Court Ruling Favours US Firms in Domain Row

Shao Zongwei

The Beijing No 1 Intermediate People's Court yesterday ruled in favour of two US companies in separate disputes over the use of domain names.

Beijing-based Guowang Information Corporation (www.cinet.com.cn) was ordered to cancel its domain name www.dupont.com.cn, which it registered with the China Internet Network Information Centre in 1998, because it "violated the exclusive rights" of US firm Dupont, according to the court.

The court also ordered the Beijing Tide Electronic Group (www.tide.com.cn) to stop using its domain name because of a similar problem alleged by company Procter and Gamble.

The two cases are among the recent upsurge in disputes arising from the use of domain names. Sources with the court said such cases are mainly in Beijing and Shanghai. So far, more than 10 cases have been handled in the two cities.

Because of a lack of specific laws relating to such disputes, there have been arguments as to how these cases should be tried, officials said.

The judges in yesterday's two cases used the Trademark Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, contending that both Dupont and Tide are "reputed" trademarks and that registering them as domain names is unfair.

"Reputed trademarks enjoy high business value," said the court. "Even if they are used in unrelated products and services, there may still be misleading and confusing effects for consumers that will negatively affect the original value of the trademarks."

"We do not think that Guowang has violated the Trademark Law," said firm lawyer Shu Ziping. "No clause in the law stipulates that registering trademarks as domain names is a violation of rights. Besides, Guowang and Dupont are not in the same business."

Guowang, a company providing Internet services, has been brought to court by seven international companies over similar allegations. It has already lost three cases.

Shu said yesterday that the company will appeal to a higher court over the latest case.

"Domain names have some features of intellectual property so we judge them using the same regulations," said Luo Dongchuan, judge in the Guowang case. "Also, when we ruled that Guowang had violated the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, we emphasized the principle of good faith and fair competition."

(China Daily 11/22/2000)


In This Series

New Rules on Telecom and Internet Content

China to Intensify Foreign IPR Protection

References

Archive

Web Link

主站蜘蛛池模板: 黄网视频在线观看| aaa特级毛片| 日韩综合第一页| 亚洲妇熟xxxx妇色黄| 狠狠色欧美亚洲综合色黑a| 哈昂~哈昂够了太多太深小说| 高h黄全肉一女n男古风| 国产特级毛片aaaaaa毛片| 91手机在线视频观看| 大陆熟妇丰满多毛XXXX| 一级做a爰片欧美一区| 我和岳乱妇三级高清电影| 久久人午夜亚洲精品无码区| 暴力调教一区二区三区| 亚洲国产情侣一区二区三区| 欧美黑人粗大xxxxbbbb| 人人婷婷色综合五月第四人色阁 | 少妇高潮太爽了在线视频| 中文字幕无码不卡免费视频| 日本免费a级毛一片| 久久精品亚洲综合专区| 明星造梦一区二区| 亚洲va久久久噜噜噜久久狠狠| 欧美成人精品第一区二区三区 | 在线观看高嫁肉柳1一4集中文| 一级特级黄色片| 成人午夜精品视频在线观看| 中文字幕成人在线| 新人本田岬847正在播放| 久99频这里只精品23热视频| 日本一道本在线| 久久久久亚洲AV无码专区首JN| 日韩三级中文字幕| 久青青在线观看视频国产| 日本免费xxxx色视频| 国产精品高清一区二区三区不卡| 99久久人妻精品免费一区| 在线视频欧美日韩| GOGOGO免费高清在线中国| 大伊香蕉精品一区视频在线| 99精品国产一区二区三区不卡|