) pp 395, 407. 55 F. Nomer, (above 4) pp 395, 407, who points out that the entitled person can ask the court to enjoin use of the domain name and to cancel the domain name; see also Uysal (above n 8)  p 79; Arkan (above n 6) pp 294, 302 ff. 56 See Eroğlu, Rekabet Hukukunda Bilgisayar Programlarının Korunması, Istanbul 2000, pp 39, 45 ff. 57 See Arkan (above n 6) p 304; cf. also Hatemi, Türk Hukukunda ‘Gerçek Olmayan Vekaletsiz İş, Görme’ Kurumuna İlişkin Düşünceler in: Prof Dr Kemal Oğuzman’ın Anısına Armağan, Istanbul 2000, pp 383, 387. 58 See Uysal (above n 8) p 79; Arkan (above n 6) pp 305 f.

936

IV.  Court Litigation must be registered in the Commercial Register in order to be protected (TComC, Arts 40 and 53). The scope of protection laid down in Article 52, in conjunction with Article 53, is largely identical to that available under unfair competition law in the TComC, Article 56 ff. Pursuant to the TComC, Article 52, an organization whose company name is being used by TR.85 another in an unlawful manner may demand cessation of the use of its firm name and the cancellation (revocation) of any infringing business registration by the third-party user, as well as damages (if the other party is at fault) and the publication of the judgment. These options apply equally to the protection of all relevant business signs (TComC Art 53), and also provide protection in conflicts between third-party domain names and company or firm names. As is the case in trademark conflicts, such matters will be resolved in favour of name-holding companies whose legal positions are protected under the TComC (priority principle),59 unless the domain name is held by a registrant who possesses protected legal rights in the term. In this latter case, the principle of ‘first-come, first-served’ will become valid, where the conflict is between two valid rights holders.

(5) The Infringement of Titles The title of a work does not itself constitute an independent work, but it is nevertheless TR.86 protected by the Turkish Copyright Act.60 According to Article 83(1) of the Act, the title of a work must not be used in another work or in reproductions in a manner that could lead to confusion. However, this protection does not apply to titles that are common and that are therefore devoid of distinctive character. Pursuant to Article 83(5) of the Copyright Act, in the event of an infringement, the provisions of unfair competition law apply, irrespective of whether or not the offending party is a trader. Therefore, this Article refers to the TComC Article 54 and TCO Article 57, which are discussed in more detail above.61 The protection of the title of a work also extends to the use of the title for other categories of works.62 If the title of a work is registered and used as a domain name, the owner of the title can TR.87 take measures against the domain name registrant pursuant to the general provisions of the TComC (Arts 54 ff. or TCO Art 57) concerning unfair competition in conjunction with the Copyright Act, Article 83.63 On this point, reference is made to the discussion above.64

(6) The Infringement of Geographical Indications of Source Geographical indications of origin are protected65 by the Decree-Law on the Protection of TR.88 Geographical Designations (GDL).66 Geographical designations cover appellations of origin and geographical indications (GDL, Art 3).67 For protection of geographical designations according to the GDL, registration with the TPI is necessary (Art 4).68 TPI applications

59  For a decision concerning a dispute about domain name and a company name, see the decision of the 11th Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 17 January 2011, Decision No 2011/166, Case No 2009/7216, in Çolak, (above n 3) p 584. 60  See Ü. Tekinalp (above n 4) para 10, Notes 19f.; Nal, Probleme des türkischen Urheberrechts aus der Sicht des deutschen und europäischen Rechts, Munich 2000 pp 72 ff. 61  See above paras TR.04, TR.09, and TR.81 ff. 62  Nal, (above n 60), p 73 with further references; Ü. Tekinalp (above n 4) para 10, Note 20. 63  See Ü. Tekinalp (above n 4) para 1 Note 87. 64  See above, para TR.4 and TR.81 ff. 65  Non-registered indications of geographical origin can be protected by the provisions of unfair competition law, see Poroy/Yasaman, (above n 39) p 283 Note 428. 66  The law was adopted by the Cabinet on 24 June 1995 and published in the Official Gazette No 22326 on 27 July 1995 as Law No 555. 67  See Ü. Tekinalp above n 4 para 1 Note 75; Zekeriyya Arı, Coğrafi İşaret Kavramı ve Coğrafi İşaretlerin Tescili, in: Prof. Dr Ömer Teoman’a 55. Yaş Günü Armağanı, Istanbul 2002, Bd. 1, pp 45, 47 et seq.; Şehirali, Patent Hakkının Korunması (Patent protection), Ankara 1998, pp 21 ff. 68  For details of the registration proceedings see Arı, (above n 67) pp 45, 56 ff.

937

Turkey (‘.tr’) may be accepted from the producers of goods or providers of services (Art 3(4)(d)) and from consumer associations and relevant public institutions (Art 7). Since geographical designations do not constitute an exclusive right for their users, and thus cannot be individualized and represent a collective means of representation, they differ in particular from the legal protection of trademarks.69 The protection of geographical designations serves to shield the population from misleading indications.70 Consequently, where geographical designations are used as domain names, a parallel can be drawn to the use of place names and generic names as domains. This means that such domain names should be either reserved for communal or public institutions in the field of the relevant appellation of origin or geographical designation, or can only be used with individualizing additions. The newly-enacted domain Communiqué stipulates that city names can only be registered as restricted domain names (Art 34 I (b)).

(7) The Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name TR.89 It is possible that the use of a domain name may trigger the acquisition of intellectual prop-

erty rights. This may happen particularly where the domain name is used for a trademark, a firm name, or a company name.

(8) Outline of Court Procedure and Remedies Available (a) Remedies TR.90 If a trademark is imitated through use as a domain name or if a likelihood of confusion is cre-

ated through the use of the domain name,71 the holder of the registered trademark is entitled to the relief laid down in the Trademark Decree-Law, Article 62(1).72 The mark holder may request the following of the court: (a) cessation of the acts of infringement; (b) compensation for damages incurred; (c) seizure of infringing products, as well as the equipment and machinery used to produce infringing products; (d) a declaration of proprietorship over the products confiscated under sub-paragraph (c); in this case the value of the products shall be deducted from the compensation awarded. If the value of the products turns out to be above the compensation value awarded, the proprietor of the trademark shall repay the balance to the infringing party; (e) enforcement measures for the prevention of continued infringement of rights, erasure of the trademark from the products and vehicles or, if it is essential to ensure no further infringement, destruction of the products and vehicles seized under sub-paragraph (c); or (f ) publication of the court’s judgment, the cost of which to be met by the offending party.

TR.91 In addition, pursuant to the Trademark Decree-Law, Article 64:

the person who, without the consent of the proprietor of the trademark, produces, sells, distributes or puts to commercial use or imports for these purposes or keeps in possession for   See Ü. Tekinalp (above n 4) para 1 Note 76; Arı, (above n 67) pp 45, 53 ff.   See Ü. Tekinalp (above n 4) para 1 Note 76. 71  The likelihood of confusion above all requires that the signs are identical or similar and are used for identical goods or services. The criteria are the visual, acoustic, and semantic similarities. A likelihood of confusion between the signs is to be assumed if the signs are so similar that the average consumer (the law states, translated literary the ‘people’) can be deceived (see Ü. Tekinalp (above n 4), para 26 Notes 18 ff.; Uysal (above n 8) pp 123 ff., with further references, 206). The likelihood of confusion can also be demonstrated by the risk of mental associations, see Uysal (above n 8) p 146; Ü. Tekinalp (above n 4) para 26 Note 35. 72  See, for example, F. Nomer, (above n 4) pp 395, 408 f.; Kırca (above n 31) pp 527, 542 f. 69 70

938

IV.  Court Litigation these purposes the product produced by plagiarizing the trademark shall be liable to remedy the illegality and to compensate for the damage he has caused. The person using the plagiarized trademark in any form, having been informed of the infringement by the proprietor of the trademark and having been requested to stop the infringement or where there exist any other misuse, for the damage he has caused.

From an overall systematic consideration of the Trademark Decree-Law, Articles 62, 64(1) TR.92 and (2), it follows that as a rule the action for damages against the offending party can be filed irrespective of the latter’s wilful intent or negligence.73 The claim to an injunction, as regulated by the Trademark Decree-Law, Article 62(a) also TR.93 allows the trademark holder to take preventive measures against infringements; that is, to request an interlocutory injunction against a threatened infringement.74 In addition to the action for infringement, the Trademark Decree-Law, Article 75 also pro- TR.94 vides for an opportunity for the securing of evidence.75 According to this section, anyone who is entitled to assert an infringement of a trademark can demand a determination of the pertinent facts.

(b)  Interlocutory Protection Precautionary measures are expressly regulated in the Trademark Decree-Law, Articles 76 and TR.95 77. Accordingly, persons having a cause of action pursuant to the Trademark Decree-Law can request precautionary measures where it can be proven that the trademark in question is used in Turkey in a manner that constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff ’s trademarks rights, or it can be shown that serious preparations for such use are being made. Although the wording of the law reads ‘provided that they can prove the existence of acts of actual use of the trademark in Turkey or serious preparations to use the trademark’, the expression ‘can prove’ must not be understood in the literal sense, but rather in the sense of ‘substantiate’ as in Turkish civil procedural law (Art 390 III TCPC)76 and in accordance with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.77 The request for preliminary measures may be filed before or together with the institution of TR.96 proceedings or may be filed later. If the precautionary measures are ordered before the filing of the action, the action in the ordinary proceedings must be instituted within two weeks, otherwise the precautionary measures shall be forfeit upon expiry of that period (TCPC, Art 397 I). The application for precautionary measures is a discrete proceeding. Security must be provided for any losses incurred by the opposing party or any third parties (Trademark Decree-Law, Article 72(c) and TCPC Article 392). Precautionary measures shall have the effect of securing the implementation of the decision TR.97 in the main action and especially include the following: (a) an order for cessation of the acts of infringement of the trademark rights of the plaintiff; (b) an order for seizure of infringing goods within the borders of Turkey (including the customs, free ports, or free trade areas) and for safe keeping of those goods; and (c) an order for security for any damage caused by the infringement.  Ü. Tekinalp (above n 4) para 30 Note 37; cf. Pınar, 1999 GRUR Int. 120, 128 f.  See Arkan (above n 6) Vol II, p 234; Kırca (above n 31) p 542. 75 See Arkan (above n 6) Vol II, pp 231 f.; Ü. Tekinalp (above n 4) para 30 Note 21; Pınar, 1999 GRUR Int. 120, 128. 76  The former Turkish Civil Procedure Code has been replaced by a new Code. The new Code, numbered 6100, was enacted on 12 January 2011 and published on 4 February 2011 in Official Gazette No 27836. It came into force on 1 October 2011 (Art 451 TCPC). 77 Cf. Pınar, 1999 GRUR Int. 120, 129. 73 74

939

Turkey (‘.tr’) TR.98 The trademark owner can, by analogous application of the Trademark Decree-Law, Article

42, request the competent court to cancel the domain name or to declare that the registration of the domain name is invalid. In the case of well-known trademarks, the claim expires after five years unless the domain name registrant acted in bad faith when registering the domain name. In the latter case, the law does not provide for a deadline (Trademark Decree-Law, Article 41(1)(a), second sentence).

(c) The Jurisdiction of the Special Courts for Industrial Property Rights TR.99 In the field of intellectual property rights, the special courts have competence. This is

stipulated in several different intellectual property codes (see the Trademark Decree-Law Temporary Article 3 and the Turkish Copyright Act Art 76). By centralizing these matters in the special courts, it is possible to ensure that judges with the necessary specialist knowledge and expertise will hear these kinds of cases, who can then decide such matters more effectively and thus avoid contradictory decisions.

(d) Court and Attorney Fees TR.100 Court fees are regulated in the TCPC, Articles 323–333. The court fees in all matters are

initially payable by the plaintiff (TCPC Article 326(1) first sentence). According to Article 326(1), the court and attorney fees are, as a matter of principle, to be borne by the losing party. Article 326(2), second sentence, stipulates that the court shall divide the costs between the parties if one party only partially wins and in part loses.

TR.101 The amount of the court and attorney’s fees is determined according to the Fees Act78 and

the Act regulating Attorneys’ Activities.79 According to the latter, the attorney’s fee can be agreed freely by the parties (Art 163), but there is a minimum and a maximum set by law. Thus, the fee must not be more than 25 per cent above the fee determined by the scale of fees (Art 164(2)) based on the value of the case.

V.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers TR.102 There are no special rules for the liability of the Registry. Therefore, the general rule will

apply here. In Turkish law the so-called Internet Act80 (which is mainly concerned with criminal law) partially covers the civil liability of Internet Service Providers. If the registry is considered to be an Internet Service Provider (ISP), these rules would also apply to them. In contrast to the liability of the registry, there are regulations in OIDN on the liability of registrars.

TR.103 The OIDN regulates many obligations (maintaining the quality of the service; ensuring con-

tinuity of service; informing the owner of the internet domain name about a cancellation, renewal etc) (Art 17 OIDN). It is also provided that the registrars are responsible for the damages that result from the termination of its activities (Art 18 III OIDN).

TR.104 In Article 21 IV ADR-Communiqué it is regulated that the ICTA will penalize ADR

providers with a financial penalty or apply against them the other measures, if the activities of ADR providers violate the obligations in ADR-Communiqué or violate other laws.

  The Fees Act, No 492, was published in Official Gazette No 11756, dated 17 July 1964.   Act No 1136 was published in Official Gazette No 13368, dated 7 April 1969. 80  Enacted on 4 May 2007 numbered 6102 by Parliament, published in Official Gazette No 26530 dated 23 May 2007. 78 79

940

VII.  International Conflicts

VI.  Domain Names as Items of Property In Turkish law, it is disputed as to how the legal position of a domain name may be character- TR.105 ized.81 The legal status of domain names can be viewed differently according to the standing position of the rights-holder (personal names, trademarks, titles, etc). As mentioned above, a domain name can be transformed by long-term use into a legal right, for example, as a trademark, and can thereafter be asserted (or so is the predominant belief ) within the framework of intellectual property rights.82 In addition to their potential protection as intellectual property rights, domains are also subject to the constitutional protection on property.83

VII.  International Conflicts (1) International Jurisdiction Given the global and frontier-free nature of the Internet, the problems of international pri- TR.106 vate law are of particular importance for domain names.84 The international jurisdiction of the Turkish courts is determined according to the provi- TR.107 sion on local jurisdiction, above all in the TCPC (Arts 1–23), and in the special provisions of other laws (eg the TCC, Art 25(5);85 the Turkish Copyright Act, Art 66; the Trademark Decree-Law, Art 63;86 and the Turkish Code on the International Private Law and Procedural Law (IPL), Arts 25, 40 etc). The Turkish courts enjoy international jurisdiction if in the specific case a Turkish court would have local jurisdiction for a purely domestic factual matrix. Besides this general rule, additional rules for exceptional cases are provided under specific provisions (eg, see IPL Art 41, etc). The international jurisdiction of Turkish courts in the case of domain name conflicts under TR.108 the ‘.tr’ ccTLD will probably cause no fundamental difficulties, because the registration of such names indicates sufficient points of reference under the current legal system. In addition, the relationship between the registrar and the domain name can be deemed to fall within the sphere of private law,87 (even if the registry’s TRABIS system may be comparable to the Turkish Patent Institute and thus the registry could be regarded as a public organization). With regard to conflicts that are not based on contractual rights, the registration of

81 See Şenocak, BATIDER, 2009, pp 89, 97 ff.; Bal, Nurullah, Internet Alan Adları ve Internet Alan Adları Uyuşmazlıklarının Tahkim Yoluyla Çözümlenmesi, Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol XVII, 2013, No 1-2, pp 320–1. Dal, Seniha, Türk Hukukunda İnternet Alan Adları (Domain Names) ve Bu Alandaki Son Gelişmeler, Marmara Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F.Dergisi, 2010, Vol XXVIII, No 1, pp 479, 484. See also note 5. 82  See F. Nomer (above n 4) p 401; Dal, Marmara Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F.Dergisi, 2010 pp 479, 483 ff. 83  See above, note 7. 84  See, for example, Akipek/Dardağan, Sanal Ortamda Gerçekleşen Telif Hakkı İhlallerine Uygulanacak Hukuk, AÜHFD 2001, Vol 50, No 3, pp 115 ff.; Kırçova/Öztürk, İnternette Ticaret und Hukuksal Sorunlar, Istanbul 2000, pp 92 ff.; Kaplan, İnternet Ortamındaki Telif Hakkı İhlallerine Uygulanacak Hukuk, 2004 Ankara, pp 1 ff.; Yıldırım, İnternet Alan İsimlerini Tescil Eden Kuruluşların Sorumluluğu in: Fahiman Tekil, Istanbul 2003, pp 683, 687 fn 20. 85  This Article states that the plaintiff can file an action before the court of his place of residence or of the place of residence of the offender. For details see Helvacı, Türk ve İsviçre Hukuklarında Kişilik Hakkını Koruyucu Davalar, Istanbul 2001, pp 165 ff. 86  In the case of trademark infringement, local jurisdiction for actions by the trademark holder against the infringer is held by the court at the plaintiff ’s place of residence, or at the place of the tort or where the effect of the act occurred. 87 See Özdilek, Bilişim ve Hukuk, 2008/3, 6, 10; Şenocak, BATIDER 2009, 89, 96 ff.

941

Turkey (‘.tr’) the domain name as such actually makes an adequate reference point for the Turkish legal system. Although it can be assumed that the mere accessibility of a website in Turkey via the domain name is not sufficient as a point of reference for a domestic place of effect, and criteria restricting international jurisdiction are therefore necessary, there is also the requirement that the use of a sign has a commercial effect in Turkey88 and accordingly any offering made on a website under the ‘.tr’ ccTLD basically indicates a commercial activity in Turkey. In any event, the Turkish courts will enjoy jurisdiction if users in Turkey have already accessed the website.

(2) Choice of Law TR.109 The law applicable to domain name conflicts is determined by the competent Turkish courts

on the basis of Turkish international private law. The new IPL contains two articles on intellectual property law.89 Under Article 23 I, the applicable law for rights based in the area of intellectual property will be the law of the country where protection is requested. Under the second paragraph, the parties may determine whether to apply the law of the court for claims arising from the infringement of intellectual property rights, after such infringement has occurred. The applicable law for intellectual property contracts is regulated under Article 28: Contracts related to intellectual property rights are subject to the law chosen by the parties. If the parties have made no choice of law, the applicable law will be that of the location of the office of the party that transfers the intellectual property rights or use thereof. If such a place does not exist, the applicable law shall be that of the place where that party’s habitual residence, at the time of the conclusion of the contract, is located. However, if the circumstances indicate that another law has a closer connection with the contract, then that will be applied instead. The IPL also includes provisions for the law applicable to torts (Art 34), the infringement of privacy (Art 35) and for unfair competition (Art 37).90

TR.110 Domain name conflicts will therefore be resolved differently depending on the underlying

substantive law of the particular conflict. If it is an action for tort, the applicable law will be the place where the tort occurred, or if the conduct and damage take place in different locations, the law of the damage location. If the obligation arising out of tortious conduct has a closer connection with another country, and then the relevant foreign law applies. It is also possible for the parties to choose the law applicable after the tort has occurred.

TR.111 The typical and well-known problems of international private law relating to infringements

of intellectual property rights on the Internet also arise under Turkish law. These range from the difficulty of determining the place where the tort was committed to the enforceability of judicial decisions, and to the scope of the powers of a Turkish court with respect to a factual matrix that, because of the Internet’s lack of borders, can extend over the whole world.91

TR.112 The new IPL contains a special provision for the infringement of privacy via the media

and the Internet (Art 35).92 Accordingly, for such infringements the appropriate choice of

88 See Bettinger, Die WIPO-Vorschläge zum Schutz von Marken und anderen Zeichenrechten im Internet, 2001 WRP 789; for the WIPO proposals see also 2001 WRP 833 ff. 89  See for details G. Tekinalp, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bağlama Kuralları, 10th edn 2009 Istanbul, pp 320 ff. 90  See, for details, E. Nomer, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, 19th edn, Istanbul 2011, pp 344 ff.; G. Tekinalp, (above n 88) pp 429 ff. 91  Cf. for example, Karahan/Suluk/Saraç/Nal, pp 413 f.; Akipek/Dardağan, AÜHFD 2001, pp 115, 119 ff., 122 ff., esp. pp 132 ff.; Kaplan (above n 84) pp 4 ff.; cf. Yıldırım, Fahiman Tekil, pp 683, 687, footnote 20; Arıkan, IBD 2000, No 7–8–9, 781, 789. 92  See, for details, E. Nomer, (above n 90) pp 353 ff.

942

VII.  International Conflicts law may be: that of the location of the injured party’s habitual residence (provided that the offender (violator) should know the loss would occur in this country); the law of the country of the offender’s place of business or habitual residence; or at the country where the damage occurred, provided that the offender should know the damage would occur in this country. This rule will also apply to domain name conflicts where the domain has a direct or indirect role in the privacy infringement. This provision will be interesting to watch in practice, and will inform on the future development of domain name law in Turkey.

943

UNITED KINGDOM (‘.uk’) Dawn Osborne and Steve Palmer*

I. Overview of the National System of the Protection of Marks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs  (1) Introduction  (2) Trade Mark Registration  (3) Passing Off 

(12) The Advertising Standards Agency

IV. Court Litigation 

UK.01 UK.01 UK.05 UK.10

(1) Specific Anticybersquatting Legislation (2) Trade Mark Infringement and Passing Off (3) Trade Names, Company Names, and Other Commercial Designations (4) Infringement of Personal Names (5) Infringement of Titles (6) Names of Cities, Towns, and Public Bodies (7) Geographical Indications

II. The ccTLD (‘.uk’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

UK.15 (1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry  UK.15 (2) The Structure of the Name Space  UK.16 (3) Registration Restrictions  UK.19 (4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement  UK.26 (5) Cancellation, Alteration, or Termination of ‘.co.uk’ Registrations  UK.37 (6) Transfer of Domain Names  UK.42 (7) Statistics  UK.50 III. Alternative Dispute Resolution  UK.51 (1) The Nominet Dispute Resolution Service: Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding  UK.51 (2) Statistics  UK.52 (3) Material Scope of the Proceedings  UK.53 (4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding  UK.57 (5) Overview of the ADR-Procedure  UK.58 (6) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider  UK.75 (7) Role of the Administrative Panel  UK.76 (8) Costs  UK.77 (9) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings  UK.78 (10) Remedies  UK.80 (11) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Administrative Panel  UK.81

V. The Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  VI. The Liability of the Registry and Other Service Providers  (1) Nominet (2) Internet Service Providers (3) Norwich Pharmacal Orders

VII. Outline of Court Procedure and the Remedies Available  VIII. Domain Names as Items of Property 

(1) Introduction (2) Dealings in Domain Names in Practice (3) Enforceability of Domain Names Against Third Parties

IX. International Conflicts  (1) The Brussels and Lugano Conventions and Brussels Regulation (2) Defendants from Other Countries (3) Choice of Law (4) Infringement in the UK (5) Relief

UK.103 UK.105 UK.105 UK.121 UK.164 UK.170 UK.178 UK.180 UK.184

UK.188 UK.190 UK.190 UK.192 UK.193 UK.194 UK.202 UK.202 UK.206 UK.213 UK.214 UK.217 UK.223 UK.226 UK.229 UK.235

* The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions made by Matthew Siddaway and Christopher Gleeson to this edition, and thank Tony Willoughby for the previous edition.

945

United Kingdom (‘.uk’)

Links Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1395735728111&uri=CELEX:02009 R0207-20130701 Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1395752835465&uri=CELEX:32008 L0095 Nominet’s Dispute Resolution Service–Decision search:  http://www.nic.uk/disputes/drs/ decisions/decisionssearch/ Nominet’s Dispute Resolution Service–Policy:  http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/ when-use-drs/policy-and-procedure/drs-policy?contentId=5239 Nominet’s Dispute Resolution Service Procedure:  http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/ when-use-drs/policy-and-procedure/drs-procedure?contentId=5240 Nominet’s Rules for registration and use of ‘.uk’ domain names: http://www.nominet.org.uk/ uk-domain-names/registering-uk-domain/choosing-domain-name/rules Nominet’s Terms and Conditions for ‘.uk’ domain names:  http://www.nominet.org.uk/ uk-domain-names/registering-uk-domain/legal-details/terms-and-conditions-domain-n ame-registration Trade Marks Act 1994: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/26/contents English Civil Procedure Rules: http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/menus/rules.htm UK Companies House: http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk UK Intellectual Property Office: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/

I.  Overview of the National System of the Protection of Marks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs (1)  Introduction UK.01 To date, domain name disputes in the United Kingdom have tended to revolve around trade

marks. Most larger companies who are sufficiently motivated and financially equipped to take such disputes through to a conclusion, own registered trade marks and/or strong trading goodwill. Since domain names are names in their own right they are in the commercial context capable of protection either directly by registration as a trade mark under the Trade Marks Act 1994 (the 1994 Act), as a Community trade mark,1 or indirectly by trading goodwill and, in the commercial world, most names are registered or unregistered trade marks. Accordingly, if one is a trade mark owner and a third party adopts that trade mark, or something like it, as or as part of a domain name, the area to which one naturally turns for assistance is the law of trade marks/passing off.

UK.02 That this is so, is borne out not simply by the litigation that there has been over domain names,

but also by the fact that the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP)2 and most country domain dispute resolution policies focus mainly (exclusively in the case of the UDRP) on registered or unregistered trade mark rights as the basis for a complaint. 1  Broadly equivalent European Community-wide protection is available by virtue of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (CTMR), the wording of which is in many respects very similar to Trade Marks Directive 89/104/EEC (the Directive) upon which the 1994 Act is based. 2  See Part III below.

946

I.  Overview of the National System In the UK, Nominet UK (Nominet) implements and manages a Dispute Resolution Service UK.03 (DRS) for all ‘.uk’ domain names, governed by a Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy) and Dispute Resolution Procedure (the Procedure). The DRS embraces a broader range of rights than the UDRP, with complaints sometimes based on rights other than trade marks such as contractual rights and trusts.3 Nominet’s focus on cases of abusive registration,4 and its relatively economical and risk-free UK.04 procedure accounts for the large number of complaints that have been made to Nominet since it introduced the DRS in 2001.5 Experts in the DRS only have jurisdiction to transfer or cancel a domain name, they do not have jurisdiction to order damages or other remedies. All fees associated with the DRS are paid to the experts for their services and are not refundable, or recoverable from the respondent. By contrast, UK courts have decided around 25 cases in the domain name field, which are mainly actions for trade mark infringement and passing off, where the court is asked to make an order to transfer the domain names to the claimant. These cases rarely reach the Court of Appeal, or Supreme Court, although British Telecommunications Plc and Others v One in a Million and Others is notable as the key case in this area (see below para UK.107).6

(2) Trade Mark Registration Registration of a trade mark7 gives to the proprietor the exclusive right to use the mark in UK.05 relation to the categories of goods and services for which it is registered.8 It is a negative right, a right to stop others. As such it is a powerful and potentially very valuable right. It extends beyond the precise mark as registered and beyond the precise categories of goods and services for which it has been registered. It extends to similar marks and similar goods/ services in circumstances where the similarity is likely to lead to confusion as to origin in the marketplace.9 Moreover, where the registered mark is a mark ‘with a reputation’ and a third party is using the same or a similar mark in relation to any goods and services (whether the same, similar, or dissimilar), the third party’s use will infringe, if it is ‘without due cause’ and ‘takes unfair advantage of ’ or ‘is liable to damage …the distinctive character or repute’ of the registered mark.10 A trade mark means ‘any sign capable of being represented graphically which is capable of UK.06 distinguishing goods or services of an undertaking from those of other undertakings’.11 Manifestly, names are capable of being represented graphically (ie set down in written form); UK.07 manifestly too, many names are capable of distinguishing goods and services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings, GOOGLE being a good example.

3 DRS11348 Arrow Business Communications Ltd v Dave Giles (‘tmgtelecom.co.uk’); see also DRS04632 Daniel Munro v Celtic.com Inc (‘Ireland.co.uk’); DRS 00693 Tahir Mohsan v Greg Bond (‘tahirmohsan. co.uk’); DRS06935 Societe des Hotel Meridien v Sean Garrity (‘lemeridiendubai.co.uk’); DRS08861 Maxis Healthcare v Nasreen Azim (‘phlebotomy.org.uk’); DRS05782 Essex & Herts Air Ambulance Trust (‘essexairambulance.co.uk’). 4  See para UK.81 below. 5  10,416, as of 14 May 2015 according to Nominet statistics. 6  See also Phones 4U Ltd and Others v Phone4u.co.uk Internet Ltd and Others [2006] EWCA Civ 244 and Musical Fidelity Ltd v David Vickers (t/a Vickers Hi-Fi) [2002] EWCA Civ 1989, other domain name cases reaching the Court of Appeal. 7  Under the 1994 Act or the CTMR. 8  Section 9 of the 1994 Act, equivalent to the CTMR Art 9. 9  Section 10(2) of the 1994 Act, equivalent to the CTMR Art 9(1)(b). 10  Section 10(3) of the 1994 Act, equivalent to the CTMR Art 9(1)(c). 11  Section 1(1) of the 1994 Act, equivalent to the CTMR Art 4.

947

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) UK.08 Domain names are as capable as any other type of name of functioning as a trade mark. It

is sometimes said by those who deplore the use of trade mark law to regulate domain name registration and use that domain names are mere addresses and nothing more. That is by no means necessarily so. Internet trading companies commonly use their domain names as their corporate/trading names (eg ‘lastminute.com’ and ‘amazon.com’).

UK.09 Infringement of a registered trade mark owner’s rights is dealt with by way of a trade mark

infringement action. Before 2005, such action had to be brought in the Chancery Division of the High Court, but following the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 2005,12 the Patents County Court as it formerly was (now the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC)), is able to hear actions relating to trade mark infringement. A successful claimant can often obtain:  (a)  an injunction to restrain the acts of infringement complained of (including an injunction to restrain use of the trade mark in question;13 registration or re-registration14 of a domain name containing the trade mark); (b) an order for delivery up of infringing materials, or an order for destruction; (c) an order for the disclosure of information or the preservation of evidence; (d) an inquiry as to the damage he has suffered or an account of the profits made by the defendant as a result of the infringing acts and an order for payment of the sum assessed; (e) an order for publicity, obligating the losing side to publicize the decision, in whole or part; (f ) a high proportion (commonly 65 per cent to 85 per cent) of his legal costs; and (g) interest. In domain name disputes the court will, where appropriate, order the defendant to transfer the domain name in dispute to the successful claimant.15 On 1 October 2012 the Patents County Court, now IPEC, introduced a small claims track procedure16 with a £10,000 damages limit on the value of any claim, with recoverable costs limited to court fees. It remains to be seen whether this option is popular among claimants, as many claims are likely to exceed the £10,000 limit. On the other hand, for cases where infringement prevention is more important than financial recovery, a simplified and streamlined procedure could be useful.

(3) Passing  Off UK.10 Passing off is a common law tort based on the principle that no man has the right to repre-

sent falsely that his goods or services are the goods or services of another. It serves as a form of trade mark protection, but not as a result of any trade mark right as such. The action protects a trader’s goodwill from damage caused by false representations such as the use of names or symbols associated with the claimant and his business (for example, ‘I make Apple computers’).

UK.11 To succeed in a passing off action the claimant has to prove what is known as ‘the classic

trinity’,17 namely:

(a) a reputation and goodwill in the UK; (b) a misrepresentation (which need not be deliberate); and (c) damage or the likelihood of damage resulting from the misrepresentation. UK.12 First, therefore, the claimant must be conducting business in the UK. While from time to

time the courts have taken a relatively relaxed approach to this precondition to ensure that

  S.I. 2005/587.   IBM & Another v Web-Sphere Ltd & Others [2004] EWHC 529 (Ch). 14  Metalrax Group Plc & Another v Vanci [2002] EWHC 167 (Ch). 15  British Telecommunications Plc v One in a Million [1999] 1 WLR 903; [1999] FSR 1. 16  By virtue of The Civil Procedure (Amendment No2) Rules 2012, S.I. 2012/2208. 17  Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 WLR 491; [1990] RPC 341 (per Lord Oliver at p 406). 12 13

948

II.  The ccTLD (‘.uk’) Registration Conditions and Procedures justice is done18 and while the courts of other common law countries, such as Australia, are now recognizing the reality of the international nature of goodwill, the UK courts still insist on the concept of a UK goodwill as the basis of a passing off action.19 Either there must be existing customers for the goods present in the UK populace20 or, (for services) there must be commercial transactions or connections with existing customers in the UK. The nature of the misrepresentation commonly claimed in domain name disputes is that UK.13 registration or use of the domain name in issue will be likely to lead purchasers and would-be purchasers to believe that the domain name registration itself and/or any website connected to that domain name belongs to or is authorized by the claimant.21 Having satisfied the court as to the first two elements of the classic trinity, the court will UK.14 ordinarily accept that damage has resulted. The relief available to a successful claimant in a passing off action is substantially identical to that available to a successful claimant in a trade mark infringement action.22

II.  The ccTLD (‘.uk’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1) Legal Status and Legal Basis of the Registry Nominet is the authority which manages the ‘.uk’ ccTLD and many ‘.uk’ sub-domains.23 UK.15 There is no Act of Parliament or legislation giving authority to Nominet, although it does have close working partnerships with the UK government and policy-makers. Nominet was set up in 1996, to take over management of the ‘.uk’ domain from an informal voluntary group of registrars called the UK Naming Committee. As a company limited by guarantee, Nominet can make a profit, but cannot distribute its profits to members. Its members are mostly made up of its registrars who pay an annual subscription in exchange for reduced renewal and registration fees, and voting rights as a stakeholder.

(2) The Structure of the Name Space Under Nominet’s rules it is only possible to use a limited number of suffixes as the second UK.16 level with the ‘.uk’ ccTLD. These suffixes may be used in conjunction with a third-level domain name. The main permitted second-level suffixes are as follows: • ‘.co.uk’ (unrestricted—but ‘intended’ for commercial use); • ‘.org.uk’ (unrestricted—but ‘intended’ for non-commercial organizations); • ‘.me.uk’ (‘intended’ for personal use, Nominet will refuse any application if not held by a living person (a ‘Natural Person’) and will not record on the register any registrant as an

  Global Project Management Ltd v Citigroup Inc [2005] EWHC 2663.  See Starbucks (HK) Ltd and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Others [2015] UKSC 31. 20  Anheuser-Busch v Budejovicky Budvar [1984] FSR 413. 21  See, for example, British Telecommunications Plc v One In A Million [1999] 1 WLR 903; [1999] FSR 1 at 22 and 23 and Global Project Management Ltd v Citigroup Inc [2005] EWHC 2663. 22  That is, injunctions, order for delivery up of infringing material or destruction, orders for disclosure of information or preservation of evidence, orders for publicity, an inquiry as to damages or an account of profits, an order for costs, interest and, in domain name cases, where appropriate, an order for transfer of the domain name. 23  That is, the ‘.co’, ‘.net’, ‘.org’, ‘.me’, ‘.ltd’, ‘.sch’, and ‘.plc’ sub-domains or SLDs. Other SLDs in the ‘.uk’ domain (‘ac.uk’, ‘.gov.uk’, ‘.nhs.uk’, ‘.police.uk’, ‘.nic.uk’, ‘.mil.uk’, and ‘.mod.uk’) are managed by other organizations and authorities. 18 19

949

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) agent, trustee, proxy, or representative of an entity that is not a Natural Person (see para UK.24 below));24 • ‘.plc.uk’ and ‘.ltd.uk’ (restricted to corporations registered with Companies House, the UK companies’ registry); • ‘.net.uk’ (restricted to Internet service providers); and • ‘.sch.uk’ (restricted to schools). UK.17 There are also other second-level domain (SLD) names in the ‘.uk’ domain, which are not

generally available, including ‘.ac.uk’ (for UK academic establishments); ‘.gov.uk’ (for UK government bodies); ‘.nic.uk’ (for Nominet and other domain name network use); ‘.mod.uk’ and ‘.mil.uk’ (for the UK Ministry of Defence); ‘.nhs.uk’ (for UK National Health Service organizations); and ‘.police.uk’ (for UK Police forces/institutions).25 There are also small handful of others, such as ‘.bl.uk’ (British Library) and ‘.parliament.uk’ registered before the establishment of Nominet, which the organizations have been allowed to keep, on the basis that they are never transferred to another party.

UK.18 A  shortened ‘.uk’ suffix for businesses (eg www.yourbusiness.uk) was introduced in sum-

mer 2014 so that registrations are now possible in the second level. Existing businesses with registrations already in the third level have five years priority to take up the equivalent ‘.uk’ registration. If there is more than one registrant for the same wordstring in different third levels, it will be offered to the .co.uk registrant.

(3) Registration Restrictions UK.19 As with all ccTLDs and gTLDs, once a domain name has been registered in the ‘.uk’ domain

it cannot be registered by anyone else. It is a case of ‘first-come, first-served’.

UK.20 Nominet currently conducts no checks on the names for third-party rights, save that an

applicant for a name in either the ‘.ltd.uk’ or the ‘.plc.uk’ SLD will need to produce a UK company registration certificate, at both registration and subsequent renewals of the domain.

(a) Syntactic Constraints UK.21 Certain restrictions apply to all ‘.uk’ domain names. For example, there is a prohibition on registration of words which constitute existing or approved TLDs (such as the words ‘net’ and ‘org’); single and two letter registrations are allowed in third levels provided they do not correspond with ‘uk.co.uk’ or an existing SLD (for example ‘co.co.uk’ will not be permitted). Indeed no SLDs will be permitted in third levels whatever their length. Also, as with all ccTLDs and gTLDs which resolve on the domain name system (DNS), ‘.uk’ domain names must consist of ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) characters, as only these characters will resolve on the DNS at present. This means that only letters in the Latin alphabet (A–Z), numbers 0–9 and the hyphen ‘-’ are allowed in ‘.uk’ domain names. The hyphen is not permitted as the first or last character of the name. Whilst there are no restrictions or specific requirements for registrations from registrants outside the UK, Nominet does not offer registration of so-called Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs26). This includes any domains containing accented characters or non-Latin script.   See Nominet Rules 10.2.   For further details of these SLDs and the organizations administering them, visit the Nominet website at: http://www.nominet.org.uk and the links are provided. 26  IDNs appear in a web browser as non-Latin script domain names (eg in Chinese or Arabic characters) but, when sent across the Domain Name Service and registered in a WHOIS database, are in fact a long string of unintelligible Latin characters in code. The browser simply translates the Latin string of characters using an accepted standard (such as PUNYCODE) using a browser plug-in. As such, IDNs do not truly resolve over the Internet. 24 25

950

II.  The ccTLD (‘.uk’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (b) Eligibility Requirements and Attribution Rules Nominet operates a virtually unrestricted system of registration in respect of the ‘.co.uk’ and UK.22 ‘.org.uk’ sub-domains, whereby any entity anywhere in the world can register an unlimited number of domain names in the third level (the domain name rules do not dictate where the applicant has to be from). Condition 7 of Nominet’s Terms and Conditions27 requires the applicants to make various UK.23 promises including, inter alia, that they are entitled to register the name, that any identity and contact information they provide is correct and kept up to date and that by registering or using the domain name in any way, they will not infringe the intellectual property rights of any third party, or fail to meet any legal duties. Only a Natural Person is allowed to register a ‘.me.uk’ domain name, and there is no limit UK.24 on the number of names that can be applied for. Under Rule 10.228 Nominet can cancel a domain if the registrant is not a Natural Person and cannot demonstrate that the domain name in question was registered with the agreement of a specific Natural Person. The registrant’s name does not have to correspond with the ‘.me.uk’ domain name, but such domains are still subject to the Policy and Procedure, and possible complaint from any trade mark holders. In the event a company successfully complains about a ‘.me.uk’ name, there are provisions to allow the transfer to the corporate complainant as the result of the DRS or judicial proceedings, provided the company does not make use of the domain after transfer. If the registrant’s name corresponds with a company name, he could show that the registration was not abusive by showing he has commonly been known by the name (under para 4(a)(i)(B) of the Policy).29 Under Rule 11,30 Nominet also has specific rules for ‘.ltd.uk’ and ‘.plc.uk’ domain names. UK.25 Companies are able to register domain names which differ from their registered company name (allowing for the removal of ‘and co’ from the name for example), however, the domain name must comply with Rule 11.3, which provides ten steps to assist with the conversion from company name to domain name capable of registration, including removal of all punctuation marks, replacement of any ampersands with the word ‘and’, and the option to remove ‘the’ and ‘company’ from the name if desired. Unlimited companies, unincorporated bodies, and partnerships are not entitled to register a third-level domain name with these suffixes. Furthermore, only one domain name will be allowed per registrant.31

(4) Basic Features of the Registration Process and Domain Name Registration Agreement (a) Three-Way Contract The registration of a ‘.co.uk’ domain name (and indeed all ‘.uk’ domain names under UK.26 Nominet management) is subject to Nominet’s Terms and Conditions.32 A quick search of

2 7   http://www.nominet.org.uk/uk-domain-names/registering-uk-domain/legal-details/ terms-and-conditions-domain-name-registration. 28  http://www.nominet.org.uk/uk-domain-names/registering-uk-domain/choosing-domain-name/rules. 29  But see DRS00669 Guinness United Distillers v John F Walker (‘Johnniewalker.me.uk’). Although the domain name clearly corresponded to the respondent’s name, he ultimately couldn’t show that he had ever been commonly known as ‘Johnnie’. 30  http://www.nominet.org.uk/uk-domain-names/registering-uk-domain/choosing-domain-name/rules. 31 While hyphens are permitted, thereby enabling John Smith Limited to register either ‘john-smith. ltd.uk’ or ‘johnsmith.ltd.uk’, the company will only be allowed to register one of them; For details of the restricted ‘.uk’ SLDs which are not managed by Nominet (for example, ‘.police.uk’, ‘.gov.uk’, ‘.ac.uk’ etc.) see the Nominet website at: http://www.nominet.org.uk/uk-domain-names. 32  Nominet Terms can be found at: http://www.nominet.org.uk/uk-domain-names.

951

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) Nominet’s WHOIS database33 allows a would-be registrant to find out whether or not the intended domain name is free. UK.27 Once a domain name has been chosen, an internet user may register it through a registrar,

which will ordinarily be a member of Nominet. Registration via a Nominet member Internet Service Provider (ISP) results in the ISP becoming the ‘registrar’ for that particular domain name.34 The whole registration process is managed online, although once registration details have been confirmed or amended by the registrant, the registrant is able to download a ‘presentation certificate’ confirming the registration for their paper records if they so wish.

UK.28 It is also possible to register a ‘.co.uk’ domain name directly with Nominet, but this can be

complicated and also costly. The higher fee charged by Nominet is designed to reflect the additional administration required for Nominet to deal directly with the registrant rather than have the ISP administer the domain name via Nominet’s automated registration system.

UK.29 When requesting a domain name registration a registrant has to agree to Nominet’s terms and

conditions (see above) as well as the ISP’s terms and conditions (which should be easy to find on the ISP’s website). Nominet operate a three-way contract model, whereby a registrant will have two separate binding contracts, one with Nominet, and one with the registrar (to which Nominet is not a party). Whilst every registrant has the same agreement with Nominet, the agreements with the registrar can vary hugely in terms of services and obligations, so must be carefully considered. Nominet then have their own third agreement with each registrar which sets out how they should operate.

(b) Privacy Services UK.30 Condition 11 of Nominet’s Terms and Conditions35 provides for the registrant’s name and address to be publicly available on Nominet’s WHOIS database unless the registrant is a ‘consumer’ (that is, a private non-trading individual) and voluntarily elects not to have his address listed in Nominet’s WHOIS database. If it is brought to Nominet’s attention that a registrant is not a non-trading ‘consumer’, Nominet will contact the registrant and ask them to remove their commercial website from the domain name. If this is not done promptly, Nominet will cancel the ‘opt out’ option and reveal the registrant’s contact details. Alternatively, should the person alerting Nominet not wish to place the registrant on alert, they will need to file a data protection release request in order to obtain this information. Other details listed on the WHOIS include the registration date, the renewal date, the registrar, and name server details. (c) Renewal of Domain Names UK.31 All ‘.co.uk’ domain names used to be registered for an automatic two-year period, and could

only be renewed in two-year increments after that. In May 2012 multi-year registrations were introduced, allowing registrants to register or renew their domain name for up to a maximum of ten years, depending on their requirements. When a domain name is due for renewal, Nominet will notify the registrant’s registrar or the registrant if the domain name has been registered directly. Again, the Nominet renewal fee is likely to be higher than that charged by a registrar. Some domain name owners—particularly large corporations—prefer to manage their domain name registrations themselves and avoid the higher fees by joining Nominet and becoming their own registrar. Generally, notification is by e-mail.   http://www.nominet.org.uk.   A ‘tag’ is a unique code that Nominet uses to identify each of its members. However, the outdated term ‘tag holder’ (along with ‘agent’ and ‘registration agent’) has now been brought under ‘registrar’ to streamline terminology. 3 5   http://www.nominet.org.uk/uk-domain-names/registering-uk-domain/legal-details/ terms-and-conditions-domain-name-registration. 33 34

952

II.  The ccTLD (‘.uk’) Registration Conditions and Procedures Failure to renew can lead to a loss of the domain name registration. Nominet has a system UK.32 called ‘positive renewals’ which was introduced in November 2003. Under this system, the registrant’s registrar needs to establish whether or not the domain name is to be renewed and, if so, let Nominet know prior to its expiring. If Nominet has not received a positive renewal from the registrar by the expiry date it will send warning e-mails to the registrant, first on the day of expiry, then after 23 calendar days. Failure to renew the domain within 30 calendar days will result in Nominet suspending the registration (preventing the domain name from operating over the Internet) and ultimately deleting it from the register (usually 60 calendar days from suspension). If the registrar requests renewal or the registrant pays the renewal fee during the period of suspension, the suspension is automatically lifted and the domain name is again available for use as normal. Most registrars will inform their customers of a forthcoming renewal so that a further reg- UK.33 istration period may be paid for. If a registrar does not receive the renewal fees from its customer, or the contractual relationship between the registrant and the registrar ends for some reason, the registrar will be likely to ‘detag’ the domain name and remove its servers from Nominet’s database record for that domain name. When a ‘detagged’ domain name is due for renewal, Nominet will attempt to contact the reg- UK.34 istrant by sending an e-mail using the contact details held on the register. Nominet is unlikely to make any further contact with the registrant and failure to renew will result in the domain name being suspended and ultimately deleted from the register (see para UK.32 above). A prudent registrant should thus ensure that all its domain names are tagged and also moni- UK.35 tor the expiry dates of all its domain names independently so as not to let them lapse, rather than rely on the registrar to notify renewals. While a domain name is ‘detagged’ it still pertains to the domain name registrant, who is able UK.36 to transfer or cancel the domain name. If the detagged domain name is not due for renewal for some time, then it may remain on the register in the detagged status until its expiry. There are third-party services that, for a fee, monitor detagged ‘.co.uk’ domain names which are in ‘suspended’ status (awaiting cancellation) so that they can be the first to register when the domain name is ultimately deleted by Nominet from the register.

(5) Cancellation, Alteration, or Termination of ‘.co.uk’ Registrations Conditions 16 to 19 of Nominet’s Terms and Conditions deal with the circumstances under UK.37 which Nominet may terminate, transfer, cancel, alter, or amend the domain name, put it into a special status or prevent its renewal. Condition 24 also provides that registrants who are consumers may have a right to cancel the contract under the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000. The right must be claimed within seven working days of the start of the services and if this happens, Nominet will cancel the domain name and refund the registrant or his agent, whoever made the payment to Nominet. Under Condition 16 of its Terms and Conditions, Nominet may cancel or put the domain UK.38 name into a special status by notifying the applicant, if Nominet receives independent evidence to the effect that the applicant has provided significantly inaccurate contact details or is using the domain name in a way that is likely to endanger any part of the domain name system or if the applicant has breached any of the conditions, including the Rules, DRS Policy and DRS Procedure. In relation to certain conditions the applicant may be given a period of 30 calendar days to rectify a notified defect. Condition 17 identifies circumstances where Nominet may transfer, cancel, alter, or amend UK.39 the domain name or put it into a special status or prevent its renewal. These circumstances include instructions to that effect received from the registrant or the registrant’s agent; a

953

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) reasonable belief on Nominet’s part that the contact details on the register are so inaccurate or false that Nominet would not be able to notify the registrant of a change; a reasonable belief on Nominet’s part that changes to the information on the database would make the registration more accurate; registrant’s withdrawal of permission to having his personal data displayed on the WHOIS; a decision of an expert made under the DRS; any receipt by Nominet of a court order directly or indirectly calling for changes to be made. UK.40 Condition 18 provides that if the registrant is an individual the contract will end following

the death of that individual if the person legally appointed to deal with the deceased’s assets does not effect a transfer of the domain name within the prescribed period, namely within a year of the death of the deceased or the end of the representative’s appointment, whichever comes first.

UK.41 Condition 19 provides that in the case of businesses the contract will end on completion of ‘a

liquidation or disbandment process’ or if the business otherwise no longer exists. This means dissolved companies lose their domains whereas, in the case of liquidation, the company’s liquidators take charge of any domains and are free to transfer them as they wish. In some cases third parties have shown that the dissolved company acted as a trustee on their behalf and obtain a vesting order under the Trustee Act 1925.36

(6) Transfer of Domain Names UK.42 A ‘.uk’ domain name can only be transferred in one of four ways:

(a) completion of Nominet’s transfer process; (b) direct transfer by a registrar on behalf of their customer (the must either use a ‘Self Managed Tag’ or an ‘Accredited Channel Partner Tag’ in order to be able to make a transfer); (c) by an order made by an expert under Nominet’s Dispute Resolution Service (see paras UK.51 et seq below); or (d) by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction. Domain name registrants may transfer their status as registrant of a domain name to a third party, provided they follow Nominet’s strict procedure. Registrants may transfer a domain name using the ‘Registrant transfer’ service which costs £10 plus VAT, however registrants may also transfer an unlimited number of domains for the same price, provided they are all transferred to the same new registrant and from the same Nominet account (it is also possible to transfer domains between one’s own accounts before transfer).37 UK.43 Once a registrant is in a position to transfer a domain name to a third party, the process is

completed online, through the Nominet account attached to the domain name.

UK.44 The transferor (current registrant) can simply select ‘Registrant transfer’ from the tab menu,

select which domains they wish to transfer and then enter the valid e-mail address of the new registrant (including who will be paying the fee).

36  See para UK.47. Previously, a dissolved company’s domain names were treated as any other asset and vested in the Bona Vacantia Department for the Treasury Solicitor by way of the Companies Act. The practice of the Treasury Solicitor was to auction off any domain names that came into his possession; however this caused issues whereby a DRS complaint which would properly be directed at the company prior to dissolution being directed towards the Treasury Solicitor. In DRS 00854 Andrew Mitchell & Co Ltd v The Treasury Solicitor the domain names comprised names of the complainant and were registered by someone who had no legitimate interest in them and with suspect motives. They found their way into the hands of the Treasury Solicitor purely by operation of the Companies Act 1985. The expert effectively dealt with this issue on the basis that the Treasury Solicitor was the alter ego of the original registrant and if the domain was abusive in the hands of the registrant it was also abusive in the hands of the Treasury Solicitor. 37 See http://www.nominet.org.uk/uk-domain-names/manage-your-domain/transfer.

954

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution Nominet will then send the transferee (proposed registrant) a transfer e-mail, with instruc- UK.45 tions to accept the transfer, enter their account details, and pay the fee if applicable. Both parties receive a confirmation e-mail on completion. In the case of a company which is in liquidation or has been struck off the Companies UK.46 Register, Nominet will not accept the current/former directors as having authority for the transfer. If the company has had insolvency practitioners appointed, Nominet will act on the authority of the practitioners. It is possible to initiate a registrant correction if it can be established that a company which UK.47 has since dissolved had registered the domain for the use of another party. The second party would need to demonstrate the listed registrant is now dissolved, and provide evidence of their established use, confirm there is no dispute with the dissolved company or other third party and complete the online correction process, costing £30 plus VAT. One practical issue that should always be remembered when transferring a domain name is UK.48 that the registrar will need to be changed as the new registrant’s registrar will not be able to host the domain name until the domain name has been placed on its tag. In this regard, in situations where a transfer is taking place in settlement of a dispute, it is a sensible move for a transferee to change the tag in favour of its registrar at the earliest opportunity (this is usually very quick, and much quicker than the change of ownership process). The tag change will transfer control away from the transferor (via its registrar) during the period that the ownership change process is underway. A prudent purchaser of a domain name should ensure that the assignee enters into a formal UK.49 domain name transfer agreement. In such an agreement, the assignor could be required to guarantee ‘title’ to the domain name, as well as give warranties and indemnities in respect of past use and any potential third-party claims over the domain name.

(7) Statistics There were, at the end of March 2015, over ten million ‘.uk’ registrations, making ‘.uk’ UK.50 Europe’s second most popular ccTLD38 after Germany’s ‘.de’ ccTLD. It is also the third-largest global ccTLD, behind ‘.de’ and ‘.tk’ (Tokelau having implemented a free domain model which has become extremely popular in the last two years). The most common subdomain name in the ‘.uk’ ccTLDs is the ‘.co.uk’ making up 90.5 per cent of the ‘.uk’ registry.39

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution (1) The Nominet Dispute Resolution Service: Principal Characteristics of the Proceeding In relation to ‘.uk’ domain names in the ‘.net.uk’, ‘.ltd.uk’, ‘.plc.uk’, ‘.co.uk’, ‘.org.uk’, and ‘.me. UK.51 uk’ sub-domains,40 there is a custom-built alternative to litigation in the form of the Nominet DRS, which administers the Nominet dispute resolution policy according to the Nominet Dispute Resolution Procedure.41 Nominet’s ADR Procedure is designed to be a quicker and

  10,586,358 ‘.uk’ registrations according to Nominet figures.   Nominet figures as of May 2015. 40  Disputes rarely arise in the restricted ‘.net’, ‘.ltd’, and ‘.plc’ sub-domains. 41  Detailed descriptions of the DRS, the Policy and the Procedure are available online at Nominet’s website at: http://www.nominet.org.uk. The website also contains helpful guidance as to the operation of the scheme, together with digital templates for submissions by complainants and respondents. 38 39

955

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) cheaper alternative to litigation for disputes involving domain names, although the disputed domain name may be part of a bigger dispute between the parties. The outcome of any complaint brought under the Policy can effectively be reversed in subsequent UK court litigation, provided the claimant is relying on recognized legal rights (such as trade mark infringement, passing off or breach of contract); however the courts have made it clear that they do not have the jurisdiction to rule on whether a domain is abusive under Nominet’s Policy.42 Mann J found no basis for court litigation under Nominet’s contractual obligations, stating at para 48: There is no obligation which a court could enforce, and there is no juridical basis on which the court could grant any remedy that could be granted by the Expert or appeal panel. Thus far it therefore seems that the court can have no role to play in any determination about abusive registration. The contract creates and completely regulates the dispute in such a way as to leave nothing for the court to bite on.

(2) Statistics UK.52 The Nominet DRS has been operating the Policy and the Procedure since September 2001.43

Up to May 2015 it had received 10,416 complaints, representing 0.098 per cent of all domain names registered in the domain.44 The Procedure involves the lodging of a complaint, a response and a reply followed by a Nominet operated mediation period. An average of 58 per cent of valid complaints are settled at the mediation stage.45 At the beginning of May 2015, 1,547 full experts’ decisions had been issued with 78 per cent finding in favour of the complainant, and 1,030 summary decisions had been issued, of which 93 per cent went in favour of the complainant.46

(3) Material Scope of the Proceedings UK.53 The Policy, to which all registrants in the Nominet-managed ‘.uk’ sub-domains are contractu-

ally bound47 (to Nominet), has many similarities to the UDRP but there are some important differences.

UK.54 By virtue of para 2 of the Policy, a respondent must submit to proceedings under the DRS if

a complainant asserts to Nominet that:

(i) the Complainant has Rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the domain name; and (ii)  the Domain Name, in the hands of the respondent, is an Abusive Registration. UK.55 ‘Rights in respect of a name or a mark’ are defined in para 1 of the Policy as including, but

not being limited to, rights enforceable under English law. It will normally be registered or unregistered trade mark rights. Trade mark registration of a logo, which does not protect the words per se will not be enough.48 A trade mark application is not enough to constitute rights. It can, however, include rights in descriptive terms which may have acquired secondary meaning, rights such as contractual rights or trusts49 and rights from outside of

42   Toth v Emirates and Nominet (Intervener) [2012] EWHC 517 Ch. There is no statutory cause of action which specifically provides for challenge of a decision under the DRS in court. 43   The most recent amendments were introduced as from 29 July 2008. 44  Nominet statistics as of May 2015. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid. 47  The Policy and Procedure are incorporated by reference in the introduction to Nominet’s current terms and conditions. 48 DRS7388 Top Connect Ou v Paul Bridgeman (‘travelsim.co.uk’). 49 DRS0442 1 & 1 Internet Ltd v SSL (‘1and1.co.uk’); see also DRS11348 Arrow Business Communications Ltd v Dave Giles (‘tmgtelecom.co.uk’). DRS04632 Daniel Munro v Celtic.com Inc (‘Ireland.co.uk’); DRS06935

956

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution the UK jurisdiction provided they are enforceable.50 However, the definition of ‘Rights’ does not extend to copyright in photographs or minority shareholder rights.51 The registration of a company name alone does not automatically create any rights for the purpose of DRS.52 The complainant may also be a private individual,53 possibly with personality rights or even, in the case of a domain name which reproduces his or her name, a right not to be impersonated.54 While the test as to whether or not the complainant has relevant rights is a low threshold test55 designed to establish that the complainant has a bona fide basis for making the complaint, it is nonetheless important that the complaint establishes the existence of the rights. Complaints under the Policy regularly fail on this basis.56 It should be noted that only the owner of the rights should bring a complaint under the Policy.57 The domain name registration system is first-come, first-served; as such the mere registration of a domain does not give rise to rights in the name.58 ‘Abusive Registration’ is defined in the Procedure as a domain name which either:

UK.56

(i) was registered or otherwise acquired in a manner which, at the time when the registration took place, took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant’s Rights; or (ii) has been used in a manner which has taken advantage of or has been unfairly detrimental to the Complainant’s Rights.

The complainant is only required to show the respondent has no legitimate rights in the name for the purposes of proving a pattern of registration of domains which might well infringe others rights (paragraph 3(a)(iii) of the Policy). Renewal of a registration does not count as ‘registered or otherwise acquired’. Threatened use may be abusive.59

(4) Contractual Recognition of the ADR Proceeding All registrants sign up to a three-way contract model with their registrar and Nominet (see UK.57 para UK.26). Paragraph 14 of Nominet’s Terms and Conditions provides that any registrant is bound by the DRS Policy and the DRS Procedure. Further when a complaint is filed the complainant is required to agree to be bound by the DRS Policy and the DRS Procedure when they submit the complaint and to be bound by the terms and conditions of registration in the event that domain name(s) is/are transferred to them as a result.

Societe des Hotel Meridien v Sean Garrity (‘lemeridiendubai.co.uk’); DRS08861 Maxis Healthcare v Nasreen Azim (‘phlebotomy.org.uk’); DRS05782 Essex & Herts Air Ambulance Trust (‘essexairambulance.co.uk’). 50 DRS04192 LLD Products v 4Inkjet (‘4inkjet.co.uk’). 51  See DRS 14983 Amanda Vincent v Brittenden Ltd (‘whiteboxphotography.co.uk’ and ‘whiteboxphotographyuk.co.uk’). 52 DRS02939 Michael Lammin v Domains By Proxy Inc (‘entertainersdirect.co.uk’); DRS10588 Coffee Conscience Ltd v Escrivio Ltd (‘coffeeconscience.co.uk’); DRS11518 Wirral Wetrooms Ltd v Matthew Whiteley t/a CW Web Design (‘wirralwetrooms.co.uk’); DRS05522 Location Motorhomes Ltd v International Travel Extras Ltd (‘locationmotorhomes.co.uk’). 53 DRS5718 Constance Briscoe v Jeroen Rodenberg (‘constancebriscoe.co.uk’); DRS03844 Stoneygate48 Ltd and Wayne Rooney v Huw Marshall (‘waynerooney.co.uk’). 54 DRS00693 Tahir Mohsan v Greg Bond (‘tahirmohsan.co.uk’). 55  DRS 00248 Seiko UK Ltd Designer Time v Wanderweb (‘seiko-shop.co.uk’, ‘spoonwatchshop.co.uk’). 56 DRS00147 GHI Ltd v Neville Draper (‘aviance.co.uk’); DRS01570 Synbiotix Ltd v Simon Rasalingham (‘synbiotix.co.uk’); DRS01114 Daimler Chrysler UK Ltd v Rendez-Vous Point (‘dodge.co.uk’) are just a few examples; contrast the approach taken in DRS01340 The Salvation Army v Anon (‘salvationarmy.co.uk’). 57 DRS02120 Orba Originals Ltd v Janus Promotions Ltd (‘orbaoriginals.co.uk’). 58 DRS11507 Mines Rescue Service v Garth Piesse (‘minesrescue.co.uk’). 59 DRS9108 Compagnie Generale des Etablissements Michelin v Neil Harvey (‘michelinstar.co.uk’); see also DRS07539 De Brus Marketing Services Ltd v Degrees of Risk (‘edusafe.co.uk’).

957

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) (5) Overview of the ADR-Procedure (a) ADR Complaint UK.58 In order to submit a complaint it is necessary to set up an online account with Nominet (in the case of multiple complainants the account holder will be the lead complainant). All registrants have to have an online account. All complaints are filed in English using an online form (with a 5,000 word limit) to explain the complaint, with supporting evidence, such as trade mark certificates uploaded with it. A single complaint can include up to five domains for the same fee. More domains can be added to a single complaint with increased fees to be negotiated in each case. The formula of the usual registration fee divided by five (the maximum number allowed under the standard fee) multiplied by the number of domains in question is commonly used to calculate the increased fee. UK.59 The complainant may not have a second chance to make further submissions, and the expert

is not obliged to make any further investigations,60 so it is important to get the content of a complaint right. Detailed guidance can be found on Nominet’s website.61 The complaint will need to include information and evidence to show why the complainant has rights in the domain name, and also why the domain is abusive in the hands of the respondent. A WHOIS search on Nominet’s website can be useful to find details of the registrant; although a complaint can still be brought if the complainant cannot obtain details of the respondent (Nominet will have details of the respondent not available on a WHOIS). Nominet will at first instance try to contact the respondent, and if unsuccessful they may suspend and cancel the domain (see para UK.38) or the complainant may have the option of the summary complaint procedure (see para UK.70). In cases where the name is held by an agent, the proper respondent will be the agent and it will be for the agent to pass the complaint on to the genuine registrant, or represent them in the complaint.

(b) ADR Response UK.60 A respondent will be given 15 working days from the date on which he was deemed to have

received the complaint in which to file a response, again in online format available on Nominet’s website, with a 5,000 word limit. Again, evidence must be submitted in support of any assertions. There may be no further opportunity for submissions. The response should include information and evidence as to why the domain is not an abusive registration (pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Policy). That is likely to include information about the respondent, or their business, details of the use and purpose of the domain name and the relationship to the complainant (if any).

UK.61 The respondent also has the option of not responding at all. However, in that case, mediation

will not be possible and the complainant will have the option of using the summary procedure for the complaint (see para UK.70). The respondent’s chance of defending the claim is likely to be diminished. They may also be denied the right of appeal.62 Complaints, however, can still fail despite no response from the respondent.63

UK.62 The complainant has five working days from receipt of the response in which to file a reply.

The reply must be no more than 2,000 words restricted to matters raised by the respondent that were not addressed in the initial complaint. If no reply is received Nominet generally proceeds to informal mediation.

60  Although they may do so if not unfair but this may necessitate a request for further submissions in any event. See DRS00658 Chivas Brothers Ltd v DW Plenderleith (‘chivasbrothers.co.uk’). 61  http://www.nominet.org.uk. 62 DRS11211 Tumblr Inc v Paul Guerin (‘tumblr.co.uk’). 63 DRS4635 Martin Yale International GmbH v 4 Consultancy (‘martinyale.co.uk’); see also DRS08019 Jangro Ltd v R Morrision (‘jangro.co.uk’); DRS10732 Allie Smith t/a Funnyzulus v BJ Computers (UK) Ltd (‘funnyzulus.co.uk’).

958

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution (c) Mediation Procedure After the parties’ submissions have been lodged with Nominet, Nominet initiates and con- UK.63 ducts an informal mediation procedure by telephone with the parties attempting to negotiate a settlement. (d) Expert Decision If informal mediation fails, the complainant has the option of abandoning the complaint or UK.64 paying the prescribed fee,64 upon receipt of which Nominet will refer the case to a member of its panel of independent experts for determination. The cases are offered to the experts on a strict rotational basis. The expert will then make a formal determination on the admissibility, relevance, materiality, and weight of the evidence.65 He may request further statements or documents from the parties, although experts may endeavour to use this power sparingly, so as to avoid lengthy proceedings. The expert has sole discretion as to whether he accepts and considers any statements or documents which he has not received according to the Policy or the Procedure or which he has not requested.66 If an additional submission is permitted by an expert, the normal course is for the expert to give the other party an opportunity of responding to it.67 (e) Appeal Procedure Following issuance of the decision by the expert there is scope for an appeal against that UK.65 decision to an Appeal Panel comprising three experts.68 The presiding expert will be the Chair of the Appeal Board or his appointee and the other two are drawn from the Expert Review Group (a group of six members from within the main expert group, who also review each fully reasoned DRS decision before publication). Any appeal will be conducted on a de novo basis. The UDRP does not feature an appeals process for their decisions, but in the first instance either party can request a panel of three members rather than one. If a respondent did not respond in the original proceedings he may be denied a right of appeal.69 (f )  Key Procedural Issues (i)  General Procedural Rules  Neither the complaint, nor the response need to be drafted UK.66 by a legal professional, although parties may wish to seek advice from those with experience, as badly drafted submissions can lead to an undesirable result.70 The process is generally conducted on the documents alone. The expert does have the power to call for an in-person hearing,71 but to date this has never happened. All DRS decisions are published by Nominet72 and although experts are not bound by pre- UK.67 vious expert’s decisions, well-reasoned decisions are usually respected and repeatedly referenced. Nominet maintain an independent role in the Procedure and do not intervene in complaints with submissions. The expert panel only applies the Policy and the Procedure in

64  Currently £750 plus VAT for complaints relating to one to five domain names in the name of the same registrant; the fee for an increased number of domain names is set in consultation with the expert (see para UK.58 above). 65  Para 12 of the Procedure. 66  Para 13(b) of the Procedure. 67  DRS 01642 First National Telecom Services Ltd v Richard Gibbs (‘fntele.co.uk’). 68  The fee for launching an appeal is £3,000 plus VAT. 69 DRS11211 Tumblr Inc v Paul Guerin (‘tumblr.co.uk’). 70  See paras UK.73–UK.74 below; DRS4635 Martin Yale International GmbH v 4 Consultancy (‘martinyale.co.uk’). 71  Para 14 of the Procedure. 72  http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/resolving-domain-disputes/previous-cases-0.

959

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) the DRS proceedings. National laws are relevant only in establishing rights to satisfy para 2(i) of the Policy.73 UK.68 There is no doctrine of laches or equivalent part of the Policy which prevents a complain-

ant bringing a DRS complaint through inaction over a long period; this was discussed in Gillingham Football Club Ltd v Alan Liptrott74 a case where the complainant had knowledge of the registration and the registrant for at least ten years before bringing a complaint. The expert concluded that the complaint was about the use of the domain at the present moment in time, not the original registration of it, and therefore found fit to transfer. He did, however, discuss an earlier case, where the delay of six years in bringing a complaint was enough to tip the balance of probabilities in favour of no action, despite a clearly abusive registration, on the basis of knowledge at the time of registration, rather than subsequent use.75

UK.69 (ii)  Language of the Proceeding  Paragraph 2(c) of the DRS Procedure states that all com-

munication will be in English.

If the respondent does not submit a response within the allotted time period, the complainant will be given the option to continue with the full decision or to apply for a summary decision, for a reduced cost.76 This does not guarantee the complainant will be granted the requested remedy, although a high degree of uncontested decisions go in favour of the complainant. The summary decision will not give the expert’s full reasoning but simply gives the bare finding on each criterion of the Policy and the overall result. Often the expert can add comments, but is not obliged to do so and may only do so if he feels explanation would be of assistance to either party.77 Both parties retain the option to appeal a summary decision.78

UK.70 (iii)  Respondent Default 

UK.71 (iv)  Standard of Proof  Paragraph 2(b) of the Policy provides that the complainant has to

show to the expert, on the balance of probabilities, both that they have rights in the domain name, and that the domain, in the hands of the respondent, is an abusive registration.

UK.72 (v)  Consolidated Complaints  Paragraph 3(b) of the Procedure provides for multiple com-

plainants to make a joint complaint, however they must specify a lead complainant, who will receive correspondence and act in mediation for the rest, and a complainant designated to receive each domain, should they be successful (although this does not bind the expert).79 It is imperative that the complainant can demonstrate their proprietary rights in the name similar or identical to the domain name, for example where rights have been licensed the licensor may be required to be a complainant, even if the domain name only directly affects the licensee. Only one respondent may be named on each complaint, so a separate complaint must be made for each, although multiple domains owned by one respondent can be the subject of one complaint.80

UK.73 (vi)  Re-filed Complaints  Paragraph 10(e) of the Policy makes it clear that if a decision has

been made under the Policy it cannot be re-filed, only appealed.81

  See paras UK.54 and UK.55 above.  DRS10948 Gillingham Football Club Ltd v Alan Liptrott (‘gillinghamfc.co.uk’). 75 DRS08347 Coca-Cola Company v bandbs.co.uk (Paul Leahy) (‘5alive.co.uk’). 76  Currently £200 plus VAT application fee for summary decision. 77 See DRS06868 Stable Mat Direct v Brandon Worthing-Davies (‘stablematdirect.co.uk’) where the respondent was an independent consultant retained to register the domain name, who had died while still in possession of the domain, and the comments were added as an explanation to his widow as to why a finding of abusive registration was made under the Policy. 78  See para UK.65 above. 79  Para 3(b)(iii) of the Procedure. 80  Para 3(d) of the Procedure. 81  See DRS01295 Bravissimo Ltd v Anna Gardner (‘bravissimo.co.uk’); see also DRS0442 1&1 Internet Ltd v SSL (‘1and1.co.uk’); DRS09141 PPG Industries Ohio Inc v Promain (UK) Ltd (‘ameron-ppg.co.uk’). 73 74

960

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution In considering if a complaint is an impermissible re-filing an expert must consider the UK.74 following: (a) Are the complainant, the respondent and the domain name in issue the same as in the earlier case? (b) Does the substance of the complaint relate to acts that occurred prior to or subsequent to the close of submissions in the earlier case? (c) If the substance of the complaint relates to acts that occurred prior to the close of submissions in the earlier case, are there any exceptional grounds for the rehearing or reconsideration, bearing in mind the need to protect the integrity and smooth operation of the DRS Policy and Procedure? (d) If the substance of the complaint relates to acts that occurred subsequent to the earlier decision, acts on which the re-filed complaint is based should not be, in substance, the same as the acts on which the previous complaint was based.82 Examples serious enough to justify a rehearing include (a)  serious misconduct on the part of the expert, a party, witness or lawyer; (b) false evidence having been offered to the expert; (c) the discovery of credible and material evidence which could not have been reasonably foreseen or known for the complainant to have included it in the evidence in support of the earlier complaint; (d) a breach of natural justice; and (e) the avoidance of an unconscionable result.83

(6) Role of the ADR Dispute Resolution Provider Nominet is the sole provider of Dispute Resolution Services for all ‘.uk’ domain names. They UK.75 maintain a strictly independent stance and do not seek to intervene in disputes beyond providing the structural framework and mediation services.

(7) Role of the Administrative Panel Experts for individual cases are chosen on a strict rotational basis from a pool of intellectual UK.76 property lawyers, mediators, and experts, appointed due to their acknowledged reputation in the field. The experts are required to remain impartial and independent, and decide complaints on the basis of the parties’ submissions, the Policy and the Procedure.84 On rare occasions experts have gone beyond that and have conducted their own enquiries where it has seemed sensible to do so (for example, to verify an assertion of one of the parties where it would have been disproportionate to go through a formal exercise of further submissions and no injustice is caused to the other party).85

(8) Costs The current costs for Nominet’s DRS are £750 plus VAT for complaints relating to one to five UK.77 domain names in the name of the same registrant, the fee for an increased number of names is set in consultation with the expert.86 If an expert’s summary decision becomes available due to a lack of response from the respondent, and the complainant chooses that option rather than a full decision the cost is reduced to £200 plus VAT. The fee for launching an appeal is £3,000 plus VAT.

(9) Relationship Between the ADR and Court Proceedings It has been Nominet’s practice where proceedings have been issued at court, to block any UK.78 transfer of the domain name upon receipt of a sealed copy of the claim form, provided that   At para 10(f )(i–iv) of the Policy.   Para 10(g) of the Policy. 84  Para 16(a) of the Procedure. 85 DRS00658 Chivas Brothers Ltd v DW Plenderleith (‘chivasbrothers.co.uk’). 86  See para UK.58 above. 82 83

961

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) the claimant gives written undertakings to Nominet to the effect that it will pursue the proceedings with all due dispatch and that Nominet will be kept up to date at all times.87 In cases where court proceedings have been commenced and are brought to Nominet’s attention, it can suspend any proceedings that are ongoing under the Dispute Resolution Service.88 UK.79 Nominet’s Policy and Procedures have clearly been drafted to ensure that the DRS process or

any experts’ decision does not prevent the parties from bringing further complaints in court. Paragraph 10(d) of the Policy states: The operation of the DRS will not prevent either the Complainant or the Respondent from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction.

Furthermore, any experts’ decision can be subject to a stay of execution if proceedings are brought in court immediately following dispute resolution.89 For those unsatisfied at the expert’s decision, another attempt could be made in the courts. The courts have sought to clarify the jurisdiction of Nominet’s DRS procedures compared with any subsequent court proceedings. In Toth v Emirates and Nominet,90 the claimant sought an order that his registered domain name ‘emirates.co.uk’ was not an abusive registration under Nominet’s Policy, despite the outcome of an appeal panel decision to the contrary. The court held that it could not apply Nominet’s Policy but would apply the general laws of England to determine the issues before it which are not finally determined by any DRS procedure under the Nominet Policy. Courts can still reverse a DRS decision in a subsequent court action, should grounds for it be established under UK law. Experts should, however, proceed to make decisions under the Policy as far as possible with the evidence before them.91 In light of the above decision Nominet’s appeal panel were also able to decide on a DRS decision in relation to an abusive registration after proceedings had been issued in court, however it should be noted that in that case the court had stayed proceedings at the request of the parties pending a decision under Nominet’s dispute resolution policy.92 It would seem that domain name dispute resolution policies and by analogy the Nominet DRS itself is not challengeable under UK law.93

(10) Remedies UK.80 The expert should make his or her decision within 15 working days after appointment

(absent exceptional circumstances) and can decide to transfer the domain in question, have the domain cancelled, have it suspended pending cancellation, or take no action, but they cannot award damages or monetary amounts for any loss to the complainant. Nominet will inform the parties of the decision, and also make it available to the public online (under paragraph 8 of the Policy) three working days after it is rendered.94 Nominet will then implement

87  Para 13(a)(ii) of the Policy prohibits the transfer of a domain name while a relevant court proceeding or arbitration is pending. 88  Para 20(a) of the Procedure. 89  Para 17(c)(ii) of the Procedure. 90  [2012] EWHC 517 Ch. 91  Experts may decline to give a decision due to the existence of complex contractual terms see DRS 04632 David Munro v Celtic.com Inc; DRS 14303 Silver Screen Cinemas v Pelican (‘silverscreencinemas.co.uk’) and DRS 14417 Thornton Solicitors v Ian Watson (‘thorntonsolicitors.co.uk’). 92  DRS 10475 Exenergy Ltd v Ibex Management Ltd (‘exenergy.co.uk’). 93 See Patel v Allos Therepeutics Inc [2008] ETMR 75, where a respondent, having been the subject of an adverse ruling for transfer following a WIPO UDRP decision, brought proceedings to challenge the UDRP rules under the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, defamation, the Protection from Harassment Act 1977, and s 21 of the 1994 Act (groundless threats). The action was held to have no merit. 94  http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/resolving-domain-disputes/previous-cases-0.

962

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution the decision ten working days after that, provided that they do not receive either a notice of intent to appeal or official documentation that either party has started legal proceedings in court.

(11) ADR Decision Criteria and Application by the Administrative Panel (a) Evidence of Abusive Registration Reasons for declaring a domain name registration to be an abusive registration under the UK.81 Policy fall into a number of categories, namely: (a) bad faith intentions at the time of registration, for example, primarily with the intention of selling the domain name to the complainant at a profit (eg multiple cybersquatting)95 or with a view to blocking the complainant or disrupting the complainant’s business96 or typosquatting;97 (b) abusive use of the domain name (for example, using in a way likely to cause or causing actual confusion to internet users, including use of confusing links,98 offering to sell to a competitor,99 or unfair use of an innocent registration once the significance to the complainant becomes apparent;100 (c) provision to Nominet of false contact information; and (d) circumstances where the complainant wishes to take ownership of a domain registered by the respondent as a result of a relationship with the complainant, where the complainant has exclusively used the domain and paid for its registration and/or renewal.101 However, Nominet’s panel of experts has a significant measure of independence when it comes to considering these issues. The list of examples set out in paragraph 3 of the Policy is a non-exhaustive list. Infringement of an intellectual property right is not necessarily enough as it may be inadvertent.102 There will also be a presumption of an abusive registration if the complainant proves that the UK.82 respondent has been found to have made an abusive registration in three or more DRS cases in the two years before the complaint was filed,103 however, this can still be rebutted by the respondent under paragraph 4 of the Policy. The tendency in the case of domain names, which are not in use, but which are likely to be UK.83 well known to the registrant as being the name or trade mark of the complainant and where no explanation is forthcoming from the registrant, is to assume that the domain name was registered with an abusive intent.104 This will be especially so in cases of multiple registrations of domain names containing the trade marks of third parties. Even if the name is somewhat descriptive the registration will probably be abusive if the respondent has knowledge of

95  For discussions on how few names can constitute a pattern of abusive registrations see DRS4457 J. Sainsbury Plc v John Morrison (‘Sainsburysentertainment.co.uk’); DRS5861 General Mills Marketing Inc v Another.com (‘Greengiant.co.uk’); DRS4001 General Dynamics Ltd v Brainfire Group (‘generaldynamics. co.uk’); and also DRS4620 Roadrunner Motor Trade Ltd v Mr D Ostashko (‘roadrunner.co.uk’). 96 DRS11491 Sprayfine Ltd v Philip Argyle (‘sprayfine.co.uk’). 97 DRS03806 RBS Group Plc v Laurent Girault (‘privalege.co.uk’). 98 DRS9716 Barclays Bank Plc v WhoIs-primary.net (‘barclayshomemortgage.co.uk’), but see also DRS6365 Oasis Stores Ltd v J Dale (‘Oasis.co.uk’) where it seems the complainant increased confusion itself. 99 DRS2223 Apple Computers Inc v Cyber Britain Group Ltd (‘itunes.co.uk’). 100 DRS0114 Penguin Books Ltd v Michael Cieplak (‘penquin.co.uk’). 101  Para 3 of the Policy. 102 DRS9674 Furniture Village Ltd v Furnitureland.co.uk Ltd (‘funitureland.co.uk’); see also DRS5856 Deutsche-Telekom AG v Lammtara Multiserve Ltd (‘t-home.co.uk’). 103 DRS4230 H Bauer Publishing v R Morrison (‘bellamagazine.co.uk’). 104 DRS00658 Chivas Brothers Ltd v DW Plenderleith (‘chivasbrothers.co.uk’).

963

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) the complainant and the name has secondary meaning.105 Initial interest confusion can be enough.106 UK.84 There is an overall responsibility on the complainant to prove its case, even with no forth-

coming response from the respondent. Relying upon the expert to make assumptions in the complainant’s favour is an unsafe course to take. In the case of Grey Matter Ltd v Grey Matter Advanced Marketing Ltd107 the domain name in issue was the name of the complainant (greymatterltd.co.uk). The fact that the complainant’s corporate name had been adopted for the domain name ought, one would have thought, to have resulted in a decision in favour of the complainant. One would also have thought that there must have been a story to tell regarding the similarity in the parties’ corporate names. The complaint was dismissed. The complaint was sparse in the extreme. It is clear from the decision that there were far too many unanswered questions to enable the expert to feel comfortable about ordering transfer of the domain name in those circumstances.

UK.85 Where the domain is not actively used, the respondent as registrant may nonetheless be

responsible for the actions of any parking site attached to the domain.108 It is important to note that parking sites will begin to automatically advertise the complainant’s similar or identical name as it becomes well known. This may leave the respondent open to a complaint, if it does not realize that the parked domains are advertising links to a potential complainant’s website, or a competitor of that potential complainant. Paragraph 4(e) of the Policy provides that although the sale of traffic and earning pay per-click revenue (‘PPC’) is not objectionable in itself, the expert will take into account the nature of the advertising links on any parking sites. Ultimately the use of the domain is the respondent’s responsibility. Even if the registrant has made no other use of the domain, a parking site generating no commercial revenue may still fall foul of a complaint, as a blocking registration.109 In Page the Packers v www. wight-holiday-hotels.co.uk110 the expert commented that: In this case, there is no evidence of any use by the Complainant of the Domain Name and there is no allegation that the Respondent has sought to sell it to the Complainant for a sum in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs. It is accordingly a purely ‘passive holding’. Nevertheless‚ I am of the view that the Respondent can have had no legitimate purpose in registering the Domain Name and that it is, as the complainant alleges, a blocking registration against a business competitor.

UK.86 Where a complainant has rights which predate the respondent’s registration, the respond-

ent’s knowledge of the complainant’s rights are still important for determining whether the registration is abusive.111 Whether a respondent knew about the complainant’s rights or not will be a matter of fact, there is no duty placed on a registrant by the Policy to seek out trade marks that may potentially be at odds with his proposed registration: There has never been any duty on domain name registrants to conduct ‘common law’ checks of publications such as Yellow Pages or trade directories or to perform internet searches to see

 DRS11097 Elite Model Management v Paul Harris (‘elitemodelmanagement.co.uk’).  DRS9135 Goodridge Ltd v K300 Ltd (‘goodridge.co.uk’); see also DRS11144 HCA International Ltd v balata.com Ltd (‘portlandhospital.co.uk’) and DRS 14563 The Commissioners for HM Revenues and Customs v Wes & Dave (‘inland-revenue.org.uk’). 107  DRS00864 (‘greymatterltd.co.uk’). 108 DRS10075 Philosophy Inc v Velvet Enterprises Ltd (‘philosophy.co.uk’), although in that case the respondent persuaded the appeal panel the registration and links were inadvertent. 109  Under para 3(a)(i)(B) of the Policy. 110  DRS03273 (‘pagethepackers.co.uk’). 111 DRS04331 Verbatim Ltd v Michael Toth (‘Verbatim.co.uk’). 105 106

964

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution whether anyone might have rights in a name similar to the domain name. To suggest that the Respondent should have done so in this case is to impose a burden that is contrary to the way in which domain name registration practice has developed to date. While there may be specific circumstances in which one might conclude that it would have been prudent to conduct such checks (for example, if a registrant had noticed a thriving business conducted under a name that he wanted to register as a domain name, but chose to turn a blind eye), that is not the situation here.112

Even in circumstances where it may be prudent to conduct checks, not doing so will not by itself be evidence of an abusive registration.113 Here it is worth noting a difficult issue which has arisen in England and elsewhere in relation UK.87 to domain name disputes. Under both the UDRP (para 4(b)(i)) and the Policy (para 3(a)(i) A) evidence of an offer by the registrant to sell the domain name to the complainant for a sum of money in excess of his out-of-pocket expenses can constitute evidence of an abusive registration. However, in a domain name case involving the domain name, ‘whsmith.com’ (WH Smith being the name of a very well-known retailer), the English Court of Appeal held that when the offer to sell is made in the context of correspondence entered into with a view to resolving the dispute out of court, by virtue of the ‘without prejudice’ rule, the correspondence may not be shown to the court.114 To displace the rule there has to be evidence of unambiguous impropriety.115 The without prejudice rule is designed to encourage parties to a dispute to enter into negoti- UK.88 ations with a view to settling their dispute out of court. If parties thought that their without prejudice compromise offers might be shown to the judge trying the case, they might be less inclined to offer compromises; hence the rule. The rule has been applied under the UDRP by some panellists,116 but expressly rejected by others.117 The principal objection to applying the rule in this kind of dispute is that the offer to sell is UK.89 the stock in trade of the cybersquatter. To exclude from consideration offers to sell, which by their very nature are intended to resolve the dispute, would seriously limit the effectiveness of the procedure.118 Insofar as Nominet’s Policy is concerned, this issue has now been resolved in favour of not applying the ‘without prejudice’ rule to such disputes.119 The Policy was amended in 2004 to make this clear on its face (para 6). Not all experts feel entirely comfortable with the position taken in the Hannah-Barbera UK.90 case.120 A concern is that a party should not be lured into making a settlement offer in the course of without prejudice correspondence in the belief that the offer will be confidential to the parties. However, what the expert is interested in are the respondent’s intentions at the time of registration of the domain name. The without prejudice correspondence may or may not be relevant to that issue. Whether or not an offer to sell is indicative of an abusive intent at time of registration will depend upon all the surrounding circumstances. The effect of the Hannah-Barbera decision is simply that potentially relevant evidence should not be excluded from consideration by the expert.  DRS09398 Shoe Zone Ltd v Rimvydas Karpavicius (‘shoeexpress.co.uk’) at para 7.29.  DRS7066 Whistleblower Press Agency Ltd v Ketts News Service Ltd (‘whistleblower.co.uk’). 114  WH Smith Ltd v Peter Colman [2001] FSR 9. 115  Per Hoffmann LJ in Forster v Friedland CA transcript 1052, 10 November 1992. 116  The London Marathon Ltd v Website Brokers Ltd (WIPO Case No D2001-0157, 5 April 2001). 117  Advance Magazine Publishers v Marcellod Russo (WIPO Case No D2001-1049, 22 November 2001). 118  For an in-depth discussion of this issue see The Vanguard Group Inc v Emillio Sa (WIPO Case No D2001-1453, 7 April 2002). 119 DRS00389 Hannah-Barbera Productions Inc v Graeme Hay (‘scoobydoo.co.uk’). 120 DRS01443 Google Inc v LWD Internet (‘froogle.co.uk’). 112 113

965

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) UK.91 The fact that the without prejudice rule is not applied in Nominet DRS proceedings does not

in any way fetter an expert’s right to exclude from consideration whatever the expert believes necessary in order to ensure that justice is done under the Policy.121

UK.92 Use of a proxy server or privacy service (under Condition 11 of Nominet’s Terms and

Conditions) does not of itself constitute evidence of an abusive registration. Nominet will hold the details of a registrant even if they have opted into the privacy service (see para UK.30), however false registered details can constitute abusive registration.122 If an agent is listed as the registrant, it will be deemed the proper respondent to any complaint, and may pass on the complaint to the rightful registrant, or represent the registrant themselves (see para UK.59).

(b) How the Respondent May Demonstrate in its Response that the Domain Name is not an Abusive Registration UK.93 Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Policy are very similar to para 4(b) and (c) of the UDRP in that they set out what may constitute evidence of an abusive registration and how a respondent may demonstrate in its response that the domain name is not an abusive registration. A respondent has to show that, before being aware of the complainants cause for action, either they were using or preparing to use the domain name in connection with a genuine offering of goods or services,123 or had been commonly known by the name or legitimately connected with a mark similar to the domain name,124 or made legitimate use or fair non-commercial use of the name. Again this is a non-exhaustive list. The respondent will also rebut the complaint if the domain name is held to be generic or descriptive,125 or if it is held consistently with a written agreement between the two parties. If the use is legitimate a request for an inflated price will not make the registration abusive if the domain name has value which is not connected with the complainant.126 UK.94 In a number of cases the domain name registration and use by the respondent has predated

the complainant’s trade mark registration or establishment of rights. Expert decisions have shown such a registration is unlikely to be found abusive, provided a respondent does not change his use of the website to take advantage of the complainant’s rights once he became aware of them.127 The panel summarized the position: The registration of domain names is still a first-come, first-served system and the Panel is reluctant to place any duty on a registrant, who has merely had the good fortune (or maybe ill fortune) to register a name in good faith, which subsequently, through no fault of his own, acquires notoriety, provided that he does nothing actively to exploit his position.

UK.95 It is fairly common that an authorized distributor of goods or services under a mark registers

a domain name which includes that mark. If the trade mark owner complains, often the matter will be settled in mediation (being mutually beneficial to both parties). If the complaint proceeds the respondent may demonstrate the registration is not abusive, depending on the strength of the evidence. If the distribution agreement allows for the registration of domains,

  Para 6(a)(ii).   Para 3(a)(iv) of the Policy. 123 DRS8387 Corporate Innovations v White Eagle (EU) Plc (‘freedom-card.co.uk’). 124 DRS08179 Republic Technologies (UK) Ltd v Michael Swan (‘swan.co.uk’). 125 DRS11001 Which? Ltd v Lead Technologies (Europe) Ltd (‘which-advisor.co.uk’). 126 DRS10492 Excalibur Communications GB Ltd v Safety Net Systems Ltd (‘excalibur.co.uk’). 127 DRS04962 Myspace Inc v Total Web Solutions Ltd (‘myspace.co.uk’); see also DRS10593 Box Clever Projects Ltd v Garth Piesse (‘workbox.co.uk’); DRS6222 David Robinson v Daniels Meyer (‘my-life.co.uk’). In DRS4683 Group 4 Securicor Plc v Harry Makings (‘g4s.co.uk’) the respondent had other domains containing the marks of third parties, but the registration in question was found to not to be part of that pattern. 121 122

966

III.  Alternative Dispute Resolution or the licensor consented,128 or if the respondent has been legitimately connected with the mark,129 or if the respondent has made fair use of the domain130 they may persuade the expert that no action be taken.131 On termination or expiry of the distribution agreement the registration is unlikely to be found non-abusive as the use going forward will be likely to confuse people or businesses into believing that the domain name is registered to, operated or authorized by, or otherwise connected with the complainant.132 It may be legitimate to refer to a trade mark in a domain name descriptively, to sell spare parts or goods, or to explain the services offered, but not if an unauthorized connection is suggested by the name, or website attached to it, or if the name is used to sell competing goods or services.133 Often the respondent may feel he has legitimate rights in the domain name. If he has a UK.96 trade mark, identical to the complainant’s (registered in a different class, or country) the respondent might rightly feel aggrieved at the complaint. However, the question is whether the domain in the hands of the respondent, is an abusive registration. As such provided the respondent is making legitimate commercial or non-commercial use of the domain, in connection with his own trade mark, the registration is unlikely to be found to be abusive.

(c) Tribute Sites and Criticism Sites Paragraph 4(a)(i)(C) of the Policy provides that a registration will not be abusive if, before UK.97 being made aware of the complainant’s rights or cause for action, a respondent ‘made legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name’. If the domain name is obviously unconnected to the complainant, the respondent is more likely to succeed,134 however the ‘fair use’ argument will often fail if there is any commercial activity connected with the domain.135 In Hannah-Barbera136 the expert found that it was the commercial activity connected with a domain which was identical to the trade mark that took it beyond a genuine fan site. In the absence of any commercial activity a respondent may be unlikely to be able to argue ‘fair use’ successfully if the domain name exactly matches the trade mark of the complainant.137 (d) Generic Terms Descriptive terms may be used freely as domain names, save to the extent that the use may UK.98 infringe the rights of others (eg constitute trade mark infringement or passing off) or otherwise be unlawful under general provisions of UK law.138

128 Para 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See DRS11955 Crumpler Serious GmbH v College Cameras Ltd (‘we-sell-crumpler.co.uk’). 129  Para 4(a)(i)(B) of the Policy. 130  Under para 4(a)(i)(C) of the Policy. 131  See DRS04864 Optek Music Systems Inc v InnIdeaz (‘fretlight.co.uk’). 132 DRS09662 Broadwood International v Mark Page (‘snowex.co.uk’). 133 DRS7991 Toshiba Corp. v Power Battery Inc (‘Toshiba-laptop-battery.co.uk’); DRS11286 RBS Group Plc v Graham Kenny (‘natwest-ppi-reclaim.co.uk’); DRS11743 H-D Michigan LLC v Brian Watson (‘harley-davidson-tours.co.uk’); and DRS11264 Last Minute Network Ltd v Last Minute Liverpool (‘lastminuteliverpool.co.uk’). 134 DRS08580 RTA (Business Consultants) Ltd v Dawn Burdett (‘rta-complaints.co.uk’). 135 DRS08527 Ryanair Ltd v Robert Tyler (‘Ihateryanair.co.uk’), but see also DRS11271 DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd v Sasha Rodoy (‘opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk’), where the respondent nevertheless kept the domain. 136 DRS00389 Hannah-Barbera Productions Inc v Graeme Hay (‘scoobydoo.co.uk’). 137 DRS06284 Rayden Engineering Ltd v Diane Charlton (‘Rayden-Engineering.co.uk’); but see DRS4285 Knights Lettings Ltd v Lyndon Watkins (‘knightslettings.co.uk’). 138  Musical Fidelity Ltd v David Vickers [2002] EWCA Civ 1989 ‘musicalfidelity.co.uk’; cf. Radio Taxi Cabs (London) Ltd v Owner Drivers Radio Taxi Services Ltd [2004] RPC 19 ‘radiotaxis.com’; and DRS01399 Loans. co.uk v Abbeyway Contracts Ltd (‘loan.co.uk’).

967

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) UK.99 The Nominet DRS Policy was updated in 2004 to allow for a complaint based on complain-

ants’ rights in respect of names or marks that are descriptive provided they can be shown to have acquired a secondary meaning.139

UK.100 A purely generic domain name can still be found to be abusive, however the threshold of

evidence required is likely to be much higher, as the respondent will be more likely to show the choice of domain name was a decision not based on knowledge and taking advantage of any previous rights.140 If the domain name is generic, use even in the face of knowledge of complainant’s rights may be legitimate.141

(e) Main Differences from the UDRP UK.101 Nominet’s DRS includes a number of important differences to the UDRP:

(a) The complainant’s rights are not restricted to trade mark or service mark rights. They may include other rights such as contractual rights or trusts.142 The complainant may be a private individual with personality rights143 or possibly even, in the case of a domain name which reproduces his or her name, a right not to be impersonated.144 The definition of ‘Rights’ leaves scope for including personality rights recognized in other jurisdictions and, no doubt, a variety of ‘human rights’.145 However, it does not include copyright or minority shareholder rights.146 (b) Once the parties’ submissions have been lodged, provided there is a response, Nominet will initiate informal mediation to attempt to resolve the matter without the need for an expert decision. (c) There is no strict requirement for confusing similarity between the domain name and the name or mark in which the complainant has rights. Showing similarity is enough. (d) There is no strict requirement for the complainant to show that the respondent has no legitimate rights in the name in order to bring a complaint (see para UK.56 above). (e) There is a specific provision for cybersquatting, even where the respondent has not done anything with the domain name147 (although this has been dealt with in the UDRP as bad faith through expert decisions). (f ) There is a specific provision that deals with false details as an abusive registration148 (in the UDRP this has been found to be bad faith in practice through expert decisions).

  Para 1 of the Policy—see definition of rights.  DRS04884 Maestro International Inc v Mark Adams (‘Maestro.co.uk’) provides a helpful discussion on this, see also DRS11795 Adventure Events Ltd v Neil Mclaren (‘adventureevents.co.uk’); DRS0228 Active Web Solutions v Peter Shaw (‘activewebsolutions.co.uk’); DRS4889 Wise Insurance Services Ltd v Tagnames Ltd (‘wiseinsurance.co.uk’); and DRS11946 Gillian Powell t/a wyevalleyproperties.com v Damien Crabtree (‘wyevalleyproperties.co.uk’); DRS 14391 Scrap Metal Grading v Alchemy Metals Ltd (‘scrapmetalgrading.co.uk’); all cases where the complainant failed to meet the burden. 141 DRS7388 Top Connect Ou v Paul Bridgeman (‘travelsim.co.uk’); see also DRS9177 Tiles Porcelain Ltd v Tile Ltd (‘buytiles.co.uk’). 142 DRS0442 1&1 Internet Ltd v SSL (‘1and1.co.uk’); see also DRS11348 Arrow Business Communications Ltd v Dave Giles (‘tmgtelecom.co.uk’). DRS04632 Daniel Munro v Celtic.com Inc (‘Ireland.co.uk’); DRS06935 Societe des Hotel Meridien v Sean Garrity (‘lemeridiendubai.co.uk’); DRS08861 Maxis Healthcare v Nasreen Azim (‘phlebotomy.org.uk’); DRS05782 Essex & Herts Air Ambulance Trust (‘essexairambulance.co.uk’). 143 DRS5718 Constance Briscoe v Jeroen Rodenberg (‘constancebriscoe.co.uk’); DRS03844 Stoneygate48 Ltd and Wayne Rooney v Huw Marshall (‘waynerooney.co.uk’). 144 DRS00693 Tahir Mohsan v Greg Bond (‘tahirmohsan.co.uk’). 145  European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, Art 1 of Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions) and Art 8 (right to respect for one’s private and family life). 146  DRS 14983 Amanda Vincent v Brittenden Ltd (‘whiteboxphotography.co.uk’ and ‘whiteboxphotographyuk.co.uk’). 147  Para 3(a)(iii) of the Policy. 148  Para 3(a)(iv) of the Policy. 139 140

968

IV.  Court Litigation (g) The Policy is intended to catch not merely those who had bad faith intentions at the time of registration of the domain name but also those who make abusive use of a domain name subsequent to registration. It is in this respect that the Policy can be said to deal with a wider category of case than the archetypal cybersquatter, such as cases where a respondent registers innocently, but then uses the registration abusively.149 (h) There is an additional ground specifically to deal with situations where a web designer refuses to transfer a domain over to the client who commissioned the website (para 3(a) (v) of the Policy). However, again in the UDRP this can be dealt with by experts as bad faith where appropriate through decisions.

(f ) Conclusion Generally, the DRS has been well received.150 Critics of domain name dispute resolution policies UK.102 use the high complainant success rate (around 78 per cent)151 as an indicator of bias in favour of rights owners. In the case of the Policy it is at least as likely that the statistic is indicative of the fact that the vast majority of complaints, which get past the mediation stage, are lodged in respect of abusive registrations, properly so called. In that regard it is worth noting that only about 27 per cent of valid complaints proceed through mediation for a decision from an expert.152 This is credit to the mediators’ success in resolving disputes without the need for expert adjudication. (12) The Advertising Standards Agency The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) is an independent regulator of advertising in the UK.103 UK,153 and it applies the Advertising Codes.154 It is a self-regulating system and most advertisers comply with ASA rulings. If those ruled upon do not comply, sanctions include ASA members withholding advertising space, pre-vetting of advertisements, bad publicity, referral to the Office of Fair Trading, and exclusion from entry to advertising awards. In the ASA’s ruling in Esta Visa Ltd t/a nhs-direct.org.uk155 a complaint about the domain UK.104 name ‘nhs-direct.org.uk’ was upheld as the domain name implied the advertiser was the UK National Health Service when it was not, and the advertisement was, therefore, misleading. The advertiser was told that the advertisement must not appear in the same form again. In the ASA’s ruling in Halliwell McGregor & Docherty t/a HM Deed Poll156 a complaint about a Google sponsored search result containing the domain name ‘hmdeedpoll.org.uk’ was upheld as the name implied that the advertiser was associated with, or endorsed by the government when it was not, and the advertisement was, therefore, misleading. The advertiser was told that the advertisement must not appear in the same form again.

IV.  Court Litigation (1) Specific Anticybersquatting Legislation An abusive registration does not of itself give rise to a discrete cause of action in court in the UK.105 UK. There is no special law devoted to the issue of abusive registrations of domain names or   Para 1(ii) of the Policy. See DRS0114 Penguin Books Ltd v Michael Cieplak (‘penquin.co.uk’).   In 2004 Nominet was awarded the CEDR Industry Award of Excellence in ADR. 151  Nominet statistics, as of May 2015. 152  Nominet statistics, as of May 2015. 153  http://www.asa.org.uk. 154 See http://cap.org.uk/advertising-codes.aspx. 155 See http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2011/12/Esta-Visa-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_174864.aspx#. VVsDgEbCbis. 156 See http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/7/Halliwell-McGregor-and-Docherty/SHP_ ADJ_226468.aspx#.VWSUu89VhBc. 149 150

969

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) ‘cybersquatting’.157 As with any other domain name dispute, the areas of law generally and most commonly applicable in the UK are trade mark infringement and passing off. UK.106 The first cybersquatting case to come before the English Courts was Harrods Ltd v UK

Network Services & Others.158 The defendant, an Englishman, had registered ‘harrods.com’ and was offering the domain name for sale over the Internet via a US Internet service provider. The action was undefended. The court held that the registration and offer for sale constituted infringement of the claimant’s registered trade mark, ‘Harrods’.

UK.107 The leading UK case involving the activities of cybersquatters is the case of British

Telecommunications Plc and Others v One In A  Million Ltd and Others.159 This case was a group of five applications for summary judgment in five combined trade mark infringement and passing off actions. They were heard at the same time. The case has been followed to varying degrees in several other common law jurisdictions. It has achieved sufficient notoriety to warrant a reasonably detailed analysis.

UK.108 The defendants (there were five of them, three individuals and two companies through which

the individuals operated) were archetypal cybersquatters. They registered domain names featuring the famous trade marks of others, without the consent of the trade mark owners, hoping to derive a profit by selling the domain names for substantial sums of money to the trade mark owners.

UK.109 The claimants in the actions were five well-known trade mark owners in the United Kingdom.

British Telecommunications Plc (commonly known as ‘BT’), J Sainsbury Plc, Marks & Spencer Plc, Virgin Enterprises Ltd, and Ladbroke Plc, respectively suing in relation to inter alia the domain names ‘bt.org’, ‘j-sainsbury.com’, ‘marksandspencer.com’, ‘virgin.org’, and ‘ladbrokes.com’. The facts were to a large extent not in dispute. The defendants accepted that the claimants’ names were well-known brand names used by the claimants in the course of their business.

UK.110 The defendants also accepted that those names were registered trade marks owned by the

claimants. However, they claimed that their registration and use of those names as domain names did not give rise to any liability. In particular, they denied that they had in any way threatened to do anything unlawful. They admitted to having registered the names with a view to selling them to the claimants at a profit and to selling them to anyone else with a legitimate interest for using them.

UK.111 At first instance, the judge analyzed the factual position in the following manner:

For a dealer in Internet domain names there are in principle only four uses to which the name can be put. The first and most obvious is that it may be sold to the enterprise whose name or trademark has been used, which may be prepared to pay a high price to avoid the inconvenience of there being a domain name comprising its own name or trademark which is not under its control. Secondly, it may be sold to a third party unconnected with the name, so that he may try to sell it to the company whose name is being used, or else use it for the purposes of deception. Thirdly, it may be sold to someone with a distinct interest of his own in the name, for example a solicitor by the name of John Sainsbury or the Government of the British Virgin Islands, with a view to its use by him. Fourthly, it may be retained by the dealer unused and unsold, in which case it serves only to block the use of that name as a registered domain name by others, including those whose names or trademark it comprises.

  See para UK.51 for how this relates to the DRS.   Ch (Lightman J) transcript 9 December 1996. 159  [1999] 1 WLR 903; [1999] FSR 1. 157 158

970

IV.  Court Litigation Subsequently on appeal the court found that the defendants had registered the UK.112 domain names in issue with all those forms of use in mind. However, the question still remained: does that constitute passing off or trade mark infringement? The defendants pointed out that while the claimants may have been the best known users of the trade marks upon which the action was based, there were others with an interest in the names. For example, there are a number of individuals with the surnames ‘Sainsbury’ and ‘Ladbroke’ and there are companies other than Virgin Enterprises Ltd which have Virgin in their names. There are a number of individuals whose initials are ‘B.T.’. On that basis, the defendants asserted that the names were not inherently deceptive. In relation to all the names (including ‘marksandspencer.com’ which could only sensibly refer to Marks & Spencer Plc) the defendants argued that mere registration could not of itself constitute passing off. Further, they argued that there was nothing to suggest that they were going to use the domain names in any relevant trade mark sense. They were simply going to sell them or, if they were unable to sell them, they would sit on them. Accordingly, there was no threat to do anything unlawful. The judge at first instance granted summary judgment for both passing off and trade mark UK.113 infringement on the basis of the threat to pass off and to infringe. He granted negative injunctions to restrain passing off and trade mark infringement and he granted mandatory injunctions requiring the defendants to transfer the domain names to the claimants. He concluded: The history of the defendants’ activities shows a deliberate practice followed over a substantial period of time of registering domain names which are chosen to resemble the names and marks of other people and are plainly intended to deceive. The threat of passing-off and trademark infringement and the likelihood of confusion arising from the infringement of the mark are made out beyond argument in this case, even if it is possible to imagine other cases in which the issue would be more nicely balanced.

The defendants appealed, but to no avail. The judgment of the court was given by Aldous UK.114 LJ. His judgment is of particular interest in that he reviews at length the law of passing off in so far as it concerns instruments of fraud. His concluding analysis on this topic was as follows: In my view there can be discerned from the cases a jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief where a defendant is equipped with or is intending to equip another with an instrument of fraud. Whether any name is an instrument of fraud will depend upon all the circumstances. A name which will, by reason of its similarity to the name of another, inherently lead to passing off is such an instrument. If it would not inherently lead to passing off, it does not follow that it is not an instrument of fraud. The court should consider the similarity of the names, the intention of the defendant, the type of trade and all the surrounding circumstances. If it be the intention of the defendant to appropriate the goodwill of another or enable others to do so, I can see no reason why the court should not infer that it will happen, even if there is a possibility that such an appropriation would not take place. If, taking all the circumstances into account the court should conclude that the name was produced to enable passing off, is adapted to be used for passing off and, if used, is likely to be fraudulently used, an injunction will be appropriate.

It follows that a court will intervene by way of injunction in passing-off cases in three types of case. First, where there is passing off established or it is threatened. Secondly, where the defendant is a joint tortfeasor with another in passing off either actual or threatened. Thirdly, where the defendant has equipped himself with or intends to equip another with an instrument of fraud. This third type is probably mere quia timet action.

971

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) UK.115 Following that analysis he concluded that all the domain names in issue were instruments of

fraud.160 He came to this conclusion on the basis that:

The trade names were well-known ‘household names’ denoting in ordinary usage the respective respondent. The appellants registered them without any distinguishing word because of the goodwill attaching to those names. It was the value of that goodwill, not the fact that they could perhaps be used in some way by a third party without deception, which caused them to register the names. The motive of the appellants was to use that goodwill and threaten to sell it to another who might use it for passing off to obtain money from the respondents. The value of the names lay in the threat that they would be used in a fraudulent way. The registrations were made with the purpose of appropriating the respondents’ property, their goodwill, and with an intention of threatening dishonest use by them or another. The registrations were instruments of fraud and injunctive relief was appropriate just as much as it was in those cases where persons registered company names for a similar purpose. UK.116 In relation to the Marks & Spencer domain names (there were several of them in issue) he

found passing off on an additional basis. He singled those domain names out from the rest. Unlike the others, these names could only sensibly refer to the relevant claimant (that is, Marks & Spencer Plc): It follows that registration by the appellants of a domain name including the name Marks & Spencer makes a false representation that they are associated or connected with Marks & Spencer Plc. This can be demonstrated by considering the reaction of a person who taps into his computer the domain name marksandspencer.co.uk and presses a button to execute a WHOIS search. He will be told that the registrant is One In A Million Limited. A substantial number of persons will conclude that One In A Million Limited must be connected or associated with Marks & Spencer Plc. That amounts to a false representation which constitutes passing off.

UK.117 It is that paragraph of the judgment which has perhaps added most significantly to the trade

mark owner’s armoury. The mere fact of registration itself constitutes passing off in light of the misrepresentation evident from a WHOIS search. This was re-confirmed in the Vertical Leisure161 case and the Citigroup case162 (at para 40): The mere registration and maintenance in force of a domain name which leads, or may lead, people to believe that the holder of the domain is linked with a person (e.g. Marks & Spencer or British Telecom, or, I would add, Citigroup) is enough to make the domain name an ‘instrument of fraud’ and it is passing off.

UK.118 As to trade mark infringement, the claim was ultimately restricted to infringement under

s 10(3) of the 1994 Act163 on the basis that what the defendants were threatening to do was without due cause and took unfair advantage of and was detrimental to the distinctive character and repute of the trade marks.

UK.119 As indicated, the defendants asserted that they had neither used nor threatened to use any of

the domain names in any trade mark sense. Aldous LJ disagreed:

The appellants seek to sell the domain names which are confusingly similar to registered trademarks. The domain names indicate origin. That is the purpose for which they were registered. Further they will be used in relation to the services provided by the registrant who trades in domain names.

160 See Aegis Defence Services v Stoner [2006] EWHC 1515 Ch where this analysis helped the claimant get an injunction where such a domain name was being used in breach of confidence. 161  Vertical Leisure Ltd v Poleplus Ltd, Martin Bowley [2014] EWHC 2077 (IPEC). 162  Global Project Management Ltd v Citigroup Inc [2005] EWHC 2663. 163  Equivalent to the CTMR Art 9(1)(c).

972

IV.  Court Litigation Mr Wilson also submitted that it had not been established that the contemplated use would take unfair advantage of, or was detrimental to the distinctive character or reputation of the respondents’ trade marks. He is wrong. The domain names were registered to take advantage of the distinctive character and reputation of the marks. That is unfair and detrimental.

By doing this the court was making the ‘use in the course of trade’ the trade in domain names itself. This was also confirmed in the Citigroup case.164 However, it is worth noting that Judge Hacon in the IPEC case of Vertical Leisure Ltd v UK.120 Poleplus Ltd, expressed some doubt over the decisions in One in a Million and Citigroup so far as their application to trade mark infringement under s 10(3) of the 1994 Act is concerned165 because of the decision in the Celine166 and L’Oreal167 cases. Vertical Leisure concerned an application for summary judgment, during which there was no time for a full review of the law. However, the court was unwilling to reach any conclusions on the claimants’ trade mark infringement case without hearing further contentions regarding the applicable law and, specifically, whether One in a Million still represented the current legal position. The application for summary judgment was granted in part on the basis of passing off and this element of the One in a Million decision undoubtably remains established. We await a full review of how s 10(3) of the 1994 Act now applies to domain name trading, post Celine168 and L’Oreal.169

(2) Trade Mark Infringement and Passing Off (a) Trade Mark Infringement (i) Introduction  By virtue of s 9 of the 1994 Act registration of a trade mark at the UK UK.121 Trade Marks Registry gives to the registered proprietor the exclusive right to the use of that trade mark in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered. ‘Trade mark’ is defined in s 1 of the 1994 Act170 as meaning ‘any sign capable of being rep- UK.122 resented graphically, which is capable of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings’. The section goes on to provide that a trade mark may consist of inter alia words (including personal names) and letters and numerals. Domain names are capable of being registered as trade marks171 as are alphanumeric telephone numbers.172 Infringement occurs where an unauthorized third party uses in the course of trade the same UK.123 or a similar mark in relation to the same or similar goods or services for which the trade mark in question is registered. In circumstances where the marks and/or goods and services are similar, but not identical, infringement will only occur if there is confusion or a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public173 (s 10(1) and (2) of the 1994 Act174).

  Global Project Management Ltd v Citigroup Inc [2005] EWHC 2663.  See Vertical Leisure Ltd v Poleplus Ltd, Martin Bowley [2014] EWHC 2077 (IPEC) paras 16–18. 166  Celine Sarl v Celine SA (C-17/06) [2007] ETMR 80. 167  L'Oreal SA v Bellure NV (C-487/07) [2009] ETMR 55. 168 Ibid., 171. 169 Ibid., 172. 170  Equivalent to the CTMR Art 4. 171  Examples include ‘egg.com’, ‘easyjet.com’, and ‘harrypotter.co.uk’. 172  For the registrability of alpha-numeric telephone numbers see 1-800 Flowers Inc v Phone-names Ltd [2000] FSR 697; trade marks registered in the UK include ‘888.com’. 173 See Lloyd Shuhfabrik Mayer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV C-342/97[1999] All ER (EC) 587; [1999] ECR I-3891; O2 Holdings Ltd & Another v Hutchison 3G UK Ltd C-533/06 [2008] ECR I-4231; Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1294; Maier & Another v Asos Plc & Another [2015] EWCA Civ 220. 174  Equivalent to the CTMR Arts 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b). 164 165

973

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) UK.124 Section 10(3)175 makes provision for a further category of infringement, namely where the

registered trade mark has a reputation176 and the unauthorized third party’s use of it or a mark similar to it is without due cause177 and takes advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.178 This form of infringement does not call for proof of confusion or a likelihood of confusion.179 The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) set out the test for the ‘link’ which is required in a customer’s mind, the extent to which a trade mark’s earlier distinctive character is relevant in this context and the effect on the customer’s economic behaviour which is required to show this category of infringement in the Intel case.180 In Jack Wills Ltd v House of Fraser the High Court made it clear that there was no need to establish evidence of actual change in the behaviour of the defendant’s customers; logical deductions could be made as to the serious risk of such detriment founded on ‘an analysis of the probabilities and by taking account of the normal practice in the relevant commercial sector as well as all the other circumstances of the case’181 as long as they were not mere supposition.182 The general approach taken to cases under Article 9(1)(c) of CTMR (equivalent of s 10(3) of the 1994 Act) was also helpfully outlined by the Court of Appeal in Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd.183 For the purpose of claims made under s 10(3), a mark with a reputation means a trade mark known by a significant part of the relevant public in a substantial part of the Member State concerned.184 Well-known marks are dealt with separately elsewhere in both the 1994 Act and the Trade Marks Directive (see para UK.126 below).

UK.125 Before launching a trade mark infringement action the trade mark owner would do well

to check the vulnerability of the trade mark registration to an attack as to its validity.185 Counterclaims for revocation are a common response to trade mark infringement actions.186 It should be noted that UK courts will not hear a counterclaim for revocation of a Community trade mark as part of an infringement case if the counterclaim would not act as a defence to the infringement claim (ie if the counterclaim is for non-use in a class different to that on which the infringement claim is based).187

UK.126 Section 56(2) of the 1994 Act provides limited scope for a proprietor of a mark which is

entitled to protection under the Paris Convention or the WTO Agreement as a well-known mark to restrain by injunction any unauthorized use of that mark or anything similar to it where the use is likely to cause confusion. A significant aspect of this form of relief is that the   Equivalent to the CTMR Art 9(1)(c).   General Motors Corporation v Yplon SA (C-375/97) [1999] All ER (EC) 865; [2000] RPC 572. 177 See Leidseplein Beheer BV v Red Bull GmbH (C-65/12) [2014] ETMR 24 for guidance on the meaning of ‘due cause’ within Art 5(2) of Directive 89/104 in relation to use by a third party, before a trade mark with a reputation was filed, of a sign similar to that mark. 178  L’Oreal SA v Bellure NV (C-487/07) [2009] ETMR 55; Maier & Another v Asos Plc & Another [2015] EWCA Civ 220. 179  Adidas-Salomon AG and Adidas Benelux BV v Fitnessworld Trading Ltd (C-408/01) [2003] ECR I-12537; [2004] ETMR 10. 180 See Intel Corporation Inc v CPM UK Ltd (C-252/07) [2009] RPC 15; see also Electrocoin Automatic Ltd v Coinworld Ltd and Others [2004] EWHC 1498 Ch. 181  Environmental Manufacturing LLP v OHIM [2013] EUECJ C-383/12 para 43. 182 See Jack Wills Ltd v House of Fraser [2014] EWHC 110 (Ch) paras 8184, applying Environmental Manufacturing LLP v OHIM [2013] EUECJ C-383/12. 183 See Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 24, paras 118–141. 184  General Motors Corporation v Yplon SA (C-375/97) [1999] All ER (EC) 865; [2000] RPC 572; PAGO International (Intellectual property) [2009] EUECJ C-301/07 [2009] ECR I-9429. 185  Trade Marks Act 1994, ss 46 and 47, equivalent to the CTMR Arts 51 and 52. 186  Avnet Incorporated v Isoact Ltd 1998 FSR 16; Maier & Another v Asos Plc & Another [2015] EWCA Civ 220. 187  Adobe Systems Inc v Netcom Distributors and Others [2012] EWHC 1087 Ch. 175 176

974

IV.  Court Litigation section applies whether or not the trade mark owner carries on business or has a goodwill in the United Kingdom.188 The scope for protection is limited in the sense that UK nationals are precluded from seeking the benefit of the section unless they are resident, domiciled, or have a commercial base in a Convention country.189 In practice it is seldom used.

(ii)  Use in the Course of Trade  What constitutes ‘use’ for these purposes?190 Common UK.127 uses include the affixing of the mark to goods and their packaging, offering goods or services for sale by way of advertisements and other promotional and business literature under and by reference to the mark, selling or supplying goods or services under the mark (for example, invoices). Use of the mark as or as part of a corporate or business name can qualify, as can use as or as part of a domain name. Use of a domain name to connect to a website advertising, promoting and/or offering for sale goods or services in the United Kingdom191 will be treated by the courts in the same way as the use of a shop name or business name for the same purposes.192 It will usually be regarded as use of that name in relation to those goods or services within the meaning of s 10 of the 1994 Act.193 Therefore, if the potentially infringing domain were connected purely to a parking site or a construction website per se it would not constitute ‘trade mark use’ for the purposes of the 1994 Act. If, however, the page attached to the domain name contained PPC advertising links (generating revenue for the registrant), or redirected the user to an alternative webpage offering third-party goods or services (causing confusion or taking unfair advantage or causing detriment to a well-known mark’s reputation) this could constitute ‘use in the course of trade’ for the purposes of s 10(1), 10(2), or 10(3) as applicable.194 ‘Use in the course of trade’ regularly arises as an issue when dealing with domain name UK.128 dealers, who do not use their domain names in any ordinary sense, but simply store them. If no commercial use is made of the domain name, can the registrant be said to be ‘using in the course of trade’ for the purposes of the 1994 Act? The English courts have previously taken the line that the mere registration of a domain name could only constitute trade mark infringement if it is in the course of domain name dealing for commercial purposes. In British Telecommunications Plc and Others v One in a Million and Others195 the court found trade mark infringement under s 10(3) of the 1994 Act196 as the use in the course of trade was domain name dealing, and the domain name dealing took unfair advantage of the distinctive character and reputation of the trade marks. Section 10(1) and (2)197 were not relevant, as the domains had not been used, except for domain name dealing, and so the use of the trade marks in the domain names was not in relation to any identical or similar goods or services for which the trade marks were registered. However since s 10(3) can cover use in relation to dissimilar goods and services it was still relevant to the business of domain name dealing. As

188 See Starbucks (HK) Ltd and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others [2015] UKSC 31, para 64, where Lord Neuberger commented that s 56 of the 1994 Act could offer claimants protection where a claim for passing off is precluded due to a lack of customers present in the United Kingdom. 189  Trade Marks Act 1994, s 55(1)(b). 190  Trade Marks Act 1994, s 10(4), equivalent to the CTMR Art 9(2). 191  See para UK.222 below where the possibility that a website not directly offering goods and services to the UK may fall under UK jurisdiction. 192  Asprey and Garrard Ltd v WRA (Guns) Ltd [2002] FSR 31, BT Plc v One In a Million Ltd [1999] FSR1; see paras UK.107–UK.120 above. 193  Equivalent to the CTMR Art 9(1)(a). 194  Equivalent to the CTMR Art 9(1)(a) to (c). 195  British Telecommunications Plc v One in a Million and Others [1999] 1 WLR 903; [1999] FSR 1 at p 25. 196  Equivalent to the CTMR Art 9(1)(c). 197  Equivalent to the CTMR Art 9(1)(a) and (b).

975

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) mentioned at para UK.120 above, doubt has been cast over this aspect of the decision in One in a Million.198 However, a full review of the decision is yet to take place. UK.129 Some unauthorized use of a trade mark is acceptable. Section 10(6) of the 1994 Act permits

third-party use of a registered trade mark to indicate the goods and services of the owner of that mark, provided it is in accordance with honest business practices and is not detrimental to the mark or does not take unfair advantage. For example, if a third-party website was using a mark for the purposes of political or consumer information, or product criticism, it could benefit from this section.199 However, if a domain name is not using the trade mark to indicate the goods or services of the proprietor, and is being used in a non-commercial and non-confusing way; it may still be actionable under s 10(3) if this is in connection with any domain name dealing.200 Under s 11(2)201 and (3)202 a trade mark is also not infringed by use by a person of their real name or address or any use indicating certain characteristics of the goods including the kind, quality, quantity, geographical origin, or purpose (as an accessory or spare parts) of the goods provided this accords with honest commercial practices (see paras UK.141 and UK.142 below). Again, use in relation to cybersquatting is not likely to be considered as such.203

UK.130 (iii)  Trade mark Use  Under the 1994 Act pursuant to a decision of the CJEU a trade

mark right can be enforced where the trade mark’s use does not indicate origin, provided a third party’s use of the sign affects or is liable to affect the functions of the trade mark, in particular its essential function of guaranteeing to consumers the origin of the goods.204 In Arsenal the defendant had argued that his application of the Arsenal Football Club trade marks to clearly labelled unofficial merchandise was not use indicating origin of the goods, but rather badges of support. The High Court considered the infringement claim could only succeed if the 1994 Act and the Directive were interpreted widely, to prohibit use by a third party other than trade mark use. The CJEU considered that the Directive was drafted to protect the essential functions of a trade mark, that being the ability to guarantee the origin of any goods bearing the mark. That being the case, the relevant consideration was not whether the use of the trade mark designated the origin of the goods, but whether the use affected the essential function of the mark. It was held that the use complained of would jeopardize the proprietor’s ability to guarantee origin of the goods.

UK.131 In the House of Lords case of R v Johnstone,205 their lordships found that use other than use as

to origin was not caught by the infringement sections of s 10(1) to (3), after considering the CJEU decision in Arsenal.206 Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in para 13 of his speech affirmed: It indicates trade source: a connection in the course of trade between the goods and the proprietor of the mark. That is its function. Hence the exclusive rights granted to the proprietor 198  Vertical Leisure Ltd v Poleplus Ltd, Martin Bowley [2014] EWHC 2077 (IPEC); Celine Sarl v Celine SA (C-17/06) [2007] ETMR 80; L’Oreal SA v Bellure NV (C-487/07) [2009] ETMR 55. 199  However, s 10(6) is now considered by some commentators partly obsolete because of the Comparative Advertising Directive 97/55/EC. In O2 Holding v Hutchinson [2006] EWCA Civ 1656 Jacobs J called for s 10(6) to be repealed on the basis that it adds nothing in light of the Comparative Advertising Directive. 200  See paras UK.118–UK.120 above. 201  Equivalent to the CTMR Art 12. 202  Equivalent to the CTMR Art 111. 203 See Antoni Fields v Klaus Kobec Ltd & Another [2006] EWHC 350 Ch for a case where this own name defence failed in relation to use of domain names. 204  Arsenal FC v Matthew Reed (C-206/01) [2003] Ch 454: [2002] ETMR 227. 205  R v Johnstone [2003] UKHL 28; [2003] 1 WLR 1736. 206  Arsenal FC v Matthew Reed (C-206/01) [2003] Ch 454: [2002] ETMR 227; See also discussion by Geoffrey Hobbs QC (sitting as Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division) in Electrocoin Automatic Ltd v Coinworld Ltd and Others [2004] EWHC 1498 Ch.

976

IV.  Court Litigation of a registered trademark are limited to use of a mark likely to be taken as an indication of trade origin. Use of this character is an essential prerequisite to infringement. Use of a mark in a manner not indicative of trade origin of goods or services does not encroach upon the proprietor’s monopoly rights …

However, the debate in Europe as to whether use as to origin still survives in a different form UK.132 in the Arsenal test,207 and whether third-party use which affects or is liable to affect the functions of a trade mark is sufficient, has continued.208 More recent CJEU cases have decided that the other functions of a mark can be protected, UK.133 particularly in the context of use of an identical mark in relation to identical goods, not only the origin function but also the functions of advertising, investment, communication, and guarantee of quality.209 In Interflora the CJEU commented that use by a third party of an identical mark in relation to identical goods, which ‘substantially interferes with the proprietor’s use of its trade mark to acquire or preserve a reputation capable of attracting consumers and retaining their loyalty, the third party’s use must be regarded as adversely affecting the trade mark’s investment function’.210 The implications of these decisions have not yet been fully worked out. However, in February 2014 the High Court ruled that Amazon.co.uk had infringed the origin, advertising and investment functions of Lush’s trade mark when it suggested to users of its internal search engine, and in sponsored search results displayed in Google’s search index that ‘Lush’ goods were for sale on its site when in fact they were not.211

(iv)  Use in the UK  Traditionally under the 1994 Act infringing use must occur within UK.134 the UK. This may not always be easy to determine in relation to Internet usage.212 The issue arose in the case of Euromarket Designs Inc v Peters.213 Jacob J, quoting from his judgment in the earlier case of 1–800 Flowers TM214 had this to say: For trademark laws to intrude where a website owner is not intending to address the world but only a local clientele and where anyone seeing the site would so understand him would be absurd. So I think that the mere fact that websites can be accessed anywhere in the world does not mean, for trademark purposes, that the law should regard them as being used everywhere in the world. It all depends upon the circumstances, particularly the intention of the website owner and what the reader will understand if he accesses the site.

In V&S Vin & Sprit AB v Absolut Beach Pty Ltd,215 the defendant had a website based in UK.135 Australia but was nonetheless found to have used their Australian trade mark ‘Absolut Beachwear’ in the UK, by virtue of a number of factors, including prices available on the website in sterling, the willingness of the company to deliver to the UK and their encouragement of repeat business. This was not an example of a passive website merely accessible in the UK, but rather a website actively encouraging business from and therefore operating in   Arsenal FC v Matthew Reed (C-206/01) [2003] Ch 454: [2002] ETMR 227.  See Dawson, N.M. ‘Non-trade Mark Use’ [2012] 4 IPQ 204-226. See also Anheuser-Busch v Budejovicky Budvar Case (C-245/02) [2005] ETMR 27; Adam Opel AG v Autec AG (C-48/05) [2007] ECR I-1017; Céline Sarl v Céline SA (C-17/06) [2007] ECR I-7071; Datacard Corp v Eagle Technologies Ltd [2011] EWHC 244; Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 24. 209  L’Oréal SA and Others v Bellure NV and Others (C-487) [2009] ECR I-5185; Google France Sarl v Louis Vuitton Malletier (C-236/08) [2011] All ER (EC) 411; [2010] ETMR 30; Interflora v Marks and Spencer (C-323/09) [2012] ETMR 1; [2013] ETMR 35; Portakabin Ltd and Portakabin BV v Primakabin BV (C-558/08) [2010] ETMR 52. 210  Interflora v Marks and Spencer (C-323/09) [2012] ETMR 1, para 62. 211  Cosmetic Warriors Ltd v Amazon.co.uk Ltd [2014] EWHC 181. 212  For a more detailed analysis of the territorial issues, see para UK.230 et seq, below. 213  [2001] FSR 20; [2000] ETMR 1025. 214  1-800 Flowers Inc v Phonenames Ltd [2001] ETMR 1028. 215  [2001] All ER (D) 199. 207 208

977

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) the UK.216 These principles were confirmed in Dearlove v Coombs.217 Recent European cases touch on what may constitute use.218 UK.136 (v)  Likelihood of Confusion  What sort of confusion is relevant? The traditional variety

of confusion for trade mark infringement purposes is the mistaken belief by members of the relevant public that the unauthorized third party or his goods or services are in some way associated with the trade mark owner (traditionally also passing off) or the likelihood of such confusion.219 As indicated above, domain names may readily be used in such a fashion, whether it is by way of prominent use in advertisements or to connect to a website dealing in the same or similar goods or services as those dealt in by the trade mark owner.220

UK.137 The test applied by the UK courts221 is the well-established test laid down by a series of

CJEU decisions, including Sabel v Puma,222 Canon v MGM,223 and Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v Klijsen Handel.224 The issue will be assessed globally, taking into account all relevant factors, including the degree of similarity of the marks (for which there is no minimum, if some similarity is shown225), the degree of similarity of the relevant goods/services, the likely perception of the marks in the minds of the average consumer for such goods/services and the degree of distinctiveness of the claimant’s trade mark. Another manifestation of this type of confusion may be the misdirection of e-mail traffic, a not uncommon phenomenon. The sender of the e-mail assumes that ‘trademark.co.uk’ is the domain name of the trade mark owner and sends e-mails to ‘[email protected]’.226

UK.138 But what is the position if the registrant is making no use whatever of the domain name in

issue? How can non-use be said to be likely to cause confusion? There is scope for arguing that the mere registration of a domain name is likely to deceive internet users into conducting WHOIS searches. The argument is that on seeing the name of the registrant as the proprietor of the domain name, the visitor to the WHOIS database will assume that the registrant is in some way associated with the trade mark owner. In the context of passing off, the English courts have to date accepted this as a viable argument.227 In Global Projects Management Ltd v Citigroup Inc the application of these principles was confirmed228 by Park J at para 40: The mere registration and maintenance in force of a domain name which leads, or may lead, people to believe that the holder of the domain is linked with a person (e.g. Marks & Spencer or British Telecom, or, I would add, Citigroup) is enough to make the domain a potential ‘instrument of fraud’, and it is passing off.

  Osborne, D, V&S Vin & Spirit AB v Absolut Beach Pty Ltd [2004] ECL Rep, 1(4), 3.   [2008] EMLR 2 (see para UK.233 below). 218  Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH (Case C-523/10) [2012] ETMR 31. 219  Julius Sämann Ltd & Others v Tetrosyl Ltd [2006] EWHC 529 (Ch). 220 See First Conference Services & Another v Richard Bracchi & Another [2009] EWHC 2176 Ch (although that was a passing off case). 221  Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1294; Maier & Another v Asos Plc & Another [2015] EWCA Civ 220. 222  Sabel BV v Puma AG (C251/95); Sabel BV v Rudolf Dassler Sport [1998] RPC 199. 223  Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro Goldwyn Mayer Inc (C-39/97) [1998] All ER (EC) 934; [1999] RPC 117. 224  Lloyd Shuhfabrik Mayer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV (C-342/97) [1999] All ER (EC) 587; [1999] ECR I-3891. 225  eSure Insurance v Direct Line Insurance [2008] ETMR 77 CA (per Arden LJ at para 49). 226 See Global Project Management Ltd v Citigroup Inc [2005] EWHC 2663; see also Dixons Group Plc v Triton Tek Ltd Ch (Ferris J) transcript 2 December 1997 and Computer Futures Recruitment Consultants Ltd v Stylemode Data Ltd & Another [2000] WL 3328 1329, where in particular damage is discussed. 227  Originating in British Telecommunications Plc v One in a Million Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 903; [1999] FSR 1 at p 23. 228  [2005] EWHC 2663 see para 43. 216 217

978

IV.  Court Litigation Although there was no evidence of use of the domain name ‘citigroup.co.uk’, no offer to sell and no history of cybersquatting, intention to obtain a domain name which carried the potential threat of deception was inferred from the timing of the registration (registered on the very day the formation of Citigroup was publicly announced).229 It is sometimes argued by trade mark owners (particularly complainants in dispute resolu- UK.139 tion policy cases) that a would-be visitor to the complainant’s website, using the domain name after the ‘www.’ prefix finding no active site would assume (wrongly) that the trade mark owner is backward in its information technology capability and has no active website. However, this would not be assumed by a UK court without cogent supporting evidence.230 Finally, on a quia timet basis, an action can be launched on the back of the threat that the registrant or a purchaser from him will in the future use the domain name and that in that event confusion will inevitably result. That argument succeeded in BT v One In A Million.231

(vi) Defences  Not all unauthorized uses of a mark constitute trade mark infringement. UK.140 A defence of comparative advertising can be established under The Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008.232 Section 10(6) of the 1994 Act also permits fair use of a registered trade mark to indicate the goods and services of the owner of that mark.233 Section 11(1) of the 1994 Act provides that the use of a UK registered trade mark in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered, cannot infringe another registered trade mark, making an application for invalidity currently a prerequisite to a finding of infringement of another mark.234 However, there is no corresponding provision in the Council Regulations on CTMs and s 11(1) of the 1994 Act is not harmonized with EU law on this point.235 Section 11(2)236 and (3)237 provide for other defences; for example, honest use by a person of his own name and address,238 honest descriptive use, honest use to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service (eg as an accessory). It should be noted that these defences are not ordinarily available where the defendant’s activ- UK.141 ity complained of leads to passing off. However, in assessing what are and what are not honest practices, it is for the court to carry out an overall assessment of all the circumstances and in particular to assess whether the defendant ‘might be regarded as unfairly competing with 229  While passing off was established, the absence of any ‘use in the course of trade’ by the defendants prevented the establishment of trade mark infringement under s 10(3) of the 1994 Act. ‘Use in the course of trade’ has been established in past UK cases by activity involving the buying and selling of domain names. Cf. Global Project Management Ltd v Citigroup Inc [2005] EWHC 2663 and British Telecommunications Plc v One in a Million Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 903; [1999] FSR 1. However, see Vertical Leisure Ltd v Poleplus Ltd, Martin Bowley [2014] EWHC 2077 (IPEC) for whether a review of this is due in the light of Celine Sarl v Celine SA (C-17/06) [2007] ETMR 80 and L’Oreal SA v Bellure NV (C-487/07) [2009] ETMR 55. 230  MBNA America Bank NA & Another v Stephen Freeman [2001] EBLR 13 Ch. 231  British Telecommunications Plc v One in a Million Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 903; [1999] FSR 1 p 2; see para UK.114 above. 232  S.I. 1276 which enacts Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising. 233 See Tesco Stores Ltd v Elogicom Ltd [2006] EWHC 403 Ch where use to drive traffic to the site of the owner of the trade mark used in the domain name to earn commission failed to pass the honest practices test necessary to maintain this defence. See n 204 on the effectiveness of s 10(6) of the Act. 234 See Federacion Cynologique Internationale v Federacion Canina Internacional de Pura Raza (C-561/11) [2013] ETMA 23 for the position for CTMs. 235  Ibid; Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community Trade Mark. See Fédération Cynologique Internationale v Federación Canina Internacional de Perros de Pura Raza Case C-561/11. 236  Equivalent to the CTMR Art 12. 237  Equivalent to the CTMR Art 111. 238  Asprey & Garrard v WRA (Guns) Ltd [2002] FSR 31 CA; Maier & Another v Asos Plc & Another [2015] EWCA Civ 220. See also Antoni Fields v Klaus Kobec Ltd & Another [2006] EWHC 350 Ch for a case where this own name defence failed in relation to use of domain names.

979

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) the proprietor of the trademark’.239 Commenting on this in Reed Executive plc & Anor v Reed Business Information Ltd & Ors,240 Jacob LJ had this to say: The amount of confusion which can be tolerated is a question of degree—only if objectively what he does, in all the circumstances, amounts to unfair competition, will there also be infringement. In practice there would have to be significant actual deception—mere possibilities of confusion, especially where ameliorated by other surrounding circumstances … can be within honest practices. No doubt in some cases where a man has set out to cause confusion by using his name he will be outside the defence—in others he may be within it if he has taken reasonable precautions to reduce confusion. All will turn on the overall circumstances of the case.

The Asos case241 is an example of where such a defence succeeded. UK.142 (vii)  Threats Sufficient to Ground Claims of Trade Mark Infringement  Before leaving

the topic of trade mark infringement, reference needs to be made to the threats provisions contained in s 21 of the 1994 Act. In certain circumstances, a threat to institute trade mark infringement proceedings can give rise to a claim against the person making the threat entitling the person threatened to an injunction and damages. This occurred in the case of the ‘prince.com’ domain name.242 In that case, a letter from a US law firm written on behalf of the well-known US tennis racquet manufacturer alleged that the claimant, Prince plc, a small UK IT services company, in operating a website at www.prince.com was infringing inter alia the US company’s UK trade mark rights. The letter threatened trade mark infringement proceedings if the UK company did not transfer the domain name to the US company. Under the old Network Solutions (NSI) system for dealing with cybersquatters, the domain name registrant had to have a trade mark registration covering the name in order to repel a complaint or, in the absence of a trade mark registration, had to commence a court action. The English IT company had no relevant trade mark registration, but the threatening letter enabled it to commence a court action under s 21 of the 1994 Act on the basis of groundless threats. The action succeeded and the UK company was able to hold onto its domain name.

UK.143 In February 2015 the UK government announced their support for recommendations put

forward by the Law Commission that the threats provisions contained within s 21 of the 1994 Act are amended. Under the proposals discussed, a threats action would no longer be capable of being brought for any threats made to a ‘primary actor’, being a party carrying out primary acts such as applying a trade mark to goods, importing or supplying services under a trade mark. Communications would still be possible to secondary actors (those who are not carrying out primary acts), but only where there is a legitimate commercial purpose behind the communication and there are reasonable grounds for believing that the information provided is true. It is also recommended that it should be a defence for a person making the threat to show that they have used reasonable endeavours to locate without success the person applying the mark, the importer or the supplier of services. It has also been proposed that a lawyer or trade mark attorney acting in their professional capacity and on the instructions of their client should no longer be found to be jointly liable for the making of threats.243 The government has announced its intention to bring primary legislation to enact the reforms in due course and work is currently being carried out to produce a draft bill. An aggrieved

  Gerolsteiner Brunnen v Putsch (Case C-100/02) [2004] ETMR 40.   [2004] EWCA Civ 159 at para 129. 241  Maier & Another v Asos Plc & Another [2015] EWCA Civ 220. 242  Prince Plc v Prince Sports Group Inc [1998] FSR 21. 243  http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/areas/unjustified_threats.htm. 239 240

980

IV.  Court Litigation party may also commence legal proceedings to obtain a declaration of non-infringement as an alternative/addition to a complaint for groundless threats.

(b) Passing off (i) Introduction  Passing off is an actionable wrong under English law based on the prop- UK.144 osition that no man has the right to represent falsely that his goods are the goods of another. The tort now extends beyond goods to businesses and is an ever-developing tort trying to keep pace with the modern methods of pirates and unfair competitors generally.244 The essential elements of the tort which the claimant needs to prove in order to succeed are UK.145 known as ‘the classic trinity’ and were set out by Lord Oliver in the following terms:245 First, he must establish a goodwill or reputation attached to the goods or services which he supplies in the mind of the purchasing public by association with the identifying ‘get-up’ (whether it consists simply of a brand name or a trade description, or the individual features of labeling or packaging) under which his particular goods or services are offered to the public, such that the get-up is recognized by the public as distinctive specifically of the claimant’s goods or services. Secondly, he must demonstrate a misrepresentation by the defendant to the public (whether or not intentional) leading or likely to lead the public to believe that the goods or services offered by him are the goods or services of the claimant. Thirdly, he must demonstrate that he suffers or, in a quia timet action, that he is likely to suffer damage by reason of the erroneous belief engendered by the defendant’s misrepresentation that the source of the defendant’s goods or services is the same as the source of those offered by the claimant.

Once the court is satisfied that the first two elements of the tort have been established, it will usually be accepted that relevant damage will have been suffered. Loss of e-mail may be considered to cause irreparable damage and to justify an interim injunction.246

(ii) Goodwill  A reputation within the UK is not technically good enough on its own.247 UK.146 The claimant needs to be conducting business within the UK having clients or customers in the jurisdiction for the products or services in question.248 The damage to which the cause of action is directed is damage to the claimant’s trading goodwill in the UK. Commonly, proof of the existence of goodwill is provided by evidence as to the length and UK.147 extent of the use of the name (eg, sales documentation, sales figures, advertisements, advertising and promotional expenditure) editorial references in trade journals and witness statements from suppliers, customers and, perhaps, competitors. Where the claimant’s goodwill is in an online business, he will need to establish to the satis- UK.148 faction of the court that that goodwill is in the UK.

(iii) Misrepresentation  The relevant test is whether the use of the domain name by the UK.149 defendant is likely to constitute a misrepresentation to the relevant public that the defendant

244 See First Conference Services & Another v Richard Bracchi & Another [2009] EWHC 2176 Ch for a case where a domain name was switched to point to another site offering services not connected to the trade mark owner. 245  Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 WLR 491; [1990] RPC 341 (per Lord Oliver at p 406). 246 See Computer Futures Recruitment Consultants Ltd v Stylemode Data Ltd & Another [2000] WL 3328 1329. 247  Save for an action under s 56(2) of the 1994 Act in respect of well-known marks. 248  Starbucks (HK) Ltd and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Others [2015] UKSC 31.

981

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) is the claimant or that the claimant and the defendant (and/or their goods or services) are in some way associated.249 UK.150 Whether or not there is a likelihood of deception is a question for the judge. He is free to

make up his own mind and is not required to restrict himself to the evidence of the witnesses called to give evidence at the trial.250

UK.151 In Musical Fidelity Ltd v David Vickers (trading as Vickers Hi-Fi)251 the defendant, a former

distributor of the claimant’s products, registered the domain name, ‘musicalfidelity.co.uk’, and connected it to his Vickers Hi-Fi website. Arden LJ (para 18) had this to say: It is necessary to look at the representation on the opening page of the website in the context of the domain name as well as the pages that follow once the user had put that name into his machine. The domain name is the name used by the claimant. There is no dispute as to that. There is no dispute now as to the reputation of Musical Fidelity. Accordingly, if the domain name contains the name which the claimant uses in its trade, the fact that the opening page gives the name of Vickers Hi-Fi to my mind implies that there is a connection between the claimant and the defendant which the claimant approves.

UK.152 In an ordinary passing off action the best evidence is evidence of actual deception (eg, a

member of the public complaining to the claimant about the defendant’s goods or services in the belief that the claimant is responsible for those goods or services). The same is true of a passing off action involving a domain name. If a claimant has unsolicited evidence that members of the public believe the domain name to be owned by the claimant, he will be in a strong position.

UK.153 Often, however, unsolicited evidence of actual confusion or deception is not readily available.

This is particularly so where the claimant takes action quickly before there has been sufficient time for evidence of deception to manifest itself. In that situation much will depend upon the overall circumstances, including the fame of the trade mark, the identity of the defendant, and the manner of the defendant’s use of the domain name.

UK.154 Where there is no evidence of actual deception a claimant may seek to solicit such evidence

by way of surveys252 or some form of pretext approach to the defendant to see if the defendant is actively seeking to provoke deception. Alternatively, the claimant may take the view that the potential for deception is so obvious that no evidence is necessary. The courts have on occasion shown a willingness to make the necessary assumptions in favour of the claimant.

249 See Phones 4U Ltd and Others v Phone4u.co.uk Internet Ltd and Others [2006] EWCA Civ 244; see also Aegis Defence Services v Stoner [2006] EWHC 1515 Ch; Partygaming Plc v Dabosh (t/a Partybackgammon.com Group) [2005] EWHC 3090 Ch and First Conference Services & Another v Richard Bracchi & Another [2009] EWHC 2176 Ch. 250  Neutrogena Corp v Golden Ltd [1996] RPC 473 (per Morritt LJ) at p 495. 251  [2002] EWCA Civ 1989. 252 See Interflora cases on surveys: Interflora v Marks and Spencer [2012] EWCA Civ 1501—holding that, for trade mark matters, parties may conduct pilot surveys without permission but at their own risks to costs; no further survey(s) or any evidence from respondent(s) to any survey(s) may be conducted or adduced in evidence without the court’s permission; Interflora v Marks and Spencer [2013] EWHC 273 (Ch)—where the Court of Appeal emphatically reiterated the two-stage test Interflora had to satisfy; first, the survey evidence must be justifiable to be of real value at trial; and secondly, the costs involved were justifiable. See also Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd v Zeebox Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 82 where, despite suggesting that different considerations may be relevant in passing off cases, the Court of Appeal refused an application to permit survey evidence to establish misrepresentation for a claim of passing off. However, see Oberbank Ag, Banco Santander SA and Santander Consumer Bank AG v Deutscher Sparkassen- und Giroverband eV, joined cases C-217/13 and C-218/13 and Enterprise Holdings Inc v Europcar Group UK Ltd and Europcar International [2014] EWHC 2498 (Ch); the courts have more recently shown a willingness to allow survey evidence which adds ‘real value’ to help determine whether a trade mark has an enhanced level of distinctive character.

982

IV.  Court Litigation The best example is the case of BT v One In A Million,253 but in that case the circumstances were extreme and there was strong circumstantial evidence of abusive intent arising from the defendants’ pre-action correspondence with the rights owners. While abusive intent is not a necessary ingredient for the tort of passing off, evidence of such an intent helps to nudge the court in the right direction. Of course, not all domain name disputes involve domain name dealers and cybersquatters. In UK.155 the case of Montblanc Simplo GmbH v Just Results Plc254 the defendant was using the domain name ‘montblanc.co.uk’ to connect to a website selling second-hand pens including pens of the claimant. The risk of deception was obvious and the court granted injunctions and ordered the transfer of the domain name to the claimant. In passing off cases where the evidence is not conclusive one way or the other, the court will UK.156 often ask the question: why has the defendant done what he has done?255 Why did he pick the name? Why did he select the get-up? If there is no satisfactory answer, the inference will be that the defendant hoped to benefit in some way from the claimant’s goodwill. In those circumstances, the decision is likely to go in favour of the claimant. In the case of Easyjet Airline Company Ltd v Dainty (trading as Easy Real Estate)256 the court found that while the domain name ‘easyrealestate.co.uk’ might not of itself have been inherently deceptive, it was likely to be so in the hands of the defendant, who from other evidence relating to his website design was clearly seeking to benefit from the claimant’s goodwill. It is not uncommon for an activity which constitutes trade mark infringement also to consti- UK.157 tute passing off. Frequently, therefore, an action for one will also incorporate claims in respect of the other. A combined trade mark infringement/passing off action can be useful where the trade mark owner may be worried about the validity of his trade mark registration and/or his ability to prove the extent of his goodwill, for example. As we have seen in BT v One In A Million,257 which was a combined action, many of the UK.158 same issues arise in passing off as arise in trade mark infringement cases. For example, the cross-border issue dealt with above in the 1-800 Flowers TM, Euromarket Designs Inc v Peters and Wintersteiger trade mark infringement cases has also arisen in passing off. In Mecklermedia Corporation v DC Congress GmbH,258 a passing off action, the claimant and the defendant both used the trade mark, ‘Inter World’. The claimant used it (unregistered) in the UK and the defendant had it registered as a trade mark in Germany and used it in both Germany and Austria. The claimant had the domain name ‘interworld.com’ whereas the defendant had the domain name ‘interworld.de’. The use of the name by the defendant in relation to a website promoting its shows to a UK audience constituted passing off in the UK. It is worth reiterating that for a passing off action to succeed, the claimant has to prove at the UK.159 outset a reputation and goodwill in or under the name in question in the United Kingdom.

253  British Telecommunications Plc v One in a Million Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 903; [1999] FSR 1; see also Global Project Management Ltd v Citigroup Inc [2005] EWHC 2663; Tropical Resorts Management Ltd & Others v Morgan [2001] All ER (D) 38. 254  Ch D transcript 1 December 99. 255  Sodastream Ltd v Thorn Cascade Co Ltd [1982] RPC 459 at p 466 per Kerr LJ; Britannia Building Society v Prangley & Others Ch (Rattee J) transcript 12 June 2000; LTL 12 June 2000 ‘what other purpose could there have been, one might ask rhetorically, for having a domain name incorporating the name of the claimant, if it was not to be used for the purpose of indicating that it was somehow connected with the claimant?’ 256  [2002] FSR 111. 257  See paras UK.107–UK.120 above. 258  [1998] CH 40; [1997] FSR 627.

983

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) The more descriptive the name in issue, the less likely he will succeed in doing that. The English courts have been reluctant to allow traders effective monopolies in ordinary English words259 and this principle extends to expressions such as ‘efax’260 and ‘radio taxis’.261

(c) Infringement of Famous Trade Marks UK.160 Section 56(2) of the 1994 Act deals with famous or well-known marks:

The proprietor of a mark which is entitled to protection under the Paris Convention or the WTO Agreement as a well known trademark is entitled to restrain by injunction the use in the UK of a trademark which, or the essential part of which, is identical or similar to his mark, in relation to identical or similar goods or services, where the use is likely to cause confusion.

The section applies whether or not the trade mark owner carries on business or has a goodwill in the UK.262 UK.161 As has been seen above, s 10(3) of the 1994 Act263 talks of ‘marks having a reputation’. Some

commentators have regarded this expression as being a reference to ‘famous marks’, but this is now accepted as not the case. In the General Motors case264 it was held that reputation for these purposes means that a trade mark is known by a significant part of the relevant public in a substantial part of the Member State concerned. It was stipulated that the stronger the reputation and character of a mark the easier it will be to show detriment.

UK.162 Benefits do attach to famous marks under the general law. In the context of trade mark infringe-

ment, according to certain dicta in the case law of the CJEU, the better known the mark the easier it can be to prove likelihood of confusion for the purposes of s10(2)265 of the 1994 Act.266 In the context of passing off, the better known the mark, the easier it will be to prove to the court the existence of a protectable goodwill.267

UK.163 In relation to domain name disputes, most of the dispute resolution policies are directed at ‘abusive

registrations’. Almost invariably an abusive registration will have been a registration made by the registrant with knowledge of the complainant’s trade mark. Where the mark in question is a famous mark, knowledge of it by the registrant can more readily be inferred (see para UK.86 above).

(3) Trade Names, Company Names, and Other Commercial Designations UK.164 The law of trade marks and passing off is applicable to trading names, company names and

commercial designations in precisely the same way as it is applicable to any other type of name.

UK.165 Accordingly, trading names and company names are as capable as any other name of being a

trade mark. Indeed, on one view they are the purest form of trade mark, being the name of

  Office Cleaning Services v Westminster & General Cleaners [1946] 63 RPC 39.   Efax.com v Mark Oglesby [2000] Masons CLR 28. 261  Radio Taxi Cabs (London) Ltd v Owner Drivers Radio Taxi Services Ltd [2004] RPC 19. 262  Section 56(1) of the 1994 Act; see also Starbucks (HK) Ltd and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Others [2015] UKSC 31, para 64. 263  Equivalent to the CTMR Art 9(1)(c). 264  General Motors Corporation v Yplon SA (C-375/97) [1999] All ER (EC) 865; [2000] RPC 572; See also Adidas-Salomon AG and Adidas Benelux BV v Fitnessworld Trading Ltd (C-408/01) [2004] Ch 120; [2004] ETMR 10; Adidas AG and Adidas Benelux BV v Marca Mode CV and Others (C-102/07) [2008] ETMR 44; Koninklijke KPN Nederland NV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (C-363/99) [2006] Ch 1; [2004] ECR I-1619. 265  Equivalent to the CTMR Art 9(1)(b). 266  Sabel BV v Puma AG (C251/95); Sabel BV v Rudolf Dassler Sport [1998] RPC 199; Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro Goldwyn Mayer Inc (C39/97) [1998] All ER (EC) 934; [1999] RPC 117. 267  Computer Futures Recruitment Consultants Ltd v Stylemode Data Ltd and Another Ch D (Laddie J) transcript 13 April 2000. 259 260

984

IV.  Court Litigation the trade source of the goods or services in question.268 Similarly, the use and/or registration of such names can give rise to trade mark infringement269 and passing off.270 A domain name may be a trading name or company name (eg ‘Lastminute.com’; ‘Amazon. UK.166 com’) and it may include a trading name or company name (for example, ‘BP.com’). Either way, as we have seen above,271 the unauthorized registration and/or use of such a domain name may well constitute trade mark infringement and/or passing off. For those selecting domain names such as ‘lastminute.com’ and ‘amazon.com’, which double UK.167 up as company names or business names, it is to be noted that there are some specific restrictions on the names which may be chosen, being names which imply national or international pre-eminence, business pre-eminence or representative or authoritative status or specific objects or functions. Generally, the adoption of any such names requires the approval of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. For that approval to be obtained, other approvals may be required: for example, if the name contains the expression ‘contact lens’ a letter of approval will be required from the registrar of the General Optical Council.272 Moreover, certain other words and expressions are covered by other legislation for example, dentist,273 Olympics,274 Red Cross,275 Intellectual Property Office.276 Nominet offers dedicated sub-domains for limited companies and public limited companies, namely UK.168 ‘.ltd.uk’ and ‘.plc.uk’. The domain name does not need to match the registered name precisely.277 Prudent would-be domain name registrants conduct Companies Registry searches and busi- UK.169 ness name searches (in addition, of course, to trade mark registry searches) in all countries to which their websites are targeted.

(4) Infringement of Personal Names If a registrant adopts for a domain name the personal name of another without authority, UK.170 what (if anything) can the person whose name it is do about it? In order to answer that question, it will be necessary to have answers to one or more of the following questions: (a) In what domain is the name registered? (b) Is the personal name a trade mark or service mark? (c) How (if at all) is the domain name being used or likely to be used? The significance of the domain is that if it is in a domain covered by the DRS, for a complaint UK.171 to succeed, the personal name must be a registered or unregistered trade mark or service mark.278 If, on the other hand, the domain is in the ‘.uk’ domain, the complainant’s rights need not be so restricted, although there is still a need to establish rights in the name beyond simply the identity of the complainant.279

268  Reed Executive Plc and Another v Reed Business Information Ltd and Others [2004] EWCA Civ 887 per Jacob LJ at para 125. 269  Britannia Building Society v Prangley & Others Ch (Rattee J) transcript 12 June 2000; LTL 12 June 2000. 270  Glaxo Plc v Glaxo-Wellcome Ltd [1996] FSR 338. 271  BT v One In A Million; see paras UK.107–UK.120. 272  Opticians Act 1989. 273  Dental Act 1984. 274  Olympic Symbol etc (Protection) Act 1995. 275  Geneva Convention Act 1957. 276  Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended). 277  See para UK.25 above. 278 DRS5718 Constance Briscoe v Jeroen Rodenberg (‘constancebriscoe.co.uk’); DRS03844 Stoneygate48 Ltd and Wayne Rooney v Huw Marshall (‘waynerooney.co.uk’). 279 DRS09932 Andrew Grimwood v Remuera Surgical Partners (‘andrewgrimwood.co.uk’).

985

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) UK.172 In the Nominet Policy ‘rights’ are defined as ‘including, but not being limited to, rights

enforceable under English law’. What the limits of those rights might be have not yet been defined, but can include contractual rights and trusts.280 Certainly, one would have thought they would include personality rights enforceable elsewhere. If that is so, it is possible that UK citizens will be deemed for the purposes of the Nominet DRS to have equivalent rights, provided the complainant’s name is uncommon in the UK, and is identical to the domain name complained of.281 It follows then, that foreign individuals (for example, Californians) may have broader scope than others for making complaints under the Nominet Policy (as, for example, California has laws giving greater rights in this area).

UK.173 Arguably, the definition of rights is also wide enough to include rights of the kind envisaged

by Articles 1 and/or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950.

UK.174 While the ‘.me.uk’ sub-domain is an open domain, it is intended as a domain for personal

names. The rules surrounding the ‘.me.uk’ subdomain were changed in 2008 to ensure that only Natural Persons can register them, and giving Nominet powers to reverse any registrations, transfers, or renewals for any ‘.me.uk’ domains that breach this rule. Extra provisions were also introduced to allow for the transfer of a ‘.me.uk’ domain to a company as a result of a DRS or judicial procedure, provided that the company makes no subsequent use of it.282 In the event of a dispute over a name in the ‘.me.uk’ sub-domain, a party whose personal name is the same as that featured in the domain name is likely to be favoured over a party whose name is different, provided they can show rights in the name.

UK.175 If the personal name in question is a registered or unregistered trade mark or service mark,

not only may there be scope for a complaint under the DRS,283 there may also be scope for a trade mark infringement or passing off action. However, for the use of a personal name as part of a domain name to constitute either trade mark infringement or passing off, the offending use must be in the course of trade.284

UK.176 Personal names are registrable as trade marks with the consent of the person whose name it

is. A high profile example is Elizabeth Emanuel, the name of the dress designer, but in her case the trade mark rights ended up in the hands of a corporate entity with which she had no connection, after she parted with her intellectual property rights on a commercial basis. The issue found its way to the European Court of Justice,285 when the mark was challenged by Ms Emanuel herself, on the grounds that use of the mark would mislead the public into thinking that she was still connected to the goods designed and sold under the mark. The CJEU ruled that the name was not of such a nature intrinsically that it would deceive the public as to the origin or quality of the product it designated, and the guarantee of origin and quality was related to the new undertaking that now owned the mark. Names are a commercial asset that can be traded like any other commodity.

280 DRS11348 Arrow Business Communications Ltd v Dave Giles (‘tmgtelecom.co.uk’); see also DRS04632 Daniel Munro v Celtic.com Inc (‘Ireland.co.uk’); DRS06935 Societe des Hotel Meridien v Sean Garrity (‘lemeridiendubai.co.uk’); DRS08861 Maxis Healthcare v Nasreen Azim (‘phlebotomy.org.uk’); DRS05782 Essex & Herts Air Ambulance Trust (‘essexairambulance.co.uk’). 281 DRS00693 Tahir Mohsan v Greg Bond (‘tahirmohsan.co.uk’). 282  See Rule 10.4 of the Nominet Rules. 283 DRS5718 Constance Briscoe v Jeroen Rodenberg (‘constancebriscoe.co.uk’); DRS03844 Stoneygate48 Ltd and Wayne Rooney v Huw Marshall (‘waynerooney.co.uk’). 284  And for trade mark infringement, in the case of identical mark/identical goods or services, to affect the essential function of the trade mark. See L’Oréal SA and Others v Bellure NV and Others C-487 [2009] ECR. I-5185. 285 See Elizabeth Florence Emanuel v Continental Shelf 128 Ltd (C-259/04) [2006] ETMR 56.

986

IV.  Court Litigation Even if unregistered or indeed unregistrable, a personal name may nonetheless constitute UK.177 a common law or unregistered trade mark. It needs to have been used as a trade mark and attracted goodwill such that the owner could restrict its use by a competitor in a passing off action. People who trade under their names can succeed in a complaint under the DRS,286 or sue in passing off to restrain deceptive uses of their names or images for example, to give a false impression of endorsement.287

(5) Infringement of  Titles Unlike Germany, for example, the UK has no separate law covering the protection of titles UK.178 of publications such as books and journals. They are unlikely to qualify as literary works for copyright purposes. Titles of books and journals may be registrable as trade marks in Class 16. If a domain name UK.179 featuring such a title is being used in the course of trade then there may well be scope for a trade mark infringement action under s 10 of the 1994 Act.288 Equally, if, as one would expect, there is a business goodwill attached to the title in question, a passing off action may be available to restrain deceptive use of the title.

(6) Names of Cities, Towns, and Public Bodies There is no restriction on the registration of domain names featuring the names of towns UK.180 and cities provided that the name is not a registered trade mark and provided too that the registration/use of the domain name will not be likely to lead to passing off. Some town names and city names are registered trade marks, for example, Malvern and UK.181 Buxton for mineral waters and York for trailers, but it is by no means certain that a domain name featuring any of those names will of itself infringe or indeed constitute passing off. Much will be likely to depend upon whether the registrant is demonstrably a cybersquatter and/or how, if at all, the domain name is being used.289 The unauthorized adoption by a third party of the name of any legal entity, whether or not a UK.182 public body, is bound to render the party concerned vulnerable to a claim in passing off or a prosecution under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Practices Regulations 2008. It is a criminal offence for any person to use in connection with any business, without the UK.183 permission of the Queen or a member of the Royal Family, any title in such a manner as to be calculated to lead to the belief that that person is employed by or supplies goods or services to the Queen or a member of the Royal Family.290

(7) Geographical Indications Section 3(1)(c)291 of the 1994 Act provides that marks which consist exclusively of a sign UK.184 or indication which has the effect of indicating geographical origin should not be registered as a trade mark.292 However, there are specific EC Regulations covering individual fields of 286 DRS5718 Constance Briscoe v Jeroen Rodenberg (‘constancebriscoe.co.uk’); DRS03844 Stoneygate48 Ltd and Wayne Rooney v Huw Marshall (‘waynerooney.co.uk’). 287  Irvine v Talksport [2002] 1 WLR 2355; [2002] FSR 60. 288  Equivalent to the CTMR Art 9. 289  British Telecommunications Plc v One in a Million Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 903; [1999] FSR 1. 290  Trade Marks Act 1994, s 99. 291  Equivalent to CTMR Art 7(1)(c). 292 See Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions-und Vertriebs GmbH v Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber and Franz Attenberger [1999] ETMR 585 where the court said when interpreting s 3(1)(c) of the 1994 Act at para 30 ‘geographical names which are liable to be used by undertakings must remain available to such undertakings as indications of the geographical origin of the category of goods concerned’.

987

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) activity such as wine,293 spirits,294 and agricultural products and foodstuffs.295 Thirdly, there are UK domestic statutes to similar effect.296 Fourthly, there is the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Practices Regulations 2008 which creates offences in respect of unfair commercial practices. Fifthly, there is the extended form of passing off which is described below. UK.185 All these provisions seek to prevent inter alia false attributions of geographical origin.

Accordingly, the use of a domain name featuring a geographical indication in a manner likely to mislead Internet users could be vulnerable to attack. If, for example, a trader used the domain name www.scotchwhisky.co.uk to connect to a website promoting the sale of whisky from geographical locations other than Scotland, it is likely that the trader in question would find himself on the wrong end of a passing off action at the suit of The Scotch Whisky Association or one or more of its members.297 This form of passing off action is known as the ‘extended form’.298 The ‘classic form’ concerns the passing off by one trader of his goods or services as being the goods or services of another trader. The extended form covers the passing off by one trader of his goods as being of the same type of goods of those of other traders. In this category of case the ‘other traders’ must share in the goodwill associated with the product description. Most of the cases have concerned product descriptions featuring geographical indications such as Champagne,299 Sherry,300 Scotch whisky,301 Swiss Chocolate,302 and Greek Yogurt.303

UK.186 Under the Nominet DRS the registration or use of a domain name featuring a geographical

indication will only fall foul of the Policy if it constitutes an abusive registration as defined in the Policy.304

UK.187 In cases involving a purely generic or descriptive term (geographical or otherwise) the thresh-

old of evidence required to show abusive registration will depend on the extent of which the generic term has acquired a secondary meaning. Other cases have emphasized the requirement of a respondent’s knowledge of the complainant or its brand/rights in order to satisfy any of the heads of the DRS policy, other than 3(a)(iv) (giving false contact details).305

V.  The Acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name UK.188 Domain names are treated just like any other names insofar as their registrability as trade

marks is concerned. If on their face, they are capable of distinguishing the goods of one

  Council Regulation 607/2009.   Council Regulation 110/2008. 295  Council Regulation 510/2006. 296  The Scotch Whisky Regulations 2009. 297  John Walker & Sons Ltd v Henry Ost & Another [1970] 1 WLR 917; [1970] RPC 489. 298 See Chocosuisse Union des Fabricants Suisses de Chocolat v Cadbury Ltd [1999] R.P.C. 826 at 830 for a useful explaination of the law surrounding this ‘extended form’ of passing off. 299  J Bollinger SA v Costa Brava Wine Co Ltd [1960] Ch. 262. 300  Vine Products v Mackenzie & Co [1969] RPC 1. 301  John Walker & Sons Ltd v Henry Ost & Another [1970] 1 WLR 917; [1970] RPC 489; White Horse Distillers Ltd v Gregson Associates Ltd [1984] RPC 61. 302  Chocosuisse v Cadbury [1999] RPC 826. 303  Fage UK Ltd v Danone Ltd [2013] EWHC 133 (Ch); Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5. 304  See DRS 04479 Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v Steven Terence Jackson (‘champagne. co.uk’) where an abusive registration was found and DRS 00359 Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma v Vital Domain Ltd (‘parmaham.co.uk’) where the majority found that there was no abusive registration. 305 DRS04331 Verbatim Ltd v Michael Toth (‘Verbatim.co.uk’). 293 294

988

VI.  The Liability of the Registry and Other Service Providers undertaking from those of another undertaking, they are as registrable as any other distinctive mark whether or not used. Those that are not in that category may nonetheless acquire distinctiveness by use. Examples of domain names which are or have been UK registered trade marks include ‘egg.com’, ‘harrypotter.co.uk’, and ‘easyjet.com’. Moreover, use of a domain name in the course of trade may give rise to a goodwill protectable UK.189 by way of a passing off action. If a trader uses a domain name for the purposes of Internet trade and promotes the domain name by way of advertising and promotion, a goodwill will attach to the domain name such that its proprietor will be able to restrain the unauthorized use by another of the same or a deceptively similar domain name.306

VI.  The Liability of the Registry and Other Service Providers (1)  Nominet Nominet’s Terms and Conditions seek to restrict its liability to domain name registrants to UK.190 the fullest extent possible and seek to cap any liability (even in negligence) at £5,000.307 In so far as third parties are concerned, the general law applies to Nominet as it applies to any UK.191 other legal entity. In its capacity as a registry, Nominet inevitably gets caught up from time to time in disputes between third parties over domain names,308 but generally it is unlikely to be liable to anybody (other than in contract to the registrant) merely for having registered a domain name at the request of an applicant.

(2) Internet Service Providers Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive309 gives protection to an ISP for liability for hosting UK.192 material provided it does not know about the illegal material, or once it has notice of it, it acts expeditiously to remove the material.310 Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive makes it clear that ISPs have no general obligation to monitor all the information they host.311 To have the benefit of these safe harbour provisions where there is no knowledge the service provider must not play an active role and must have played a neutral and passive role.312 Injunctions are available against ISPs who do not fall within these safe harbour provisions. See also injunctions against ISPs providing access to websites with infringing content and

306 See Phones 4U Ltd and Others v Phone4u.co.uk Internet Ltd and Others [2006] EWCA Civ 244, where despite only having a trade mark in a figurative logo, Phones 4U Ltd could nonetheless claim passing off due to the goodwill built up in their domain name ‘phones4u.co.uk’. See also First Conference Services & Another v Richard Bracchi & Another [2009] EWHC 2176 Ch. 307 Conditions 25–31. 308  Pitman Training Ltd v Nominet UK Ltd & Another [1997] FSR 797; see also Toth v Emirates and Nominet [2012] EWHC 517 Ch; Alliance Francaise De Londres Ltd v Nominet UK [2005] EWHC 3049 Ch. 309  2000/31/EC, implemented in the UK by the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/2013). 310  Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd [2001] QB 201; [1999] 4 All ER 342, where the material was not taken down and the ISP was found to be liable. This case must now be read in the light of Bunt v Tilley [2006] EWHC 407 QB; [2007] 1 WLR 1243, Tamiz v Google Inc [2012] EWHC 449QB, Davidson v Habeeb & Others [2011] EWHC 3031 QB and the Human Rights Act. Suffice to say that principles of protection for defamation online are still being worked out. 311  Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) (C-70/10) [2012] ETMR 4. 312  Google France Sarl v Louis Vuitton Malletier (C-236/08) [2011] All ER (EC) 411; [2010] ETMR 30; L’Oreal SA and Others v eBay International AG and Others (C-324/09) [2011].

989

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) safeguards that those injunctions must not create legal barriers to legitimate trade and must be proportionate and effective.313

(3) Norwich Pharmacal Orders UK.193 As database holders, Nominet and ISPs are also vulnerable to being sued under the Norwich

Pharmacal jurisdiction (see paras UK.200 et seq) for information relating to a domain name registrant who may be infringing a third party’s rights.314

VII.  Outline of Court Procedure and the Remedies Available UK.194 The procedure for trade mark infringement actions is substantially identical to that appro-

priate for passing off actions and the relief available in such actions is also substantially identical (see para UK.199).

UK.195 Trade mark infringement proceedings can be commenced in either the Chancery Division

of the High Court or the IPEC. The action is commenced by the issue of a Claim Form (formerly known as a Writ). The court fee will vary depending upon the level of damages claimed.315 The Claim Form is fairly standardized and identifies the parties and outlines the nature of the case and the relief claimed. Either attached to the Claim Form or after service of the Claim Form on the defendant the claimant is required to serve a Particulars of Claim, which, as its name implies, particularizes the claim in greater detail. The defendant is required to acknowledge service of the Claim Form and lodge a Defence in response to the Particulars of Claim. There is then scope for the parties to file further pleadings as appropriate. Following close of the pleadings, there is a discovery/disclosure process whereby the parties serve on each other lists of the documents in their possession, which relate to the issues in the action. Service of those lists is followed by mutual inspection of the documents and exchange of Witness Statements. If necessary, there may also be expert reports. The case is then set down for trial.

UK.196 Ordinarily, one would expect a case of this kind (that is, a domain name dispute) to come on

before the court within about eight to 12 months from commencement of the proceedings.

UK.197 In cases where there is a need for speedier relief, there are other options, namely:

(a) An Order for an Expedited/Speedy Trial. Where the circumstances are such that the ordinary timetable needs to be speeded up and it is appropriate that the case should jump the queue, the court will order a speedy trial.316 This may result in the case coming on for trial within about four to eight months of the proceedings having been commenced or sometimes earlier.

313  UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH and Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft mbH (C-314/12) [2014] ECDR 12; Cartier and Others v BskyB and Others [2014] EWHC 3354 (Ch); Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp and Others v British Telecommunications [2011] EWHC 1981 Ch and Dramatico Entertainment Ltd and Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and Others [2012] EWHC 1152 Ch. See also Art 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Union and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. 314  Norwich Pharmacal Co v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [1974] AC 133; see also Totalise Plc v Motley Fool Ltd & Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1897; Goldeneye (International) Ltd & Others v Telefonica UK Ltd [2012] EWCA 723 Ch and Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd [2012] UKSC 55. 315  Currently the fee ranges from £35 to £10,000 (for claims where damages are £200,000 or more). 316  MBNA America Bank NA v Freeman [2001] EBLR 13 Ch.

990

VII.  Outline of Court Procedure and the Remedies Available (b) Summary Judgment.317 Where the claimant is of the view that the defendant has no arguable defence to the claim, a successful application for Summary Judgment can lead to a final decision within as short a period as two to three months of commencement of the proceedings, but it may be much longer.318 The disadvantage of the summary judgment route is that it does not always lead to such a speedy resolution of the dispute. In truth, few disputes are all one way. In most cases each party has an argument of some kind. If the court takes the view that the defendant has an arguable (albeit weak) defence, the application will fail319 and the route to trial will in these circumstances be likely to be slower than if the application had not been made in the first place. (c) Interim Injunction.320 Where the claimant needs immediate relief to prevent damage occurring over the period up to the trial he may apply for an interim injunction.321 In considering whether or not to grant the injunction the court will ordinarily have to take into account what is known as the ‘balance of convenience’, balancing on the one hand the damage to the claimant if no injunction is granted, against, on the other hand, the damage to the defendant if an injunction is granted. As part of the balancing exercise the court will consider the adequacy of damages to compensate the party likely to be adversely affected by the court’s order.322 It is possible, therefore, for a claimant with a strong case to fail on such an application for reasons having little or nothing to do with the overall merits of the case (for example, the grant of an interim injunction over the period to trial will bring the defendant’s business to a halt 323). However, the court will usually try to do what it can to preserve the status quo. In the case of MBNA America Bank NA v Freeman,324 having considered the balance of convenience and decided not to restrain Mr Freeman from using the domain name pending the trial of the action, the court nonetheless granted an Order restraining Mr Freeman from selling the domain name pending resolution of the dispute or a further Order of the Court. If an injunction is granted the recipient must give a cross-undertaking to pay damages to the party that is the subject of the injunction for any loss caused by it should it ultimately be determined that the injunction should never have been granted. This can be an onerous obligation. Interim injunction applications are normally made inter partes (that is, with notice to the defendant).325 In very urgent cases, however, they may be made ex parte (that is, without notice to the defendant).326 In the Montblanc case referred to in para UK.155 above327 the claimant applied ex parte because there was a fear that if the defendant was given notice of the application it would transfer the domain name to a third party (probably outside the jurisdiction of a UK court) and thereby render the court proceeding worthless.

  CPR, Part 24.   Easyjet Airline Co Ltd v Dainty (t/a Easy Real Estate) [2002] FSR 111 (seven months); Easygroup IP Licensing v Athanasios Sermbezis [2003] EWHC 2645 Ch (six months). 319  French Connection Ltd v Sutton [2000] ETMR 341; Avnet Inc v Isoact Ltd [1998] FSR 16. 320 CPR, Part  25 Interim Remedies and Security for Costs and Practice Direction 25A—Interim Injunctions. 321  Computer Futures Recruitment Consultants Ltd v Stylemode Data Ltd and Another [2000] WL 3328 1329. 322  Efax.com v Mark Oglesby [2000] Masons CLR 28; Lawyers Online Ltd v Lawyeronline Ltd Ch (Judge Boggis QC) transcript 7 July 2000. 323 See Cowshed Products Ltd v Island Origins Ltd [2010] EWHC 3357 (Ch) where the balance went in favour of not granting an interim injunction due to the chance of the respondents business being destroyed. 324  [2001] EBLR 13 Ch. 325  CPR, rule 23.4(1). 326  CPR, rule 23.4(2). 327  Montblanc Simplo GmbH v Just Results Plc Ch D transcript 1 December 99. 317 318

991

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) UK.198 The relief available in trade mark infringement and passing off actions will normally include

the following:

(a) Permanent injunctions to restrain further infringement/passing off. This is of particular assistance where the defendant may have registered or intends to register other domain names or perhaps company names featuring the claimant’s trade marks. The court may also grant an injunction where there is a threat to re-register.328 The ability to obtain that variety of injunction is one of the advantages that a court action has over any of the dispute resolution procedures. In the dispute resolution procedures the power of the tribunal is restricted to the domain name, the subject of the complaint. (b) An Order for delivery up to the claimant of all material the use of which would be in breach of the main injunction under (a) above, or an Order for destruction. (c) An Order that the defendant transfer the domain name to the claimant.329 Failure to transfer will be a contempt of court,330 just as any other failure to observe a court order. Where a defendant fails to comply, the court may authorize directly a High Court Master to execute the transfer.331 (d) Orders for disclosure and preservation of evidence. (e) An Order for an inquiry as to the damage suffered by the claimant or an account of the profits that the defendant has made from the activity complained of and payment of the sum found due on the enquiry/account.332 (f ) An Order that the defendant pays to the claimant the claimant’s legal costs. The sum assessed usually represents about 65 per cent to 85 per cent of the claimant’s actual costs, however, this percentage will increase significantly if costs are assessed on an indemnity basis (in cases where a defendant’s conduct has been unreasonable).333 (g) Interest. (h) An Order that the defendant publicizes the outcome of the case in whole or in part.334 UK.199 No discourse on the topic of domain name disputes is complete without a reference to the

Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. By way of this jurisdiction (named after the leading case on the topic)335 a litigant wishing to assert his rights, but unable to identify the infringer, can obtain an order for disclosure of the information against a third party holding that information, who is in some way involved, albeit unwittingly. In the Norwich Pharmacal case itself, the defendant was Her Majesty’s Customs & Excise who had the name and address of the importer of the infringing product.

UK.200 The court was left with the task of balancing two public interests, the public interest that

traders should be encouraged to give full and accurate information to HM Customs in confidence, and the public interest that those to whom Parliament has given statutory monopolies should be able to exploit and enforce those monopolies effectively. The court came down in favour of the patentee.

  Metalrax Group plc v Vanci [2002] EWHC 167.   British Telecommunications Plc v One in a Million Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 903; [1999] FSR 1. 330  Dame Vivienne Westwood OBE v Anthony Edward Knight [2012] EWPCC 14. 331  Marks & Spencer Plc v Craig Cottrell & Another (2001) 24(7) IPD 24046 Ch. 332  See additional provisions regarding damages in Art 13 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Union and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. 333  See CPR 44.3. 334  See CPR 63PD para 26.2. 335  Norwich Pharmacal Co v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [1974] AC 133. 328 329

992

VIII.  Domain Names as Items of Property In other cases the defendants have included websites, telephone companies, and Internet UK.201 services companies.336 This jurisdiction can be of particular assistance to trade mark owners in circumstances where the domain name registrant can only be tracked through an e-mail address, telephone number, or IP address. The relevant service provider can, in the appropriate circumstances, be required to disclose full details of the subscriber.

VIII.  Domain Names as Items of Property (1)  Introduction A  question that has not been resolved definitively in the UK is whether a domain name UK.202 registration is an item of property or whether it is merely a contractual right which confers permission to use the registration.337 Nominet appears to take the view that registration of a ‘.co.uk’ domain name confers a right UK.203 to use the domain name, rather than outright ownership of the registration. The right arises by virtue of the registrant entering into a contract for registration with Nominet. On its website, Nominet states: Our Terms and Conditions are binding. The registration entitles you to be a domain name holder i.e. to use a domain name for a two-year period however you do not become the owner of the name and if the name is not renewed, it becomes available for other potential applicants.338

Thus, whenever a ‘.co.uk’ domain name is due for renewal, a registrant wishing to maintain UK.204 the registration must enter into a new contract of registration for a further period (pursuant to Condition 20 of Nominet’s Terms and Conditions). In Pitman Training Ltd & Anor v Nominet UK & Anor,339 it appears to have been accepted UK.205 by the parties that domain names are not property rights. The court did not comment on the issue. Counsel for the claimant merely stated in a dialogue with the judge following the judgment: It is a rather nebulous area and in the absence of property, which is common ground between the parties that domain names are not property, the way in which domain name disputes are going to be regulated is of general importance to industry and commerce.

(2) Dealings in Domain Names in Practice In practice, so far as dealings in domain names are concerned, the distinction between items UK.206 of property and contractual rights does not appear to make a significant difference, largely because both can be tradable assets. Domain names are frequently bought and sold and Nominet has a formal transfer procedure UK.207 to that end (see Transfer of Domain Names at paras UK.42 et seq above). For example, in

336  Totalise Plc v Motley Fool Ltd & Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1897; see also The Coca-Cola Company v British Telecommunication [1999] FSR 518; Goldeneye (International) Ltd & Others v Telefonica UK Ltd [2012] EWCA 723 Ch and Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd (Formerly Viagogo Ltd) (In Liquidation) [2012] UKSC 55. 337  Lord Hoffmann touched on this point in OBG Ltd & Others v Alan & Others [2007] UKHL 21, without deciding it (at para 101). 338   http://www.nominet.org.uk/uk-domain-names/registering-uk-domain/legal-details/ three-way-contract. 339  [1997] FSR 797; and see also Bonnier Media v Greg Lloyd Smith & Another [2002] ETMR 86.

993

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) the context of a business sale, it is usual for the domain name actively used by the business to be sold along with the goodwill, registered trade marks, and other assets of the business. From the purchaser’s point of view, so long as the sale entitles it to use the domain name, it is unlikely to matter whether what has been sold is a contractual right or an item of property. UK.208 Domain names are also frequently licensed by means of agreements in similar form to intel-

lectual property right licences. Licences of domain names can by agreement be granted for particular territories and fields of use and operated as such by the use of ‘sub-domains’ (eg ‘england.brand.co.uk’ for a particular territory or ‘drinks.brand.co.uk’ for a particular market sector).

UK.209 Where domain name registrations are of value (eg because they are associated with a busi-

ness or have intrinsic value because generic) there is no obvious reason why they cannot be treated as security for financing arrangements. In practice, security can be taken over items of property and over contractual rights and lenders have been willing to take security over domain name registrations without necessarily forming a view as to the status of domain name registrations. What is important is ensuring that an appropriate mechanism is in place to transfer the registrations to the lender in the event of default (eg by the lender holding a completed transfer document and confirmatory letter in escrow). Although Nominet’s Terms and Conditions do not provide a mechanism for holders of security to note their interest against a domain name registration, there does not appear to be any reason why a lender or a lender’s agent could not be listed as administrative contact for the registration. Being listed as such would not, however, entitle the contact to be notified in advance of an ostensibly valid domain name transfer.

UK.210 In so far as domain name registrations have any value, there is no obvious reason why the English

courts would not be willing to order a domain name registration to be transferred to a creditor in lieu of money owed in a debt action. Condition 17.6 of Nominet’s Terms and Conditions makes clear that Nominet may transfer a domain name registration upon receiving a perfected court order requiring such transfer.

UK.211 Nominet’s Terms and Conditions now make provision for what happens to a domain name on

the death of an individual or dissolution of a company, but does not address the issue of bankruptcy. Conditions 18 and 19 of Nominet’s Terms and Conditions read as follows: 18. If you are an individual, this contract will end if you die and the person legally appointed to deal with your assets after you die does not transfer the domain name (either to themselves or to someone else) within a year of your death (or the end of their appointment, whichever comes first). 19. If you are not an individual, this contract will end if you complete a liquidation or disbandment process or otherwise no longer exist, even if (where possible) you are later restored by an official or Court Order or decision.

UK.212 In the case of bankruptcy it seems that Nominet would have to accept authorization to transfer

and/or change registered details from the bankrupt’s trustee.

(3) Enforceability of Domain Names Against Third Parties UK.213 Those who say that the distinction between property rights and contractual rights matters in the

context of domain name registrations argue that property rights confer rights that are enforceable against third parties, whereas contractual rights are usually only enforceable against other parties to the contract.340 In practice, as domain names are also capable of being registered as trade marks

  But see Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Act 1999.

340

994

IX.  International Conflicts and, by virtue of use, of generating a goodwill protectable by means of a passing off action, qualifying domain names can in this sense be said to comprise rights that are enforceable against third parties (whether or not they are in themselves properly property rights or contractual rights).

IX.  International Conflicts The worldwide accessibility of the Internet inevitably leads to disputes between parties in dif- UK.214 ferent territories. Questions of jurisdiction may arise in any domain name dispute (whether it relates to abusive registrations, or more ‘genuine’ disputes between parties with the same or similar names in different lines of business, both of whom claim rights to the same domain name); but it is particularly pertinent where parties which may have coexisted peacefully for many years, because their activities are carried out in different territories, are brought into conflict for the first time as a result of the global accessibility of the Internet.341 Where such parties, trading under the same or similar names in different territories, both have sites accessible on the Internet, the question is whether either or both parties are infringing the other’s rights. Ways and suggestions to minimize such conflicts are the subject of constant debate and UK.215 proposals,342 but in the absence of any formal procedures adopting such measures, unless agreement can be reached between the parties, recourse to the courts or Alternative Dispute Resolution is currently the only way to determine the rights of the parties.343 The acts relevant to infringement of intellectual property rights may take place in many ter- UK.216 ritories: the defendant may be resident in one territory and upload information onto servers in a different territory; an Internet user located in a further territory may access that information, which may result in the signal being routed through computers in other territories, before being downloaded onto the user’s machine. It is first necessary to then consider which courts have jurisdiction to hear the dispute, and what law should be applied (although clearly the issue of whether an actionable wrong that is, harm has been committed within the jurisdiction will have a considerable impact on both of these issues). It is too simplistic to regard the physical location of the server where the offending website is situated as being the location where infringement occurs.344

(1) The Brussels and Lugano Conventions and Brussels Regulation The Brussels Convention,345 containing rules of jurisdiction applicable in the Member States of UK.217 the EC as well as provisions concerning the recognition and enforcement of judgments in other  See V&S Vin & Spirit AB v Absolut Beach Pty Ltd [2001] All ER (D) 199.   For example, ‘gateway pages’—pages published under common or disputed domain names listing links to various websites desiring to be accessed under that name (see Gateway Pages: a solution to the domain name conflict? Singh, 91 TMR [2001] p 1226; or the introduction of gTLDs, allowing multiple entities to have domain names comprising the same word, with differing suffixes or TLDs; or using descriptive SLDs, eg www.apple.computer.com and www.apple.records.com. 343 It is possible to block access to websites: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp and Others v British Telecommunications [2011] EWHC 1981 Ch and Dramatico Entertainment Ltd and Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and Others [2012] EWHC 1152 Ch); UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH and Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft mbH Case C-314/12 [2014] ECDR 12; Cartier and Others v BskyB and Others [2014] EWHC 3354 (Ch) but it is an imperfect science. 344 See Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH (C-523/10) [2012] ETMR 31; Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG (C-170/12); Hi Hotel HCF SARL v Uwe Spoering (C-387/12); Pez Hejduk v EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH (C-441/13); Coty Germany GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV (C-360/12). 345  The Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, signed at Brussels on 23 September 1968. 341 342

995

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) Member States in respect of civil and commercial matters, was largely replaced in all Member States by EC Regulation 44/2001 (the ‘Brussels Regulation’) from 1 March 2002,346 although Denmark did not adopt it until 2007. The Brussels Regulation has since been repealed and replaced by EC Regulation 1215/2012 (the ‘Recast Brussels Regulation’), which applies in relation to legal proceedings instituted on or after 10 January 2015 and judgments given in proceedings instituted on or after this date. The key changes contained within the Recast Brussels Regulation relate mainly to the rules on jurisdiction agreements and related actions provisions, where an exclusive jurisdiction clause exists. It is important to note that the Brussels Regulation continues to apply to judgments given in proceedings instituted before 10 January 2015. The Lugano Convention sets out very similar rules between Member States of the EC and those of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), and was given the force of law in the UK by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1991. Consequential changes to the 1982 Act were made by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order 2001.347 UK.218 The relevant parts of the Recast Brussels Regulation are very similar to the equivalent pro-

visions of the Brussels Convention, upon which the Lugano Convention was modelled. Accordingly, where a defendant is domiciled in an EC or EFTA country, the issues raised under any of these regimes are similar, but the following considers the situation primarily under the Recast Brussels Regulation. Where the Conventions or Regulation apply, the defendant may be served without the permission of the court (see CPR, 6.32 and 6.33). Service out with the permission of the court is covered by CPR 6.36.

UK.219 The general rule under the Brussels Regulation and now under the Recast Brussels Regulation

is that persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State (Recast Brussels Regulation Article 4 (formerly Brussels Regulation Article 2)).348 Prima facie, therefore, the appropriate place to sue such a person, for infringement of intellectual property rights, is in their place of domicile or a jurisdiction in which one of a number of the defendants is domiciled.349 If a case involving the same cause of action and the same parties has already been started in another Member State, any court seized later will have to stay proceedings while the first court rules on or has jurisdiction.350 There are, however, important exceptions.351

UK.220 Article 7(2) of the Recast Brussels Regulation (formerly Article 5(3) of the Brussels

Regulation), provides that a person domiciled in a Member State may, in matters relating to tort, delict, or quasi delict, be sued in the courts of another Member State where the harmful event has occurred or may occur.352 This can be where the event or damage has occurred, or

  2001 OJ L012 pp 1–23.   S.I. 2001/3929. 348 See G v Cornelius de Visser (C-292/10) [2012] OJ C133/07 for the practical view of the EU Courts where the infringer cannot be located but is probably in the EU, and see R v Sheppard and Whittle [2010] EWCA Crim 65 in a criminal law context. 349  Art 8(1) of the Recast Brussels Regulation (formerly Art 6(1) of The Brussels Regulation). 350  Art 29 of the Recast Brussels Regulation (formerly Art 27 of The Brussels Regulation). 351  For example, Agreement as to Jurisdiction. See Art 31(2) of the Recast Brussels Regulation; regard should also be had to the special rules governing Community trade marks if the claimant wants to claim a pan-European injunction or if the defendant is not domiciled or established in the EU; Arts 97 and 98 Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community Trade Mark. See also DHL Express France SAS v Chronopost SA (C-235/09) [2012] C.E.C. and Enterprise Holdings Inc v Europcar Group UK Ltd [2015] EWHC 300 (Ch) on pan-European injunctions in this context. 352 See Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH (C-523/10) [2012] ETMR 31; Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG (C-170/12); Hi Hotel HCF SARL v Uwe Spoering (C-387/12); Pez Hejduk v EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH (C-441/13); Coty Germany GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV (C-360/12). 346 347

996

IX.  International Conflicts in the case of personality rights, where the defendant has his center of interest, where he lives, or where his professional interests are.353 A claimant in the UK will generally have the option of suing a defendant in the place of the UK.221 latter’s domicile, or, if he can show that a harmful event, in the way of damage to his intellectual property right occurred in the UK, or that the event giving rise to that harmful event occurred there, alternatively in the UK. It was argued in the Bonnier Media case354 that the jurisdiction could only be founded upon actual damage, and that it was insufficient for there to be only threatened damage. This argument was rejected, but in any event the wording of the Brussels Regulation, as replicated in the Recast Brussels Regulation, appears to put the matter beyond doubt: whilst the Brussels Convention spoke only of a harmful event which has occurred, the Regulation also includes the words ‘or may occur’. It should be noted that Article 24(4) of the Recast Brussels Regulation (formerly Article UK.222 22(4) of the Brussels Regulation) provides that, regardless of domicile, ‘in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trade marks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered, the courts of the Member State in which the deposit or registration has been applied for [or] taken place’ shall have exclusive jurisdiction. The rule only applies to proceedings concerning (i) registered rights, and (ii) the validity of those registered rights. Therefore, it is not applicable to passing off claims. Neither is it applicable strictly to actions only for infringement;355 however, since actions for infringement are routinely met by a defence challenging the validity of the right, the matter would have to be transferred to the competent court in such circumstances.356 In any event, since national trade mark rights are territorial and can therefore only be infringed within the confines of that particular territory, unless it is sought to sue a person for infringement of a foreign trade mark in a foreign country357 in the courts in the UK, this rule is of limited relevance for present purposes. If, however, a defendant were to challenge the validity of the UK trade mark, then the court in the UK would have exclusive jurisdiction in any event.

(2) Defendants from Other Countries Where the Conventions or Regulation do not apply, unless the defendant is present within the UK.223 jurisdiction when served with proceedings, or submits to the jurisdiction, the permission of the court is required to serve proceedings on a foreign defendant (see CPR, 6.36). Therefore, if the defendant is domiciled in a country to which those provisions do not apply, the court’s permission is required, for which an application must be made under CPR, 6.37. Practice Direction 6B para 3.1(9) provides that permission may be granted if a claim is made in UK.224 tort where (a) damage was sustained within the jurisdiction; or (b) the damage sustained resulted from an act committed within the jurisdiction. The principles upon which permission for service out is to be determined is set out predominantly in two cases, Seaconsar358 and The Spiliada.359 In

353  eDate Advertising GmbH v X and Oliver Martinez, Robert Martinez v Mirror Group Newspapers (joined cases) (C-509/09 and C-161/10) [2011]; [2012] 3 WLR 227. 354  Bonnier Media v Greg Lloyd Smith & Another [2002] ETMR 86 (Outer House, Court of Session, 1 July 2002). 355  Especially copyright infringement; See Lucasfilm Ltd & Others v Ainsworth & Another [2011] UKSC 39. 356  See further Coin Controls Ltd v Suzo International (UK) Ltd [1999] Ch 33. 357 See Lucasfilm Ltd & Others v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39. In Lucasfilm the UK Supreme Court found that, provided the UK courts had in personam jurisdiction over the defendant, an action for infringement of copyright in a foreign jurisdiction could be brought in the UK. See also in Actavis Group hf v Eli Lilly & Company (USA)/Medis ehf v Eli Lilly & Company (USA) [2012] EWHC 3316 in the context of patents. 358  Seaconsar Far East Ltd v Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islam Iran [1994] 1 AC 438. 359  Spiliada Maritime Corp v Consulex [1987] AC 460.

997

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) summary, the applicant must show that there is a good arguable case that each claim falls within a relevant paragraph or subparagraph of the rules and that there is a serious issue to be tried in respect of each claim. The court maintains discretion as to whether the case is proper for service outside the jurisdiction, and the court should be the forum convenient in which to bring the claim. Further consideration of these principles is outside the scope of this work, but it will be noted that, so far as intellectual property rights are concerned, the issues are very similar to those which arise in cases concerning defendants in Convention/Regulation countries. UK.225 In summary, therefore, if damage to a claimant’s intellectual property is suffered in the UK,

then there is the potential for a foreign defendant to be brought before the UK courts.

(3) Choice of Law UK.226 Assuming that the defendant can be brought before a court in the UK, the question of what

law will be applied arises.

UK.227 Article 8(1) of the Rome Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations

(‘Rome II’)360 provides a specific regime for infringement of intellectual property rights that provides that the applicable law shall be the law of the country for which protection is claimed.361 These provisions cannot be derogated from by agreement.362

UK.228 Therefore, where it can be said that a defendant’s online activities have resulted in the infringe-

ment of a UK trade mark, whether the act occurred in the UK or elsewhere in the world, UK law will apply to the acts of infringement.363 For acts of passing off, the issue is not so clear cut, as Recital 26 of Rome II defines intellectual property rights as ‘copyright, related rights, the sui generis right for the protection of databases and industrial property rights’. It is submitted that it could well fit here, but it could just fall under the completely different regime of Article 6 relating to unfair competition which is the law where competitive relations of the collective interests of consumers are, or are likely to be, affected. There is currently no case law to assist on this issue. Infringements arising from the registration and use of domain names on the internet are highly likely to have differing jurisdictions for the location of tortious act and the protection claimed. There are further issues surrounding the internet yet to be discussed, not least how the law of different Member States will be applied in instances of simultaneous infringement in multiple jurisdictions, it remains to be seen how the courts come to apply Rome II in this context.

(4) Infringement in the UK UK.229 Assuming that the other conditions for infringement of a trade mark are made out (see para

UK.121 et seq above), the issue to be considered regarding potentially infringing domain names was whether there has been use of a trade mark within the jurisdiction. The area of inquiry is similar in the case of passing off: has a misrepresentation been made within the jurisdiction?

UK.230 Until recently courts all over the world have generally recognized that the mere fact that a

website under a domain name is accessible worldwide does not mean that there has been ‘use’ of that domain name in all countries around the world. In 1-800 Flowers Trademark,364 in 360  Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 OJ L199/40, 31 July 2007, which is directly effective over member states except for Denmark, and supersedes the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995. 361  Art 8(2) of Rome II states in the case of a Community trade mark, the applicable law, for any issue not governed by a relevant Community law, shall be the law of the country in which the act of infringement was committed. 362  Art 8(3) of Rome II. 363  The Trade Marks Act 1994 applies to England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man (s 108); the law of passing off considered herein is the common law of England and Wales. 364  1-800 Flowers Inc v Phone-names Ltd [2000] FSR 697.

998

IX.  International Conflicts which the applicant for the trade mark sought to establish use of its mark in the UK, inter alia because of its website that was accessible in the UK, Jacob J rejected the suggestion (at p 705) that any use of a trade mark on any website, wherever the owner of the site was, was potentially a trade mark infringement anywhere in the world because website use is in an omnipresent cyberspace. The analogy that a website amounts to ‘putting a tentacle’ into the user’s premises was not accepted. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal,365 in which Buxton LJ noted, albeit expressly obiter, (at para 137) that: there is something inherently unrealistic in saying that A  ‘uses’ his mark in the United Kingdom when all that he does is to place the mark on the Internet, from a location outside the United Kingdom, and simply wait in the hope that someone from the United Kingdom will download it and thereby create use on the part of A.366

The point was again considered by Jacob J in Euromarket Designs Inc v Peters and Crate & UK.231 Barrell Ltd,367 in which he regarded the defendant’s website at the domain name ‘www.crateandbarrel.ie’, which referred to a shop in Dublin under that name, as not constituting ‘use’ of the sign in the UK for the purposes of trade mark infringement (paras 21 to 25). Noting that Internet searchers are used to getting irrelevant ‘hits’ during searches which they ignore, he considered that if the defendants were to be regarded as using the words ‘Crate & Barrell’ in the United Kingdom in the course of trade in goods under such circumstances, it would follow that they are using the words in every other country of the world. He considered an alternative analogy to be apt: that using the Internet was like focusing a super-telescope into the site concerned from another country. For an example of circumstances in which a website’s activities have constituted ‘use’ in the UK for the purpose of infringement, by encouraging and facilitating business from the UK, see V&S Vin & Spirit AB v Absolut Beach Pty Ltd.368 Since the process of viewing a web page consists of the user sending a request (by typing in UK.232 web address, or clicking on a link), which is sent to the server on which the relevant web page is stored, from which the web page is sent back to the user in electronic form, this telescope analogy may not be strictly accurate.369 Nevertheless, the thrust of the judgment is clear: ‘use’ requires more than mere visibility on the Internet. There must be some focusing or targeting on a particular audience. In Dearlove v Coombs,370 Kitchin J summarized the position (at para 25): The fundamental question is whether or not the average consumer of the goods or services in issue within the UK would regard the advertisement and site as being aimed and directed at him. All material circumstances must be considered and these will include the nature of the goods or services, the appearance of the website, whether it is possible to buy goods or services from the website, whether or not the advertiser has in fact sold goods or services in the UK through the website or otherwise, and any other evidence of the advertiser’s intention.

The Court of Session, Outer House (Lord Drummond Young delivering the Opinion) UK.233 referred to 1-800 Flowers and Crate & Barrel in the Bonnier Media case371 and noted (para 18)  that the Internet should be viewed as a process of communication; but that what is

  [2002] FSR 12.   There is no reason why the concept of ‘use’ for the purposes of acquiring or maintaining rights should differ appreciably from ‘use’ for the purposes of infringement. 367  [2001] FSR 20; [2000] ETMR 1025. 368  [2001] All ER (D) 199. 369  As noted by the editors of Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names (15th edn), 27-023. 370  [2008] EMLR. 2. 371  Bonnier Media Ltd v Greg Lloyd Smith and Others OH (Lord Drummond Young) [2002] ETMR 86. 365 366

999

United Kingdom (‘.uk’) peculiar about the Internet is that the message will not be conveyed unless the initiative is taken by the operator of the second, recipient computer; equally, however, there will be no message to be conveyed unless the operator of the sending computer sets up the necessary website. His Lordship concluded (at para 19) that the person who sets up the website can be regarded as potentially committing a delict (tort) anywhere the website can be seen; in other words in any country in the world. However, it did not follow that he actually commits a delict in every country. Noting that the overwhelming majority of websites will be of no interest in more than a single country or a small group of countries, he stated that his opinion was that a website should not be regarded as having delictual consequences in any country where it is unlikely to be of significant interest: ‘if the impact of a website in a particular country is properly regarded as insignificant, no delict has been committed there’. UK.234 Some indication of the sorts of factors that are likely to turn a website that is merely visible

within a territory to being a potentially infringing website which is aimed or targeted at a territory, thereby making ‘use’ within that territory of the relevant signs include if the use has a commercial and therefore harmful effect in that Member State for example, whether the user is doing,372 or has plans to do business in the Member State; whether the user is actually serving customers there; whether he will deliver goods or services to customers there; whether he offers post-sale activities or undertakes further commercial activities there; and whether the currency, address, domain name country code, and language are relevant to the Member State. Such considerations may provide relevant guidance in considering whether online activities may be regarded as objectionable within a particular jurisdiction, either as a result of passing off or trade mark infringement.

(5) Relief UK.235 If a UK court finds infringement within the UK by a defendant outside the jurisdiction, it

is likely to grant an injunction to prevent repetition of the infringing acts. If an injunction is framed so as to prevent infringement in the United Kingdom, then the considerations above, as to whether there is in fact infringement in the United Kingdom, ought to apply equally to determine what the defendant may subsequently do on his website without ‘using’ the relevant sign in the United Kingdom in breach of the injunction. However, the prevention by injunction of acts deemed to be unlawful in the United Kingdom, but which may have originated outside the United Kingdom raises the possibility of extra-territorial injunctions.373

UK.236 Injunctions purporting to have an effect outside the jurisdiction have been granted in certain

circumstances by the courts in the UK: see, for example, Derby v Weldon (Nos 3 & 4)374 and Bank of China v NMB LLC375 (concerning freezing orders made outside the jurisdiction).376 In the recent High Court decision of Enterprise Holdings Inc v Europcar Group UK Ltd377 the criteria for pan-European injunctions, set out in the CJEU decision in DHL Express France SAS v Chronopost SA378 was discussed. In DHL v Chronopost with regard to Community-wide

372  Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG (C-170/12); Hi Hotel HCF SARL v Uwe Spoering (C-387/12); Pez Hejduk v EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH (C-441/13); Coty Germany GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV (C-360/12). 373  Such as authorization of an act. Also see in personam jurisdiction of the court: where a defendant is personally subject to the jurisdiction of the court, the court may exercise control over what he may or may not do abroad in appropriate circumstances. Lucasfilm Ltd & Others v Ainsworth & Another [2011] UKSC 39. 374  [1990] Ch. 65; [1989] 2 WLR 412. 375  [2002] 1 WLR 844. 376  The Order of the Outer House in Bonnier Media was also framed as having worldwide effect. 377  [2015] EWHC 300 (Ch). 378  (C-235/09) [2012] C.E.C.

1000

IX.  International Conflicts trade marks the CJEU held that injunctions should be Community wide as this reflects the pan-European nature of Community trade mark, unless infringement is confined to a limited territory or use of the sign does not affect the function of a mark on linguistic grounds.379 In Enterprise v Europecar a pan-European injunction was requested but not granted primarily because infringement was limited to the UK on the evidence (initially evidence of confusion in France was presented, however reliance on this was dropped during the course of the proceedings). In reality, however, a practical difficulty is whether the order will be recognized and enforced UK.237 by the local courts. If it is contrary to the principles of comity, or otherwise exorbitant, it is unlikely to be enforced. Where the Brussels Convention or Regulation, or Lugano Convention apply, a decision of a court in one Member State should be readily enforceable in another, but where these provisions do not apply, the situation is more difficult and the common law system (and any reciprocal arrangements with the relevant countries) would have to be considered.380 However, given that intellectual property rights are territorial in nature, it is questionable whether a court outside that territory would enforce an order which purports to prevent activities which would not be infringing within that territory.381

  (C-235/09) [2012] C.E.C. paras 46 and 48.   For a more detailed analysis, see c­ hapter 14 of Fawcett, James and Torrmens, Paul, Intellectual Property and Private International Law 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011. 381 See Pocket Kings Ltd v Safenames Ltd & Another [2009] EWHC 2529 Ch. Note also that the European Court of Justice has held that anti-suit injunctions granted by the English Court to prevent litigants from pursuing actions in other jurisdictions, said to be based upon the same in personam jurisdiction, are precluded by the Brussels Convention (Turner v Grovit (C-159/02) [2005] 1 AC 101; [2004] ECR I-3565). The court stressed that the Convention is based upon the mutual trust accorded to the legal systems and judicial institutions of other Member States. 379 380

1001

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (‘.us’) William R Towns

I.  Overview of the National System of the Protection of Marks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs  (1) Trademarks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs  (2) Creation and Acquisition of Rights in Trademarks  (3) Standards for Trademark Infringement and Dilution  (4) Development of Domain Name Law 

US.01

US.02 US.04 US.07

US.09 (1) The usTLD Registry  US.09 (2) The Structure of the usTLD Name Space  US.12 (3) Eligibility Restrictions and Other Registration Requirements  US.16 (4) Registration Process and usTLD Registration Agreement  US.22 (5) Transfer of Domain Names  US.27

III. ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.us’ Space 

(1) The usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy and Rules (usDRP)  (2) The usTLD Nexus Dispute Policy and Rules 

US.31

US.88

IV. Court Litigation and National Laws 

US.89

(1) Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act  (2) Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition (Lanham Act) (3) Protection of Famous Marks from Dilution (4) Infringement of Trade Names (5) Protection of Personal Names (6) Protection of Literary Titles

US.01

II.  The ccTLD (‘.us’) Registration Conditions and Procedures 

(3) The usTLD Rapid Suspension Dispute Policy and Rules 

V. Acquiring Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name  VI. Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers  VII. Domain Names as Items of Property  VIII. International Conflicts and Choice of Law 

US.31

(1) International Jurisdiction (2) Choice of Law (3) Substantive Law Issues

US.89 US.141 US.161 US.175 US.176 US.177

US.178

US.179 US.190 US.201 US.201 US.214 US.217

US.72

Links Neustar, Inc: http://www.neustar.us (usTLD Registry Operator) National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA): http://www.ntia. doc.gov United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO): http://www.uspto.gov usTLD Dispute Resolution Policies: http://www.neustar.us/policies usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy and Rules (usDRP): http://www.neustar.us/ustld-disputeresolution-policy usTLD Rapid Suspension Dispute Policy (usRS):  http://www.neustar.us/policies (link to usRS.docx) Nexus Dispute Policy and Rules (usNDP): http://www.neustar.us/nexus-dispute-policy usTLD Dispute Resolution Service Providers: http://www.neustar.us/policies National Arbitration Forum (NAF): http://www.adrforum.com/ NAF Supplemental Rules to usDRP: http://www.adrforum.com/users/odr/resources/CcTld/ usDRP/usDRP%20Supp%20Rules%202014%20FINAL.pdf NAF Supplemental Rules to usRS:  http://www.adrforum.com/users/odr/resources/CcTld/ usRS/usURS%20Supplemental%20Rules-05302014.pdf

1003

United States of America (‘.us’) NAF Supplemental Rules to usNDP: http://www.adrforum.com/users/odr/resources/CcTld/ usNDP/Nexus%20Supp%20Rules%202014.pdf NAF Decisions: http://www.adrforum.com/SearchDecisions/ American Arbitration Association (AAA): http://www.adr.org/ AAA Supplemental Rules to usDRP:  http://www.adr.org/ (enter search request ‘domain name disputes supplementary rules’) usTLD Nexus Requirements: http://www.neustar.us/policies/ usTLD overview of usDRP and usNDP changes 2014: http://www.neustar.us/ustld-overviewof-changes-2014/ usTLD Registrar Accreditation and Registry-Registrar Agreement (2014): http://www.neustar.us/registrar-signup/ (hyperlink); http://www.neustar.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ ustld-registry-accreditation-agreement.pdf usTLD-Accredited Registrars list: http://www.neustar.us/get-us-2/ usTLD Reserved Names List: http://www.neustar.us/support/ (link at FAQ 14)

I.  Overview of the National System of the Protection of Marks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs (1)  Trademarks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs US.01 Trademark laws in the United States derive from common law unfair competition doctrines,1

with the rights of trademark owners protected under a dual regimen of state and federal laws. The relationship between trademark laws and the common law tort of unfair competition is reflected in the federal Trademark Act of 1946, better known as the Lanham Act,2 and chronicled in the legislative history of the Act.3 Federal and state laws rooted in common law unfair competition doctrines also provide protection for trade names, business names, and personal names.4

(2) Creation and Acquisition of Rights in Trademarks US.02 Trademark rights in the United States are created by the use of the mark in commerce suf-

ficient to identify and distinguish the trademark owner’s goods or services from those of others. While the Lanham Act established a comprehensive national system for registration of trademarks used in interstate commerce,5 use is the sine qua non for acquisition of trademark rights and an immutable requirement for federal trademark registration. Notably, while the Lanham Act was amended in 1989 to allow trademark applications to be filed on an

  See, eg United Drug Co v Rectanus, 248 U.S. 90, 97 (1918). See generally, S. Rep. No 79-1333 (1946).   Pub. L. No 79-489. 60 Stat. 427, codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. ss 1051–129 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Lanham Act’). 3  The fundamental purpose of unfair competition laws is to protect the public from deceit, foster fair competition, and prevent the diversion of reputation and goodwill from those who have created them to those who have not. See S. Rep. No 79-1333, at 3. Consequently, trademark infringement has been described as merely one species of which unfair competition law is the genus. Ibid. See also Keebler Co v Rovira Biscuit Corp., 624 F.2d 366, 372 (1st Cir. 1980). 4  See, eg J Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, Vol 1 (4th edn 2012) (hereinafter referred to as McCarthy). 5  See Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. ss 1051–72, 1091–96. While the first federal trademark act was passed in 1870, federal trademark law had not been extensively developed prior to the Lanham Act. The reach of the Lanham Act is constrained by the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, and state law governs trademarks when used exclusively in intrastate commerce. 1 2

1004

I.  Overview of the National System intent-to-use basis, this amendment merely repealed the long-standing filing requirement of pre-application use. Consequently, an application may be allowed based on the applicant’s bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce, but no registration will be issued prior to the actual use of the mark.6 In the United States the registration of a trademark, although obtainable under federal law US.03 and in a number of states,7 is not a requirement for the creation of rights in a mark. In that regard, the federal Lanham Act does not disturb or displace the common law. Rather, trademark rights continue to be protected under state common law and applicable state statutes, with the Lanham Act providing overarching federal law protection for both registered and unregistered trademarks alike.8 While registration is not a requirement, the advantages of obtaining a federal trademark registration under the Lanham Act should not be overlooked; federal registration on the Principal Register confers on the trademark owner a number of additional and valuable statutory benefits.9 Furthermore, under the Lanham Act descriptive marks may be placed on the Supplemental Register pending their acquisition of secondary meaning and resultant eligibility for the Principal Register.10

(3) Standards for Trademark Infringement and Dilution The standard for trademark infringement in the United States is ‘likelihood of confusion’. US.04 Under this standard trademark infringement occurs when, dependent on the attendant circumstances, two parties’ use of the same or similar mark with related goods and services would be likely to cause the public mistakenly to believe:  (1)  that the goods and services emanate from the same source; or (2) that the parties are in some manner affiliated or that the goods and services of one party have the sponsorship, endorsement, or approval of the other party. In either case, trademark law aims to protect the public from deceit, and to prevent the diversion of reputation and goodwill from the one who has created it to another who has not.11

6  15 U.S.C. s 1051(d). See S. Rep. No 100-515, at 23. Under Section 44 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. s 1126, a mark duly registered in a foreign applicant’s country of origin may be entitled to registration under the Lanham Act based solely on the applicant’s bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce, where necessary to give effect to a provision of an international convention or treaty to which the United States adheres. 7  State trademark registration statutes tend to mirror the federal Lanham Act, and are sometimes referred to as ‘little Lanham Acts’. 8 Owners of both registered and unregistered trademarks may bring federal court actions under the Lanham Act, the former for infringement under 15 U.S.C. s 1114, and the latter under 15 U.S.C. s 1125(a) (1)(A) for unfair competition. In addition, state law infringement and unfair competition counts may be joined under federal court pendent jurisdiction. The same standard—likelihood of confusion—governs all such trademark infringement actions. Consequently, the vast majority of these actions are filed in federal court. The Lanham Act also provides a cause of action for false advertising under 15 U.S.C. s 1125(a)(1)(B). 9  The owner of a federally registered trademark can sue and recover damages for infringement in federal court. See generally, 15 U.S.C. ss1117(a)–(c), 1121(a). In any legal proceeding, federal registration of the mark constitutes prima facie evidence of the registration and validity of the mark, and of the registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark in commerce in connection with the goods or services specified in the registration. Ibid., s1115(a). Defences available to a junior user are significantly reduced, id. s1115(b), and after five years the trademark becomes incontestable. Ibid., s1115(c). 10  Registration on the Supplemental Register also conveys certain statutory benefits, including providing notice of use, allowing the trademark owner to use the ® symbol, and permitting the trademark owner to maintain an infringement action in federal court. See ibid., ss1091–6. 11 See S.  Rep. No 79-1333, at 3.  As distinguished from trademark infringement, the United States Supreme Court has opined that a typical false advertising case under s 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act implicates only the goal of protecting persons engaged in commerce against unfair competition. Lexmark Int'l, Inc v Static Control Components, Inc, 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1389 (2014).

1005

United States of America (‘.us’) US.05 Trademarks that have become ‘famous’ are entitled to protection from dilution under federal

law and the laws of a number of states. In 1995, Congress provided the first federal remedy for trademark dilution through enactment of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 (FTDA).12 Prior to that time, protection from dilution was exclusively the province of state law. The FTDA defines dilution as ‘the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services’.13 The legislative history of the FTDA reflects the intent to protect famous marks from dilution by either blurring or tarnishment, the two forms of dilution historically recognized under state antidilution laws.14

US.06 A decade after the passage of the FTDA, Congress enacted the Trademark Dilution Revision

Act of 2006 (TDRA).15 The TDRA arguably reflects a Congressional course correction prompted by judicial interpretation of the FTDA. Congress explicitly adopted a ‘likelihood of dilution’ standard under the TDRA,16 after the United States Supreme Court in Moseley v V Secret Catalogue, Inc17 interpreted the FTDA as requiring proof of actual economic injury. Congress further made clear that federal dilution law protects famous marks from both blurring and tarnishment.18 Similarly, in response to the split among the courts whether fame within a particular industry or segment of the public (‘niche fame’) sufficed under the FTDA,19 the TDRA now defines a ‘famous mark’ as one that is ‘widely recognized by the general public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark’s owner’.20 The TDRA also provides that a descriptive mark that has acquired distinctiveness is no less entitled to protection from dilution than an inherently distinctive mark if proven to be famous.21

(4) Development of Domain Name Law US.07 The FTDA was envisioned in part as a means of curbing the abusive registration of domain

names relating to trademarks, also known as ‘cybersquatting’. The legislative history of the FTDA reflects that trademark dilution arising from domain name registrations was a Congressional concern.22 Dilution law proved to be less than ideal, however, for protecting

12 Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, Pub. L.  No 104-98, 109 Stat. 985, codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. ss 1125(c) and 1127. 13  15 U.S.C. s 1127. Dilution under the FTDA may be found regardless of the absence or presence of likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception. As opposed to traditional trademark laws, dilution laws place emphasis on protecting the investment of trademark owners. Panavision Int’l, L.P. v Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1326 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1998). 14  See, eg I.P. Lund Trading ApS v Kohler Co, 163 F.3d 27, 45, 47–8 (1st Cir. 1998). 15  Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006, Pub. L. No 109-312, 120 Stat. 1730 (2006), codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. s 1125(c). 16  Ibid., s 1125(c)(1). 17  537 U.S. 418, 123 S.Ct. 1115 (2003). 18 In Moseley the Supreme Court also questioned in passing whether the FTDA definition of dilution encompassed tarnishment, 537 U.S. at 432. 19 Compare TCPIP Holding Co Inc v Haar Communications, Inc, 244 F.3d 88, 98–9 (2d Cir. 2001) (substantial degree of fame required), with Syndicate Sales, Inc v Hampshire Paper Corp., 192 F.3d 633, 640–41 (7th Cir. 1999), and Times Mirror Magazines, Inc v Las Vegas Sporting News, L.L.C., 212 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2000) (niche fame). The First and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appeared to recognize ‘niche fame’ as a viable concept under the FTDA in circumstances where the diluting use was targeted at the same market segment as that of the trademark owner. See I.P. Lund Trading, 163 F.3d at 46; Avery Dennison Corp. v Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 877–8 (9th Cir. 1999). 20  15 U.S.C. s 1125(c)(2)(A). 21  See ibid., s 1125(c)(1). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals had concluded in TCPIP Holding, 244 F.3d at 93–8, that descriptive marks were not eligible for protection under the FTDA regardless of how well known they might become. 22 See Panavision, 141 F.3d at 1326; Sporty’s Farm LLC v Sportsman’s Market Inc, 202 F.3d 489, 496 (2d Cir. 2000).

1006

II.  The ccTLD (‘.us’) Registration Conditions and Procedures trademark owners against abusive domain name registrations. The nature of cybersquatting stretched traditional definitions of ‘blurring’ and ‘tarnishment’, leading some courts to hold that the FTDA was not limited solely to these dilution causes of action, and to recognize an arguably distinct claim for ‘cybersquatting dilution’.23 Moreover, the legislative history of the FTDA manifested a clear intent to protect a narrow category of ‘truly famous’ marks,24 notwithstanding ‘niche fame’ decisions such as Times Mirror Magazines, Inc v Las Vegas Sporting News, L.L.C.25 The traditional trademark law likelihood of confusion analysis also proved problematic in protecting trademark owners from cybersquatting absent the clear use of the domain name in a trademark sense.26 Against this backdrop, Congress in 1999 amended the Lanham Act through the US.08 Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA),27 to expressly address abusive domain name registration and use relative to trademarks. The ACPA remedied perceived shortcomings arising from applying the FTDA to cases of cybersquatting,28 creating a cause of action for registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name confusingly similar or dilutive of a trademark or personal name. Remedies available to a prevailing party under the ACPA may include injunctive and monetary relief, cancellation or transfer of the subject domain name, and in ‘exceptional cases’ an award of attorney fees.29

II.  The ccTLD (‘.us’) Registration Conditions and Procedures (1) The usTLD Registry The beginnings of the usTLD, the official country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for the US.09 United States, can be traced to work begun by the US government that ultimately led to the commercialization and public use of the Internet. Since October 2001, Neustar, Inc has served as the usTLD registry operator and administrator under contract to the Department of Commerce. Under Neustar’s tenure as the usTLD Administrator, the usTLD has undergone significant transformation and growth, attributable in large measure to the expansion of the usTLD name space in April 2002 to include second-level registrations with legacy hierarchical locality space names.

23  See, eg Panavision, 141 F.3d at 1326 and n.7 (recognizing a cause of action for ‘cybersquatting dilution’ in addition to dilution from ‘blurring’ and ‘tarnishment’). The dilution analysis of the Panavision court has been cited as one reason for the enactment of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999. 24  S. Rep. No 100-515, at 7, 39. 25  212 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2000). 26  Federal courts traditionally apply a multi-factor test in determining likelihood of confusion. Factors considered typically include the strength of the senior user’s mark, similarity of the marks, relatedness of the goods or services, channels of trade, the junior user’s intent, and evidence of actual source confusion. See, eg Polaroid Corp. v Polaroid Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cir. 1961). Internet confusion may take the form of ‘initial interest confusion’. See Brookfield Communications, Inc v West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1062 (9th Cir. 1999). See also FleetBoston Financial Corp. v fleetbostonfinancial.com, 138 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D. Mass. 2001) (Under ACPA trademark owner not required to show use of domain name likely to cause confusion, only that domain name is ‘identical or confusingly similar’ to trademark). 27  Pub. L. No 106-113, codified at 15 U.S.C. s 1125(d). 28  Sporty’s Farm, 202 F.3d at 496–7. Sporty’s Farm involved an appeal from a district court judgment imposing liability under the FTDA. In affirming the judgment, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals elected to apply the recently-enacted ACPA rather than the FTDA, avoiding the need to review the lower court’s determination that SPORTY’S was a famous mark. The Second Circuit noted that the ACPA was ‘adopted specifically to provide courts with a preferable alternative to stretching federal dilution law when dealing with cybersquatting cases’. 29  Refer to text accompanying notes 288–310 below.

1007

United States of America (‘.us’) US.10 In connection with the expanded second-level space, and pursuant to Department of

Commerce directives, Neustar has established a growing network of .us-accredited registrars. As of April 2015, there were 146 usTLD-accredited registrars providing services in the United States and Canada, Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia/Pacific region.30 Second-level usTLD domain names are registered directly through these accredited registrars, many of which also provide registration services for generic top-level domains (gTLDs) and other ccTLDs.

US.11 Prior to expansion of the second-level space, the usTLD consisted entirely of a hierarchi-

cal structure for geographic locality space names, used primarily by local, state, and federal government agencies, public schools, and libraries, although not restricted to such entities. Initially, the locality-based domain system was managed solely by the usTLD administrator; as use increased the administration of domains was transferred locally to delegated managers, with the usTLD administrator providing registry and registrar services only for undelegated domains.31

(2) The Structure of the usTLD Name Space US.12 The usTLD name space currently is comprised of three core segments: (1) the legacy hierar-

chical locality space; (2) an expanded second-level space; and (3) reserved names. As noted above, the usTLD name space originally consisted entirely of a hierarchical structure based on geographic locality space names.32 The locality-based hierarchy provided structure, name uniqueness, and a geographic reference point for registrants. However, registrations could be made only in the hierarchical naming structure, and consequently no registrations were allowed in the second-level.

US.13 By 2001 the Department of Commerce had accepted that the locality-based usTLD struc-

ture, because of its deeply hierarchical and somewhat cumbersome design, was not conducive to high levels of registration and utilization in comparison to other ccTLDs.33 This was the genesis for Neustar’s expansion of the second-level usTLD space in April 2002, opening this level to direct registrations. This dramatic expansion of the usTLD second-level space also spurred Neustar’s development and implementation of a number of key usTLD policies and procedures, including the usTLD Nexus Requirement Policy, the usTLD Nexus Dispute Policy (usNDP), the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (usDRP), and the usTLD Registrar Accreditation and Administrator-Registrar Agreements.

US.14 Statistics maintained by Neustar, current at April 2015, indicate that 1,792,465 domain

names have been registered in the expanded second-level space through usTLD-accredited registrars.34 In addition, the usTLD has over 17,000 locality-based domain names, and more than 3,900 delegated managers. Neustar acts as a delegated manager and registrar for approximately 10,000 of the locality domains.

  http://www.neustar.us/statistics/.   See Ann Cooper and John Postel, The US Domain, Internet Engineering Task Force RFC 1480, at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1480. The usTLD locality structure is based on RFC 1480, also accessible at: http://www.neustar.us/policies, is the work of Dr John Postel and Ann Cooper of the Information Science Institute of the University of Southern California (ISI). A brief history of the creation and structure of the usTLD locality name space is accessible by link at: http://www.neustar.us/us-locality-compliance-report/. 32 See John Postel, Domain Name System Structure and Delegation, RFC 1591, at: http://tools.ietf. org/html/rfc1591. The locality-based hierarchy is based on a political geography, that is, a hierarchy of ...us. 33  Purchase Order No SB1335-02-W-0175 (pdf ), at: p 3, http://neustar.us/delegated-managers/. 34  http://www.neustar.us/statistics/. 30 31

1008

II.  The ccTLD (‘.us’) Registration Conditions and Procedures Neustar also manages a number of reserved domain names, which includes names consist- US.15 ent with typical ICAAN TLD policies, and names set aside for government use at the local, state, and federal levels, in addition to names set aside for development for public benefit. Approximately 50,000 geographical locality-identifying domain names have been reserved for governmental use.

(3) Eligibility Restrictions and Other Registration Requirements (a) usTLD Nexus Requirements Policy The Nexus requirement is unique to the usTLD. Prospective registrants must certify that they US.16 fall into one of the following enumerated categories in the usTLD Nexus Requirements Policy: 1. A  natural person who is a United States citizen, a permanent resident of the United States or any of its possessions or territories, or whose primary place of domicile is in the United States or any of its possessions (Category 1). 2. A United States entity or organization that is incorporated, organized or otherwise constituted under the laws of a state of the United States, the District of Columbia or any US possessions or territories, including federal, state, and local governments or political subdivisions thereof, and non-commercial organizations based in the United States (Category 2). 3. A foreign entity or organization that has a bona fide presence in the United States or any of its possessions or territories (Category 3).35

The Nexus Requirements are intended to ensure that only individuals or organizations hav- US.17 ing a real and substantial connection to the United States may register ‘.us’ domain names. A prospective registrant also must indicate the intended use of the domain name by selecting one the following descriptions:  (i)  business for profit; (ii) non-profit business, association or organization; (iii) personal use; (iv) educational purposes; or (v)  government purposes. Following registration, the registrant has a continuing obligation to maintain the US Nexus Requirements. The Nexus Requirements are incorporated in all usTLD-accredited registrars’ usTLD US.18 Registration Agreements.36 Registrars must require all registrants to certify that they meet the Nexus Requirements and that the name servers provided are located within the United States. Registrants must establish a basis for compliance under either Nexus Category 1, 2, or 3; the registration will be rejected if the registrant fails to do so.37 Neustar further implements the usTLD Nexus Requirements Policy through regular compliance activities, and investigates specific Nexus requests from third parties.38

(b) Proxy Registrations To prevent circumvention of the usTLD Nexus Requirements and strengthen the accuracy US.19 and reliability of the usTLD WHOIS database, private domain name registration is not

  http://www.neustar.us/the-ustld-nexus-requirements/.   See usTLD Registrar Accreditation and Registry-Registrar Agreement (2014), at s 3.6.20, http://www. neustar.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ustld-registry-accreditation-agreement.pdf (hereinafter referred to as ‘usTLD Registry-Registrar Agreement’). 37  A statement of citizenship or permanent legal residency also is required from registrants in Category 1.  Registrants in Category 2 must provide the jurisdiction of incorporation or registration for the entity, and the type of entity. Registrants in Category 3 must be regularly engaged in lawful commercial or non-commercial activities in the United States, or maintain an office or other property in the United States, and must certify compliance based upon substantial lawful contacts with or lawful activities in the United States. Ibid., at Schedule. 1.4.2.1. 38  Neustar Proposal -.us Contract 2007, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/us-contract-2007-neustar-proposal, s J.3 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Neustar Proposal 2007’). 35 36

1009

United States of America (‘.us’) available to registrants of ‘.us’ domain names. Neustar provides enforcement of the proxy prohibition through regular, weekly scans of the entire usTLD database for evidence of proxy or anonymous domain name registrations. When a domain name that appears to have invalid WHOIS data is detected, the concerned registrar is contacted and instructed to take corrective action. The domain name will be deleted if the information is not corrected within a reasonable time frame.39

(c) Certain Objectionable Words US.20 Under the usTLD Domain Review policy implemented in April 2002, Neustar reviews for

possible deletion all registered second-level and locality domain names that contain, within the characters of the domain name registration, any of the seven words identified in the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Federal Communications Commission v Pacifica Foundation,40 often referred to as the ‘Seven Words’.

(d) Reserved Names and Other Registration Restrictions US.21 The registration of ‘1-800’ domain names, five-number domain names reflecting postal

zip codes, double character domain names reserved for state names, and single character domain names, is prohibited. As noted above, approximately 50,000 locality domain names are reserved primarily for governmental use or development for public benefit. There are no restrictions on the registration of domain names consisting of descriptive terms.

(4) Registration Process and usTLD Registration Agreement (a) The Role of the Registrars US.22 Responsibility for the registration process in the expanded usTLD domain space is delegated

to the usTLD-accredited registrars.41 Under the usTLD Registry-Registrar Agreement42 the registrar is designated as the entity that contracts with registrants and with Neustar to provide domain name registration services, collects registration data about the registrants, and submits registration information for entry in the registry database.

US.23 Neustar has not promulgated a standardized usTLD Registration Agreement form that

is required to be used by all registrars. However, through the usTLD Registry-Registrar Agreement, Neustar requires the inclusion in each registrar’s registration agreement of key usTLD Administrator operating standards, policies, procedures, and practices. Included among these are the usTLD Nexus Requirements Policy, the usTLD Nexus Dispute Policy, the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy, the usTLD proxy registration prohibition, and other usTLD registration requirements.43

US.24 As noted in para US.22, the usTLD Registry-Registrar Agreement defines the term ‘registrar’

as the entity that contracts with registrants and with Neustar to provide domain name registration services.44 It is unclear from this language whether the usTLD Registration Agreement is intended to be concluded only between the registrant and the usTLD-accredited registrar or is meant to include Neustar, as the usTLD Administrator. In practice, the registration

  See Neustar Proposal 2007, ibid., at p E-18.   438 U.S. 726, 98 S.Ct. 3026 (1978). Readers who followed the comedic career of the late George Carlin are undoubtedly familiar with the ‘Seven Words’. See Neustar Proposal 2007, above note 38, at p E-18. 41  The usTLD Registry-Registrar Agreement excludes domain names registered or maintained pursuant to the hierarchical locality-based structure. 42  Refer to note 36 above. 43  See usTLD Registry-Registrar Agreement, above note 36, at s 1.4. 44  Ibid., at s 1.15. 39 40

1010

II.  The ccTLD (‘.us’) Registration Conditions and Procedures forms used for ‘.us’ domain names tend to vary between registrars. Nevertheless, it appears by and large that the registration agreements are concluded solely between registrants and usTLD-accredited registrars. The terms ‘Registrar’ and ‘Registrar Agreement’ as defined in the usTLD dispute resolution policies support this conclusion.45 Market-based retail prices for ‘.us’ domain names are established by usTLD-accredited US.25 registrars and their affiliated resellers. The standard pricing structure is an annual subscription fee, but multi-year subscriptions are available. Registrars are free to establish other terms and conditions concerning the registration and use of domain names where not in conflict with usTLD operating standards, policies, procedures, and practices. Applications to register domain names are accepted on a first-come, first-served basis, subject to the usTLD Nexus Requirements and the prohibition of proxy or private domain name registration. Descriptive terms may be registered as ‘.us’ domain names.

(b) Information and Documents Required for Registration All registrants are required to provide through their registrars basic registration information to US.26 the registry. The minimum required information is: • the domain name registered; • the IP address and corresponding names of the primary and secondary name servers for the registered name; • the registrar name and URL; • the original creation date and term of the registration; • the name and postal address of the domain name registrant; • the name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the name holder for the name registered; • the name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the name registered; and • the name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the name registered.46 Registrants are required to provide to their registrars additional Nexus information, including a certification of compliance with the Nexus Requirements, the basis for compliance, and a certification that the listed name servers are located within the United States.47

(5) Transfer of Domain Names (a) Transfers to a New Domain Name Holder Transfer of a domain name by a registrant to a new name holder in the expanded usTLD space US.27 is subject to terms and conditions in the usTLD Registration Agreement, as implemented by usTLD-accredited registrars. Such transfers are permitted only if the registrant first obtains the agreement of the transferee in writing to be bound by the terms and conditions of the registration agreement, and the registrar has received written assurances or other reasonable assurance from the registrant that the transferee will abide by the terms and conditions of the registration

45  Under the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy and Rules (usDRP) and the usTLD Nexus Dispute Policy and Rules (usNDP), ‘Registrar’ means the entity with which the registrant has registered a domain name, and ‘Registration Agreement’ means the agreement between a registrar and a domain name holder. The usDRP is available on the Neustar.us website at: http://www.neustar.us/ustld-dispute-resolution-policy/. The usNDP is available on the Neustar.us website at: http://www.neustar.us/nexus-dispute-policy/. 46  See, eg usTLD Registry-Registrar Agreement, above note 36, at s 3.2. 47  Refer to text accompanying notes 35–38 above.

1011

United States of America (‘.us’) agreement.48 In addition, no domain names may be transferred during the first 60 days of an initial registration.49 US.28 Transfer by a registrant to a new domain name holder in the usTLD locality space, in the

case of undelegated domains, is subject to the usTLD Locality Domain Name Registration Agreement,50 and in the case of delegated domains, as augmented in Neustar’s Delegated Manager Agreement.51 In all instances, the express authorization of Neustar, as the usTLD Administrator, must be obtained prior to the transfer or resale of a domain name by a registrant.52 In addition, Neustar will approve a transfer only if the new registrant agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of the registration agreement.

(b) Registrar-to-Registrar Transfers US.29 The ‘.us’ Transfer Policy governs the transfer of sponsorship of registrations between registrars

in the expanded usTLD space.53 Under this policy, the registrar to whom the domain name is to be transferred (gaining registrar) must obtain the express authorization of the registered name holder54 and is responsible for obtaining and preserving reliable evidence of the identity of the registered name holder. The registrar of record (losing registrar) may deny a transfer in nine instances identified in the ‘.us’ Transfer Policy, including: (1) evidence of fraud; (2)  usTLD dispute resolution action; (3)  the order of a court of competent jurisdiction; and (4) reasonable dispute as to the identity of the registered name holder. In the delegated usTLD locality space, transfers are permitted between existing delegated managers only.

(c) Transfers During ADR or Court Proceedings US.30 The transfer of a domain name that is the subject of a pending dispute resolution proceeding under the usDRP, the usNDP, a court proceeding or arbitration generally is not permitted.55 This restriction encompasses both transfers from the registrant to a new domain name holder and registrar-to-registrar transfers.56 Neustar further reserves the right to freeze a domain name during resolution of a dispute by: (1) rendering the domain name unresolvable; (2) preventing the transfer of the domain to another person, entity, or registrar; and (3) preventing any changes to the contact information associated with the domain name.57

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.us’ Space (1) The usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy and Rules (usDRP) (a) Principle Characteristics of the Proceeding US.31 When initially contracting with Neustar to provide administration and registry services for

the usTLD, the Department of Commerce specifically directed Neustar to develop and implement a uniform domain name dispute resolution policy modelled on the Uniform 48  See, eg Tucows.us Registration Agreement, para 15. A sample Tucows agreement is available at: https:// www.hostica.com/support/Knowledgebase/Article/View/287/63/us-registration-agreement. 49  This prohibition also applies to registrar-to-registrar transfers. 50  The usTLD Locality Domain Name Registration Agreement is available on the Neustar.us website at: http:// www.neustar.us/policies/. Neustar functions as both registrar and registry operator under this agreement. 51  The Delegated Manager Agreement is available on the Neustar.us website at: http://www.neustar.us/ policies/. 52  Neustar Proposal 2007, above note 38, at p E-18. 53  The ‘.us’ Transfer Policy is available on the Neustar.us website at:  http://www.neustar.us/us-transferpolicy/. 54  ‘Registered name holder’ for purposes of the ‘.us’ Transfer Policy is a collective reference to the WHOIS registrant and administrative contact. 55  See usDRP para 8; usNDP para 7. 56 Ibid. 57  usTLD Administrator Reservation of Rights, available on the Neustar ‘.us’ website.

1012

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.us’ Space Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), but tailored for application to the usTLD.58 In response to this directive, Neustar developed and implemented the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy and Rules (usDRP), effective upon Department of Commerce approval on February 21, 2002. Since that time approximately 400 domain name disputes have been submitted for resolution under the usDRP. Given the Department of Commerce directive, the principal characteristics of the usDRP US.32 process are comparable to those of the UDRP, albeit not without some differences, as discussed below. Similar in design to the UDRP, the usDRP provides a legal framework for the resolution of disputes between a third party and domain name registrant concerning bad faith registration or use of a domain name in the usTLD. All usTLD registrars must adopt the usDRP as a condition of accreditation, and the usDRP is incorporated into the usTLD Registration Agreement. Thus, any person or entity entering into a domain name registration agreement with a usTLD accredited registrar contractually submits to the usDRP’s mandatory administrative proceeding. As compared to court litigation or even traditional arbitration, the administrative proceeding US.33 under the usDRP, like that of the UDRP, is decidedly more informal. The usDRP procedure is administered by approved dispute resolution providers, which currently are the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and the National Arbitration Forum (NAF). Disputes are resolved by single-member or three-member administrative panels appointed by the provider. The panel’s decision is based on the record of the administrative proceeding, comprised of the written statements and documents of the parties. The panel decision is binding; a decision cancelling or transferring a domain name must be implemented by the registrar unless a court action is commenced by the domain name registrant within ten working days. It is specified in the usDRP that the mandatory administrative proceeding requirements do US.34 not foreclose the submission of the domain name dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction in the United States either before the usDRP administrative proceeding is commenced or following its conclusion. In the event of legal proceedings commenced prior to or during the pendency of a usDRP administrative proceeding involving the same domain name dispute, the usDRP Rules vest sole discretion in the administrative panel to determine whether to suspend or terminate the administrative proceeding, or proceed to a decision.

(b) Material Scope of the Proceeding The usDRP administrative proceeding consists of the following stages: (i)

filing of a complaint with an approved dispute resolution provider and payment of the prescribed provider fee; (ii) formal compliance review of the complaint by the provider, verification of domain name registrant information with the concerned usTLD registrar, and locking of the domain name by the registrar; (iii) notification of the complaint and formal commencement of proceedings; (iv) filing of a response by the person or entity against whom the complaint was made, that is, the registrant of the domain name; (v) appointment of the administrative panel by the provider; (vi) administrative panel review of the written submissions of the parties; (vii) issuance of the administrative panel decision and communication of the decision by the provider; and (viii) implementation of the administrative panel decision by the concerned registrar where the domain name is to be cancelled or transferred. 58

  Purchase Order No SB1335-02-W-0175 (pdf ), above note 33, at pp 6–7 (para B.3.3).

1013

US.35

United States of America (‘.us’) US.36 Any person or entity (complainant) may initiate an administrative proceeding under the

usDRP by submitting a complaint to a usTLD-approved dispute resolution provider. As noted earlier, the usDRP is applicable only to ‘.us’ domain names. This may include Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs). The formal requirements of the complaint are set forth in the Rules for the usDRP (usDRP Rules)59 and the providers’ Supplemental Rules.60 To substantively invoke the usDRP, the following grounds must be asserted in the complaint: (i) the subject domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the domain name registrant (respondent) has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) the domain name has been registered in bad faith or is being used in bad faith by the respondent.61 In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must demonstrate the presence of each of these three elements.

US.37 Following the submission of the complaint, the selected dispute resolution provider examines the

complaint for formal compliance with the requirements of the usDRP, the Rules for the usDRP, and the provider’s Supplemental Rules.62 Any deficiencies must be corrected by the complainant within five calendar days. Once the complaint is determined to be in compliance, the provider forwards the complaint to the named respondent in the manner prescribed by paragraph 2(a) of the usDRP Rules. Proceedings under the usDRP are formally commenced on the date the provider completes its obligations to forward the complaint to the respondent.63

US.38 The respondent is provided a period of 20 calendar days from the date of the commence-

ment of proceedings under the usDRP to submit its response. The formal requirements for the response are set forth in the usDRP Rules. The usDRP further provides that any of the following circumstances, without limitation, if found to be proven will demonstrate the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name: i. The respondent is the owner or beneficiary of a trademark or service mark that is identical to the domain name; ii. Before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; iii. The respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or iv. The respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.64

  The usDRP and usDRP Rules are combined in a single document.   The providers’ Supplemental Rules may be viewed on the AAA and NAF websites, respectively. 61  usDRP para 4(a)(i)–(iii). 62  The formal review and complaint notification requirements under the usDRP generally mirror those of the UDRP. This includes the provider contacting the concerned registrar to verify the registrant information provided in the complaint. Paragraph 4(a) of the usDRP Rules, effective June 1, 2014, requires the provider within one working day of receipt of the complaint to notify the concerned registrar of the dispute and request a lock of the domain name and current registrant information. Paragraph 4(b) of the usDRP Rules, also effective June 1, 2014, obligates the concerned registrar within two working days to provide the requested information, including confirmation of the lock. 63  usDRP Rules para 4(c). 64  usDRP para 4(c)(i)–(iv). 59 60

1014

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.us’ Space Once the response is submitted, or upon the expiry of the 20-day response period, the dis- US.39 pute resolution provider appoints an administrative panel to decide the case.65 As noted earlier, either a single-member panel or, if requested by either party, a three-member panel is appointed. Under the usDRP Rules, in the absence of exceptional circumstances the panel is required to forward its decision to the provider within 14 calendar days.66 The provider in turn is required within three calendar days to communicate the panel decision to the parties, the concerned usTLD registrar, and the US Department of Commerce (ie Neustar).67 The sole remedies available to a complainant under the usDRP are either cancellation of US.40 the domain name or transfer of the domain name to the complainant. In the event that the administrative panel orders the cancellation or transfer of the domain name, the concerned usTLD registrar is required to implement the decision, unless within a period of ten working days the respondent notifies the registrar that the decision has been challenged in a court action brought in a jurisdiction submitted to by the complainant in accordance with the mutual jurisdiction requirement of the usDRP. Although the registration of ‘.us’ domain names is limited to persons or entities that meet US.41 the US Nexus Requirements, Neustar elected not to establish US Nexus Requirements for complainants under the usDRP. Consequently, the ability to invoke the usDRP is not limited to US trademark owners; foreign trademark owners may file usDRP actions as well. This reflects a fundamental recognition that cybersquatting is an international phenomenon, and that cybersquatters in the usTLD space ‘should not be immune from prosecution because of the technicality that the only potential complainant is unable to meet [the US] nexus’.68 The mutual jurisdiction requirements of the usDRP, on the other hand, arguably do embody US.42 a US nexus requirement of sorts for foreign-based complainants. Mutual jurisdiction under the usDRP is limited to court jurisdiction in the United States at the location of: (a) the principal office of the concerned registrar; (b) the registrant’s address as shown in the registrar’s WHOIS data base at the time the complaint is filed; or, if neither are located in the United States (c) exclusively in the Commonwealth of Virginia.69 The latter measure ensures that US courts will have jurisdiction in all cases, given that some usTLD-accredited registrars are located outside the United States, and that foreign registrants may in certain circumstances be able meet US Nexus Requirements without having a US address. The usDRP mutual jurisdiction requirements arguably benefit US-based ‘.us’ domain name US.43 registrants, who can challenge an adverse panel decision in a local US court, to whose jurisdiction a foreign-based complainant has submitted as a condition of invoking the usDRP. Given the aversion of foreign businesses to protracted and costly litigation in US courts, the usDRP mutual jurisdiction requirements could influence a potential foreign-based complainant’s decision to forego invoking the usTLD dispute resolution policy. That is not to suggest that US-based registrants are immune to the costs of litigating in US courts, or that foreign-based registrants would find the prospect any less daunting than would foreign-based complainants. Panels are empowered under the usDRP to decide requests by a party to consolidate mul- US.44 tiple domain name disputes ‘in accordance with the Policy and Rules’. The consolidation provisions of the usDRP are identical to those of the UDRP, and both appear to contemplate 65  In the event that no response is submitted, para 14(a) of the usDRP Rules direct the panel to reach its decision based on the complaint. 66  usDRP Rules para 15(b). 67  Ibid., para 16(a). 68  See Neustar Proposal 2007, above note 38, at p J-10. 69  usDRP Rules para 1 (definitions).

1015

United States of America (‘.us’) consolidation only where a single respondent has registered multiple domain names that are the subject of a dispute with a single complainant.70 Recent UDRP panel decisions have permitted consolidation of multiple complainants demonstrating a truly common grievance against a respondent, provided consolidation will be equitable and procedurally efficient.71 Similarly, multiple domain name disputes involving differently named domain name registrants have been consolidated by UDRP panels in circumstances where common ownership or control is exercised over the disputed domain names.72 US.45 Although not explicitly provided for in the usDRP, provider NAF’s Supplemental Rule

1(e) allows multiple complainants to proceed as one party if they demonstrate a sufficient nexus to concurrently claim rights in the subject domain name.73 In Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games and International Olympic Committee v Hardeep Malik,74 the panel reasoned that the nexus required by the supplemental rule may be demonstrated by a relationship between the parties arising from licensing, partnership or other affiliation that supports treating the parties as a single entity. This approach has since been followed by other usDRP panels, including decisions in ‘Dr Martens’ International Trading GmbH and ‘Dr Maertens’ Marketing GmbH v Deborah Jordan,75 Altadis USA, Inc and Max Rohr, Inc v Andrew Luthi,76 and Hyundai Protection Plan, Inc, Hyundai Protection Plan Florida, Inc v Andrew Hillin.77

US.46 As noted earlier, the usDRP contemplates consolidation of multiple domain names only

when registered by a single domain name holder; furthermore, neither provider’s supplemental rules expressly provide for consolidation of domain names registered to more than one respondent. Regardless, in West Coast University, Inc v John Bonnic a/k/a West Coast Union Education and West Coast University,78 the panel chose to proceed with a unitary proceeding involving differently named domain name registrants whose respective domain names both incorporated the complainant’s mark, based on the panel’s finding that the domain names were effectively controlled by the same entity. In reaching this conclusion, the panel relied upon WHOIS records showing that the respondents had provided similar contact information when registering the respective domain names. In addition, one respondent was the billing contact for both the domain names. Conversely, in Accor v Bruce Mole,79 in which the complainant alleged cyberflight, the usDRP panel declined to join additional respondents based on insufficient evidence of common control of the subject domain name.

  Compare UDRP para 4(f ) and UDRP Rules para 3(c) with usDRP para 4(f ) and usDRP Rules para 3(c).  See MLB Advanced Media, The Phillies, Padres LP v OreNet, Inc, WIPO Case No D2009-0985; Alabama One Call, Louisiana One Call System, Tennessee One-Call System, Inc v Windward Marketing Group, Inc, WIPO Case No D2009-1243; Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd, Tottenham Hostpur Public Ltd, West Ham United Football Club PLC, Manchester United Ltd, The Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Ltd v Domains by Proxy, Inc/Official Tickets Ltd, WIPO Case No D2009-0331. The leading consolidation case is panellist Andrew Christie’s decision under the auDRP in Dial A Word Registry Pty Ltd and Others v 1300 Directory Pty Ltd, WIPO Case No DAU2008-0021. 72 See Speedo Holdings BV v Programmer, Miss Kathy Beckerson, John Smitt, Matthew Simmons, WIPO Case No D2010-0281 and the UDRP panel decisions discussed therein. 73  NAF Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines a complainant for purposes of the usDRP Rules as ‘the single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint’. 74  FA 666119 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 12, 2006). 75  FA 1461350 (Nat. Arb. Forum October 17, 2012). 76  FA 1482230 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 15, 2013). 77  FA 1494014 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2013). 78  FA 1311691 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 28, 2010). 79  FA 1435595 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 30, 2012). 70 71

1016

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.us’ Space (c) Role of the ADR Providers As previously noted, the AAA and NAF are the current dispute resolution providers for the US.47 usDRP, selected by Neustar and approved by the US Department of Commerce. Under the usDRP Dispute Provider Agreement (Provider Agreement), the terms of the dispute resolution providers’ contracts run concurrently with the term of Neustar’s contract with the US government. The providers are engaged on a non-exclusive basis to furnish dispute resolution services for the usTLD, and are required to adopt the usDRP and the Rules for the usDRP. The providers are also free to promulgate supplemental rules that do not materially affect the substance of the usDRP. Both the AAA and NAF have supplemental rules in place. In administering the usDRP, the dispute resolution providers perform certain gatekeeper US.48 functions as discussed above, which include ensuring that complaints submitted to the provider are in formal compliance with the usDRP, the usDRP Rules, and the provider’s supplemental rules, verification of registrant information with the concerned usTLD registrar, and the locking of the domain name by the registrar. The provider is further responsible for notification of the complaint to the respondent, the appointment of the administrative panel, and the issuance and communication of panel decisions. The providers’ supplemental rules address various aspects of the usDRP administrative proceedings. Examples of this include page limits for the complaint and response, time extensions and stays, the submission of supplemental written statement and documents, the qualifications, appointment, and composition of panels, and the timing of panel decisions. The usDRP follows the UDRP in providing that, in addition to the complaint and response, US.49 the panel in its sole discretion may request further statements from either party.80 In practice, disputants have not been deterred from submitting unsolicited supplemental statements. Perhaps in deference to this practice, the NAF Supplemental Rules allow each party to submit one additional statement when accompanied by a prescribed fee.81 It may be questioned whether the provider rules are at odds with the usDRP,82 but it appears that in all instances the determination whether to accept such supplemental filings is committed to the sole discretion of the panel.83

(d) Appointment and Composition of the Administrative Panel Dispute resolution providers for the usDRP are required to maintain and make publicly US.50 available a list of panellists and their qualifications. Generally speaking, the providers’ lists of usDRP panellists include experienced decision-makers, such as former judges, seasoned neutrals, and attorneys with substantive experience in relevant areas of intellectual property law. Many of the usDRP panellists also appear on ICANN-accredited dispute resolution provider lists. If neither party has elected a three-member panel, the usDRP provider appoints a single US.51 panellist from its list of panellists. In the event a three-member panel is elected by either party, the provider appoints a three-member panel in accordance with the provisions of the usDRP Rules. Each party submits a list of three candidates to serve as one of the panellists. The parties may draw from any usDRP-approved provider’s list of panellists. The provider

  usDRP Rules para 12.   NAF Supp. Rules para 7. 82  Paragraph 1 of the usDRP Rules directs that a provider’s supplemental rules shall not be inconsistent with the usDRP, and should be limited to topics such as fees, word and page limits, the means for communication with the provider and panel, and the form of cover sheets. 83 See Steven D Welch c/o Lost Beach, Ltd v Internet Realty Investments Exchange, Inc, FA 1246221 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 31, 2009). 80 81

1017

United States of America (‘.us’) attempts to appoint one panellist from the each of the lists of candidates submitted by the parties. Following the appointment of these panellists, the provider then furnishes the parties a list of five candidates, and appoints from this list a presiding panellist, after considering the preferences of both parties as to the selection. US.52 All panellists are required prior to their appointment to disclose any known circumstances

that might raise justifiable doubt regarding the panellist’s impartiality or independence. If new circumstances that might create such doubt arise during any stage of the administrative proceeding, the panellist is required to promptly disclose such circumstances to the provider. In such an event, it is within the discretion of the provider to appoint a substitute panellist.

(e) Allocation of Costs US.53 The complainant is responsible in all cases for payment of the fixed fees of the provider, unless

a three-member panel is elected by the respondent, in which event the respondent is responsible for payment of one-half of the fixed fees for the three-member panel. In the event of exceptional circumstances, such as an in-person hearing, the provider may request payment of additional fees from the parties, established in agreement with the parties and the panel. The provider fees are shown in Table US.1 and Table US.2 below.

US.54 Table US.1: AAA Provider/Panel Fees84 Domain Names

Single Panellist

Three-Member Panel

1 to 3

$2,000 (Panellist: $1,000; AAA: $1,000)

$4,500 (Chair: $1,500; Panellist: $1,000; AAA: $1,000)

4 to 6

$2,500 (Panellist: $1,500; AAA: $1,000)

$6,000 (Chair: $2,000; Panellist: $1,250; AAA: $1,500)

7 or more

Panellist fee to be decided; $1,000 to AAA Panellist fee to be decided; $1,500 to AAA

US.55 Table US.2: NAF Provider/Panel Fees85 Domain Names

Single Panellist

Three-Member Panel

1 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 or more

$1,300 $1,450 $1,800 $2,250 Determined in consultation with NAF

$2,600 $2,900 $3,600 $5,000 Determined in consultation with NAF

(e) Administrative Panel Decisions: Substantive Decision Criteria US.56 To satisfy the requirements of the usDRP, complainants must demonstrate that: i. The subject domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; ii. The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and iii. The domain name has been registered in bad faith or is being used in bad faith by the respondent.86

  The provider fees are published in AAA’s usDRP Supplemental Rules.   The provider fees are published in NAF’s usDRP Supplemental Rules. 86  usDRP para 4(a)(i)–(iii). 84 85

1018

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.us’ Space It is typical for usDRP panels to look to UDRP decisions when addressing substantive decision criterion under the usDRP, as the three elements of the usDRP correspond closely to those of the UDRP. Nonetheless, there are differences between the substantive decision criteria of the usDRP and the UDRP, as discussed further below.

(i)  Trademark Rights  Although the usDRP is silent on this point, it is well settled that a US.57 complainant is not limited to reliance on trademark rights arising under United States law, and may satisfy the first element of the Policy by establishing rights in foreign trademarks.87 In addition, usDRP panels have held that foreign-based complainants have standing to file a complaint without meeting US Nexus Requirements.88 These decisions support Neustar’s recognition that cybersquatting is an international phenomenon, and that cybersquatters in the usTLD space ‘should not be immune from prosecution because of the technicality that the only potential complainant is unable to meet [the US] nexus’.89 Furthermore, usDRP panels have followed decisions under the UDRP in holding that a complainant may establish trademark rights either through registration or based on common law use.90 (ii)  Identical or Confusingly Similar  The decision criteria applied by usDRP panels when US.58 addressing identity or confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy mirrors that applied by panels under the UDRP, which is not surprising given the tendency of usDRP panels to look to UDPR decisions for guidance. Thus, it has been held that the incorporation of a complainant’s mark in the subject domain name is sufficient to establish confusing similarity,91 and that the addition of common or descriptive words ordinarily does not distinguish the domain name from the complainant’s mark.92 In assessing identity or confusing similarity under the first element of the usDRP, panels uniformly disregard the ‘.us’ top-level domain.93 (iii)  Respondent Rights or Legitimate Interests  Paragraph 4(c) of the usDRP provides US.59 that any of the following circumstances, without limitation, if found to be proven will demonstrate the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name: i. The respondent is the owner or beneficiary of a trademark or service mark that is identical to the domain name; ii. Before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; iii. The respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

87  See, eg Thompson & Company of Tampa, Inc v Andrew Luthi, FA 1440472 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2012); Aktieselskabet af 21. November 2001 A/S v Jack Sun/DomainJet, Inc, FA 1423051 (Nat. Arb. Forum February 15, 2012); Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd v DIGITCOM Tech., FA 1417710 (Nat. Arb. Forum January 6, 2012). 88  Thompson & Company of Tampa, Inc v Andrew Luthi, above note 87. 89  See Neustar Proposal 2007, above note 38, at p J-10. 90  See, eg Thompson & Company of Tampa, Inc v Andrew Luthi, above note 87; Steven Polakoff v Fulviu Fodoreanu, FA 114276 (Nat. Arb. Forum August 17, 2002). 91  Roche Products Ltd v Andrew Palanich/Merchservice, FA 1354115 (Nat. Arb. Forum November 29, 2010); Masai Marketing & Trading AG v Muhammad Khalid c/o Ovalcom, Inc, FA 1284627 (Nat. Arb. Forum November 2, 2009). 92 See Bank of America Corporation v Jason Briggs/Modify Law, FA 1487021 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 13, 2013)  (‘bankofamericamodification.us’); AOL, Inc v ChengshuangLi, FA 1483339 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 26, 2013) (‘website-aol.us’); LEGO Juris A/S v Mark E, FA 1403833 (Nat. Arb. Forum October 5, 2011) (‘legotoy.us’); Roche Products Ltd v Andrew Palanich/Merchservice, above note 91. 93  See, eg LEGO Juris A/Sv. Mark E, above note 92 (addition of ‘.us’ ccTLD ‘inconsequential’).

1019

United States of America (‘.us’) iv. The respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.94 US.60 The usDRP augments the UDRP with a new paragraph 4(c)(i), providing that a respondent

may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name by establishing ownership or beneficial interests in a trademark that is identical to the domain name.95 Aside from this, paragraphs 4(c) of the usDRP and the UDRP are identical, and in evaluating respondent rights usDRP panels tend to follow the prevailing views of UDRP panels. Thus, for example, usDRP panels hold that a respondent does not acquire rights or legitimate interests when registering and using an identical or confusingly similar domain name to trade on the complainant’s mark by generating pay-per-click advertising revenues.96 Conversely, usDRP panels also recognize that a registrant may establish rights in a domain name comprised of generic or descriptive terms to generate pay-per-click advertising revenues based on the domain name’s commonly understood meaning.97 In addition, usDRP panels uniformly follow the UDRP approach of shifting the burden to the respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name once the complainant has established a prima facie case under paragraph 4(a)(ii).

US.61 There are other issues on which the views of usDRP panels are not in total alignment with

prevailing panel views under the UDRP. Reseller rights are a case in point. Only in recent years have usDRP panel decisions directly recognized and applied to both authorized and unauthorized resellers98 the fair use criteria articulated more than a decade ago in Oki Data Americas, Inc v ASD Inc.99 Historically, usDRP panels have held that an unauthorized reseller does not have the right to register and use a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark,100 as such unauthorized use of a complainant’s mark impermissibly suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the complainant.101 However, the 2011 decision of the three-member usDRP panel in Patterson Medical Holdings, Inc v LifeTec Inc,102

  usDRP para 4(c)(i)–(iv).  Ibid., para 4(c)(i). See Enduris LLC v Washington Governmental Entity Pool c/o Alric Balka, FA 1245314 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 25, 2009) (respondent’s state law trademark registration of ENDURIS WASHINGTON establishes trademark rights in mark identical to domain name ‘enduris.us’ under para 4(c)(i)). 96  See, eg LEGO Juris A/S v Zheng Kang, FA 1369800 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 11, 2011) (‘lego-onsale. us’ resolves to website featuring links to third-party sites, some offering competing products); BANCO ITAÚ S.A. v Daniel Tavares Filizzola, FA 1155776 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 25, 2008) (three-member panel). 97  See, eg ACE Ltd v WebMagic Ventures, LLC c/o WebMagic Staff, FA 1144016 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 22, 2008) (three-member panel), (‘The Panel strongly believes that there is overwhelming evidence that the ‘ace.us’ domain name is comprised of a common, generic term, based on which evidence Respondent has established its rights or legitimate interests.’) 98 See Patterson Medical Holdings, Inc v LifeTec Inc, FA 1370618 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 21, 2011) (three-member panel). 99 WIPO Case No D2001-0903. The prevailing if not consensus view of UDRP panellists is that a reseller offering trademarked goods or services using a domain name containing the trademark may establish rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where the following conditions are met: (i) the respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue; (ii) the respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods; (iii) the site itself must accurately disclose the respondent’s relationship with the trademark owner; and (iv) the respondent must not try to ‘corner the market’ in all relevant domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of the ability to reflect its own mark in a domain name. The majority in Oki Data considered that these criteria should be applicable to both authorized and unauthorized resellers. See also Part IIIE, Section VIII(4)(d)(i)(B)(2). 100  Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd v DIGITCOM Tech., above note 87. 101  LEGO Juris A/S v Mark E, above note 92 (‘legotoy.us’). 102  FA 1370618 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 21, 2011) (three-member panel) (applying Oki Data criteria to unauthorized resellers). 94 95

1020

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.us’ Space holding that Oki Data criteria is applicable in the unauthorized reseller context, may cause other usDRP panels to reconsider their previously expressed views on this point. In cases implicating free speech and First Amendment rights, usDRP panels seem to have US.62 rejected the view that use of a domain name identical to or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark for purposes of criticism may constitute a legitimate non-commercial or fair use under paragraph 4(c)(iv). usDRP panels addressing free speech concerns thus far have held that a respondent does not have an unfettered right to register and use a domain name identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark for purposes of criticism.103 As explained in Tropar Manufacturing Co, Inc v TSB a.k.a Takoma Sign & Banner and Lee George,104 the right of a respondent to establish and maintain a website critical of the complainant does not extend to using a domain name that is identical to or incorporates the complainant’s mark, absent some additional element of the domain name distinguishing the respondent from the complainant. Thus, whether a domain name incorporating the complainant’s mark is entitled to First Amendment protection will depend on the extent to which the domain name itself conveys a protectable, communicative message, and not simply on the content of the respondent’s website.105

(iv)  Registration or Use in Bad Faith  Paragraph 4(b) of the usDRP provides that the fol- US.63 lowing circumstances, if found to be present by the panel, shall be evidence of the registration or use of a domain name in bad faith: i. Circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; ii. The respondent’s registration of the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name; iii. The respondent’s registration of the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or iv. The respondent’s use of the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location.106

103  See, eg Watch Empire, LLC dba Timeandgems v Muhammad Al-Quaid, FA 1456432 (Nat. Arb. Forum September 18, 2012)  (respondent’s use of confusingly similar domain name falsely conveyed association with complainant and led Internet users to criticism site); AromaSys, Inc and In-Vironmental Integrity, Inc v Singe Black c/o Vinyl Blue Enterprises Incorp, FA 1255851 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2009) (domain name merely incorporating complainant’s mark without more is not protected by First Amendment); Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance a non-profit California corporation (USAEyes) v Brent Hanson, FA 1237910 (Nat. Arb. Forum January 19, 2009); Samsung Networks Inc v savemin.com,inc, FA 1230238 (Nat. Arb. Forum December 1, 2008) (three-member panel); National Federation of Independent Business v Christopher Vanderhorst, FA 1106754 (Nat. Arb. Forum January 17, 2008); Immigration Equality v William Brent c/o ImmigrationEquality.us, FA 1103571 (Nat. Arb. Forum January 11, 2008) (there is no inherent right to use another’s mark to criticize the mark holder). 104  FA 127701 (Nat. Arb. Forum December 4, 2002). 105  Ibid., (respondent’s use of complainant’s mark in domain name not part of a communicative message, and thus not protected under First Amendment); Pepsico, Inc v Richard Leeds d/b/a NeonGecko, Inc, FA 117870 (Nat. Arb. Forum September 27, 2002) (‘pepsibottling.us’ fails to convey message that it is used for purpose of comment or criticism; it is not sufficient that expressive content may be apparent on viewing website). 106  usDRP para 4(b)(i)–(iv).

1021

United States of America (‘.us’) As is the case with the UDRP, the circumstances set out at paragraph 4(b) of the usDRP are not exhaustive of all circumstances under which bad faith registration or use may be found.107 Thus, for example, in Dell Inc v tawnya grilth c/o dellpc.us,108 the panel held the respondent’s registration and use of ‘dellpc.us’ with a website offering downloads to malware and malicious software to be in bad faith. As discussed earlier, there are also a number of panel decisions holding that a respondent’s violation of the usTLD Nexus Requirements is evidence of bad faith registration and use.109 US.64 The bad faith criteria of the usDRP differ from the UDRP in several respects. Unlike the

UDRP, a complainant asserting under paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the usDRP that the respondent registered the subject domain name in bad faith to prevent the complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name need not demonstrate that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. According to Neustar, this substantive change from the UDRP was intended to expand protection for trademark owners, and reflects what Neustar considers to be the original intent of the drafters of the UDRP.110

US.65 While recognizing that a pattern of conduct is not required to support a bad faith finding

under paragraph 4(b)(ii), usDRP panels nonetheless seem reluctant to so hold in the absence of the respondent’s registration of multiple domain names incorporating the complainant’s mark or additional third-party marks.111 This reluctance may be due to usDRP panels looking to decisions under the UDRP, or it may reflect concern as to whether the registration of a single domain name is probative of the respondent’s intent to preclude the complainant from reflecting its mark in a domain name. In any event, usDRP panel decisions seem to have marginalized Neustar’s decision to remove the ‘pattern of conduct’ requirement from paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the UDRP.

US.66 Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of usDRP, unlike the UDRP, a complainant need only establish

that the subject domain name has been registered in bad faith or is being used in bad faith. This is a substantive change made by Neustar to avoid perceived anomalous results sometimes reached under the conjunctive bad faith registration and use requirements of the UDRP.112 Nevertheless, in the vast majority of cases usDRP panels tend to analyze bad faith under the UDRP’s conjunctive requirements.113 While there are usDRP panel decisions expressly recognizing and applying the disjunctive bad faith standard,114 in only a few of these cases

107  AromaSys, Inc and In-Vironmental Integrity, Inc v Singe Black c/o Vinyl Blue Enterprises Incorp, FA 1255851 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 10, 2009). 108  FA 1400620 (Nat. Arb. Forum September 1, 2011). 109  Exin Holding BV and its parent company Stichting het Nationaal Exameninstuut voor Informatica v Carolina James, FA 1452653 (Nat. Arb. Forum August 27, 2012); La-Z-Boy Incorporated v Mohammed Iqbal, FA1355601 (Nat. Arb. Forum December 21, 2010); Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v Albert Bauer, FA 1335605 (Nat. Arb. Forum September 24, 2010); Illycaffe S.p.A. v Esteban c/o Esteban Remecz, FA 1291938 (Nat. Arb. Forum December 22, 2009). 110  See Neustar Proposal 2007, above note 38, at pp J-8–J-9. 111 See 3M Company v Touch Screens Inc/Scott Tippetts, FA 1411139 (Nat. Arb. Forum November 10, 2011)  (panel noted that paragraph 4(b)(ii) does not require ‘pattern of conduct’ but declined to address bad faith under this provision). See, eg Omega SA v Domain Admin, FA 1437016 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2012) (finding bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(ii) based on ‘pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names containing Complainant’s mark’). 112  See Neustar Proposal 2007, above note 38, at p J-8. 113  See, eg Kaspersky Lab Zao v Paul Bonsey/LeByte, FA 1363673 (Nat. Arb. Forum February 1, 2011). Regarding the third element of the usDRP, the panel stated: ‘The applicable Policy requires proof of bad faith registration and use.’ 114  Aktieselskabet af 21 November 2001 A/S v Jack Sun/DomainJet, Inc, FA 1423051 (Nat. Arb. Forum February 15, 2012); DrayTek Corporation v Vogel, Steve, Vogel, Steve/Strowger, Inc, FA 1407669 (Nat. Arb. Forum November 8, 2011); MILIPOL v Frank Novello/MILIPOL, FA 1402234 (Nat. Arb. Forum September

1022

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.us’ Space are the circumstances such that the bad faith determination likely would have been different under the UDRP.115 One usDRP case in which the bad faith determination likely would have been different US.67 under the UDRP is DrayTek Corporation v Vogel, Steve, Vogel, Steve/Strowger, Inc.116 The complainant used the mark DRAYTEK with its telecommunication products. The respondent registered the subject domain name ‘draytek.us’ while a US distributor for the complainant’s products. Following the termination of the distribution agreement, the respondent began using the subject domain name with a location service for low-cost manufacturers of products competing with those of the complainant. The three-member panel in DrayTek, applying the usDRP disjunctive bad faith standard without reaching the issue of bad faith registration, held that the respondent’s use of the subject domain name following the termination of the distribution agreement was in bad faith.

(v)  Available Remedies  As noted earlier, the sole remedies available under the usDRP con- US.68 sist of the cancellation or transfer of the contested domain name. Given the usTLD Nexus Requirements, the transfer of a domain name to a prevailing complainant who has not demonstrated the requisite nexus seems an anomalous and unintended result. Neustar in July 2007 acknowledged this anomaly and indicated that steps would be taken to address it.117 The usDRP most recently was revised effective June 1, 2014, but this anomaly has not been addressed. As a result, usDRP panels continue to transfer domain names to foreign-based complainants without requiring proof of such compliance, including several cases where panels premised their bad faith determination in part on the respondent’s violation of the usTLD Nexus Requirements.118 (f ) The usDRP and Court Proceedings The Lanham Act provides a civil action to a domain name registrant whose domain name US.69 has been suspended, disabled, or transferred under policies such as the UDRP and usDRP to establish that the registration and use of the domain name is not unlawful under US law.119 Such actions are decided de novo under the substantive criteria of the ACPA, and as a result US courts generally give no deference to the challenged administrative panel decisions.120 As a general rule there should be no jurisdiction issues respecting a challenge to a

7, 2011); MBTI Trust, Inc v Training Services On Demand East c/o Frank Whyte, FA 1290762 (Nat. Arb. Forum December 1, 2009); Samsung Networks Inc v savemin.com,inc, above note 103; BANCO ITAÚ S.A. v Daniel Tavares Filizzola, above note 96; American University v Naveh, LLC, FA 323759 (Nat. Arb. Forum October 21, 2004). 115  See, eg Aktieselskabet af 21 November 2001 A/S v Jack Sun/DomainJet, Inc, above note 114. The panel analyzed the bad faith issues under the usDRP disjunctive standard, but ultimately concluded from the circumstances of the case that the respondent had registered and used the subject domain name in bad faith. 116  FA 1407669 (Nat. Arb. Forum November 8, 2011). 117  Neustar proposed that para 4(i) of the usDRP be amended as follows: Remedies—The remedies available to a Complainant pursuant to any proceeding before an Administrative Panel shall be limited to requiring the cancellation of your domain name or the transfer of your domain name registration to the Complainant; provided, however, that a transfer of the domain name registration to the Complainant may only be made if the Complainant has also demonstrated its compliance with the U.S. Nexus Requirements. Neustar Proposal 2007, above note 38, at p J-10 (emphasis in original). Neustar indicated, however, that these changes would only be implemented with approval from the US Department of Commerce. Ibid. 118  Exin Holding BV and its parent company Stichting het Nationaal Exameninstuut voor Informatica v Carolina James, above note 109; Illycaffe S.p.A. v Esteban c/o Esteban Remecz, above note 109. 119  15 U.S.C. s 1114(b)(2)(D)(v). This provision applies to any ‘reasonable policy’ adopted by a registrar or registry prohibiting the registration of a domain name that is identical to, confusingly similar to, or dilutive of another’s mark. Ibid., s 1114(b)(2)(D)(ii)(II). 120  See, eg Barcelona.com, Inc v Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento De Barcelona, 330 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 2003).

1023

United States of America (‘.us’) usDRP panel decision under the ACPA even where foreign-based complainants or registrants are involved, given that foreign domain name registrants must satisfy the usTLD Nexus Requirements and that foreign complainants have submitted to US mutual jurisdiction as a condition to invoking the Policy. US.70 Trademark owners also may opt to bring a civil action for cybersquatting under the ACPA.

A trademark owner who does not prevail in a complaint under the usDRP is not precluded from subsequently bringing a civil action under the ACPA. The chief advantage of the usDRP is the speedy and cost-effective nature of the Policy’s administrative proceeding, when compared to potentially protracted and more expensive court litigation. The ACPA may prove preferable, however, in complex or fact intense disputes, which are not well suited for the usDRP’s summary administrative proceeding. The remedies provided under the ACPA also are broader than those available under the UDRP. In addition to the cancellation or transfer of the domain name, the ACPA provides for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and a prevailing plaintiff may recover actual damages or opt to recover statutory damages. In ‘exceptional cases’ a prevailing party under the ACPA may be awarded attorney’s fees.121

(g) Statistics US.71 Neustar indicated in July 2007 that it would require all usDRP dispute resolution providers

to compile and provide Neustar on a quarterly basis relevant statistics concerning domain name cases submitted for resolution under the Policy.122 If such statistics are being compiled and provided to Neustar by the AAA and NAF, however, they have not been made publicly available at the time of writing.

(2) The usTLD Nexus Dispute Policy and Rules (a) Principle Characteristics and Scope of the Proceeding US.72 Neustar has also developed and implemented the usTLD Nexus Dispute Policy and Rules

(usNDP), effective April 24, 2002.123 As noted earlier, the US Nexus Requirements are unique to the usTLD, and the usNDP applies only to disputes where a ‘.us’ domain name has been registered in violation of the usTLD Nexus Requirements. Like the usDRP, the usNDP is incorporated by reference into the usTLD Registration Agreement, and contractually obligates registrants to submit to the usNDP’s mandatory administrative proceeding in the event a complaint is lodged under this dispute policy.

US.73 In some aspects the characteristics of the usNDP proceeding are comparable to those of

the usDRP. Proceedings under the usNDP are administered by dispute resolution providers approved by the Department of Commerce. The current dispute resolution providers for the usNDP are the NAF and AAA. Any person or entity (complainant) may initiate an administrative proceeding under the usNDP by submitting a complaint to one of the usTLD-approved dispute resolution providers. Upon receiving a complaint satisfying the minimum usNDP filing requirements, the provider notifies the registry and requests verification of the registrant’s contact information. At this stage the registry also locks the domain name. The provider then examines the complaint for formal compliance with the

121 For a more comprehensive discussion of the ACPA, please refer to the text accompanying notes 140–310 below. 122  Neustar Proposal 2007, above note 38, at p J-10–J-11. Neustar indicated providers would be required to provide at least the following information: number of total .usDRP cases filed for the quarter and in the aggregate; number of respondent defaults; number of proceedings held for complainant; and number of proceedings held for respondent. 123  The usTLD Nexus Dispute Policy and Rules (usNDP) are available on the Neustar.us website at: http:// neustar.us/nexus-dispute-policy/.

1024

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.us’ Space requirements of the usNDP, the Rules for the usNDP, and the provider’s Supplemental Rules.124 Any deficiencies must be corrected within five calendar days. Once the complaint is determined to be in compliance, the provider forwards the complaint US.74 to the domain name registrant in the manner prescribed by paragraph 2(a) of the usNDP Rules. Proceedings under the usNDP are formally commenced on the date the provider completes this notification. The provider is also required to notify the complainant, the respondent, and the concerned usTLD registrar of the date of commencement of the administrative proceeding. At this stage, however, the characteristics of the usDRP and usNDP proceedings diverge US.75 sharply. The usNDP, prior to any requirement for the submission of the response, requires the provider to conduct an initial review of the complaint and decide whether a prima facie case has been made that the respondent has not met any of the US Nexus Requirements. The provider makes this threshold determination based on the statements and documents submitted by the complainant, the usNDP and usNDP Rules, and any rules or principals of law that the provider deems applicable. The usNDP specifically provides that any of the following circumstances, without limitation, if found by the provider to be present shall be evidence of non-compliance with the Nexus Requirements: 1. The registrant is not a United States citizen, a permanent resident of the United States or any of its possessions or territories, or primarily domiciled in the United States or any of its possessions; or 2. The registrant is not a United States entity or organization that is incorporated, organized, or otherwise constituted under the laws of a state of the United States, the District of Columbia or any U.S.  possessions or territories, including federal, state, and local governments or political subdivisions thereof, and non-commercial organizations based in the United States; or 3. The registrant is a foreign entity (or individual) that does not have a bona fide presence in the United States or any of its possessions or territories. In order to have a ‘bona fide presence’, the registrant must have real and substantial lawful connections with, or lawful activities in, the United States.125

In the event that the provider finds based on its initial review that a prima facie showing has US.76 not been made under the complaint, the provider issues a letter to the complainant denying the challenge, which is also communicated to the registrant and the concerned registrar. Should the provider decide that the complaint presents a prima facie case, the provider forwards a letter to the registrant requiring the registrant to submit evidence of compliance with the US Nexus Requirements. The registrant has a period of 30 calendar days (response period) from the date of the pro- US.77 vider letter to submit evidence of compliance with the US Nexus Requirements. The formal requirements of the response letter are set forth in the usNDP Rules and the providers’ supplemental rules. Paragraph 8(a) of the usNDP Rules requires that the registrant specifically respond to the statements in the provider’s letter and include ‘any and all basis’ for the registrant to retain registration and use of the domain name based on compliance with the Nexus Requirements.126

124  The NAF’s usNDP Supplemental Rules may be accessed through a link on the NAF website. The AAA’s usNDP Supplemental Rules can be found by using the AAA website search utility. 125  usNDP para 3(a). 126  usNDP Rules para 8(i).

1025

United States of America (‘.us’) US.78 The usNDP Rules require the provider to appoint a single-member panel within five calendar

days of the provider’s receipt of the response.127 Should the registrant submit evidence during the response period demonstrating compliance with the US Nexus Requirement, the administrative panel is required within 14 working days from the end of the response period to issue a written communication that the registrant be permitted to retain the subject domain name, and the full text of the panel decision must be communicated to the parties and the concerned registrar. The administrative panel within the same 14-working-day period is required to issue a Nexus Failure Finding in the event that (1) no response was received during the response period; or (2) the evidence submitted by the registrant fails to demonstrate the registrant’s compliance with any of the US Nexus Requirements prior to the date the usNDP was invoked in connection with the dispute.128

US.79 In the event that the panel issues a Nexus Failure Finding, the full text of the finding must be

communicated to the parties. The registrant is afforded a total of 30-days in which to submit documentary or other evidence that it has cured the Nexus Requirements deficiency. Should the panel determine from the evidence submitted by the registrant during the cure period that the Nexus Failure has been cured, the panel is required to issue within 14 working days from the end of the cure period a written finding directing that the registrant be permitted to keep the subject domain name, which the provider is required to communicate to the parties and the concerned registrar.129

US.80 In the event that the panel determines that the evidence submitted by the registrant does not

demonstrate that the registrant has cured the Nexus Failure, the panel within 14 working days from the end of the cure period is required to issue a written finding, which is communicated to the parties and the concerned registrar. The panel’s finding directs that the domain name be deleted from the usTLD Registry database and placed on the list of available names.130 If no response is received from the registrar during the cure period, the provider rather than the panel issues the written finding, directing that the domain name be deleted from the usTLD Registry database and placed on the list of available names.131

US.81 The exclusive remedy available to a complainant under the usNDP is the deletion of the sub-

ject domain name from the usTLD Registry database.132 Once the administrative panel or provider directs that the domain name be deleted, the decision must be implemented within ten working days unless the respondent notifies the registrar that the decision has been challenged in court in a jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted under the usNDP mutual jurisdiction requirements.133 This implementation language substantially tracks the comparable provisions of the usDRP.

US.82 The usNDP substantially tracks the usDRP in a number of other respects. The mutual juris-

diction provisions of the usNDP are identical to those of the usDRP. The Rules on transfers of domain names during the pendency of the mandatory administrative proceeding are

127  Unlike the usDRP, the usNDP does not provide the parties with the option of electing a three-member panel. 128  The NAF Supplemental Rules provide that if no response is received from the registrant during the response period, a panel will not be appointed, and NAF instead will issue a Nexus Failure Finding. If in such circumstances the registrant submits a response to the Nexus Failure Finding, the NAF will then appoint a panel. The AAA Supplemental Rules provide for the appointment of the panel upon completion of the provider’s initial formal compliance review of the complaint. 129  usNDP Rules para 9(d)(2). 130  Ibid., para 9(d)(3). 131  Ibid., para 9(d)(4). 132  usNDP para 3(e). 133  Ibid., at para 3(g).

1026

III.  ADR Mechanisms for the ‘.us’ Space the same under both usTLD dispute resolution policies. Like the usDRP, the usNDP does not incorporate any US Nexus Requirements for complainants. Additionally, the usNDP’s mandatory administrative proceeding requirements do not foreclose the submission of the domain name dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction in the United States either before the usNDP administrative proceeding is commenced or following its conclusion.134 The usNDP does not expressly provide for consolidation of disputes under the policy, but US.83 the usNDP Rules anticipate the availability of consolidation which, similar to the usDRP, is committed to the sole discretion of the administrative panel.135 The panel is also vested with discretion to suspend or terminate an administrative proceeding, or proceed to a decision.136 In addition, the usDRP follows the UDRP in providing that the panel in its sole discretion may request further statements from either party.137

(b) Role of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Provider The AAA and NAF are the current dispute resolution providers for the usNDP, selected US.84 by Neustar and approved by the US Department of Commerce. The role of the providers under the usNDP is similar in most respects to the role of the providers under the usDRP; however, as noted above, the usNDP requires the provider to conduct an initial review of the complaint and decide whether a prima facie case has been made. Hence, in addition to performing gatekeeper functions under the usNDP comparable to those of the usDRP, the usNDP providers also serve in a limited role as decision-makers. (c) Appointment and Composition of the Administrative Panel As noted earlier, the provider appoints single-member panels in all administrative proceedings US.85 under the usNDP. Unlike the usDRP, there is no provision for the election of a three-member panel by either party. All panellists are required prior to their appointment to disclose any known circumstances that might raise justifiable doubt regarding the panellist’s impartiality or independence. There is no requirement under the usNDP that providers maintain and make publicly available a list of panellists and their qualifications. Presumably, the providers look to their respective lists of usDRP panellists in making panel appointments under the usNDP.138 (d) Allocation of Costs The complainant is responsible in all cases for payment of the fixed fees of the provider. The US.86 provider’s fixed fees (including panel fees) are set forth in their respective supplemental rules in Table US.3 and Table US.4: Table US.3:  AAA Provider/Panel Fees Domain Names

Single Panellist

1 to 3 4 to 6 7 or more

$1,000 (Panellist: $500; AAA: $500) $1,500 (Panellist: $750; AAA: $750) Panellist fee to be decided; $1,000 to AAA

134  Like the usDRP, the usNDP does not preclude the assertion of domain name disputes in any available court, arbitration, or other proceeding. Whether a third party has standing to challenge a ‘.us’ domain name registrant’s non-compliance with the usTLD Nexus Requirements other than through the legal framework provided by the usNDP is not clear. 135  usNDP Rules para 11(e). 136  Ibid., para 15. 137  Ibid., para 12. 138  The NAF appoints a panel from ‘its list of qualified neutrals’. See NAF usNDP Supp. Rules para 9.

1027

United States of America (‘.us’) Table US.4:  NAF Provider/Panel Fees Domain Names

Single Panellist

1 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 or more

$900 $1,000 $1,100 $1,250 Determined in consultation with NAF

(e) Administrative Panel Decisions US.87 As distinguished from the usDRP, the publication of administrative panel decisions (or initial

provider decisions) is not required under the usNDP. The NAF Supplemental Rules categorically state that the decisions of NAF-appointed panels will not be published or otherwise made publicly available. By all appearances, the usNDP is seldom invoked, a paucity that Neustar attributes to the cost of the administrative proceeding, the additional ‘nexus cure’ period provided to registrants, and the sole remedy being cancellation of the subject domain name.139 Given the paucity of administrative panel decisions under the usNDP and their public unavailability, further information regarding such decisions is not readily available.

(3) The usTLD Rapid Suspension Dispute Policy and Rules US.88 Neustar launched the usTLD Rapid Suspension Dispute Policy (usRS), effective July 1,

2014. The usRS, which is substantively identical to the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) implemented under ICANN’s new gTLD programme, complements the usDRP by providing an expedited procedure intended to address clear-cut cases of domain name abuse. NAF currently is the sole dispute resolution provider for the usRS. Comprehensive treatment of the URS is provided elsewhere in this treatise.

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (1) Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (a) Scope of the ACPA US.89 The ACPA provides a trademark owner a civil action against any person who with bad faith

intent to profit ‘registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name’ that is (1) identical or confusingly similar to the owner’s distinctive mark; or (2) identical, confusingly similar, or dilutive of the owner’s famous mark.140 The ACPA requires that the mark be distinctive or famous at the time of registration of the subject domain name.141 The term ‘traffics in’ refers to transactions including ‘sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration’.142

(b) ACPA Jurisdiction US.90 A trademark owner may proceed against an alleged cybersquatter under the ACPA in an in

personam civil action, or where in personam jurisdiction cannot be exercised in any judicial

  Neustar Proposal 2007, above note 38, at p J-13.   15 U.S.C. s 1125(d)(1)(A). The ACPA also protects the names of living persons from registration by others as domain names without that person’s consent, when the domain name is registered with the specific intent to profit by selling the domain name to that person or a third party. Ibid., s 1129 (applicable only to domain names registered after the effective date of the ACPA). 141  Ibid., s 1125(d)(1)(A). 142  Ibid., s 1125(d)(1)(E). 139 140

1028

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws district of the United States, in an in rem action against the subject domain name.143 Thus in rem jurisdiction may be invoked under the ACPA in circumstances where the defendant either cannot be found or where personal jurisdiction otherwise cannot be obtained. The in rem action lies in the judicial district where the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the subject domain name is located, where the domain name as property is deemed to have its legal situs.144 Remedies in an in rem action brought under the ACPA are limited by statute to forfeiture, cancellation, or transfer of the subject domain name.145 The ACPA further provides, however, that the in rem jurisdiction established thereunder US.91 ‘shall be in addition to any other jurisdiction that otherwise exists, whether in rem or in personam’.146 Relying in part on this statutory language, the Ninth Circuit in Office Depot Inc v Zuccarini147 upheld a district court’s exercise of quasi in rem jurisdiction to enforce a judgment obtained under the ACPA. The plaintiff ’s assignee, seeking to levy upon other domain names owned by the defendant, filed suit in the Northern District of California, where the domain name registry was located. The Ninth Circuit found that the domain names constituted intangible property under California law, and relied upon the ACPA in concluding the legal situs of the domain names would be the registry.148 In order for US courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant under US.92 the ACPA, the defendant must have sufficient contacts with the forum to satisfy constitutional due process requirements arising from ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’.149 The exercise of in rem jurisdiction under the ACPA has been challenged on constitutional due process grounds, but upheld on the basis that the in rem proceeding concerns only the subject property itself—that is, the domain name—and thus is not subject to ‘minimum contacts’ requirements.150 Under this due process analysis, the exercise of quasi in rem jurisdiction in Office Depot Inc likely would pass constitutional muster, as this was an action to enforce a judgment through attachment of property—that is, an action solely against the property. These cases narrowly construe the holding in Shaffer v Heitner,151 in which the United States Supreme Court extended constitutional due process requirements to quasi in rem jurisdiction when invoked to exercise general jurisdiction over a non-resident, as restricted to claims not related to the property. Other courts have reasoned that the holding in Shaffer should be extended to all cases in which in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction is asserted.152 As noted earlier, section 32(b)(2)(D)(v) of the Lanham Act153 provides a civil action to a US.93 domain name registrant whose domain name has been suspended, disabled, or transferred under a policy154 such as the UDRP or the usDRP. The registrant must demonstrate that the 143   15 U.S.C. s 1125(d)(2)(A). See Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A. v Casinoalitatlia.com, 128 F. Supp. 2d 340, 344–5 (E.D. Va. 2001). 144   15 U.S.C s 1125(d)(2)(C)(i). See Mattel, Inc v Barbie-Club.com, 310 F.3d 293, 302 (2d Cir. 2002). 145  Ibid., s 1125(d)(1)(C). 146  Ibid., s 1125(d)(4). 147  596 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2010). 148  Ibid., at 701–703. 149 See International Shoe Co v Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). 150 See Cable News Network L.P. v Cnnews.com, 162 F. Supp. 2d 484, 491 (E.D. Va. 2001); Caesars World, Inc v Caesars-Palace.com, 112 F. Supp. 2d 502, 504 (E.D. Va. 2000); Heathmount A.E. Corp. v Technodome.com, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20316 (E.D. Va. 2000), appeal dismissed, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 475 (4th Cir. 2002). 151  433 U.S. 186 (1977). 152 See FleetBoston Financial Corp. v fleetbostonfinancial.com, 138 F. Supp. 2d 121, 133–5 (D. Mass. 2001). 153  15 U.S.C. s 1114(b)(2)(D)(v). 154  This provision apples to any ‘reasonable policy’ adopted by a registrar or registry prohibiting the registration of a domain name that is identical to, confusingly similar to, or dilutive of another’s mark. See 15 U.S.C. s 1114(b)(2)(D)(ii)(II).

1029

United States of America (‘.us’) registration and use of the domain name is not unlawful under US law. Such ‘reverse domain name hijacking’ actions are decided de novo under the substantive criteria of the ACPA. As a result US courts generally give no deference to challenged administrative panel decisions.155

(c)  Substantive Decision Criteria US.94 Generally, under the ACPA a plaintiff must establish the following elements: (1) rights in a

trademark that is distinctive or famous; (2) the defendant’s registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to, or dilutive of the plaintiff ’s trademark; and (3) the defendant’s bad faith intent to profit from the registration, use or trafficking in the domain name. Although courts occasionally conflate the three elements,156 they stand independent of each other; a plaintiff must establish all three elements to succeed on a claim of cybersquatting. Accordingly, a determination that the domain name is not confusingly similar to or dilutive of the plaintiff ’s trademark renders consideration of the defendant’s bad faith intent unnecessary.157 Similarly, a plaintiff ’s failure to demonstrate that the defendant acted with ‘bad faith intent to profit’ obviates any need to consider whether the domain name in question was confusingly similar to the plaintiff ’s mark.158

US.95 (i)  Confusing Similarity to Mark  US courts have held that a domain name that incor-

porates a trademark is confusingly similar to that mark if ‘consumers might think that [the domain is] used, approved, or permitted’ by the mark holder.159 It is settled law that ‘slight differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of minor or generic words to the disputed domain names are irrelevant’.160 Thus, a domain name that includes the plaintiff ’s mark ordinarily will be found confusingly similar unless the additional words or letters in the domain name clearly distinguish it from the plaintiff ’s usage.161 US courts generally do not apply traditional trademark infringement ‘likelihood of confusion’ factors in assessing confusing similarity under the ACPA.162 As the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Coca-Cola Co v Purdy,163 the inquiry under the ACPA is narrower than the traditional multifactor test. In determining whether there is confusing similarity under the ACPA, courts compare the plaintiff ’s mark with the domain name and ‘should not look beyond the domain name to consider the content of the website’.164 Accordingly, in

155  See, eg Barcelona.com, Inc v Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento De Barcelona, 330 F.3d 617, 626 (4th Cir. 2003); Dluhos v Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 373–4 (3d Cir. 2003); Sallen v Corinthians Licenciamentos LTDA, 273 F.3d 14, 27 (1st Cir. 2001). 156  See, eg Maui Land & Pineapple Co v Ewing, 549 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1256 (D. Haw. 2008) (‘Defendant has engaged in cyberpiracy in violation of 15 U.S.C. s 1125(d) by registering an identical or confusingly similar domain name’). 157 See Philbrick v Enom, Inc, 593 F. Supp. 2d 352, 379 (D.N.H. 2009). 158 See Fare Deals Ltd v World Choice Travel.Com, Inc, 180 F. Supp. 2d 678, 683 (D.Md.2001). See also Virtual Works, Inc v Volkswagen of Am., Inc, 238 F.3d 264, 269–70 (4th Cir. 2001). 159  Harrods Ltd v Sixty Internet Domain Names, 157 F. Supp. 2d 658, 677 (E.D.Va.2001). 160  See, eg Victoria’s Cyber Secret Ltd Partnership v V Secret Catalogue, Inc, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1351 (S.D. Fla. 2001); see also Super-Krete Int’l, Inc v Sadleir, 712 F. Supp. 2d 1023, 1032 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (‘[t]‌he only difference between Plaintiffs’ registered mark of ‘Super-Crete’ and Defendants’ domain name of supercrete.com is the removal of the hyphen.’); PACCAR, Inc v Telescan Techs., L.L.C., 115 F. Supp. 2d 772, 777 (E.D.Mich.2000) (owner of PETERBILT mark granted injunction against defendant’s use of ‘peterbilttrucks.com’, ‘peterbiltnewtrucks.com’, ‘peterbiltusedtrucks.com’, ‘peterbiltdealers.com’, and ‘peterbilttruckdealers.com’). 161  Ford Motor Co v GreatDomains, 177 F. Supp. 2d 635, 641–2 (E.D. Mich. 2001). See Philbrick, 593 F. Supp. 2d at 379 (‘[E]‌ven the most careless viewer would not mistake the word ‘philbricksports’ for the words ‘Daniel Philbrick’, so the two are also not confusingly similar.’). 162  See, eg Sporty’s Farm, 202 F.3d at 498 n 11. 163  382 F.3d 774, 783 (8th Cir. 2004). 164  Super-Krete Int’l, 712 F. Supp. 2d at 1031. See Coca-Cola Co, 382 F.3d at 783 (‘[t]‌he fact that confusion about a website’s source or sponsorship could be resolved by visiting the website is not relevant to whether the domain name itself is identical of confusingly similar to a plaintiff ’s mark’).

1030

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws determining identity or confusing similarity under the ACPA courts often focus on the facial similarity of the subject domain name to the plaintiff ’s mark,165 comparing the mark and domain name in terms of sound, sight, and meaning, without reference to goods or services or any website associated with the domain name.166

(ii)  Bad Faith Intent to Profit  In assessing the domain name registrant’s ‘bad faith intent US.96 to profit’ from the mark, the ACPA identifies nine non-exclusive factors that may be considered by a court: (i) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name; (ii) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person; (iii) the person’s prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services; (iv) the person’s bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name; (v) the person’s intent to divert consumers from the mark owner’s online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site; (vi) the person’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person’s prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct; (vii) the person’s provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person’s intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person’s prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct; (viii) the person’s registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and (ix) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person’s domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c)(1) of this section.167

The legislative history of the Act reflects congressional intent to prohibit the registration of US.97 domain names with bad faith intent to trade on the goodwill associated with another’s mark, but not to tread on the rights of those with any other motives.168 In determining whether ‘bad faith intent to profit’ is present, the courts are required to balance the property interests of trademark owners with the legitimate interests of Internet users and others to engage in activities such as ‘comparative advertising, comment, criticism, parody, news reporting, fair 165 See Northern Light Tech., Inc v Northern Lights Club, 236 F.3d 57, 66 n.14 (1st Cir. 2001) (question of identity or confusing similarity under ACPA is one involving facial similarity of marks). 166 See Dudley v Healthsource Chiropractic, Inc, 585 F.  Supp.  2d 433 (W.D.N.Y. 2008); Omega S.A.  v Omega Engineering, Inc, 228 F. Supp. 2d 112, 127 (D. Conn. 2002); Northern Light Tech., Inc v Northern Lights Club, 97 F. Supp. 2d, 96, 117–18 (D.Mass. 2000), aff’d, 236 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2001). 167  15 U.S.C. s 1125(d)(1)(B)(i)(I)–(IX). In assessing ‘bad faith intent to profit’ the ACPA conflates issues respecting a registrant’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name and factors bearing on bad faith registration or use, unlike the UDRP and usDRP, under which these are separate elements. 168  S. Rep. No 106–40, at 4 (1999). See Mayflower Transit, LLC v Prince, 314 F.  Supp.  2d 362, 370 (D.N.J. 2004).

1031

United States of America (‘.us’) use, etc’.169 This process has been described by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as a ‘holistic, not mechanical, exercise’170 involving the case-by-case weighing of the non-exclusive statutory factors and other relevant evidence to make a determination on the existence of bad faith.171 US.98 Consistent with the legislative history, courts have construed the scope of the ACPA nar-

rowly in certain respects.172 US courts have noted that the nature of the bad faith required to support a cybersquatting claim is ‘a bad faith intent to profit from the mark’, and should not be equated with ‘bad faith’ in other contexts.173 Rather, the defendant must intend to profit specifically from the goodwill associated with another’s trademark.174 Solid Host, NL v NameCheap, Inc175 is illustrative. In that case, the plaintiff brought an ACPA action against NameCheap, Inc, asserting that the ICANN-accredited registrar was subject to cybersquatting liability. Solid Host alleged its domain name had been ‘hacked’. NameCheap operated an anonymity registration service and was listed as the domain name holder.

US.99 In considering NameCheap’s motion to dismiss, the court agreed with Solid Host that the

defendant’s registrar status did not shield it from ACPA liability where it did not function as a registrar.176 The court determined, however, that NameCheap was not subject to direct liability under the ACPA, because Solid Host’s allegations were not sufficient to support an inference that the defendant had acted with bad faith intent to profit from the plaintiff ’s marks. The complaint averred that NameCheap maintained the anonymous registration after being presented with facts that would cause a reasonable person to conclude that its customer had stolen the domain name, and that the defendant had an economic incentive to resist any attempts to expose customers identities, even when confronted with reliable evidence that the customer whose identity it refused to divulge had hacked and stolen Solid Host’s domain name.

US.100 The Solid Host court acknowledged that NameCheap’s refusal to reveal the identity of the

‘hacker’ might constitute bad faith in some other context, but found that irrelevant to the ACPA.177 The court explained: Nothing in the complaint suggests that by affording Doe the benefits of anonymous registration, NameCheap sought to benefit in any way from the goodwill associated with Solid Host’s mark. The only bad faith alleged is NameCheap’s provision of an indisputably legal anonymous registration service without attempting to screen out customers who wish to use it to cybersquat; and its decision to maintain its customer’s anonymity when presented with evidence that its services had been used for this illegitimate purpose. The only intent to profit alleged is linked to NameCheap’s operation and promotion of its anonymity service; none of Solid Host’s allegations suggests that NameCheap intended to profit from the goodwill associated with the Solid Host trademarks.178

  Lamparello v Falwell, 420 F.3d 309, 319 (4th Cir. 2005).   Camivale v Staub Design, LLC, No 11-1124, 456 Fed. App’x. 104, 108, 2012 WL 11214 (3d Cir. January 4, 2012); Green v Fomario, 486 F.3d 100, 106 (3d Cir. 2007). 171  S. Rep. No 106-140, at 9–10. See Mayflower Transit, 314 F. Supp. 2d at 367–68. 172 See Solid Host, NL v NameCheap, Inc, 652 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1101–102 (C.D. Cal. 2009); Harrods Ltd, 110 F. Supp. 2d at 426 (‘Our statutory interpretation is consistent with the legislative history of the ACPA, which makes clear that the statute’s scope is narrow’). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, has observed that the words of the statute are broader than this political stimulus that led to its enactment. See DSPT International, Inc v Nahum, 624 F.3d 1213, 1219 (9th Cir. 2010). 173  Solid Host, 652 F. Supp. 2d at 1101–102; Harrods Ltd, 110 F. Supp. 2d at 426. 174  Lucas Nursery & Landscaping, Inc v Grosse, 359 F.3d 806, 810 (6th Cir. 2004). See Cleary Building Corp. v David A. Dame, Inc, 674 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1263 (D. Colo. 2009). 175  652 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (C.D. Cal. 2009). 176  Ibid., at 1103–106. 177  Ibid., at 1110. 178 Ibid. 169 170

1032

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws The court concluded accordingly that Solid Host’s allegations failed to support an inference of NameCheap’s bad faith intent to profit from Solid Host’s mark. While acknowledging that the scope of the ACPA is narrow, courts have not hesitated to find US.101 cybersquatting where the defendant’s registration or use of the domain name falls within one of the statutory bad faith factors reflecting quintessential bad faith intent to profit from the plaintiff’s mark.179 The weighing of statutory factors and other relevant evidence generally requires case-by-case assessment, but bad faith intent may be found more easily in circumstances where the subject domain name is used to divert Internet users to a website offering goods that compete with those sold under the plaintiff ’s mark,180 or in circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered for purposes of selling the domain name to the plaintiff.181 The registration of multiple domain names reflecting distinctive or well-known third party marks consistently has been held to be bad faith,182 as has the provision of false or misleading contact information.183 US courts have found bad faith intent in circumstances not specifically enumerated in the US.102 statutory factors. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Lucas Nursery: ‘The factors are given to courts as a guide, not as a substitute for careful thinking about whether the conduct at issue is motivated by bad faith intent to profit.’184 When faced with developments likely not anticipated by Congress when enacting the ACPA, such as ‘typosquatting’,185 the use of domain names with pay-per-click advertising,186 and domain name tasting,187 US courts have found bad faith intent to profit when indicated by the attendant circumstances. In Webadviso v Bank of America Corp.188 Webadviso asserted that its business model of US.103 registering and parking high value domain names to generate pay-per-click revenue gave rise to legitimate rights in the domain names and did not violate the ACPA. The subject domain names, ‘bofaml.com’ and ‘mlbofa.com’, were both registered on the same day that it was announced Bank of America had acquired Merrill Lynch. The Southern District of

  15 U.S.C. s 1125(d)(1)(B)(i)(V)–(XIII).   See, eg Lahoti v Vericheck, Inc, 586 F.3d 1190, 1202–203 (9th Cir. 2009) (liability as a matter of law where defendant used subject domain names to link to websites of plaintiff ’s competitors, while seeking $72,500 to transfer domain names); Super-Krete Int’l, 712 F. Supp. 2d at 1033 (defendants’ ‘only interest’ in using domain name confusingly similar to local competitor’s mark to divert traffic to defendants’ commercial website); Am. Ass’n. for Justice v Am. Trial Lawyers Ass’n, 698 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1146 (D. Minn. 2010) (with knowledge of plaintiff ’s mark, defendants registered confusingly similar domain names intending to divert consumers to defendant’s website). 181  See, eg Lahoti, 586 F.3d at 1202–203. 182  Ibid., (defendant ‘a repeat cybersquatter who has registered hundreds of domain names resembling distinctive or famous trademarks’). See Am. Ass’n. for Justice, 698 F. Supp. 2d at 1146 (defendants’ intentional registration of multiple domain names confusingly similar to plaintiff ’s distinctive marks); Verizon California, Inc v Navigation Catalyst Systems, 568 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (bulk registration of domain names linked to pay-per-click websites). 183 See Gaffigan v Does 1-10, 689 F. Supp. 2d 1332, 1339–40 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (anonymous registrants using multiple domain names incorporating the plaintiff ’s mark). 184  359 F.3d at 810. 185  Shields v Zuccarini, 254 F.3d 476, 484 (3d Cir. 2001) (‘A reasonable interpretation of conduct covered by the phrase “confusingly similar” is the intentional registration of domain names that are misspellings of distinctive or famous names, causing an Internet user who makes a slight spelling or typing error to reach an unintended site.’); Verizon California, Inc, 568 F. Supp. 2d at 1096–7 (defendants registered domain name in anticipation that consumers would make a mistake, thereby increasing the number of hits their site would receive). 186  See, eg Newport News Holdings Corp. v Virtual City Vision, Inc, 650 F.3d 423 (4th Cir. 2011). 187  Verizon California, Inc, 568 F. Supp. 2d at 1095–6. 188  93 U.S.P.Q.2d 1932 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), aff’d, Webadviso v Bank of America Corp., No 10-292 (2d Cir. October 26, 2011). 179 180

1033

United States of America (‘.us’) New York court, after finding the domain names confusingly similar to the marks at issue, concluded Webadviso had acted with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill associated with the marks by diverting Internet users to its pay-per-click websites advertising similar products and services. On appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals summarily affirmed the district court’s ruling. US.104 Bad faith intent to profit also has been found where the pay-per-click advertising links

resolve to sites selling products or services that may not be directly competitive with those of the trademark owner. In Audi AG v D’Amato,189 the defendant initially used the domain name ‘audisports.com’ with a website providing links to sites selling merchandise displaying the plaintiff ’s trademarks. After receiving several cease and desist letters from the plaintiff, the defendant removed these links, but continued separately to offer advertising space to other sponsors. The Sixth Circuit held that by continuing to make advertising space available to other sponsors the defendant acted with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill in the plaintiff ’s distinctive AUDI marks.190 Conversely, US courts have recognized that the practice of registering domain names comprised of descriptive or dictionary words to generate pay-per-click advertising revenues may constitute a legitimate business activity.191

US.105 Cybersquatting liability has been imposed under the ACPA in cases where a domain name

initially registered for a legitimate purpose thereafter is used by the registrant with bad faith intent to profit from the plaintiff’s mark. In Newport News Holdings Corp. v Virtual City Vision, Inc,192 the defendant owned at least 31 domain names incorporating names of geographic locations, including ‘newportnews.com’. The plaintiff owned five federally registered marks for NEWPORT NEWS used with women’s clothing and accessories. In 2000, the plaintiff challenged the defendant’s registration of the domain name under the UDRP, but the complaint was dismissed by the UDRP panel, which found no bad faith in view of the domain name’s use solely to provide information about Newport News, Virginia. Following the UDRP panel decision, sometime in 2004 the defendant began running occasional advertisements for women’s clothing on its website. In 2007 the plaintiff attempted to purchase the website but was rebuffed by the defendant’s ‘seven figure’ demand. Shortly thereafter, the defendant changed the content of the website from a city focus to one dominated by advertisements for women’s apparel, including dozens of links to shopping websites.193

US.106 The plaintiff filed suit alleging trademark infringement and cybersquatting. In affirming the

district court’s granting of summary judgment for the plaintiff under the ACPA, the Fourth Circuit in Newport News rejected the defendant’s claim to be making a legitimate and descriptive fair use of the domain name in providing information about the city of Newport News. Instead, the court of appeals found that the defendant purposefully transformed its website into one that competed with the plaintiff by advertising women’s apparel, a ‘legitimate factor’ that supported the district court’s finding of bad faith.194 The Fourth Circuit elaborated: As we have noted, in analyzing bad faith, we ‘view the totality of the circumstances.’ Here, even drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of VCV, the record is clear that after November 2007, VCV was no longer in the business of providing information about the

  469 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2006).   Ibid., at 541, 546–7. 191 See Southern Co v Dauben, Inc, 2009 U.S. App. LEXUS 7993 (5th Cir. April 15, 2009). 192 650 F.3d 423 (4th Cir. 2011). See Storey v Cello Holdings, LLC, 347 F.3d 370, 385 (2d Cir. 2003) (‘Congress intended the cybersquatting statute to make rights to a domain-name registration contingent on ongoing conduct rather than to make them fixed at the time of registration.’). 193  Newport News Holdings, 650 F.3dat 429–31. 194  Ibid., at 435–6. 189 190

1034

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws city of Newport News. The contrast between the newportnews.com website and VCV’s other locality websites … is stark. Unlike those websites, newportnews.com went from being a website about a city that happened to have some apparel advertisements to a website about women’s apparel that happened to include minimal references to the city of Newport News.195

The Fourth Circuit concluded that the defendant would be held to the ‘consequences of its deliberate metamorphosis’.196 Any other decision, the court reasoned, would undermine the ACPA’s purpose of preventing bad faith and abusive registration of domain names with intent to profit from the goodwill associated with another’s mark, allowing a cybersquatter to avoid liability merely by providing in on its website ‘some minimal amount of information about a legitimate subject’.197 In differing but arguably no less egregious circumstances, a US district court granted a pre- US.107 liminary injunction where a domain name ostensibly registered for a legitimate purpose thereafter was used by the defendant with bad faith intent to profit. In Nationwide Payment Solutions, LLC v Plunkett,198 the parties entered into a sales agreement under which Plunkett would solicit customers for Nationwide’s MUNICIPAY products. Plunkett registered the domain name ‘getmunicipay.com’ ostensibly for such purposes, but after Nationwide terminated its sales agreement with Plunkett based on alleged breaches of the agreement, Plunkett began using the domain name to redirect Internet users to a website offering competing products.199 The district court found a substantial likelihood that Plunkett was using the domain name with bad faith intent to profit from Nationwide’s mark,200 and issued the preliminary injunction. Similarly, the Ninth Circuit in DSPT International, Inc v Nahum201 found the defendant’s use of the subject domain name for leverage in a business dispute established bad faith, notwithstanding the ostensible registration of the domain name for legitimate purposes several years earlier. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals declined to find bad faith in Southern Grouts & US.108 Mortars, Inc v 3M Co,202 where the defendant had retained possession of a domain name well after the initial reasons for the defendant’s registration of a domain name had evaporated. The plaintiff owned the registered trademark DIAMOND BRITE for exposed quartz aggregate finishes. The defendant had registered DIAMOND BRITE for ‘electronically controlled display panels and signs’ and had registered the corresponding domain name ‘diamondbrite. com’. After dropping this product line, the defendant discontinued all use of the mark, but had maintained its registration of the domain name for more than six years.203 Following several unsuccessful attempts to obtain the domain name from the defendant US.109 voluntarily, the plaintiff brought an action under the ACPA seeking transfer of the domain name. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using the domain name with bad faith intent to profit. First, the plaintiff asserted that by retaining the domain name the defendant had the ability to monitor the viability and value of Internet traffic to its inactive website, all of which could be used to glean strategic commercial information.204 Secondly, the plaintiff

  Ibid., at 436.  Ibid. 197 Ibid. 198  697 F. Supp. 2d 165 (D. Me. 2010). 199  Ibid., at 170. 200  Ibid., at 172. 201  624 F.3d 1213, 1219–20 (9th Cir. 2010). 202  575 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). 203  Ibid., at 1238–9. 204  Ibid., at 1244–6. 195 196

1035

United States of America (‘.us’) claimed that the defendant maintained control of the domain name solely to prevent others from registering it.205 The defendant responded that it retained the domain name only to prevent competitors from using it to create confusion with the defendant’s retroflective sheeting products sold under its DIAMOND GRADE mark.206 US.110 The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the plaintiff ’s allegations, even if taken as true, were

insufficient as a matter of law to establish liability under the ACPA. Citing the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Lucas Nursery, the court explained that the attendant circumstances failed to demonstrate that the defendant had acted with the requisite bad faith intent to profit from the use of the domain name.207 The court found that the defendant’s prior use of the domain name weighed against bad faith, that the use of the domain name with an inactive site was not intended to divert consumers, and observed that the defendant had never offered to sell the domain name.208 Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district courts entry of summary judgment for the defendant under the ACPA.

(d)  ACPA ‘Safe Harbor’: Non-commercial or Fair Use US.111 (i)  Free Speech and Criticism Sites  The safe harbor provision of the ACPA expli-

citly provides that bad faith intent shall not be found in any case where the court determines that the registrant believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful.209 The Senate and House Reports for the ACPA state that ‘[u]‌nder the bill, the use of a domain name for purposes of comparative advertising, comment, criticism, parody, news reporting, etc., even where done for profit, would not alone satisfy the bad-faith intent requirement.’210 The Lanham Act polices ‘commercial speech’, which does not enjoy the broader protection afforded non-commercial or expressive speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.211 As the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Utah Lighthouse Ministry v F.A.I.R.,212 the Lanham Act regulates only economic, and not ideological or political, competition.

US.112 US courts consistently have interpreted the ACPA safe harbor as placing a bona fide

non-commercial use of a domain name beyond the reach of the statute. Some US courts have further held that the First Amendment’s protection of non-commercial or expressive speech extends to the use of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the plaintiff ’s mark in connection with consumer commentary and criticism websites (‘gripe sites’).213 In  Ibid.   Ibid., at 1239. Interestingly, the record suggested another possible motive for the defendant’s maintenance of the domain name. The defendant sold a product competing with the plaintiff ’s DIAMOND BRITE product under the trademark COLORQUARTZ, and purchased ‘diamond brite’ as part of a Google AdWords campaign for its COLORQUARTZ product. The plaintiff failed to timely submit this evidence in the proceedings below. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s exclusion of the evidence on this ground, and thus did not consider it. 207  Ibid., at 1246. 208  Ibid., at 1247. 209  15 U.S.C. s 1125(d)(1)(B)(ii). 210  S. Rep. No 106–140, at 14; H.R. Rep. 106-412, at 11. 211  Taubman v Webfeats, 319 F.3d 770, 774 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v Public Serv. Comm’n of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 563, 100 S. Ct. 2343 (1980)). See Bosley Med. Inst. v Kremer, 403 F.3d 672, 675 (9th Cir. 2005); L.L. Bean, Inc v Drake Publishers, Inc, 811 F.2d 26, 29 (1st Cir. 1987). 212  527 F.3d 1045, 1053 (10th Cir. 2008). The Tenth Circuit reasoned that ‘competition in the marketplace of ideas’ is precisely what the First Amendment is designed to protect (quoting Anderson v Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 794 (1983)). 213  See, eg Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 527 F.3d at 1053; Lucas Nursery & Landscaping, Inc v Grosse, 359 F.3d 806, 811 (6th Cir. 2004); Lamparello v Falwell, 420 F.3d 309, 318 (4th Cir. 2005); Cleary Building Corp. v David A. Dame, Inc, 674 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1263 (D. Colo. 2009). 205 206

1036

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws Utah Lighthouse Ministry the defendants took issue with the plaintiff ’s publishing of information critical to their church. In response the defendants registered several domain names that were virtually identical to the plaintiff ’s trademarks. One of the defendants went so far as to create a look-alike website using the plaintiff ’s mark, as well as imagery and other content reminiscent of the plaintiff ’s website. While acknowledging this, the Tenth Circuit in Utah Lighthouse Ministry affirmed the US.113 district court’s rejection of the plaintiff ’s cybersquatting claims as a matter of law. The Tenth Circuit explained: ‘The district court determined that Defendants’ use was entirely non-commercial, and a fair use parody, and therefore found that Defendants did not use the mark in bad faith.’214 The court of appeals noted that the website offered critical commentary of the plaintiff, and did not involve any offering for sale of goods or services. The Tenth Circuit further observed that the ‘quintessential’ examples of ‘bad faith intent to profit’ targeted by the ACPA—purchasing a confusingly similar domain name to sell to the trademark owner at an extortionate price, and using the domain name to divert consumers to the defendant’s website, where consumers may purchase the defendant’s products or services instead of the trademark owner’s—were absent in this case. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the absence of these motives ‘readily defeat[s]‌an inference that the Defendants intended to profit’, making any further consideration of the ACPA statutory factors unnecessary.215 The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v US.114 Doughney216 reached a different conclusion under the ACPA where a domain name identical to the plaintiff ’s mark was used with a look-alike or hoax website, even though such use ostensibly was a parody. Doughney registered the domain name ‘peta.org’, identical to the defendant’s famous PETA mark, and used the domain name with a website for a fictitious organization ‘People Eating Tasty Animals’. The defendant’s website contained numerous links to other sites promoting the sale of leather goods and meat products. Doughney argued that the domain name was a parody. The Fourth Circuit rejected this defence because the domain name itself did not simultaneously convey the two contradictory messages required for a parody—that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody.217 The second message, according to the Fourth Circuit, was conveyed only when Internet users arrived at the website.218 The Fourth Circuit identified several factors from which Doughney’s bad faith intent to US.115 profit from PETA’s mark could be inferred: (1) Doughney’s use of a domain name identical to the plaintiff’s mark was likely to prevent Internet users from reaching the plaintiff ’s website; (2) Doughney’s website contained links to over 30 commercial websites offering goods or services; (3) Doughney made public statements recommending that PETA settle with him and make him an offer; (4) Doughney provided false contact information when registering the subject domain name; and (5) Doughney had registered other domain names identical or confusingly similar to other famous marks.219 The Fourth Circuit accordingly affirmed the district court’s determination that the defendant had violated the ACPA, explaining that

  Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 527 F.3d at 1058.  Ibid. 216  263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001) (PETA). See also OBH, Inc v Spotlight Magazine, Inc, 86 F. Supp. 2d 176 (W.D.N.Y. 2000); Planned Parenthood Fed. of Am., Inc v Bucci, 1997 WL 133313 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff’d, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998) (table). 217  263 F.3d at 366. 218  Ibid., at 366–7. 219  Ibid., at 369. 214 215

1037

United States of America (‘.us’) a defendant ‘who acts even partially in bad faith in registering a domain name is not, as a matter of law, entitled to benefit from [the ACPA’s] safe harbor provision’.220 US.116 The Fourth Circuit’s view has been echoed in decisions from other federal appellate courts.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded in Coca-Cola Co v Purdy,221 that registrants acting with bad faith intent should not be able to immunize themselves from cybersquatting liability merely by linking a confusingly similar domain name to a criticism cite. In Purdy, the Eighth Circuit found an anti-abortion activist liable for cybersquatting because he had registered more than 70 domain names incorporating famous marks such as ‘Washington Post’. He had posted website content creating a likelihood of confusion as to whether the famous mark owners sponsored the anti-abortion sites, and had offered to stop using the Washington Post mark if the newspaper published an opinion piece by him on its editorial page.222

US.117 The Fourth Circuit reiterated this view in Lamparello v Falwell,223 finding support in

the legislative history of the ACPA and in the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Panavision v Toeppen224 for the proposition that a registrant may not avoid liability under the ACPA merely by creating a faux non-commercial website. As the Lamparello court explained, an individual cannot avoid liability for registering and attempting to sell a hundred domain names incorporating famous marks by posting non-commercial content on websites associated with those domain names.225 The Fourth Circuit in Lamparello emphasized this through a carefully parsed revisiting of its earlier decision in PETA, explaining that the bad faith determination in PETA was predominantly based on Doughney’s registration of 50 to 60 domain names incorporating third-party marks, and his statement the PETA should ‘make him an offer’.226

US.118 The Ninth and Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals have criticized the Fourth Circuit’s PETA

decision. In Bosley Med. Inst., Inc v Kremer227 the Ninth Circuit expressed concern that the Fourth Circuit’s approach would ‘place most critical, otherwise protected consumer commentary under the restrictions of the Lanham Act’. The Tenth Circuit in Utah Lighthouse Ministry echoed similar concerns in finding that the non-commercial and parodic use of a domain name precludes a finding of bad faith intent to profit under the ACPA.228

US.119 In revisiting of PETA, the Fourth Circuit in Lamparello took pains to note that its earlier

decision did not signal the adoption of the initial interest theory advanced in Brookfield Communications Inc v West Coast Entertainment Corp,229 a theory the Fourth Circuit insisted had no place in the context of bona fide criticism sites.230 The Lamparello court explained that the inquiry in PETA had been limited solely to whether Doughney’s use of the ‘peta.org’ domain name constituted a successful parody. Since the domain name was identical to the  Ibid.   382 F.3d 774, 778 (8th Cir. 2004). 222  Ibid., at 786. 223  420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005). 224  141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) (decided under FTDA). 225  420 F.3d at 320 n. 7 (citing S. Rep. No 106–140, at 14). 226  Ibid., at 320–21. 227  403 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). 228  527 F.3d at 1058. 229  174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir.1999). 230  420 F.3d at 317–18 and n. 6. The Fourth Circuit criticized two district court decisions from other circuits expanding the initial interest theory of liability in cases not involving ‘the profit-seeking use of another’s mark’. See Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc v Bucci, 1997 WL 133313 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff’d, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998)  (table) (use of domain name ‘www.plannedparenthood.com’ to provide links to anti-abortion book constituted infringement); and Jews for Jesus v Brodsky, 993 F. Supp. 282 (D.N.J. 1998), aff’d, 159 F.3d 1351 (3d Cir. 1998) (table) (finding use of ‘www.jewsforjesus.org’ to criticize religious group constituted infringement). 220 221

1038

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws plaintiff ’s PETA mark, it failed as a parody, because it could not convey the simultaneous and contradictory messages necessary to a successful parody.231

(ii)  Nominative Fair Use  As noted earlier, Congress intended the ACPA’s safe harbor pro- US.120 vision to insulate domain name registrants from cybersquatting liability in connection with non-commercial and commercial fair uses of a domain name, even if the registrant profits from such use, so long as the registrant is not motivated by ‘bad faith intent to profit’ from another’s mark. US trademark law recognizes two types of fair use:  ‘classic’ fair use, also known as ‘descriptive’ or ‘statutory’232 fair use, and nominative fair use. Classic fair use is characterized by the use of a word or phrase not in a trademark sense, but rather in a primary, descriptive sense.233 Nominative fair use, on the other hand, is characterized by the referential use of a third-party mark in relation to the owner of the mark or the owner’s trademarked goods or services.234 The nominative fair use doctrine was first described as such by the Ninth Circuit Court of US.121 Appeals in 1992, in New Kids on the Block v News American Publishing, Inc.235 In New Kids, two newspapers conducted a readers’ poll regarding the popular band New Kids. The newspapers used the band’s name and trademark ‘New Kids’ in the polls. The Ninth Circuit fashioned a ‘nominative fair use’ test under which the use of another’s trademark is allowed where (1) the trademark owner’s product or service cannot be readily identified without using the mark; (2) the mark is used only so much as is necessary for such identification; and (3) such use does not suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner.236 While the holding in New Kids ostensibly was limited to use describing the trademark own- US.122 er’s goods or services, The Ninth Circuit since has extended the New Kids nominative fair use analysis where a ‘defendant has used the plaintiff ’s mark to describe the plaintiff ’s product, even if the defendant’s ultimate goal is to describe his own product’.237 Where nominative fair use is asserted, courts in the Ninth Circuit apply the three-prong New Kids test in place of the traditional multifactor likelihood of confusion analysis.238 As the Ninth Circuit recently reiterated in Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc v Tabari,239 the New Kids three-prong test ‘evaluates the likelihood of confusion in nominative use cases’. The nominative fair use doctrine has received mixed reviews outside the Ninth Circuit. Courts US.123 in several circuits have adopted the New Kids nominative fair use test or have fashioned similar tests.240 Courts in other circuits have declined to address the viability of the doctrine while   420 F.3d at 315–18.   Section 33(b)(4) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. s 1115(b)(4), provides a fair use defence against a claim of infringement of an incontestable mark, generally harmonized with common law protection of the use of primary, descriptive terms to identify goods or services. See Zatarains, Inc v Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc, 698 F.2d 786, 791(5th Cir. 1983) (statutory fair use defence available only in actions involving descriptive terms and only when term is used in its descriptive rather than trademark sense). 233  See, eg Visible Sys. Corp. v Unisys Corp., 551 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2008); 4 McCarthy S 23:11 (4th edn 2012). See generally, Peter M. Brody and Alexandra J. Roberts, What’s In a Domain Name? Nominative Fair Use Online After Toyota v Tabari, 100 TMR 1290 (2011). 234  See, eg Bd. of Supervisors v Smack Apparel Co, 550 F.3d 465, 488 (5th Cir. 2008), cert denied, 129 S. Ct. 2759 (2009). 235  971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992). 236  Ibid., at 308. 237  Cairns v Franklin Mint Co, 292 F.3d 1139, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2002). 238 See Playboy Enterprises v Welles, 279 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002). See also Audi AG v Shokan Coachworks, Inc, 592 F. Supp. 2d 246, 269 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (following Ninth Circuit approach). 239  610 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010). 240 See Century 21 Real Estate Corp v Lendingtree, Inc, 425 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2005) (treating nominative fair use as affirmative defence); Pebble Beach Co v Tour 18 I Ltd, 155 F.3d 526, 546 (5th Cir. 1998) (two-prong test); Shokan Coachworks, Inc, 592 F. Supp. 2d 246, 269 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); Standard Process, Inc v Total Health Discount, Inc, 559 F. Supp. 2d 932, 938–9 (E.D. Wis. 2008). 231 232

1039

United States of America (‘.us’) de facto recognizing it,241 while still others courts have expressly rejected the Ninth Circuit’s approach and continue to assess such uses through traditional multifactor likelihood of confusion analyses.242 US courts have been especially divided regarding the suitability of the nominative fair use test in the context of domain names. In early domain name cases such as Panavision International, L.P. v Toeppen,243 PACCAR, Inc v TeleScan Technologies,244 Brookfield Communications, Inc v West Coast Entertainment Corp.,245 and Cardservices International v McGee,246 courts consistently rejected fair use defences after finding the unauthorized use of another’s mark in a domain name to violate federal trademark law.247 US.124 The Sixth Circuit’s decision in PACCAR is illustrative of this view. In PACCAR the defendant

registered ‘peterbuiltnewtrucks.com’, ‘kenworthusedtrucks.com’, and ‘kenworthtruckdealers. com’ for use with its online truck locator services. Each of the defendant’s websites was specific to trucks manufactured by the plaintiff and sold under the PETERBUILT or KENWORTH marks. The defendant’s websites further displayed the following disclaimer:  ‘This web site provides a listing service for name brand products and has no affiliation with any manufacturer whose branded products are listed herein.’248 In affirming the district court’s granting of an injunction, the Sixth Circuit declined to apply the New Kids nominative fair use test. The PACCAR court instead relied upon the ‘initial interest confusion’ theory articulated by the Ninth Circuit in Brookfield Communications, Inc v West Coast Entertainment Corp.,249 which held actionable under the Lanham Act pre-sale confusion arising when Internet consumers searching for the plaintiff ’s trademark products are diverted to the website of a competitor. The Sixth Circuit made clear that the addition of generic or common descriptive terms in the domain names incorporating the plaintiff ’s marks was not sufficient to dispel such initial interest confusion,250 and that the defendant’s disclaimer disavowing affiliation with the trademark owner, read by consumers only after reaching the defendant’s websites, came too late to remedy the confusion.251

US.125 In Audi AG v D’Amato,252 a case involving trademark infringement, dilution, and cyber-

squatting claims, the Sixth Circuit rejected a poorly articulated nominative fair use defence, relying on PACCAR. In D’Amato, the defendant registered and had used the domain name ‘audisport.com’ with a website containing links to third-party sites selling merchandise displaying automaker Audi AG’s trademarks. The defendant also posted news items and press releases regarding Audi racing events, but made conspicuous use of Audi’s marks and logos on his website. The defendant apparently obtained permission 241 See Tiffany (NJ) Inc v eBay Inc, 600 F.3d 93, 102 (2d Cir. 2010); WCVB-TV v Boston Athletic Association, 926 F.2d 42, 44 (1st Cir. 1991); Frontrange Solutions USA, Inc v Newroad Software, Inc, 505 F. Supp. 2d 821, 834–5 (D. Colo. 2007). 242 See PACCAR, Inc v TeleScan Technologies, 319 F.3d 243, 250 (6th Cir. 2003); Edina Realty, Inc v TheMLSonline.com, 2006 WL 737064, at *4 n. 3 (D. Minn. 2006). 243  141 F.3d 1316, 1327 (9th Cir. 1998). 244  319 F.3d 243, 250 (6th Cir. 2003). 245  174 F.3d 1036, 1055 (9th Cir.1999). 246  950 F. Supp. 737, 741 (E.D. Va. 1997), aff’d, 129 F.3d 1258 (4th Cir. 1997). 247 See Interactive Prods. Corp. v a2z Mobile Office Solutions, Inc, 326 F.  3d 687, 696 (6th Cir. 2003). (‘Several courts have considered the issue of whether the use of another’s trademark in one’s website domain name violates trademark law, and the answer is usually that such use is a violation.’) (citing PACCAR and Brookfield as examples). 248  319 F.3d at 248. 249  174 F.3d at 1062–3. The Ninth Circuit does not apply initial interest confusion theory to assess likelihood of confusion in a domain name context, but rather in connection with search engine results or sponsored listings. Refer to text and accompanying Notes 334–367 below. 250  319 F.3d at 252. 251  Ibid., at 253. 252  469 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2006).

1040

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws from a local Audi dealership, but nonetheless was the recipient of three cease and desist letters from Audi AG.253 The defendant then removed the links to sites selling purported Audi merchandise and added a disclaimer: ‘[T]‌his page is not associated with Audi AG or Audi USA in any way.’254 The defendant continued to separately offer advertising space to other sponsors.255 In affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment and injunctive relief in favour US.126 of Audi, the Sixth Circuit in D’Amato swiftly dispatched the defendant’s fair use claim. The court cited its earlier decision in PACCAR in concluding that consumer confusion was not dispelled by the addition of the generic or descriptive characters along with the plaintiff’s AUDI mark.256 While acknowledging that posting news of interest to Audi fans might be considered a non-commercial use,257 the court explained that the defendant continued to make advertising space available to other sponsors, thus attempting to profit directly from the plaintiff ’s goodwill in its marks.258 The court rejected as ineffective the defendant’s disclaimer, reiterating the court’s admonition in PACCAR that a disclaimer disavowing affiliation with the trademark owner read by a consumer after reaching the website comes too late to remedy initial interest confusion.259 Judicial recognition of domain names as source indicators has not waned in the modern US.127 Internet era,260 but as courts increasingly come to view Internet users as more sophisticated consumers,261 so too have the courts seemingly become more receptive to the proposition that a defendant lawfully may use a plaintiff’s trademark when necessary to describe the plaintiff ’s product, provided such use does not suggest a false affiliation or endorsement by the plaintiff.262 The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Ty v Perryman263 is one of the first cases to hold that an online reseller may incorporate the manufacturer’s mark in the reseller’s domain name. Reversing the decision of the district court, the Seventh Circuit in Perryman held that an aftermarket seller of the plaintiff ’s ‘Beanie Babies’ stuffed animals did not violate the FTDA by using with her website the domain name ‘bargainbeanies.com’, which incorporated the plaintiff ’s famous BEANIES mark. The factual context of Perryman is somewhat different from that addressed by the Sixth US.128 Circuit in PACCAR and D’Amato. Perryman, unlike the defendants in the Sixth Circuit cases, was not easily cast as a direct competitor of the plaintiff. Rather, Perryman sold second-hand beanbag stuffed animals in an established aftermarket for such goods. Approximately 80 per cent were ‘Beanie Babies’ manufactured by Ty, while the remaining 20 per cent were other manufacturers’ products; in that regard, the court explained that Perryman’s status as a seller in the aftermarket for such products largely was the creation of a deliberate marketing strategy by Ty.264 The court further opined that the plaintiff ’s BEANIES and BEANIE BABIES marks, while undoubtedly famous, were nonetheless 253  Ibid., at 539–40. The dealer was prohibited under its contract with Audi AG from licensing use of the plaintiff ’s marks. 254  Ibid., at 540–41. 255  Ibid., at 541. 256  Ibid., at 543. 257  Ibid., at 546. 258  Ibid., at 546–7. 259  Ibid., at 546. The D’Amato court also rejected the defendant’s fair use argument, holding that Audi AG had met the dual burden of proving likelihood of confusion and disproving fair use. Ibid., at 547. 260 See Volkswagen AG v Volkswagentalk.com, 584 F.Supp. 2d 879, 885 (E.D. Va. 2008). 261  See, eg Network Automation, Inc v Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc, 638 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2011). 262 See Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc v Tabari, 610 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2010). 263  306 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 2002). 264  Ibid., at 512–13.

1041

United States of America (‘.us’) descriptive in nature, and over time might fall victim to genericide.265 The Seventh Circuit thus concluded: [G]‌iven Perryman’s status as a seller in the secondary market created as a result of Ty’s marketing strategy, we cannot imagine a state of facts consistent with the extensive record compiled in the summary judgment proceeding that could possibly justify an injunction against Perryman’s representing in her business name and Internet and Web addresses that she is doing what she has a perfect right to do, namely sell Beanie Babies.266 US.129 In reaching its decision in Perryman the Seventh Circuit did not expressly adopt the nomina-

tive fair use standard, or for that matter, even describe the case before it as one involving ‘fair use’ of any type. However, the court explained: ‘We do not think that by virtue of trademark law producers own their aftermarkets and can impede sellers in the aftermarket from marketing the trademarked product.’267 The Seventh Circuit let stand that portion of the district court’s injunction against the use of ‘Beanie’ or ‘Beanies’ ‘in connection with any non-Ty products, but otherwise held that Ty had not demonstrated any basis for enjoining Perryman from using these terms in ‘any business name, Internet domain name, or trademark.’268 The Seventh Circuit indicated Ty was free on remand to seek a disclaimer as to the source of non-Ty products sold by Perryman.269

US.130 The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc v Tabari270 may have

far-reaching and significant implications for both manufacturers and product resellers or service providers who register and use domain names incorporating a manufacturer’s trademark. The Tabaris were auto brokers, who registered and used the domain names ‘buy-a-lexus.com’ and ‘buyorleaselexus.com’. The plaintiff Toyota Motor Sales, USA (Toyota), the exclusive United States distributor for Lexus vehicles, objected to the Tabaris’ use of these domain names, and to the use of the stylized Lexus logo and copyrighted photographs of Lexus vehicles on the defendant’s website. Toyota maintained that consumers visiting the defendants’ website would mistakenly believe the site was endorsed, sponsored, or affiliated with Toyota. The Tabaris agreed to remove the Lexus logo and photographs from their website, and placed a prominent disclaimer at the top of the site, but were unwilling to give up the domain names.271 Dissatisfied with the Tabaris’ concessions, Toyota thereafter brought suit for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, seeking inter alia to enjoin the defendants’ use of the domain names.

US.131 The district court, applying the multifactor likelihood of confusion test articulated by the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in AMF Inc v Sleekcraft Boats,272 found infringement after a bench trial, ordered the Tabaris to cease using the domain names, and enjoined their use of the LEXUS mark in any domain name, trade name, trademark, metatag, or keyword.273 On appeal, the Ninth Circuit noted that the only issue before the court was the application of the nominative fair use doctrine to Internet domain names.274 Concluding that the Tabaris had presented a nominative fair use defence to the district court, the Ninth Circuit found

  Ibid., at 513–14.   Ibid., at 515. 267  Ibid., at 513. 268  Ibid., at 514. 269 Ibid. 270  610 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2010). 271  Ibid., at 1175. 272  599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979). 273 See Tabari, 610 F.3d. 1171. 274  Ibid., at 1174 (‘In this trademark infringement case, we consider the application of the nominative fair use doctrine to internet domain names.’). 265 266

1042

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws error in the lower court’s application of the Sleekcraft analysis, holding that the New Kids three-prong test ‘evaluates the likelihood of confusion in nominative use cases’.275 The court of appeals elaborated: Consumers may reasonably infer sponsorship or endorsement if a company uses an unnecessary trademark or ‘more’ of a mark than necessary. But if the nominative use satisfies the three-factor New Kids test, it doesn’t infringe. If the nominative use does not satisfy all the New Kids factors, the district court may order defendants to modify their use of the mark so that all three factors are satisfied; it may not enjoin nominative use of the mark altogether.276

The Tabari court rejected the view that the incorporation of another’s mark in a domain US.132 name invariably suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. The Tabari court distinguished prior Ninth Circuit decisions in Panavision and Brookfield as involving a ‘special case’ in which the domain names consisted solely of the plaintiff’s mark. The court of appeals reasoned that the source-indicating significance ascribed to ‘trademark.com’ domain names suggested that far less confusion would result from a nominative use of a trademark including characters in addition to the mark.277 The court further noted that consumers who use the Internet for shopping generally are ‘quite sophisticated about such matters’ and won’t be fooled just because the trademark is included in the domain name string.278 The Tabari court explained: ‘Outside the special case of trademark.com, or domains that actively claim affiliation with the trademark holder, consumers don’t form any firm expectations about the sponsorship of a website until they’ve seen the landing page—if then. This is sensible agnosticism, not consumer confusion.’279 The Ninth Circuit reasoned that when a domain name making a nominative use of a mark US.133 does not affirmatively suggest sponsorship or endorsement, the worst that can happen is that some consumers may arrive at the site uncertain as to what they will find.280 The Tabari court concluded that ‘such momentary uncertainty’ does not preclude the nominative use of another’s mark in a domain name, provided that a truthful use is being made to describe the defendant’s business.281 The Tabari court then explicitly overturned prior circuit law that had shifted the burden of proof to a defendant asserting nominative fair use to demonstrate no likelihood of confusion. Instead, the Tabari court held that the once the defendant shows its use of the mark to refer to plaintiff ’s trademarked goods, it is the plaintiff ’s burden to show that such use does not qualify as a nominative fair use.282 Tabari thus extended to nominative fair uses the United States Supreme Court’s decision in KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc v Lasting Impression I, Inc283 holding in the context of the Lanham Act statutory fair use defence that the burden of proving likelihood of infringement always rests with the party charging infringement. The experience of US courts as discussed above suggests that the application of differing for- US.134 mulaic tests in assessing likelihood of confusion and divining fair use may lead to inconsistent   Ibid., at 1175–6.   Ibid., at 1176. 277  Ibid., at 1177–9. 278  Ibid., at 1178. 279  Ibid., at 1179. 280 Ibid. 281 Ibid. 282  Ibid., at 1182–3. The Third Circuit continues to shift the burden of proving no confusion to the defendant in nominative fair use case, applying a three-prong test derived largely from the New Kids test. Century 21 Real Estate Corp v Lendingtree, Inc, 425 F.3d 211, 222 (3d Cir. 2005). The third prong of the Third Circuit’s test requires a showing ‘that the defendant’s conduct or language reflect[s]‌the true and accurate relationship between plaintiff and defendant’s products or services.’ 283  543 U.S. 111, 120–21 (2004). 275 276

1043

United States of America (‘.us’) if not irreconcilable outcomes. The Ninth Circuit recognized as much in Playboy Enterprises v Welles,284 observing that the application of its own Sleekcraft multifactor likelihood of confusion test ‘would lead to the incorrect conclusion that virtually all nominative uses are confusing’. The nominative fair use doctrine rests on a fundamental principle that trademark law ‘does not prevent the truthful use of trademarks’.285 Yet truthfulness may not be synonymous with the absence of consumer confusion.286 Nor is truthfulness invariably a talisman against the diversion of reputation and goodwill from one who has created it to another who has not.287 The Ninth Circuit’s recent approach in Tabari could easily prove over-inclusive when a nominative use is asserted, as it imposes on trademark owners the difficult task of proving a negative, and implicates that the ‘sensible agnosticism’ of Internet users will enable virtually any confusing use of another’s mark in a domain name to be remedied short of enjoining the use of the domain name.

(e)  Available Remedies US.135 In the event of a violation of the ACPA a court may cancel the domain name registration or transfer of the domain to the trademark owner under section 43(d) of the Lanham Act.288 This provision is specifically directed to cases arising under the ACPA, and courts have held that cancellation or transfer of a domain name generally is an appropriate remedy only when the rigorous bad faith requirements of the ACPA are met.289 Section 34(a) of the Lanham Act empowers federal courts to issue injunctions respecting all actionable trademark violations, upon such terms as the court deems reasonable and subject to principles of equity.290 Thus courts are empowered to fashion injunctive relief to prevent a future infringing or dilutive use of the subject domain name, which in appropriate circumstances may include a permanent injunction barring any use of the domain name.291 Conversely, the Ninth Circuit in Tabari held that when an objective nominative use of a domain name falls short of meeting the second or third prongs of the New Kids test, courts should fashion injunctive relief to bring use in compliance rather than enjoining use of the domain name.292 US.136 A prevailing plaintiff in a cybersquatting case under the ACPA is entitled to monetary relief under

section 35(a) of the Lanham Act,293 which like section 34(a) applies to all trademark violations

  279 F.3d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 2002).   Tabari, 610 F.3d at 1176–7. This principle was recognized long before the Ninth Circuit coined the term ‘nominative fair use’. See Prestonettes, Inc v Coty, 264 U.S. 359, 368–9 (1924) (‘When the mark is used in a way that does not deceive the public we see no such sanctity in the word as to prevent its being used to tell the truth.’). See, eg Bandag, Inc v Al Bolser’s Tire Stores, Inc, 750 F.2d 903, 916 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (independent tyre dealer may use tyre manufacturer’s mark ‘to truthfully convey to consumers’ that it sells refurbished products); Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v Church, 411 F.2d 350 (9th Cir. 1959) (independent service station that repaired Volkswagen cars). See also Nitro Leisure Products, L.L.C. v Acushnet Co, 341 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 286 See KP Permanent Make-Up, 543 U.S. at 121–2 (‘some possibility of consumer confusion must be compatible with fair use, and so it is’). 287  See S. Rep. No 79-1333, at 3 (trademark law protects against diversion of reputation and goodwill in mark). 288  15 U.S.C. s 1125(d)(1)(C) (in personam) and 15 U.S.C. s 1125(d)(2)(D)(i) (in rem). The statute provides that the remedy in an in rem action under the ACPA is limited to cancellation or transfer of the subject domain name. 289 See Porsche Cars North America, Inc v Porshce.net, 302 F.3d 248, 260–262 (4th Cir. 2002). 290  15 U.S.C. s 1116. 291  See, eg TCPIP Holding Co v Haar Communications Inc, 244 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2001) (considering injunction barring use of domain names under s 1125(a) and (c)); Times Mirror Magazines, Inc v Las Vegas Sports News, L.L.C., 212 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2000) (affirming an injunction barring use of a name under s 1125(c)). 292  610 F.3d at 1176. 293  15 U.S.C. s 1117(a). Actual damages and profits under Section 35(a) are recoverable by prevailing plaintiffs in trademark infringement and unfair competition, trademark dilution, and cybersquatting cases. 284 285

1044

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws under the Lanham Act. Such monetary relief consists of: (1) defendant’s profits; (2) any damages sustained by the trademark owner; and (3) the costs of the action. If damages are awarded, the court may increase by up to three times the amount of actual damages found, provided the enhanced damage award is compensatory and not a penalty.294 As a practical matter, establishing and recovering actual damages in cybersquatting cases can be difficult,295 and an ACPA plaintiff alternatively may elect under section 35(d) of the Lanham Act, at any time before a final judgment is rendered, to recover statutory damages in lieu of actual damages and profits. Statutory damages are set at an amount not less than $1,000 or more than $100,000 per domain name, as the court considers just.296 US courts have demonstrated little reluctance in awarding statutory damages under the ACPA US.137 in cases where the defendant’s conduct is wilful or deliberate. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals observed in E & J Gallo Winery v Spider Webs Ltd,297 that statutory damages are ‘designed to discourage wrongful conduct’. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals emphasized in St Luke’s Cataract & Laser Inst., P.A. v Sanderson,298 that statutory damages serve to punish or sanction a defendant for bad faith conduct in order to deter the defendant’s future violations of the ACPA.299 In circumstances where a defendant’s bad faith conduct is sufficiently deliberate, wilful, or egregious, courts have found such bad faith to merit maximum statutory damage awards.300 The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Sanderson also is noteworthy in awarding the plaintiff US.138 actual damages and profits for the trademark infringement violation under the Lanham Act and statutory damages for the cybersquatting infraction under the ACPA. In reaching this decision, the Eleventh Circuit observed that the ACPA explicitly states that a cybersquatting damages award ‘shall be in addition to any other civil action or remedy otherwise applicable’.301 The court of appeals concluded that an award of statutory damages under the ACPA, which serves as a sanction to deter wrongful conduct, is not duplicative of an actual damages award for trademark infringement, which serves to compensate a plaintiff for his injuries.302 The Eleventh Circuit noted that an ACPA cybersquatting claim, unlike a trademark infringement claim, requires a showing of bad faith intent to profit from a protected domain name.303 The court thus reasoned: The statutory damages on St. Luke’s ACPA-cyberpiracy claim thus served to sanction or punish Dr. Sanderson for his bad faith conduct in order to deter future violations of the  Ibid.  See DSPT International, Inc v Nahum, 624 F.3d 1213, 1222–24 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing difficulties in establishing causal nexus between plaintiff ’s declining sales, consequential damages and misconduct of defendant, but noting that damages under ACPA, like tort damages, are recoverable for reasonably foreseeable damages arising from wrongdoing). Even though precision in the calculation of damages is not required, in many instances of cybersquatting, there may be no diversion of trade or insufficient evidence in the event of such diversion to establish defendant’s profits. See ibid., at 1223. 296  15 U.S.C. s 1117(d). 297  286 F.3d 270, 278 (5th Cir. 2002). 298  573 F.3d 1186, 1206 (11th Cir. 2009). See S. Rep. 106–40, at 7–8 (1999) (statutory damages intended to provide clear deterrence to prevent bad faith and abusive conduct). 299 See Newport News Holdings Corp. v Virtual City Vision, Inc, 650 F.3d 423, 442 (4th Cir. 2011). 300  Ibid., (defendant’s bad faith attempt to profit from plaintiff ’s mark ‘sufficiently egregious’ to merit damages at high end of statutory range). See also Kiva Kitchen & Bath Inc v Capital Distrib. Inc, No 08–20303, 2009 WL 890591 at *3 (5th Cir. April 2, 2009)  ($100,000 per domain name and attorney’s fees where defendant in bad faith diverted potential customers to its website); Citigroup, Inc v Shui, 611 F. Supp. 2d 507, 513 (E.D. Va. 2009) ($100,000 per pirated domain name and attorney’s fees where defendant’s violation was ‘sufficiently willful, deliberate, and performed in bad faith’); Graduate Mgmt. Admission Council v Raju, 267 F. Supp. 2d 505, 512–13 (E.D.Va.2003) ($100,000 per domain name). 301  573 F.3d at 1204 (quoting 15 U.S.C. s 1125(d)(3)). 302  Ibid., at 1206. 303  Ibid., at 1204. 294 295

1045

United States of America (‘.us’) ACPA by him. In contrast, the actual damages on its service mark infringement claim compensated St. Luke’s for its own injuries and losses.304 US.139 Under section 35(a) of the Lanham Act a prevailing party may be awarded reasonable attor-

ney’s fees ‘in exceptional cases’,305 and such party bears the burden of demonstrating the exceptional nature of the case.306 Federal courts typically have considered that the ‘exceptional case’ standard requires culpable conduct capable of description as malicious, fraudulent, deliberate, or wilful;307 however, the courts have begun to reconsider this approach in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Octane Fitness, LLC v Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.308 In Octane Fitness the Supreme Court construed the attorney fees statute in section 285 of the Patent Act (which is identical to the attorney fees provision of section 35(a) of the Lanham Act). The Supreme Court explained that an ‘exceptional’ case is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated, and does not necessarily require culpability.309 After reviewing Octane Fitness, and noting that Congress looked to section 285 of the Patent Act in enacting the Lanham Act attorney fees provision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded in Fair Wind Sailing, Inc v  Dempster310 that Octane Fitness should control the interpretation of the attorney fees provision in section 35(a) of the Lanham Act. Other federal courts are likely to follow suit.

(f )  Comparison of ACPA with UDRP US.140 As discussed earlier in the context of the usDRP, the chief advantage of the UDRP is the speedy and cost-effective nature of the Policy’s administrative proceeding, when compared to potentially protracted and more expensive court litigation. The UDRP is best suited to relatively straightforward cases of cybersquatting in which the trademark owner seeks only the cancellation or transfer of the domain name. The ACPA may prove preferable, however, in factually complex disputes, which are not well suited for the UDRP’s summary administrative proceeding. Given the UDRP’s conjunctive bad faith requirement, trademark owners also may find the ACPA preferable in cases where a domain name initially registered for a legitimate purpose is later used in bad faith. Finally, for trademark owners seeking relief beyond that available under the UDRP, the ACPA additionally provides for injunctive relief, actual or statutory damages, and recovery of attorney’s fees in ‘exceptional cases’. (2) Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition (Lanham Act) (a) Scope of Lanham Act US.141 The Lanham Act extends protection to both registered and unregistered trademarks. Under

section 32 of the Lanham Act, the owner of a federally registered trademark may bring a civil action for trademark infringement against any person who uses a reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colourable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale or advertising of any goods or that is ‘likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive’.311 The unfair competition provisions of section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act   Ibid., at 1205.   15 U.S.C. s 1117(a). 306  See, eg Schlotzsky’s, Ltd v Sterling Purchasing & Nat’l Distrib. Co, Inc, 520 F.3d 393, 402 (5th Cir. 2008). 307  Fair Wind Sailing, Inc v Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 314 (3rd Cir. 2014). See, eg Schlotzsky’s, Ltd v Sterling Purchasing & Nat’l Distrib. Co, Inc, 520 F.3d at 402; Newport News, 650 F.3d at 441; Audi AG v D’Amato, 469 F.3d 534, 550 (6th Cir. 2006); Lindy Pen Co v Bic Pen Corp., 982 F.2d 1400, 1409 (9th Cir. 1993). 308  134 S.Ct. 1749 (2014). 309  Ibid., at 1756–7. 310  764 F.3d 303, 315 (3rd Cir. 2014). 311  15 U.S.C. s 1114(1)(a). 304 305

1046

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws protect owners of distinctive trademarks or trade names from third-party use with goods or services of any word, term, name, symbol or device, false designation of origin, or false or misleading description or representation of fact, which is likely to cause confusion as to ‘affiliation, connection, or association’ with another person, or as to ‘the origin, sponsorship, or approval of goods, services, or commercial activities by another person’.312

(b)  Substantive Decision Criteria (i)  Likelihood of Confusion Factors  For purposes of both registered and unregistered US.142 marks, the touchstone of infringement under the Lanham Act is use that creates a likelihood of confusion as to ‘source, affiliation or sponsorship’ with the senior user of the mark.313 In assessing such likelihood of confusion, US courts historically have considered and weighed a number of factors, which typically include the strength of the senior user’s mark, similarity of the marks, relatedness of the goods or services, channels of trade, the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser, the junior user’s intent, and evidence of actual confusion.314 These factors are not exhaustive, and the weighing of such criteria by the courts in assessing likelihood of confusion is not intended as a mechanical exercise. Not all factors are applicable in every case, and their relative importance may vary with the particular facts and circumstances of each case.315 As the Ninth Circuit recently reiterated in Network Automation, Inc v Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc,316 the multi-factor analysis is best understood as an adaptable proxy for consumer confusion, and not a rote checklist. In considering trademark infringement and consumer confusion in the Internet context over US.143 a decade ago, the Ninth Circuit in Brookfield Communications Inc v West Coast Entertainment Corp.317 cautioned: ‘We must be acutely aware of excessive rigidity when applying the law in 312  Ibid., s 1125(a)(1)(A). Section 43(a)(1)(B), the false advertising provision of the Lanham Act, proscribes similar use in commercial advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of that person’s goods, services, or commercial activities, or those of another person. Ibid., s 1125(a)(1)(B). The United States Supreme Court in Lexmark International, Inc v Static Control Components, Inc, 134 S.Ct. 1749 (2014), adopted a two-prong test for standing under section 43(a)(1)(B), requiring (1) injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales, and (2) economic or reputational injury flowing directly from the false advertising. During the same term, the Supreme Court in Pom Wonderful LLC v Coca-Cola Co, 134 S.Ct. 2228 (2014), ruled that Lanham Act false advertising claims are not preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), even though both statutes touch upon food and beverage labelling. 313  See, eg Pebble Beach Co v Tour 18 I, Ltd, 155 F.3d 526, 543 (5th Cir. 1998). In traditional usage, ‘senior’ user refers to the user of the mark that first obtained protectable status, while ‘junior’ user refers to a subsequent user of the same or similar mark. 314  See, eg Boston Athletic Ass’n v Sullivan, 867 F.2d 22, 29 (1st Cir. 1989); AmBrit, Inc v Kraft, Inc, 812 F.2d 1531, 1538 (11th Cir.1986); Beer Nuts, Inc v Clover Club Foods Co, 805 F.2d 920, 925 (10th Cir. 1986); Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co v Novak, 775 F.2d 247, 248 (8th Cir. 1985); Pizzeria Uno Corp. v Temple, 747 F.2d 1522, 1527 (4th Cir. 1984); Interpace, Inc v Lapp, Inc, 721 F.2d 460, 463 (3d Cir. 1983); Frisch’s Rests., Inc v Elby’s Big Boy, Inc, 670 F.2d 642, 648 (6th Cir. 1982); Amstar Corp. v Domino’s Pizza, Inc, 615 F.2d 252, 259 (5th Cir. 1980); AMF Inc v Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348–9 (9th Cir. 1979); Helene Curtis Indus. v Church & Dwight Co, 560 F.2d 1325, 1330 (7th Cir. 1977); In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co, 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (now the Federal Circuit); Polaroid Corp. v Polorad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cir. 1961). This multi-factor analysis also is applicable in other unfair competition contexts. See Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition ss 21–3. 315 See Conan Properties, Inc v Conans Pizza, Inc, 752 F.2d 145, 150 (5th Cir. 1985). The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) uses the same likelihood of confusion standard as do the courts. Nevertheless, because TTAB opposition and cancellation proceedings typically involve only registration issues, ‘marketplace’ factors often are not considered in the TTAB’s likelihood of confusion analysis. Notwithstanding, the United States Supreme Court in B&B Hardware, Inc v Hargis Industries, Inc, 135 S.Ct, 1293 (2015) held that a TTAB final decision on likelihood of confusion may preclude the issue from being later litigated in a corresponding infringement action, provided the ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met. 316  638 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th Cir. 2011). 317  174 F.3d 1036, 1054 (9th Cir. 1999).

1047

United States of America (‘.us’) the Internet context; emerging technologies require a flexible approach.’ Brookfield, a software company, marketed an entertainment database programme under the registered mark MOVIEBUFF, and sold the software and database access online at ‘www.moviebuffonline. com’.318 West Coast, a video retailer, owner of the registered mark THE MOVIE BUFF’S MOVIE STORE, launched a website with a competing film database using the domain name ‘moviebuff.com’.319 Brookfield, asserting senior user status, alleged trademark infringement arising from West Coast’s use of the domain name. Brookfield also asserted that West Coast infringed its mark by using ‘MovieBuff ’ in metatags embedded in West Coast’s website to attract search engines seeking a corresponding keyword.320 US.144 In assessing whether West Coast’s use of the domain name ‘moviebuff.com’ infringed the

Brookfield’s mark, the Ninth Circuit found some but not all of the traditional likelihood of confusion factors set out in AMF Inc v Sleekcraft Boats321 to be relevant. Heeding its own advice to avoid excessive rigidity when applying the Sleekcraft factors,322 the Brookfield court determined the Sleekcraft factors most relevant in analyzing source confusion in the context of Internet domain names to be: (1) the similarity of the marks; (2) the relatedness of the goods and services offered; and (3)  the simultaneous use of the Internet as a marketing channel.323 Finding that Brookfield’s mark and the subject domain name were virtually identical,324 that West Coast and Brookfield offered competing products and services, and given the parties’ simultaneous use of the Internet as a marketing and advertising channel,325 the Ninth Circuit concluded that consumer confusion was likely, particularly with casual movie watchers unlikely to realize that they had mistakenly clicked on West Coast’s site when seeking to reach Brookfield’s.326 Considering Brookfield the senior user of MovieBuff, the court of appeals thus found a likelihood of source confusion would arise from West Coast’s use of the plaintiff’s mark in its domain name.327

US.145 In subsequent decisions the Ninth Circuit continues in domain name cases to apply this

modified Sleekcraft factor analysis, known as the ‘Internet troika’.328 Several of the court’s decisions seemed to adopt the ‘Internet troika’ as the test for trademark infringement in other online contexts. For example, in Interstellar Starship Serv. v Epix, Inc (Interstellar II)329 the

  Ibid., at 1041–42.   Ibid., at 1043. 320  Ibid., at 1061 n. 23. 321  599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979). 322  174 F.3d at 1054. 323  Ibid., at 1055 n. 16. 324  Ibid., at 1055. 325  Ibid., at 1057. 326  Ibid., at 1060. The court observed that ‘entering a website takes little effort—usually one click from a linked site or a search engine’s list’. Ibid., at 1057. Thus, the court concluded that Internet users were more likely to be confused regarding the ownership of a website than traditional patrons of a bricks-and-mortar shop. Ibid., at 1060. Implicit in this conclusion is the recognition that domain names communicate information as to source. Ibid., at 1055. See Panavision Int’l, L.P. v Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1327 (9th Cir. 1998) (‘A significant purpose of a domain name is to identify the entity that owns the web site.’). The Ninth Circuit does not stand alone in this view. See In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (‘Courts have consistently held that domain names are not merely addresses, but powerful source indicators on the Internet.’); PACCAR, Inc v TeleScan Techs., 319 F.3d 243, 250 (6th Cir. 2003) (domain names communicate information as to source or sponsorship of website). 327  Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1053, 1060. 328  See, eg Internet Specialties West, Inc v Milon-DiGiorgio Enters., Inc, 559 F.3d 985, 988–9 (9th Cir. 2009); Perfumebay.com Inc v eBay, Inc, 506 F.3d 1165, 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2007); Interstellar Starship Servs., Ltd v Epix, Inc, 304 F.3d 936, 939, 942 (9th Cir. 2002); GoTo.com, Inc v Walt Disney Co, 202 F.3d 1199, 1203–205 (9th Cir. 2000). 329  304 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2002). 318 319

1048

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws court read Brookfield as applying the ‘Internet troika’ to assess initial interest confusion. That was not the case, as the Ninth Circuit later made clear in Network Automation, Inc v Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc,330 a keywords case. In Network Automation the Ninth Circuit explained that the ‘Internet troika’, while ‘highly illuminating in the context of domain names’, could fail to discern whether there is a likelihood of confusion in other Internet contexts.331 The Ninth Circuit observed that in Brookfield the ‘troika’ factors were used to analyze only the risk of source confusion generated by similar domain names, and had not been adopted in the court’s metatag analysis.332 The Network Automation court thus cautioned ‘we did not intend Brookfield to be read so expansively as to forever enshrine these three factors … as the test for trademark infringement on the Internet’.333

(ii)  Initial Interest Confusion  Initial interest confusion occurs when a defendant uses US.146 the plaintiff ’s trademark ‘in a manner calculated “to capture initial consumer attention, even though no actual sale is finally completed as a result of the confusion”.’334 In Brookfield the Ninth Circuit applied initial interest confusion theory in finding actionable under the Lanham Act West Coast’s use of the plaintiff ’s mark in metatags imbedded in its website.335 The court declined to adopt the Sleekcraft factors wholesale, finding that the ‘question in the metatags context is quite different’.336 Given the court’s ruling that West Coast could not use the domain name ‘moviebuff.com’, the court framed the dispositive question in the metatags context as whether the defendant could make a non-infringing use of the plaintiff ’s mark as a metatag with a domain address other than ‘moviebuff.com’.337 The Ninth Circuit explained that search engine results for ‘MovieBuff’ likely would bring US.147 up a list including ‘westcoastvideo.com’,338 but that any resulting confusion would not be as great as where West Coast used the ‘moviebuff.com’ domain name.339 The court assumed that the search engine results would include links to both Brookfield’s and West Coast’s websites, so that Internet users could find any particular website they were seeking. If the Internet user clicked the link to the West Coast website, he or she would see that the domain name associated with the site was ‘westcoastvideo.com’. Since there would be no confusion arising from the use of this domain name, and the website displayed the West Coast name, the Ninth Circuit concluded there was unlikely to be consumer confusion as to the source, affiliation, or sponsorship of the website.340

  638 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th Cir. 2011).   Ibid., at 1154. 332  Ibid., at 1148. 333 Ibid. 334  Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1062 (quoting Dr Seuss Enters. v Penguin Books, 109 F.3d 1394, 1405 (9th Cir. 1997)). See also Interstellar Starship Serv. v Epix, Inc, 184 F.3d 1107, 1110 (9th Cir. 1999) (Interstellar I). (‘We recognize a brand of confusion called “initial interest” confusion, which permits a finding of a likelihood of confusion although the consumer quickly becomes aware of the source’s actual identity and no purchase is made as a result of the confusion.’) 335  Under the Lanham Act trademark infringement arising from pre-sale consumer confusion is actionable, even in circumstances where no sale occurs. The 1962 amendments to Section 32(1)(a) of the Lanham Act brought pre-sale confusion within the ambit of trademark protection. 15 U.S.C. s 1114(1)(a) (removing the term ‘purchasers’ to expand trademark protection to situations involving pre-sale as well as point-of-sale and post-sale). See Hearts on Fire Company, LLC v Blue Nile, Inc, 603 F. Supp. 2d 274, 286–7 (D. Mass. 2009). 336  174 F.3d at 1062. 337 Ibid. 338  The court apparently assumed ‘westcoastvideo.com’ was the domain address West Coast would use once no longer permitted to use ‘moviebuff.com’ with its website. 339  174 F.3d at 1062. 340 Ibid. 330 331

1049

United States of America (‘.us’) US.148 The Brookfield court nonetheless found West Coast’s use of ‘MovieBuff ’ in its metatags action-

able as trademark infringement under the Lanham Act based on initial interest confusion. According to the court, Internet users looking for Brookfield’s MovieBuff product directed instead by a search engine to West Coast’s website would encounter products similar enough that many consumers originally looking for Brookfield’s product, while not confused, would decide to utilize West Coast’s offerings instead. The court found that use of the plaintiff’s mark in metatags diverted Internet users looking for ‘MovieBuff’ to the West Coast website, and that West Coast thus improperly benefited from the goodwill developed by Brookfield in its mark.341 The Brookfield court, concluding that ‘[such] initial confusion works a sufficient trademark injury’,342 held that the Lanham Act barred West Coast from including in its metatags any term confusingly similar with Brookfield’s mark.343

US.149 The Brookfield initial interest confusion theory has sparked some controversy outside of the

Ninth Circuit. Courts in the Second, Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have found initial interest confusion actionable under the Lanham Act in various Internet contexts,344 and the Second Circuit’s decision in Rescuecom Corp. v Google Inc345 appears to have removed the last vestiges of doubt that use of another’s mark to trigger search engine results constitutes ‘use in commerce’ under the Lanham Act. Nevertheless, some courts have criticized Brookfield ’s initial interest confusion theory as inappropriately positing trademark infringement in cases where there is a diversion of consumers but no resulting consumer confusion.346

US.150 In addition to instructing lower courts on the reach of the ‘Internet troika’, the Ninth Circuit

in Network Automation also revisited Brookfield’s initial interest confusion standard, stressing that likelihood of confusion and not mere diversion must be demonstrated. The district court had granted a preliminary injunction against the defendant’s use of the plaintiff ’s mark as a keyword. As noted earlier, the Ninth Circuit in Network Automation ultimately concluded that the district court erred in relying on the ‘troika’ factors. In determining ‘whether the use of another’s trademark as a search engine keyword to trigger one’s own product advertisement violates the Lanham Act’,347 the Ninth Circuit found the most relevant factors to the initial interest confusion analysis to be: (1) the strength of the plaintiff’s mark; (2) evidence of actual confusion; (3) the type of goods and degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser; and (4)  the labelling and appearance of the advertisements and the surrounding context

341  Ibid. The Brookfield court found support for this conclusion in Dr Seuss Enters, 109 F.3d 1394, 1405 (9th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 521 U.S. 1146, 118 S.Ct. 27 (1997), and in two earlier Second Circuit decisions, Mobile Oil Corp. v Pegasus Petroleum Corp., 818 F.2d 254, 257–8 (2d Cir. 1987); Grotrian, Helfferich, Schulz, Th. Steinweg Nachf. v Steinway & Sons, 523 F.2d 1331, 1341–2 (2d Cir. 1975). The Second Circuit decisions involved trademark infringement issues arising in a ‘brick and mortar’ context. 342  174 F.3d at 1063 (quoting Mobil Oil Corp., 818 F.2d at 260). 343  Ibid., at 1065. 344  Rescuecom Corp. v Google Inc, 562 F.3d 123, 129–31 (2d Cir. 2009); Australian Gold, Inc v Hatfield, 436 F.3d 1228, 1239 (10th Cir. 2006); PACCAR, Inc v TeleScan Technologies, 319 F.3d 243, 252 (6th Cir. 2003); Promatek Indus., Ltd v Equitrac Corp., 300 F.3d 808, 812–13 (7th Cir. 2002); 800-JR Cigar, Inc v GoTo.com, Inc, 437 F. Supp. 2d 273 (D.N.J. 2006). 345  562 F.3d at 129–31. Several district courts, relying on the Second Circuit’s earlier decision in 1-800 Contacts, Inc v WhenU. Com, Inc, 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005), had held that the strictly internal use of a trademark as metadata or a keyword did not constitute ‘use in commerce’ under the Lanham Act. S & L Vitamins, Inc v Australian Gold, Inc, 521 F. Supp. 2d 188, 199–202 (E.D.N.Y. 2007); Merck & Co, Inc v Mediplan Health Consulting, Inc, 425 F. Supp. 2d 402, 415 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). In Rescuecom the Second Circuit explained that the 1-800 decision did not imply that an alleged infringer’s use of a trademark in an internal software program insulates the alleged infringer from a charge of infringement. 562 F.3d at 130. 346  See, eg Hearts on Fire Company, LLC v Blue Nile, Inc, 603 F. Supp. 2d 274, 283–87 (D. Mass. 2009). See also J.G. Wentworth, S.S.C. Ltd v Settlement Funding LLC, No 06-0597, 2007 WL 30115, at *5, *8 (E.D. Pa. January 4, 2007) (defendant’s advertisements not likely to cause initial interest confusion). 347  638 F.3d at 1148.

1050

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws on the screen displaying the results page.348 The first three factors are drawn from the eight Sleekcraft factors. The fourth factor was considered relevant by the Ninth Circuit in assessing initial interest confusion in Playboy Enterprises, Inc v Netscape Communications Corp.,349 an earlier ‘keying’ case. Network Automation (‘Network’) and Advanced Systems Concepts (‘Systems’) both sold job US.151 scheduling and management software and advertised on the Internet. Network marketed its software under the mark AUTO-MATE, while Systems’ product was sold under its federally registered ACTIVEBATCH mark. Network purchased ‘ActiveBatch’ as a keyword, which when keyed into various search engines, most prominently Google and Microsoft Bing, produced search results showing ‘www.networkautomation.com’ as a sponsored link. Systems alleged that this use of its mark by Network constituted trademark infringement.350 The district court and the Ninth Circuit both accepted that any actionable likelihood of confusion in this context would arise in the context of initial interest confusion. In assessing initial interest confusion in Network Automation, the Ninth Circuit considered US.152 the strength of the mark to be highly relevant because it likely would influence the nature of a consumer’s online search. The court explained that an Internet consumer searching for a generic or descriptive term will expect to encounter links and advertisements for a variety of sources, while a consumer searching for a distinctive term could be more susceptible to confusion when encountering sponsored links for a similar product from a different source. On the other hand, the court acknowledged that if consumers of a particular product are particularly sophisticated and knowledgeable they might experience no confusion at all.351 Because System’s ACTIVEBATCH mark distinctively identified its product and was federally registered, the Ninth Circuit accepted that consumers searching for the term presumably were looking for a specific product, but nonetheless observed that the sophistication of the consumers looking would also play a role.352 The Ninth Circuit identified evidence of actual confusion as a strongly relevant factor in US.153 determining likelihood of confusion in keyword advertising cases, relying on its prior assessment in Playboy. Netscape operated a search engine with a keyword advertising programme, selling lists of terms to sponsors. When users searched for keywords on the list, the sponsor’s advertisement would be displayed on the results page.353 Netscape required its advertisers from the adult entertainment industry to link their ads to one such list that included trademarks held by Playboy.354 In framing the initial interest confusion inquiry in Playboy, the Ninth Circuit found evidence of actual confusion was the most important factor,355 since the linked banner advertisements were ‘unlabeled,’ and were, therefore, more likely to mislead consumers into believing they had followed a link to Playboy’s website.356 The Network Automation court found the nature of the goods and the type of consumer US.154 ‘highly relevant’ factors in determining likelihood of confusion in keyword advertising cases. The court of appeals rejected the district court’s broadly stated conclusion that ‘a low degree of care’ is exercised by Internet consumers, reasoning that a sophisticated consumer of business

  Ibid., at 1154.   354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004). 350  638 F.3d at 1142. 351  Ibid., at 1149–50. 352  Ibid., at 1150. 353  354 F.3d at 1022. 354  Ibid., at 1023. 355  Ibid., at 1026. 356  Ibid., at 1025. 348 349

1051

United States of America (‘.us’) software is more likely to understand the mechanics of Internet search engines and the nature of sponsored links.357 Citing to its Tabari decision, the court noted that ‘the default degree of consumer care is becoming more heightened as the novelty of the Internet evaporates and online commerce becomes commonplace’.358 The court explained that Internet consumers generally are accustomed to exploration by trial and error, and that consumers searching online for expensive products can be expected to be even more sophisticated, concluding: [T]‌he district court improperly concluded that this factor weighed in Systems’ favor based on a conclusion reached by our court more than a decade ago in Brookfield and GoTo.com that Internet users on the whole exercise a low degree of care. While the statement may have been accurate then, we suspect that there are many contexts in which it no longer holds true.359 US.155 The Ninth Circuit similarly found misplaced the district court’s reliance on Brookfield and

GoTo.com in concluding that likelihood of confusion was strongly indicated by the parties’ advertising and marketing on the Internet. Looking instead to its decision in Playboy for guidance, the Ninth Circuit observed: [T]‌his factor becomes less important when the marketing channel is less obscure. Today, it would be the rare commercial retailer that did not advertise online, and the shared use of a ubiquitous marketing channel does not shed much light on the likelihood of consumer confusion.360

US.156 In weighting the fourth factor, the Network Automation court emphasized that in keyword

advertising the ‘likelihood of confusion will ultimately turn on what the consumer saw on the screen and reasonably believed, given the context’.361 The court reiterated that in Playboy likelihood of initial interest confusion was present because consumers saw banner advertisements that were ‘confusingly labeled or not labeled at all’.362 The Playboy court noted that clear labelling might have eliminated the likelihood of initial interest confusion, but also found it significant that Netscape’s search engine did not clearly segregate sponsored advertisements from objective results.363

US.157 The Ninth Circuit in Network Automation thus concluded that, in assessing what consumers

see on the screen and reasonably believe, advertisements appearing on a search results page must be considered as a whole. Looking to the surrounding context of the advertisements, the Ninth Circuit concluded: ‘Here, even if Network has not clearly identified itself in the text of its ads, Google and Bing have partitioned their search results pages so that the advertisements appear in separately labelled sections for “sponsored” links.’364 The Ninth Circuit found the lower court’s analysis failed to consider the surrounding context—specifically, the appearance of the advertisements in a separately labelled sponsored links section.365 The Ninth Circuit thus vacated the lower court’s injunction and remanded the case for further consideration consistent with the court of appeals’ opinion.

  638 F.3d at 1152.  Ibid. 359  Ibid., at 1153. 360  Ibid., at 1151. 361  Ibid., at 1153 (quoting Hearts on Fire Company, LLC v Blue Nile, Inc, 603 F. Supp. 2d 274, 289 (D. Mass. 2009)). 362  Ibid., at 1154 (quoting Playboy, 354 F.3d. at 1023). 363  Playboy, 354 F.3d at 1030 and n. 43. See Network Automation, 638 F.3d at 1153–4. 364  638 F.3d at 1154. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1-800 Contacts, Inc v Lens.com, Inc, 722 F.3d 1229, 1245 (10th Cir. 2013), cited Network Automation in recognizing that Internet consumers are capable of distinguishing between search engine results and sponsored links. 365 Ibid. 357 358

1052

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws In Network Automation the Ninth Circuit also looked to Judge Berzon’s concurring opinion US.158 in Playboy, in which the jurist cautioned that a broad reading of Brookfield ’s holding could result in a finding of initial interest confusion in situations where there is no consumer confusion because the search engine results list informs the consumer that neither the product or web link is related to the trademark owner.366 The Network Automation court, addressing Judge Berzon’s concerns, stated emphatically that ‘because the sine qua none of trademark infringement is consumer confusion, when we examine initial interest confusion, the owner of the mark must demonstrate likely confusion, not mere diversion’.367

(c)  Available Remedies In addition to injunctive relief under section 34 of the Lanham Act, trademark owners may US.159 recover under section 35(a) of the Lanham Act the defendant’s profits, damages sustained by the owner, and costs.368 As noted earlier, subject to the principles of equity, the court may enter judgment in an amount enhanced by up to three times the amount of actual damages found, and in exceptional circumstances may award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party.369 US courts are generally reluctant in trademark infringement cases to award enhanced damages under section 35(a), and in some cases have declined to award enhanced damages where the perceived harm is more appropriately remedied through injunctive relief.370 Since bad faith intent in not an element of trademark infringement, cancellation or transfer of an infringing domain name generally is unavailable unless bad faith cybersquatting is alleged and proven under the ACPA.371 In granting injunctive relief in trademark infringement and unfair competition cases under US.160 the Lanham Act, US courts have traditionally recognized a presumption of irreparable harm from a likelihood of confusion finding.372 Following the United States Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in eBay Inc v MercExchange, LLC,373 disapproving the utilization of a comparable judicial rule in patent infringement cases, US courts are divided whether the traditional rule as applied in trademark cases retains vitality.374

(3) Protection of Famous Marks from Dilution The TDRA, which replaced the FTDA on October 6, 2006,375 provides injunctive relief to US.161 the owner of a famous and distinctive mark against any person who, after the owner’s mark has become famous, uses a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by

  Ibid., at 1147–8. See Playboy, 354 F.3d at 1034–5.   638 F.3d at 1149. The court may also have been addressing concerns voiced by courts outside the Ninth Circuit, such as those expressed by the district court in Hearts on Fire, 603 F. Supp. 2d at 283–7. Refer to Note 346 and accompanying text above. 368  15 U.S.C. s 1117(a). 369 Ibid. 370 See Buzz Off Insect Shield, LLC v S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc, 606 F. Supp. 2d 571, 588–90 (M.D.N.C. 2009); Diálogo, LLC v Bauza, 549 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D. Mass. 2008). Enhanced damages are available only to ensure that the plaintiff is adequately compensated, and may not be awarded to punish the defendant. See, eg Skydrive Arizona, LLC v Quattrocchi, 673 F. 3d 1105, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012); BASF Corp. v Old World Trading Co, 41 F.3d 1081, 1096 (7th Cir. 1994). 371  Refer to Note 289 and accompanying text above. 372  See 5 McCarthy s 30:47 (4th edn 2012). See also David H Bernstein and Andrew Gilden, No Trolls Barred: Trademark Injunctions After eBay, 99 TMR 1037 (2009). 373  547 U.S. 388 (2006). 374  Compare, eg Hanley-Wood LLC v Hanley Wood LLC, 783 F. Supp. 2d 147, 151 (D.D.C. 2011) (‘trademark infringement by its very nature carries a presumption of harm’), with Groupion, LLC v Groupon, Inc, 826 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1167 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (‘presumption of irreparable harm is no longer applicable’). 375  Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (TDRA), above note 15. 366 367

1053

United States of America (‘.us’) blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.376 US.162 In addition to injunctive relief, where a defendant has wilfully violated the TDRA, the owner

of a famous mark may recover under section 35(a) of the Lanham Act the defendant’s profits, damages sustained by the owner, and costs.377 In the event of a wilful violation, and subject to the principles of equity, a court may enter judgment in an amount enhanced by up to three times the amount of actual damages found, and in exceptional cases may award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party.378 Section 35(e) of the Lanham Act creates a rebuttable presumption that a violation is wilful if the violator or a person acting in concert with the violator knowingly provides false contact information in registering, maintaining, or renewing a domain name used in connection with the violation.379

(a)  Recognition of Famous Mark US.163 The TDRA provides that a mark is famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming

public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark owner. The statute further identifies four non-exclusive relevant factors that may be considered in determining whether a mark possesses the requisite degree of recognition: (i) The duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark, whether advertised or publicized by the owner or third parties. (ii) The amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark. (iii) The extent of actual recognition of the mark. (iv) Whether the mark is registered on the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s principal register.380

US.164 While federal registration is a factor to be considered in determining famous mark status

under the TDRA, it is not a requirement. Further, as noted earlier, under the TDRA a descriptive mark that has acquired distinctiveness is no less entitled to protection from dilution than an inherently distinctive mark, if proven to be famous.381 Conversely, it appears that marks for which only ‘niche fame’ can be demonstrated will not be eligible for protection as famous marks under the TDRA, in light of the statutory requirement that the mark be ‘widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States’.

(b)  Dilution of Famous Mark US.165 (i)  Dilution by Blurring  The TDRA defines ‘dilution by blurring’ as an association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. The statute sets out six non-exclusive relevant factors that may be considered in determining whether a mark or trade name is likely to cause dilution by blurring: (i) The degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark. (ii) The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark.

  15 U.S.C. s 1125(c)(1).   Ibid., s 1117(a). These additional remedies are available in the event of dilution by blurring only when the defendant wilfully intended to trade on the recognition of the famous mark or, in the event of dilution by tarnishment, only when the defendant wilfully intended to harm the reputation of the mark, but only respecting a mark or trade name first used in commerce after the effective date of the TDRA. Ibid., s 1125(5)(A) and (B). 378  Ibid., s 1117(a). 379  Section 35(e) seems to be directed to the TDRA, under which profits and damages are recoverable only in cases where a wilful violation is proven. 380  15 U.S.C. s 1125(c)(2)(A). 381  Ibid., s 1125(c)(1). Refer to text accompanying note 21 above. 376 377

1054

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws (iii) The extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark. (iv) The degree of recognition of the famous mark. (v) Whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark. (vi) Any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.382

Some federal courts previously embossed on the FTDA a threshold requirement that the US.166 challenged mark or trade name be ‘identical or virtually identical’ to the famous mark.383 If this showing was not made, relief invariably was denied. The continued utilization of this threshold requirement by courts in blurring cases under the TDRA is questionable. The Second Circuit and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have concluded that this judicial gloss did not survive the TDRA, noting that the question of similarity is but one of six enumerated blurring factors in the amended statute.384 The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has construed the TDRA similarly in several recent blurring cases.385

(ii)  Dilution by Tarnishment  The TDRA defines ‘dilution by tarnishment’ as an associ- US.167 ation arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark.386 Unlike dilution by blurring, no statutory factors are provided to guide courts in determining whether a mark or trade name is likely to cause dilution by tarnishment. However, US courts have recognized that dilution by tarnishment ‘generally arises when the plaintiff ’s trademark is linked to products of shoddy quality, or is portrayed in an unwholesome or unsavory context likely to evoke unflattering thoughts about the owner’s product’.387 In the absence of statutory guidance, whether courts will continue to apply the ‘identical or virtually identical’ threshold requirement in tarnishment cases remains to be seen. (c)  Likelihood of Dilution Standard As discussed earlier in this chapter,388 Congress adopted a likelihood of dilution standard US.168 under the TDRA, legislatively nullifying the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Moseley v V Secret Catalogue, Inc389 that proof of actual dilution was required. The TDRA expressly provides that dilution may be found regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.390 In adopting under the TDRA a likelihood of dilution standard and codifying the definition of dilution by blurring as an association arising from the similarity of a mark or name with a famous mark, Congress has expanded the scope of protection for famous marks under the federal dilution law, as well as making the ACPA more accessible to famous mark owners for combating cybersquatting. (d)  Statutory Fair Use Safe Harbor The TDRA explicitly provides a safe harbor at section 43(c)(3) of the Lanham Action for US.169 nominative or descriptive fair use of a famous mark by another person. Nominative or

  Ibid., s 1125(c)(2)(B).   See, eg Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc v Utah Div. of Travel Dev., 170 F.3d 449, 458 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 923 (1999). 384  Levi Strauss & Co v Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co, 97 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1947 (9th Cir. 2011); Starbucks Corp. v Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc, 588 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009). 385  Nat’l Pork Bd. v Supreme Lobster and Seafood Co, 96 U.S.P.Q.2d 1479 (T.T.A.B. 2010); Research In Motion Ltd v Defining Presence Marketing Group, Inc, 102 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1187 (T.T.A.B. 2012). 386  15 U.S.C. s 1125(c)(2)(C). 387  Tiffany (NJ) Inc v eBay Inc, 600 F.3d 93, 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Deere & Co v MTD Prods., Inc, 41 F.3d 39, 43 (2d Cir. 1994)). 388  Refer to text accompanying notes 15–21 above. 389  537 U.S. 418, 123 S.Ct. 1115 (2003). 390  15 U.S.C. s 1125(c)(1). 382 383

1055

United States of America (‘.us’) descriptive fair use is not actionable under the TDRA as dilution by blurring or tarnishment, except when used as a designation of source for that person’s goods or services.391 Statutory examples of permissible fair use include: (i) advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services; or (ii) identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner.392 All forms of news reporting and commentary and any non-commercial use of a mark also are excluded from the reach of the TDRA.393 US.170 Section 43(c)(3) clearly states that a nominative or descriptive use of a famous mark as a des-

ignation of source for another person’s goods or services falls outside the statutory fair use safe harbor. Whether Congress thereby meant to completely remove from the likelihood of dilution calculus the nominative or descriptive use of a famous mark as a designation of source is less than clear. In an early decision under the TDRA, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Louis Vuitton v Haute Diggity Dog394 held that the plaintiff ’s famous LOUIS VUITTON mark was not diluted by the defendant’s use of ‘Chewy Vuiton’ for a pet chew toy. The Fourth Circuit determined that the defendant was making a fair use of ‘Chewy Vuiton’ as a parody of the famous mark. The Fourth Circuit explained that a successful parody did not dilute a famous mark and might even increase the fame and recognition of the mark.395 The Louis Vuitton court thus indicated a heightened burden should be placed on the owner of a famous mark to establish likelihood of dilution when parody is asserted.396

US.171 The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Starbucks Corp. v Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc,397 sub-

sequently rejected a parody defence under the TDRA, finding that the defendant’s use of CHARBUCKS as a mark for its retail coffee business did not qualify as a parody of plaintiff ’s famous STARBUCKS mark.398 The Second Circuit Court of Appeals distinguished the case before it from Louis Vuitton as follows: Here, unlike in Louis Vuitton, Black Bear’s use of the Charbucks Marks is, at most, a subtle satire of the Starbucks Marks…. As the owner of Black Bear affirmed during his testimony, ‘[t]‌he inspiration for the term Charbucks comes directly from Starbucks’ tendency to roast its products more darkly than that of other major roasters.’… Thus, the Charbucks parody is promoted not as a satire or irreverent commentary of Starbucks but, rather, as a beacon to identify Charbucks as a coffee that competes at the same level and quality as Starbucks in producing dark-roasted coffees.399

US.172 The TTAB rejected a parody defence in Research In Motion Ltd v Defining Presence Marketing

Group, Inc.400 Research In Motion (RIM) opposed four trademark applications in which Defining Presence sought to register CRACKBERRY. Defining Presence asserted a fair use of CRACKBERRY as a parody of the BLACKBERRY mark. After finding the BLACKBERRY mark to be famous,401 the TTAB turned to the defendant’s parody defence. The TTAB began by holding that Defining Presence’s adoption of CRACKBERRY for use as a ‘designation of source’ fell outside the scope of the TDRA’s fair use safe harbor.402   Ibid., s 1125(c)(3).  Ibid. 393 Ibid. 394  507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007). 395  Ibid., at 267. 396 Ibid. 397  588 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009) (‘Charbucks’). 398  Ibid., at 112. 399  Ibid., at 113. 400  102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1187, 2012 WL 893481 (T.T.A.B. 2012). 401  Ibid., 2012 WL 893481, at *9. 402  Ibid., 2012 WL 893481, at *13. 391 392

1056

IV.  Court Litigation and National Laws The TTAB did consider the defendant’s parody assertion, however, in assessing whether like- US.173 lihood of dilution was proven. The Board concluded that the public’s prior adoption of ‘Crackberry’ as a nickname for BlackBerry devices significantly undercut the effectiveness of Defining Presence’s asserted parody, where the defendant used CRACKBERRY with goods and services closely related to RIM’s BLACKBERRY products.403 The TTAB distinguished Louis Vuitton from the case before it, contrasting Chewy Vuiton as a successful parody because of the juxtaposition of ‘a furry little imitation to be chewed by a dog’ and the ‘elegance and expensiveness of a LOUIS VUITTON handbag, which must not be chewed by a dog’.404 The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Louis Vuitton suggests that a successful parody mark—one US.174 that simultaneously conveys the contradictory messages that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody405—may provide a defence to dilution claims under the TDRA, notwithstanding the exclusion of parody marks under section 43(c)(3) of the Lanham Act. The Second Circuit and TTAB decisions respectively in Charbucks and Defining Presence, like Louis Vuitton, ultimately turn on whether the defendant’s mark conveys the contradictory messages required of a successful parody, and not on the exclusion of parody marks from the TDRA’s fair use exceptions. It is also notable that the asserted parody marks in Charbucks and Defining Presence, as distinguished from Louis Vuitton, were used with goods and services identical or closely related to those of the famous mark owner.

(4) Infringement of Trade Names As distinguished from trademarks, a trade name identifies a company and its business, and US.175 symbolizes the reputation of a business.406 Trade names are a type of source indicator to which United States laws, both federal and state, afford protection under the same unfair competition principles applied to trademarks.407 While trade names are not eligible for federal registration, the Lanham Act allows unfair competition claims concerning trade names to be brought in federal court under section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Act under the same standards applicable to unregistered trademarks.408 Trade names often serve simultaneously as trademarks, and it sometimes may be difficult to differentiate between these source identification functions. As a practical matter courts are rarely called upon to do so, as in such cases trademark and trade name violations typically are asserted jointly be plaintiffs.409

(5) Protection of Personal Names Personal names under the common law are not considered to be inherently distinctive. Thus, US.176 they are not protectable merely upon adoption and use, but must acquire secondary meaning through use sufficient that the public comes to recognize the personal name as a symbol that identifies and distinguishes goods or services.410 The common law rule requires secondary meaning for a personal name that is a surname, a first name or a combination thereof.

 Ibid.   Ibid., (quoting Louis Vuitton, 507 F.3d at 261) (emphasis in original). 405 See PETA, 263 F.3d at 366. 406  Communications Satellite Corp. v Comcet, Inc, 429 F.2d 1245, 1250 (4th Cir. 1970). 407  See generally, 1 McCarthy SS 9.1–9.4 (4th edn 2012). See American Steel Foundries v Robertson, 269 U.S. 372, 380 (1926). 408  See, eg Pizitz, Inc v Pizitz Mercantile Co of Tuscaloosa, Inc, 467 F. Supp. 1089, 1095, 204 U.S.P.Q. 707 (N.D. Ala. 1979) (s 43(a) of the Lanham Act applicable to trade names where conduct complained of involves unfair competition similar to trademark infringement). See Accuride Intern., Inc v Accuride Corp., 871 F.2d 1531, 1534 (9th Cir. 1989) (trade names unlike trademarks cannot be registered under the Lanham Act but action for infringement is available under s 43(a)(1)(A)). 409  Accuride Intern, 871 F.2d at 1534. 410  See generally, 2 McCarthy s 13:2 (4th edn 2012). 403 404

1057

United States of America (‘.us’) For purposes of registration under the Lanham Act, secondary meaning is required only for marks that are ‘primarily merely a surname’. But secondary meaning is not required where a personal name is used in a composite mark, provided the mark as a whole is inherently distinctive. In addition, many states recognize the right of publicity, under which an individual can seek to prevent an unauthorized commercial exploitation of his or her name, image, likeness, or other identifying aspect of personality.411

(6) Protection of Literary Titles US.177 The protection of literary titles in the United States is anomalous in one respect. Titles of

expressive works are treated differently from other trademarks, in that single titles, even if suggestive, arbitrary, or fanciful, nonetheless must acquire secondary meaning to receive trademark protection.412 Titles of single works are not registrable as trademarks under the Lanham Act,413 but may be protected under section 43(a) of the Act upon a showing of secondary meaning.414 A literary title used as a designation of source for a series of expressive works, however, may be protected under trademark law without a showing of secondary meaning.415

V.  Acquiring Intellectual Property Rights by Using a Domain Name US.178 In the United States intellectual property rights may be acquired by the use of a domain name

as a trademark, although such rights arguably have no legal existence apart from the goods and services for which the mark serves as a source identifier.416 Similarly, a domain name that serves as a distinctive source identifier from a business may be protectable as a trade name. A mark comprised of a domain name may be registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) if it functions as identifier of source of goods or services. Historically, uniform source indicators and top-level domains (gTLDs) have been considered by the USPTO primarily as indicators of Internet addresses.417 However, a number of the new gTLDs approved by ICANN seem capable of serving source indicating functions, and likely will prompt the USPTO to reconsider its position regarding the registration of gTLDs as trademarks.418

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers US.179 Lawsuits brought against registries, registrars, and other Internet service providers alleg-

ing trademark infringement, trademark dilution, or cybersquatting typically rely on a

411 See Haelan Laboratories, Inc v Topps Chewing Gum, Inc, 202 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1953). Judge Jerome Frank is thought to have coined the term ‘right of publicity’ in authoring the Second Circuit’s decision. 412  See, eg Twin Peaks Productions, Inc v Publications Intern., Ltd, 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993). See generally 2 McCarthy s 10:2 (4th edn 2012). 413  In re Innovative Companies, LLC, 88 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1095 (T.T.A.B. 2008). See generally 2 McCarthy s 10:4 (4th edn 2012). 414  Herbko Intern., Inc v Kappa Books, Inc, 308 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 415  In re Cooper, 254 F.2d 611, 615 (C.C.P.A. 1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 840 (1958). See 2 McCarthy s 10:6 (4th edn 2012). 416  See 1 McCarthy ss 2:14, 2:15 (4th edn 2012). 417  See, eg In re 1800Mattress.com, L.P., 586 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (‘mattress.com’—‘no evidence that ‘.com’ evoked anything but a commercial internet domain’). 418 See In re theDot Commc’ns Network LLC, 101 U.S.P.Q.2D 1062, 1067 (T.T.A.B. 2011) (gTLD ‘.music’ conveys commercial impression understood by consumers). On occasion the addition of a gTLD to a descriptive term may result in a distinctive mark, and the addition of a source indicating gTLD to an otherwise unregistrable mark may render it registrable. See In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (computerized online retail services in field of pre-engineered metal buildings and roofing systems).

1058

VI.  Liability of the Registry, Registrar, and Internet Service Providers contributory liability theory. In several recent cases, however, plaintiffs have been allowed to proceed directly against a registrar or other Internet service provider under the ACPA. Under the ACPA a person is liable for using a domain name ‘only if that person is the domain US.180 name registrant or that registrant’s authorized licensee’.419 This provision in tandem with the safe harbor provisions of the Act would seemingly place domain name registries and registrars beyond the direct reach of the statute. Courts early on showed little hesitation in dismissing cases brought under the ACPA seeking to subject registries or registrars to direct liability. Lockheed Martin Corp. v Network Solutions, Inc420 is illustrative. Lockheed argued that Network Solutions violated the ACPA by allowing customers to register domain names violating Lockheed’s trademark rights. The Lockheed Martin court disagreed, finding persuasive the absence of any statutory language supporting a direct cause of action against a registrar or registry. The court noted that the ACPA authorizes civil actions only against domain name registrants or their authorized licensees,421 and concluded that a person functioning in the capacity of a registry or registrar was not a person who ‘registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name’.422 Congress likely did not envisage when enacting the ACPA in 1999 the unprecedented expan- US.181 sion and commercialization of the Internet that has followed, or anticipate the extent to which domain name registrars would engage in commercial activities outside their ‘core function’ as registrars. In response to such developments, courts have made clear that the safe harbor provisions of the ACPA423 were never intended to insulate a domain name registrar from direct liability when acting in the capacity of a domain name registrant. In Transamerica Corp. v Moniker Online Services,424 for example, the plaintiff alleged that Moniker exceeded its role as a domain name registrar when allegedly orchestrating a scheme to profit from the bad faith use of domain names incorporating third-party marks. This alleged scheme consisted of Moniker’s use of its affiliated privacy protection service to conceal Moniker’s status as the de facto registrant of the domain names in question, and the monetization of the domain names through pay-per-click websites carried out by another Moniker affiliate.425 US courts have also considered that other Internet service providers may be subject to dir- US.182 ect liability under the ACPA when acting as a domain name registrant or as a licensee of a registrant. In Vulcan Golf LLC v Google, Inc426 the district court denied Google’s motion for summary judgment after determining a fact issue existed as to whether the Internet service provider could be deemed an ‘authorized licensee’ of a domain name registrant. Google had entered into contracts with several parking companies, under which Google was licensed to use the domain names for purposes of the placement of advertisements.427 Observing that the ACPA’s definition of ‘traffics in’ expressly includes the licensing of domain names,428 the district court distinguished the case before it from Ford Motor Co v GreatDomains,429 in which the phrase ‘traffics in’ was construed as limited to a direct transfer of an ownership interest in a domain name.

  15 U.S.C. s 1125(d)(1)(D).   141 F. Supp. 2d 648 (N.D. Tex. 2001) (Lockheed II). 421  Ibid., at 655. 422 Ibid. 423  15 U.S.C. s 1114(2)(D)(iii). 424  672 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (S.D. Fla. 2009). 425  Ibid., at 1366. 426  97 U.S.P.Q.2d 1071 (N.D. Ill. 2010). 427  Ibid., at 1076. 428  Ibid., at 1078. 429  177 F. Supp. 2d 635, 644–5 (E.D. Mich. 2001). 419 420

1059

United States of America (‘.us’) US.183 The ACPA is silent regarding contributory liability for cybersquatting, but Congress enacted

a safe harbor for domain name registrars and registries in section 32(2)(D)(iii) of the Lanham Act, providing that a registrar or registry is not liable for damages for the registration or maintenance of a domain name for another absent a bad faith intent by the registry or registrar to profit from such.430 The legislative history reflects this safe harbor was intended to promote ‘the continued ease and efficiency users of the current registration system enjoy by codifying current case law limiting the secondary liability of domain name registrars and registries for the act of registration of a domain name’.431

US.184 Contributory infringement is a judicially created doctrine derived from the common law of

torts, under which liability may be imposed upon those who facilitate or encourage infringement.432 The application of the doctrine in federal trademark jurisprudence was confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Inwood Laboratories, Inc v Ives Laboratories, Inc.433 The Supreme Court explained that a manufacturer or distributor who intentionally induces another to infringe a trademark, or continues to supply its product to one whom it knows or has reason to know is engaging in trademark infringement, is contributorily liable.434

US.185 Reasoning that the ACPA was enacted against this settled backdrop, a number of district

courts found contributory cybersquatting to be actionable.435 More recently, however, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Petrolium Nasional Berhad v GoDaddy.com, Inc436 held there is no cause of action for contributory cybersquatting under the ACPA. The Ninth Circuit concluded that Congress had created a new statutory cause of action distinct from the common law of trademarks codified in the Lanham Act.437 The court of appeals reasoned that limiting ACPA claims to direct liability furthered the purposes of the statute, and explained that trademark holders may still bring claims for traditional direct or contributory trademark infringement arising from cybersquatting activities.438

US.186 In the context of contributory liability for trademark infringement, Internet service providers

are distinguishable from the product manufacturer in Inwood Lab. As opposed to supplying a product in order to induce infringement, Internet service providers generally make available the ‘necessary marketplace’ for the sale of infringing products. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals focused on this distinction in Lockheed Martin Corp. v Network Solutions, Inc,439 concluding that the contributory liability of an Internet service provider was contingent on the ‘[d]‌irect control and monitoring of the instrumentality used by a third party to infringe the plaintiff ’s mark’.

US.187 Implicit in the ‘direct control and monitoring’ liability standard is a requirement that the

Internet service provider know or have reason to know of the third-party infringement. As the Ninth Circuit observed in Lockheed Martin, the service provider cannot reasonably be

  15 U.S.C. s 1114(2)(D)(iii).   S. Rep. No 106–40, at 11. 432  Georgia Pacific Consumer Products, LP v Von Drehle Corp., 618 F. 3d 441, 449 (4th Cir. 2010); Tiffany (NJ) Inc v eBay Inc, 600 F.3d 93, 103–104 (2d Cir. 2010). 433  456 U.S. 844 (1982). 434  Ibid., at 853–4. 435  See, e.g. Verizon California, Inc v Above.com, No CV-11-0973 ABC, slip op. at 5-11 (C.D. Cal., July 13, 2011)  (citing Microsoft Corp. v Shah, No C-10-0653 RSM, 2011 WL 108954 at *1-3 (W.D. Wash., January 12, 2011); Solid Host, NL v Namecheap, Inc, 652 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1111–17 (C.D. Cal. 2009); Ford Motor Co v Greatdomains.com, 177 F. Supp. 2d 635, 646–7 (E.D. Mich. 2001)). 436  737 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2013). 437  Ibid., at 551–53. 438  Ibid., at 553–54. 439  194 F.3d 980, 984–5 (9th Cir. 1999). 430 431

1060

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property expected to monitor the entire Internet.440 In Tiffany (NJ) Inc v eBay Inc,441 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a contributory trademark infringement claim asserted by Tiffany Inc against Internet auctioneer eBay, involving the use of the TIFFANY mark by counterfeiters on eBay’s site. The Second Circuit concluded that eBay’s generalized knowledge that some portion of the ‘Tiffany’ goods sold on its site likely were counterfeit was not sufficient to satisfy the Inwood Labs ‘know or has reason to know’ requirement.442 The Second Circuit indicated that eBay would have to know or have reason to know of specific instances of actual infringement that were not being addressed,443 but observed in dicta that the Inwood Labs standard could have been met by evidence of wilful blindness.444 Subsequent to the Second Circuit’s decision in Tiffany, the Fourth Circuit in Rosetta Stone US.188 Ltd v Google, Inc445 reversed a summary judgment in favour of Google on a contributory trademark infringement claim. In 2009 Google began allowing advertisers to use third-party trademarks as keywords and in advertising text without the approval of trademark owners.446 Rosetta Stone alleged this change in Google’s policies caused consumer confusion, misleading Internet users into purchasing counterfeit ROSETTA STONE software. According to Rosetta Stone, in a six-month period it reported to Google some 200 instances of sponsored links marketing counterfeit ROSETTA STONE products.447 Google also had conducted a general study indicating that ‘likelihood of confusion remains high’ when trademarks are used in a title or body of a sponsored link.448 Relying on Tiffany, the district court concluded that Rosetta Stone had failed to establish US.189 with requisite specificity that Google knew or should have known of the infringing activity. The Fourth Circuit, however, concluded that the district court failed to properly apply the standard of review on summary judgment, explaining the question on appeal was whether, viewing the evidence in a light most favourable to Rosetta Stone, a reasonable trier of fact could find in favour of Rosetta Stone.449 The Fourth Circuit observed that Tiffany involved an appeal of a judgment rendered after a lengthy bench trial, and concluded: Accordingly, Tiffany is of limited application in these circumstances, and the district court’s heavy reliance on Tiffany was misplaced. We conclude that the evidence recited by the district court is sufficient to establish a question of fact as to whether Google continued to supply its services to known infringers. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order to the extent it grants summary judgment in favor of Google on Rosetta Stone’s contributory infringement claim.450

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property Courts in the United States have reached differing conclusions whether domain names are US.190 items of property. Generally, these decisions reflect divergent views as to whether a registrant’s rights in a domain name are (1) contractual in nature, arising solely from the domain   Ibid., at 985.   600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010). 442  Ibid., at 106. 443  Ibid., at 107. 444  Ibid., at 109–10 and n. 15 (‘contributory liability may arise where a defendant is (as was eBay here) made aware that there was infringement on its site but (unlike eBay here) ignored that fact’). 445  676 F.3d 144 (4th Cir. 2012). 446  Ibid., at 156. 447  Ibid., at 152. 448  Ibid., at 158. 449  Ibid., at 164–5. 450  Ibid., at 165. 440 441

1061

United States of America (‘.us’) name registration agreement: or (2) entail a separate and distinct possessory interest in the domain name as a form of personal property. Judicial decisions adopting the contractual rights view have largely involved actions to aid in execution of money judgments involving use of state law writs providing for attachment, levy, or garnishment of the assets of the judgment debtor.451 Conversely, the leading decisions viewing domain names as a form of intangible personal property involved tort-based claims for conversion,452 although there are also decisions in aid of enforcement of judgments recognizing intangible property rights in domain names.453 US.191 The April 2000 decision of the Supreme Court of Virginia in Network Solutions, Inc v Umbro

International, Inc454 remains the leading case holding that a domain name registrant’s rights are contractual, and arise solely from the domain name registration agreement. Umbro obtained a default judgment and permanent injunction in a federal district court against a Canadian corporation, 3263851 Canada Inc, which had registered the domain name ‘umbro.com’. Umbro sought to enforce the damages portion of the judgment in Virginia by instituting a garnishment proceeding against multiple domain names registered by the judgment debtor with the registrar Network Solutions.

US.192 In Umbro the Virginia Supreme Court held in a majority opinion that a domain name reg-

istrant acquires only a ‘contractual right to use a unique domain name for a specified period of time’.455 The Umbro court reasoned that this contractual right is ‘inextricably bound to’ and ‘[does] not exist separate and apart from’ the contract for services between the registrar and registrant.456 The court considered the domain name registration agreement akin to a contract for personal services, insufficient to create ‘a liability’ to the judgment debtor for purposes of the Virginia garnishment statute.457

US.193 In reaching its conclusion that the domain names at issue were not subject to garnishment

under Virginia law, the Umbro court found it unnecessary to decide whether a domain name could be classified either as a form of intangible personal property or as form of intellectual property.458 However, as noted by the dissenting Justices in Umbro, the Virginia garnishment statute clearly provides for an execution lien on intangible personal property.459 Thus, the holding of the Umbro court would seem to reject implicitly the existence of personal property rights in domain names. Domain name registrants instead may rely only upon contract rights, historically recognized at common law under the law of personal obligations, rather than the law of property.

US.194 In July 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded to the con-

trary in Kremen v Cohen.460 Gary Kremen, the initial registrant of the domain name ‘sex.com’, sought to maintain an action for conversion against the registrar, Network Solutions, arising 451  See, eg Network Solutions, Inc v Umbro International, Inc, 529 S.E.2d 80 (Va. Sup. Ct. 2000); Palacio Del Mar Homeowners Ass’n, Inc v McMahon, 174 Cal.App. 4th 1386, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 445 (2009). 452  See, eg CRS Recovery, Inc v Laxton, 600 F. 3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2010); Kremen v Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2003). 453 See Office Depot Inc v Zuccarini, 596 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2010). 454  529 S.E.2d 80 (Va. Sup. Ct. 2000). 455 Ibid., at 86. 456 Ibid. 457 Ibid. 458  Ibid., at 86 and n. 13. 459  Ibid., at 88–9. The dissenting opinion reasoned that, by virtue of the domain name registration agreement, the judgment debtor had a contractual right to the exclusive use of the domain names during the term of the agreement. In the view of the dissent, this contractual right was a valuable asset, and constituted an intangible property right in which the judgment debtor had a possessory interest. 460  337 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2003).

1062

VII.  Domain Names as Items of Property from the registrar’s unauthorized transfer of the domain name to a third party, Stephen Cohen, based on a forged letter. A federal district court determined that Kremen had intangible property rights in the domain name, but dismissed the conversion count on the grounds that the tort of conversion, as recognized under California law, did not apply to intangible property. After concluding from a review of California decisional law that the tort of conversion US.195 extended to intangible property, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether ‘domain names as a class are a species of property’.461 Noting that property under California law is a broad concept comprising ‘every intangible benefit and prerogative susceptible of possession or disposition’,462 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s finding that Kremen had intangible property rights in the domain name. The Ninth Circuit applied the following three-part test to determine property interests in domain names: 1. There must be an interest capable of precise definition; 2. The interest must be capable of exclusive possession or control; and 3. The putative owner must have established a legitimate claim to exclusivity.463

The Kremen court concluded that domain names satisfy each criterion of this test. Regarding US.196 the first criterion, the court reasoned that a domain name is a well-defined interest, similar to a share of corporate stock or a plot of land.464 The court of appeals found the second criterion of exclusive possession or control satisfied because ‘the registrant alone’ decides to where on the Internet those who invoke the particular name are sent.465 The court found the third criterion met inasmuch as the registration of the domain name in itself is a claim of exclusivity— like staking a claim to a plot of land at a title office—further noting that many domain name owners invest substantial time and money to develop and promote websites associated with their domain names. The Kremen court observed generally that domain names like other forms of property are valued, bought and sold, and noted that under the ACPA domain names are subject to in rem jurisdiction.466 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has since confirmed its holding in Kremen in two deci- US.197 sions handed down in 2010. As noted earlier, the first of these cases, Office Depot Inc v Zuccarini,467 is also significant for its holding that a federal district court in enforcing a judgment may exercise quasi in rem jurisdiction over domain names situated within the district, and appoint a receiver to take control of and auction off the domain names. The situs of the judgment debtor’s domain names was deemed to be the headquarters of VeriSign, the ‘.com’ and ‘.net’ registry. The Ninth Circuit in Office Depot also pointed to Congressional authorization of in rem jurisdiction over domain names under the ACPA as authority for the proposition that domain names are personal property.468 The Ninth Circuit’s affirmance of Kremen in Office Depot is also noteworthy in light of the US.198 intervening decision of the Fourth District California Court of Appeals in Palacio Del Mar Homeowners Ass’n, Inc v McMahon.469 The California appellate court in Palacio Del Mar held that domain names do not constitute property subject to a turnover order because they cannot be taken into custody. The Palacio Del Mar court seemed to find support for its decision in Umbro, observing that: ‘Domain name registration supplies the intangible “contractual   Ibid., at 1029–33.   Ibid., at 1030. 463 Ibid. 464 Ibid. 465 Ibid. 466 Ibid. 467  596 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2010). 468  Ibid., at 702. 469  174 Cal.App.4th 1386, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 445 (2009). 461 462

1063

United States of America (‘.us’) right to use a unique domain name for a specified period of time”.’470 The Ninth Circuit took pains to distinguish Palacio Del Mar (and by implication Umbro), pointing to the absence in the California receivership statute of the California turnover statute’s ‘taken into custody’ language. The federal court of appeals interpreted the state appeals court’s Palacio Del Mar decision as leaving open under California law whether domain names constitute intangible property, and concluded that Kremen remained an accurate statement of California law.471 US.199 Shortly after deciding Office Depot, the Ninth Circuit handed down CRS Recovery, Inc v

Laxton,472 a case that, like Kremen, involved a claim for conversion of a domain name. Unlike Kremen, however, the Ninth Circuit in CRS Recovery faced a choice of law question: whether California or Virginia law should govern the conversion claim. The Ninth Circuit thus undertook to examine the Virginia Supreme Court’s Umbro decision. The Ninth Circuit observed that the Umbro court’s holding was narrowly based on the Virginia garnishment statute, and that the Virginia high court had found it immaterial whether a domain name in other contexts might be considered as intangible property.473 Although noting the Umbro decision arguably was ‘ambiguous’,474 the federal court of appeals concluded that as ‘Umbro does not compel the conclusion that Virginia considers domain names to be contract rights for purposes of conversion suits, we are not compelled to find that California law (under which domain names are property rights) and Virginia law are in conflict in this case’.475

US.200 Are domain names items of property? As the discordant judicial decisions discussed above sug-

gest, this question so far has evaded a ‘bright line’ answer. Ownership of a domain name provides rights of use, exclusion, and alienation, all of which are legal characteristics of property. Domain names have become valuable and are bought and sold like commodities. Congressional authorization of in rem jurisdiction under the ACPA seems a forceful recognition that property rights exist in domain names.476 Yet the ACPA also defines a ‘domain name’ as ‘an alphanumeric designation which is registered with or assigned by any domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority as part of an electronic address on the Internet’.477 Seemingly implicit in this definition is a recognition that a domain name registrant’s rights, regardless of how such rights are characterized, are derived from and ‘inextricably bound to’ the contract for services between the registrant and registrar.478 Perhaps, as several commentators have suggested, the continued blurring of distinctions between property, intellectual property, and contract law over time will render the question moot.479

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law (1) International Jurisdiction (a) Personal Jurisdiction US.201 The exercise of personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants by courts in the United States entails a twofold requirement: (1) the existence of a state or federal procedural rule or 470  95 Cal.Rptr.3d at 449. The Second District Court of Appeals of California also has cited Umbro with apparent approval. In re Forchion, 198 Cal.App. 4th 1284, 1308–309, 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 690 (2011). 471  596 F.3d at 701–702. 472  600 F. 3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2010). 473  Ibid., at 1142. 474  Ibid., at 1143. 475  Ibid., (emphasis in original). 476 See Office Depot, 596 F.3d at 702–703. 477  15 U.S.C. s 1127. 478  Umbro, 529 S.E.2d at 86. 479 See Sarah Worthington, The Disappearing Divide Between Property and Obligation:  The Impact of Aligning Legal Analysis and Commercial Expectation, 42 Texas International Law Journal 917, 920 (2007).

1064

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law statute providing for the exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant; and (2) the exercise of such jurisdiction consistent with the due process requirements of the United States Constitution. State long-arm statutes enable extraterritorial service of process as a means through which the courts of the forum state (including sitting federal courts) may exercise personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants. However, in an international setting an increasing number of plaintiffs turn to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) in asserting personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants.480 Rule 4(k)(2) approximates a federal long-arm statute and provides a forum for federal law claims in situations where a foreign defendant lacks substantial contacts with any single state but has significant contacts with the United States as a whole.481 Whenever service upon a foreign defendant is required abroad, the Hague Service Convention provides an internationally agreed upon method for such service.482 In all cases, the reach of state and federal statutes permitting a court to exercise personal juris- US.202 diction over a non-resident defendant is constrained by the due process requirements of the United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court established the standard to be applied in determining the constitutional validity of state long-arm service in International Shoe Co v Washington,483 declaring that the defendant must ‘have certain minimum contacts with [the state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’.484 The Court later refined the constitutional requirements in Hanson v Denckla,485 determining that ‘there [must] be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws’.486 Subsequent judicial decisions have developed and applied the concepts of ‘specific jurisdic- US.203 tion’ and ‘general jurisdiction’ in assessing the ‘minimum contacts’ due process requirement. Courts may exercise specific jurisdiction over non-resident defendants consistent with due process requirements where: (1) the defendant purposefully directed its activities toward the forum or purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities therein; (2) the plaintiff ’s cause of action arises out of or is related to those activities; and (3) the exercise of personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair. Where grounds for specific jurisdiction are absent, a court consistent with due process requirements may still exercise general jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant who has established substantial or continuous and systematic contacts with the forum.487 The standard for establishing general jurisdiction is higher than specific jurisdiction, and the nonresident defendant’s contacts with the forum often must be of a caliber that approximates physical presence.488 In the Internet context, US courts have assessed the exercise of specific jurisdiction over US.204 non-resident defendants under the ‘effects’ test articulated by the United States Supreme

 Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(2).   To establish jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(2), the plaintiff ’s claim must arise under federal law; the foreign defendant must lack sufficient contacts with any state to subject it to personal jurisdiction; and the foreign defendant must have sufficient contacts with the United States as a whole to satisfy due process requirements. See BP Chems. Ltd v Formosa Chem. & Fibre Corp., 229 F.3d 254, 258–9 (3d Cir. 2000). 482 Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 658 U.N.T.S. 163. More than 60 countries, including the United States, are signatories to the treaty. 483  326 U.S. 310 (1945). 484  Ibid., at 316. 485  357 U.S. 235 (1958). 486  Ibid., at 253. 487  Burger King Corp. v Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472, 105 S. Ct. 2174 (l984); Helicopters Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n. 8, 104 S.Ct. 1868 (1984). 488 See Bancroft & Masters, Inc v Augusta National, Inc, 223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000). 480 481

1065

United States of America (‘.us’) Court in Calder v Jones.489 The Calder effects test permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant based on intentional acts of the defendant’s ‘purposefully directed’ or targeted at the forum state. In assessing personal jurisdiction based on a foreign defendant’s operation of a website, a majority of US courts have adopted some variant of the ‘sliding scale’ approach fashioned in Zippo Mfg. Co v Zippo Dot Com, Inc,490 which has seminal authority regarding personal jurisdiction based upon the operation of an Internet website. US.205 Under Zippo the exercise of personal jurisdiction depends on the extent of the commercial

interactivity of the website with the forum state. At one end of the scale, the exercise of personal jurisdiction is proper where the commercial website’s operations reflect specifically intended interactivity with residents of the forum state, and the claim arises out of such use of the website.491 Conversely, as the Third Circuit Court of Appeals remarked in Toys ‘R’ Us, Inc v Step Two, S.A.,492 the mere operation of a commercially interactive website should not subject the operator to jurisdiction anywhere in the world. There must be evidence that the defendant is directly targeting its website to the state, and knowingly interacting with residents of the forum state through its website, or through sufficient other related contacts.493

US.206 The Third Circuit found such evidence wanting in Toys ‘R’ Us, as the defendant’s websites,

although interactive, did not appear to be intended to reach customers in the forum state of New Jersey, were entirely in the Spanish language, displayed prices for merchandise in pesetas or euros, and the merchandise could be shipped only to addresses in Spain.494 By comparison, in Moberg v 33T LLC,495 the district court had little difficulty finding that a website operated by a French national was intentionally targeting US customers, where the website was in English, associated with a ‘.us’ TLD domain name, and purchases could be made in US dollars. Nonetheless, the district court was unable to conclude without more that the defendant had specifically targeted residents of the forum state of Delaware, and thus permitted the plaintiff to conduct further discovery on the jurisdictional issues.

US.207 While the decentralized design of the Internet envisions an open, global platform without

boundaries, the development of geo-targeting technology allows online businesses to deliver content to specific geographic locations. For example, Google’s AdWords programme offers location targeting so that a user’s ads will appear only in selected geographic locations.496 Geo-targeting can also be used to exclude Internet advertising from designated geographic locations. Since under Calder the exercise of specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant requires actions ‘purposefully directed’ at a US forum, a non-US business utilizing geo-targeting to block its website and advertising from view in the United States should be better positioned to avoid being hailed into a US court as a result of incidental sales.

US.208 This is illustrated to some extent in Capitol Federal Savings Bank v Eastern Bank Corp.,497 a trade-

mark infringement action in which a Massachusetts-based defendant’s use of geo-targeting

489  465 U.S. 783 (1984). See Burger King Corp. v Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. at 472 (jurisdiction is only appropriate where a defendant has purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities). 490  952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D.Pa. 1997). See Toys ‘R’ Us, Inc v Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446, 452–3 (3d Cir.2003); see, eg Neogen Corp. v Neo Gen Screening, Inc, 282 F.3d 883, 890 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding purposeful availment requirement satisfied ‘if the web site is interactive to a degree that reveals specifically intended interaction with residents of the state’) (citation omitted). 491  Zippo, 952 F. Supp. at 1124 (citing CompuServe, Inc v Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257, 1264–6 (6th Cir. 1996)). 492  318 F.3d at 454. 493 Ibid. 494 Ibid. 495  666 F. Supp. 2d 415, 428 (D. Del. 2009). 496 See https://www.google.com/ads/innovations/locationtargeting.html. 497  493 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (D. Kan. 2007).

1066

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law was relied upon in part by the court in finding that personal jurisdiction over the defendant had not been established in Kansas. The plaintiff, Capitol Federal Savings Bank (Capitol Federal), headquartered in Topeka, Kansas, owned and used the federally registered TRUE BLUE mark with its nationwide banking services.498 Eastern Bank Corporation (Eastern Bank), headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, used TRUE BLUE in advertisements, on its website, and as a search engine keyword. The defendant focused its banking business in New England, but had some 70 account holders in Kansas.499 Eastern Bank nonetheless argued it was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Kansas because its website and advertising were not directed to residents of that forum. The Capitol Savings court noted that Eastern Bank had used geo-targeting to restrict the US.209 viewing of its ‘true blue’ advertisements outside of the New England area.500 The court found no evidence that any of Eastern Bank’s Kansas customers used the defendant’s website or otherwise had been exposed to the defendant’s TRUE BLUE advertising and promotions.501 The court ultimately concluded that as Eastern Bank’s advertising targeted the New England states and reached Kansas residents only incidentally, if at all, the defendant could not be held to have ‘purposely directed’ its advertising at Kansas residents.502

(b)  Subject Matter Jurisdiction Federal court subject matter jurisdiction is derived from the US Constitution or from fed- US.210 eral statutory law. Thus, federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over cases and controversies arising under the US Constitution or US statutes, known as federal question jurisdiction.503 In addition, federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction in civil cases arising under state laws where there is diversity of citizenship between the parties.504 US courts may also exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that involve the same subject matter as the pleaded federal law claims.505 It is a long-standing principle of American law that acts of Congress, unless a contrary intent US.211 appears, are meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Such presumptions are designed to avoid unnecessary international conflict.506 However, the United States Supreme Court has long made clear that the Lanham Act may reach extraterritorial conduct, although the contours of such reach vary with context. In Steele v Bulova Watch Co,507 the Supreme Court found Lanham Act jurisdiction over a defendant who was a US citizen domiciled in Mexico, and was selling watches in Mexico under the ‘Bulova’ name, where the defendant’s operations and their effects were not confined within the territorial limits of a foreign nation.508 Commerce is defined in the Lanham Act as ‘all commerce which may be lawfully regulated by Congress’,509 and the Supreme Court relied upon this broad jurisdiction to empower Congress to regulate the extraterritorial ‘conduct of its own citizens’.510   Ibid., at 1152.   Ibid., at 1152–53. 500  Ibid., at 1156–57. 501  Ibid., at 1163–64. 502  Ibid., at 1163. 503  U.S. Const. Art III, s 2; 28 U.S.C. s 1331. 504  28 U.S.C. s 1332. 505  Ibid., s 1367. 506 See EEOC v Arabian Am. Oil Co, 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991). 507  344 U.S. 280 (1952). 508  Ibid., at 286. 509  15 U.S.C. s 1127. 510  In addressing questions of extraterritoriality, the Supreme Court has fashioned various presumptions designed to avoid unnecessary international conflict, including the presumption that Acts of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, are meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. See 498 499

1067

United States of America (‘.us’) US.212 Regarding the extraterritorial activities of foreign defendants, the First Circuit Court of

Appeals in McBee v Delica Co, Ltd511 held that subject-matter jurisdiction under the Lanham Act is proper only if the complained-of activities have a substantial effect on US commerce, viewed in light of the purposes of the Act. The First Circuit declined to find that a Japanese language website accessible over the Internet in the United States infringed a US trademark, observing: ‘To hold that any website in a foreign language, wherever hosted, is automatically reachable under the Lanham Act so long as it is visible in the United States would be senseless. The United States often will have no real interest in hearing trademark lawsuits about websites that are written in a foreign language and hosted in other countries.’512 Other federal appellate courts also require an identifiable ‘effect’ on US commerce to support the extraterritorial reach on the Lanham Act. The Second Circuit’s test as initially articulated in Vanity Fair Mills v T Eaton Co513 requires a ‘substantial effect’ on US commerce. The Fourth Circuit’s test involves a ‘significant effect’,514 while the Fifth and Ninth Circuits’ tests require only ‘some effect’ on US commerce.515

US.213 In Gallup, Inc v Bus. Research Bureau (PVT) Ltd,516 a district court in the Ninth Circuit

denied the plaintiff ’s motion for entry of a default judgment, after the plaintiff failed to produce competent evidence that the defendants conducted any activities within the United States. The plaintiff was the US owner of the GALLUP mark for polling services, and alleged infringement based on the defendants’ use of GALLUP PAKISTAN with several polls concerning Pakistani parliamentary elections. The defendants were both from Pakistan, and were seeking to establish rights in GALLUP under Pakistan trade law. The allegedly infringing marks were used in connection with the defendants’ English language website, which appeared to be located in Pakistan. The court concluded that the jurisdictional facts did not support the extension of Lanham Act to the defendant’s allegedly infringing activities overseas. Rejecting the plaintiff ’s argument as to the defendants’ website, the court observed that ‘any website maintained in English could be deemed infringing, because if it is in English, Americans might be interested in reading it or citing to it’.517 The court noted as well that the defendants’ efforts to secure rights in GALLUP under Pakistan law gave rise to a substantial risk of conflict with foreign law.518

(2) Choice of Law US.214 In general, US courts follow the federal common law choice-of-law rule, under which the

law of the jurisdiction having the greatest interest in the litigation is applied.519 In Eli Lilly

EEOC v Arabian Am. Oil Co, 499 U.S. at 248. Congressional power to regulate the conduct of American citizens arguably is a matter of domestic law that raises no serious international concerns, even when the citizen is located abroad. See McBee v Delica Co, Ltd, 417 F.3d 107, 118(1st Cir. 2005). 511  417 F.3d 107, 120–21 (1st Cir. 2005). 512  Ibid., at 123. 513  234 F.2d. 633, 642–3 (2d Cir. 1956). The First Circuit’s McBee test differs from Vanity Fair in two respects. First, where the defendant is an American citizen McBee does not require that the extraterritorial conduct produce a substantial effect on US commerce. Secondly, the Vanity Fair test requires consideration whether the ‘relief would create a conflict with foreign law’. The First Circuit considers this an issue of comity irrelevant to the question of Lanham Act subject matter jurisdiction, to be considered separately if subject matter jurisdiction is found. 514  Nintendo of Am., Ltd v Aeropower Co, 34 F.3d 246, 250–51 (4th Cir. 1994). The difference of these terms, if any, appears to be neither ‘substantial’ nor ‘significant’. 515  Am. Rice, Inc v Ark. Rice Growers Coop. Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408, 414 and n.8 (5th Cir. 1983); Reebok Int’l, Ltd v Marnatech Enters., Inc, 970 F.2d 552, 554–7 (9th Cir. 1992). 516  688 F. Supp. 2d 915, 926 (N.D. Cal. 2010). 517  Ibid., at 925. 518  Ibid., at 924. 519  See, eg In re Koreag, Controle et Revision S.A., 961 F.2d 341, 350 (2d Cir. 1992).

1068

VIII.  International Conflicts and Choice of Law do Brasil, Ltda v Federal Express Corp.,520 for example, the Second Circuit determined that federal common law trumped Brazilian law in according primacy to the parties’ justified expectations. In that case, Eli Lilly do Brazil (Lilly) contracted with Federal Express (FedEx) to ship drums of pharmaceuticals from Brazil to Japan. The shipment was stolen while in transit. FedEx asserted a limitation of liability provision in the waybill as a defence. After finding that Brazilian law did not provide for any specific limitations on liability for losses, the court concluded that firmly grounded US policy interests in enforcing contractual obligations assumed by sophisticated commercial entities should apply. Thus, the court held US law governed the parties’ dispute as to the limitation of liability provision. US courts do not apply the federal common law rule in resolving choice-of-law issues arising in US.215 trademark disputes, in light of the fundamental doctrine of territoriality upon which trademark law historically is based. In Barcelona.com, Inc v Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento De Barcelona,521 the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ACPA explicitly requires application of the Lanham Act, not foreign law, to reverse domain name hijacking actions under section 32(2)(D)(v) of the Act.522 The Barcelona.com court generally observed that the application of US trademark law in actions brought in a US court accords with the fundamental doctrine of territoriality. The court looked for support to the Paris Convention,523 which the court explained was codified in section 44 of the Lanham Act ‘to provide foreign nationals with rights under United States law which are coextensive with the substantive provisions of the treaty involved’.524 The Paris Convention recognizes the principle of territoriality of trademarks.525 Article 6(3) US.216 provides that: ‘A mark duly registered in a country of the [Paris] Union shall be regarded as independent of marks registered in the other countries of the Union, including the country of origin.’526 Accordingly, US courts ordinarily do not entertain actions seeking to enforce trademark rights that exist only under foreign law. As the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals observed in Person’s Co, Ltd v Christman,527 the concept of territoriality is basic to trademark law, such that trademark rights exist in each country solely according to that country’s statutory scheme. In addition, US courts recognize forum non conveniens, a discretionary doctrine under which a court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over a dispute if the court ‘is a seriously inconvenient forum’ and a more appropriate foreign forum is available to the litigants.528

(3) Substantive Law Issues US courts remain divided whether famous or well-known foreign marks as recognized US.217 under Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention are an exception to the territoriality principle.

  502 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2007).   330 F.3d 617, 628 (4th Cir. 2003). 522  15 U.S.C. s 1114(2)(D)(v) (authorizing aggrieved domain name registrant to ‘file a civil action to establish that the registration or use of the domain name by such registrant is not unlawful under this chapter’). 523  Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 1883 (the ‘Paris Convention’), opened for signature March 20, 1883, 25 Stat. 1372, as amended at Stockholm, opened for signature July 14, 1967, 21 U.S.T. 1583. 524  15 U.S.C. s 1126. See Barcelona, 330 F.3d at 628 (citing Scotch Whisky Ass’n v Majestic Distilling Co, 958 F.2d 594, 597 (4th Cir. 1992) and Int’l Cafe, S.A.L. v Hard Rock Cafe Int’l (USA), Inc, 252 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir.2001)) (‘[T]‌he rights articulated in the Paris Convention do not exceed the rights conferred by the Lanham Act’). 525  See, eg 4 McCarthy s 29:25 (4th edn 2012) (‘the Paris Convention creates nothing that even remotely resembles a “world mark” or an “international registration”. Rather, it recognizes the principle of the territoriality of trademarks’). 526  Paris Convention, above note 523, art. 6(3). 527  900 F.2d 1565, 1568–9 (Fed.Cir. 1990). 528 See Piper Aircraft Co v Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981). See generally, Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws s 84 (1971). 520 521

1069

United States of America (‘.us’) As discussed earlier, the Fourth Circuit observed in Barcelona.com that the Paris Convention as incorporated into the Lanham Act provides foreign nationals with rights under United States law coextensive with the substantive provisions of the treaty. Nonetheless, the ‘famous marks’ doctrine is nowhere to be found in the Lanham Act. Undaunted, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Grupo Gigante SA de CV v Dallo & Co, Inc529 recognized an exception to the territoriality rule where a famous foreign mark has acquired secondary meaning in the US and a substantial percentage of consumers in the relevant market are familiar with the foreign mark. Other federal appellate courts, however, have found that no famous mark exception to the territoriality rule exists, including the Second Circuit in ITC Ltd v Punchgini, Inc.530

  391 F.3d 1088, 1098 (9th Cir. 2004).   482 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2007).

529 530

1070

Part III RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISMS

A INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND TO ICANN’S RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISMS FOR NEW gTLDs Torsten Bettinger

In 2005, in order to fulfil its mission of enhancing competition, innovation and consumer IIIA.01 choice in the generic top-level domains (gTLDs), ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) began a policy development process to consider the introduction of new gTLDs after the trial rounds conducted in 2000 and 2003.1 With the dramatic global increase in Internet usage, and its adoption as a permanent fixture in the business world, the number of attractive, short domain names available on the open market has decreased rapidly in recent years. During the course of the GNSO policy development process, a number of issues were raised IIIA.02 concerning rights protection and dispute resolution in the New gTLD Program. These issues formed the basis of policy recommendations which include that: –  ‘Strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain’ (Recommendation 2); –  ‘Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others. . . . ’ (Recommendation 3); – ‘Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order. . . .’ (Recommendation 6); – ‘An application will be rejected if it is determined . . . that there is substantial opposition to it from among significant established institutions of the economic sector, or cultural or language community, to which it is targeted or which it is intended to support’ (Recommendation 20); and – ‘Dispute resolution and challenge processes must be established prior to the start of the process’ (Recommendation 12). In 2008, the ICANN Board adopted a series of specific policy recommendations by the IIIA.03 GNSO for implementing the New gTLD Program, with certain allocation criteria and contractual conditions. The development process followed upon years of informal discussion and independent evaluation of the potential success of new spaces, taking into account the various TLD launches which had occurred in the intervening years. As the policy development progressed, ICANN undertook to address the issues of the protection of intellectual property and community interests, consumer protection, and DNS stability.

1  An introduction to the GNSO policy development process is available on its website at: http://gnso. icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2007/new-gtld-intro. For more information about the GNSO and its role within ICANN, see Part IB.II(2)(b).

1073

A.  Introduction and Historical Background IIIA.04 In October 2008, ICANN published the first draft of its gTLD Applicant Guidebook,

which provided for the processes new gTLD applicants were required to follow in applying for a new gTLD, as well as protections for the rights of third parties.2 The draft Applicant Guidebook contained articulated standards and processes for objection procedures defined by the GNSO recommendations, but left other protections undefined.3 In response to the numerous concerns voiced by trademark owners (and opposition from other ICANN constituency groups) the ICANN board adopted a resolution on March 6, 2009, leading to the creation of the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT)4 to develop other, specific rights-protection mechanisms for new gTLDs.5 The team reflected experiential and geographic diversity and was comprised of 18 members and two alternates. Over a two-month period, the IRT, an internationally diverse group of 18 persons with know­ ledge, expertise, and experience in the fields of trademark, consumer protection and the interplay of trademarks and the domain name system held an intense debate, including several in-person meetings in Washington, DC and San Francisco, over the proper scope of rights protections for any potential new TLD spaces. The IRT solicited input from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and other interested members of the Internet community. In April 2009, the IRT posted its draft report for public comment, taking into account the responses received while crafting the final version, which was issued on May 11, 2009.6

IIIA.05 The final IRT report recommended a number of new rights-protection mechanisms (RPMs)

for the anticipated gTLD spaces, including:

(i) the creation of an Inellectual Property (IP) Clearinghouse; (ii) the establishment of a Globally Protected Marks List (GPML), which would offer enhanced online protection to major international brand owners; (iii) the creation of standardized, pre-launch RPMs which would apply in all anticipated new gTLD spaces; (iv) the development of a Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS), designed to handle large volumes of complaints concerning clear-cut cases of abusive domain name registration at low cost; (v) the creation of new post-delegation dispute mechanisms designed to obviate the need for court action in a broader range of abusive scenarios; (vi) the implementation of stronger WHOIS data files and requirements; and (vii) the use of an automated algorithm for assessing string confusion review during the initial evaluation phase of the New gTLD approval process. IIIA.06 From the first draft Applicant Guidebook and the IRT report, the basis of the rights pro-

tection mechanisms ultimately established took form. Additional discussion concerning 2  Draft versions of the Applicant Guidebook and related materials are available on ICANN’s website at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation. 3  The draft Registry Agreement in the draft Applicant Guidebook left it to Registry Operators to ‘specify a process and procedures for launch of the TLD and initial registration-related and ongoing protection of legal rights of third parties (‘Rights Protection Mechanisms’)’. 4  The IRT was formed by ICANN’s Intellectual Property Constituency in accordance with the 6 March, 2009 ICANN Board resolution; the team reflected experiential and geographic diversity and was comprised of 18 members and two alternates. 5 See https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2009-03-06-en. 6  For resources related to the IRT development process, see https://www.icann.org/news/announc­ement4-2009-05-29-en.

1074

A.  Introduction and Historical Background the process and eventual format was clearly needed before the mechanisms could be finalized,7 and some recommendations were either scrapped (such as the GPML) or modified in criticized ways (such as the URS). This Part reviews the development and operation of those the Rights Protection Mechanisms created during the New gTLD Program.

7   It was hoped that the IRT report would initiate the formation of a multi-stakeholder consensus view across the ICANN constituencies, such as domain name registries, registrars, other businesses and intellectual property holders. Comments indicated concern for the lack of end-user input into, and consensus concerning, the mechanisms. A summary of the comments may be found at: http://archive.icann.org/en/topics/ new-gtlds/summary-analysis-irt-final-report-04oct09-en.pdf.

1075

B RIGHTS PROTECTION AGAINST APPLICATIONS FOR NEW gTLDS (PRE-DELEGATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION) Torsten Bettinger

I. General Rules of the New gTLD Objection Procedure 

(1) Introduction  (2) Legal Classification of the New gTLD Objection Procedures  (3) Contractual Acceptance of Objection Procedures  (4) New gTLD Objection Process in Detail  (a) Filing an Objection  (b) Formal Compliance Review and Dispute Announcement  (c) Filing a Response  (d) Appointment of the Panel by the Dispute Resolution Service Provider  (e) Expert Panel Determination  (f ) Decision Implementation  (5) Consolidation of Objections  (6) General Procedural Rules  (a) Fees  (b) Additional Written Submissions  (c) Filing Deadlines  (d) Communications and Language of Proceedings  (7) Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Considerations  (8) Negotiation and Mediation  (9) Hearings  (10) Relevance and Applicability of Court Proceedings  (11) Precedential Value of the Decision  (12) Additional Remedies 

II. String Confusion Objection 

(1) Policy and Rules  (2) Standing to Object  (3) Dispute Resolution Provider  (4) Procedure  (a) Filings and Compliance  (b) Consolidation  (c) Settlement 

IIIB.01 IIIB.01 IIIB.04 IIIB.11 IIIB.12 IIIB.13 IIIB.18 IIIB.21 IIIB.26 IIIB.29 IIIB.31 IIIB.35 IIIB.42 IIIB.42 IIIB.50 IIIB.51 IIIB.59 IIIB.62 IIIB.65 IIIB.67 IIIB.68 IIIB.72 IIIB.76 IIIB.81 IIIB.81 IIIB.83 IIIB.84 IIIB.85 IIIB.86 IIIB.88 IIIB.89

(5) Panel Appointment  IIIB.90 (6) Fees  IIIB.92 (7) Expert Determination Criteria  IIIB.94 (a) Expert Determination Standards  IIIB.94 (b) Relation to String Similarity Review  IIIB.95 (c) Divergent Application of Standard  IIIB.97 (8) Case Filings and Outcomes  IIIB.100 (9) Case Evaluation  IIIB.102 (a) The Relevance of AGB Module 2 String Similarity Review  IIIB.105 (b) String Confusion and Precedent  IIIB.107 (c) Singular and Plural Versions of the Same TLD String  IIIB.110 (d) Small Variations between Strings  IIIB.114 (e) Definition of ‘average, reasonable Internet user’  IIIB.116 (f ) Other Procedural Issues  IIIB.118 (10) Post-proceeding Developments  IIIB.119 (a) Request for Reconsideration 13-6, Hotel Top-Level Domain S.a.r.l  IIIB.122 (b) Requests for Reconsideration 13-9, Amazon EU S.a.r.l/13-10, Commercial Connect LLC  IIIB.124 (c) Request for Reconsideration 13-14, DERCars, LLC  IIIB.130 (d) Request for Reconsideration 14-5/Independent Review, Vistaprint Limited  IIIB.133 (11) Conclusion  IIIB.137 III. Legal Rights Objection  IIIB.139 (1) Policy and Rules  IIIB.139 (2) Standing to Object  IIIB.142 (3) Dispute Resolution Provider  IIIB.143 (4) Procedure  IIIB.144 (a) Filings and Compliance  IIIB.145 (b) Consolidation  IIIB.148 (c) Supplemental Filing  IIIB.149

1077

B.  Rights Protection Against Applications for New gTLDs (5) Mediation  (6) Panel Appointment  (7) Fees  (8) Expert Determination Criteria  (a) Expert Determination Standard  (b) Non-exclusive Factors  (c) Application of Standard  (9) Case Filings and Outcomes  (10) Types of Cases  (a) Legal Rights Objections against gTLD Strings with Generic or Dictionary Meaning  (b) Legal Rights Objections against Territorially Co-existing Rightsholders  (c) Legal Rights Objections against Applicants Holding Trademark Rights in the Same Jurisdiction  (11) Post-proceeding Developments  (a) Del Monte Corporation v Del Monte International GmbH  (b) The DirecTV Group Inc v Dish DBS Corporation  (c) Sina Corporation v Tencent Holdings Ltd  (d) The Merck Cases  (12) Conclusion 

IIIB.150 IIIB.151 IIIB.153 IIIB.155 IIIB.155 IIIB.163 IIIB.168 IIIB.171 IIIB.173

(b) Supplemental Filings  (c) Mediation or Negotiation  (5) Panel Appointment  (6) Fees  (7) Remedy  (8) Expert Determination Criteria  (9) Case Filings and Outcomes  (10) Evaluation  (a) Types of Cases  (b) Application of LPI Standards  (c) GAC Advice  (d) Public Interest Commitment  (11) Post-proceeding Developments  (12) Conclusion 

IIIB.173 IIIB.191

V. Community Objection 

IIIB.202 IIIB.204 IIIB.205 IIIB.207

IIIB.209 IIIB.211 IIIB.216 IV. Limited Public Interest Objection  IIIB.222 (1) Policy and Rules  IIIB.222 (2) Standing to Object  IIIB.228 (3) Dispute Resolution Provider  IIIB.231 (4) Procedure  IIIB.232 (a) Consolidation  IIIB.233

(1) Policy and Rules  (2) Standing to Object  (3) Dispute Resolution Provider  (4) Procedure  (a) Consolidation  (b) Mediation, Negotiation, and Termination  (5) Panel Appointment  (6) Fees  (7) Case Filings and Outcomes  (8) Expert Determination Criteria  (a) Standing Criteria  (b) Definition of ‘Community’  (c) Panel Assessment under the Factors  (d) Substantive Criteria  (9) Post-proceeding Developments  (10) Conclusion 

IIIB.234 IIIB.235 IIIB.236 IIIB.238 IIIB.241 IIIB.242 IIIB.248 IIIB.252 IIIB.252 IIIB.259 IIIB.267 IIIB.274 IIIB.277 IIIB.280 IIIB.284 IIIB.284 IIIB.287 IIIB.288 IIIB.289 IIIB.290 IIIB.291 IIIB.292 IIIB.295 IIIB.298 IIIB.303 IIIB.306 IIIB.321 IIIB.329 IIIB.338 IIIB.383 IIIB.395

I.  General Rules of the New gTLD Objection Procedure (1) Introduction IIIB.01 The New gTLD Objection Procedures, defined in Module 3 of the Applicant Guidebook

(AGB),1 allowed a third party to file a formal objection to a new gTLD application prior to delegation of an applied-for string. Four objection grounds were provided, each with particular standing requirements and tailored to address specific categories of harm. They were the String Confusion Objection,2 Legal Rights Objection (LRO),3 Limited Public Interest Objection,4 and Community Objection.5 Objections were administered by external Dispute Resolution Service Providers (DRSPs).6

  The Applicant Guidebook is available from ICANN’s website, at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/.   See Section II below. 3  See Section III. 4  See Section IV below. 5  See Section V below. 6  The International Centre for Dispute Resolution administered the String Confusion Objections, the Arbitration and Mediation Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization administered the Legal Rights Objections, and the International Center of Expertise of the International Chamber of Commerce administered the Limited Public Interest and Community Objections. 1 2

1078

I.  General Rules of the New gTLD Objection Procedure ICANN promulgated the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure (New gTLD Procedure) IIIB.02 as Attachment to Module 3 of the AGB, serving as the standardized rules applicable for all objections. DRSPs provided supplementary rules to augment and give effect to the New gTLD Procedure.7 After the close of the New gTLD application window on May 30, 2012, where 1,930 IIIB.03 new gTLD applications were received, formal objections could be filed between June 13, 2012 and March 13, 2013. On the basis of ICANN’s Dispute Announcement, 67 String Confusion Objections were filed, 69 Legal Rights Objections were filed, 23 Limited Public Interest Objections were filed, and 104 Community Objections were filed.8

(2) Legal Classification of the New gTLD Objection Procedures ICANN adopted the terminology ‘expert determination’ to describe the Module 3 AGB dis- IIIB.04 pute resolution procedure, stating that the ‘findings of the panel will be considered an expert determination and advice that ICANN will accept within the dispute resolution process’.9 Elsewhere in the AGB, ICANN notes that ‘[a]‌s a result of a dispute resolution proceeding, either the applicant will prevail . . . or the objector will prevail (in which case either the application will proceed no further or the application will be bound to a contention resolution procedure)’.10 ICANN does not define ‘expert determination’ in the AGB. An ‘expert determination’ is defined IIIB.05 elsewhere as ‘a procedure in which a dispute or a difference between the parties is submitted, by agreement of the parties, to one [or more] experts who make a determination on the matter referred to it [them]. The determination is binding, unless the parties agreed otherwise’. Expert determinations typically are consensual, and allow the parties to choose experts with relevant expertise. Expert determinations generally are confidential between the parties. 11 Expert determinations are recognized in many jurisdictions and are distinct from arbitrations.12 IIIB.06 Arbitrations, as opposed to expert determinations, are in themselves a complete alternative to court litigation (as opposed to the limited purpose of an expert determination to resolve a particular legal question), include the due process protections of an adversarial proceeding, require a higher standard to review awards, and are enforceable pursuant to the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the ‘New York Convention’).13

7  See Article 4(c) of the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure (‘New gTLD Procedure’), Attachment to Module 3 AGB. 8  See New gTLD Procedure, Article 10. See also ICANN’s dispute announcement at: http://newgtlds. icann.org/en/program-status/odr/filings. The Dispute Announcement, however, refers to ‘admissible’ objections; accordingly, there is no requirement for the DRSP to publish information about objections which were deemed inadmissible for some defect and thus final numbers on objection filings are unknown. For instance, two Legal Rights Objections were received but were not registered due to the failure to identify the correct grounds for filing. These filings were not a part of the Dispute Announcement, but were identified in the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center Report and were referenced in media reports online. See Part IIIB Section III for more information. 9  See AGB Section 3.4.6. 10  See AGB Section 1.1.2.9. 11 See http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/expert-determination/what-is-exp.html. 12  See Report by the Committee on International Commercial Disputes, New York City Bar (June 2013). Purchase Price Adjustment Clauses and Expert Determinations: Legal Issues, Practical Problems And Suggested Improvements at 10. 13  See Report by the Committee on International Commercial Disputes, New York City Bar (June 2013). Purchase Price Adjustment Clauses and Expert Determinations: Legal Issues, Practical Problems And Suggested Improvements at 5–6.

1079

B.  Rights Protection Against Applications for New gTLDs IIIB.07 It is clear that the ‘expert determination’ procedure defined in the AGB differs in several

important aspects from traditional expert determination and arbitration proceedings.

IIIB.08 ICANN has not been forthright in clarifying how it views and incorporates expert determin­

ations within the New gTLD Program. Despite using the word ‘advice’, ICANN has variously implied that it either has no discretion in accepting an expert determination,14 or that the ‘acceptance’ of the expert determination is a staff action which may or may not involve some level of review and discretion.15

IIIB.09 In one instance, ICANN appears to indicate that it is an error for ICANN to accept a

materially-deficient expert determination and thus, by implication, it has the discretion not to accept such determination.16 ICANN, however, did not choose to clarify whether its erroneous acceptance was an action or an omission, leaving open whether it does in fact take any steps to review determinations.

IIIB.10 In one other instance, ICANN confirmed that its act of publishing a determination on

its website could be taken as the act of acceptance of a determination for purposes of calculating deadlines, but it is unclear whether any other internal action precedes such public one. ICANN considers its publication of an expert determination to be a sufficient basis for the filing of a Request for Reconsideration17 in accordance with Article IV, Section 2.18

(3) Contractual Acceptance of Objection Procedures IIIB.11 The new gTLD applicant, by submitting its application, ‘agrees to accept the applicability

of this gTLD dispute resolution process’; the objector ‘accepts the applicability of this gTLD dispute resolution process by filing its objection’.19

(4) New gTLD Objection Process in Detail IIIB.12 Procedural steps for the four objection procedures are standardized in the New gTLD

Procedure.20 DRSP-specific rules apply to the extent that they do not contradict the New

14  See paragraph 39 of ICANN’s Response of July 21, 2014 in Vistaprint Ltd v ICANN: ‘The Guidebook could not be more explicit: Once the Expert Panel has sustained an objection involving two applied-for strings on string confusion grounds, “the only possible outcome” is for the two strings to be placed into a contention set. This is a result not of any ICANN Board action, but a straightforward application of the Guidebook provisions to the Expert Panel’s Determination.’ 15 See paragraph 9 of ICANN’s Response of July 21, 2014 in Vistaprint Ltd v ICANN: ‘[Claimant] first claims that ICANN’s Board violated its Articles and Bylaws by “blindly accepting” the Expert Panel’s Determination without reviewing its analysis or result. There is, however, no requirement that ICANN’s Board conduct such an analysis. Indeed, “accepting” or “reviewing” the Expert Panel’s Determination is not something ICANN’s Board is tasked with doing or not doing. According to the Guidebook, the “findings of the panel will be considered an expert determination and advice that ICANN will accept within the dispute resolution process”. Following receipt of expert determinations, it is ICANN staff that is tasked with taking the next step . . .’ 16  ICANN’s Board Governance Committee (BGC) in its Determination in Request for Reconsideration 14-1 considered whether certain standing requirements (in this case, the submission of letters) were met by the Independent Objector in a Limited Public Interest Objection. The BGC noted that these ‘letters are also relevant to the BGC’s analysis of whether staff’s actions (or inactions) in accepting the Determination were consistent with [the Applicant Guidebook]. Based on these letters, the BGC concludes that the policies and procedures of [the Applicant Guidebook] were not specifically followed . . .’ 17  For more information about the Request for Reconsideration process, see Part IB Section VII(1). 18  See Letter of Amy Stathos to Jonas Koelle of December 18, 2013, Annex 6 to Request for Reconsidera­ tion 14-9. 19  See AGB, Section 3.2. 20  See AGB, Attachment to Module 3.

1080

I.  General Rules of the New gTLD Objection Procedure gTLD Procedure,21 and will be discussed in more detail in the context of the particular objection section below.

(a) Filing an Objection An objection could be filed by electronically submitting such to the appropriate DRSP, IIIB.13 with copies to ICANN and the new gTLD applicant, using the model form provided by the DRSP.22 DRSPs provided specific filing guidelines in their supplemental rules and on their model forms. In contrast to some practices under other ADR policies,23 ICANN initially provided a filing IIIB.14 window between June 13, 2012 and 23:59:59 UTC, March 13, 2013, thus requiring that objections were filed with reference to a specific time rather than a time that may be measured subjectively at the location of the objector. The substantive portion of objections is limited to 5,000 words or 20 pages, whichever is less. IIIB.15 Evidentiary annexes shall accompany the objection but are not limited in size.24 A filing fee in the amount set by the DRSP was required at filing. Failure to pay the filing IIIB.16 fee within ten calendar days of submission resulted in dismissal of the objection without prejudice.25 Should an objector file its objection at the wrong DRSP,26 the DRSP was to notify the objector IIIB.17 of the error and the objector was permitted seven calendar days from receipt of the error notice to file its objection at the correct DRSP.27

(b) Formal Compliance Review and Dispute Announcement Within 14 calendar days of the receipt of the objection (which may be extended by the IIIB.18 DRSP), DRSPs were required to conduct an administrative review and inform the parties and ICANN of the result. Non-compliance with the relevant Articles and Rules allowed the DRSP the discretion to issue deficiencies. If deficiencies were not cured within five calendar days, the DRSP dismissed the objection.28 Upon notification to the parties and ICANN that an objection was compliant, information IIIB.19 about the objection was published on the DRSP’s website.29 On April 13, 2013, ICANN published its ‘Dispute Announcement’ identifying all of the IIIB.20 admissible Objections.30 The Dispute Announcement served as the trigger to ‘promptly’ issue a formal Notice of Objection to the applicant.31 Such notice initiated the time period for

  See Article 4(c) of the New gTLD Procedure.   See New gTLD Procedure, Article 7. 23  WIPO, in proceedings under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, typically will enforce deadlines taking into account the time at the location where the submission was transmitted – i.e. a deadline of midnight will be met if it is before midnight at the location of the transmitter even if it has passed midnight at the location of the DRSP. 24  See New gTLD Procedure, Article 8(b). 25  See New gTLD Procedure, Article 8(c). 26  That is, if a Public Interest Objection, administered by the ICC, is filed at WIPO. 27  See New gTLD Procedure, Article 7(e). It is unclear whether, should an unscrupulous objector purposefully file its objection at the incorrect DRSP, it would still retain the de facto seven-day extension. It does not appear that any objection was filed at the incorrect DRSP during the New gTLD Program. 28  It is not clear whether an unsuccessful attempt to cure deficiencies would result in a further opportunity to cure or if the objection would be dismissed. 29  See New gTLD Procedure, Article 9. 30  See New gTLD Procedure, Article 10. 31  See New gTLD Procedure, Article 11(a). 21 22

1081

B.  Rights Protection Against Applications for New gTLDs response, which was either 30 days from the receipt of such notice or, where the DRSP consolidated proceedings following a proposal by a party, 30 days from the notification of the consolidation of proceedings. In practice, DRSPs staggered their notices in order to avoid all objections encountering the same procedural step at exactly the same time.

(c) Filing a Response IIIB.21 Similar to the objection, responses were filed electronically with the DRSP, with a copy to

ICANN and the other party, on the DRSP model form.32 Equivalent requirements in terms of fee payment and argument length applied.

IIIB.22 A response is due within 30 days of the ‘Dispute Announcement’ notice,33 except in particu-

lar circumstances of case consolidation.34

IIIB.23 In contrast to the objection filing procedure, however, the DRSP is limited in its compliance

review of the response. The DRSP may only review whether the response was filed using the model form, and contained the names and contact information of the applicant.35

IIIB.24 The DRSP retained discretion to request the remediation of administrative deficiencies

within five calendar days, although in contrast to the rules pertaining to the objector, no language in the New gTLD Procedure would permit the DRSP to terminate the proceedings.36

IIIB.25 Failure to file a response will result in default and the objection deemed successful. No fees

paid by the applicant will be refunded in case of default.37

(d) Appointment of the Panel by the Dispute Resolution Service Provider IIIB.26 Article 13 of the New gTLD Procedure, echoing Section 3.4.4 of the AGB, provides the basic requirements for panel appointment by the DRSP, including the number of panelists and the requirement that panels be impartial and independent. The panel is to be appointed within 30 days of receiving the response. IIIB.27 The AGB and New gTLD Procedure do not provide specific instruction on the procedure for

the appointment of the panel, except to indicate that the DRSP will provide instructions for the confirmation and maintenance of the impartiality and independence of a panelist, as well as provide rules for challenging and replacing a panelist.38

IIIB.28 ICANN provided instruction as to the qualification of a panelist involved in certain objec-

tion proceedings. For String Confusion Objections and Community Objections no specific qualifications were specified. For Legal Rights Objections, the expert(s) were to have relevant experience in intellectual property rights disputes. For Limited Public Interest Objections, the panelists must be recognized as ‘eminent jurists of international reputation’, with the chair of the panel having a nationality different from the nationalities of the parties.39

  See New gTLD Procedure, Article 11.   See New gTLD Procedure, Article 11(b). 34  If a DRSP consolidates cases as a result of party proposal, the deadline for response will be 30 days from the notice of consolidation. See New gTLD Procedure, Article 12(b) and paragraph IB.35, below. 35 See New gTLD Procedure, Article 11(g). Conspicuously, the New gTLD Procedure on this point explicitly omits a review of other factors, such that, at minimum, a response consisting merely of a model form with the names and contact information of the applicant should suffice for compliance review purposes. 36  See New gTLD Procedure, Article 11 generally. 37  See New gTLD Procedure, Article 11(second g). 38  See AGB, Section 3.4.4; New gTLD Procedure, Article 13(c), (d). 39  See AGB, Section 3.4.4; New gTLD Procedure, Article 13(b). 32 33

1082

I.  General Rules of the New gTLD Objection Procedure (e) Expert Panel Determination Panels are to make reasonable efforts to render expert determinations within 45 days of IIIB.29 constitution.40 With the exception of the Legal Rights Objections, the 45-day aspirational limit was overrun in the vast majority of cases. Expert determinations are required to be in writing, with a summary of the dispute, reasoning IIIB.30 upon which the determination is based, and identifying the prevailing party. 41 A panel determination of three experts shall be made by the majority of the panelists.42 Determinations are published by the DRSP unless a panel decides otherwise. The remedies available to the panel were solely the success or dismissal of an objection and refund of certain fees to the prevailing party.43

(f ) Decision Implementation Rendered expert determinations were communicated to the parties and ICANN, and pub- IIIB.31 lished in full on the DRSP website unless the panel decided otherwise.44 The determinations ‘will be considered an expert determination and advice that ICANN will accept within the dispute resolution process’.45 As discussed above,46 it is unclear whether and to what extent ICANN undertakes any review of rendered determinations for any purpose prior to accepting them within the dispute resolution process, nor does it specify in the AGB or New gTLD Procedure the ICANN action which constitutes acceptance.47 Applications for new gTLDs which overcome objections shall proceed in the application IIIB.32 process, towards delegation. With the exception of String Confusion Objections, a successful objection will result in the new gTLD application proceeding no further.48 For String Confusion Objections, if the objection is successful and the objector is an existing IIIB.33 TLD operator, the application will be rejected. If the objection is successful and the objector is another applicant, both applicants will be placed in a contention set for resolution.49 Objectors and applicants which take issue with the dispute resolution process may utilize IIIB.34 ICANN accountability mechanisms (Request for Reconsideration, Independent Review50) to address such issues.51 ICANN determined that the Reconsideration process can properly be invoked for challenges of the third party’s decisions where it can be stated that either the vendor failed to follow its process in reaching the decision, or that ICANN staff failed to follow its process in accepting that decision.52   See New gTLD Procedure, Article 21(a).   See AGB, Section 3.4.6. 42  See New gTLD Procedure, Article 21(c). 43  See New gTLD Procedure, Article 21(d). 44  See New gTLD Procedure, Article 21(b), (g). 45  See AGB, Section 3.4.6. 46  See paragraph IIIB.09. 47  The lack of specific instruction as to the action of ICANN constituting acceptance is relevant to the application of accountability mechanisms to address concerns and complaints about an objection. See Part ID, Section XI for more information about accountability processes in the New gTLD Program. 48  See AGB, Section 1.1.2.9. 49  See AGB, Section 3.2.2.1. For more information about the resolution of new gTLD string contention sets, see Part ID, Section XII ‘Resolution of String Contention’. 50  More information about the Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review processes may be found at Part ID Section XI(1) and (2), respectively. 51  See ICANN Bylaws, Article IV and Part D, Section XII of this handbook. 52  See Recommendation of the Board Governance Committee (BGC) Reconsideration Request 13-5, 1 August 2012, available at ICANN’s Accountability & Transparency webpage at: https://www.icann.org/ resources. 40 41

1083

B.  Rights Protection Against Applications for New gTLDs (5) Consolidation of Objections IIIB.35 The DRSP has the discretion to consolidate objections during dispute resolution in the New

gTLD Program, which ‘shall be final and not subject to appeal’.

III